On Series Five of Doctor Who, Supernatural fic, and Inception
It's been much too long since I've had any good rants... or, perhaps more accurately, an LJ post. So, let's go with this.
The Doctor Who post may have very vague spoilers, but I'll "white out" the major/specific ones. For Inception, I'm sticking with the vaguest of spoilers-more like a review than anything.
So, on with the mini-rant-things. (Note: These are only opinions [and even if it seems like I'm stating a "fact," I'm actually just operating under the assumption that everything below is automatically tagged with an "in my opinion" note], so please don't jump on me or anything, kthx. ._. /paranoia)
1. I was really not a fan of this particular series, and it saddens me much more than it should. I guess my expectations were just too high, after watching Moffat's "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances," "The Girl in the Fireplace," and especially "Blink." None of the plots or supporting characters really stuck with me, and the ones that did only seemed to because they seemed vaguely fanfiction-like ("Amy's Choice," "The Lodger"). I think the only exception to this rule seems to be "The Eleventh Hour," which I felt was a brilliant first episode, and perhaps "Vincent and the Doctor," which was surprisingly very good. (Also, I have a weird obsession with the colors from that episode. I know-I don't get it, either.) The "Time of Angels"/"Flesh and Stone" two-parter was good, but it's difficult to really call it "amazing" when it has to live up to "Blink"-which it didn't.
But, overall, the episodes felt very, very disconnected and sometimes out-of-order, particularly in the first half of the series. "The Beast Below," for example, was very odd to watch directly after the Doctor meets Amy for the first time. As doom_cheesepuff said after seeing it, it didn't fit as a second episode but could have worked later in the series. Amy's deep understanding of the Doctor's character was particularly unbelievable for her second adventure. "Victory of the Daleks" just felt strange (and ridiculous) all around. I did enjoy the romp into WWII and the inclusion/characterization of Winston Churchill (and his relationship with the Doctor), but beyond that, the plot points were difficult to swallow, even by Doctor Who standards.
I'm rather certain that the main reason this entire series has left a bad taste in my mouth is thanks to the "Hungry Earth"/"Cold Blood" two-parter. Until this series, I've never watched a Doctor Who two-parter that I absolutely hated, so it was a bit harder to write off than a few questionable stand-alone episodes. (Luckily, all the episodes after it were amazing, so at least there's that.) The pacing was off, with little plot-related substance in "The Hungry Earth" and the rest stuffed into "Cold Blood." As a result, it was difficult to become invested in what was happening or the plight of the characters-even when they were faced with important, angst-ridden moral dilemmas. The premise was very interesting-a parallel to the Palestine-Israel conflict, but with much higher stakes-but stood no chance against the pacing problems. The aliens themselves also posed a bit of a problem for me, in part because they were kept rather one-dimensional and therefore both boring and difficult to connect with. Also, since the Silurians actually have connections to Earth reptiles, I ended up having higher expectations for their appearance and mannerisms, and I felt the depiction in the episodes to be a bit too human. For some odd reason, their eyes bugged me the most: I couldn't understand why they lacked the reptilian slit pupil. In the end, it felt like an interesting idea with nothing fleshed out. I, simply put, was not amused. /lol reference to series two *shot*
As for the finale... I'm still not sure what happened there. "The Pandorica Opens" felt very fanfiction-like-but in the worst possible way, particularly because Moffat decided to go down the RTD path and bring everyone together for a ridiculous mess of a finale. But I have to give major props for the importance of Stonehenge in the episode, even if my amusement comes solely from Stonehenge Apocalypse. The introduction to the episode was difficult enough to swallow-was it really necessary to include Churchill and the Queen?-but since the inclusion of those characters were less plot-related and moreso just for fun, it wasn't that grating. The climax of the episode, on the other hand, was. Where did the Cybermen come from? Why would the Daleks work with anyone, let alone Cybermen? Why are the Judoon suddenly the Doctor's enemies? None of it made sense, including the reasoning for why all the villains came together, and having a single villain would've sufficed. In fact, part of me was wondering why the "good" powers in the universe weren't the ones converging together, if the reason for locking the Doctor up was to "save the universe." Plot-wise, I'm not really sure anything happened. The entire episode just built up to an explanation that didn't really explain anything in the first place. "The Big Bang," while equally nonsensical as "The Pandorica Opens," was much more amusing. Where TPO was confusing, TBB was cracky and fun. My only complaint about it is the ending of the episode, which was painfully fanfiction-esque. I'm all for happy endings, but that was ridiculous, and not in the good way. Probably my least favorite reveal of the Doctor's otherworldliness to a companion's family/friends that I've seen thus far.
