Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Mostly fannish grab-bag...

None of these are scoops or anything, but you know, if you haven't seen them... I'm a few days behind, but I haven't seen mention or discussion of these things on my flist thus far...

AT and RDA comments vaguely re. S10 and ship... Nothing specific or that alarming, just fodder for hmms...

The SG Solutions Blog reported that Entertainment Weekly did a small feature on SG-1's upcoming S10, and that the article included the following quote:

One hotly debated topic: whether Carter and Maj. Gen. “Jack” O’Neill (Richard Dean Anderson, known to most of the world as MacGyver, is back this season for a few episodes) should meld minds. “It’s a huge issue,” says Tapping. “I don’t want to be just pining away for the lead guy.” Anderson agrees: “I think there’s something sort of rewarding about them maintaining the friendship and comradeship.”

So... discuss.

What makes me crazy about this? What, do they give everybody connected with the show lessons in how to make comments or give answers that can be read two ways depending on the listener's desired outcome?

Because really -- *I* look at that, and I think, okay, the two actors at least are not talking like there's going to be actualization/RST of the ship. AT's comment is one she's made before, although you could pretty much take it either way (if she *GOT* the lead guy, she wouldn't be *pining for* him any longer, would she?). But RDA's comment is also similar to ones he's made in the past, and I at least sort of read it is "it's nice they've maintained this friendship and comradeship instead of having a romance".

But... that's a reading from my own viewpoint, obviously -- because yeah, especially in terms of TV shows, I find it *more refreshing* if you have a strong female lead who doesn't have to be defined by a romantic relationship with any of the male leads, and I find it more refreshing for a show to suggest that it's *possible* for her to have a friendship/comradely relationship with her male colleagues without there having to be a romance behind it. That of course is just me, although things that both actors have said in the past have seemed to support the idea that they're aware of those issues as well, and in some cases that they're more in sympathy with those viewpoints than with the, "oh what the heck, let's have a romance" viewpoint.

Another thing that occurs to me? I would have to see the entire article and see that quote in context, but -- how recent are those quotes from them, I wonder? Hmm.

Hey! Fandemonium's SG-1 novels will now be sold in the US!

Man, now I REALLY wish I had scooped this... because honestly, I found out about this about 2 weeks ago... I had gone to Amazon.com to look up something else, and I did a book search on SG-1, and suddenly all the Fandy novels popped up. "WOO!" I thought. "Must post to LJ about that!" Then I promptly forgot about it, because I have a brain like a SIEVE...


None are actually for sale yet -- they are all listed on Amazon.com for preorder, though, and they're forthcoming. It appears they'll be rolled out at a rate of one every couple of weeks or so. So if you've been interested in the novels but the cost of getting them from Amazon in the UK was too steep what with the shipping and the exchange rate, good news! The GateWorld article also mentions that Borders and B&N may be carrying them at some point -- even better news.


Another Q&A about the action figures that answers some questions definitively about the large number of variations we saw in some pics, and what's actually going to be for sale (any minute now). The upshot seems to be that some of the wackier variations (the desert cammo, the forest cammo BDUs, etc.) were special paint-jobs for display purposes only at various venues like Toy Fair, and the company didn't really mean for those images to be released officially or anything. Or something like that. This page has a list of what *will* actually be released. The only new info is that there's a special-edition t-shirt Daniel out there somewhere (to go along with the special-edition t-shirt Jack from FCBD).

I did, in fact, get t-shirt Jack, so my report on having a real-live figure is -- yeah, pretty much what I thought; not bad, but not sublime. The very weird neck and head-joint thing seems to be something that all the figures will have... I've never seen an action-figure with this type of head/neck joint before, and it just... looks really weird. Most action figures, I think, would have a fairly solidly-sculpted head/neck, and then a joint put in somewhere that would allow you to turn the figure's head. But these figures? Have this odd sort-of ball-joint thing that... well, as far as I can tell, kind of allows you to both turn the head and tilt it in various ways. Which... okay, fine, I can see how that's a bit of a technological improvement. Yet it sacrifices something of the aesthetics of the figure. Had I been the lead designer of the figures, I would not have chosen to go with that type of joint. Ah well.

