selenak: (Bayeux)
( Dec. 1st, 2016 07:24 pm)
Went from Munich to Bamberg, signed about a hundred Christmas letters with no end in sight, rewarded self with 45 minutes of fiction. The second half of Vikings season 4 has started, Amazon Prime puts up an episode a week, which means for the first time I could watch it when broadcast. More or less.

Read more... )
selenak: (Flint by Violateraindrop)
( Nov. 29th, 2016 05:33 pm)
...not least because every time I see another bit of the news, I want to scream, so I need to put my brain into ye peaceful olde time of pirates and slaughter of the 18th century in order not to yell at everyone.

So, Black Sails is heading towards its last season. Of the still surviving characters, some have their fates predetermined by history, some by literature, and some are OCs unique to this show. Of course, both historical and Treasure Island origined characters have some wriggle room; two historical characters on this show have already been killed years ahead of schedule, after all, and as with fiction, there's always the popular "faked their death" trope. However, this is a show good about characterisation and continuity, and thus with characters and their developments the wriggle room is limited by how likely their actions are as well.

Spoilery for history and literature overview )

Now I can see all these developments already set in motion... except for Billy's eventual fate. Speculation how we might get there ensues. ) What do you think?
selenak: (BambergerReiter by Ningloreth)
( Nov. 29th, 2016 09:12 am)
Reading through the 300-someting public Yuletide prompts in the surety of having already done one's bit(s) causes various reactions:

1.) Fandoms I'm interested in but haven't offered to write for:

"Ohhhh, I hope someone will write that! Hm, maybe next year I'll offer? Or do a treat? (Not this year, this year Darth Real life prevents it, and also, I've done two treats already.) Huh, all the prompts for this fandom ask for precisely the aspects I'm not interested in, so it's a good thing I didn't offer.

2.) Fandoms I'm interested in and have offered to write/have actually written for:

Oh, so many prompts in FANDOM X! All potential readers, I hope. Also, I hope other people will write the other prompts as there can never be enough FANDOM X fic, but dammit, I'm feeling competitive this year, I want mine to be the most popular this Yuletide.

3.) Fandoms I know about but don't feel strong about one way or the other:

Okay, that and this and that looks sort of interesting. What the hell? Why would anyone request *insert AU scenario removing anything that formed characters into who they were*`? Oh, this qualified as a Yuletide fandom? In that case, wouldn't Y also - must nominate that next year.

Next: checking the fandoms of stories already posted: oh, several already in Fandom Y! Excelllllent. Hang on, must check character tags. Ah, okay, figures/oh, really, that's a surprise! What tags - hang on. Should I tag for circumstance B as well in my story? But I don't want to, because then people will asume it happens in the story, and it doesn't, it's just referenced that it happened in canon, but it is a thing. Okay, never mind, stop shaking gifts, go back to Darth Real life.

In non-Yuletide readable matters, Simon Callow about being gay in Britain through the decades, what changed, what didn't. Compelling article.

On the air/internet for five days more for everyone to listen to: How the Marquis Got His Coat Back, a radio play based on Neil Gaiman's short story taking place after Neverwhere, starring the original Marquis de Carabas from the Neverwhere tv series, Patterson Joseph. Co-starring Adrian Lester as a character who is most definitely not Mycroft Holmes, honest.
5.07: Meh. Which is why I didn't review it last week. The case of the week was an illustration of "if you really want to tackle this topic in this day and age, don't do it in the space of eight minutes while devoting the rest of the episode to red herrings". And the ongoing arc story was well played, actor-wise, but I'm withholding judgment until I see what comes out of it because if nothing more happens, it sucks.

5.08. Now we're talking. Enjoyed the case of the week, enjoyed the character interaction. It gets spoilery from there. )
selenak: (River Song by Famira)
( Nov. 27th, 2016 09:24 pm)
In which we find out what Quill did during last week's events. It's the big Quill character episode of the season, and it rocks.

