Darth Real Life is after me again, keeping me busy. I hear the first episode of Capaldi!Doctor is going to be shown in cinemas the way the big anniversary episode was, and while Munich is bound to be among the cinemas in question, I shan't be there on the 28th of August; I'll be in Bamberg with the Aged Parents and thus confined to the small screen experience, alas.

Listing to all the Seventh Doctor audios recently put me in the mood for the Doctor and Ace again, and so I'm glad a commenter pointed me towards a fantastic story in which the Eleventh Doctor and Ace have an adventure together: Dragons of the Mind. It's based on tv canon only, uses the bit we hear about Ace and the other former Companions in a certain Sarah Jane Adventures episode and presents a plausible version of an older Ace, who is more mature but still very much herself.

Moving over to X-Men: The Consequence of Faith is a lovely exploration of just what may have motivated Mystique to perform a Logan-related action near the end of the movie, and touches on her relationship with Charles, always one of my favourite things about the prequels.

And lastly, not a fanfic, but it might as well be: The email Tom Hiddleston wrote to Joss Whedon upon first reading the Avengers script. Damm it, Hiddleston. You will not draw me into your cult, no matter how adorable and enthusiastic you are. It. will. not. work. I shall resist by thinking of how you are to blame for the Loki woobification. But damm, you're making it haaaaaard!

Joss Whedon and the Much Ado About Nothing cast answer questions about the film. There are jokes (there would be with the Usual Suspects involved), but also serious discussion. I think the first time I came across the "Beatrice and Benedick had a brief fling in the past which ended badly and that's what Beatrice's cryptic line to Don Pedro refers to" was in the PR materiall for the 70s BBC production, though it's probably older, but I haven't seen a production using that theory since then, so I'm intrigued Joss goes with it. (So that you don't have to brush up your Shakespeare, here's the exchange that caused said theory:


DON PEDRO
(to BEATRICE) Lady, you have lost Signior Benedick’s heart.


BEATRICE
It’s true, my lord. He lent it to me once, and I paid him back with interest: a double heart for his single one. Really, he won it from me once before in a dishonest game of dice. So I suppose your grace can truly say that I have lost it.


Also, good point about Margaret and Borraccio.

*****

The Long Game is probably my least favourite episode of the first New Who season. (It's also my evidence a when people assume that if Christopher Ecclestone had agreed to more than one season, the Nine/Rose relationship would have developed differently - read: less cliquey - than the Ten/Rose did. Leaving aside the obvious Doylist rejoinder about the same writers involved either way, my Watsonian would be: Oh no, it wouldn't have, see: The Long Game.) However, I found this essay about it absolutely fascinating. Both for the background info - I didn't know it was based on a script the young RTD had presented in the 1980s to Andrew Cartmel! This means it was originally a story featuring the Seventh Doctor and Ace! - and for the analysis, which manages that incredible rarity in current DW fandom:

1) It's critical without ever devolving into attack and hyperbole.

2) It analyzes an RTD era (and RTD written) episode without even once mentioning Stephen Moffat, either in a positive manner ( a la "....but how much better the Moff did such and such") or in a negative manner (a la "...since then, we have experienced the likes of Moffat misdeed #11333"). Since the complete inability of a great many fans to talk about one era/writer without slamming the other is something that regularly drives me crazy, I value and appreciate it all the more.

3.) It does something I've otherwise only seen zahrawithaz do in Merlin fandom: take a weaker episode and analyze what works and what doesn't in a way that also analyzes larger narratives of which this particular episode is a part of.

In conclusion, very much worth reading.

Clark Gregg, aka Phil Coulson ("his first name is Agent!", as Tony Stark would say), who also acts in the Joss directed Much Ado About Nothing (he's Leonato, I think), was recently interviewed and had this priceless exchange:

Q: So having done Much Ado About Nothing as well, are you now officially part of Joss Whedon’s recurring troupe of actors?

A: I don’t know. You know, we had a nice date, I hope I end up in a relationship with him.


Breaking Bad:

Exit Music : a great summing up of Walter's character arc through four and a half seasons.

Battlestar Galactica:

Whistling Past The Graveyards : Ellen and Saul Tigh on New Caprica.

