It's one of those weeks that feels like it should be short because there's a holiday coming up, but . . . it isn't.
Today in President Obama Being Awesome: Introducing To Kill a Mockingbird; hanging out being dorky with Nichelle Nichols.
The Beatles: TNG?
Neil Patrick Harris is hosting the Tony Awards again, thank goodness.
Sarah Burton: Awesome.
The Bones baby announcement is the cutest thing ever.
What the World Was Like the First Time Titanic Was in Theaters
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Castle "The Limey" Guest Star FAQ
I'm getting hits from people Googling things of this nature, so let me make this easy for you:
Who was the British man who guest starred on Castle last night?
Well, there were two. Sort of. The actually-British older man was Charles Shaughnessy. (He played the suspect who worked at the consulate.) But you probably mean the Scotland Yard detective. That was Brett Tucker. Yes, he's actually Australian. Which brings us to . . .
Castle Scotland Yard Australian accent
Indeed, Googler, indeed. Tucker is Australian, but the character, Colin Hunt, was definitely supposed to be British. He said he grew up in working-class London and later went to Eton (on scholarship) and tried to fit in. My guess is that the accent was an Australian trying to sound like a Londoner trying to sound posh. It wasn't . . . an entirely successful attempt. I actually thought his Brit-trying-to-sound-American accent when he was impersonating Jack Bauer (did you catch that?) was better. Or he can keep standing around in a towel, and I'll stop criticizing his accent, promise.
Who was the British man who guest starred on Castle last night?
Well, there were two. Sort of. The actually-British older man was Charles Shaughnessy. (He played the suspect who worked at the consulate.) But you probably mean the Scotland Yard detective. That was Brett Tucker. Yes, he's actually Australian. Which brings us to . . .
Castle Scotland Yard Australian accent
Indeed, Googler, indeed. Tucker is Australian, but the character, Colin Hunt, was definitely supposed to be British. He said he grew up in working-class London and later went to Eton (on scholarship) and tried to fit in. My guess is that the accent was an Australian trying to sound like a Londoner trying to sound posh. It wasn't . . . an entirely successful attempt. I actually thought his Brit-trying-to-sound-American accent when he was impersonating Jack Bauer (did you catch that?) was better. Or he can keep standing around in a towel, and I'll stop criticizing his accent, promise.
Gossip Girl Review: The King & Queen of Overthinking
I'll admit I'm a little gobsmacked, both by how entirely Gossip Girl has convinced me to buy into the Dan/Blair relationship and by how obvious it all seems in retrospect. But first, about the events of last night's "Con-Heir:" Of course after planning for weeks and thinking about it for weeks/months/years and making it into this big huge Thing, of course the sex was going to be bad the first time. And of course Blair would go to Dorota, because she literally has no one else she can be honest with, and of course Dan would go to Nate, and see it as a plus for this conversation that Nate had also slept with Blair. (Random: This scene made me wonder if Dan knows Blair actually slept with Chuck first, not Nate.) But the real issue is just that they're overthinking things, as they both always do. Blair's always trying to make her life into the movie in her head, and Dan literally makes his life into novels, and it makes perfect sense that they'd have to get drunk to get out of their own heads enough to actually enjoy each other. This tendency to overthink is one of the reasons why they're so compatible, but also will be one of their big challenges in making their relationship work.
I know everything's always screwball comedies and old movies with them, but what I kept actually thinking last night was that they were both awfully proud and awfully prejudiced and had to get over that to realize they loved each other. But once they did, it's just so obvious that they work. They're the most bookish characters on the show, and certainly have a lot more to talk about to each other than pretty much anyone else. For Dan, Blair is basically a combination of the best parts of Serena and Vanessa - she has Serena's mystique and worldliness but actually shares his intellectual interests the way Vanessa did. (Without, you know, being the worst the way Vanessa was.)
And for Blair . . . oh, Blair. She's supposed to be the big schemer, but at least some of that is a response to the way she's been used as property and as a pawn her whole life. When she was sixteen, her boyfriend was ready to propose because his father wanted her mother's business. A few years later, another boyfriend traded her to his uncle for a hotel. A few years after that, her husband announced at their wedding that he would either use her as breeding stock or ruin her family. Of course what she needs is Dan, the man who has an unquestioned place in her social world but who makes a big show of wanting nothing to do with it. Blair may claim to hate his Brooklyn loft, but knowing that he's not using her as a tool in the unending econo-social power struggle of the Upper East Side must be a relief. Dan claims to hate the UES and Blair claims to love it, but underneath that they both have love/hate relationships with that world, and it should be interesting to see how that plays out.