Read more... )
I don't have anything deep to say about the not unexpected demise of a historical figure, but I'm grateful to the Guardian for devoting an extra article to all the failed attempts to kill Fidel Castro, which reminded me that long before the Orange Menace, reality beat satire every time. I mean: if someone invented said attempts, they'd be accused of over the top anti American caricature. Surely the CIA would not be that clumsy and ridiculous, etc.

Incidentally, the article included some new-to-me attempts; of course I knew about the cigars, but the cunning scuba-diving and exploding mollusks plan (are we sure a US descendant of Blackadder wasn't involved?) was new intel. Incidentally, what still surprises me from today's perspective isn't that the CIA proved so embarassing inept at killing Castro, but that when they outsourced the task to the Mafia, the mob proved equally as inept.

...then again, mobsters owe their reputations as much to Hollywood as the CIA does, so it makes sense again.
Amazon Prime put up Legend, the movie in which Tom Hardy stars as both Kray twins, and so I watched it. It has a good cast (Christopher Eccleston as the Krays' arch nemesis copper, Emily Browning as Reggie Kray's wife Frances, Colin Morgan in a minor role as Frances' brother and Reggie Kray's driver), and Hardy manages to play the twins as convincingly distinct characters, but ultimately I wasn't impressed. Probably because I've seen better takes on several aspects of the story:

Co-dependent twins played by the same actor: David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers, starring Jeremy Irons, remains the gold standard. When Jeremy Irons in the subsequent year got the Oscar not for this but for his role as Claus von Bülow, he made a point of thanking David Cronenberg before the producers of the Sunny von Bülow movie, and no wonder. The twins in Dead Ringers are the far more challenging role, the direction is fabulous, and the result is intense as hell.

East end gangster in the 60s who both appall and fascinate: The Long Firm, the main character of which shares several traits with both Krays (he's got Ronnie's homosexuality and Reggie's ambitions, to name but two), as to his associates with their associates. Granted, there's a difference between what a miniseries and what a movie can do, but I still think The Long Firm did a better job all around - with the social context of the 60s, with keeping the victims of their crime lord real instead of disposable props, in refusing to draw a moral from the story, and also Mark Strong beats Tom Hardy in the acting department.

Nice girl marries gangster despite knowing he's one, life at his side turns out to be far harder than she envisioned, the idea he could quit is abandoned early on, marriage breaks apart in devastating scene where the illusion that his private self is different from his ganster self is shattered: The Godfather II. Also, may I point out that Francis Ford Coppola is no one's idea of a feminist, but he still managed to get the point across without adding spoiler for LEGEND ). (The relevant Michael-Kay scene in The Godfather II is absolutely terrifying in its emotional violence without that.)

What it ultimately comes down to for me might be a matter of personal preference, though: if you advertise a movie about a twin pair of famous gangsters, I want the emotional core to be the twin relationship. Legend instead puts it on the Frances-Reggie Kray relationship, which, fair enough, but it's not what I was expecting going in, plus the few scenes in which the twins do interact on screen don't manage to sell me on the co dependence that Frances as the narrator tells me in her voice narration was there, or in fact on any type of strong relationship. Given Tatiana Maslany manages on Orphan Black to have chemistry with herself and to provide the various clones with complicated relationships with each other, and again, given that decades earlier with far more pimitive technology and the same amount of screen time David Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons also managed to make the Dead Ringer twins believable and their relationship with each other layered (far more so than the book which simply does it as good twin, bad twin) and interesting, I think it's not an unfair criticism to make, though.
So, to summarize: after settling with 25 millions as not to be sued for fraud any longer, the Orange One next returned to his favourite past time, twitter wars, and attacks both the cast of a sold-out-into-the-next decade Broadway musical (for appealing to his designated VP to protect their rights) and Saturday Night Live for daring to make fun of him. Not to be outdone, his chief strategist Steve Bannon informs us that no, he's not a white nationalist, that's total slander. Instead: "I am Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

(I kid you not. He truly said that, to the Hollywood Reporter. I won't link to the article, since it's essentially one long smug "ha, those clueless liberals and their betrayal of the working man" elogy, but you can easily google it.)

