|
Post by Lola m on Sept 17, 2007 7:26:05 GMT -5
So, did you guys watch the little interview clip with Eve Myles (Gwen) that ran during the commercials? Very cute! I laughed when she said "she's in the cell, trying to help this poor girl and then she gets her face snogged off and her boobies fondled!". Plus, when she said how her and the other actress talked about it before the kissing scene and to make sure it was hot, they agreed "she was Johnny Depp and I was Brad Pitt"? I get that she was explaining how they worked on their motivation, but damn. That's motivation for me too. ;D I mean, if two women kissing aren't enough for you, just add that and there ya go! Fun for the whole family.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 19, 2007 19:52:02 GMT -5
I have not a lot of deep thinky thoughts left, but here's a few, some more thinky than others: I really really really dislike Date Rape Biologist Guy. He better get an actual conscience and figure out why having sex with people who didn't consent or consented under outside control (dude, pheromone-in-a-spray?) is neither acceptable (Episode 1) nor funny (Episode 2). Otherwise, I'm gonna keep rooting for him to get offed by the Alien of the Week. I suspect Jack was just an ordinary human before Rose got to him. Could be wrong, obviously, but I think it'd be little trouble for time-traveling humans of the 51st century to doctor the records so that Captain Jack Harkness was born at the appropriate time in America. I don't think he's a "being" who took anyone's body over, personally. Why did it have to be a man? Well, because for this alien, it did. Lots of guesses, relating to the biological differences between men and women, re: sex, but it maybe doesn't make a lot of sense, logically. But then, neither do a lot of Doctor Who/Torchwood things when you get right up close to them. Certainly the whole "canonical differences between the mechanics of male-female vs. female-female sex" explanation broke down when it became obvious that men getting off on magazine pictures at a sperm bank seem to work just as well. No actual direct interaction required. Not sure if it was mentioned (apologies if it was), but it's interesting to me that the alien chose a girl who was busily getting used by an amoral man. She then became the user, herself, and used the men up in much the same way as her "boyfriend" was metaphorically using her up. The sad thing (apart from all the dusty corpses) was that, either way, she still wound up feeling alone. And, as Dave said, she's gonna be scarred for life. Probably become a nun.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Sept 20, 2007 11:49:02 GMT -5
I really really really dislike Date Rape Biologist Guy. He better get an actual conscience and figure out why having sex with people who didn't consent or consented under outside control (dude, pheromone-in-a-spray?) is neither acceptable (Episode 1) nor funny (Episode 2). On first viewing I thought the whole thing was a cunning plan and there was a story arc and character building and stuff going on with him. Then I started reading interviews, and realised the writers don't know those things you wish him to learn. I already mentioned it in the first episode thread here, but my comments on the interview, including some spoilersrelevant quote: In fact, some of the fans who saw the UK airing of "Torchwood" were concerned about the scene early in the series where Owen uses a pheromone spray to attract a reluctant woman. They felt that the woman couldn't consent and so it was a form of sexual assault. Chibnall states emphatically that they never meant to give that impression. "Obviously, people can read things the way they want, and that's the great thing about drama. That's not the intention of that scene. It's not directed in that way. It's not written that way. Also, why would we have that character as a hero? No. Maybe we didn't make it clear enough, I don't know, but it's absolutely not the intention." "The spray only accentuates feelings that are already there," suggests Clarke. "Yeah," agrees Chibnall. "And actually, if you look at the way the scene is directed - she's looking at him, she's eyeing him up. You know, it's meant to be comic. Really. It's a comic scene. And sometimes I think when you interpret comic scenes in a very serious way, it forces a misreading. It's a tricky one." Chibnall adds, "When you write something, you never know how it's going to be interpreted, you know, and you can't really correct that. You have to let the discussion go." *** /quote *** 1) they think Owen is a hero? What show are they watching? 2) looking at a man is apparently invitation to be drugged 3) some people *seriously* don't get it I has a whole lot of think about this point at beccaelizabeth.livejournal.com/tag/torchwood+1-01including a poll where the results were really not good. This is more relevant in the other episode thread, I go paste it there. *waves little flag along with you*
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 20, 2007 15:06:24 GMT -5
