(no subject)
Jul. 20th, 2008 10:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrakoMy television wish list...
1 By adult I mean: clever plots, less violence, more sex.
- A Doctor Who spin-off about Jenny's adventures.
- A series about Captain Jack Harkness in his time-travelling Time Agent days, before he met the Doctor. In which he remains a hero.
- A Torchwood series which retains the adult themes of series 11, but is better written and which focusses heavily on Captain Jack Harkness. In which Captain Jack is flirty with many people, and our attractive female characters make out with each other.
- A Torchwood spin-off giving us the adventures of Captain John Hart.
- A retcon or reboot of Battlestar Galactica back to the end of the season before this one, in which Starbuck is still a feisty warrior, Sharon is the only Cylon on Galactica, and Six is still in Baltar's head.
- A return of Claude the Invisible Man to Heroes. Preferably (occasionally) visible.
- In Doctor Who: for Donna to stay with the Doctor for at least another series, and Rose never to be mentioned again. Don't get me wrong: I like Rose. I even like Rose, the warrior of Torchwood. But do I want to see her again? No.
- A revisit to Russell T Davies' Queer as Folk. Oh. Looks as if I'm getting my wish. Yay!
- More Sarah Jane Adventures - and I'm getting that, too. Double yay! Extra wish: a few guest appearances by the Doctor.
1 By adult I mean: clever plots, less violence, more sex.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 02:59 am (UTC)Yes please! And yes please to another season of Donna and the Doctor.
9. Yay!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 03:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 03:18 am (UTC). . . really?
9. More Sarah Jane Adventures - and I'm getting that, too. Double yay! Extra wish: a few guest appearances by the Doctor.
*has "The Lost Boy" on pause right now* Yes please! More interactions with Sarah Jane and the Doctor when Sarah Jane is not being horribly written by RTD!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 03:21 am (UTC)RTD has said he wants to do another updated version of Queer as Folk.
More interactions with Sarah Jane and the Doctor when Sarah Jane is not being horribly written by RTD!
Interactions where they actually talk (and, you know, interact) would be really, really nice.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 03:39 am (UTC)Why does that not fill me with confidence? Oh yeah, because I'm still angry about the DW finale. I was just this morning thinking how it's going to be quite some time before I'll even be able to watch QaF again, because it has been retroactively TAINTED.
Yes! I want the Doctor to see the attic and meet Luke and Mr Smith and hear stories and be so very proud of Sarah Jane and maybe have a wee bit of angst lifted from his shoulders.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 12:22 pm (UTC)Yeah, I can understand that. Though I don't feel a sense of taint towards QaF (not yet!) and I'm still more upset over 'Last of the Time Lords'. I still have a lot of faith in RTD in some areas, not in others.
I want the Doctor to see the attic and meet Luke and Mr Smith and hear stories and be so very proud of Sarah Jane and maybe have a wee bit of angst lifted from his shoulders.
All of that! And I'd like to see the Doctor meet Maria and her father. Maybe let Maria see the inside of the TARDIS.
It would be fun to see them save the Doctor from some horrible fate, too.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 04:34 am (UTC)2. I think I'd enjoy that but not at the expense of Torchwood.
3. Oh, yes, especially about the attractive female characters. Although I am a Gwen/Rhys shipper so I think I'd like to see OTHER female characters doing that.
4. Meh. I liked Spi...er, I mean John Hart. But I don't see him as full series material. But that's just me.
5. You mean back to where I stopped watching it? Yeah, I'd go for that.
6. Seconded, thirded, and FOURTHED.
7. Waaaah! Yeah, I want it want it want it. Mean RTD taking Donna away and doing it so badly! (I realize Tate might have other things she wants to be doing but still...)
8. That would be cool.
9. Bouncy bouncy bouncy YEAHHHHHH! I don't know that we'll be seeing the Doctor but we'd damned well better HEAR about him.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 12:29 pm (UTC)Though I love Torchwood with a passion, I have some problems with it: that the focus is often off Jack, and on secondary characters (like Owen or even Gwen) whom I don't like so much. I also like the Jack we see in Doctor Who a little more than the Jack of Torchwood - he's not as grouchy, he laughs and flirts more, he's more active.
Although I am a Gwen/Rhys shipper so I think I'd like to see OTHER female characters doing that.
