![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tencrushSo... it transpires that James Moran wrote the BBCA Captain's Blogs. Interesting. And when I say "interesting", I mean, of course, "weird". I have in the past accused the blogs of having been written by a gushing demented 15-year-old fangirl. So, either James Moran is secretly a gushing, demented 15-year-old fangirl, or James Moran has cynically pandered to the gushing, demented 15-year-old fangirl in all of us. I mean, it's either one or the other, right? I WISH I COULD TALK TO JAMES MORAN RIGHT NOW, SERIOUSLY.
My problem with the Captain's Blogs, which I've expressed on numerous occasions, is the way they are in many instances, completely at odds with what we've been shown on screen when it comes to the Jack/Ianto relationship. And on one level, it's kind of heartening to know that they're the product of the production team, because it means that all that shizzle that we've been talking about all these months, all those interpretations (because that's what they are, let's face it) we have of there being more to Jack/Ianto than handjobs in the hub, there being more depth to it than the shallow sexxings and innuendo we've been unambiguously shown, are supported by at least some sort of opinion by someone on the team somewhere, that yes, there is more to this relationship that the stuff they've chosen to show. It shows promise for the future, right? But, then again, there's the cynical aspect of the whole thing, that aspect that has got up a few people's noses. I guess the question really is, WERE THEY PANDERING TO US?
Well, there's a few possibilities, the first, of course being that James Moran just ships Jack and Ianto. James Moran, personally, is a fan of the relationship and wants to see it played out in the way the blogs play it out. Now, that possibility is all well and good, but if that's the case then it brings me back to the point I have made countless times before about Torchwood, which is that there is no-one in charge. Nobody is taking it upon themselves to make sure all the writers are on the same page when it comes to the interpersonal relationships on the show and it makes for a mess in the area of character continuity. It just doesn't work to let one writer play up Jack/Gwen, and the next Jack/Ianto completely randomly, because all it serves to do at the end of the day is make everybody look bad. Gwen looks like an insensitive slut, Jack looks like a fickle spacewhore and Ianto looks like a trodden-upon boytoy who just takes it (in the ass, yes I know you were thinking it, well done, you). So, yeah, if James ships Jack/Ianto, good for him, a lot of us do, and if that's all it is, then that's fine, but somebody, somewhere, please bear in mind that evidently not all the writers do. And that's hella confusing for those of us watching.
Now the second, and I would hope more plausible, possibility is that James Moran was writing to some sort of brief from up above. But that brings a whole different can of worms to the table and they're just as unpleasant as the other worms (the other worms, up there, which I hadn't yet mentioned, but let's just assume there was a metaphor about worms involved somehow in the first possibility and move along, yeah?) Because that implies first of all that the powers that be were all too aware that they were showing the Jack/Ianto relationship, on screen, in a rather superficial light, because let's face it, of all the interactions we could have been shown between Jack and Ianto, we all agree that perhaps one or two sexual innuendoes should have been dropped in favour of even the vaguest hint that these two have some sort of emotional connection along the lines of the one the blog seems to be telling us they have. Now this brings up an interesting question, which is, when exactly were these blogs written? Because it could quite easily be the case that the blogs were written at a very late date, at a time when negative fan reaction was already starting to filter through, or at least at a time when positive reaction and the popularity of the Jack/Ianto relationship were becoming more clear to the production team, more clear, at least, than at the scripting and shooting stages of season 2. So was James Moran briefed to play catch-up in what the production team realised was a rather too ambiguous portrayal of a relationship the fanbase was rallying around? It's possible. And if so, yeah, you could call that pandering, but at least it's not cynical pandering, right? It's the kind of pandering that makes us fans feel kind of smug and good about ourselves because it tells us that someone's listening. And that promises great things for the future. Cool.
The other possibility though, the other worm in the can, if you will, is that Moran was briefed to add this layer to the relationship purely because the powers that be had no intention of going into it on screen. Now that's cynical pandering. That's the having your cake and eating it scenario and it's the one most people fear is the case. And that fear is reasonably justified, I feel. I mean, here's a team of writers and producers and whatnot who are perfectly happy to take Jack out of Torchwood, plonk him back into Who, rewind his character by a couple of years and turn him back into an omnisexual spaceslut who'll come onto anything with a pulse, despite having had him develop on Torchwood for two years into a man who seems, from what we can gather from the text, reasonably romantic, more than capable of monogamy and a person who places a huge emphasis on protecting those he loves. Not the kind of guy who just leaves you in the Hub with a bunch of Daleks, because hey, you guys can take care of yourselves, right? I'm taking the big gun, smoke me a kipper, helloooo there Sarah Jane. That sort of thing. These are the people we're dealing with here. The people who didn't bat an eyelid when the script said Owen, the guy who's been a doctor for at least five years that we know of, was 27 years old. The sort of people who from our fannish perspective, just don't seem to think twice about the bigger picture they're painting. Or at least once more (bonus points for the reference, peeps, just seeing if you're still paying attention, I realise this is all getting a bit tl;dr.) I hate to break it to the powers that be, but this last scenario is one that a lot of people wouldn't put past you in the slightest. I'm just sayin', you know?
