Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Badges

David_D

About

Username
David_D
Joined
Visits
5,860
Last Active
Roles
Member, Administrator
Points
2,495
Badges
29
Posts
2,350
  • Re: Did You Sell Grit?

    Jimmy is the most conservatively dressed boy with purple hair I've ever seen.
  • Re: Random Bits Not Worthy of their Own Thread...

    It looks like the Neil Blomkamp (District 9) Alien movie is happening after all.

    Oh HELL yeah.
  • Re: Marvel on Netflix- DD, JJ, LC, IF and Defenders

    I heard he's playing a very colorful villian.


    A very nasty shade of purple?


    I kind of hope they dial his story back a bit for the show. My wife hasn't read
    Alias, but she knows generally what happened, and she said she won't watch Tennant in that role. I wonder, if they do follow the comic storyline with him, will he lose some of his female fans?


    It depends on the fans, I suppose. While I certainly respect someone choosing to not want to watch a storyline with that sort of content, if they don't want that in their evening's entertainment. I get that. So I could get where there may be Tennant fans who might not want to watch him in this material.

    But as far as this losing him fans, I think that would be an overreaction. Acting is acting. If the material is handled well, and is not exploitative, then fans of a actor should not punish the actor they like for playing a despicable person. Or for being in something they don't want to see. It's acting, not endorsement. And acting shouldn't always be about playing characters that people like, or want to be. Nor is playing sweethearts a compact with your fans that you will always play more good guys. I think fans of an actor should be able to make that separation.

    I don't think I explained it very well. I brought it up because my wife (along with millions of other women) thinks he's adorable. Not only does she not want to watch that type of content, she doesn’t want to ruin her image of Tennant as the Doctor by associating him in any way with the type of character he'll be playing in
    Jessica Jones. And it's not about him playing a bad guy, but playing someone who does that specific thing.

    Consciously, she knows he is an actor, etc., etc., but if she sees him perform the heinous things the character does in the comic, that image will stick with her and taint her enjoyment of watching him as the Doctor, logic be damned. It's the “I can’t unsee what I just saw” sort of thing. It's not about punishing the actor, it’s just not being able to enjoy his work in the same way. That’s just the way she is, and I doubt she’s the only person like that. And I would guess that most Tennant fans will be going into the show not knowing anything about the Alias comic and what his role will entail. They’ll probably be expecting a Tom Hiddleston type of performance, not... that.
    Fair enough. And I get that some people might come to expect a certain kind of role from a certain actor they associate with a certain thing. But that might be exactly why he is looking to play a very different thing.

    Like a band not making the same record over and over, or a comic book artist not deciding to never experiment or change their style, sometimes actors want to (or are compelled to) take those risks. For any fans of one thing they did or time of their career they might lose, they might end up trading them in for new ones. At the end of the day, artists (and many, though not all, actors are those) usually are more interested in what they are making next, and whether it compels or excites them, rather than putting their energy on brand management based on their past work. Risky? Sure, But being an actor is never a safe bet or smart money to begin with. So why get to the very rarefied and lucky point where you are successful and have choices, to only then limit your choices out of fear?
  • Classic BOMC- Animal Man Volume 1 (from December 2005)

    And now, a classic CGS BOMC episode from the archives.

    The book is the (now out of print, I think, as it has been replaced with an Omnibus) Animal Man Volume 1. Which has the first 9 issues of the Morrison/Grummett/Truog series.

    Unfortunately the original discussion thread for this episode is long lost to a crash several forums ago. But as a part of the new BOMC category, I wanted to plug some classics to those who may have not listened back to CGS this far. And I would invite others to do the same.

    I had already emailed the guys a few times in their first year, but I think it was this episode that got me posting on their original forum for the first time. It is a really fun and contentious discussion. Part of the fun is how polarizing the most esoteric issue of the book-- #5 "The Coyote Gospel" was in the room. That even though this was a series I loved, I enjoyed that not everyone I was listening was going to be on board, too. They had some big reactions, and were going to stand by them. I think this episode really helped distinguish some of the tastes and episodes of the different hosts for me. The episode also has a great guest-- comics blogger and academic Geoff Klock. And early BOMC classic, and worth going back for.

    Listen here.
  • Sex Criminals (Pre-Recording Discussion/ Questions)

    For Indie month, the March Book of the Month Club selection is Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky's Sex Criminals Volume One: One Weird Trick, published by Image Comics. The collected edition is issues 1-5, for those playing along with the singles (which, given this book, sounds like a euphemism).

    What did you think? What sort of questions would you like to add to the discussion? Will it be strange to hear @Adam_Murdough‌ , the voice of Christmas, give a naughty plot synopsis? Join in. Earmuffs!