The best thing about this: he truly seems to be unaware of the implications of what he's saying here, from casting the Horror Clown as Henry VIII. (the temper certainly fits) to his own bloody demise after a failed plea for his life in grovelling tones ("most gracious prince, I cry for mercy, mercy, mercy!"). Also, clearly he's got his idea of Thomas Cromwell either by pop culture osmosis of Hilary Mantel's books or directly by reading them, which answers my question as to whether readers of her Cromwell saga wouldn't be by necessessity well versed enough in history to know how itall ends. (BTW: Hilary Mantel was appalled by the election of the current most prominent multimarried orange narcissist, and wrote so in that liberal elitist rag denounced by Bannon, the New Yorker.) (Thus answering my next question, as to whom Bannon is casting as Mantel's version of Thomas More, hypocrite and martyr to the old world, to his Thomas Cromwell. Clearly, it's Mantel herself, or at least the New York based papers.)

Of course, it does make one wonder whether a few centuries onwards, a novelist hologame creator will write the saga. He, Bannon, watches as his children fall from the sky, etc. Anyway, as self identifications with historical personages go, this is clearly the winner of the week. Next up: destruction of civil rights monasteries, (re)invention of thought crime.
Pawn Sacrifice: biopic (of sorts) about chess wonder Bobby Fischer, directed by Edward Zwick, starring Toby McGuire as Fischer and Liev Schreiber as his arch nemesis, Boris Spassky. It shares more than one narrative structural element with Martin Scorcese's The Aviator: while on the one hand the main character gets more and more successful in his chosen field, on the other he also goes from excentric to mentally unstable. The movie's third act starts with a seemingly complete breakdown, luring the audience who probably decades later only knows the main character did lose it entirely into believing this was it, then character rallies and achieves stunning victory in chosen field... but the very last scene reveales he's also well and truly in the land of the insane now.

Mind you, Zwick isn't Scorsese; his movie doesn't offer much in terms of cinematography, and it also trusts the audience less; whereas Howard Hughes' state of mind at the end of The Aviator is signalled by the repetitions of one sentence - "the face of the future", which immediately tells us all there is to say, Pawn Sacrifice gives us the full post credit scrawl plus some footag of real life Bobby Fischer to inform us what happened with him.

On the other hand, while The Aviator featured some of Hughes' darker traits - the control issues, most of all - it pulled back at featuring any antisemitism. Whereas Pawn Sacrifice doesn't pretend Bobby Fischer only believed in the Russians as global conspiracy villains; as he starts to rant about the Jewish global conspiracy as well, his bewildered sister Joan protests in tears "We are Jewish", to no avail. The movie provides the anti-Russian feeling with Cold War context (more about this in a moment), but other than letting Bobby listen to an antisemetic speech on the radio, doesn't try to explain where the antisemitism hails from, except for Bobby's mother issues. What's most interesting to me is the movie's awareness, both on a Watsonian and on a Doylist level, that characters play out a story trope which however the reality of them chafes against. The reason why Bobby Fischer for a short time becomes a national hero isn't just his being a chess genius (grand master at age 14), but that at a point where the Cold War has been going badly for the US ("we've lost China, we're losing Vietnam, we're not going to lose this one, too" says a character re: Fischer versus Spassky) and Watergate has already happened though Nixon is still clinging to power, he provides the ideal counter narrative: the kid from Brooklyn taking on the Evil Empire singlehandedly (reminds you of anyone?).

And it's certainly a story grounded in reality: pre-Fischer, the Soviets did have a lock on the world championship, and he was literally a kid from Brooklyn. And he's not completely imagining things; his lawyer/agent has ties to the US government, while his rival, Boris Spassky, is completely supervised by the KGB and is never alone. But on the other hand, Spassky, far from being the soulless robot type a la Cold War Sylvester Stallone movies, is presented as sympathetic, not solely a brilliant chess player but one with an innate sense of fairness, and capable of the kind of sporting admiration for his opponent's gift which Fischer just isn't. And of course, he's sane. Liev Schreiber at first has a silent cameo role as Spassky is only depicted from afar, but in the last third of the movie becomes a second protagonist. The transition happens when a defeated Bobby Fischer accidentally comes across him on a California beach and explodes into an "I'll destroy you" rant while a bewildered Spassky just stares in "what the hell?" bewilderment. Liev Schreiber also has the major acting to do during their big match in Iceland. Chess doesn't offer a movie any action sequences, so Zwick has to build the drama around two men staring at each other and the chess board, and at this point Bobby Fischer has gone from paranoid to cooly controlled and enigmatic, which means McGuire looks blank, and it's up to Liev Schreiber to signal the transition from Spassky winning to Spassky losing via his face.