(There's also the fact that Blair keeps dating Lily's stepsons; as she was growing up as Serena's best friend, Blair must have had Lily as the model of a mother both [somewhat] more involved and [much] less demanding than her own.)
Other observations:
1) I love Businessman Nate, and the way the show has handled his evolution into a really decent adult.
2) Jack Bass is one of those delightful love-to-hate-him villains, and I wish he'd be around more.
3) I can barely bring myself to follow, never mind care about, the Lola/Ivy/inheritance/whatever plotline, but at least it's not as horrifically annoying as some of the show's past distractions. If we can't just alternate between Nate having business meetings and Dan and Blair bantering/having sex in elevators, then fine, Lola/Ivy it is.
4) They remembered Chuck has a mother! Good job, show!
I know everything's always screwball comedies and old movies with them, but what I kept actually thinking last night was that they were both awfully proud and awfully prejudiced and had to get over that to realize they loved each other. But once they did, it's just so obvious that they work. They're the most bookish characters on the show, and certainly have a lot more to talk about to each other than pretty much anyone else. For Dan, Blair is basically a combination of the best parts of Serena and Vanessa - she has Serena's mystique and worldliness but actually shares his intellectual interests the way Vanessa did. (Without, you know, being the worst the way Vanessa was.)
And for Blair . . . oh, Blair. She's supposed to be the big schemer, but at least some of that is a response to the way she's been used as property and as a pawn her whole life. When she was sixteen, her boyfriend was ready to propose because his father wanted her mother's business. A few years later, another boyfriend traded her to his uncle for a hotel. A few years after that, her husband announced at their wedding that he would either use her as breeding stock or ruin her family. Of course what she needs is Dan, the man who has an unquestioned place in her social world but who makes a big show of wanting nothing to do with it. Blair may claim to hate his Brooklyn loft, but knowing that he's not using her as a tool in the unending econo-social power struggle of the Upper East Side must be a relief. Dan claims to hate the UES and Blair claims to love it, but underneath that they both have love/hate relationships with that world, and it should be interesting to see how that plays out.
(There's also the fact that Blair keeps dating Lily's stepsons; as she was growing up as Serena's best friend, Blair must have had Lily as the model of a mother both [somewhat] more involved and [much] less demanding than her own.)
Other observations:
1) I love Businessman Nate, and the way the show has handled his evolution into a really decent adult.
2) Jack Bass is one of those delightful love-to-hate-him villains, and I wish he'd be around more.
3) I can barely bring myself to follow, never mind care about, the Lola/Ivy/inheritance/whatever plotline, but at least it's not as horrifically annoying as some of the show's past distractions. If we can't just alternate between Nate having business meetings and Dan and Blair bantering/having sex in elevators, then fine, Lola/Ivy it is.
4) They remembered Chuck has a mother! Good job, show!
Castle Review: Can we keep the hot British guy?
Brett Tucker guest starred as a Scotland Yard detective on Castle's "The Limey" last night, and he was pretty delightful, even if his accent was confusing. (The actor is Australian, and he was playing a working-class Londoner trying to fit in with Eton types, and it wound up as kind of a mess.) I don't want to keep him around for Beckett or anything. Just, you know, as set decoration.
ANYWAY. This episode, like the last one, was a little difficult to watch, but I basically think everyone should calm down. I'm seeing a surprising number of fans who think the past two episodes mean that Castle and Beckett will never get together, when in fact I'm pretty sure that the fact that the show is starting to deal with the issue at ALL instead of just ignoring it means we're closer than ever. Andrew Marlowe has said from the beginning that they will get together and that he has a plan, and I'm willing to trust him on that.
I agree that Castle and Beckett are both acting in extremely frustrating ways, but I think they're both acting in character, so it works for me. They aren't together, so Castle isn't betraying her or cheating on her or anything like that. He's trying to convince himself and everyone around him that he's fine, that he can go back to his old ways, that he doesn't need something deeper. He's protesting too much. And Beckett, well, she's lost so much. It makes sense that her fear of losing Castle is stronger than her hope that she could have more.
