#and they still speak of ace. god i want her back in gallifrey. and i want her to eat braxiatal ALIVE | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

magicofthepen · 4 years

Text

Time War 3 Thoughts (Eps. 1-3)

Only the first three episodes because this is already long, and I have a lot of in-depth reactions and thoughts on Unity alone. These are based on my live reaction notes, with some “in hindsight” thoughts sprinkled in there. Fair warning, I’ve only listened once, so there are points of confusion that might be fixed with a relisten.

HOSTILES

The whole “on a ship with a core that’s going to implode” thing immediately gave me Enemy Lines vibes — and these vibes skyrocketed with Romana shouting “take my hand” down to Narvin. (Very disappointed in Narvin for not doing it, I will take any and all canonical handholding, even if it is for boring logistical reasons.)

Love that callback to Narvin almost falling off the roof :)

The way Narvin says “all this vegetation” is so funny, and really it’s hilarious how much of Time War 3 is “let’s make Narvin interact with as many plants and animals as possible.” No idea why this was the agenda, but I’m here for it.

I am 100% confused on the timeline re: the Sicari. If they didn’t show up until shortly before Romana’s failed assassination plot/the exile, but Trellick was sent to investigate their home a while before Romana was kicked off Gallifrey...that doesn’t line up??? Plus in Assassins don’t they mention that they’ve never caught one, and in Hostiles they have Sicari prisoners...generally I’m not too fussed about plot details but this one kept really throwing me off as I tried to connect the dots.

Trellick calls Romana Narvin’s boss at one point (not knowing otherwise), and really up until now those two have always had to navigate their personal relationship around their professional roles and hierarchy. And tbh I wish there had been more overt exploration of how the sudden absence of that hierarchy affects their dynamic.

“Narvin, this isn’t a shopping trip” — I enjoyed Narvin collecting all the tech, but in hindsight so annoyed at myself for not catching onto the chameleon arch being An Important Thing That Will Come Back Later

There are some really interesting moments of tension between Romana and Narvin (Romana wanting to trust and help Trellick vs. Narvin’s paranoia and focus on survival and escape) and the little moments of argument and tension that bubble up and fizzle out between them (”You almost went without me.” / “I knew you’d catch up.”)...the episode itself didn’t really dig deep and unpack them, but in many scenes it feels like there’s a lot going on under the surface and I love these layers!

I can’t believe these two had to swing on vines, this is iconic and amazing.

“Let’s replace the circuit together” is super cheesy and such a ridiculously technical way to express affection and I love it.

NEVERNOR

Re: the biodata tracking — how exactly did they get that info? Did Mantus give actual physical information to Narvin that he was able to hang onto? And how is that different from how they were trying (and failing) to track Leela before? (Since i think Narvin had mentioned tracking Ace through biodata in Time War 2...)

Narvin’s interaction with the goat? Yes.

Me, the instant they mention spending the night at the farm: Oh my god if there is Only One Bed, I might forgive this boxset for whatever horrible thing it’s going to do to Romana.

(That is a lie, of course, but I am extremely invested in bed sharing tropes.)

Tragically, this episode failed to live up to its trope-y potential (and Episode 4 remains unforgiven), although I do treasure the fact that we got to hear them share a sleeping space, complete with Romana waking Narvin up in the middle of the night because the ghosts are freaking her out.

On a related note: this episode was genuinely spooky and tense, and I was really into that atmosphere!!

Ooh I like this subtle reminder of how much time Romana and Leela have spent traveling in the Vortex...but not Narvin. This boxset doesn’t get into the whole “this is Narvin’s first time as a renegade but it isn’t Romana’s” dynamic too much, but I like this hint of it.

I really liked the moral implications the Nevernor test set up for the episode (the only way to pass is to not care), but it didn’t seem like it was actually relevant to the episode’s conclusion? Sure, Romana and Narvin left those people behind, but they were alive and they did their best to save them? I’m a bit confused about what the emotional beat here was supposed to be.

