Doctor Who: "The Unquiet Dead"
Aug. 11th, 2007 07:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrako![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
rosiespark and I have been discussing series 1 Doctor Who episode by episode. I started off with Rose, she followed up with The End of the World, and now it's my turn again here with The Unquiet Dead. I might as well confess at the outset that "The Unquiet Dead" is my least favourite of all the episodes of Doctor Who I have seen. I can't entirely put my finger on why, though I think there are four reasons - five, maybe - all of which can be summed up as "Mark Gatiss' writing style". The fact that he himself refers to "the morbid, ebony-black grotesqueness of the nineteenth century" is not a good sign for his approach. I'll try not to dwell on the negative, because watching this again, I still enjoyed myself - it doesn't annoy me, or bore me, or make me want to watch something else instead. I still love the Doctor and Rose in it. It's more that I find the other characters dull and the story fairly weak - not really funny, not really scary.
Breaking it down into aspects:
- Charles Dickens. I was disappointed by the way Dickens was portrayed. Yes, I know it's my own fannishness coming through here. It isn't that Simon Callow isn't a good actor - I've loved him in other things. It's the concept: Dickens as being old and jaded; or Dickens as a skeptic, despite the evidence of his own eyes; Dickens as a foil to the Doctor. I'd like to see him as smarter, snappier, wittier.
On the plus side, I did love it that the Doctor is a fan, and happy to say so. (Despite Martin Chuzzelwit.) His fannishness didn't come across with the sincerity I saw in David Tennant's performance of the Doctor facing Shakespeare in The Shakespeare Code, and he seemed a little too willing to criticize Dickens.... If I were an eight year old who didn't know anything about Dickens, I wouldn't have been left thinking highly of Dickens from this.
My favourite of his lines: "What phantasmagoria is this?" - The Story. The plot doesn't entirely make sense to me, though it's intriguing. I'm not very fond of Mark Gatiss' understated writing style; his characters seem to me a little smaller than life.
But there are some aspects of the story I do like. One is the continuity between this episode and Torchwood; the Rift goes right through Sneed's house - does that mean his house was right on the site of what later became Roald Dahl Plass, with the fountain and the Millennium Centre? I like that. But the story implies that it has been only the Gelth trying to get through the Rift for many, many years - perhaps they blocked the entryway? When the Gelth say, "Open the Rift!" I thought of Bilis - and Owen. And when the Doctor said, "The Rift is getting wider," I thought; "That line was stolen from Torchwood!" Though I suppose it's really the other way round.
As far as I know, this is the only episode of Doctor Who with a psychic character, aside from the Doctor himself.
The Gelth reminded me of the Family in "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood", except that they inhabit the living, while the Gelth favour corpses. Because of the gas. The gas connections weren't entirely convincing to me; but that's okay, it wouldn't be the only Doctor Who villains who didn't entirely make sense to me. - Interesting to see Eve Myles play Gwyneth. She doesn't remind me of Gwen Cooper, which is a sign of Eve Myles' grasp of characterization. At the same time, I don't find Gwyneth very interesting. I do like her private conversation with Rose about the butcher boy's bum, but there remains something limited about her - it doesn't seem to me that Gwyneth has much personality.
I love it that she mentioned "bad wolf". - Again, I love it that the Gelth mentioned the Time War - a phrase calculated to trigger the Doctor's sense of concern and guilt. Did they know that? What, then, did they know of the Doctor? Were they using a psychic conduit trick, through Gwyneth, to know what phrase to use? Or were they in fact victims of the Time War, just not very nice ones?
- There are many clues here to reinforce my belief that the Doctor is already very much in love with Rose, even if he doesn't know what to do about it - except feel guilty. Is there any other point at which he says she's beautiful?
- I might add that I think Rose has a beautiful personality, but I thought she looked awful in that dress and bonnet. The boots were good. I loved the boots.
- The voices of the Gelth sounded like the fairies in "Small Worlds" and the petal-aliens in "Fear Her". Are there no other ways to do group-personality aliens?
- Interesting that Rose thinks the bodies of the dead should be respected, and the Doctor doesn't. Is it that he thinks the needs of the living outweigh the needs of the dead? This episode skirts on some life and death issues that are very interesting, but never quite comes to grips with the articulation of any of them. It isn't that this is beyond the scope of a kid's show, since other episodes do it well. It's more that this particular episodes hints at meanings and then backs off.