Also? At least on t-shirt Jack, the head is a *bit* too small for the body. I'm not sure if that is a problem that will be confined to the t-shirt figures, or what. I hadn't noticed it much in any of the pics I've seen, but with the figure in person, I definitely noticed it -- which is sort of an interesting comment on the way the monkey-brain evaluates the accuracy of human-figure recognition, when you think about it. I'll be interested to see if the normal run of figures (wearing the BDU jackets rather than the t-shirt) have this problem or not. Another aesthetic problem with the t-shirt figure is that the arm joints look clunky; will be interested to see how the joints look on the jacketed figures.

Accessories? The zat is pretty good, although it is oddly more snake-like and not as phallic as the show's zats. The P90 isn't bad, but oddly... it's too *thin*, so it seems flimsy; and t-shirt Jack seemed to be having trouble holding it properly. (I have him holding the zat in one hand and the radio in another.)

The Stargate (pieces of which you'll get with each figure in the first and second "waves") will not, apparently, be completely accurately in scale with the figures -- but it'll definitely be bigger than them. Probably big enough for them to "walk" through, I'm guessing. You won't have to buy all the variants to get pieces of the Gate -- all the variant Jacks will come with the same piece, etc.

Finally... one of the radio stations that I listen to in the car in the morning does this thing called "BackSpin", which is, they pick a year, and do a block of songs from that year. It can be kind of fun, and they seem to enjoy finding some popular songs from that year that you haven't heard in a while (rather than the ones that are still getting airplay).

This morning, the year was 1982, and as this song came on, I knew it INSTANTLY even though I knew I had not heard it in YEARS, from the instrumental opening alone, but I couldn't think what the song was. And then the singing started and I was singing along, and I still could not remember the song's *name* until we got to the chorus.

It was "Don't Pay the Ferryman" by Chris De Burgh. Wow. What a delightfully cheesy song that was!

Now what I want to know is -- has anyone done a H:TLJ vid to that song? Because, *seriously*... wow, how much fun would that be?


( 19 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 7th, 2006 03:30 pm (UTC)
I read teh EW quote and I immediately though, yay! They don't want ship either without thinking about how the quote could be seen any other way.

Maybe I'm just in denial or riding a high off a similar theme in an MS article I read about no romance between Daniel and Vala.

Then again, what the actors say or want and what the writers and directors tell them to do is entirely different.

I just didn't see anything dual about that comment. I've since seen so many people see the opposite and have questioned the comments.

It just leaves me confused.
Jun. 7th, 2006 04:07 pm (UTC)
*nods* Trying to figure out how others may read it is sort of a self-defense mechanism for me, in a way. Plus I've just seen over the years how the different sides of the fandom will interpret the same thing in totally different ways, that I just know it'll happen with this.

I *do* wonder how much input AT might have in this regard. I often get the feeling that she doesn't always have as much input re. the direction of her character as we might expect. At the same time, I have wondered whether she could put her foot down about something that she really, really wanted not to happen. I just don't know, so I'm uncomfortable speculating too much on that.

RDA of course used to have a LOT of ability to determine what he did and didn't want to happen. But he's not a producer any longer. In a way, I wonder whether he is still reflexively thinking like one, though. I would also wonder perhaps how much leverage he has in his status of "former producer" and 'returning guest star". Again, could he, too, put his foot down with regard to something he didn't want to see happen? Would he care to? (After all, he has also on numerous occasions stated -- quite reasonably -- that look, this isn't life or death, no matter what we do or what happens, it's just a tv show, it's just entertainment.)