When a character speaks for the audience, it often seems contrived, but I thought Lanie's scenes were quite good and believable, and she's exactly the right person to give Beckett a push. And her speech reinforced my impression that the writers know they've almost run out of believable obstacles and audience goodwill. (I know most fans are much less patient with this sort of thing than I am.) Part of me would still be surprised if Castle and Beckett actually get together in the finale, but part of me is starting to almost believe it. Either way, there's enough actual progress happening - or movement, at least, if not exactly forward progress - to keep me believing in the show and the plan.
ANYWAY. This episode, like the last one, was a little difficult to watch, but I basically think everyone should calm down. I'm seeing a surprising number of fans who think the past two episodes mean that Castle and Beckett will never get together, when in fact I'm pretty sure that the fact that the show is starting to deal with the issue at ALL instead of just ignoring it means we're closer than ever. Andrew Marlowe has said from the beginning that they will get together and that he has a plan, and I'm willing to trust him on that.
I agree that Castle and Beckett are both acting in extremely frustrating ways, but I think they're both acting in character, so it works for me. They aren't together, so Castle isn't betraying her or cheating on her or anything like that. He's trying to convince himself and everyone around him that he's fine, that he can go back to his old ways, that he doesn't need something deeper. He's protesting too much. And Beckett, well, she's lost so much. It makes sense that her fear of losing Castle is stronger than her hope that she could have more.
When a character speaks for the audience, it often seems contrived, but I thought Lanie's scenes were quite good and believable, and she's exactly the right person to give Beckett a push. And her speech reinforced my impression that the writers know they've almost run out of believable obstacles and audience goodwill. (I know most fans are much less patient with this sort of thing than I am.) Part of me would still be surprised if Castle and Beckett actually get together in the finale, but part of me is starting to almost believe it. Either way, there's enough actual progress happening - or movement, at least, if not exactly forward progress - to keep me believing in the show and the plan.
Bones Review: Happy Birthday!
Well, that was quite a return for Bones with last night's "The Prisoner in the Pipe." There was, you know, a murder or something, but let's be frank: No one cares about that this week. More importantly, there was a baby, and the whole thing was handled fairly well. I'm very impressed by how good a job the show has done of getting Booth and Brennan together, and the earlier parts of last night's episode provided some good examples of both of them learning to compromise while remaining in character, which gave me hope both for this show (which has already been renewed for season 8) and others doing the will they/won't they dance. I especially like when the show remembers that Booth is Catholic, as I think that's both one of the most interesting and most fundamental things about his character.
And then in the latter parts of the episode, Brennan kept doing things that made me yell, because they were so extreme as to be out of character and obvious just inserted for cheap dramatic tension. Wandering into the prison was so dumb. First of all, even if her contention that prisoners wouldn't hurt a pregnant woman were true, Brennan should know darn well that general anthropological principles don't predict the behavior of individuals in specific situations. And second, even if she were definitely, 100% safe in that environment, Booth certainly was not, and Brennan certainly knows him well enough to know that he would follow her in no matter what.
And the whole birth thing . . . oh, whatever. It was ridiculous on so many levels! Booth could certainly have driven another ten miles in the time they spent arguing with the innkeeper. Labor was ridiculously quick anyway. Brennan, so concerned about sterile environments this very episode, would not have been so okay with the barn thing, and probably would have declared the backseat of the car a better option. Booth should have called a freaking ambulance as soon as he realized they weren't going to make it farther. Brennan should not have been up and about so quickly. They presumably went to a hospital at some point, because by the end the baby had clothes and a hat, but they should not have wound up home that same day.
But, you know, whatever. BOOTH AND BRENNAN HAVE A BABY, and this whole created family around them, and this show has come so far and accomplished so much, and I may have been a little teary by the end. And now, show, you've got two working mothers of young children, and the chance to actually do a good job with that, please. Welcome to the world, Christine Angela. I hope they stop calling you Stapes soon.
And then in the latter parts of the episode, Brennan kept doing things that made me yell, because they were so extreme as to be out of character and obvious just inserted for cheap dramatic tension. Wandering into the prison was so dumb. First of all, even if her contention that prisoners wouldn't hurt a pregnant woman were true, Brennan should know darn well that general anthropological principles don't predict the behavior of individuals in specific situations. And second, even if she were definitely, 100% safe in that environment, Booth certainly was not, and Brennan certainly knows him well enough to know that he would follow her in no matter what.