- The best thing about this episode was its discussion of time. There are some terrific quotes. For example:
Rose: Think about it, though. Christmas 1860 happens once, just once, and then it's finished. It's gone, it'll never happen again. Except for you. You can go back and see days that are dead and gone. A hundred thousand sunsets ago. No wonder you never stay still.
And despite my rude comments about Mark Gatiss a while back, I think that is a beautifully written passage, both for content and wording: a hundred thousand sunsets. It says a lot about Rose, and he intelligence and insight, not to mention her sense of beauty. It also conveys something about the Doctor himself; his sense of priorities, the way they dovetail with hers.
I wonder, though: "You can go back and see days that are dead and gone." I assume he can't go back to the same day over and over - no Groundhog Day here? Or can he? Captain Jack implies he has gone back to Volcano Day and the Blitz more than once - is he carefully trying to avoid himself all the time, or is the timeline more complicated than that? - Other good aspects about that scene: the Doctor says, "Give the man a medal. Earth. Naples. December 24th, 1860." But it turns out it isn't. Presumably the controls on the TARDIS aren't very accurate. Or is the TARDIS lying to him? I like the notion that the TARDIS sees and finds its own trouble spots, and might have spotted the problem with the Rift and the Gelth from afar. Or maybe the TARDIS was trying to keep them out of trouble - it was clear that the Doctor hadn't a clue what was happening in Naples on Christmas Eve, 1860, but it seems to me that around that time Garibaldi was advancing on the city with his armies of liberation. The TARDIS might have been trying to keep them out of a war zone. - Oh, I just noticed: Garibaldi and those soldiers were actually in an early draft of this story. Heh.
- And the following phrase strikes me as utterly romantic:
Rose: ...It's Christmas.
Which, in keeping with the overt tone of the show, is said lightly, but really has depths and layers: he's making a gift to her of time and space. Or, in fact, this time and this space, in all its unique specialness which she articulates so perfectly. And then the punchline, after her speech:
The Doctor: All yours.The Doctor: Not a bad life.
...And I can't help thinking, what perfect articulation of romance, or Romance with a capital R, worthy of the greatest of poets and writers, and delivered subtly and casually in a somewhat macabre horror story written so as not to bore the 8 year olds.
Rose: Better with two.
This is echoed by the heroic dialogue later on:Rose: But we'll go down fighting, yeah?
It's anyone's guess as to the levels of self-awareness there, at least on Rose's part.
The Doctor: You bet.
Rose: Together.
The Doctor: Yeah. I'm glad I met you.
Rose: Me too. - I love it that the Doctor calls Rose "Barbarella". But does he worry about what she wears in other episodes? Do fashion choices only matter in connection with the past, not the future? Personally I wish he'd dressed in some elegant fashion of 1860 because he's look terrific, but I like the way Nine dressed anyway. No complaints about that jumper from me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Harriet Jones and other fallout
Date: 2007-08-23 01:41 pm (UTC)I would have liked this to be raised (if at all) and resolved within the space of series 3. As it is, it looks as if it will not be resolved at all. I now think Davies likes to play god by making his protagonist into a god, but it isn't what I want to see - especially if he'll persist in making bad decisions.
Although my favourite is when he's talking to Lynda about the impending Dalek invasion, then gets distracted, "Mind you, that one, Bear With Me..." and then gets distracted back on topic, "It's all gone wrong."
Loved it, yes.
Murray Head? Who's he?
He did things in Heroes where I remember thinking, "Really, you don't have to be that good right there.
True! But he exceeded requirements, and in his company, other actors like Milo Ventimiglia and Jack Coleman really shine. I think the writers used that and responded to it, though I may be wrong there - it may be that everyone was just expressing the material better by that point of the storyline. (After all, the plot was thickening.)
Re: Harriet Jones and other fallout
Date: 2007-08-24 05:01 pm (UTC)I would have liked this to be raised (if at all) and resolved within the space of series 3. As it is, it looks as if it will not be resolved at all.
Yeah. Sigh. I worry about that with Martha, too. She was so underdeveloped in S3, and yet they seem to think they gave her a great arc. It's only the suggestion of a great arc, IMO.
I now think Davies likes to play god by making his protagonist into a god, but it isn't what I want to see - especially if he'll persist in making bad decisions.
I heartily agree with that. Perfect characters are uninteresting. But there needs to be a recognition of the flaws, and I don't think they (the show, the team) see them. The character certainly doesn't.
Murray Head? Who's he?
