Fandoms Never Die

Wednesday 9 March, 2011

First of all, I’d like to congratulate myself on getting to 20 posts here. It’s always hard to decide what to say herem because it’s not Really a personal journal, but I hardly have anything fascinating to talk about. So I end up talking about myself, or things which I’ve taken personally, just like I am now.

The latest thing that I’ve taken personally isn’t all that recent. I’ll say it’s The Bad Luck Of The Multi-Fandomer, and I am The Multi-Fandomer. If it’s not my favourite member of the band leaving, and/or breaking up the band, it’s my favourite character in films and books dying and being killed off. I’m not the best at dealing with death, so I take my escapism seriously to get away from it, so it’s always a shake up when a favourite character dies. I don’t just have to deal with death in real life, but in fantasy too? For shame, authors, for Shame.

And JK Rowling? I’m looking in your direction. Yes, Yes, Spoiler Alerts and all that but if you’ve not read from Order of the Phoenix onwards, then in my opinion you deserve to be spoiled. The last book was released in July, 2007. By the way, Soylent Green is People and Bruce Willis is a ghost.

I can sort of understand killing Sirius and Dumbledore off. I think the death of Sirius really brought home the realisation that these books aren’t Exactly kids books. They grow with you, they get darker, they get more heavy. I was hooked from the moment I first read the first book. I was a little late into the Fandom, and i’ve somewhat distanced myself from it, since the dust settled and a lull came between the 5th and 6th books. But I return every now and then, I get into the books again, I read the fanfictions, I look up interviews and information, and the Trivia! And then I get annoyed at the differences between the films and the books and rant about them.

It’s how I roll within the HP Fandom.

But anyway, so even if I’m not as emotionally invested in it as I was once, I still take it to heart that these characters I’ve grown to love over the series are dead passed certain books. The death I’m most annoyed about though? Fred Weasley.

He was my favourite Weasley. He was my favourite twin! And there is a difference. Any hardcore fan, especially if they’re fans of the twins, can tell and see that there is a difference between Fred and George (Or is that Gred and Forge?). So why did JK kill him off? What did poor Fred do to her? Was it not enough that George was permanently maimed? He had to be maimed again by losing someone who has been there for everything in his life?

For someone who doesn’t handle death very well, this shook me up even worse than when Dumbledore died. And that’s saying something. And it’s for these reasons that I’m heavily debating not going to see the next film, and I might never read the books again. Unless I just keep stopping at the 6th book, and the first part of the 7th film. It’s possible, if not a bit crazy, and it’s certainly something I’ve done before. If maybe I understood JK’s motives over this, maybe there’s some sort of silver lining I’ve not considered, I’d be able to face the series again.

But until I can sideline second-hand grief with understanding, my love for the fandom will never be as it once was. Fandoms might never die, but when characters certainly do, how are the more sensitive, as myself am, supposed to handle it?

Having no plans to watch the second part of the 7th film is my method right now.


Sorkin Speculation

Monday 24 January, 2011

On the BBC news the other day, Aaron Sorkin was saying that, as much as he loved doing The Social Network, he’s going to be doing another show. He’s written the pilot and now he’s casting.

I am Very excited with this news. It’s going to be a mishmash of Sports Night meets The West Wing meets Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It’s going to be another show within a show, about people working within a news network. He said it’s based on CNN, but he replied a little bit too quickly for me to really believe that.

The thing is, I really hope he casts his so called Favourite Three.

These are Joshua Malina, who was in the movie adaption of Sorkin’s play “A Few Good Men”. Yeah, the YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH film. He was also Jeremy in Sports Night and Will Bailey in The West Wing.

Bradley Whitford, who, if I remember correctly, was in the actual theatre production of “A Few Good Men”. He was also Josh in The West Wing (DUH) and Danny in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

The last of The (speculated) Favourite Three is Matthew Perry. He went from Friends to The West Wing, playing Republican Joe Quincy, and then to Matt Albie in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Him and Aaron have a LOT in Common, and I believe he’d understand the more grittier of the things Sorkin can write.

These are all three people that aren’t working on anything else right now, or at least not anything big. Joshua Malina is in a very strange webseries called Backwash that isn’t available to watch outside of America.

He’s already tweeted a very strange tweet about trying to stop Bradley Whitford from getting a part in the new series. They’re friends so I’m taking that to mean that they’re actually going for the same part.

The thing is, I would love all these three people to be in this new series. I would also love more people from Sports Night and The West Wing to be in it too. Specifically Sabrina Lloyd and Allison Janney.

… The only person I wouldn’t be happy with getting a part in this new series would be Janel Moloney. Now don’t get me wrong, she’s a brilliant actress. She was fantastic as Donna. I LOVED Donna in The West Wing! And she was great as the Costume Assistant in Sports Night who gave Casey an ear full for taking credit for the clothes he wears. But if she does, I think it’ll shape a lot of what we expect to see from the characters if both her and Bradley Whitford are working together.