Babylon 5:

If you've been in B5 fandom for a while, and definitely if you're into Centauri and Narn, you're probably familiar with the tale of how JMS wrote a prank script for Andreas Katsulas and Peter Juraskik in which G'Kar and Londo do the horizontal. Well, my glee knows no bounds because now it's online. (Before anyone says something, yes, that line about women being more forgiving is groan worthy, but hey, it was a prank script, not meant to be filmed.)

You might have heard a bit of news that gave me a thrill: the tv series Marvel comissioned from Joss which I was resolved not to believe in until it's actually there starts to look more real by the day, since we now know it's going to be a S.H.I.E.L.D. series. In other words, samdonne, it's going to be the Nick Fury's People show you longed for after watching The Avengers.

There are no news yet as to which comicverse characters are going to be in it, which is why everyone is speculating. Personally, I'm hoping for my beloved Abigail Brand because Joss created her the last time he was in charge of a Marvel property, and since S.W.O.R.D. doesn't exist yet in the movieverse she has to get her early training somewhwere, doesn't she? I'm also hoping for Maria Hill, of course, though since I hear the actress has other obligations he might have to recast. Natasha sadly is out of the question given she's a hot movie property, and my guess is Marvel will want to keep Sharon Cartner for the Captain America films. But what about Mockingbird?


Here is a Joss interview about all things Marvel, in which he also gives a rare non-joking reply as to his thoughts about now having directed the third most successful blockbuster of all time:

I don't think it's a perfect movie. I don't even think it's a great movie. I think it's a great time, and I'm proud of it, but for me, what was exciting is that people don't go to see a movie that many times unless it's pulling on something from within, unless there's a need there. That's very gratifying.

Now whether like me you loved that movie to bits and watched it multiple times and still can't wait for the dvd or whether you feel the other extreme, that is an excellent definition.

Still Whedon-related, on the question as to whether Buffy should have ended with The Gift or with Chosen, I'm firmly on the Chosen side, and this wonderful meta details why.

****

Another meta link: Why Doctor Who and ST: TNG can be friends. I wasn't aware there is a section of thought who thinks they couldn't. But then, I'm coming to the fandoms from the exact opposite corner than the poster, in that I was a Star Trek fan first (and specifically a TNG and DS9 fan) and only discoverd DW years and years later. (Also I like the Seven era better than she does.) Anyway, these are good and charming observations on both shows.

*****

By contrast, here's something vile. Not the actual post but what it collects to make a (gruesome) point. If you think the Skyler hate on tumblr is bad, apparantly it's even worse on twitter and facebook. Major, major trigger warning for rape and violence, not in the show but in the fannish reaction, but reading this collection of twitter and facebook posts - from this season, not from the start of the show, to make that clear - makes me seriously wonder whether Breaking Bad sets some sort of record of being the best show with the worst (vocal) fans. The introduction gives some spoilers for the first four seasons to create context. Just to get the horrible taste out of my mouth, I'm rewatching the epic Skyler-Walt confrontation scene from 51 now. (Aka why Anna Gunn should join Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul as an Emmy winner.) SPOILER for BB, season 5, obviously. (I'd link but then you'd end up with the YouTube comments, which are, again, vile.)

I blame naraht and some other people for this, I'll have you know. Also, the following is written with affection for all parties involved, so kindly avoid bashing any of the showrunners in question in your comments. (Making fun of same, otoh, is part of the purpose of this little exercise.)

So, recent conversations with naraht caused me me to wonder how various tv writers would handle biopics dealing with anyone from the i>Beatles and their circle - whom they'd pick, how they'd narrate the subject, what they would emphasize, and so forth. Here are my highly scientific conclusions.

1.) Russel T. Davies: writes the long overdue Brian Epstein biopic. In which there's unrequited and/or uneven m/m love several times over (Brian loves John Lennon more than John loves him, but on the other hand, Peter Brown loves Brian far more than Brian loves him), and various intense sex scenes, but the emotional core relationship is the platonic one between Brian Epstein and singer Alma Cogan. (Who also has a brief fling with John Lennon.) This causes part of the fandom to accuse RTD of selling out to the heteronormative majority and being a secret self loathing homophobe while also being a character torturing sadist, and that's before Brian actually dies in the third episode of the miniseries. To everyone's surprise, the breakout 'ship of the miniseries is neither Brian/John nor Brian/Alma, though both have their followers, but Brian/Peter.

