Fannish Opinions: Answers
Jun. 18th, 2006 06:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakAsked by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
karabair:
You're putting on the Shakespeare production of your choice. Which characters (not actors) from any of your TV/movie fandoms should play the major roles, and how well would the production come off?
Mmmm, bearing in mind that characters played by brilliant actors aren't necessarily good or even passable actors themselves (see, for example, Jean-Luc Picard), I propose the following.
The play: Macbeth.
Directed by: Arvin Sloane. (Naturally. He has a director's eye for talent and organizational skills to keep everyone in line.)
MacBeth: Rupert Giles (his old pal Ethan pointed out that if Rupert can do the mild-mannered librarian act, he can, well, act, plus Giles is qualified for the swordfights. Revelation about why Arvin doesn't cast Jack as MacBeth to come.)
Lady MacBeth: Irina Derevko. (She's got the talent, the usual situation where you have either a strong M and a weak Lady M or vice versa is avoided, and she's not at all averse to snogging Giles, without this distracting him in the way it would distract Jack.)
Banquo: Daniel Holtz. (There isn't a huge range required, but Holtz, who has great presence and secretely always wanted to do Shakespare, is believable as MacBeth's war buddy and fantastic as the spectre.)
MacDuff: Jack Bristow. (Jack originally refused but then realized he needed to keep an eye on Arvin and Irina. His protectiveness and ability to glare and project both major trauma by loss and lethal anger in a subtle way make him a natural for this role, and Irina practicing her role with Giles gives him additional incentive for the final duel.)
Lady MacDuff: Sydney Bristow. (This was Sloane's idea. Who else gets this kind of ideas? See also whose idea Sydney playing her mother in Mirage was. Seriously, Syd can act, and go from "that double-talking bastard, my husband, I'll never forgive him" to "I love my husband, how dare you?" in no time. And she's heartrendering when her kids are killed.)
Duncan: Mayor Richard Wilkins. As a politician, he can do speeches, and he's got the whole benevolent thing down pat.
The Witches: Sloane is going for the maiden, mother, crone approach like Trevor Nunn. Dawn Summers (very enthusiastic participant), Lilah Morgan (lawyer, hence good memory), Livia Drusilla (of I, Claudius; the Empress deigns to be in it because it amuses her and because it gives her the chance to match wits twith the director).
Malcolm: Wesley Wyndham-Pryce. (Wesley insisted he needed to be there to keep an eye on Lilah. In reality, though, he's there because he secretely always wanted to play a relf-righteous git who wins the day while everyone else goes through the angst and loss.)
As for how this production works out: It's an Arvin Sloane production, so naturally the premiere goes of splendidly, and then the cast and the director backstab and seduce each other in a way that makes the onstage drama look pale. Rumours of a Derevko/Giles offspring are never denied. Sloane is still busy blackmailing the police into silence about those dead bodies looking a bit too real when Malcom and Banquo got at it.
Asked byhonorh
What are your thoughts on the Doctor/Rose kiss at the end of New Who S1?
Firstly, that it was really a Doctor/TARDIS kiss. *g* No, seriously, it worked for me and in part because the entity who said "my doctor" and whom he was kissing was a mixture of Rose and the TARDIS, with emphasis on the TARDIS. Doctor/TARDIS OTP! (Companions come and go, but the blue box is forever.) That said, I also think it's an expression of the Doctor's love for Rose, just not in the strictly romantic sense Rose would take it as if she could remember. To say more would get into s2/s28 territory.
Fromlizamanynames:
Compare and contrast the messianic qualities of John Sheridan and John Crichton.