All in all: I absolutely adore Matt's Doctor, and Rory is one of my favorite Doctor Who characters ever. Amy's also awesome, ignoring her bit of insanity at the end of "Flesh and Stone." The reason this series fell below my expectations lies more with the writing than the characters and actors themselves. All I can really do is hope that next series will have a more coherent series-encompassing plot (and finale) and fleshed out episodes.
2. Dear Supernatural crossover writers:
Just because you're writing a crossover does not require you to have a pairing between one character from fandom 1 and a character from fandom 2. It is possible to limit yourself to pairing characters from the same fandom together. Or, if you really want to stretch the limits, you can even write gen! /gasp
Also, to those who write Supernatural/Harry Potter crossovers::
Can we get a few more fics in which Dean and Sam actually go to Hogwarts or enter the Wizarding World without getting into serious relationships with wizards/witches/etc.? Most of the fics I've seen have a random pairing (see the note above) and/or involve a ridiculous plot along the lines of "Harry goes to America!" or "Harry (or Hermione, for some reason) is a Winchester!"
I, for one, honestly cannot figure out why there are hardly any fics in which Dean/Sam become the DADA professor(s), or if they were somehow pulled into the Wizarding World thanks to a danger posed by a supernatural being/another wizard/etc. Yes, it'd be cracky and ridiculous, but that's why I read crossover fic in the first place. (Also, I understand the urge to have Supernatural-era Dean and Sam meet/teach/fight alongside a teenage Harry 'n' Co. can be unbearable, but you have to remember that Harry and the Winchesters are about the same age.)
Seriously, though. I'm getting close to trying to ask people for fic commissions. ._. It's kind of terrifying. (And before anyone says anything: I've not yet read The Deathly Hallows. Yes, I'm a terrible person and an expert in procrastination.)
3. I'm not going to lie: I loved the movie. The premise was beautifully fleshed out, the acting amazing, the action gripping, the characters entertaining, and the emotions almost tangible. If you have a chance to see this movie while it's still in theaters, go.
However, I don't think the movie is quite the image of perfection some people are painting it to be. It definitely stands above most movies, but it's not perfect. For example, the movie doesn't introduce itself in the most flattering light. In my opinion, good sci-fi movies are the ones that seem realistic from the get-go. No matter how ridiculous its premise, a good sci-fi movie can build up the audience's belief in the "fiction" to the point that it's accepted as possible. Inception doesn't quite manage this. Instead of slowly presenting its underlying truths, Inception outrightly states its admittedly farfetched premise within the first few lines of dialogue. While the movie makes it sound less ridiculous later, it misses out on making a good first impression, and as a result I (and a few other people in the theater, if the snickers were anything to go by) was unable to take the premise seriously from the get-go. Similarly, the catalyst for the movie's plot seems a bit anticlimactic and routine as far as action movies involving thieves are concerned.
