![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Doctor Who season 2
Done with season 2...
I'm constantly impressed by the writing in this series, as an anthology-type show. "Love & Monsters" was just brilliant; I loved it to pieces. This show continues to be an odd, amazing mix of total cheese and genuine suspense and pathos -- the Satan 2-parter was a good example of that, because ... they fought Satan! And in a total "Aliens"-type, monsters-on-the-spaceship, B-movie setting. That episode should have been sheer, unbearable idiocy! And yet the crew were so vividly drawn that I really didn't want them to die, and it was so tense and claustophobic on the ship, and the security guy's sacrifice made me sad, and the captain and the other two surviving at the end made me EEEEE! I've mentioned before that this show really reminds me of 1950s/60s SF books, and that episode really had that feeling to it -- total Ray Bradbury, where the setting is completely absurd and yet the writing is compelling enough that it sucks you in.
"Love and Monsters", as I said, was wonderful -- it was wonderfully, darkly funny and then took this sudden 90-degree turn into OUCH. I really love well-done outsider POVs on my canonverses, and New Who is turning out to be fantastic at doing those.
I liked the Olympic episode with the little girl, even though the ending with the Doctor lighting the torch? Hopeless, hopeless cheese! Although ... I could totally see him doing that -- seizing an opportunity to light the torch ... especially this Doctor with his pronounced showmanship streak. And I loved that the creepy baddie in that episode turned out to be a lost child trying to find its way home; such a neat twist, and so much better and more poignant than having it be something to be fought and killed.
The finale two-parter -- yay! for seeing Mickey and Jake and alt-Pete again! I really thought that we'd seen the last of them. Lots of neat moments, some giggles (because, seriously, the Dalek vs. Cybermen confrontation was hilarious in an Alien vs. Predator sort of way), and then ... uh, the ending.
I don't really want to turn this into a rant about Rose. Honestly, I'm not feeling all that ranty, because I'm mostly warm and fuzzy towards the series. But, you know, I really did lose a lot of my remaining respect for her at the end. In two years (or however long it's been for her) of traveling with the Doctor, she really hasn't learned anything. They left Mickey stranded alone in an alternate universe infested by Cybermen, and he picked up a gun and saved the world. They left Rose stranded in an alternate universe (a peaceful universe, with her parents and Mickey, no less) and she ... takes a dead-end job at the shop, cries every night and then uproots her parents and drags them across the continent in pursuit of the Doctor? I ... I ... just ... what?
I sympathize with Rose feeling like her travels with the Doctor were the high point of her life, and everything after that being downhill. Really, I do. But real inner strength is feeling that way and then getting up and going on, living your life and making a difference. And Rose doesn't seem to have that. I can sympathize with her, but I can't really find it in myself to respect her, or -- after those final scenes -- even really to like her all that much. The goodbye scene with the Doctor and Rose didn't really do a whole lot for me, because her codependency just seemed more creepy to me than anything else. All the emotion being thrown around didn't make me feel it, in the same way as some of the other emotional scenes in the last few episodes (Jackie meeting alt-Pete, the guy in "Love & Monsters" losing Ursula) made me feel them. The ending of "Fear Her", with the mom and the little girl beating back the dad's spectre by leaning on each other, actually made me tear up. But the goodbye with the Doctor and Rose ... not really. To me, Rose came across mostly as an object of pity in those last scenes.
I don't expect my characters to be paragons of virtue. I love to watch flawed people pick themselves up and fall and try again. But where Rose is at the end of her two seasons -- that's where I want my protagonists to be at the beginning. Depending on another person for all your self-esteem needs and being pretty useless without them ... that's a great starting point, but not really much of an ending point. At least, that's my take on the whole thing. She's had her moments, and yes, there have been times when she's done things that are really impressive and self-sacrificing. But at the end, she's still pursuing the Doctor and using the people around her as objects of convenience; she's still fixated on him to the exclusion of living her life. And, I'm sorry, but that's just not healthy, and something that I feel needs to be fixed in her.
Er, I guess it did turn into a rant on Rose. Um. Sorry. Really, it's the only thing in the series that bugs me, but it's just such a big, ever-present thing, so I guess I fixate on it.
But now we get Season 3! And then we are done! Eeek!
I'm constantly impressed by the writing in this series, as an anthology-type show. "Love & Monsters" was just brilliant; I loved it to pieces. This show continues to be an odd, amazing mix of total cheese and genuine suspense and pathos -- the Satan 2-parter was a good example of that, because ... they fought Satan! And in a total "Aliens"-type, monsters-on-the-spaceship, B-movie setting. That episode should have been sheer, unbearable idiocy! And yet the crew were so vividly drawn that I really didn't want them to die, and it was so tense and claustophobic on the ship, and the security guy's sacrifice made me sad, and the captain and the other two surviving at the end made me EEEEE! I've mentioned before that this show really reminds me of 1950s/60s SF books, and that episode really had that feeling to it -- total Ray Bradbury, where the setting is completely absurd and yet the writing is compelling enough that it sucks you in.