An amazingly versatile and gifted person (http://www.justin-time.com/authors/murrayhead/). He's probably best known as "Judas" from the original Jesus Christ Superstar (his version of "I Don't Know How to Love Him" is spine-tingling), but he was also the bisexual boy toy of Peter Finch and Glenda Jackson in Sunday Bloody Sunday. He deserves to have a much higher profile in pop culture than he does.
I do think that the writers got better in that second "pod" of Heroes, but I also think that both MV and JC had their greatest moments in CE's orbit. I so want to see that BBQ scene with the Bennets. I want to see reunions between Claude and Peter, Claude and HRG, and Claude and Claire. It's not just the CE fans, Claude is the character that seems to have the most impetus behind getting him back. (OTOH, I'm so over Sylar. He needs to be dead.)
Re: Harriet Jones and other fallout
Date: 2007-08-24 06:20 pm (UTC)I think they gave her the beginning of a potentially great arc; it's somewhere in the middle, and if this is it - that means she only got half an arc. It could be worse, and I look forward to seeing what they do with her in Torchwood. Wondering too if the Torchwood episodes will be as varied and random as they were last year.
I wonder who I saw in Jesus Christ Superstar when I saw it in London? The Judas was magnificent... so was the Jesus. But I don't remember who they were now.
I loved Sunday Bloody Sunday. And was impressed by Head's handling of his role.
I so want to see that BBQ scene with the Bennets.
Yes!
I want to see reunions between Claude and Peter, Claude and HRG, and Claude and Claire.
Claude seems so pivotal - so in the middle of several plotlines, but (suitably!) invisible.
As for Sylar - I thought he was suitably terrifying, and I'd be happy to never see him back, but I think we can be pretty sure he will be. He was one of the actors at the SDCC panel. I think the means he'll be back... Probably when we least suspect him.
It would be a comforting thought, that Sylar probably doesn't have Claude's power.
mostly Heroes
Date: 2007-08-25 06:52 pm (UTC)I do think that that's one thing they "heard" from the fans. I can only hope. There were a few episodes that I liked, one that I loved, and mostly I still don't really know who any of those characters are. Particularly Ianto and Tosh.
I should have saved my new Claude icon for this post, but there you go.
Claude seems so pivotal - so in the middle of several plotlines, but (suitably!) invisible.
I'm sure that's intentional. First, to entice Eccleston in the first place; second to tempt him back; third, he's strong enough to hang everything together on as a lynchpin even when you don't see him - literally and/or figuratively.
Sylar was good as a first-season villain, but he seems to have run his course. The episode where he went back to his mother pretty much did for me with the character, because I kept thinking, "That's it? That's supposed to explain how/why he's a nutcase?" It just seemed so clichéd, even though I was very glad to see Ellen Greene! I just don't see that they can do anything else with the character - either he stays evil, and okay, been there, done that; or they redeem him, and I'm sorry, that's just not possible! I know that they like the actor, but it just seems like they've written themselves into a corner.
I still think they need to work a bit more to redeem HRG. He's a fascinating character, but what he's done to his wife alone is pretty impossible to forgive. And he's still a bit of a cold fish.
Re: mostly Heroes
Date: 2007-08-27 02:53 pm (UTC)It was a mixed blessing - I like the way it didn't settle into one genre but played with several. But it wasn't quite well enough done to pull it off. I hope they have more uniformity and structure and build-up of theme, which would improve the quality automatically. Most of all I hope they manage more thought, depth and polish.
Which is not to say I didn't love what we got, warts and all. I too want more about Ianto and Toshiko and what makes them tick - but not if it means taking focus away from Captain Jack Harkness. He should be the central focus most of the time!
I liked what they did with Sylar in season one, including his scenes with his mother - and I loved the moment when Hiro attacked him with his sword, or tried to. I don't much like the actor and found the character suitably terrifying. But I'm in no hurry to see him again.
And yes, HRG needs work, but he's fascinating and I love what they did with him. In my eyes he went from despicable to sympathetic and I would have thought that impossible. Yes, we need more, but I think we'll get it.
Heroes & TW
Date: 2007-08-29 05:56 pm (UTC)Re: TW
I like the way it didn't settle into one genre but played with several. But it wasn't quite well enough done to pull it off.
I think its entirely possible to flit from genre to genre/mood to mood, but still be consistent about emotional development - DW does it semi-successfully (very successfully in S1, not so much since, but still occasionally getting it right); and there was a brilliant PBS series a few years ago called American Familiy that was the saga of a Chicano family in Los Angeles, starring Edward James Olmos, and although the story was continuous, every single episode was in a different genre (silent film, teen romance, 1970s-style sitcom, war film, etc.) In the second series, they were told to stop that, and the show died. It probably would have run out of steam anyway, because there are only so many genres to do, but it was great while it lasted - and EJO went on to BSG, which makes me very happy indeed. (He was one of my first "older man" crushes on Miami Vice - no interest in Sonny or Rico at all, give me the moody, graceful Martín Castillo every time!)