I really really really dislike Date Rape Biologist Guy. He better get an actual conscience and figure out why having sex with people who didn't consent or consented under outside control (dude, pheromone-in-a-spray?) is neither acceptable (Episode 1) nor funny (Episode 2). On first viewing I thought the whole thing was a cunning plan and there was a story arc and character building and stuff going on with him. Then I started reading interviews, and realised the writers don't know those things you wish him to learn. I already mentioned it in the first episode thread here, but my comments on the interview, including some spoilersrelevant quote: In fact, some of the fans who saw the UK airing of "Torchwood" were concerned about the scene early in the series where Owen uses a pheromone spray to attract a reluctant woman. They felt that the woman couldn't consent and so it was a form of sexual assault. Chibnall states emphatically that they never meant to give that impression. "Obviously, people can read things the way they want, and that's the great thing about drama. That's not the intention of that scene. It's not directed in that way. It's not written that way. Also, why would we have that character as a hero? No. Maybe we didn't make it clear enough, I don't know, but it's absolutely not the intention." Bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. The fact that it wasn't the intention, that they can't SEE it for what it really is, just makes it more creepifying. Might not have been directed that way, but really - how else can you look at it? Man talks up woman, woman displays marked lack of interest in leaving bar with man, man drugs woman (actually, he drugged himself, but it was pretty much the world's most effective roofie). No matter how you slice it, she didn't volunteer for the sex until after the drug. And I don't know what others saw, but I saw her being disdainful and unwilling, not actually sizing him up. And what of the man? Are we supposed to assume that her boyfriend also found Owen attractive before the spray? If so, there was no attempt to illustrate that in the text (or subtext). "Accentuates feelings that are already there," my ass. It doesn't matter. You can have all the "feelings" you want, but she was clearly NOT into having sex with Owen before the spray. She might even have found him attractive, but this makes it okay for him to override her executive functions with a drug?? And then he continued to behave like the whole "shagged to death by an alien invader" was funny. Monster food, I say.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Sept 21, 2007 7:03:46 GMT -5
On first viewing I thought the whole thing was a cunning plan and there was a story arc and character building and stuff going on with him. Then I started reading interviews, and realised the writers don't know those things you wish him to learn. I already mentioned it in the first episode thread here, but my comments on the interview, including some spoilersrelevant quote: In fact, some of the fans who saw the UK airing of "Torchwood" were concerned about the scene early in the series where Owen uses a pheromone spray to attract a reluctant woman. They felt that the woman couldn't consent and so it was a form of sexual assault. Chibnall states emphatically that they never meant to give that impression. "Obviously, people can read things the way they want, and that's the great thing about drama. That's not the intention of that scene. It's not directed in that way. It's not written that way. Also, why would we have that character as a hero? No. Maybe we didn't make it clear enough, I don't know, but it's absolutely not the intention." Bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. The fact that it wasn't the intention, that they can't SEE it for what it really is, just makes it more creepifying. *snipped for space* *nods a lot at all of it*
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 21, 2007 9:20:11 GMT -5
So, I talked to the Resident Man about this, and while he agrees that there's only one way you can really view those scenes, he also thinks that it's because they're men that they don't get it. He tells me that many (he hastens to remind me none of this is meant to apply to all men) men have this fantasy of a way of getting through all the "getting to know you so you'll trust me" part of the relationship instantly, and that what those scenes do is play on that fantasy. They really see her, emotionally, as willing and eager, and it takes engaging their intellectual parts to realize that her faculties are as clouded as if you forced her to get drunk or something similar. And went on to say, "The reason they probably said it 'just enhances feelings that are already there' is because men know that, often, they really do have to "convince" a previously unwilling woman to sleep with them - it's called "dating". So this drug just cuts to the chase. And then said, "And it's date rape, no matter how you look at it. But I guarantee you, women notice that aspect of the scene instinctively, and many men just see the funny until someone points it out to them." So, should I be pleased that he saw the consent issues without my help, the first time around? He's not as pleased with Torchwood as I am. Says the plots aren't at all "organic" yet, unlike Doctor Who. Stuff just "happens", and doesn't make any sense, plot-wise, but seems just to be for the fun of it. Not sure I'd go that far, but I do think that the plottiness could use work. As for example, I want to know: Why a supersecret organization would just adopt a random policewoman. There ought to be more backstory there. Why the security at the supersecret, antialien, collecting alien technology headquarters is so poor that no less than four people can walk out with alien tech and no one knows until the fallout happens. He's right; that's sort of too much to believe.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Sept 21, 2007 12:57:56 GMT -5
I snipped the bits I'll have more thinking about later. Why a supersecret organization would just adopt a random policewoman. There ought to be more backstory there. The supersecret organization had already been discovered by said policewoman (so she's sneaky and smart) and then drugged her to forget but she'd broken it. Which is both a useful thing for one of them to be able to do and really inconvenient for not-one-of-them to be able to do. Plus, if this is really one of those 'I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you' level secrets, their options are untell her (she'd remember again), kill her, or get her security clearance to know (ie employ her). Or, possibly, Jack is in charge and he fancies her. ... the people who walk out with alien tech are in fact all the people working there. They don't notice because they're busy hiding their own thing. Or, they notice but they can't point it out because they're busy hiding their own thing. It does make Jack look sort of incompetent though.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Sept 21, 2007 13:27:50 GMT -5
Also - have a look at www.torchwood.org.uk/It's a BBC website but it's all in character - Ianto Jones does tech support for the Torchwood Hub system. www.torchwood.org.uk/html/index.shtmlis probably more useful. The flashy one has possibly the most annoying interface ever. It's a bit of a problem for spoilers, because it added things as they came up on a UK timetable, but if you kinda keep your eyes closed and scroll down to the end and don't look in the character sections except for Gwen then there's interesting extra information. And silly pictures. can't find spoilers in the Tosh section either. Or Owen. But don't read Suzie or Ianto or Jack. Or the SUV.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 21, 2007 19:10:50 GMT -5
So, I talked to the Resident Man about this, and while he agrees that there's only one way you can really view those scenes, he also thinks that it's because they're men that they don't get it. He tells me that many (he hastens to remind me none of this is meant to apply to all men) men have this fantasy of a way of getting through all the "getting to know you so you'll trust me" part of the relationship instantly, and that what those scenes do is play on that fantasy. They really see her, emotionally, as willing and eager, and it takes engaging their intellectual parts to realize that her faculties are as clouded as if you forced her to get drunk or something similar. And went on to say, "The reason they probably said it 'just enhances feelings that are already there' is because men know that, often, they really do have to "convince" a previously unwilling woman to sleep with them - it's called "dating". So this drug just cuts to the chase. And then said, "And it's date rape, no matter how you look at it. But I guarantee you, women notice that aspect of the scene instinctively, and many men just see the funny until someone points it out to them." So, should I be pleased that he saw the consent issues without my help, the first time around? I'll admit that I didn't see that scene for what it was until it was pointed out to me. **Hangs head in shame.** I now want to go back and take a critical look at every love potion story there ever was.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Sept 22, 2007 13:57:39 GMT -5
So, I talked to the Resident Man about this, and while he agrees that there's only one way you can really view those scenes, he also thinks that it's because they're men that they don't get it. He tells me that many (he hastens to remind me none of this is meant to apply to all men) men have this fantasy of a way of getting through all the "getting to know you so you'll trust me" part of the relationship instantly, and that what those scenes do is play on that fantasy. They really see her, emotionally, as willing and eager, and it takes engaging their intellectual parts to realize that her faculties are as clouded as if you forced her to get drunk or something similar. And went on to say, "The reason they probably said it 'just enhances feelings that are already there' is because men know that, often, they really do have to "convince" a previously unwilling woman to sleep with them - it's called "dating". So this drug just cuts to the chase. And then said, "And it's date rape, no matter how you look at it. But I guarantee you, women notice that aspect of the scene instinctively, and many men just see the funny until someone points it out to them." So, should I be pleased that he saw the consent issues without my help, the first time around? I'll admit that I didn't see that scene for what it was until it was pointed out to me. **Hangs head in shame.** I now want to go back and take a critical look at every love potion story there ever was. And I see both views. Simultaneously. And sorta . . . intellectually, both sides. Um. Which is not really describing ti well, but sort of is.
|
|