Anyway -- as I said, I could see where if you were passionately interested in a ship outcome, then you could read AT's comment as not categorically shutting down the possibility. RDA's... I personally feel seems a bit more concrete. A bit. It seems in line with things he's said in the past, and... it just sort of sounds like an odd thing to say if he knew (as he would at this point, if it's a recent comment) that they *were* going to confirm Sam/Jack.

But, man -- I'm so gun-shy at this point? That part of my brain just doesn't want to relax about it even if it thinks this sounds hopeful. Because neither comment is a flat-out clear statement. Which is why I say -- god, do they give everybody lessons in being vague?
Jun. 7th, 2006 04:20 pm (UTC)
AT's comment is ambiguous, but I think RDA's comment means the same thing you think it means... *clings by fingernails*
Jun. 7th, 2006 05:07 pm (UTC)
What's better is that half the county knows exactly why Chris de Burgh wrote that song and who it's about...
Jun. 7th, 2006 05:10 pm (UTC)
Care to elaborate? If the story of it ever went around in the States, I either missed it, or core-dumped it from my brain 2 decades ago...
Jun. 7th, 2006 05:56 pm (UTC)
South Co. Wexford. There's some islands off Kilmore Quay called the Saltees. They can be tricky to land on.

The story is that CdeB and his father were heading out there one day, having paid one of the local fishermen to drop them out there. Said fisherman pointed out that there was a good chance they mightn't be able to land and insisted on being paid first. They couldn't land, and the story is that CdeB went into such a snit that he wrote the song, because the fisherman understandably wouldn't refund his money.
Jun. 7th, 2006 06:14 pm (UTC)
To be fair to both of 'em, I don't think either one is interested in having a 'ship between them for lots of reasons. Unfortunately, there are a whole shedload of Jack/Sam shippers out there, some of which can be rather worrying. I think they would both love to come out and say 'we'd rather have our toenails pulled out and be eaten alive by guinea pigs' but they can't afford to upset such a large and disproportionately vocal section of the fanbase. JMO.

Joe Mallozzi was actively encouraging them at one stage. I hope to God he's gotten over *that*!
Jun. 7th, 2006 08:06 pm (UTC)
It was "Don't Pay the Ferryman" by Chris De Burgh. Wow. What a delightfully cheesy song that was!


Also, I coulda scooped that Fandemonium thing. But it wouldn't have been fair. *g* They are rolling out one a month.

Jun. 14th, 2006 07:46 pm (UTC)
It's a really, REALLY fun song to sing aloud to in the car at the top of your lungs. :D (I remember thinking it was *so cool* when it first came out; but I honestly hadn't thought of it at all in *years*.)

I remembering wondering at the time I noticed the novels going up on Amazon whether you guys had been notified of it. And thinking, well, I'd expect so... but then I didn't see *anyone* posting about it, which I thought was a little odd, but also understandable perhaps.
Jun. 7th, 2006 08:33 pm (UTC)
I think the whole ship thing has become a huge pain in AT's ass, and she'd just as soon be rid of it now. I sort of instinctually feel that it didn't bother Rick much and he didn't care after a few seasons one way or another. Of course, he wasn't the one taking the flack from the fans over the ship either.

I think the comments are just saying that it's going to remain the way it's always been. They won't be together, except maybe in some AU where it won't affect canon. Fair enough, imho, despite the fact that I *like* S/J. I'm just weary of the hate, man. No romo! Let us sort it out in the trenches according to our own perceptions.
Jun. 14th, 2006 07:53 pm (UTC)
Yeah, RDA doesn't (didn't) do cons, so he didn't really have to care. I always felt really bad for AT, though. Especially because it seemed like both actors understood things about the pitfalls of a romance between leads, and early on AT would say things like she didn't want Sam to be defined as "the lead's girl" and all... but honestly, from a certain viewpoint, isn't that what she basically became ANYway? In the sense that in 8 or 9 years, AT was never able to escape from fans trying to define Sam according to her lovelife -- who she was or wasn't with, how successful she was, etc. And some of it in really unpleasant ways, too.