"Love and Monsters", as I said, was wonderful -- it was wonderfully, darkly funny and then took this sudden 90-degree turn into OUCH. I really love well-done outsider POVs on my canonverses, and New Who is turning out to be fantastic at doing those.
I liked the Olympic episode with the little girl, even though the ending with the Doctor lighting the torch? Hopeless, hopeless cheese! Although ... I could totally see him doing that -- seizing an opportunity to light the torch ... especially this Doctor with his pronounced showmanship streak. And I loved that the creepy baddie in that episode turned out to be a lost child trying to find its way home; such a neat twist, and so much better and more poignant than having it be something to be fought and killed.
The finale two-parter -- yay! for seeing Mickey and Jake and alt-Pete again! I really thought that we'd seen the last of them. Lots of neat moments, some giggles (because, seriously, the Dalek vs. Cybermen confrontation was hilarious in an Alien vs. Predator sort of way), and then ... uh, the ending.
I don't really want to turn this into a rant about Rose. Honestly, I'm not feeling all that ranty, because I'm mostly warm and fuzzy towards the series. But, you know, I really did lose a lot of my remaining respect for her at the end. In two years (or however long it's been for her) of traveling with the Doctor, she really hasn't learned anything. They left Mickey stranded alone in an alternate universe infested by Cybermen, and he picked up a gun and saved the world. They left Rose stranded in an alternate universe (a peaceful universe, with her parents and Mickey, no less) and she ... takes a dead-end job at the shop, cries every night and then uproots her parents and drags them across the continent in pursuit of the Doctor? I ... I ... just ... what?
I sympathize with Rose feeling like her travels with the Doctor were the high point of her life, and everything after that being downhill. Really, I do. But real inner strength is feeling that way and then getting up and going on, living your life and making a difference. And Rose doesn't seem to have that. I can sympathize with her, but I can't really find it in myself to respect her, or -- after those final scenes -- even really to like her all that much. The goodbye scene with the Doctor and Rose didn't really do a whole lot for me, because her codependency just seemed more creepy to me than anything else. All the emotion being thrown around didn't make me feel it, in the same way as some of the other emotional scenes in the last few episodes (Jackie meeting alt-Pete, the guy in "Love & Monsters" losing Ursula) made me feel them. The ending of "Fear Her", with the mom and the little girl beating back the dad's spectre by leaning on each other, actually made me tear up. But the goodbye with the Doctor and Rose ... not really. To me, Rose came across mostly as an object of pity in those last scenes.
I don't expect my characters to be paragons of virtue. I love to watch flawed people pick themselves up and fall and try again. But where Rose is at the end of her two seasons -- that's where I want my protagonists to be at the beginning. Depending on another person for all your self-esteem needs and being pretty useless without them ... that's a great starting point, but not really much of an ending point. At least, that's my take on the whole thing. She's had her moments, and yes, there have been times when she's done things that are really impressive and self-sacrificing. But at the end, she's still pursuing the Doctor and using the people around her as objects of convenience; she's still fixated on him to the exclusion of living her life. And, I'm sorry, but that's just not healthy, and something that I feel needs to be fixed in her.
Er, I guess it did turn into a rant on Rose. Um. Sorry. Really, it's the only thing in the series that bugs me, but it's just such a big, ever-present thing, so I guess I fixate on it.
But now we get Season 3! And then we are done! Eeek!
no subject
LOL! But you do that for me all the time too. Maybe I don't mention it enough. Sometimes you even do it via fic! Which really is kinda impressive.
Dean resented Sam walking out on the family, but he didn't blame Jessica for it.
I've got to say that Dean's reactions to the dreamworld of "What is and What Never Should Be" really do showcase the lack or jealousy and lack of condemnation of others in his character. The sheer JOY on his face as he watched Sam and Jessica announce their engagement shows how much he really does want Sam to be happy for Sam's own sake. When he finds out that he and Sam don't get along in that reality, he doesn't blame Sam but he won't accept "defeat" either. His response that he fix it by "making it up" to Sam. Oh, and the one that nearly broke me - when Sam's catches him stealing the silver and asks why, Dean tell him a lie that paints Dean as "the bad guy". From the way Dean watches his reaction, it looks like he was testing if Sam could believe that he was capable of that low an act - and when Sam instantly accepts it, you can see Dean's sorrow and regret, but he doesn't lay blame or try to "get out of it". He just apologises and prepares to get on with his "mission". Jensen Ackles' performance throughout that whole episode was just totally awesome.
Umm... where was I? Oh, yes.
There is a fundamental selfishness to jealousy and possessiveness ... it amounts to putting one's own happiness over the happiness of the love-object.