And the whole birth thing . . . oh, whatever. It was ridiculous on so many levels! Booth could certainly have driven another ten miles in the time they spent arguing with the innkeeper. Labor was ridiculously quick anyway. Brennan, so concerned about sterile environments this very episode, would not have been so okay with the barn thing, and probably would have declared the backseat of the car a better option. Booth should have called a freaking ambulance as soon as he realized they weren't going to make it farther. Brennan should not have been up and about so quickly. They presumably went to a hospital at some point, because by the end the baby had clothes and a hat, but they should not have wound up home that same day.
But, you know, whatever. BOOTH AND BRENNAN HAVE A BABY, and this whole created family around them, and this show has come so far and accomplished so much, and I may have been a little teary by the end. And now, show, you've got two working mothers of young children, and the chance to actually do a good job with that, please. Welcome to the world, Christine Angela. I hope they stop calling you Stapes soon.
The Good Wife Promo: Welcome Back to the Dark Side
We don't get a new episode of The Good Wife for a few weeks yet, but this fairly grim new promo for the last three episodes of the season (!) highlights what the show is best at: examining the intersection of public and private lives and the use of both - and everything else - in an eternal struggle for power, again both public and private. But let's be frank: The really exciting thing here is the suggestion that Cary and his smirk and his pretty pretty suits may return to the dark side. Wheeee.
(The song, if you're wondering, is Jose Gonzalez's "Down the Line.")
(The song, if you're wondering, is Jose Gonzalez's "Down the Line.")
Morning Coffee (4/3/12)
Good morning! In case you missed it last night, I wrote something of a spoiler manifesto.
Wildly exciting for, um, a few of us: The first pictures of Bradley Whitford on the set of his new pilot.
Sexist creep of the day: Lee Aronsohn
Copper sounds like it will be really good. I hope.
The Ten Most Sorkin Things in the Trailer for The Newsroom
Parents are getting their kids' writing self-published. Maureen Johnson responds.
A Hunger Games-themed wedding? Um. Romantic?
Wildly exciting for, um, a few of us: The first pictures of Bradley Whitford on the set of his new pilot.
Sexist creep of the day: Lee Aronsohn
Copper sounds like it will be really good. I hope.
The Ten Most Sorkin Things in the Trailer for The Newsroom
Parents are getting their kids' writing self-published. Maureen Johnson responds.
A Hunger Games-themed wedding? Um. Romantic?
Monday, April 2, 2012
New Spoiler Policy (& Rant)
Maybe it's just my contrarian side slipping through, but today, somewhere between seeing someone upset about plot details from last season mentioned in an article about Game of Thrones and reading yet another tantrum about people discussing the plot of an upcoming movie based on a book that's been out for years, I snapped. This is ridiculous. It's great that the Internet and social media mean that pretty much anyone can participate in the critical conversation about TV, movies, etc., but the flip side is that everyone seems to think the conversation should cater to them. And it's just not sustainable. "Spoiler warnings" are being posted more and more, and people are complaining more and more anyway, and discourse just cannot happen if everyone who writes or tweets is expected to magically know whether anyone in their prospective audience might be watching a day or week or year behind. No. No more.
Also: We've lost the definition of "spoiler," anyway. If something has already aired, it is not a spoiler. Sure, if you're going to talk about something you've seen from a forthcoming episode, from a screener or leaked script or what-have-you, then yes, that's a spoiler! Warn people! I am completely for that! That is completely reasonable!
What I'm objecting to are the perpetual warnings about things that have already aired. So, new policy: I will not post or tweet spoilers until the West Coast airing of a show.* Since I go to bed at a reasonable hour (most of the time), for me, this effectively means the next morning. And, you know, I don't tend to tweet a lot of spoilers anyway. This will not be a huge change. It does mean that if I tweet a link to a post about a show, it may contain plot details, so, you know, don't click if you don't want to know!
And to clarify a popular objection: I am not demanding that everyone be caught up on everything. No way. I'm behind on more shows than most people watch at all. What I'm saying is that you can't be behind and participate in the conversation and make a fuss if you find out things you didn't want to know. There are three ways to avoid this: Catch up. Or take yourself out of the conversation for a while. (Don't read reviews or follow people you know will livetweet!) Or just live with the spoilers and don't complain about it. Any of those solutions work fine. (I am thoroughly spoiled on several shows on which I'm seasons behind. For me, this makes catching up much more fun. Something to consider.)