Most of all I hope they manage more thought, depth and polish.
Yes, please. I wonder if one of the problems isn't that JB, Eve Myles, and Burn Gorman are just so much better than Naoko Mori and Gareth David-Lloyd. Even when they did get their "big episodes", they didn't really do anything for me - OTOH, Daniela Denby-Ashe as Mary was a revelation. I'd seen her in period fluff and sitcoms, and I had no idea she had that kind of charisma. She was quite impressive.
It's my understanding that Jack was a last-minute addition to TW, that they were already working on a project that would have Owen and Gwen as the main characters, and in that way, it does make some of the gear-grinding make sense. They transferred some of the "leading man-ness" to Jack, and cast Burn Gorman not because he was a traditional leading man but because he was the best actor that came through their door. I can see doing that, but they needed to do a bit more tweaking, IMO!
I liked what they did with Sylar in season one, including his scenes with his mother
I did love the way they were played, especially by Ellen Greene...I just was a bit disappointed that we didn't get anything more original than "controlling, religious freak mother". A hint of her own specialness would have been more interesting. I also have to admit that I don't find Zachary Quinto nearly as good an actor as everyone else seems to. He seems a bit limited to me. Part of me would like to have seen what CE could have done with the part - but I'm so much happier to have him as Claude. Not least, if he were the Big Bad, how would the good guys ever win? He's just too powerful. I've actually wondered if one of the reasons they keep him in small situations, with limited numbers of characters, is that he's just too good. He could easily overpower everyone else in the cast if they aren't careful. But again, he's so giving that especially with MV, he brings them up toward him.
HRG is someone I'm ambivalent about. I wonder if it's just something kind of snakey about Jack Coleman that I just can't get past to bond with him completely, but even his adoration of/dedication to Claire, which is one of his great selling points, comes at the expense of his wife and son, and that doesn't sit entirely well with me. I hope they can continue to bring him along.
I think he needs some quality time with Claude. The thing I loved most about how they handled Claude's backstory is that he was the idealist, he was the "Peter" of his generation, and he was brutalized to the point where he just closed down. But he could still be reached. There's that human heart in there. That's where he reminds me of Nine. People keep saying the characters are similar, but I don't see it otherwise - Claude is bitter and misanthropic, Nine is upbeat and hopeful and runs around making friends like there's no tomorrow.
Torchwood characters...
Date: 2007-08-29 08:04 pm (UTC)Mine are erratic as well, for similar reasons. I started out replying chronologically, changed to chronologically backwards, and am now settling for randomness. As moments allow.
EJO went on to BSG, which makes me very happy indeed. (He was one of my first "older man" crushes on Miami Vice - no interest in Sonny or Rico at all, give me the moody, graceful Martín Castillo every time!)
I too adored him on Miami Vice. I started out expecting to like Crockett and Tubbs, and did like Don Johnson, but it was Edward James Olmos who caught my attention and kept it. Love him as Adama, too, though I wonder what they're doing to the character - he seems to be slipping lately. (Admiral Adama, not Olmos, who never slips an inch.) Are they paving the way for a breakdown, or a comeback?
I wonder if one of the problems isn't that JB, Eve Myles, and Burn Gorman are just so much better than Naoko Mori and Gareth David-Lloyd.
I wondered that, then Mori or David-Lloyd would get a moment and I'd think, "No, it's the script." I do hope for more from each of them - both in terms of story and character depth. Oddly enough, though Mori is cast as a computer geek, I find her most interesting and convincing in dramatic action scenes - not that we've had much to test it by - I'm thinking of random moments of "Countrycide" and "Combat". I want to see Toshiko doing less 'fear, alarm, uncertainty and distress' and a lot more kick-ass defiance and determination, where I think she shines. (Besides, it would be nice to see more strength from a sympathetic female character.)
Gareth David-Lloyd, on the other hand, seems to be suffering badly from 'nothing to do'; strangely, I think I liked him best when he was reading the Bible... not generally a favourite thing of mine, but he has a beautiful voice and handles poetry well. No: my favourite bit with Ianto is all his scenes in "Captain Jack Harkness", and this is 100% the way the scenes were written. Otherwise he seems to be good at showing emotionless restraint and hysteria, but not much in between - though there are some scenes in which I think he was better than he needed to be. He wasn't always at his best in "Cyberwoman", though I have no problem with that episode - it's one of my favourites.