The odd thing is, despite John Sheridan getting some pointed Messiah elements, such as the resurrection from the dead and the Judas betrayal in s4 and the ascension at the very end of the show, I don't think he has any, because the Messiah role is also given to several other characters on Babylon 5. G'Kar gets great parts of the Passion - flogging, carrying his cross, crown of thorns - though he refuses to play out the Messiah role to the finish by essentially withdrawing from his people once he has delivered his message. (And a good thing for G'Kar, too, I think, because if he had continued to refuse to lead, they'd have crucified him.) Jeff Sinclair, who gets the cruxificion imagery as early as the flashbacks in "And the Sky Full of Stars" ultimately does fully become a Messiah, giving up his entire existence to save the people who crucified him by becoming Valen, but he has to shed the conventional hero qualities first. (Sinclair in his last appearance in War Without End is a far cry from Sinclair at the start of the show. He also has the gravitas and, for lack of a better term, transcendant aura necessary for a messianic figure. (Then there is the irony of Londo, the least likely Messiah figure of them all, ending up as the one hanging on the cross for the people for a looooooong Good Friday, which if you think about it is prefigured in s1's "Voices from the Wilderness", because the three people the Great Machine picks up as capable of that kind of self sacrifice on all of B5 are: Draal, Sinclair... and Londo Mollari. Draal in the Machine is also a crucifixion image.) I think what it comes down to is that John Sheridan is the hero figure in an epic, not in a tragedy, and though he goes through a lot on B5 and does change never changes as much as the others: he remains a down-to-earth American hero (nothing wrong with that, and it probably saves him from ever becoming a dictator, it's just not what I'd call messianic), Ironically Delenn, while being more tied with Joan-of-Arc imagery (calling to a crusade in the past, downfall in parts through hubris, burning in the flames before Neroon sustitutes for her), has the messianicl aura John Sheridan lacks, and she also has experienced the darker side of this quality.
Meanwhile, John Crichton starts his narrative, which is far more centred on him than B5 is on Sheridan (Sheridan might be the leading man of Babylon 5, but he's not the central character, and his plot thread is just one of several, an important distinction), as a type of All American Boy (not hero - early John is too more like a naive Parsifal looking in bewilderment while everyone else does the physical stuff), but rapidly gets broken and transformed in a way John Sheridan never does. There is basically no torture or rape variation Farscape doesn't put John Crichton through, and he doesn't come out of it soldiering on with a stiff upper lip, but more than half mad. If he has a messianic quality, it is that kind of madness through suffering. (Which sometimes also inspires people, like the Moyans at the end of s3, for example, to go along with his crazy suicidal plans for the greater good if they'd much rather be safe.) Otherwise, he firmly rejects the Messiah role, and there are a lot of people trying to press him into it, from the Ancients to Scorpius to basically everyone near the end of The Peacekeeper Wars - which is when he finally gives in and performs the great miracle, and it nearly kills him. If Farscape were the kind of show Babylon 5 is, it would have killed him, because that is the kind of price becoming God, even for a moment, demands if you're mortal, but Farscape and Babylon 5 are diametrical opposites. (Not either one and Star Trek, as the media would have it.) B5 is meticulously planned out arcs, FS is wild improvisation and anarchy, and they're each best in those departments. And it suits the anarchic spirit better that John does stay alive.
Fromcallmesandy:
I've now finished watching all five season of Babylon 5 - so I can finally appreciate Londo and G'kar. So, I don't know whether you watched B5 as it aired or later, but did you find knowing how Londo and G'kar would end from that time traveling Sheridan episode made watching the fall less enjoyable? More depressing?
Actually, no, the contrary. I watched it as it first aired, and until War Without End (the time travelling episode), I assumed, along with Londo and every watcher, that Londo's vision of his death which we heard about from the very first episode onwards and started seeing in s2, would mean he and G'Kar would kill each other in an act of final hatred. You can't imagine just how deep my jaw dropped when Londo said "are you here, my old friend?" and G'Kar replied "yes". When it was revealed Londo would ask G'Kar to kill him, that they'd be friends at this point, and that Londo's death would be a final attempt to save his people rather than an act of vengeance. Remember, Londo's fall had been played out throughout the last two seasons at this point, so this meant that he would find redemption. AND of course it meant that I wanted to know how on earth Londo and G'Kar would get from their previous encounter - which had been the mind rape from Dust to Dust to "my old friend".
Naturally, I found the idea of Londo having to live with a keeper horrifying, and I remember that at the time, I hoped this part would be changed or turn out to be thwarted, much like the destruction of the station as reported by a young Ivanova in the broadcasts at the start of the two-parter was. But at the same time, I could see the tragic symmetry of such a fate, should it come true, and like I said - I was so electrified that my need to find out how Londo and G'Kar would get there outweighed my horror of Londo's fate.
And now I'm off to London!
karabair: You're putting on the Shakespeare production of your choice. Which characters (not actors) from any of your TV/movie fandoms should play the major roles, and how well would the production come off?