The movie only intermittently dares to visualize Bobby Fischer's pov - for the child Bobby, and later during some of the matches and in the hotel room convinced "they" - whoever the "they" du jour are - are everywhere -, but doesn't gamble in terms of visual means to do so, but remains deeply conventional. (Child!Bobby sees numbers across the pawns, adult Bobby gets a few close ups to his eyes and quick cuts.) I'm not a director, so I have no idea how I'd have done it, and maybe it was wise not to attempt it, but at the same time, I can't help but wish someone with a bit more flair and readiness for risk (because of course there's the danger of going over the top and becoming ridiculous when trying to visualize genius and increasing madness ) would have tackled the subject - say, Oliver Stone in high form (talk about someone with a gift for paranoia) or Guillelmo del Torro. Mostly, though you see Bobby Fischer through other people's pov, which allows the movie the balance of pity and being appalled; which is why scenes like the phonecall between Bobby and his sister Joan or Bobby and William Lombardy (Peter Saarskard), the former chess whiz gone Catholic priest who is is coach, who talks Bobby down from another outburst by them talking solely in chess moves, are both necessary and truly effective in selling you on the pity part of the equation. The difference between this and movies following the "jerk genius behaves appalingly to people around him who put up with it because he's just that good" is that the movie quite early on makes clear this isn't merely excentric behavior on the part of the wunderkind but signs of mental illness, which goes untreated and thus escalates. (When Joan asks the lawyer/agent to get her brother treatment she's basically told that a) everything is under control, and b) it would spoil his genius, and who's going to defeat the Russians then?)

By coincidence, the judge of the Spassky-Fischer tournament in Iceland, Lothar Schmidt, was a well known citizen in my hometown, Bamberg. He was a former grandmaster himself but earned his living by publishing Karl May, which his son Bernard does now, and Bernard Schmidt actually met Bobby Fischer, though not in Iceland. (He was deemed too young to go with his father at the time which was v.v. frustrating, because his older brother was allowed to come along and thus witnessed the "match of the century".) Fischer spent a short time hiding in Franconia in the 1990s, courtesy of Lothar Schmidt, which was when Bernard Schmidt met him, so of course I asked about his impression of portrayal versus reality. He deemed it pretty accurate to what he recalls of the man, though he added with a smile that while his father is showing to speak fluent Russian in the movie, he really couldn't in rl, but hey.

As for myself: I wouldn't call the movie a must, but I thought it did interesting things within the biopic formula and also wasn't afraid to depict its main character without prettifying/editing out/glorifying his dark side, in lack of a better term.
selenak: (Old School by Khalls_stuff)
( Nov. 20th, 2016 11:13 am)
I think by now I'm in love with this spin-off. Pulling off a bottle show this early in the game with flying colours - go team!

Read more... )
While searching for something completely different, found this link again in an old post. Hillary Clinton in the spring of 2009, responding to a question (in the House) about the role of U.S. government supporting access to safe abortion, contraception, maternal health care and education abroad with a vigorous defense of reproductive rights and family planning.

This is why "just as bad/no difference/no one knew what she was standing for/didn't do anything for others in her time of office" talk still makes me so furious.
selenak: (Bilbo Baggins)
( Nov. 19th, 2016 04:45 pm)
You may or may not know that Obama, on his farewell tour, was in Germany on Thursday and Friday. What struck me (again) was the difference in reporting in English speaking and German media, to wit:

NY Times, New Yorker (and Guardian in Britain): Obama hails Merkel as his closest international ally in these last eight years, basically hands over job as leader of the free world because nominal successor not up to job.