That to me is the crying shame of the whole thing. I wasn't completely and utterly against the concept of S/J at some points in the show... and I mostly understand why people like it. (I think they have chemistry, too, etc.). But the way it just became practically the only thing anyone wanted to talk about with regard to Sam, not to mention the Sam-hate it bred... (I realize there are some folks who dislike other aspects of how Sam is written, and in some cases I agree with their basic points if not the strength of their feeling, but... I always have to wonder if their hate isn't exacerbated by their resentment of 'ship, and that in itself is enormously frustrating -- like, we can't really talk about this, because there's this other hidden component to it.)

Jun. 9th, 2006 09:53 am (UTC)
Being-vague lessons wouldn't surprise me. I bet they've both been asked to stay coy about the subject not to say one way or another. The way the ptb mercilessly and deliberate teased in 'Ripple Effect' makes me think they'll keep the tease going as far into S10 as they can. But I also wonder where EW (nice acronym, guys) got those quotes. They're things either actor could have said anytime over the past few years.

If this is the whole article, it doesn't shed much light.

(And, I know I've been missing stuff the past few weeks, but ... marionettes?????? Did we, um, know about this?)
Jun. 14th, 2006 07:56 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that's my problem -- are the quotes actually recent? Do they actually pertain to the run-up to S10? Or are they from earlier? The thing is, they're vague enough they *could* be from earlier. In which case it's just useless to try to glean anything from them.

We did actually know about the marionettes. I forget when that came out -- but it was right around the time RDA was confirmed for S10/200, when BW first made comments about how the ep was shaping up.

And the thing is, I *loathe* marionettes. It's really hard for me to express how much. I will be watching that segment of the ep through slitted fingers. Or else getting up and going into the kitchen or something.
Jun. 17th, 2006 02:09 pm (UTC)
Now that you say that, I feel as though I did read something about puppets. Either that's a 'recovered' memory, or my brain stuffed its fingers in its ears at the time and went 'la la la!' and pretended it hadn't heard.



I loved SuperMarionation shows when I was a kid, and I fnially saw Team America and I thought the puppeteering was brilliant, but ...

Aghh. I'm glad you mentioned it, though. This way I'll be somewhat prepared. *g*
Jun. 21st, 2006 04:49 pm (UTC)
See, I've *never* liked any marionette thing I've ever seen, and there are a lot I haven't seen because I've avoided the hell out of them. I think it's a monkey-brain thing. They really disturb me.

I'm especially crushed because -- the overall concept doesn't necessarily bother me. (I.e. a not-real version of SG-1.) I'm just bummed out that they didn't go the MUPPETS route instead of the marionettes. Here I am thinking of the BRILLIANT "Smile Time" episode of "Angel", you know?

But I guess one reason not to do SG-1 muppets (*sob* muppet!Teal'c!!!! muppet!Daniel!!!) might just be that that Angel episode is comparatively recent and well-known in media-fandom overall. (Not that this show has EVER shied away from blatantly copying something else popular, with or without over acknowledgement of the "homage".) And the writers or whoever it is may indeed specifically be thinking of the "Team America" parallels -- a TA-like spoof of SG-1 isn't that far-fetched an idea, in fact it's pretty obvious (I just dislike the idea intensely for reasons of my own).

It's just that... I will get no joy at all out of marionette versions of SG-1. And I will get no joy out of, inevitably, pics of them cropping up in people's LJ icons or mood pics or whatever. Yuck.

I sort of wonder if I wouldn't have been better off NOT knowing about it. Because I think I'm building it up into something worse than it is by anticipating it.
Jun. 17th, 2006 02:11 pm (UTC)
Oh oh, and while I'm here ... HAPPY BIRTHDAY! :-)
Jun. 21st, 2006 04:43 pm (UTC)
Re: OT
Thanks! :D
Jun. 18th, 2006 03:07 pm (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
Jun. 21st, 2006 04:43 pm (UTC)
Re: OT
Thank you! *SMOOCH*
( 19 comments — Leave a comment )