What do I think? I think it's a little bit from columns A, B and C. I think the big problem Torchwood suffers from, and it's one I've had a bit of time to think about, is that they just don't quite know where they want to go with Jack. He was an omnisexual whore, but they've realised that that's just a bit too much of a whoreish thing for the romantic lead of a show to be(especially one that you've touted as such a sexually liberated icon, it gives the impression that sexual liberation=sluttiness and that looks bad and isn't what they meant). But giving him a romantic relationship that's anything more than casual kind of takes away his appeal as a 51st century happy-go-lucky player type, and it bogs him down as a character with nowhere to go. In making Jack our hero, they're kind of stuck now between a rock and a hard place. I sympathise, and I think it's a hard dilemma to resolve. What I do know, though, is that trying to approach him, and his relationship with Ianto, from all angles at once, trying to cover all the bases and please everyone, isn't the solution, and that's an approach a lot of people thought the Captain's Blogs were symptomatic of. I wasn't convinced that Rusty and co. were in the business of trying to please everyone, but, having seen Rose and Handy snog in the sunset in Journey's End, I'm no longer so sure about that one. There's having a cake, there's eating it, and then there's eating every pastry based snack in the whole damned shop.
My problem with the Captain's Blogs, which I've expressed on numerous occasions, is the way they are in many instances, completely at odds with what we've been shown on screen when it comes to the Jack/Ianto relationship. And on one level, it's kind of heartening to know that they're the product of the production team, because it means that all that shizzle that we've been talking about all these months, all those interpretations (because that's what they are, let's face it) we have of there being more to Jack/Ianto than handjobs in the hub, there being more depth to it than the shallow sexxings and innuendo we've been unambiguously shown, are supported by at least some sort of opinion by someone on the team somewhere, that yes, there is more to this relationship that the stuff they've chosen to show. It shows promise for the future, right? But, then again, there's the cynical aspect of the whole thing, that aspect that has got up a few people's noses. I guess the question really is, WERE THEY PANDERING TO US?
Well, there's a few possibilities, the first, of course being that James Moran just ships Jack and Ianto. James Moran, personally, is a fan of the relationship and wants to see it played out in the way the blogs play it out. Now, that possibility is all well and good, but if that's the case then it brings me back to the point I have made countless times before about Torchwood, which is that there is no-one in charge. Nobody is taking it upon themselves to make sure all the writers are on the same page when it comes to the interpersonal relationships on the show and it makes for a mess in the area of character continuity. It just doesn't work to let one writer play up Jack/Gwen, and the next Jack/Ianto completely randomly, because all it serves to do at the end of the day is make everybody look bad. Gwen looks like an insensitive slut, Jack looks like a fickle spacewhore and Ianto looks like a trodden-upon boytoy who just takes it (in the ass, yes I know you were thinking it, well done, you). So, yeah, if James ships Jack/Ianto, good for him, a lot of us do, and if that's all it is, then that's fine, but somebody, somewhere, please bear in mind that evidently not all the writers do. And that's hella confusing for those of us watching.
Now the second, and I would hope more plausible, possibility is that James Moran was writing to some sort of brief from up above. But that brings a whole different can of worms to the table and they're just as unpleasant as the other worms (the other worms, up there, which I hadn't yet mentioned, but let's just assume there was a metaphor about worms involved somehow in the first possibility and move along, yeah?) Because that implies first of all that the powers that be were all too aware that they were showing the Jack/Ianto relationship, on screen, in a rather superficial light, because let's face it, of all the interactions we could have been shown between Jack and Ianto, we all agree that perhaps one or two sexual innuendoes should have been dropped in favour of even the vaguest hint that these two have some sort of emotional connection along the lines of the one the blog seems to be telling us they have. Now this brings up an interesting question, which is, when exactly were these blogs written? Because it could quite easily be the case that the blogs were written at a very late date, at a time when negative fan reaction was already starting to filter through, or at least at a time when positive reaction and the popularity of the Jack/Ianto relationship were becoming more clear to the production team, more clear, at least, than at the scripting and shooting stages of season 2. So was James Moran briefed to play catch-up in what the production team realised was a rather too ambiguous portrayal of a relationship the fanbase was rallying around? It's possible. And if so, yeah, you could call that pandering, but at least it's not cynical pandering, right? It's the kind of pandering that makes us fans feel kind of smug and good about ourselves because it tells us that someone's listening. And that promises great things for the future. Cool.