We’ve been there and we’ve done that, and some even bought the Tshirts. I know i’m getting ahead of myself, I’m getting ahead of Sorkin, too. But with every show, he brings something new. Something as fantastic as before but better, brighter. He one upped Sports Night with Studio 60. He’ll do it again with this, I know it.

I just hope he proves me wrong if Janel gets a part, even if I would prefer her to not.

Also a great person to have on this new show? Nathan Cordry. I say this purely because he was brilliant in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Very good at the comedy and the emotional. And very good looking.


Time for Another Unpopular Opinion

Wednesday 29 December, 2010

I don’t like Friends, and yes I do mean the big famous TV series from America. It lasted ten series, it starred six people, it was based in New York and it is loved by many, many people. I hate it… in that “Actually I quite like some episodes, maybe a whole series, but can’t stomach the over all premise of it” kind of way.

The truth is, I could analyse this show until i’m blue in the face. The characters, the interaction of the characters, why I like Chandler as much as I do, what I reckon was the ideals of the writer’s when they wrote the series the way they did, but I think that would make it look like I take the show a lot more seriously than intended.

Which is why I won’t bore anyone with my analyses.

Basically, I dislike nearly all of the characters. The only exception, like I said, is Chandler. I think it’s because i’ve known guys like Chandler and even I’m a bit like him at times even though I’m British and female. I can’t see any of these characters but Chandler surviving well in Real Life. They’re caricatures of people, they have to be, but they’re not portrayed consistently.

I hate that a lot of the episodes are based on whether people are having sex or not. I hate that a majority of the series is based on Ross and Rachel and their destructive Will They, Won’t They relationship. I hate Rachel.

I like some episodes of Series 1, most of series 2, half of series 4 and most of series 5. I dislike most of series 3. In my eyes, it goes down hill from series 5, but I don’t know why exactly.

I watch the episodes I like over and over again, but I get this sour taste in my mouth with episodes i’m not fond of, and i’m not fond of a LOT of episodes. I blame the characters and the continuity issues, but a lot of poeple would just say i’m fussy.

But I tell those people to go and watch Sports Night and get back to me. Because those are characters I can get behind and watch and believe. If the people who disagree with me disagree with that, then there’s no middle ground compromise and I’m clearly not cut out for Friends.

Maybe I do escapism all wrong…


Who does what to Whom?

Sunday 26 December, 2010

I’m a huge fan of murder mysteries. Big fan of them. Columbo, Diagnosis Murder, CSI, Castle; You name it, I’ve probably been obsessed with it at some point. There’s just one thing about all these shows that perplex me, though.

Who actually does what, and how close to the truth do these shows get? They always list one or a couple, or even a group, of consultants for the shows on the credits, that cover aspects that the shows really need to know about to make the things believable. On the set of House, they have medical consultants. On the set of CSI, they have medical and police consultants that make sure cases can actually be worked like that, and that people could die/survive/act in certain ways.

And yet, that doesn’t mean much if the basis of the shows are all wrong in the first place. The consultants can argue until their blue in the face, but if the writers and network producers want to make a show based on Interns working at a Coroner’s office, then no amount of talking logic and plausibility would do the consultants any good. The network producers and writer’s want to say that This group of people us audience are watching are not just completely capable of solving cases, but are the Only ones capable of solving them. That’s what they’re there to do.

Case in point, in Diagnosis Murder, not only is the county Coroner/M.E based in the hospital, which is on the contrary to almost every other Murder Mystery series on TV, but the main Sleuth is a Medical Consultant to the Police and his son is the lieutenant. I’m sure there’s Dr/Policeman Father/Son relationships, and i’m sure there are many doctors who are consultants to the Police. Actually, it’s required for the police to have a medical consultant. But what I don’t think would happen is that a full time Doctor who is a Police Consultant in his spare time, having that much spare time on their hands to go snooping, being able to get in the amount of places that Mark gets into without a lot of passes and pre-arranged permissions and legally collecting that much evidence to put guilty persons behind bars. I don’t know much about Coroners, but I’m also pretty sure that Amanda’s just based in the hospital so that she can have as much to do with the show as the E.R doctors. Because, logically, when they’re short of doctors, they’re really going to want a Coroner helping out. */sarcasm*

Actually, that might be logical if they’re that short of doctors. I might have been a patient in every hospital in my area, but that doesn’t mean I know exactly what goes on at all times, behind the scenes. My logical thought is that, if you are an E.R patient (That’s A&E to us Brits!), the last kind of specialist you want to be seeing, is a Coroner. But that’s derailing slightly.

In CSI, it’s the Criminalists who gather up all the evidence and put a case towards the accused to prove whether or not the accused in guilty or not. In Quincy, it’s the Medical Examiner (Who is based on another floor of the police station, as is the coroner from CSI).