German media: Obama compliments Merkel with nice lie, grossly overestimates power of embattled German chancellor (again).

Seriously though, all this "last remamaining champion of the free world" stuff got a resounding "Um..." over here, or at best "that's it, the US hasn't just voted T into office but decided for Merkel whether or not she'll run for a fourth term". Which, btw, Angela Merkel officially hasn't confirmed yet. The bitter irony is that in almost all other circumstances, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't. Four terms are too many, no matter whether you're good or bad at the job. And Angela Merkel, of all the people, has good reason to remember that even Helmut Kohl, once upon a time seemingly untouchable conservative chancellor, got to the point where people were heartily sick of him (and ultimately voted him out of office); she was the first conservative cabinet member to go up against him, that's how she first came to national attention (and Kohl never forgave her for it). Not to mention that her fellow conservatives have just spent a year relentlessly attacking her in a manner unheard of in post war German history as far as members of the CDU/CSU coalition and a sitting chancellor were concerned. Yes, then CSU head Strauß also bitched about and attacked CDU ruler Helmut Kohl, but not in public once Kohl was in office. Strauß flirted with a break of the coalition at one point, and then drew back, because he knew something that's still true - if the CSU breaks away from the CDU for good, and competes on a national German level, they'll never get their absolute majority in Bavaria again and they're just too used to that fiefdom to relinquish it. What Strauß did NOT do to Kohl, no matter how much he was convinced that he'd have been the better conservative chancellor, was what the current CSU boss, Seehofer, did to Angela Merkel last year at the annual big CSU convention. He made her listen on stage with him for a 15 minutes "the reason you suck" attack speech addressed to her (re: refugee crisis and Merkel's support for Syrian refugees), in front of a live audience of thousands plus a tv audience of millions. (This year's CSU convention didn't even invite her, because Seehofer now has the problem that he's whipped up Merkel hatred to the nth degree in his party, yet now has to sell her as the Chancellor candidate to back in next year's election.) With "friends" like these, you certainly don't need enemies. It made the "most powerful woman of Europe" accolades from US papers look a bit hollow. (Not to mention that this whole idea of Angela Merkel running Europe ignores that if she was, the rest of the EU would have accepted a refugee quota according to each country's means instead of refusing, after which Merkel made her Faustian deal with Erdogan instead.)

So given all of that, you can see why it's by no means certain Merkel would run again...or wasn't until the US elections. Because now you have the situation looking like: Britain out of commission for anything constructive, France with the even more emboldened spectre of Marine Le Pen on the horizon, Poland and Hungary compete as to who's getting rid of more civil rights in a EU member country first...and across the ocean, there's President Agent Orange. I've never voted for Angela Merkel (I'm not a conservative), but I don't doubt that she has a deep distaste for chaos and disorder, and what's often called a Protestant sense of duty. (As our papers occasionally point out, we currently have a Protestant clergyman as head of state - President Gauck - and a Protestant clergyman's daughter as head of government - Chancellor Merkel, and she got quite Lutherian in the "Hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders" - "here I stand and can do no other" - in the last year.) There isn't anyone the two conservative parties could run as chancellor instead of her (for all his ego, Seehofer hasn't forgotten what happened to the two Bavarians who did run for Chancellor, Strauß and Stoiber - they were soundly defeated, because one of the unwritten rules of post war German history seems to be that no one will ever vote for a Bavarian outside Bavaria). And while a Left-Left-Green coalition (meaning a coalition of the SPD, which is currently ruling together with the CDU and CSU, the Greens and Die Linke) could then succeed in winning a national election next year, I suspect Merkel has enough party loyalty (despite all the bashings) to wish this to happen. So she'll probably run again, yes. But will she win? I'm not sure. The T factor might affect the election either way - strengthening the radical right, or motivating moderate voters seeing her as the last stable element in world politics.