But, once you move past the first 20 minutes or so of dialogue and action, everything comes together into a nearly flawless movie that is, admittedly, focused more on action and character studies/development than proposing philosophical or ethical questions. If you're looking for a movie that is primarily focused on questioning reality, delving into what a mind or subconscious is, examining humanity, or raising ethical questions about intruding into people's dreams, this isn't quite the movie for you. But, if you're looking for a movie that realistically portrays what might happen if such dream-walking were possible to the smallest details, this is the best movie for the job. Since I'm not a movie aficionado, I can't quite compare this to Nolan's other works. All I can say is that while I enjoyed it immensely, I can't say that I enjoyed it more than The Dark Knight. (However, that probably has to do moreso with the issues the movies tackle. Inception is painfully realistic and its details are painstakingly imagined, while The Dark Knight prefers to play with questions of anarchy, insanity, and human psychology. Not to mention the latter is a bit more angst-soaked, and I do love me some angst.)
Also, to anyone who may have their slash-goggles on when they go to see the movie: Prepare to start shipping. I wasn't even focused on pairings, and I still emerged from the movie rabidly shipping Eames/Arthur. (They're adorable.) I can't wait till fic starts cropping up. (Because I totally need more fic. /sarcasm)
Quick question for those who've seen the movie: How exactly were the totems supposed to work? Originally I thought it was specifically an issue of weight, but now I'm not so sure. Mal, who apparently came up with the totem idea, created a top that would spin uninterrupted in dreams. In this case, it seems as though the weight is not the problem but rather the way that the object interacts with a dream on the visual level. The fact that Arthur's totem was a weighted die can support this idea, since the die could be weighted on a certain side that always shows in reality but is unweighted in the dream. But, Ariadne's totem appears to be a chess bishop-which seems to bring the issue back to the object's weight. I can understand how the weight could be used to judge whether someone's in a dream or not, but wouldn't it be easier to have something like the top or die, where there would be no worry about the exact weight of the totem? Or am I just reading too far into things?
If you manage to read through all this, you seriously deserve some sort of medal. Also, I'll read over this and edit it later; I've spent about two and a half hours messing with this, and that's a bit too much for an LJ post of pointless rants, methinks. (Also, this was originally posted at 3:42 in the morning, but I had to mess with the date after a few LJ glitches. So sleep 'n' stuff was also a factor.)
Opinions, comments, and such are welcome, but again: These are opinions, and I'm not claiming to be an unquestionable authority on anything.
The Doctor Who post may have very vague spoilers, but I'll "white out" the major/specific ones. For Inception, I'm sticking with the vaguest of spoilers-more like a review than anything.
So, on with the mini-rant-things. (Note: These are only opinions [and even if it seems like I'm stating a "fact," I'm actually just operating under the assumption that everything below is automatically tagged with an "in my opinion" note], so please don't jump on me or anything, kthx. ._. /paranoia)
1. I was really not a fan of this particular series, and it saddens me much more than it should. I guess my expectations were just too high, after watching Moffat's "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances," "The Girl in the Fireplace," and especially "Blink." None of the plots or supporting characters really stuck with me, and the ones that did only seemed to because they seemed vaguely fanfiction-like ("Amy's Choice," "The Lodger"). I think the only exception to this rule seems to be "The Eleventh Hour," which I felt was a brilliant first episode, and perhaps "Vincent and the Doctor," which was surprisingly very good. (Also, I have a weird obsession with the colors from that episode. I know-I don't get it, either.) The "Time of Angels"/"Flesh and Stone" two-parter was good, but it's difficult to really call it "amazing" when it has to live up to "Blink"-which it didn't.
But, overall, the episodes felt very, very disconnected and sometimes out-of-order, particularly in the first half of the series. "The Beast Below," for example, was very odd to watch directly after the Doctor meets Amy for the first time. As doom_cheesepuff said after seeing it, it didn't fit as a second episode but could have worked later in the series. Amy's deep understanding of the Doctor's character was particularly unbelievable for her second adventure. "Victory of the Daleks" just felt strange (and ridiculous) all around. I did enjoy the romp into WWII and the inclusion/characterization of Winston Churchill (and his relationship with the Doctor), but beyond that, the plot points were difficult to swallow, even by Doctor Who standards.