2.) Stephen Moffat: writes The Ballad of Yoko and John, also a three parter, centered around Yoko Ono, narrated in a non-linear flashion with flashbacks and flash forwards. At first, there is much delight at his depiction of Yoko Ono as a strong, morally ambiguous (i.e. neither saint nor demon) and charismatic woman not taking crap from anyone (though this also causes hostility and accusations of smugness in another part of the fandom), but later on part of the initial hooray fades as accusations are raised that Yoko is just too obsessed with John and seems to have no life unrelated to him. Also, the fact that the subplot about the abduction of Yoko's daughter Kyoko by her second husband after a strong start has no emotional follow up whatsoever until Kyoko shows up again in the last flash forward after John's death comes in for strong criticism while the May Pang subplot (i.e. Yoko setting her up as a sexual babysitter John's mistress, then getting rid of her again) gets Moffat accused of vile sexism and the ruination of a strong female character.

3.) Joss Whedon: tackles the Beatles themselves. At first, there is much delight in fandom as it seems a perfect match - the one liners and quips fly, so do the puns, the somewhat dysfunctional family is formed, and as opposed to every other pic, this one actually uses the songs to convey something characterisation relevant. Then as relationships between our gang turn increasingly messed up, alienated and sour while romances end in tears and lovable sidekicks like Mal Evans are killed off, fandom concludes Joss is up to his old tricks. The man just can't stand permanent happiness, I tell you. The death of Brian Epstein in rude service of the plot to drive the Beatles apart loses him part of his following in the gay comunity, and the way he acts out his parent issues by not allowing anyone a complete set of nice parents (other than George, and his hardly show up!), even adding evil authority figures like manager Allen Klein (totally stereotype!) is seen as typical Whedonism.

4.) Ronald D. Moore: Ron Moore laughs at biopics or bio-miniseries and goes for a re-imagining of Yellow Submarine as a gritty war story tv series instead. The Blue Meanies are there. And they have a plan. As well as plenty of sex with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band while torching Pepperland. At first, this is greeted with much applause especially among people who considered the original film as way too cloying and cheesy, but they turn against Ron when it's increasingly obvious that the Walrus is behind everything and the Head!Eggmen are real.

Feel free to add your opinion on other showrunners and their Beatles related unfilmed oeuvres.

A whole bunch of them, courtesy of your train travelling blogger who despite loving to travel at this point just wants to rest for the weekend with some nice things to read and watch.

The Avengers:

Joss Whedon interview about directing The Avengers. Some key aspects that stood out for me: 1.) talking about working with established characters (and actors). See, one of the reasons why I'm optimistic about The Avengers is that the last time Joss worked with established characters (plus a few self created ocs who then went on to become established Marvel characters other writers used as well), in a universe he didn't create and where he was limited in the storytelling choices, it resulted in the fabulous Astonishing X-Men. Basically, having editors is good for him.:)

2.) I wasn't surprised most of the questions were about Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. My favourite Joss reply relates to the oeuvre mentioned above, for when asked how he wrote a straightforward, non-edgy hero like Cap, and wasn't that untypical for him, he said:

I love a straightforward character. I am the guy who loves Cyclops on the 'X-Men', because he is square. [Captain America] is a little square, and he is aware that he is a little square, and he is aware that the world is a beat ahead of him, or in his case, 70 beats. I think that's very disarming and very charming. I relate to that guy.

(Reminds me that the last time I really really liked Scott was when Joss wrote him, btw; the successors went too far in the dark!Cyclops direction though I haven't read X-Men comics for a while, and maybe that has changed again.)

3.) Now, if you've watched more than one Whedon oeuvre, you might be famliar with something of a recurring Joss motif, and no, not the daddy issues, though it's a bit related. It's his distrust of organizations and "the man", and yet awareness that if you're long enough successful as a rebel, you become the man, you do have that responsibility. Guess what he brings up about Nick Fury?

Well, he is not going to be talking about his childhood, and you do want to keep a certain mystery. Also -- and this is something that I was very pleased that Marvel actually mandated -- they were very interested in keeping him, not just in the sort of a mystery of how the organization operates, but a real moral gray area where you really have to decide, "Is Nick Fury the most manipulative guy in the world? Is he a good guy? Is he completely Machiavellian or is it a bit of both?" And that was really fun to tweak. I felt that in the other movies, they had been cameos and he had been called upon to come in and be Sam Jackson and bluster a little bit. And I told Sam upfront that my big agenda was to see the weight on someone who is supposed to be in control of the most powerful beings on the planet. The weight on somebody who has to run the organization and the gravity of it.