MOTHER TONGUE

Leela!! ...screaming in pain which isn’t great but still good to hear her voice.

The logistics of the whole consciousness transfer are still confusing to me. Did she take over someone else’s life on this world, someone who just happened to have the same name as her? If she only lived certain moments, did that mean the other person’s consciousness was in control the other times?

“How do you know they are wise when they do not speak?” That doesn’t sound like Leela

What is up with Leela bonding so quickly with Sholan and also being so harsh — “You need to be a man. You have a good heart, but you must teach it to be colder, harder.” The idea of her not being in a great emotional place to be a parent right now and messing up big time is so interesting in theory, but once Leela’s seen the future where Sholan is cold and hardened, I find it hard to believe she would actively push him in that direction. Also I don’t quite buy how quickly she embraces this mother-son relationship.

I do like how Leela keeps mentioning the Daleks as the main threat of the war, but of course in the end she sees it’s the Time Lords who are the antagonists here. There’s something fascinatingly awful about seeing the evil of the Time Lords completely from the outside, as opposed to Time War 2 which is all tangled up inside the system.

There is so much in these episodes about choice — it’s Trellick’s choice to try to escape even thought it could mean not surviving, it’s Agata’s choice to sacrifice herself to save the younger version of herself and her husband, it’s Sholan’s choice to die to save his cousin. And I have Thoughts about how this concludes in Unity, but I also want to point out that Leela is also given a choice at the end here, but unlike the other ones, she chooses to live.

#gallifrey spoilers #gallifrey audios #gallifrey #me: uhhh let's focus on the less emotionally traumatizing bits first #as i try to figure out how to talk about the last episode #also as an overall note i liked the small casts and contained stories!#it was cool to hear those kinds of stories plus it meant more main cast interaction which i'm always happy about #ramblings #emily listens to big finish #romana #narvin #leela

3 notes · View notes

mantra4ia · 7 years

Text

Salty Fangirl Moment, Vol 1

Strong Female Characters/Roles and views which subvert their impact

If you are reading this, I’m sorry. There really are better expository pieces out there about Female Lead Roles, but I wanted to share my reaction to types of opposition and extremism about two projects with strong female leads: Wonder Woman and Doctor Who. (spoilers ahead)

1. Wonder Woman (and the Conservative Curmudgeons)

I saw Wonder Woman multiple times from opening weekend up until today, in English and Spanish, with friends, by myself, and nothing has lessened my joy each time I watch. The movie has foibles in plot and some action sequences, but not when it comes to well written, acted, character, and that for me gives lots of leniency toward other missteps. Chris Pine is wonderfully genuine and generous in his acting to support the project and help everyone else shine, as do the other actors. Gal Gadot does not have much dialogue to carry, but she is expressive and really captures Wonder Woman’s youthful exuberance which was so refreshing. I loved the color grading, I loved the balance of big action and small moments and, DC movie fans can hate me all they desire, I love how it felt like a ‘Marvel movie’. Don’t get me wrong, I have liked some DC movies (Man of Steel, BvS, etc), but from recent experience I think Marvel has been stronger at building characters, relationship dynamics, and ensemble and letting them tell a story, whereas DC has been stronger at building plots, conflicts, action points, and then dropping characters in so that we as an audience watch them react and witness individual character growth. In that sense Wonder Woman felt ‘Marvel’ due to the character focused lens. And overall it was a solid 'A' because it was fun, spirited, passionate, and it filled the tank of enthusiasm as I left the theater each time.

