|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 0:21:56 GMT -5
Holy cats!!! And woohoo, Ianto/Jack! Though I hope that ten minutes is only the "kick everyone else out/finish locking Suzie in the crypt" time.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 0:23:47 GMT -5
So, does the fact that I was happy to see Suzie die again make me evil? Cuz, I was pretty gratified with that ending. Nah, not evil unless you want to be. I figure, really, she was already dead. So any extra walking around time was just that. Extra. Otherwise they were just putting things back the way they were, the way they belonged.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 0:25:54 GMT -5
Holy freaking heck: Ianto, Jack, ten minutes and a stopwatch, arranged over a re-corpsed corpse? Did I read that right or have I just been up too late? Um...holy crap? Also: Excellent! Wow, Suzie was a freakin' genius...an evil genius, but that was a pretty ingenious plan. Love the cops putting Jack on speaker phone and laughing over Torchwood being stuck in their complex. Holy crap and excellent are both very fine summaries. I loved the bit with the cops all gathered around to hear him admit repeatedly that they were stuck. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 0:27:45 GMT -5
So there wasn't anything special about the stopwatch, it's just Jack and Ianto bam chicka waa waa. That's special enough for me . . .
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Oct 28, 2007 5:44:49 GMT -5
I vaguely thought that the whole thing works better as a plan to get de-retconned. Actually planning to come back from the dead is a bit ambitious. However she was the one that wrote the reports that they'd be relying on when planning to use the glove, so *shrugs* Also, thanks for liking all them thoughts I wrote
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Oct 28, 2007 5:58:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 28, 2007 11:17:01 GMT -5
So...stopwatches are the new clipboards, then?
I think they were just going to play Boggle. ;D
(And, yes, that is what the kids are calling it these days.)
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 28, 2007 11:18:09 GMT -5
So, does the fact that I was happy to see Suzie die again make me evil? Cuz, I was pretty gratified with that ending. It wasn't the dying that made me happy, but the repeated shooting, which probably makes me even more evil than you. Sorry. Didn't care for her. Not one little bit.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 28, 2007 11:28:30 GMT -5
So, I have one problem with Torchwood - the assumption (by the writers) that all humans are, deep down, bisexual. It makes for good stories, and I don't have any problem with it from a moral perspective...it's just the scientist in me that's irritated. But, as we know, the scientist is a big part on many days, and today she wants her say. See, the science (and there's actually a lot) doesn't back them up on this. The short answer as we currently know it is that most women are bisexual (at least in terms of potential and attraction, not in terms of behavior), and most men are NOT. In fact, the truly bisexual man is a very rare thing. 55th-century humans I'll cut a break to, 'cause things change (though even in 3500 years, might not change that much, depends on what drives the change, and male sexuality seems to be largely genetic, which, not much change in 3500 years), but 21st-century male humans are generally straight or gay, tending to the very ends of the Kinsey scale, in attraction AND behavior. Which makes the Ianto/Jack thing very very unlikely. (Sorry to them as wanted it.) I find it mildly irritating because it makes me view Torchwood, sometimes, as one big slashfic, where the characters' sexualities change at the whim of the writers. Maybe it's just that bisexual humans gravitate towards Torchwood for some reason...or Jack has some sort of vibe he emits that makes other humans' sexuality more plastic. I mean, it's almost certain he has something like that going on.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 11:43:03 GMT -5
I vaguely thought that the whole thing works better as a plan to get de-retconned. Actually planning to come back from the dead is a bit ambitious. However she was the one that wrote the reports that they'd be relying on when planning to use the glove, so *shrugs* Also, thanks for liking all them thoughts I wrote I like the idea of planning to de-retcon. I can see a plan that was open-ended. Planting all sorts of little bombs that might derail the team or send them to her. And all sorts of paths that she could have made use of. So, that also would mean they may stumble upon Suzie traps in the future . . . You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 11:45:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the link! I'm looking forward to getting my DVDs so I can compare. I was expecting that time would be cut, and looks like they did a lot of the type of cutting that used to drive me nuts with Buffy on FX. Individual lines, extra views, small moments, etc. Ones that would seem disposable, but of course they aren't. They end up giving one a slightly skewed impression of characters and scenes.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 11:49:51 GMT -5
So, I have one problem with Torchwood - the assumption (by the writers) that all humans are, deep down, bisexual. It makes for good stories, and I don't have any problem with it from a moral perspective...it's just the scientist in me that's irritated. But, as we know, the scientist is a big part on many days, and today she wants her say. See, the science (and there's actually a lot) doesn't back them up on this. The short answer as we currently know it is that most women are bisexual (at least in terms of potential and attraction, not in terms of behavior), and most men are NOT. In fact, the truly bisexual man is a very rare thing. 55th-century humans I'll cut a break to, 'cause things change (though even in 3500 years, might not change that much, depends on what drives the change, and male sexuality seems to be largely genetic, which, not much change in 3500 years), but 21st-century male humans are generally straight or gay, tending to the very ends of the Kinsey scale, in attraction AND behavior. I tend to think that humans are much more fluid than current (and many past and likely future) society allows for. Turn the context enough, allow people their rationalizations, etc. I'm perfectly fine with televised slashfic. It's so exceedingly rare that TV or any other media will ever give me what I want that I will happily grab it when I can. And I like these theories as well.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 28, 2007 11:58:08 GMT -5