The other possibility though, the other worm in the can, if you will, is that Moran was briefed to add this layer to the relationship purely because the powers that be had no intention of going into it on screen. Now that's cynical pandering. That's the having your cake and eating it scenario and it's the one most people fear is the case. And that fear is reasonably justified, I feel. I mean, here's a team of writers and producers and whatnot who are perfectly happy to take Jack out of Torchwood, plonk him back into Who, rewind his character by a couple of years and turn him back into an omnisexual spaceslut who'll come onto anything with a pulse, despite having had him develop on Torchwood for two years into a man who seems, from what we can gather from the text, reasonably romantic, more than capable of monogamy and a person who places a huge emphasis on protecting those he loves. Not the kind of guy who just leaves you in the Hub with a bunch of Daleks, because hey, you guys can take care of yourselves, right? I'm taking the big gun, smoke me a kipper, helloooo there Sarah Jane. That sort of thing. These are the people we're dealing with here. The people who didn't bat an eyelid when the script said Owen, the guy who's been a doctor for at least five years that we know of, was 27 years old. The sort of people who from our fannish perspective, just don't seem to think twice about the bigger picture they're painting. Or at least once more (bonus points for the reference, peeps, just seeing if you're still paying attention, I realise this is all getting a bit tl;dr.) I hate to break it to the powers that be, but this last scenario is one that a lot of people wouldn't put past you in the slightest. I'm just sayin', you know?
What do I think? I think it's a little bit from columns A, B and C. I think the big problem Torchwood suffers from, and it's one I've had a bit of time to think about, is that they just don't quite know where they want to go with Jack. He was an omnisexual whore, but they've realised that that's just a bit too much of a whoreish thing for the romantic lead of a show to be(especially one that you've touted as such a sexually liberated icon, it gives the impression that sexual liberation=sluttiness and that looks bad and isn't what they meant). But giving him a romantic relationship that's anything more than casual kind of takes away his appeal as a 51st century happy-go-lucky player type, and it bogs him down as a character with nowhere to go. In making Jack our hero, they're kind of stuck now between a rock and a hard place. I sympathise, and I think it's a hard dilemma to resolve. What I do know, though, is that trying to approach him, and his relationship with Ianto, from all angles at once, trying to cover all the bases and please everyone, isn't the solution, and that's an approach a lot of people thought the Captain's Blogs were symptomatic of. I wasn't convinced that Rusty and co. were in the business of trying to please everyone, but, having seen Rose and Handy snog in the sunset in Journey's End, I'm no longer so sure about that one. There's having a cake, there's eating it, and then there's eating every pastry based snack in the whole damned shop.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 03:42 am (UTC)This blog is fan discussion, end of story. I don't know anyone who writes TW, acts in TW, directs TW, makes tea for TW, I only know what I see on screen and the words I write about it. Everything I write is my opinion and I attempt to state as fact only those things I know to be true. I don't succeed very well, probably, but that's just the way it is, I'm not going to apologise for that.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 11:08 pm (UTC)That's a very good approach, and I know what you mean about writing style or that's how you talk, I talk the same way alot and some of my friends give me a hard time. Of course you should discuss what you want, how you want, but stating assumptions as fact will get you a hard time from responders, you didn't seem very open to the bbc staffer who corrected some statments you made about production workings, or the bbca statement. They released the information about where the blogs came from early on, and I've seen their statement posted a million times. When has anyone "denied" they were written by the TW production? I remember JL (who wrote one episode and who you wouldn't assume has anything to do with that) saying didn't know one way or another and his assumption was they weren't. JM kept it a secret but that's not the same as saying no they definitely don't come from us.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-19 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-19 01:16 am (UTC)I've explained to you how I arrived at the erroneous conclusion that you feel I presented as fact. I don't really know what else you want me to say about it. I WAS WRONG. And just because you've seen this BBCA statement you say exists millions of times, doesn't mean I have or I wouldn't have said what I said.
I don't claim to have any inside knowledge, or indeed any knowledge at all. Pretty much everyone I've ever talked to on this LJ knows this.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-19 01:38 am (UTC)... except, apparently, for you. Now while I appreciate your concern that my opinions may be misconstrued as fact by my readers, I am telling you that this is not the case, so you can stop fretting about it. People who read and argue on my blog are, on the whole, critically thinking, intelligent people with a reasonably developed sense of humour. Honestly, they don't need your protection.
This hard time your friends give you, does the word 'patronising' ever come up? Just wondering. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 12:23 pm (UTC)Sorry for butting in...
Keep in mind that at the time, writers and producers at the Rift had all just denied any knowledge of the Captain's Blogs, and one of the writers went so far as to posit that a BBCA intern or researcher wrote them.
Granted, taking anyone affiliated with RTD at their word is dangerous *g* but at the time that was the word from on high.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 12:29 pm (UTC)I believe that writer may well have actually been Moran himself. I know I waffle on, but I don't pluck things completely out of thin air.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 10:40 pm (UTC)The sole thing pointing in the other direction is that one time, one writer said he didn't know who wrote them. Which doesn't suggest the Torchwood production doesn't write it, or that anyone is lying. Why would you expect everyone vaguely associated with Torchwood knows that kind of detail about how affiliate media is handled?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-19 12:02 am (UTC)