Spontaneous Musings

1. Enjoying the new Vamp Diaries spin-off - "Legacies" - weirdly it reminds me a lot of Buffy, more so than Vamp Diaries or anything else has. I think it's the monster of the week format admist the wackadoodle high school setting. Also Alaric reminds me more of Giles than Dumbledore or anyone else.

2. Been pondering this for a while now..

Some (not all) fans get REALLY upset if another writer reboots or adapts a story they've fallen in love with in a new or different way, with the same characters.
( rather long discussion of rebooted favorite television series and stories with same characters etc as opposed to just exploring the same verse, and why I'm all for that approach, in fact much prefer it to just exploring the verse. )

You ever write something and then think..wait a minute, but what about...

I'm admittedly of two minds on the above. Similar to fanfic. Or cooking for that matter.

How to explain this?

( Read more... )

Sigh. I may delete this tomorrow. Not sure it made a whit of sense. Although let's face it...I'm probably just talking to myself anyhow. ;-)

3. Whoa...Luke Perry died of a stroke at 52

Sometimes I wonder if it is safer to ship in private? To love a specific romantic relationship between two decidedly fictional characters without a soul knowing. Used to be that way up until...roughly 2001/2002. And I wonder sometimes if that makes more sense. Over time, I've found that it is easier somehow to defend explain why I love the fictional characters that I do without too much sturm and drang, but discussing fictional relationships specifically "romantic" ones is another matter entirely. One thing is clear, it's best if you do not care what others think or can shrug off their opinions - something I've found is a lot easier said than done.

And people do have such strong opinions on fictional character's romantic relationships (short-hand? Ships) particularly regarding thos romantic relationships that make them see "red" or that they despise, although often they usually aren't that straightforward regarding it. It's usually a barrage of moral out-rage or turpitude that anyone could possibly think XYZ and ABC could be happy together.
( Read more... )

Why do I like the fictional romantic relationships that I do? I'm not sure I know or that it is necessarily important that I do. Some things are unknowable after all or should be. I know that my tastes change like the wind.

But I do know... that there is a pattern in the "fictional" relationships that appeal to me...and the is the gender power-play. Two people struggling to come to a common place. Equals. In power. In view. The push-pull. The banter. But mostly? It's the feeling of two people who are equally matched. They've met their match, their equal. No not soul mate. Not that. More someone who gets you, who understands your values, not your interests, but what means the most to you, what you would die for, what is the most important thing to you. Who knows your weaknesses, your triggers, and what
makes you tick...yet is your shadow self, the other side. The complement. The yang to your ying. I look for those relationships in fiction. The other bits whatever they might be are just gravy, sometimes lumpy and unappetizing, and sometimes perfect and rich.

Favorite Romantic Ships include.

*( Buffy and Spike aka the all too controversial Spuffy )

*( Starbuck and Lee Adama )

*( Aeryn Sun and John Crichton )

*( Doctor Who and Doctor Song )

* ( Mr. Darcy and Miss Elizabeth Bennet )

*( Lymond and Phillipa in the Chronicles of Lymond, last three books of the series. )

Romantic relationships...are in the eye of the beholder I think. For me...they are brilliant dances either in words or bodies across the screen or page. Carey Grant forever bickering with Rosalind Russell and Kate Hepburn, or John Wayne fighting with Maureen O'Hara...or the frenetic dancing of Bernado and Anita in their playful song America. Filled with color and contrast, not simple, not clear, and always surprising. The conflicts more internal than externalized, no Romeo and Juliets...more Helena's and Demetrios or better yet? The lovely lead in Twelth Night who dresses as a boy and romances her erstwhile Lord, while wooing his lady-love. Or Benedict to his Beatrice.
The words matter. The ability to converse. To speak. To banter. To talk forever and a day. I can't imagine a relationship lasting longer than a few moments without the ability to talk and converse. To meld minds. As Spock might say. The physical after all is fleeting, we all grow old, our bodies all wither, vampires we aren't, gods nor zombies neither...just frail bits of flesh and bone..and if we can't speak, banter, converse, meet on the mental level and the level of the heart...where are we?