Mmmm, bearing in mind that characters played by brilliant actors aren't necessarily good or even passable actors themselves (see, for example, Jean-Luc Picard), I propose the following.
The play: Macbeth.
Directed by: Arvin Sloane. (Naturally. He has a director's eye for talent and organizational skills to keep everyone in line.)
MacBeth: Rupert Giles (his old pal Ethan pointed out that if Rupert can do the mild-mannered librarian act, he can, well, act, plus Giles is qualified for the swordfights. Revelation about why Arvin doesn't cast Jack as MacBeth to come.)
Lady MacBeth: Irina Derevko. (She's got the talent, the usual situation where you have either a strong M and a weak Lady M or vice versa is avoided, and she's not at all averse to snogging Giles, without this distracting him in the way it would distract Jack.)
Banquo: Daniel Holtz. (There isn't a huge range required, but Holtz, who has great presence and secretely always wanted to do Shakespare, is believable as MacBeth's war buddy and fantastic as the spectre.)
MacDuff: Jack Bristow. (Jack originally refused but then realized he needed to keep an eye on Arvin and Irina. His protectiveness and ability to glare and project both major trauma by loss and lethal anger in a subtle way make him a natural for this role, and Irina practicing her role with Giles gives him additional incentive for the final duel.)
Lady MacDuff: Sydney Bristow. (This was Sloane's idea. Who else gets this kind of ideas? See also whose idea Sydney playing her mother in Mirage was. Seriously, Syd can act, and go from "that double-talking bastard, my husband, I'll never forgive him" to "I love my husband, how dare you?" in no time. And she's heartrendering when her kids are killed.)
Duncan: Mayor Richard Wilkins. As a politician, he can do speeches, and he's got the whole benevolent thing down pat.
The Witches: Sloane is going for the maiden, mother, crone approach like Trevor Nunn. Dawn Summers (very enthusiastic participant), Lilah Morgan (lawyer, hence good memory), Livia Drusilla (of I, Claudius; the Empress deigns to be in it because it amuses her and because it gives her the chance to match wits twith the director).
Malcolm: Wesley Wyndham-Pryce. (Wesley insisted he needed to be there to keep an eye on Lilah. In reality, though, he's there because he secretely always wanted to play a relf-righteous git who wins the day while everyone else goes through the angst and loss.)
As for how this production works out: It's an Arvin Sloane production, so naturally the premiere goes of splendidly, and then the cast and the director backstab and seduce each other in a way that makes the onstage drama look pale. Rumours of a Derevko/Giles offspring are never denied. Sloane is still busy blackmailing the police into silence about those dead bodies looking a bit too real when Malcom and Banquo got at it.
Asked by
honorhWhat are your thoughts on the Doctor/Rose kiss at the end of New Who S1?
Firstly, that it was really a Doctor/TARDIS kiss. *g* No, seriously, it worked for me and in part because the entity who said "my doctor" and whom he was kissing was a mixture of Rose and the TARDIS, with emphasis on the TARDIS. Doctor/TARDIS OTP! (Companions come and go, but the blue box is forever.) That said, I also think it's an expression of the Doctor's love for Rose, just not in the strictly romantic sense Rose would take it as if she could remember. To say more would get into s2/s28 territory.
From
lizamanynames: Compare and contrast the messianic qualities of John Sheridan and John Crichton.