Yep, absolutely. I actually think our current society has almost elevated selfishness to be a virtue - and it's kinda worrying. I mean, when women wear a T-shirt that says "It's all about me", people laugh. But there does to seem to be an acceptance of the selfishness expressed - like people think "well, there's a chick who knows what's what". And the way that a lot of people watch a character like Dean Winchester putting other people's wants and needs before his own and see that as something "wrong" about him - that it's something to be pitied, rather than admired. I do find it a little disconcerting.
And basically, yes (maybe even hell, yes!) to everything you said about Rose.
no subject
But you STARTED IT with your SGA posts SO THERE!
*grin*
It is fun to debate things with someone I don't see eye-to-eye with. But it's also fun to discuss things while sharing a brain ... and sometimes you and I do that to a really alarming extent!
The sheer JOY on his face as he watched Sam and Jessica announce their engagement shows how much he really does want Sam to be happy for Sam's own sake.
See, to me, this is the very ESSENCE of love -- putting someone else's happiness above one's own. Being happy because someone you love is happy, without even thinking about yourself. It's the ideal that I assume most people aspire towards ... at least if they stop and think about it.
And your post is making me adore Dean all over again, because Dean is SO much that way. He's not needy, not dependent -- he's just an incredibly unselfish person. Which, er, reminds me that I owe you a fic, and I haven't forgotten; I've actually been working on it, but I'm having trouble working it into an actual PLOT. (I keep trying to write stories about Dean that mysteriously morph into stories about Bobby. Er ... wtf? and also, oops?)
Kinda funny that I didn't like Dean all that much at first, eh? Because I didn't see that in him. I saw him, at first, as someone dedicated to ideals over substance. But now that I've gotten to "know" him, I adore him so much because he's not a guy whose virtues are obvious at first glace -- at least not to me, I suppose. *g* He's not a paragon of virtue. He's rude, snarky, doofy, a ladies' man, just generally a guy who doesn't take himself seriously and doesn't expect others to do so either. And yet he's just about the most unselfish person you could ever hope to meet -- and if you're in trouble, Dean is absolutely the guy you want on your side to get you out.
*craves Season 3*
Oh wait, we weren't talking about Supernatural ... what happened? *g*
I actually think our current society has almost elevated selfishness to be a virtue - and it's kinda worrying. I mean, when women wear a T-shirt that says "It's all about me", people laugh. But there does to seem to be an acceptance of the selfishness expressed - like people think "well, there's a chick who knows what's what".
SO MUCH YES. And, honestly, I think this is very much the mistake that I made in the early episodes of SPN -- seeing Sam's struggle for independence as asserting his independence, a positive choice, whereas the more I got to know the characters, the more my sympathies fell wholeheartedly with Dean. But as you pointed out, our society (i.e. Western European/American-influenced culture) celebrates the individual while downplaying the importance of responsibility to family and friends and community -- rewarding and glorifying Sam's choices, not Dean's. Sublimating one's own needs for the good of someone else is not generally shown as a positive choice in media. It's unusual to see it as the action of a hero, which is weird because it SHOULD be, but (at least in American media) it's a lot more common to see a hero as someone who forges out boldly and performs spectacular acts of heroism, not someone who quietly sacrifices so that someone else can be happy.
no subject
LOL! Yeah. Y'know, when we do disagree about characters or issues (like we originally did with Dean) - I feel mixture of both excitement and a sort of unease. Because we share a brain so often, it feels weird, but I also sort of enjoy being on the other side of tussle from you because you do argue well and I enjoy the challenge. But it does seem that we eventually find common ground on most issues anyway.
I keep trying to write stories about Dean that mysteriously morph into stories about Bobby. Er ... wtf? and also, oops?
Stories about Bobby are good too. Just saying. ;-P
But now that I've gotten to "know" him, I adore him so much because he's not a guy whose virtues are obvious at first glace -- at least not to me, I suppose.
Yeah, I totally adore characters whose virtues aren't obvious at first glance. Rodney McKay is another wonderful example of that he's rude, arrogant, smug, irritating, doesn't play nice with others, often voices cowardly sentiments and has the biggest hypochondriac streak this side of Munchausen's syndrome - and yet (from almost the first episodes of SGA) he's the sort of guy who would walk into an energy-sucking cloud of darkness to try and save others.
But we weren't talking about SGA either...
Sublimating one's own needs for the good of someone else is not generally shown as a positive choice in media. It's unusual to see it as the action of a hero, which is weird because it SHOULD be, but (at least in American media) it's a lot more common to see a hero as someone who forges out boldly and performs spectacular acts of heroism, not someone who quietly sacrifices so that someone else can be happy.
Hmm... I wonder... The general viewship seem to see Dean as hero when he's got a gun in his hand and is taking down those evil sons of bitches. But do they see him as a hero when he quietly sacrifices - or do they see him as victim when he does that? Coz you're right, it SHOULD really be seen as even MORE heroic than the gun-toting action hero. But does a modern audience really get that?