For me...it's always about the words. The dance of quips. Spike and Buffy who start their relationship exchanging quips and insults. Dancing with words, then dancing with bodies. Aeryn and John who argue philosophy. Eliza Doolittle says don't speak, show me, yet...if she didn't love words, she'd love Freddy not Henry Higgins, ass that he is. Even Starbuck and Lee with all their physicality, are about their words...their hearts on their sleeves as they scream them to the universe.

Just finished watching Caprica S1.10 premiere. (Still no word out on a S2). My first thought upon watching it was - what's with all the premillenial dispensation or let's bring about the end of the world so we can achieve nirvana or heaven plot-lines? Will give Caprica credit - it's STO group makes a heck of a lot more sense than Angel and that whole Twilight plot arc in the Buffy comics. Also, Caprica much like BSG - has the added bonus of a bunch of screwed up complex characters. There are no clear good guys or bad guys in this show. Good and evil is sort of muddled. It's a dystopian world.

Other thoughts? May I just say that I adore Eric Stolz? He's very good in this role, of tortured genius, brings to mind images of Kenneth Branagh's take on Dr. Frankenstein. Marsters...is looking old and weathered. And Esai Morales lacks some of the strength that imbued Edward James Olmos performance as Bill Adama. But that may be intentional?
( spoilers of course )

I am going to try to keep this review free of spoilers. Just finished watching what may well be the best science-fiction series pilot that I have seen. (And considering how much sci-fi tv shows I've watched in my lifetime - including ones released in the 1970s, that no one remembers such as Space 1999, and a sci-fi show that starred Ike Eiseman and Roddy McDowell, this is saying something. Sure Lost had a good pilot, but I saw flaws. BSG's mini-series pilot drug in places. If you count 33 as the pilot - yes that ranks up there with this baby.)

Caprica - written by Ron Moore and Remi Aubuchon, directed by Friday Night Lights veteran Jeffrey Reiner, and starring Esai Morales as Joseph Addams (Adama) and Eric Stolz as Daniel Graystone...is the prequel series to BattleStar Galatica. It takes place 58 years prior to the fall of Caprica and the events of BSG.

The themes covered in the pilot reminded me in some respects of similar themes that Joss Whedon has attempted to cover in Dollhouse and the creators of V are trying to address - in fact Caprica is covering a combination of those themes, but in an innovative and far less didatic, clumsy and confusing manner. This movie had me riveted. And the twist, blew me away, even though I saw it coming - actually because I saw it coming. It is a frightening film. And it addresses the themes of ethnicity, racism, identity, religion, souls, worship, and arrogance or "god-syndrom" in a way that is rarely done, and hardly this well. The last show that came close was possibly Torchwood: Children of the Earth.

Much like BattleStar Galatica before it, the themes were addressed in a manner that left more questions than answers. The moral lines here are blurred.
( extreemly vague spoilers - if you've seen the trailer - you already know )

I can't say much more without giving too much away and this is a story that you really should not be spoiled on. It would remove some of the delight of discovery.

The pilot is due to air in January on SyFy, but it may be cut, so if you can rent the DVD via netflix or you may be able to find it online. The series will be run by Jane Espenson, but according to ImBd - Ron Moore and Aubonouch wrote the first 3-4 episodes. I pretty much know from the pilot who Marsters is likely to play now - and it will be interesting. Caprica like BSG plays with the moralities of science, and the conflict between science and religion. Where do we draw the line? It also plays with the moralities of warfare, violence and defense. Racial conflict. Ethnicity. How we identify ourselves and much like Star Trek DS9, Babylon 5, Farscape, and Torchwood Children of Earth - does it in a manner that does not always provide clear answers so much as more questions.

If you love science-fiction, you owe it to yourself to give this one a shot.

Well, I survived another week. Decided to forgo Friday Night Lights, and watch the two hour BSG final live instead, while DVR'ing the pivotal Dollhouse episode 1.6, Man on the Street, which I watched this morning.

