![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
because it is very early and I'm very awake
The horrible danger of insomnia combined with friendsfriends--God. It's *crack*. I am totally understanding the draw. Currently working on avoiding ep reviews nad spoilers, since I haen't watched The Return yet.
Anyway, while cruising along, I came across an entry--oh, just an entry of SGA squee, pre-episode, mentioning this and that and then, randomly at the end, a sudden diatribe against Joe Flanigan's acting skills. There was generalized horror and repugnance and the usual--weirdly usual, almost rote--discussion of the level of suckitude, so normal I don't even *notice* with any more than a blink.
Huh, I said, and as usual, skimmed and wandered off.
But it being five in the morning, I thought, well. It's fandom, and this is what we do. We sit around dissecting shows, characters, and actors. So I have to ask, because I can--um, what the hell?
I don't pretend to be anything close to an expert on acting, other than hoping Keanu Reeves is given few lines at any given time and a lot of really good shots of him being hot. That's as far as I get on appreciating this nebulous realm of 'good' versus 'bad'. But the fairly constant discussion of Joe Flanigan's lack of talent, lack of emoting, lack of this, lack of that--often paired up, oddly enough, with essays on David Hewlett's brilliance at whatever the poster has watched/did watch/is watching--it really makes me wonder. Otherwise squeeful individuals break into really *sudden* critiques of things like how Joe performed a ten second facial expression during a scene, or lapse into--and this is what's jarring, I'm reading along on meta and halfway through the paragraph just--boom. This sudden really *odd* invective. And at first it was annoying, then I progressed to the shrug/personal taste, then I started to doubt myself and wonder if there was something wrong with *me* that I wasn't climbing on the Joe Sucks At His Job Bandwagon, and progressed to think, wait. Am I sitting here thinking I need to *look* for reasons to critique an actor because half my fandom spends quality time--and a serious number of entries--telling me that he sucks? Was my John bias showing?
Wait, I thought. I like the character of John. The character is played by Joe, who plays the character of John in a way I like. Ergo, I think I like how Joe does his job. I remembered the stuff![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
thepouncer sent me and thought, huh. I liked that, too. That was kind of a relief.
I think at this point, it's just the build-up of seeing it so often--wow, so damned often, Jesus--and seeing it, not always, but a good chunk of the time, in direct contrast to a meta on DH's fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent and etcetera. And you know, the coolness is there to love the actor. What I can't quite work out is how slamming Joe comes into a essay about how great DH is. Is that--supporting evidence or something? That kind of loses me in wondering what on earth the point is. I'm not sure how repeating in various formats how *much* Joe sucks is somehow going to make the DH adulation more convincing. I mean, I was sort of convinced without it? Then I just got irritated.
So I had this thought. It's a stupid thought, but then, everyone has stupid thoughts and they post them anyway. I was wondering, is there a direct correlation between how dramatic/flamboyant a character is--think McKay, Lex Luthor, Lionel Luthor, Justin Taylor--and the higher incident of actor popularity? I'm thinking of how TW in SV also picked up a lot of flack for being a sucky actor, with the exception of the times he was very flamboyant--Red comes to mind, and the beginning of season three that I can never remember the name of. Or Brian, for that matter in QaF.
Hmm. I feel this weird need to ponder this, but I also feel a real need to clean my bathroom, and neither are getting done at this second, because my greater need is to blankly stare at my flist in hopes I'll get sleepy. I'm just--weirded out by it, I think.
Anyway, while cruising along, I came across an entry--oh, just an entry of SGA squee, pre-episode, mentioning this and that and then, randomly at the end, a sudden diatribe against Joe Flanigan's acting skills. There was generalized horror and repugnance and the usual--weirdly usual, almost rote--discussion of the level of suckitude, so normal I don't even *notice* with any more than a blink.
Huh, I said, and as usual, skimmed and wandered off.
But it being five in the morning, I thought, well. It's fandom, and this is what we do. We sit around dissecting shows, characters, and actors. So I have to ask, because I can--um, what the hell?