Trivia: Something else Merkel has an instinctive distaste for, btw, as our papers noted in their retrospective of the Obama & Merkel relationship, are charismatic saviour figures drawing huge crowds. (And yes, it's a historical thing.) It made her a bit cool at the start re: Obama until, as her advisors noted, they actually met and it turned out that in person Obama was the cerebral distant type (which she also is), not the huggy, chummy, backslapping type that Dubya was. Given that at the time she also had to deal with Berlusconi in Italy and Sarkozy in France, it must have made quite the "at last, another adult!" sensation. And of course she got on famously with Hillary Clinton from the get go for just that reason. Then there was the NSA interlude, which made the nation cool off Obama in a hurry, but not Merkel, who made a token protest and sent the CIA chief in Germany packing but then went back to business as usual while the rest of the nation still seethed. And in the last two years, I can well believe the two got to regard each other as beacons of sanity in an increasingly mad world.

The British writer Robert Harris wondered whether Obama's "closest international ally" phrase was a snub of Cameron, and honestly, I don't think so, not least because I doubt Obama bothers much with thinking about Cameron one way or the other these days, not with the presidency of T on the horizon. Aside from wanting to be nice to Angela M on his farewell visit, I can't imagine another motivation than it being the truth as he sees it. And well, the "special relationship" seems to have been existing mostly in the head of British PMs for a good while now anyway.

Though it did occur to me that Angela Merkel might be following a very British precedent, because I can imagine her saying "Adventures, nasty things" as Bilbo does at the start of The Hobbit. Conservative person to the point of complacency, determinedly unglamorous, suddenly whisked out of her comfort zone and forced to step up in a world where the big folk around her fail? Tolkien help us, Merkel is a hobbit. (I should have known when that guy whom Edogan promptly sued proved that Erdogan = Gollum.)

Lastly, on a non-German note, re: the American past and future, and Drumpf as well as various minions apparantly regarding the US interning Japanese-Americans as the sole Roosevelt policy they want to emulate:

George Takei: They interned my family. Don't let them do it to Muslims.
selenak: (Arthur by Voi)
( Nov. 17th, 2016 05:24 pm)
Watched this on Netflix, because Zombies seemed like a good alterntive to news featuring the horror clown. (TM our tabloids. For once, I like a phrase they coined.) Also because I heard good things from this effort by Rob Thomas, he who produced Veronica Mars.

So, my impressions: there are some VM parallels - our heroine transformed, in backstory revealed in pilot, from popular member of (her) society with bright future ahead into misfit due to traumatic event. Her new existence at the periphery/the underbelly gives her a new perspective and a snarky attitude. She's broken up with her earlier love but he's not gone from her life completely, and in the course of the pilot, she bonds with new allies. And of course, there's the case of the week format with an ongoing narrative arc underneath. Only where Veronica Mars went for noir tropes and structures, IZombie uses that of a procedural.

This being said, iZombie stands on its own legs, so to speak. It quickly establishes its core ensemble of characters, and uses the zombie Macguffin in an inventive way to justify the "solves murder of the week" format - turns out consuming someone's brain gives you some of the deceased person's memories and personality traits, until you move on to the next brain. Liv taking a job at the morgue to have access to the brains of the deceased solves her personal nourishment problem, but the show makes the obvious next question - what about zombies who don't have that possibility to get at brains from already dead people? - trigger for the long term arc and etablishing of our seasonal antagonist, Blaine, played by David Anders enjoying himself as an amoral villain with great capitalist gifts - creating a market takes on a new meaning with him. Getting a bit more spoilery about that. )

(Speaking of actors I know from other shows, there's also Bradley James, aka Arthur from Merlin, as Lowell Tracey, British guitarist/singer and temporary alternate love interest of our heroine. I'm usually touchy re: the treatment alternate love interests get when it's obvious from the start they're not meant to be end game but a temporary distraction for our central character, but "who will Liv choose?" Is actually not a question the show asks (at least in season 1 it doesn't), and I thought it played fair by Lowell, making him into a character, not just a plot device. Also Bradley James is pretty charming as Not!Arthur.)

Liv, our heroine, who gets jolted out of her post-zombiefication malaise in the pilot when she realises she can use this dreadful thing that happened to her in constructive ways that give her hope, makes for an endearing central character, though I have to say I didn't really buy the plot's justification for her withholding crucial information from her former fiance after a certain point. That the show itself lampshaded this by letting Ravi, Liv's boss at the morgue and bff throughout, raise all the good arguments why she should share, didn't help. Like I said, I didn't really buy her counter argument, though to its credit, her emotional state in that particular scene WAS believable.