I don't have a lot to say about BSG. Except that I enjoyed it and that the ending made sense and tracked. I can't say it was that big of a surprise. The series could only end a limited number of ways, and of the possibilities - this ending made the most logical sense thematically. What I loved about the finale is that it was in large part a mediatation on the main characters, exploring where they'd come from, been, and ended up. Who each character was within the framework of the story and the thematic arc. And through that mediation, it answered the central question posed by the series - which is what is it to be human, and what if anything should we make of our relationship to god, each other, and the universe? How do we resolve the inherent conflicts between ourselves, can we? Also the series ended much as it began - with Gaius Baltar and Six, and the line all this has happened before and it will all happen again, although as Six points out, it doesn't necessarily have to - we may and can choose differently.

Dollhouse - Man on the Street

This episode is by far the best I've seen to date, and does a good job of bringing the story arc into focus. I sort of wish it had been the pilot, but understand why the network shyed away from doing that. The episode could have been confusing to a new viewer, brain fried from work.

Man on the Street, written and directed by Joss Whedon, refers to a tv reporter doing a series of man on the street interviews with people about the Dollhouse. All shapes, sizes and ethnicities. The Dollhouse according to the interviewer and the people he talks to is a well-known urban myth in LA. Like many urban legends and myths - some people believe it is true, others shrug it off as not much more than legends.

Urban myths and legends are to a degree based on real events, and more often than not embellishments of that real event or occurrence. An example - someone probably at some point ended up with a rat in a shopping bag - but they don't remember what store - it may have a sleazy store, which makes a boring story. So they embellish it and say it was Nieman Marcus. Then they add that they heard it from their cousin, and of course it is "true". True stories have a greater impact than false ones. Other myths and legends are morality horror tales that we tell one another to provide good advice - such as don't park on the side of a deserted country road and have sex, because you might run into an escaped murderer. OR you might want to be careful of unwrapped, homemade or fresh fruit that you get from strangers homes on Halloween - if you don't know the person, taking food from them may or may not be the safest thing to do.

The interviews regarding the legend - which is about an underground facility somewhere in LA where there are people who can be turned into whatever fantasy person you desire. They are imprinted with your fantasy person's personality and will do more or less what you want. The possibilities are endless. Then wiped clean, no memory of it, and no consequences. You get to live your fantasy but needn't worry about the consequences or any strings. Sure you are using another person to do it, but the other person agreed, they volunteered, and they have no memory of it afterwards. They are compliant.

In an interview a while back, Joss Whedon stated that he's always been interested in the relationship between predator and prey, but in Dollhouse unlike all his other series, he finds himself writing from the perspective of the predator - with the predator the one in control. Which does have a certain "ick" factor - part of the ick factor is the realization that there are quite a few people out there, nice, kind, good people, who get off on the idea of a Dollhouse. Whedon explores that in this episode partly through the man on the street interviews.

Is it wrong to fantasize? Or is it wrong to role play and make that fantasy actuality? May depend on the fantasy and the players.
( Man on the Street - Dollhouse Review, cut for spoilers )

Another crappy subject title - this is why Twitter does not appeal to me, you have to come up with subject headings.

Last weekend, I had drinks with an old college friend, Ames, and her husband. As we chatted the conversation eventually turned, as most do, to what we watch and read. The usual - what movies, tv shows, and books have you read lately? Ames and her hubby mentioned a fondness for Bones, while I preferred Dexter and House. They didn't much like Dexter - found it too gory and the dialogue uneven. While I had similar criticisms for Bones. Stating that while I'd seen Bones, it was not something that held my attention. Ames grinned at that point - "that's right," she said, "you were always into 'the characters'. It explains why you'd love House."

( How well Ames Knows me to make that observation )

I got to thinking about Ames comment - and it reminded me of something an old creative writing professor once stated about my own writing. What he told me has always haunted me, partly because it took me a bit by surprise and partly because it seems to be the one constant in everything I enjoy for entertainment purposes. He said: " As a writer - you appear to be interested in the ugly emotions, the one's below the surface, that we don't want to admit that we have or try to ignore. You seem to want to explore those and understand them. The difficult emotions in people. The difficult drives. And our guilt regarding them. Each of your stories does this - this one for example is exploring why the man wants his sick mother to die, feels it would be easier somehow, and feels deeply guilty about that - while at the same time he loves her and misses her."