I don't pretend to be anything close to an expert on acting, other than hoping Keanu Reeves is given few lines at any given time and a lot of really good shots of him being hot. That's as far as I get on appreciating this nebulous realm of 'good' versus 'bad'. But the fairly constant discussion of Joe Flanigan's lack of talent, lack of emoting, lack of this, lack of that--often paired up, oddly enough, with essays on David Hewlett's brilliance at whatever the poster has watched/did watch/is watching--it really makes me wonder. Otherwise squeeful individuals break into really *sudden* critiques of things like how Joe performed a ten second facial expression during a scene, or lapse into--and this is what's jarring, I'm reading along on meta and halfway through the paragraph just--boom. This sudden really *odd* invective. And at first it was annoying, then I progressed to the shrug/personal taste, then I started to doubt myself and wonder if there was something wrong with *me* that I wasn't climbing on the Joe Sucks At His Job Bandwagon, and progressed to think, wait. Am I sitting here thinking I need to *look* for reasons to critique an actor because half my fandom spends quality time--and a serious number of entries--telling me that he sucks? Was my John bias showing?
Wait, I thought. I like the character of John. The character is played by Joe, who plays the character of John in a way I like. Ergo, I think I like how Joe does his job. I remembered the stuff
thepouncer sent me and thought, huh. I liked that, too. That was kind of a relief.I think at this point, it's just the build-up of seeing it so often--wow, so damned often, Jesus--and seeing it, not always, but a good chunk of the time, in direct contrast to a meta on DH's fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent. Long, long entries on fantastical talent and etcetera. And you know, the coolness is there to love the actor. What I can't quite work out is how slamming Joe comes into a essay about how great DH is. Is that--supporting evidence or something? That kind of loses me in wondering what on earth the point is. I'm not sure how repeating in various formats how *much* Joe sucks is somehow going to make the DH adulation more convincing. I mean, I was sort of convinced without it? Then I just got irritated.
So I had this thought. It's a stupid thought, but then, everyone has stupid thoughts and they post them anyway. I was wondering, is there a direct correlation between how dramatic/flamboyant a character is--think McKay, Lex Luthor, Lionel Luthor, Justin Taylor--and the higher incident of actor popularity? I'm thinking of how TW in SV also picked up a lot of flack for being a sucky actor, with the exception of the times he was very flamboyant--Red comes to mind, and the beginning of season three that I can never remember the name of. Or Brian, for that matter in QaF.
Hmm. I feel this weird need to ponder this, but I also feel a real need to clean my bathroom, and neither are getting done at this second, because my greater need is to blankly stare at my flist in hopes I'll get sleepy. I'm just--weirded out by it, I think.
no subject
Whether deliberately or not, casting JF in the Action!Hero! part was inspired, and fits well with the show. He wasn't meant to be Action!John, he was a light switch. A backup that only Weir and the science team wanted on board.
Let's face it, Robert Patrick's character was the perfect sqare-jawed SG-1 hero--and then they whacked him and put the auxiliary guy in his place. JF has done a very good job of showing us that--John Sheppard should never have had the command, but he does his damnedest, even though he barely knew about all this before he went through the Stargate.
As to the Saint Rodney Stories, they remind me of the Saint Xander stories in Buffy fandom. I love Rodney and Xander, but stories like that (along with the ones where everyone's personalities have been replaced by those of 13-year-old girls) cause me to hit the back button before I'm tempted to blast the writers with verbal shotguns. (And I love Xander and Rodney because of their idiosyncrasies and flaws. I have no desire to see them Marty-Sued.)
(And does anyone besides me wish Everett had been on the series longer than a couple of episodes? He made a great foil for John--and honestly, besides disliking John/Rodney, he was a great base commander, who respected Teyla, Weir, etc. Would have made for some very interesting storylines...)
no subject
Yes ok, he had a crappy childhood (if we can believe him) but it does not give him a green card to do whatever he freaking likes! And I think Rodney would agree that without Sheppard to keep him in line he'd be in a very different place than he is now. IN a similar way - if DH didn't have the wonderful chemistry with JF that he does, where would the character of Rodney be now?
Do you like the way I neatly segued that?