I'm certainly glad they added Captain Jack to the show - I probably wouldn't be watching if it weren't for him, and the "Gwen and Owen" show wouldn't have much appeal. Even though, as it turned out, I enjoyed the story of each of those characters.
This information does explain something about the structure of the writing, though - the way Captain Jack is the central focus, and yet only a minor presence in some of the plots. (To their detriment, in my opinion.)
Daniela Denby-Ashe as Mary was a revelation
She was wonderful. I was extremely sorry she turned out to be unredeemably bad. She was both sexy and interesting. And, frankly, I think the show needs more aliens in it. It's a show about alien-hunters. How many aliens do we see? Not many, even if we count Weevils by the head.
I think Burn Gorman is a fine actor but the character of Owen never came across as I think they intended. He was supposed to be a sexy bad-boy type and never seemed like one to me. Still, in the long run, this maybe added to verisimilitude and originality - by which I mean, he came across as less of a 'type', more of an individual. This tends to be a good thing.
Re: Torchwood characters...
Date: 2007-09-02 09:05 pm (UTC)Me, too. Looking back, I find it ironic that a song and dance man won an Emmy for a role in which he stood still and didn't do anything! I remember particularly the episode when his wife showed up again. He had a fight scene in that, and I definitely thought, "Okay, he's either a dancer, or he's got a black-belt in something." Dancer. As a dancer myself, that's a definite plus.
As for what they're doing with Adama - to be honest, I'm not sure where they're going with anyone at this stage...and maybe they aren't either. I can see them taking the Captain Queeg route with Adama, though. It makes a certain sense, especially since we've been led to believe it's Roslin who'll be the one who loses her grip first.
I agree that Toshiko is better as someone who has something to do. Sometimes, she looks disturbingly like a scared rabbit, and it's just all a little too stereotypical to be comfortable. I'm still confused by GDL, but then I hated Cyberwoman with the fire of a thousand suns... I just find him "not there" most of the time. His relationship with Jack doesn't read to me - not just the shift between "I hate you I want to kill you" and playing stopwatch games. Their body language just doesn't seem at all intimate or even comfortable. So I'm not sure what they're going for (this seems to be a common theme with RTD these days!).
I think BG may be miscast as Owen, but I still find him an interesting character, even if I dislike him. Even as derivative as it is, I rather liked Combat because he seemed to find his feet in that one. Fight Club ripoffs are a dime a dozen, but that one actually seemed to have some purpose for the characters at hand. Noel Clarke also seem to be a better writer than he is an actor!
I mean, he came across as less of a 'type', more of an individual. This tends to be a good thing.
Indeed.
Re: Torchwood characters...
Date: 2007-10-01 02:15 am (UTC)It does seem that Adama, who was close to perfect for a long time, might be losing it - stress? Drink? If Tighe is a Cylon, how will he take that? It will be interesting to see. Since I adore Adama, I'm hoping he won't slip - that he will heroically triumph over his own personal flaws and weaknesses, and the horrors life throws at him. We shall see.
I hated Cyberwoman with the fire of a thousand suns...
As did many fans! But it's one of my favourite episodes of Torchwood, and it's the episode that made me love Ianto. Insofar as I do love Ianto, and I'm not sure how much that is. I loved him in that episode, and in bits and pieces throughout series one, but if he never turned up for series 2 - I'm not sure I'd mind, as long as they had a satisfactory explanation of the ending of his relationship with Jack.
But of course we know he will be back in series 2, and I'm happy about that. I just hope they add some depth and punch to his character. I'd like to see Ianto do something that shows a lot of initiative or courage or unexpected heroism. And spend less time standing around watching what's going on. The Jack/Ianto makes a lot of thematic sense to me, but the problem is, we didn't see it as it was happening - it has to be retroactive extrapolation, and what kind of story-telling is that? I can piece it together just find, but I shouldn't have to do that, it should have been more clear as it happened. And I think we should have had, before "End of Days" came along, a far clearer sense of how much Ianto loved Jack.
I don't think I've seen any Fight Club rip offs before - and I liked "Combat" a lot, partly for that, partly for the bits with Gwen, partly because it gave Tosh a bit of action in the warehouse, partly because I liked the way it used Weevils sympathetically without minimizing their dangerousness.