Sanctuary:

Now that I've clocked three seasons, I feel reasonably safe to watch vids without getting spoiled, so imagine my delight when penknife recently posted this one:

My Freeze Ray, which is Nikola Tesla and Helen Magnus to the tune of Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible. (Here's your elegant connection of subjects.) The lyrics fit scarily well. :)

Doctor Who:

The Christmas Special Trailer. It's titled The Doctor, The Widow And the Wardrobe, and apparantly after having a go at Dickens last year, Moffat now takes on C.S. Lewis and Narnia. (Incidentally, I think the TARDIS-as-Wardrobe comparison must show up in a thousand metas through the decades.) I am simultanously intrigued and slightly scared, because on the one hand, the Moff is good with children, on the other, there is much potential for fail given the meeting of the questionable subtexts that could occur, and I'd rather have a special to enjoy and not a mighty internet flame war to follow around Christmas.

David Tennant wrote the introduction for Elisabeth Sladen's postumously published memoirs, and here he reads it, with that continuing unabashed endearing fanboy adoration you can see in all their scenes together in School Reunion. Oh, Ms. Sladen, I miss you, too.

At first I thought this was a big practical joke and/or a fannish prank, but apparantly it is for real: Joss Whedon used his spare time (?) between Avengers directing to film Much Ado About Nothing at his house with various of his favourite actors from pretty much every show he ever was involved with. *blinks* I remember first hearing about the Shakespeare readings with the actors chez Whedon in the later Buffy and Angel days; for example, according to interviews he got the idea for Illyria through them since the Shakespeare revealed Amy Acker's range.

Cast thoughts: I remember how mainly but not only disgruntled Wes/Lilah shippers bashed not only Fred the character but Amy the actress through much of s4 and s5, getting sometimes really vicious and personal about everything from her legs to her voice... until Illyria showed up, at which point the Amy bashing stopped. Along with the cries of "no chemistry", because while Wesley and Fred might not have had, Wesley and llyria did. Then Amy Acker enjoyed herself as a villain in Alias' fifth season, which impressed people further, and while Dollhouse had a mixed reception for very good reasons, everyone seemed to agree she was outstanding there as well (one of many problems of the show being that everyone proved to be more versatile than the lead, but AA in one of the supporting roles was very good indeed). So I have no doubt she'll do justice to Beatrice. As for Alexis Denisof, it remains as big a mystery to me as to everyone else why his career didn't take off after his outstanding performance through Angel's run, and I am utterly unsurprised that Joss gave him the leading part for this one. I always found the guards scenes the only parts of Much Ado I don't enjoy, but Nathan Fillion might make Dogberry not just bearable but genuinenly amusing to me. And I'm looking forward to Sean Maher as Don John. Am very amused to learn that after ASH had to drop out (he was supposed to play Leonato), Joss stole Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson to you, if you've watched the Iron Man films and Thor) from the Avengers set and gave him the part. And Andrew Tom Lenk! I can see Reed Diamond as Don Pedro, and am amused the other Dollhouse alumnus, Fran Kranz, who on that show played possibly the most twisted form of that Whedon archetype, the babbling gleeful fanboy, gets to play everyone's most disliked lover (aka Claudio - at least I never met anyone who likes Claudio, though I hasten to add there might be Claudio fans out there... somewhere).


In other news, I won't write a proper review of the latest Three Musketeers (it, err, is what it is), but as it was filmed partially in my hometown and surrounding areas, I shall include a few remarks on what location ended up being what. Not least it causes much amusement and cheers every time the film is shown in a Bamberg cinema.


( Steampunk France = Franconia in Bavaria, with spoilers )

01. If you'd like, comment to this entry saying 'ICONS!' and I will pick 6 of your icons.
02. Make an entry in your own journal and talk about the icons I picked!

astrogirl2 gave me the following:
( Icons, those icons... )

The Remix/Redux 7 ficathon is open for signing up! It occurs to me that rebooting a franchise (whether it's BSG or Star Trek) basically operates on the same principle said ficathon does. Which is why I can't get worked up about the talk of the owners of the Buffy movie rights wanting to cash in on same by wanting a Joss Whedon-less, Scooby-less and Buffy-less reboot. I mean, I think the first utterances sound like a dumb idea because they manage to miss a lot of what made BTVS appealing. (There is a reason the show took off in a way ye olde movie did not, and it's not the lack of Rutger Hauer overacting.) It's not meant as straight horror, the post-modern banter and send-up was quintessential to the premise, and so were the friendships and the other characters. Also, it's far too soon - just a measly decade, with everyone's memories of the show and its characters very vivid. But you know, I really enjoyed Fray (aka Joss' story of a Slayer several hundred years in the future), so the idea of telling the story of a new Slayer, in a completely different surrounding, with new characters to relate to and fight against, in principle isn't something I'm opposed to.