I too love Gwen and Rhys together but Gwen/Tosh is (or was) one of my favourite hypothetical pairings.
I don't know what John Hart is about yet; we really haven't met the real John, without the influence of Grey. I would look forward to doing so.
Battlestar Galactica seems to have reversed many of the things I liked about the show - relationships and characterization upended without reason. It's... disappointing. Even annoying.
If Catherine Tate wanted to leave Doctor Who (and I haven't heard she did), there would be other less distressing ways to have her do it. I realize Davies wanted to go for something deeply conceptually tragic; I just wish he hadn't.
References to the Doctor in The Sarah Jane Adventures would be welcome, especially if it's Sarah Jane reminiscing about him.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 01:19 pm (UTC)If Catherine Tate wanted to leave Doctor Who (and I haven't heard she did)
I hadn't heard that she WANTED to leave, but when I first heard she was going to be back, I heard it specifically as "for one season only." So I assumed Tate had other things going on. She's a pretty big name in her own right. As for the tragic way RTD did it, yeah, that was just uncalled for. (Why couldn't the residual Time Lord whatever go back into the hand, then she would need some time to recuperate at home so Tate could go on to her other things, and then Donna could come back after recuperation or not if the Doctor had a new Companion and Donna felt like a third wheel or something like that? Or, my favorite idea is that Donna goes off as Jenny's Companion/Mother figure...)
I like both versions of Jack, the happy-go-lucky flirt and the intense leader. There needs to be a better balance of the two, I agree, but Torchwood can develop rather well into an ensemble piece, especially now that there are only three characters. (Not that I don't scream every time I think about Tosh dying, but it does make it easier to imagine...) I'm like a lot of fandom in that I'd like to see more of Jack and Ianto, but I'd also like to see more of Jack and Gwen (and not necessarily in mid-snog) as well as more of Ianto and Gwen (who seemed to be forming a friendship; even in "Adrift" that showed.)
Sarah Jane reminisced about the Doctor once or twice in the first episodes of SJA, and then never again. They really need to remedy that. In first season Torchwood Jack mentioned the Doctor several times. Sarah Jane has known THREE versions of the Doctor; surely she can talk about him more than that!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 02:20 pm (UTC)Well, yes, and I wouldn't be surprised if she really did feel that one season was enough. In which case - can I have Martha back on the TARDIS? ...Despite the fact that I like the idea of having her in Torchwood. Maybe what I want is to have both Jack and Martha on the TARDIS - yeah! That would be fun.
But I'll miss Donna, just as I still miss Martha.
Why couldn't the residual Time Lord whatever go back into the hand, then she would need some time to recuperate at home
There are any number of ways she could have been forced to leave the TARDIS; and it wasn't even the loss of her memory that hurt (though it was bad enough), but the implied loss of her personal growth.
Torchwood can develop rather well into an ensemble piece
But that was my point, or a good part of it: I don't want Torchwood to be an ensemble piece, I want a show that highlights and focusses on Captain Jack as teh protagonist. Much as I love Gwen and (sometimes) Ianto as characters, I don't watch the show because of them. With better writing, I might not mind, but until we get that, I'm a little frustrated by the way we don't get much of Jack's point of view, and we get so much of Owen's or Gwen's. Jack gets sidelined too often.
There are people I'd rather see Jack with than Ianto, because I still find Ianto unformed as a character. But I'm happy to get whatever I get, especially if it involves attractive men snogging Jack. (Or more.) I'd rather see Jack with John, though, or the Doctor, or any number of other characters who are more exciting to me. I don't want to see him settle down monogamously as part of a Ianto-based couple, and I fear that's what I'm going to get, especially if they want it all to be 'accessible' to a wider audience, which could be taken to make Jack more conventional and tame.
Now, as it happens, Torchwood is an ensemble piece and I can live with that, especially since I have no choice. But. I'd rather see more of Jack, and less of the rest of the Team. Regardless of who is on the team.
I'd also like to see more of Jack and Gwen
Yes, please! I hope they don't just drop the UST between them.
and not necessarily in mid-snog
Not necessarily, no, but I'd like to see them lose control a little. Maybe. Sometimes.
as well as more of Ianto and Gwen
Very definitely! I loved their interplay.
In first season Torchwood Jack mentioned the Doctor several times.