I think that what we watch or read is in some ways directly related to how and what and why we write. Just as how and what and why we write is directly related to how and why we watch or read what we do. The whats, why's and hows affect our perception of the shows and our critiques of them.

Last night, I watched several tv shows - and one this morning. They were all different. One I'll probably forget by the end of the week, three will haunt me for a while. And one, I'm not sure will make it past thirteen episodes, even though I love it.

NUMBERS - I finished watching this morning. It's a tv show I've seen about five to ten episodes of over the three to four years that it has been on. And from what I've seen? The characters have not changed a whit. Nor has the dynamic. It's easy to follow. You don't need to know what happened last week or last year. Episodes can be run out of order yet still make sense. The show's focus is on explaining how numbers relate to solving problems. How the language of mathematics can show how and why things occur. The characters are merely there to explain this and provide a structure for the weekly action to take place. This week's story which focused on jury tampering to get an arms dealer off of a murder charge - was not interested in the character's motivations. We saw rather little of Ray Wise's juror consultant, James Marsters - international arms dealer (Damie Lake), and the victim Erica - who informed on Lake. We got brief sketchs of each character. The focus wasn't on them - it was on the numerical equations - how the FBI Agent's brother, a mathemtics professor, figured out there was jury tampering based on a probablity study computer program he'd created.

BATTLESTAR GALATICA - is the opposite of Numbers. It, like Numbers, is interested in science and mathematics, but only as setting or plot point. It does not focus on them. The primary focus of BSG is on characters. The characters drive the plot not the other way around. Also the characters are a gnarly bunch - filled to the brim with difficult emotions and flaws. BSG is interested in what it means to be human. Damien Lake characters abound on this series, but they are not painted nearly as black and white as NUMBERS painted Lake. Some are actually stars of the series - such as John Cabal, Ellen Tigh, Sol Tigh, Kara Thrace, and Torres - all characters that have done atrocious things - which in a show such as NUMBERS - they'd be arrested for, and that's it. Here we examine why - we see complexity. How they became what they are, why they are what they are, and the motivations for what they do are not as cut and dried as we think they are.

DOLLHOUSE - is a quirky show. It is all about character. The plots are only there to service the characters and themes of the series. One of the main characters is a Damian Lake type character - except far more complex. Olivia Williams plays the head of a secret agency called the Dollhouse - which procures and provides actives to fulfill the desires of clients for a hefty fee. Her motives are at this stage unclear. She's assisted by another, somewhat shady character, played by Reed Diamond. And a scientist, who manages and runs the software program which enables each active of the Dollhouse to take on a new personality for their assignment, forgetting the old one. The show reminds me a great deal of La Femme Nikita and My Own Worste Enemy in its set-up. But unlike those two series - the goal of the agency is not to help or assist a government interest, nor is it about counter-terrorism, or stealing state secrets. The goal is to provide whatever it's clients require - whether that be the dream date or a negotiator to faciliate an exchange. The organization in Dollhouse convinces its players to wipe their minds and act as a sort of empty avatar - taking on the memories and identities of whomever their employers choose to imprint upon them. An idea that relates back to Alfred Bester's Demolished Man - about how criminals are rehabilitated by having their minds and personalities wiped and a new mind or personality put in place. Like NUMBERS - the episode concludes in one hour - Echo, the lead, finishes her assignment. But the main story does not conclude. Nor can you just watch one episode and skip a few, then watch another - as you can with Bones or Numbers. This show is in that regard more like BattleStar Galatica and La Femme Nikita - you need to turn in each week or you will be lost.

I really liked the pilot and I think I'm going to enjoy the series. I keep flipping it around in my head. But I can't imagine Ames watching it with her hubby, nor Wales enjoying it. They'd flip it off in disgust five minutes. Nor can I see my parents or brother watching it. In fact, the only people I can see enjoying this series are reading this post on lj at this very moment. I remember thinking as I was watching it - "oh this is really cool, I love this, and no one else is going to. Most likely for all the reasons I adore it."

SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES - another series that is more interested in character than plot. The plot is sort of all over the place in this series. It is entirely driven by the characters. And the series itself is mostly interested in examining human morality, psychology, and why we do what we do. It like Dollhouse and BSG is also interested in identity - what makes us who we are? Our actions? Our memories? Our choices? Our environment? What defines us? And how do we define ourselves? And how does that effect how we relate to others?

( what we focus on and how it differs from others perceptions - a tale of two reviewers, the Dresden Files and Wall-E )

How we watch something, how we write it. For some it is intuitive. For others precise and exact. NUMBERS was detailed and exact, precise. Dollhouse was intuitively told and jumped about. Sarah Connor and BSG somewhere in between. Intiutive writers find their way as they go. Are more interested in characters and themes, focus more on psychology, and inter-relationships. Precise writers - who are into research, tend to focus more on plot, background, setting, and details.

The precise writer - will often research their book before they write it. They might even do an outline first or at the very least during or after.

The intuitive writer - will research as they write, if they absolutely have to. Often they avoid it - since it gets in the way of the process. They do it after the fact - fact-checking bits and pieces. And if they outline it will be brief and afterwards. They like not knowing where their story is going as they write it.

And of course there's people who fall between the two. I may be wrong about this - but precise writers don't tend to like imprecise books or tv shows, they will pick up on inaccuracies and factual errors far more so than the intuitive writer will. This gets into how we read, watch, and write things.

( the how of my writing, watching and reading )

The why, oh the why, I've sort of touched upon with the what and how. But it also eludes.
Because motivation is complicated. I'm not sure most of us know "why" we do the things we do. For example - why I opted out of going to brunch with a bunch of strangers at some Asian restaurant in the city today and decided to write this long insane post instead. I think it's because the idea of sitting in a restaurant with 20 people or even 8, listening to three conversations at once - gave me a headache. There's got to be a better way to meet new people. I liked the art tour idea better. And I wish I could do more with the meeting of people on this thing - because as forums go, this is the one I've enjoyed the most. Maybe because I can ramble on at will, then delete it all...if I so choose. Poof. And ignore those who piss me off, without being obvious about it. Also less noisy.

But is that a why?

( the whys )

I'm not doing the typical "best" list and some of these shows may have been watched by people earlier than 2008 - because I don't get HBO or Showtime, and if I managed to watch it, it was via Netflix. My list is limited to those shows that aired on standard American cable or received on netflix. I'm also not including any news shows, reality shows, or sketch comedy shows - I already mentioned the election as noteworthy on another post and Tina Fey as Sarah Palin has gotten enough press. Nor am I including anything that started in December - such as Leverage.

Watched far too much tv in 2008, hence the tv slut title. One of my New Year's Resolutions is to watch less of it in 2009, we'll see if that works. Of the many many shows that I watched, here are the episodes/shows that stood out, in no particular order. [Order is by memory, not ranking, because I don't have the patience or time to do a "ranking".]

Noteworthy Shows and/or Episodes

1. Doctor Who - the episodes featuring the character of Dr. River Song and the Library. Both written by Stephen Moffat. They featured perhaps the most innovative villian that I've seen in a science fiction series - piranaha's of the air. You never saw the monster, just what it did. And the fact that it came from or was hatched from trees and books - a nifty twist. This was coupled with a heroine that was in fact a little girl inside a computer. The computer saved people by keeping them inside a virtual yet false reality created by the books in the library. I saw the episodes sometime in April, and they still resonate more than six months later.

2. Battle Star Galatica - the episodes towards the end of the season,( possible spoilers )

3. Dexter - the Second Season, via Netflix. Dexter discovers his adopted father was not the man he thought he was. And fights a man who is a vigilante but shows remorse, and a woman who has none.

4. Lost - it came back after the Writer's Strike with five or six episodes which redefined the series. Playing with the concept of time and identity in the process.

5. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles - about four people struggling to prevent a nightmare future, yet, one feels at times, fatefully doomed to bring about at least a version of it no matter what. Demonstrating that one can never quite escape one's own fate, even though we have no choice but to try. It is also the flip side of Battle Star Galatica, examining what it is like to be a machine, a cyborg. And in contrast, to what degree humans differ from that.

6. Pushing Daisies - yes, it's at times a bit too stylish for its own good. Almost gratingly so. But, it is also oddly cheery about grim topics. Examining death and the loss of loved ones, with a clownish grin. A nice contrast to Terminator's bleakness. Love it or hate it, you've never seen anything remotely like it on TV. And may never again. It played with narrative structure and how a story can be told. Inserting bursts of song and bits of magic, as well as a comic voice-over narrator, who acted as if he were reading us a story from a pop-up detective book. Perhaps he was, the pop-up book just happened to be on our tv sets, and the narrator the charming voice of Jim Dale.

7. Mad Men - another show that at times feels almost too stylish for its own good. But, like Daisies, it uses the style to further its story. Mad Men is filled to the brim with anti-heroes, yet at it's center is the heroine, Peggy, who struggles to push past convention and remain true to who she is. Peggy is the opposite of Don Draper, honest almost to a fault. ( possible spoilers )

8. In Plain Sight - Mary McCormack plays Mary Shannon - a tough witness protection marshal, with a drunk mother and an ex-con/drug dealer sister. She's an emotional train-wreck, but steely and tough as Phillip Marlow. Flipping gender stereotypes - Mary is the tough guy in the relationships with her partner and her lover, both physically and emotionally.

9. House - the season ender last year - where we go inside House's head to figure out what happened on a bus ride. Which patient he had to save. ( possible spoilers )

10.Gossip Girl - at first a guilty pleasure has become a satisfying morsel. The twisty cat and cat romance, with vague allusions to Les Liasons Dangereuse, between Chuck Bass and Blair Woolworth - may be the hottest thing on the screen. And we barely see any skin or even much of a kiss. It's soapy sure, but also fun.

Honorable Mentions:

* Torchwood - the tragic romance of Owen and the Asian Scientist who I can't remember the name of. With two audacious guest-starring turns by James Marsters. Although the best episode may be the one that focused on Gwen and the young optimistic boy who got sucked into time, only to come back a monsterous wreck, half insane, and screaming from the nightmares he'd lived.

*Reaper - the poor man's Chuck, which in my opinion was actually better written and far more realistic than Chuck. It's about a Home Depot slacker, who finds out his parents sold his soul to the Devil. A tv show, where the female love interest is not hot and blond and perfect. Whoa. Must be written and created by women? Wait, it is.

*Supernatural - the best cult fantasy show on tv at the moment. Tightly written, with a clear and consistent mythology. It is at its heart a story of two brothers or siblings, with a lot of HP Lovecraft, Urbane Horror Legend, and Christian Mythology thrown in. ( possible spoilers )

*Smallville - surprisingly came back with some interesting kick-ass stories.
Lana and Chloe are no longer the nice girls next door. Lois has become the kick-ass, sassy heroine with heart. Clark plays god with shocking consequences. And the villian is tragically endearing.

*Desperate Housewives - the fly to five years in the future, was inspired. The glamour-puss Gabby is frumpy, the ordinarily perfect Bree - frazzled, the on top/in control Katherine - a second banana to Bree, the calm and practical Lynette - shrewish and jealous, and the fun-loving romantic Susan - world-weary. It remains an interesting satire on what we believe to be suburban bliss.

* Ugly Betty - slow and a bit loopy to start, but after the ill-conceived Lindsey Lohan arc, it got back to its roots - Betty and Mode. The silly and at times pointless romances and Betty's overly sentimental home life were pushed, finally, to the background, and her sassy relationships with Mark, Amanda, Daniel, and Wilhemmina, front and center. The heart of the show is Betty, Mark and Amanda - it's about time the writers figured it out.