While we're at it, a short list of things that are not spoilers:
* Note: I'm just talking about this blog and my personal Twitter account. Policy is not changing for Vampire-Diaries.net or any other site I write for.
Also: We've lost the definition of "spoiler," anyway. If something has already aired, it is not a spoiler. Sure, if you're going to talk about something you've seen from a forthcoming episode, from a screener or leaked script or what-have-you, then yes, that's a spoiler! Warn people! I am completely for that! That is completely reasonable!
What I'm objecting to are the perpetual warnings about things that have already aired. So, new policy: I will not post or tweet spoilers until the West Coast airing of a show.* Since I go to bed at a reasonable hour (most of the time), for me, this effectively means the next morning. And, you know, I don't tend to tweet a lot of spoilers anyway. This will not be a huge change. It does mean that if I tweet a link to a post about a show, it may contain plot details, so, you know, don't click if you don't want to know!
And to clarify a popular objection: I am not demanding that everyone be caught up on everything. No way. I'm behind on more shows than most people watch at all. What I'm saying is that you can't be behind and participate in the conversation and make a fuss if you find out things you didn't want to know. There are three ways to avoid this: Catch up. Or take yourself out of the conversation for a while. (Don't read reviews or follow people you know will livetweet!) Or just live with the spoilers and don't complain about it. Any of those solutions work fine. (I am thoroughly spoiled on several shows on which I'm seasons behind. For me, this makes catching up much more fun. Something to consider.)
While we're at it, a short list of things that are not spoilers:
1. Plot details of books on which shows or movies are based.What am I missing from the list? Am I being unreasonable and contrary? Do you all hate me now? Anyone want to join me in my brave new spoiler-warning-free world?
2. Casting news.
3. Quotes or general impressions that do not give plot details.
4. Anything in a promo aired by the network itself.
ADDED: 5. If the book has been published, it's not a spoiler. (I try to be consistent.)
* Note: I'm just talking about this blog and my personal Twitter account. Policy is not changing for Vampire-Diaries.net or any other site I write for.
TV Trailer: The Newsroom
Season two of Game of Thrones premiered last night, and I should probably say something about that at some point, actually, but let's be honest: Once they showed the first trailer for their new Aaron Sorkin show The Newsroom, I could barely bring myself to care about anything else all night. Critic Alan Sepinwall referred to it as "Let Sorkin Be Sorkin," and while some seem to think it looks too Sorkiny... to me, there's basically no such thing. I am so excited about this:
First, did you notice the "You Didn't Have to Be So Nice" motif in the instrumentals? HAH! Second, we've almost got Sorkin Bingo right there in the trailer, except maybe for Daddy Issues, and I'm sure those will show up soon enough. Third, is there going to have to be less semi-requited longing than on previous Sorkin shows, to meet the HBO sex quota? Hmm. And fourth, IS IT JUNE YET?
First, did you notice the "You Didn't Have to Be So Nice" motif in the instrumentals? HAH! Second, we've almost got Sorkin Bingo right there in the trailer, except maybe for Daddy Issues, and I'm sure those will show up soon enough. Third, is there going to have to be less semi-requited longing than on previous Sorkin shows, to meet the HBO sex quota? Hmm. And fourth, IS IT JUNE YET?
Reminder: Bones Returns TONIGHT!
Just a reminder for any Bones fans who somehow hadn't heard or had forgotten: The show is moving to Mondays, starting tonight. It will be on at 8/7c, and no, this move doesn't mean the show is in danger or anything - it's already been renewed for season eight. Best guess is that FOX wanted to give a new show, Touch, the Idol lead-in and figured Bones had an established fan base that would move. And if you ARE a fan at all, you REALLY don't want to miss tonight's episode - let's just say that I'm wearing my birthday-themed socks today in preparation for it.
Today may feel a little weird for procedural fans: Bones and Castle are now regularly scheduled on the same night (though not the same hour, thank goodness) and it feels SO ODD. (The shows have only ever aired new episodes on the same night once before, a one-off when Bones had some extra episodes to burn in April 2009.) At least they won't have their season finales the same night: Castle's is May 7 and Bones's is May 14.
Today may feel a little weird for procedural fans: Bones and Castle are now regularly scheduled on the same night (though not the same hour, thank goodness) and it feels SO ODD. (The shows have only ever aired new episodes on the same night once before, a one-off when Bones had some extra episodes to burn in April 2009.) At least they won't have their season finales the same night: Castle's is May 7 and Bones's is May 14.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)