And I cherished every reference. Really. It doesn't take much to make me ecstatic.
Sarah Jane has known THREE versions of the Doctor; surely she can talk about him more than that!
And I don't see why she wouldn't. I can see every reason for her to tell Luke and Maria all about him, and her adventures with him: if only to pass on the legacy that means so much to her.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 04:46 am (UTC)2. is a natural; it has to happen.
5. and 7. make me hesitate to ask what's been going on in these, currently. Yike.
But 8. -- well, am I the only person who hated both versions of that show? I hated everything about it from the title on down. (No, not everything: I am happy that it existed, and that it got so much attention. That was a very good thing for our times. However....) I especially hated the American version that placed it in Pittsburgh but filmed it in Toronto, totally disregarding Pittsburgh's thriving cultural atmosphere, feh. But, by then, I'd already realized that I didn't want anything to do with the show anyway, so that further dislike was utterly moot, I guess.
But, if you like it, and it's coming around again, good for you. I do mean that.
Now, what's this about Starbuck no longer being a feisty warrior? What, did she get a personality transplant...? How far along in the final season is this, now? Please -- starved for current BG info!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 12:40 pm (UTC)Re Battlestar Galactica: I still haven't watched the last two episodes, and I'm not sure I want to - each one I have watched recently has annoyed me more. There are still things I like, and I'm sort of enjoying Roslin's role. But I am most upset by the characterization of Starbuck, and the last straw might be what they did with Lampkin, whom I liked so much last season.
Re Queer as Folk: I loved the British version, especially Aiden Gillan as the outrageous Stuart. Vince, too. I thought it was smart and funny. And some ancillary characters were great. But can the magic be recaptured? I'm not sure.
Didn't like the American version at all.
Why did you hate the title? I thought the title was particularly fun as a play on words. Doesn't really work in the US, though - I've never heard an American use that phrase.
I don't know how far we are on in Battlestar Galactica - I don't even know what season this is. It's on hiatus for the time being. I haven't seen the last two episodes, which aired ages ago. They seem to be really into the plot threads I least like, and characters I don't like, adn I find Starbuck unrecognizable. I am not currently happy with the show.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-22 03:35 am (UTC)Who is Lampkin?
Why did you hate the title? I thought the title was particularly fun as a play on words. Doesn't really work in the US, though - I've never heard an American use that phrase.
I hate it because it's a twisty play on words. That sort of thing is in my top three of Most Guaranteed To Trigger A Verbalization-Ending Brainwave Feedback Loop. I am not joking with this, and am upset that the way I've worded it makes it sound as if I am. I am not joking in the least. People being glib like that instantly give me seizures.
(Also, I wonder if you noticed that I ranked something, there. When I never use such linear forms of categorization, myself. I did this because, in this instance, it is definite, plain, clear, and immutable that this bit of behavior is something I can't deal with, and that probably will never change. Unless my biology changes.)
Again, as for the phrase of the title: I also hate it because it's cruelly vulgar. You've never heard an American use it because you don't (I guess) know the kinds of Americans who would use it in front of you. I do, and I leave when they do. It's a dangerous thing to be near people like that. Again, I am not kidding. That phrase is angry, vulgar, vicious, homophobic to the maximum, and simply not good for anything as far as I'm concerned.
So I guess you could ask me if I enjoy being an American bigot who puts down a great UK show because of my own prejudices....
BG: mid-season break? What has happened with Starbuck? (Assuming you are still speaking with me after I said all that stuff.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-22 12:30 pm (UTC)A character you probably haven't got to yet. A lawyer.
I hate it because it's a twisty play on words.
But... is it? I thought it was just a reapplication of a familiar and rather charming phrase. I hate puns, but I thought of this as a different category. Maybe it's just that I've always liked the original use of the phrase - not vulgar in the least, and which was certainly not originally homophobic, having nothing to do with orientation. Perhaps I am missing something here?
If you mean 'queer' being used homophobically - I've always thought it a benign word used mostly by gays to describe themselves. Like Queer Nation, or saying "we're queer and we're here". Maybe this is an American/Canadian/British difference - I don't usually describe myself as gay but I'd have no hesitation in saying I was queer, because it's more vague, potentially less specific, unequivocally including rather than excluding bisexuals.
What has happened with Starbuck?
She's looking for Earth. She's pretty confused.