I'm rather certain that the main reason this entire series has left a bad taste in my mouth is thanks to the "Hungry Earth"/"Cold Blood" two-parter. Until this series, I've never watched a Doctor Who two-parter that I absolutely hated, so it was a bit harder to write off than a few questionable stand-alone episodes. (Luckily, all the episodes after it were amazing, so at least there's that.) The pacing was off, with little plot-related substance in "The Hungry Earth" and the rest stuffed into "Cold Blood." As a result, it was difficult to become invested in what was happening or the plight of the characters-even when they were faced with important, angst-ridden moral dilemmas. The premise was very interesting-a parallel to the Palestine-Israel conflict, but with much higher stakes-but stood no chance against the pacing problems. The aliens themselves also posed a bit of a problem for me, in part because they were kept rather one-dimensional and therefore both boring and difficult to connect with. Also, since the Silurians actually have connections to Earth reptiles, I ended up having higher expectations for their appearance and mannerisms, and I felt the depiction in the episodes to be a bit too human. For some odd reason, their eyes bugged me the most: I couldn't understand why they lacked the reptilian slit pupil. In the end, it felt like an interesting idea with nothing fleshed out. I, simply put, was not amused. /lol reference to series two *shot*
As for the finale... I'm still not sure what happened there. "The Pandorica Opens" felt very fanfiction-like-but in the worst possible way, particularly because Moffat decided to go down the RTD path and bring everyone together for a ridiculous mess of a finale. But I have to give major props for the importance of Stonehenge in the episode, even if my amusement comes solely from Stonehenge Apocalypse. The introduction to the episode was difficult enough to swallow-was it really necessary to include Churchill and the Queen?-but since the inclusion of those characters were less plot-related and moreso just for fun, it wasn't that grating. The climax of the episode, on the other hand, was. Where did the Cybermen come from? Why would the Daleks work with anyone, let alone Cybermen? Why are the Judoon suddenly the Doctor's enemies? None of it made sense, including the reasoning for why all the villains came together, and having a single villain would've sufficed. In fact, part of me was wondering why the "good" powers in the universe weren't the ones converging together, if the reason for locking the Doctor up was to "save the universe." Plot-wise, I'm not really sure anything happened. The entire episode just built up to an explanation that didn't really explain anything in the first place. "The Big Bang," while equally nonsensical as "The Pandorica Opens," was much more amusing. Where TPO was confusing, TBB was cracky and fun. My only complaint about it is the ending of the episode, which was painfully fanfiction-esque. I'm all for happy endings, but that was ridiculous, and not in the good way. Probably my least favorite reveal of the Doctor's otherworldliness to a companion's family/friends that I've seen thus far.
All in all: I absolutely adore Matt's Doctor, and Rory is one of my favorite Doctor Who characters ever. Amy's also awesome, ignoring her bit of insanity at the end of "Flesh and Stone." The reason this series fell below my expectations lies more with the writing than the characters and actors themselves. All I can really do is hope that next series will have a more coherent series-encompassing plot (and finale) and fleshed out episodes.
2. Dear Supernatural crossover writers:
Just because you're writing a crossover does not require you to have a pairing between one character from fandom 1 and a character from fandom 2. It is possible to limit yourself to pairing characters from the same fandom together. Or, if you really want to stretch the limits, you can even write gen! /gasp
Also, to those who write Supernatural/Harry Potter crossovers::
Can we get a few more fics in which Dean and Sam actually go to Hogwarts or enter the Wizarding World without getting into serious relationships with wizards/witches/etc.? Most of the fics I've seen have a random pairing (see the note above) and/or involve a ridiculous plot along the lines of "Harry goes to America!" or "Harry (or Hermione, for some reason) is a Winchester!"
I, for one, honestly cannot figure out why there are hardly any fics in which Dean/Sam become the DADA professor(s), or if they were somehow pulled into the Wizarding World thanks to a danger posed by a supernatural being/another wizard/etc. Yes, it'd be cracky and ridiculous, but that's why I read crossover fic in the first place. (Also, I understand the urge to have Supernatural-era Dean and Sam meet/teach/fight alongside a teenage Harry 'n' Co. can be unbearable, but you have to remember that Harry and the Winchesters are about the same age.)