So, I have one problem with Torchwood - the assumption (by the writers) that all humans are, deep down, bisexual. It makes for good stories, and I don't have any problem with it from a moral perspective...it's just the scientist in me that's irritated. But, as we know, the scientist is a big part on many days, and today she wants her say. See, the science (and there's actually a lot) doesn't back them up on this. The short answer as we currently know it is that most women are bisexual (at least in terms of potential and attraction, not in terms of behavior), and most men are NOT. In fact, the truly bisexual man is a very rare thing. 55th-century humans I'll cut a break to, 'cause things change (though even in 3500 years, might not change that much, depends on what drives the change, and male sexuality seems to be largely genetic, which, not much change in 3500 years), but 21st-century male humans are generally straight or gay, tending to the very ends of the Kinsey scale, in attraction AND behavior. I tend to think that humans are much more fluid than current (and many past and likely future) society allows for. Turn the context enough, allow people their rationalizations, etc. I'm perfectly fine with televised slashfic. It's so exceedingly rare that TV or any other media will ever give me what I want that I will happily grab it when I can. And I like these theories as well. It's true that we're all stuck in our society, so all the science is gonna be colored by that, to a degree - that said, even in places where sexuality is very liberal (I'm soaking in it, myself), there are still hardly any bisexual men. It's even a running joke with gay men that you just gotta give a bisexual man a year, and he'll be gay - the current thought is that many men who identify as bisexual are actually homosexual and not all the way out. Which is backed up by the brain imaging data. I'm gonna stick with my "it's just a story, and not the real world" approach, and also let myself believe that Jack has a "fluid sexuality" vibe. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 28, 2007 13:31:42 GMT -5
I tend to think that humans are much more fluid than current (and many past and likely future) society allows for. Turn the context enough, allow people their rationalizations, etc. I'm perfectly fine with televised slashfic. It's so exceedingly rare that TV or any other media will ever give me what I want that I will happily grab it when I can. And I like these theories as well. It's true that we're all stuck in our society, so all the science is gonna be colored by that, to a degree - that said, even in places where sexuality is very liberal (I'm soaking in it, myself), there are still hardly any bisexual men. It's even a running joke with gay men that you just gotta give a bisexual man a year, and he'll be gay - the current thought is that many men who identify as bisexual are actually homosexual and not all the way out. Which is backed up by the brain imaging data. I'm gonna stick with my "it's just a story, and not the real world" approach, and also let myself believe that Jack has a "fluid sexuality" vibe. ;D I'll throw out one more thought that even your soaking society is a bubble surrounded by, and much influenced by, many other societal bubbles with, often, more restrictive mindsets. And that most of the people in that smaller bubble came from/grew up in/are influenced by the other bubble(s). I've often thought that it is fairly impossible to truly isolate from surrounding society enough to study it. Can we ever separate the various influences enough to identify all the cause and effect ripples? But that's a personal opinion and so I'll stop right here. I'll just cuddle my slashy loveliness and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Oct 28, 2007 14:12:11 GMT -5
So, I have one problem with Torchwood - the assumption (by the writers) that all humans are, deep down, bisexual. It makes for good stories, and I don't have any problem with it from a moral perspective...it's just the scientist in me that's irritated. But, as we know, the scientist is a big part on many days, and today she wants her say. See, the science (and there's actually a lot) doesn't back them up on this. The short answer as we currently know it is that most women are bisexual (at least in terms of potential and attraction, not in terms of behavior), and most men are NOT. In fact, the truly bisexual man is a very rare thing. 55th-century humans I'll cut a break to, 'cause things change (though even in 3500 years, might not change that much, depends on what drives the change, and male sexuality seems to be largely genetic, which, not much change in 3500 years), but 21st-century male humans are generally straight or gay, tending to the very ends of the Kinsey scale, in attraction AND behavior. Which makes the Ianto/Jack thing very very unlikely. (Sorry to them as wanted it.) I find it mildly irritating because it makes me view Torchwood, sometimes, as one big slashfic, where the characters' sexualities change at the whim of the writers. Maybe it's just that bisexual humans gravitate towards Torchwood for some reason...or Jack has some sort of vibe he emits that makes other humans' sexuality more plastic. I mean, it's almost certain he has something like that going on. I read about some of the men-aren't-bi research that made it sound deeply dodgy. Carefully selected samples etc I admit I haven't read huge amounts in detail but I thought the science isn't as clear as all that. *shrugs* Plus if you get into some of the queer theory gender as performance stuff the whole straight/gay/bi thing just doesn't work cause gender happens in too many varieties to fit the boxes.
|
|