Assuming you are still speaking with me after I said all that stuff.
I don't understand. What did you say that you thought I wouldn't like?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-23 03:28 am (UTC)I was having a Bad Day. Never mind!
But... is it? ...
I guess now's good to specify. I took the title to be a twist on "queer as fuck." This is the extremely dangerously vulgar phrase that few Americans of my acquaintance use. It may not have started out as referring to gays, but it quickly got co-opted by viciously homophobic (external or internalized) people, thus became what I know it to be.
"Queer" itself is not a vulgar word. To me. To a lot of people. It's what you say: perfectly vague. A lot of people in the GLBTQ "community" (as it is called, usually by those outside it) use it and are trying to reclaim it, the way gay guys have reclaimed "faggot." This, I like. Outside this open-minded realm, however, it remains dangerous to have a certain kind of person yell "You fucking queer!" at you.
Yeah. Cultural difference. Socio-cultural, too.
I don't like the play on words in that title, though. I don't like such plays on words or phrases. This is not so much a personal dislike as it is an awareness that they short-circuit me. We'll have to finish talking about that in person sometime. Sorry!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-23 04:24 am (UTC)Anyway, being unaware of that particular American phrase, I thought it was just from the northern British expresson 'queer as folk' as in 'there's naught as queer as folk' - meaning 'people are funny', not necessarily in an unkind way - sort of like saying "everyone's strange but you and me, and I'm not so sure about you."
So I didn't see it as a play on words or a pun, just a re-application of a familiar phrase to a new situation, i.e., queer culture.
I confess I was a little surprised that they didn't rename the show for the US version, since I thought Americans weren't familiar with that phrase.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 05:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 12:07 pm (UTC)No. What's the point? I thought the 'adult themes' approach made the show refreshingly realistic.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 01:44 pm (UTC)I've heard numerous explanations as to why there will only be five episodes next year. They each make sense but that's as far as it goes. Nothing grabs me and says "good reason."
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 03:35 pm (UTC)I'm hoping they don't back off on the sex. I think they did back off on both sex and swearing in series 2, and I wasn't entirely happy with the difference.
Since I don't think the show, as it stands, is sci-fi - any more than, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was sci-fi - I'm not sure it will attract the same audience whatever its tone. On the other hand, if they're gravitating to more sci-fi and less fantasy, that might be a good thing.
I would be really interested to know why they are only doing five episodes. My personal theory is that they are planning more, but keeping it secret - doling out the information a little at a time, making further scheduling a revelation yet to come.
That way they don't need to film or show all the episodes at one time.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 02:07 pm (UTC)Continuation? Not sure it could work. Or a remake? If the latter, what for??
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 02:26 pm (UTC)I'm only guessing, but I think it's that he feels gay culture in the UK has changed a lot in time since QaF was made, and he wants to look at those changes.
Which might be really interesting.
Or not, depending on what he does.
SJA
Date: 2008-07-22 01:20 am (UTC)One of the things I love about Sarah Jane is that she's basically inadvertently running a Companion training academy out of her house. Maria, Clyde, and whoever else will be ready to take a turn with the Doctor in five or ten years.
Going back to a previous conversation about characters getting Doctor surrogates when they can't be with him, Sarah Jane also qualifies in that regard because of Luke. In many ways, he's Doctor, Jr.
Re: SJA
Date: 2008-07-22 02:19 am (UTC)Have we even seen Clyde's family yet? I didn't think so. But it might be very interesting. Too bad if we're losing Maria, though; I liked her a lot.
she's basically inadvertently running a Companion training academy out of her house
True! Too bad they don't have a TARDIS. Yet.
Sarah Jane also qualifies in that regard because of Luke. In many ways, he's Doctor, Jr.
That's true, and I hope they give him room to develop.
Heroes: Say Goodbye to Monica
Date: 2008-08-20 02:35 pm (UTC)http://www.heroestheseries.com/season-3-surprise-say-goodbye-to-monica/
Re: Heroes: Say Goodbye to Monica
Date: 2008-08-20 02:39 pm (UTC)Latest Heroes Graphic Novel
Date: 2008-09-02 01:59 pm (UTC)http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/novels_display.shtml?novel=101
Re: Latest Heroes Graphic Novel
Date: 2008-09-02 02:18 pm (UTC)