Seriously, though. I'm getting close to trying to ask people for fic commissions. ._. It's kind of terrifying. (And before anyone says anything: I've not yet read The Deathly Hallows. Yes, I'm a terrible person and an expert in procrastination.)
3. I'm not going to lie: I loved the movie. The premise was beautifully fleshed out, the acting amazing, the action gripping, the characters entertaining, and the emotions almost tangible. If you have a chance to see this movie while it's still in theaters, go.
However, I don't think the movie is quite the image of perfection some people are painting it to be. It definitely stands above most movies, but it's not perfect. For example, the movie doesn't introduce itself in the most flattering light. In my opinion, good sci-fi movies are the ones that seem realistic from the get-go. No matter how ridiculous its premise, a good sci-fi movie can build up the audience's belief in the "fiction" to the point that it's accepted as possible. Inception doesn't quite manage this. Instead of slowly presenting its underlying truths, Inception outrightly states its admittedly farfetched premise within the first few lines of dialogue. While the movie makes it sound less ridiculous later, it misses out on making a good first impression, and as a result I (and a few other people in the theater, if the snickers were anything to go by) was unable to take the premise seriously from the get-go. Similarly, the catalyst for the movie's plot seems a bit anticlimactic and routine as far as action movies involving thieves are concerned.
But, once you move past the first 20 minutes or so of dialogue and action, everything comes together into a nearly flawless movie that is, admittedly, focused more on action and character studies/development than proposing philosophical or ethical questions. If you're looking for a movie that is primarily focused on questioning reality, delving into what a mind or subconscious is, examining humanity, or raising ethical questions about intruding into people's dreams, this isn't quite the movie for you. But, if you're looking for a movie that realistically portrays what might happen if such dream-walking were possible to the smallest details, this is the best movie for the job. Since I'm not a movie aficionado, I can't quite compare this to Nolan's other works. All I can say is that while I enjoyed it immensely, I can't say that I enjoyed it more than The Dark Knight. (However, that probably has to do moreso with the issues the movies tackle. Inception is painfully realistic and its details are painstakingly imagined, while The Dark Knight prefers to play with questions of anarchy, insanity, and human psychology. Not to mention the latter is a bit more angst-soaked, and I do love me some angst.)
Also, to anyone who may have their slash-goggles on when they go to see the movie: Prepare to start shipping. I wasn't even focused on pairings, and I still emerged from the movie rabidly shipping Eames/Arthur. (They're adorable.) I can't wait till fic starts cropping up. (Because I totally need more fic. /sarcasm)
Quick question for those who've seen the movie: How exactly were the totems supposed to work? Originally I thought it was specifically an issue of weight, but now I'm not so sure. Mal, who apparently came up with the totem idea, created a top that would spin uninterrupted in dreams. In this case, it seems as though the weight is not the problem but rather the way that the object interacts with a dream on the visual level. The fact that Arthur's totem was a weighted die can support this idea, since the die could be weighted on a certain side that always shows in reality but is unweighted in the dream. But, Ariadne's totem appears to be a chess bishop-which seems to bring the issue back to the object's weight. I can understand how the weight could be used to judge whether someone's in a dream or not, but wouldn't it be easier to have something like the top or die, where there would be no worry about the exact weight of the totem? Or am I just reading too far into things?
If you manage to read through all this, you seriously deserve some sort of medal. Also, I'll read over this and edit it later; I've spent about two and a half hours messing with this, and that's a bit too much for an LJ post of pointless rants, methinks. (Also, this was originally posted at 3:42 in the morning, but I had to mess with the date after a few LJ glitches. So sleep 'n' stuff was also a factor.)
Opinions, comments, and such are welcome, but again: These are opinions, and I'm not claiming to be an unquestionable authority on anything.