But recently I confronted a group of women, and upon sharing my love for the film (casually in conversation of course *not*, it’s wasn’t as if I steered the conversation with a truth lasso *I totally did*) I was met with a lukewarm response. Still I pressed on trying to get to the source of resistance, countering each potential concern-

> “I loved it. 1. Even if you’re burned out of superhero movies, I think you’ll really like this. It’s character focused, and while it has a ‘mission’ the focus is really on two characters and their ‘we’re not in Kansas anymore’ stories. 2. If you like DC movies, you’ll like this, and if you’ve been disappointed by DC movies, you’ll still like this/ you should give it a chance because it’s not your typical origin story, it has a strong ensemble, it’s well paced for the most part (it doesn’t feel like a 2+ hour film, it flies!!!), and it’s a feel good film. 3. This is a passion project for all of those involved, you can really tell because it’s not a good superhero film, it’s a good film period.”

>>At this point, their reservations thawed and they asked “it sounds interesting, what’s it about?”

Now my mind is blown, because I realize they don’t know who Wonder Woman is from comics or hype, they haven’t seen articles or promo pics or previews (how is this possible), and I’m in charge of the classic elevator summary.

>“Oh, well it’s about Diana, aka Wonder Woman, she grows up on an island of amazon women sheltered from the outside world by Zeus, honing her skills as a warrior under the guidance of her aunt and mother to be on guard for Aries God of War. This all changes when Diana saves a human man, Chris Pine-”

>> “He’s from Star Trek, right?”

> “Yeah, sure. He’s a pilot who stumbled through the barrier from WWI and she joins his return to the war against the wishes of her family, because she believes she’s on Aries’ trail. So they get to the war and she helps fight back against Dr. Poison and the Germans…”

>> “Woah, she’s fighting Nazis. That’s too political for me. I don’t like it.”

> “But…but…you haven’t seen the trailer or gotten to know the characters.”

>> “Why does everything have to be about Nazis?”

> “That’s what I am saying: it’s not about Nazis. Its superhero fiction, it’s about fighting injustice whether it has a real world context or not.”

>> “I’m not going to see it, it sounds like it’s trying to make a statement or be trendy.”

dfggdjfjfklkghjdghghjdghjtkh,jkknfgkgfdghbdf,hvhgdjutg!!!!!!!!! AGGGGGH! Wonder Woman has been an icon forever and a day, and the best you can call her is trendy?!

For the love of god, you are ‘entitled’ to your like/dislike opinion but only on the contingent of citing the source material. Watch a trailer, and critique a movie intelligently for its content: acting / writing / pacing / shot selection/ cinematic style, or draw comparisons to other films for context. If you form an opinion without any ‘research’ I guess you’re allowed, but I’m allowed to call that opinion (not you as a person, but that particular statement) ignorant, ill-informed, fledgling, and flippant.

2. Doctor Who - 13th Doctor (and the Heel Draggers and Super Enthusiasts)

The casting of the 13th Doctor suffers the same kind of character undermining, but this time from men and women on both extreme ends of the spectrum. We’ve got, in a similar vein to the curmudgeons but at least more informed, the heel-draggers:

>>“1) Why do they have to cast a woman just because it’s PC/ a stunt/ publicity, 2) why do they have to shove an agenda in our face and 3) insult the traditions of the show I love. I’m not watching anymore.“

> I hardly think it has to do with the dreaded, often misused, recently catch-all term that we call political correctness. Out of all the regenerations, the dice isn’t always going to land on the same side. Secondly, believe it or not, all stories have an agenda called plot or arc, each writer/director/show runner has one. A casting choice of a different sex is not an agenda. And lastly, the show/fandom has many traditions; the fandom becomes richer as those traditions evolve, and the mark of a good writer/director/show runner is knowing the balance of constancy and change, and applying changes carefully with character or plot driven purpose. Sonic shades, sonic screwdriver, both? Converse or loafers? Raggedy or disco? As long as the Doctor is still the Doctor, still travels in the TARDIS, still values the same things, still has their past, and still has a companion, we might just survive!

