![[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
i came into the sga fandom as a Rodney fan, but the Joe-bashing comments i've read made me uncomfortable even before i started appreciating his subtler/finer presentation. to me, JF is an acquired taste that i couldn't notice until my senses have recovered from the bombardment that is DH.
someone mentioned above that maybe JF fans are more introverted while DH fans are extroverts? i'm actually an introvert, but Rodney was the reason that drew me into this fandom. it was his sheer obnoxiousness that was refreshing; but after a while, i begin to realize that the show doesn't get blown apart by that whirlwind personality because there's a very nice solid anchor that balances out Rodney so that the entire show isn't entirely obnoxious ;P
i was a MR fan but i never really got to like TW, not that i dislike him either; but reading discussions about JF in this fandom has made me realize that i have grown to really like JF "despite" his good looks (which has handicapped him more often than people realize). i think it's possible that people are automatically intimidated by good-looking people, or that there's some sort of pre-emptive defense mechanism clicking on when we see someone very attractive and we'd hate to fall so easily to his charms. maybe some people resist this attraction by putting down that person's capabilities (i think this could happen to good-looking women in the workplace who find it hard to gain the respect of male co-workers?) it's easy to accept that DH is good at what he does because he's not conventionally handsome; but some might feel ashamed to admit that they think JF is a good actor, maybe because they're afraid others will think they're shallow for liking a "good-looking" actor.
of course, bad writing or lack of character development for his character have been more damaging to JF than to DH. i think Phantoms has convinced more people that JF's skills are not a fluke than any season 1 or 2 episode could. it's quite obvious his performance eclipsed that of the others, when it's harder to miss his subtlety when the camera centers on his face for longer periods of time.
even though the JF-bashing posts were disturbing, they did make me pay more attention to those actor interviews that i wouldn't have glanced at except out of curiosity. but it was these interviews that showed his thoughtful and honest responses, which made me see more clearly that his character is very much skillfully built, that it looks like he didn't put as much work into it because he's made it look so organic and non-artificial. it's this contrast between the character and the actor that made me see how much of a cardboard hero Sheppard would've been in another actor's hands.
i really love JF's Sheppard. i think when people complain about his "lack of emoting" they're really missing a huge chunk. his character is not McKay. he's not even the regular wine-n-dine/sleazy/smooth hero that gets the girl. it's so cute because he's awkwardly trying to be smooth. i can't actually think of another actor that can do this; most of them are either too sleazy or just too awkward. and it's also very cute that he breaks the expectation that good-looking guys would have it easy or would be naturally smooth.
anyways, i know i'm just preaching to the choir, but i am sorry you had to suffer such frustration and disappointment.. *hugs*
no subject
Thank you for posting. It's--hmm. Most of the time, I can blow it off and ignore, but its' like my tolerance is kind of being eroded and I don't want to become one of those really frightening, whiny fans who get superoversensitized. When I did the entry--which is a five in teh morning entry for a reason, I could never have done it otherwise--I wanted to make it clear I'm not denying DH for JF--but that it's become so accepted, so *casually* accepted that I'm seeing it even in what should be fairly safe entries--a line, or a few paragraphs thrown in, or this really disheartening apologetic feeling from John and JF fans, like we're all scared to express that we *do* like him. I mean, for me, I kept thinking I was just missing something important that everyone else was seeing, and later, I just didn't want to make a fuss about it.
And now? I mean, I dont' want this to be a point of contention, but--I really did want to find out if I was alone in this, and connect with other fen so we *don't* feel quite so isolated in this.
So um, short version? I love your thoughts, and thank you very much for posting!
no subject
What you wrote here is exactly how I feel. Plus this feeling of isolation was eating on me because I'm not a native speaker and sometimes I have to wonder if I'm just not getting something (I don't usually doubt my receptive skills tho I suck rocks with the productive skill set).
Anyway, thank you for this post : )
no subject
no subject
no subject
YESYESYESYESYES!
no subject
no subject
This reminds me of what Joe said in the commentary to "Rising": he's had to learn to perform in a sci-fi setting where the camera angles are wide because the canvas is broad -- huge special effects everywhere.
When you think of the actors who've done well in sci-fi right off the bat -- Patrick Stewart (Shakespeare), Michael Shanks (Shakespeare), Rick Anderson (Mime), David Hewlett (Sci-Fi/Horror) -- you begin to realize that their background is acting on that larger scale.
Now that we're getting more of what Joe's learned to do, the subtle close-ups common to romantic comedy, we're starting to appreciate him more. But even though I haven't see "Phantoms" yet, I've found myself fascinated by him and wondering what he'll do next.
Icarus
no subject
thanks for the info!