Ravi (her boss at the morgue) and Clive (the cop whom she becomes a crime-solving duo with) are both poc, and develop a delightful raport with Liv, which hits my soft spot for male & female friendship. Yes, they're male, if you're keeping score, and if there's a nitpick, then it's that Liv's sole female friend, her roommate Peyton, in the first season at least doesn't get nearly as much presence and personality as either. But of course that could change in later seasons; as a district attorney, the show can use her more in the crimes of the week than it did here.

Major, Liv's ex whom she broke up solely due to zombiefication pre pilot, is almost too good to be true (sense of humor, social worker who cares passionately, hunk) but gets put through the wringer in the course of the season as he tries to find out what happened to some of the kids he attempted to help. What eventually happens is another case of "well, I saw that coming, but the denouement afterwards elevates it to "well played, show, well played".

In conclusion: witty dialogue, morbid humor (obviously), yet also treats its dead as people not canon fodder. Excellent distraction, if you're in need. The first season had 13 episodes.
Useful tips of what you you can do in the Age of Orange, hilariously expressed to boot: Holy Fuck The Election.

And pointed out to me which is why I share it with you, a post- season 5 Alias story, featuring Arvin Sloane and Jack Bristow: very little changes.

The first generation spies in their terse, messed up glory. Incidentally, I can't for the life of me imagine Jack Bristow working for a CIA ultimately ruled by Drumpf. He'd have joined forces (for real) with Sloane to have an assassination plan ready two seconds after Hillary conceded. Sloane, being an evil overlord, wouldn't object to T. on moral grounds but on professional and aesthetic ones. The sheer sloppiness and vulgarity would be too much. Besides, Rambaldi did not predict him, which means he needs to be eliminated.
selenak: (Holmes and Watson by Emme86)
( Nov. 15th, 2016 01:26 pm)
In which we get the return of Clyde, and Joan quoting Shakespeare.

Read more... )
selenak: (Old School by Khalls_stuff)
( Nov. 15th, 2016 09:06 am)
Didn't have the chance to watch this until know, since I was on the road until Sunday night. Unspoilery: in a reversal of the usual rule about two parters, this one had a second part better than the first, and I loved it.

Read more... )
I must get into a better mindset, or I'll end up snapping at everyone on the internet because this year's awfulness has rubbed me raw by now. Also, I'm stuck on a train for six more hours. Therefore, meme. Give me a character from one of my fandoms, and I'll tell you (if I can, because there are characters on which I have no opinions whatsoever):

First impression
Impression now
Favorite moment
Idea for a story
Unpopular opinion
Favorite relationship
Favorite headcanon
I also thought that "Hallelujah" was played out for at least a decade. Wrong on both counts.

Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton sings Hallelujah

Because the horror of what Drumpf's ascendancy means to all of us is so great, I haven't really processed yet the "sadness for Hillary" part of my emotional spectrum, which is there, not least while not always agreeing with her, I've liked HRC since the very first Clinton campaign and "two for the price of one". I wasn't just rooting for Not Trump, I was rooting for her, specifically.
At least it is to me. When not working and/or raging, I've spent the last few days trying to distract myself by reading other people's yuletide requests, and checking out my fandoms for new stories. Or rereading old favourites. Fiction makes so much more sense than reality now...


Black Sails:

The Sea Cook: hilarious fusion with the Harry Potter verse, set during the Treasure Island era the show will presumably not reach (or only in an epilogue). Remember that Silver in Treasure Island has a parrot he's nicknamed "Captain Flint"? Well, as it turns out Flint is an animagus...

Two Masks: whereas this one is an angsty, intense look at Miranda and James early on in their exile on Nassau.

Watership Down:

The Story of Marli-Hrair and the Black Rabbit of Inlé: I probably recced this already in the past, but it's so worth rereading - or reading the first time! A fantatic addition to rabbit mythology, just beautiful.


selenak: (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags