The New York Times continues to think that the trend towards dressing up is their hot new over the last couple of years. The New York Times is increasingly the last to know about anything, but I'll take what I can get. This one is very much an outgrowth of the Mad Men phenomenon, but it pretty high on my "mmmm, yes, but no" list.
Get ready for the sound of me screaming. I haven't read it yet, but nothing titled, "Can Anybody Make a Movie for Women?" is gong to result in anything but my fury.
I feel like a bit of an asshole linking this one as it's unavoidably full of "look at those wacky Japanese" and "geeks are losers" tropes, but Tokyo man weds video game character.
Jude Law 'in love' with 'Sherlock Holmes' co-star Robert Downey Jr. That's the headline exactly as CNN gives it to you, and I'm interested in it both as marketing strategy in terms of sound-bites on Sherlock Holmes and also because of the whole implied giggly/awkwardness of the headline in the rest of the article. I find this shit amusing on the surface and then quaint and irritating when I think about it, to be frank. Because CNN would _never_ use that headline in reference to men who were, you know, actually romantically/sexually in love with each other. That's the problem.
Speaking of Holmes: originally the two bits of Holmes hilarity coming out in the next couple of months (the one mentioned above and the sucktacular thing GDL is in) were just going to be odd campy amusements to me. But now I'm having to read all the Holmes stuff for my Bristol paper, so hey... I might be informed on the OMGWTFBBQ factor of these projects.
An origami crane folded by Sadako Sasaki is part of 9/11 memorial. My fellow children of the 80s, were you traumatized by 1,001 Cranes along with me? I can't believe that there used to be a whole genre of children's books, both fiction and non-, about nuclear war. Ah, the Regan years.
Patty has been keeping me up to date on the epically weird demise of the Washington Times, DC's bizarreo-land Moonie-run paper. If you haven't been following it, you can catch up here.
The odds of my book being in-stock again from a major e-tailer before the deadline for Christmas shipping delivery is pretty low. I'm making a post office run on Saturday. If you want one $14 to me via paypal and I'll get it out then. Books will be in stock again soon, just not in time for Christmas delivery.
It's not something I thought I'd like when I read about it, but I occasionally catch reruns on USA because it's on at a time I'm free. I blame copperbadge and thefannishwaldo for getting me curious about it.
I haven't seen it all in order, or very much of it, and I harbor a sort of vague urge to descend upon the DVDs and have a watchfest some weekend when the boyf is away.
Mostly, I like it because of the characters. The main ensemble are mostly not the sorts of people I'd expect in a police procedural, and particularly not one related to the military. Supporting and incidental characters tend to fit the mold more. I think if I watched more of it in order (and maybe the original JAG crossover/origin story) this might make more sense. Maybe not.
It's sufficiently serialized and formulaic that each ep is intelligible on its own, more or less, though the more you know the more you can sort of go "AHA!" at it. You get little tidbits about the characters every so often, so I can see how the fannish community digs on it.
There is character development. I'm aware that there's a main character death somewhere, but don't know much about it and have been happily avoiding reading about it so that when I watch through it's effective.
One thing about it that feels like a hole for me is that there's no real fantastic element. Life On Mars, you know, there was the Sam Tyler mystery. Torchwood's got aliens. NCIS has...crime. It's also not the most queer/progressive thing ever, so that can be disappointing.
And wow. That's a lot of opinion on something I'm only semi in to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
popfiend
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 07:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 07:35 pm (UTC)I haven't seen it all in order, or very much of it, and I harbor a sort of vague urge to descend upon the DVDs and have a watchfest some weekend when the boyf is away.
Mostly, I like it because of the characters. The main ensemble are mostly not the sorts of people I'd expect in a police procedural, and particularly not one related to the military. Supporting and incidental characters tend to fit the mold more. I think if I watched more of it in order (and maybe the original JAG crossover/origin story) this might make more sense. Maybe not.
It's sufficiently serialized and formulaic that each ep is intelligible on its own, more or less, though the more you know the more you can sort of go "AHA!" at it. You get little tidbits about the characters every so often, so I can see how the fannish community digs on it.
There is character development. I'm aware that there's a main character death somewhere, but don't know much about it and have been happily avoiding reading about it so that when I watch through it's effective.
One thing about it that feels like a hole for me is that there's no real fantastic element. Life On Mars, you know, there was the Sam Tyler mystery. Torchwood's got aliens. NCIS has...crime. It's also not the most queer/progressive thing ever, so that can be disappointing.
And wow. That's a lot of opinion on something I'm only semi in to.