*Cranford - the BBC mini-series on Masterpiece Theater, about a bunch of old spinsters in a small English town around the turn of the century. Funny and sentimental, yet not overly so. It's a quiet little story that I found comforting, about the bonds of both friendship and community.

Not so great series of 2008:

* Grey's Anatomy...sigh. It jumped the shark so many times in the last year, I've lost count. The firing of Brook Smith as Erica Hahn, was just one of many ill-concieved choices. The worst episode may have been the one where Izzy has hot sex with the ghost of Denny.
Topped by Sadie offering to let the interns practice their surgical skills by taking out her appendix. It's biggest loss was Brook Smith - who provided a snarky attitude to the show.
It's biggest gain - Kevin McKidd - who provided a new love interest for Cristina, as well as a nice counter to the boys club of McDreamy and McSteamy. Can it be fixed? We'll see.

*Heroes...yes, it did get better towards the end. The last three or four episodes were actually enjoyable and worth watching. But everything before the eclispe of the sun - made little or no sense. Jumping back and forth in time - with one too many characters. Characters flipping from villian to hero and back again with little build up. Made watching the show akin to riding in bumper cars or one of those rides that jar you. 2009 - looks like it might be better - Brian Fuller's back to lend a hand and they are moving back towards the more personal and contained stories of the first season. For those who dumped the series for fear that Sylar had become a hero or good guy, you should have stuck around for the last three episodes, because he has stayed a villian and is reported to get even worse. Looks like it will be fixed - and soon.

*My Own Worst Enemy - while I enjoyed it, it was a convoluted mess. Difficult to follow. The best thing was the acting - and you felt sorry for the actors. The writing just didn't live up to it. Sort of La Femme Nikita with a personality disorder. Or Alias, except with multiple personalities. Ambitious, but far too ambitious for TV. Deservedly cancelled.

"Nip-Tuck" - which out jumped both Greys and Heroes. It got so ridiculous, it was hard not to giggle at it. Yet, I still watch. I'm not sure why. Curiousity perhaps?


Shows to look forward to in 2009:

Leverage
Dollhouse - Whedon's latest drama about identity - a common theme in his work
Heroes: Fugitives
Lost
BattleStar Galatica
Trust Me - new drama about advertising on TNT
Damages - finally Season 2 - Jan
The Closer - Jan
Burn Notice - Jan
Doctor Who specials
Last/final episodes of recentally cancelled series: Dirty Sexy Money, Pushing Daisies, and Lipstick Jungle
And many many more...

So here's my completely mindless and spontaneous pop culture fandom war poll. The questions pertain to wars that I've seen on fan boards and live journal posts since 2002. I could only post 15 questions. So that left out a few cool ones. All the questions - I've seen heated discussions about online, believe it or not, that's why they came to mind. I mean a couple of people really hate or love some of these choices with a PASSION, almost as if their very lives depended on it. Also, you have to make a choice, no, indecisive wish-washy - oh I love everyone. Because what's the fun in that? You can skip questions of course. Outside of that? No real rules.

And since I posted it, I'll take it too. Although, you probably can already guess most of my answers. ;-) (ETA: on the last question - I wavered. I like both, and I read one more than the one I picked, at least recently, but that's mostly because the other requires too much brain-power, and I'm mentally drained at the moment.)

[Poll #1164928]

Feeling somewhat accomplished at the moment - I managed to clean my apartment, do laundry, run errands, spend time with a close friend, relax, knit, and read all in one weekend. Not bad. Now if I can just find a moment to finish the novel, things will be hunky-dorey. But brain has been too fried to write well lately. Words either come or they don't. No rhyme or reason to it. And I've long since given up fighting the universe on what it has in store for me, right now, trusting my good karma and going with the flow. Seems to be working.