I agree that Noel Clarke is a better writer than actor - that episode raised my respect for him by a factor of ten!
Heroes characters...
Date: 2007-08-29 08:17 pm (UTC)Me too. If there was supposed to be any ambiguity in the character, I didn't see it. Lots of evil. Not much else. I thought HRG had many more aspects and nuances, and was generally more frightening.
Yes, Eccleston would have been an awesome choice for Sylar, but I'm very glad he was Claude instead - I prefer him as a hero. (And he'd have been too terrifying to bear!)
he's so giving that especially with MV, he brings them up toward him.
Absolutely. Even the pigeons were at their best with him.
I'm hoping for more from Noah Bennet, too. Not that I didn't like his performance and his story arc - I was surprised and delighted by the way they added nuances (and sympathy) to his character as the story went on. I thought nothing could make me forgive him even a little for his treatment of his wife - by the end I was ready to give him one or two benefits of a few doubts. And yes, I'd love to see more scenes with both Claude and Bennet.
In that show, I find that the more we learn about some of the expanding group of central characters (like Bennet) the more there are still peripheral undeveloped characters, like Eric Roberts (whose name I forget).
People keep saying the characters are similar, but I don't see it otherwise - Claude is bitter and misanthropic, Nine is upbeat and hopeful and runs around making friends like there's no tomorrow.
Both are intelligent, heroic, tied to the historical past of the story, elusive, mentor figures.... No, the personality isn't that much alike, but some of the surface details are. Or perhaps I see Claude as a mortal, failed, lost version of the Doctor, barely retaining the remains of his love of humanity just enough to make the heroic attempt to help others. He acts misanthropic, but I see him as ultimately altruistic, his bitterness reflecting his disillusion.
Re: Heroes characters...
Date: 2007-09-02 10:12 pm (UTC)Absolutely. Even the pigeons were at their best with him.
Have you seen these (http://spell-desire.livejournal.com/18122.html)? I love the way Claude is holding his pigeon.
*blink*
That sounds far dirtier than I intended.
I find that the more we learn about some of the expanding group of central characters (like Bennet) the more there are still peripheral undeveloped characters, like Eric Roberts (whose name I forget).
Thompson. Who's dead now. Yeah, I think on the whole, they got it right with their winnowing - Isaac and Simone were total wastes of time, although his talent was very useful and cinematic. The actors were so...plastic. HRG got more development; Sylar got too much, IMO, given the actor; I think we're done with DL. I could do without Jessica/Niki as well, even though I thought Ali Larter grew into the role. She's just not particularly interesting, and that's sad for a lead female figure; I also have to say, I do not see her as particularly good-looking or hot - practically every other woman on the show has something more going for her, even Candace. I know I'm a hopelessly straight chick, but I do understand what people see in Hayden Panettierre (who reminds me of Jane Powell, oddly enough). Peter annoyed the living hell out of me throughout the first half, but having Claude smack him around did help enormously! And I do think Claude had a significant impact as a minor character, thanks to CE. Did you see that the cast went to dinner with him on the London stop of the Heroes world tour. Awwww.
I agree with you on the characterization of Claude vs. the Doctor. I suppose I'm just not seeing them as "the same character", which I see around LJ a lot. (Ten = Carlisle = Casanova, I'm more open to!) I think Nine is as much Steve Baxter and Vindici as he is Claude, as it were.
Re: Heroes characters...
Date: 2007-10-01 02:04 am (UTC)Yes, HRG surprisingly has that extra dimension of convincing character complexity that makes us both love him and fear him. Sylar is... scary, but IMHO, more because of his actions than his manner. Bennet also has a level of competence that strikes me as being way more clever and devious than Sylar.
As far as I am concerned, yes, Claude can hold his pigeon any way he likes! And will still look good doing it.
I kept hoping for more from Simone, and never got it. In the end, I found her character pointless, except that we got her sex scene with Peter out of it, and that wonderful drawing of the umbrella from Isaac/Tim Sale. I still find Nikki/Jessica very dull, but maybe she'll turn out to be more interesting this season.
I love it that the cast went out to dinner with Eccleston. He really is one of them.
I found Claire sexy in "Five Years Gone", but not normally, as a young blonde. Which is... well, I really can't explain it! I also find Hayden Panettiere extraordinarily sexy as herself, or thought so when I saw her in the San Diego Comic Con presentation. On the whole, the women in Heroes (with the exception of Claire) are too pretty, in a plastic, fashionable way, and not interesting enough to really attract me - though Candace was far more interesting than her role would seem to warrant.