Gene vs. Sam, and the ending of LOM

[hmpf]

I'm not posting this anywhere within the fandom - TRA or lifein1973 or even the dissident haven of jumping_off - because I feel I've made myself unpopular enough. I mean, I'm cool with not being universally liked, but I'd like to avoid being universally hated. *g*

But, I have to ask/wonder...

Comments

[ex_emeriin213]

I completely agree with you. I like Gene, there's even a bit of sexual attraction there, much to my eternal shame (but only because of Phil) but it gets me so pissy that, for example, in The Times, John Simm gets about one or two lines of praise and then they just go on to complain about how its so awful that Phil didn't get a BAFTA nomination. Sam is the star of the show, boys and girls, Gene provides the fun.

And I hate how the writers fell into this belief that Gene was the most important thing about the show. I find that always happens and its usually never good, like Spike being popular in Buffy and the writers making him the 'special/good' vampire and destroying him completely.

And I find it disturbing that the writers found it 'cold' to have him being in 2006, after episodes like 2.04 and 'I miss all of them.' being an example. Why bother doing that if they had intended him to leave them all behind, anyway?

Can't think of a title, dum-di-dum...

[hmpf]

>in The Times, John Simm gets about one or two lines of praise and then they just go on to complain about how its so awful that Phil didn't get a BAFTA nomination.

Also, Philip Glenister got that nomination for Best Actor in those other awards a while ago, didn't he? And in those awards, John Simm didn't get a nomination, and nobody complained that he should (well, okay, I complained a bit, but certainly nobody 'official' did. *g*)

>And I find it disturbing that the writers found it 'cold' to have him being in 2006, after episodes like 2.04 and 'I miss all of them.' being an example. Why bother doing that if they had intended him to leave them all behind, anyway?

This episode in particular really makes me wonder if it *really* is true that all the writers agreed that what MG wrote would be the perfect ending for the show. As I said, I'd love to actually hear one of the other writers about this... but I guess we never will.

Re: Can't think of a title, dum-di-dum...

[ex_emeriin213]

>>>This episode in particular really makes me wonder if it *really* is true that all the writers agreed that what MG wrote would be the perfect ending for the show. As I said, I'd love to actually hear one of the other writers about this... but I guess we never will.

It's possible we might when they all go on to other things. And I think its also possible for MG to turn around in a few years and say that he actually meant it to be a bleak, depressing ending with a *message*. But seeing as the reaction was overwhelmingly positive, I don't see that happening.

[stabbim]

In series 1 I identified with Sam. I experienced the show through him. Series 2 felt completely different to me. Sam even was unlikeable to me in several situations. Sure, he made mistakes in series 1, but Sam had a good intentions and reasons to think that he'd made the right decision

Love, fannish love, ...

[hmpf]

has very little to do with quality, in my case. If a show or a character have me, well, they have me. (And whether they get me in the first place depends largely on the frequency with which they push certain buttons of mine.) I don't fall out of fannish love easily, although I may get disenchanted, as I did in the case of LOM. What I do now is standard procedure for loving stuff that is a bit broken: I'm trying to fix it, find ways to make it make sense for myself, so I can continue loving it somehow.

That's just how my fannishness works. It's not even a conscious choice or anything.

Character consistency

[hmpf]

Actually, I didn't think Sam was inconsistent in series two - except for the last episode, that is. But then, I've only watched series two once so far, so maybe I'll notice it the next time.

And I find it a bit sad that you're leaving the field to the happy people... why should that be the only voices that deserve to be heard in the fandom?

Then again, if you really don't care much anymore, there really isn't much need to discuss anything, I suppose.

One more thing...

[hmpf]

(sheesh, my brain's just not up to scratch today...)

I don't get the impression that character consistency has anything to do with people preferring Gene to Sam. It's mostly about the fun (and the sex appeal, apparently), as it has been from day one.

(And I actually happen to think it was *Gene* who was portrayed a bit inconsistently in series two - he really wavered a lot between being totally horrible and being almost civilised...)

[beccatoria]

I think you may have hit on something. Though speaking from the perspective of someone who enjoys Gene's hilarity and god-awful political incorrectness (she's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot!) far more than Sam, I was always well aware that Gene was a) not the main character and b) quite possibly a figment of Sam's imagination.

If anything my reaction was, "This dude is awesome; shame I'm more invested in him than the main character," not, "Clearly the show must now revolve around this character!"

I guess I'm mainly thinking that people loving Gene probably has something to do with the acceptance of his reality being "better". On the other hand, as someone who quite distinctly preferred watching Gene, I still thought the ending was...horrific.

Perhaps I'm just capable of separating my favourite character from the needs of the story? Wow...that sounds arrogant. Huh.

[hmpf]

>I was always well aware that Gene was a) not the main character and b) quite possibly a figment of Sam's imagination.

That's because you're a good writer who is aware of the rules and mechanics of stories, and a very sane and intelligent person.

Ha. How's *that* for arrogance? ;-)