Been watching Season 2 Buffy DVDs, which I haven't seen since 2004 or 2005, can't remember. Not watching all the episodes, just the ones I *really* liked - which were When She Was Bad, School Hard, Halloween, Whats My Line 1 & 2, Surprise, Innocence, Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered, Passion, I Only Have Eyes for You, and Becoming 1&2. The rest I wasn't overly fond of at the time they aired -so don't see any point at the moment wasting time on them now. The funky thing about watching this season - is looking at the writing credits. People who bash Marti Noxon on one hand, then on the other exclaim how S2 is the best season ever...have no idea how silly they look. Marti Noxon wrote 80% of the episodes in S2. The only season she didn't write or work on a single episode was S1 and the only other season she wasn't *that* involved in due to other commitments such as being pregnant was S7 - the two seasons most fans dislike the most - yet these are the same people who think she's a horrid writer? Next time someone bashes Noxon on your flist - ask them what their favorite season of BTVS was. IF they state S2, gently point out that she wrote 80% of the episodes, including ones she wasn't credited for. (Surprise, Bewitched, Halloween, Lie to Me, Becoming, What's my Line, I only have eyes for you...etc.) Honestly, I think people just are annoyed about those stupid interviews she did which had zip to do with her writing for the series. At any rate, the series remains highly watchable regardless of distance. And Spike remains my favorite character, for one big reason - he makes me laugh (and it probably does not hurt that he's a badass romantic who moves like a kung-fu dancer).

Looking forward to BSG and Dresden Files tonight. As I told Wales today on our walk, it takes very little to make me happy nowadays. Triple Chocolat ice cream. Strawberries. Wine. Good conversation. An interesting book. Good tunes. And fun tv. Plus using the brain at work.
Not to mention being able to breath in my apt again.

Pretty sure I know where BSG is headed, although remain blessedly unspoiled on it. Love the themes on this show: "Who is the real enemy?" "What if we are the enemy?" "What makes us human?" "What would you do to survive?" People have been whinging about there being weak episodes in the mix, and all I can think is - guys do you have any idea what it is like to film a 22 episode television series - or how much time they have to film it? I'd like to see you come up with 22 fantastic episodes under that type of schedule. (Three days to write a script, get it torn apart, a week to film - and it takes by the way 6 hours to film 60 seconds. A day to edit. 14-16 hour days. No time off on weekends.) Personally, I think it's a miracle we get 10 good episodes in a season. The reason the first season was so spectacular was they had more time to do it and plan it out. The second two they've had less time. Plus that section was in some ways the easiest. I'm glad it will get 22 more episodes next year - unlike most fans, I think having more episodes gives the writers more flexibility, and we're more likely to get great episodes. When you have just thirteen - have less chances to hit gold. Yes - television is that random. You don't know what will work or what won't when you're filming something - it is always a gamble.

Have also been enjoying Dresden (last week's episode rocked, even though I missed Bob, I loved the fact that both Susan and Mister showed up and how proactive and somewhat dark Harry was portrayed.) Loving this show. Hope they renew it. If not, at least I got 11 episodes of it. And there's more books coming out. Looking forward to White Knight.

Oh, I'm still enjoying Lost - which continues to entertain me for all the reasons a good portion of my flist and other people hate it. It's all over the place. Has very flawed characters. Little structure. And feels like a social psychology experiment gone insane most of the time. Find it lots of fun and it helps that it employs a lot of excellent character actors in supporting and lead roles.

And of course my two for one chick night: Ugly Betty - Grey's Anatomy. Comfort food for the soul.

Same deal with Friday Night Lights - which is the best show a lot of folks aren't watching.
Well written. Well shot. And perhaps the most realistic drama I've seen TV ever attempt to do.
Find the realism oddly comforting. Most of us are like these folks. Not goregous. Not having easy lives. Just taking it day by day.

I tried Andy Parker, PI - sorry Jane, was bored so gave up. 30 Rock however is a real hoot.
And The Office is growing on me, I love Dwight. The Riches have potential - it of course helps that I'm a fan of Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver. Boston Legal still entertains.
Raines - was boring. Robin Hood on BBC America is pretty good - it entertains me. That's it.
Haven't tried the Tudors yet, not sure I will due to lack of time.

Enough rambling. Off to watch tv, eat ice cream, knit, sip wine, and relax before work tomorrow. Not dreading going to work by the way. Sort of like the idea of doing it. As long as I get breaks such as weekends and nights off, things are hunky-dorey.