The odd thing is, despite John Sheridan getting some pointed Messiah elements, such as the resurrection from the dead and the Judas betrayal in s4 and the ascension at the very end of the show, I don't think he has any, because the Messiah role is also given to several other characters on Babylon 5. G'Kar gets great parts of the Passion - flogging, carrying his cross, crown of thorns - though he refuses to play out the Messiah role to the finish by essentially withdrawing from his people once he has delivered his message. (And a good thing for G'Kar, too, I think, because if he had continued to refuse to lead, they'd have crucified him.) Jeff Sinclair, who gets the cruxificion imagery as early as the flashbacks in "And the Sky Full of Stars" ultimately does fully become a Messiah, giving up his entire existence to save the people who crucified him by becoming Valen, but he has to shed the conventional hero qualities first. (Sinclair in his last appearance in War Without End is a far cry from Sinclair at the start of the show. He also has the gravitas and, for lack of a better term, transcendant aura necessary for a messianic figure. (Then there is the irony of Londo, the least likely Messiah figure of them all, ending up as the one hanging on the cross for the people for a looooooong Good Friday, which if you think about it is prefigured in s1's "Voices from the Wilderness", because the three people the Great Machine picks up as capable of that kind of self sacrifice on all of B5 are: Draal, Sinclair... and Londo Mollari. Draal in the Machine is also a crucifixion image.) I think what it comes down to is that John Sheridan is the hero figure in an epic, not in a tragedy, and though he goes through a lot on B5 and does change never changes as much as the others: he remains a down-to-earth American hero (nothing wrong with that, and it probably saves him from ever becoming a dictator, it's just not what I'd call messianic), Ironically Delenn, while being more tied with Joan-of-Arc imagery (calling to a crusade in the past, downfall in parts through hubris, burning in the flames before Neroon sustitutes for her), has the messianicl aura John Sheridan lacks, and she also has experienced the darker side of this quality.
Meanwhile, John Crichton starts his narrative, which is far more centred on him than B5 is on Sheridan (Sheridan might be the leading man of Babylon 5, but he's not the central character, and his plot thread is just one of several, an important distinction), as a type of All American Boy (not hero - early John is too more like a naive Parsifal looking in bewilderment while everyone else does the physical stuff), but rapidly gets broken and transformed in a way John Sheridan never does. There is basically no torture or rape variation Farscape doesn't put John Crichton through, and he doesn't come out of it soldiering on with a stiff upper lip, but more than half mad. If he has a messianic quality, it is that kind of madness through suffering. (Which sometimes also inspires people, like the Moyans at the end of s3, for example, to go along with his crazy suicidal plans for the greater good if they'd much rather be safe.) Otherwise, he firmly rejects the Messiah role, and there are a lot of people trying to press him into it, from the Ancients to Scorpius to basically everyone near the end of The Peacekeeper Wars - which is when he finally gives in and performs the great miracle, and it nearly kills him. If Farscape were the kind of show Babylon 5 is, it would have killed him, because that is the kind of price becoming God, even for a moment, demands if you're mortal, but Farscape and Babylon 5 are diametrical opposites. (Not either one and Star Trek, as the media would have it.) B5 is meticulously planned out arcs, FS is wild improvisation and anarchy, and they're each best in those departments. And it suits the anarchic spirit better that John does stay alive.
From
callmesandy: I've now finished watching all five season of Babylon 5 - so I can finally appreciate Londo and G'kar. So, I don't know whether you watched B5 as it aired or later, but did you find knowing how Londo and G'kar would end from that time traveling Sheridan episode made watching the fall less enjoyable? More depressing?
Actually, no, the contrary. I watched it as it first aired, and until War Without End (the time travelling episode), I assumed, along with Londo and every watcher, that Londo's vision of his death which we heard about from the very first episode onwards and started seeing in s2, would mean he and G'Kar would kill each other in an act of final hatred. You can't imagine just how deep my jaw dropped when Londo said "are you here, my old friend?" and G'Kar replied "yes". When it was revealed Londo would ask G'Kar to kill him, that they'd be friends at this point, and that Londo's death would be a final attempt to save his people rather than an act of vengeance. Remember, Londo's fall had been played out throughout the last two seasons at this point, so this meant that he would find redemption. AND of course it meant that I wanted to know how on earth Londo and G'Kar would get from their previous encounter - which had been the mind rape from Dust to Dust to "my old friend".
Naturally, I found the idea of Londo having to live with a keeper horrifying, and I remember that at the time, I hoped this part would be changed or turn out to be thwarted, much like the destruction of the station as reported by a young Ivanova in the broadcasts at the start of the two-parter was. But at the same time, I could see the tragic symmetry of such a fate, should it come true, and like I said - I was so electrified that my need to find out how Londo and G'Kar would get there outweighed my horror of Londo's fate.
And now I'm off to London!
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-18 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-18 06:28 am (UTC)JMS wrote a short story about Londo shortly after his inauguration which at least offers some comfort; if you're interested, well... let's just say I need your email address.*g*
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 05:25 pm (UTC)Heh! My email addy is callmesandy @ livejournal . com minus all the spaces. That would be very awesome and thank you!