![[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
hee! this is so interesting.. i'm no film major, but when i watch SGA i don't think there's actually a "lead actress" on the show.. maybe that's a real good thing :D
Um. Rant warning.
GODDAMNED STRAIGHT THAT'S A GOOD THING!!!
*huff**puff*
Two-thirds of the time when there's a "lead actress" it is because the "lead actor" is seen as needing a romantic foil, against his attraction to whom he must struggle, or vice-versa. Either she's a recurring character - in which case there must be something interfering in their relationship - or she's a bit character - in which case, get the fucking coffin ready!
/rant
I am so bloody grateful that Sheppard's relationship with Weir and with Emmagen, regardless of how the writers script it, plays as adored siblings rather than as romantic interests. Because that means that all of them can be strong, and all of them can be playful, and all of them can be caring, and not screw each other up plot-wise.
Truly, when I saw Sheppard looking at The Woman Commonly Called That Ascended Bitch By Those Who Think John's Cheating On Rodney (poor Chaya!), I did in fact see some believable romantic interest from John - and I mean "believable" in the context that I haven't believed a single statement of romantic interest from a male TV actor in literally decades. But I believed him. And I was sad that the situation forbade him. (Strangely, I didn't see romantic interest from her; I saw a calculation of his use to her in her loneliness. Which I understand, having made the same calculation; but look, sweet, you obviously need a dyke with the Ascended gene. Leave John be.)
It's a damned good thing that Jeannie is married to a highly approvable man, or we'd see the writers attempting to foist a "proper" McCay onto John - but that's another problem altogether ....
*fades into confusion*
Re: Um. Rant warning.
i totally agree! i just remember feeling a little afraid when i first started watching the series from season 1 that they'd be foisting either Teyla or Liz onto him.. and i was so relieved that they didn't -- somehow when shows do that to the protagonist, the female(s) foisted upon him always "turn" stupid.. :(
(Strangely, I didn't see romantic interest from her; I saw a calculation of his use to her in her loneliness. Which I understand, having made the same calculation; but look, sweet, you obviously need a dyke with the Ascended gene. Leave John be.)
yeah, i got the feeling that she was not seducing him because of whatever "vibes" from him that she was drawn to, but more like there's this "genetic attraction" or something, like she misses having corporeal humans that had the Ancient gene, and hasn't seen one in millenia :P