In Castle, it’s a team of Detectives with the help of a Crime writer. The reasoning for Castle, the aforementioned Crime Writer, going along on cases, is that after the first episode, where a murderer was acting out the murders from his best selling book (He quite literally went by the book!), Castle liked the leading Detective and wanted to shadow her for inspiration of his next book series. Now, as much as I love this show, and I do understand him helping them out on cases because Castle is quite egotistical, I can’t see them Always needing his help. They did well before him, and sure, use what you’ve got to your disposal when he’s around, but they don’t need him. And I think they’ve forgotten that for the sake of a romantic plot device.

Another thing that differs from show to show, is what level of the Police are the ones in charge of the investigations. I’m not sure which are the equivalent of our good ole British PCs, but in most shows they’re Lieutenants, others they’re detectives. In Criminal Minds, they’re a special section of the FBI that investigate murders and abductions when other departments are at a loss. They are the House of Murder Mystery’s.

And I won’t go into Monk or NCIS.

The only thing all of these shows can agree on, including Criminal Minds, is that they never want the main F.B.I department involved. They are the universal enemy, for when they get involved, they will seemingly ignore little clues that are so obvious to the departments we as audiences are following, and go in with guns a’blazing. They’ll put lives at risk, not just their own, to catch their serial killer/rapist/abductor.

I highly doubt that’s the case in real life, but that’s the whole point of this entry. Does any of this resemble anything that happens in real life?

I really can’t say.


I hate Twilight

Friday 26 November, 2010

I hate Twilight. I make no secret of this. Everyone who knows me Knows I hate twilight. I hate that it’s considered better than Harry Potter, I hate that it’s considered read worthy. Surely the only thing that pile of garbage is worthy of is a good burning. Fuel for the Fire.

Don’t burn a Qu’ran or The Bible, burn the Twilight books! I’ve heard the fires last longer due to the never ending purple prose. Some say it makes the fire look pretty, but it also makes the air smell like poo, so I wouldn’t stand too close.

I’m not just some bitter Harry Potter fan though, there are reasons for why I think this book is aneurysm inducing. Good reasons that don’t actually involve the assumption that I’ve never been in love or a relationship. If I was going to have a relationship, I sure as hell wouldn’t want one Bella Swan style.

First of all, i’ve not read the books, but I don’t have to to know what a twisted relationship Edward and Bella have. One, he’s a vampire. The only good rendition of a Vampire being in love with The Girl, was Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He didn’t sparkle, he walked the night like a shadow and most importantly, he was a bad ass, but a bad ass you felt sorry for.
Smeyer invented a vampire who has None of the characteristics of a vampire and then just made him pathetic, in that Woman-controlling, wife-beating way.

The whole set of stories read like a poorly written Fan-fiction. I’d even be willing to bet my phone on her being the author of My Immortal, which is somehow better than Twilight. Voldemort was a gay goth, yet he still remained badass and scary!

Edward is frightening for all the wrong reasons, but I’ll get back to that in a minute. Bella is a vapid, vain airhead who is apparently ordinary and boring, but like a Mary Sue, she walks through the door and zomg, everyone loves her! A BOY is looking at her, so that must mean he fancies her, right? And, AND, she has brown flowing hair. Now, of course, the Mary Sue Hair Colour of choice is either Blonde, because she is so irresistable and never questions her beauty, or it’s Brown, because brown means boring and it’s a surprise when all the boys fancy her because she only has brown hair and what guy would love a girl with brown hair?*

Remind me what colour Smeyer’s hair is? Oh, Brown you say? Funny coincidence… I think not.

So, following the description of how she looks, she says time and time again how beautiful and good looking Edward is. I’m sensing a fan-fiction-esque theme, here. He has No personality, but then neither does she. This doesn’t make them a match made in heaven.

The biggest urk I have against Edward is he practically stalked Bella. Stalking is Not romantic. Invading a girl’s bedroom and watching her sleep is Not romantic. Being dead and walking in the day and sparkling is not only NOT romantic, it’s really quite weird!

And most of all, he’s an emotional abuser and she is an obliviously vapid inane victim. She knows he’s no good, but this takes “loving the bad boy” to dangerous levels. She’s supposed to be a feminist? She’s supposed to be a role model to young girls yet she can’t do anything for herself. If Edward was any kind of a scrap of a man, he’d help her help herself, but it’s like a Stockholm Syndrome where, actually, Bella IS to blame. The sex and sexuality in it is SO unsuitable for kids that I can’t believe parents let them read it.

I won’t even go into the blood bath that is the birth of the daughter who ages ten times faster than human beings, but is actually still a kid when the warewolf guy decides that he wants to sleep with her… just because she looks like a clone of Bella at the age of 18. In the world where I come from, that’s not only statuary rape but also peadophilia. But she Looks 18, so that’s, like, totally OK, right?

Give me a break.

This book should be used as many examples. An example of bad plot, an example of one dimensional characters, an example of Mary Sue Author who somehow got famous, an example of publishers dropping the ball and most of all, an example of How Not To Write A Story.

But I take offense at this book being called an Example of good literature. She can no more compare herself to Tolkien or J.K than I can to Kobe Bryant.

*The opinion according to Suethors.