But we also have the super enthusiasts who will fire first and ask questions later at any sign of dissent over the 13th Doctor. -

>>“1) The future is Female! Yes! Protect Jodie Whitaker at all cost. 2) Why are you worried about this casting, why aren’t you excited, you just don’t want the Doctor to be a woman. 3) Why don’t you like the trailer, you just don’t like change. 4) Power/ Control, we’ve got your superheroes, Doctors… 4) NOW A WHOLE BUNCH OF YOUNG GIRLS CAN COSPLAY AS THE DOCTOR (caps not mine, copied from a post)”

>Yes, the future is female, but a) that’s under the assumption she identifies as female and b) puleeeeasse Jodie Whitaker can protect herself as she feels so inclined, as can the whole Doctor Who creative team. Listen to opposition and evaluate if they have a valid point before you leap. Secondly, I’m not excited because I didn’t want the casting to be spoiled for me and it was, not because a woman was cast. And I’m not worried about a woman being cast - I can envision actresses in the part. I have concerns about Jodie Whitaker’s casting in conjunction with other circumstances outside her control. Every regeneration is always a gut check, and change is by nature uncomfortable: I’ve enjoyed and grown used to the male Doctor and companion dynamic, it doesn’t mean you should assume I hate the idea of a female doctor. Jodie in particular presents a challenge because I know her and associate her with roles that bias me, including Broadchurch and The Assets. Again, my bias = no one’s problem but mine. I think she’s mega talented, but in this case her notability makes me more uneasy as opposed to a hypothetical niche-known actress of equal talent; I like Doctor Who’s recent track record at finding someone “new” and Jodie is not as ‘new’ to me as I had hoped. I would have been more enthusiastic for someone who, unlike Jodie, hadn’t worked so recently with Chibnall, the new showrunner, to inject fresh excitement. Or at least if Bill, Nardol, or even Missy were still around to ease us in as a focal point that the audience can transition through, like Rose for Tennant or Clara for Capaldi. So ultimately its the culmination of ‘clean slate’ circumstances that I find most unnerving, not solely the new Doctor. And I still have to get over the “Doctor Who Stages of Regeneration Grief” for Capaldi before I can form a passionate opinion of a new actor.

Thirdly, I don’t like the “Introducing Jodie Whitaker” trailer because of the marketing choice - I find it boring and ‘too easy’ to build hype only to show Jodie’s face out from under a hood. It sends the absolutely wrong message for me that she’s a woman, not she’s the Doctor. Eccleston got to speak, Tennant got to speak, Matt Smith same, John Hurt same, Capaldi didn’t, but his first marketing intro was in the context of an episode in action, saving Gallifrey, being the Doctor, so it felt right. This felt a little cheap. And to those who see this as an opportunity for a female to be in power/control of the title role, give me a break. We’re not watching the same show. Doctor Who has never been about the Doctor being in control, more often than not it’s the TARDIS or companions, a majority of which have been played by actresses, that demonstrate force, a guiding hand, etc. I’m happy to have a female in the title role, I’m not happy with the fans who have narrowed the scope and don’t recognize the power that female characters have had all along in Doctor Who. Lastly, SWEET RASSILON ALIVE, girls have already been cosplaying as the Doctor since time immemorial because they identify with the character first not the actor/actress. I’m happy you’re happy that girls have an easily identifiable role model, but if you are going to praise the value of transcending gender roles assigned to a specific sex, its gotta work both ways or you are diminishing the character value.

My biggest grievance common to the people in all three points of opposition is the inability to simultaneously:

Have their own preferences while at the same time stepping outside their perspective to role play someone else’s view

Realize that both views can exist without invalidation of each other and

Undervaluing the IMPORTANCE OF THE WELL-WRITTEN CHARACTER.

So if everyone can do me a favor? Let’s have a moment of silence and LISTEN to Wonder Woman and the Doctor. Thank you.

#complex female characters #female characters #dw spoilers #wonder woman #misconceptions #jodie whittaker #13th doctor #extreme right #extreme left #can we just have moderation?#respect #and regularly step outside of our own opinions #so that we can grow a larger world view

3 notes · View notes