This is as good a place as any to mention my position on the comics, because I've also seen the "the comics are such a travesty, so it's a good thing Joss isn't involved in any movie" argument. Basically, the BTVS comics didn't capture me so I don't read them, but neither do I feel a need to rail against them or generalize about J.W.'s post-Firefly work. It really depends on the item in question. I loved Fray, his first foray in comics; the BTVS comics left me indiffirent, which didn't really surprise be because after seven years of writing for a particular ensemble and a particular world, any writer is bound to have run out of ideas; by contrast, I absolutely adored his run of Astonishing X-Men, and again, didn't surprise me that Whedonian writing for characters he hadn't been writing for since years would feel much more captivating.

Dollhouse? I'm mostly with likeadeuce in seeing it as both interesting and ultimately a failure, though this might change. My biggest problem with it wasn't actually the skeevy premise, because as opposed to many an indignant post I think the show does acknowledge it, and uses the word "rape" clearly and several times; it was the discovery that Eliza Dushku seems to be a one trick pony, acting wise, which is especially glaring because the actors playing the other regular dolls really pull off some amazing stuff here, which combined with the fact that so far, the writing hasn't managed to make Echo/Carolyn that compelling, either leaves you with a black hole as a main character. I think it's not coincidentally that the writing in the second half of the season, which really is quantum levels above the first, centers on everyone but Echo. Here's what I'd do if I were in charge of the second season, not that I think it will happen:
1) Get rid of the credits sequence. It's really inexcusable.
2) Decide whether you want Ballard to be a critical deconstruction of a male hero (which he was for most of the season except the finale) or a genuinenly heroic character, but most crucially
3) Swap leads, if you must have one at all. The actress for Sierra is ever so much better than Dushku, and Sierra herself, of all the dolls, has the strongest reasons to bring the dollhouse down.

What I'd do and what I think will actually happen: follow-up on the "what is the true purpose of the dollhouse / who uses the kind of power that allows complete identity destruction/construction and how do they use it on the large scale, if the dollhouse is just a deflection and a matter of income earning?" question. Which I do find interesting, but I'm not sure such a narrative emphasis will also mean the end of gratitituos episodes like Target, because that's what the network pays for.

Lastly, a personal heresy: I think Adelle DeWitt is more compelling than Lilah Morgan as a take on the noir villainness. I also find the difference in reception telling because it is directly connected with what makes the show both problematic and interesting (with so far the problematic outweighing the interesting, though not in the case of DeWitt): Lilah's brand of corporate evil was safely in the fantasy realm. Wolfram and Hart pimped girls to rich vampires in the very first episode of Angel (one reason why I was never as sympathetic to Lindsey getting scruples apropos of blind children was that he evidently did not get them apropos of teenage girls), but vampires don't live in the reality of the viewer. When Lilah sets up an abused girl to repeat her abuse experience so she can exploit her as an assassin, that abused girl is a telekinetic, and she's currently interacting with another vampire. When Lilah orders people killed, beheaded or mindwiped, or feeds a father the blood of his son, it's still all in a fantasy context; there is the safety net of the audience knowing it could never possibly happen to them. Whereas the dollhouse technology that allows complete identity changes might be sci fi, but barely so; so what Adelle DeWitt does to people hits much closer to home. Which, btw, is one of the reasons why I find her more interesting. The other is that on the one hand, she mostly, but not completely believes her own propaganda, and I find villains who consider themselves the heroes of the story always more intriguing (Adelle is so the "the Corps is mother, the Corps is father" type, if you allow me the B5 comparison) than villains like Lilah who do the proverbial moustache twirling, albeit in Lilah's case elegantly); but on the other hand the narrative (so far) manages to show her vulnerabilities without making them excuses. If I do continue watching in s2, it'll probably be mostly for Adelle DeWitt.