I have issues with the current websites out there it seems. While I'm in no way fluent in HTML, apparently I can't be given even the option of looking into that or working through my own if registering to free website domain services. All I get are the same templates with all the unnecessarily width-eating sidebars you get on blogging sites as well.
There are reasons why I considered some of the sites mentioned below, by the way, so nothing is set in stone or me being entirely ignorant of some past failings. I detested Angelfire's pop-ups years ago already, for example, but had a reason to look into it now.
My HTML skills stem back to 1995, so I know they are outdated. The last time I fiddled about with any of that was around 2003, so that's seven years in the past as well. I do however know enough to be able to look at the existing code on sites where I want to pick a piece from here, another bit from there, and to combine them into something that hopefully works. Basic, cleaner, simple, and no sidebar frills beyond a basic navigational menu.
I however seem to fall in between categories as a user, since I am unwilling to pay for services when I don't know the quality of them and what is available to me as a user before signing up and trying them out. As a free one, you no longer get access even to something like Angelfire's web shell management system. Or so I found out today when writing this, on Monday.
I haven't looked into CSS thus far despite having moved on sites that use it for some of their content. Apparently I now need to if want more control over what my content will look like. Even if it's simply to slash additional and unnecessary things from whatever I have to initially choose to use. Depending on what Topcities.com currently offers for their free users, I may still be able to modify things to pure basics even without CSS. I don't know, since I ran out of time to look into it.
With only an hour or two per day to shift through any of that, I'm at a disadvantage to even have any time to sort it out. I just dislike the current need for everything to look the same. The templates don't vary in what they offer greatly enough and none offer me anything close enough to the basic clean style I'd have in mind.
I realize that "mundanes" these days may like their content out there as well, with easy to use options, but when the main thing that is on offer when you first register is only catering to the lowest common denominator, I feel excluded and less pleased with the service I am offered.
If someone seriously wants to start their own social networking site they should presumably have enough knowledge about the technical issues and questions to know how to do it, too. Today I found out that's not at all necessary and that there are templates to do that as well.
Seriously? You're offering that to people who can't do a thing technically? Why? I cannot quite fathom the logic of letting people who have no idea what they're doing simply run around running something for the sake of it, because whee, it's fun. It must make someone some money somewhere or it wouldn't be an option, but it still seems bizarre.
I also have issues with limiting widths of text to 500 pixels or whatever as with the blogging templates. It narrows things unnecessarily and makes the text look longer than it actually is. I also find it more difficult to read through than wider options. If and when I ever get the time, the options for the blog will get modified as well, it's just to find the time.
I am likewise not entirely pleased with Zymic.com not offering a chance to register using Yahoo accounts, since I want to focus all my activities with this around what I have now. I distrust some of the few other accounts I'd have in use to not go bust entirely if I fail to register in for a month, or more so, for the year it takes to re-allow old account names into use on some other services heard about.
Looking through a "Using the Media Manager for File Downloads" run-through help page I also start missing the times when I could just type in the html and URL for where I want to pick something up from once it's in the folder I want it in. All the jumping between menus and things just to get something to show up? I'd forgotten how time consuming the different menus were in the old days as well, let alone now that they've added several layers on top of it.
I don't want your Rich Text editors or other nonsense to edit in links. I know how. You're confusing people by making it look more complicated than it is and keeping others from doing it more simply or by hand. Inept as I may be with it all, I can tell I'd prefer more basics. I'm having to learn a more graphics based way to do mere links it seems, if at all want my very modest pages anywhere. I learned how to read things without pictures next to them early on in school. Why should I want them in what I do online?
The same goes to sites first offering me twelve or more boxes of text or images to view when I enter. I don't have ADD. I don't need everything thrown at me to try and wow me with all your fanciness when I first enter. You can grab me more easily by having what I need there, easily found and navigable without extra fuss on top.
The templates also finally tell me why these days I can never any more tell if a site I'm taken to is something more legitimate or simply a blog. If everything including blogs looks the same, it takes away from your air of legitimacy or professional tone. Should such things be what you're after, instead of a clean and simple look like me here. No, I don't think I'm entirely pleased here.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Not forgetting
My grandmother's partner of 28 years recently died and we did a funeral trip up North. The sorest point in all that currently isn't anything to do with the man we regrettably hadn't seen for all too many years, but the fact that once she dies as well, it will still remain to be the twelve hour drive to get even to her grave, next to him. At the moment, that hurts disproportionately much, when the likelihood of my living in the UK sometime in the future again is great, adding to my personal distance.
The thinking seems to be that from the UK it's difficult in any case, but while in the same country, you as if should or could. Especially with the tradition of leaving candles burning on holidays, visiting and remembering the lost. The thought that after whatever locals knew her die themselves, stop caring, remembering or being able to otherwise visit the grave themselves, that the grave would always be dark is heartbreaking.
There are of course guilty consciences involved, no matter how great the distance to travel. That you don't see relatives for years is not excused by the fact that yours isn't a particularly close family in any case, when there was never any question of your not getting along with your grandmother. She was always the closest of your grandparents, after all.
Everyone said they'd visit more often now that they got there once after however many years in each respective case. It doesn't mean she's not there alone in the meantime, having already wanted to take a dog a bit earlier in the year to alleviate the loneliness when her partner was in the hospital. Unfortunately, the grown puppy pulled her over a little before the death of her partner, and cracked ribs lead to her having to give the dog up. She's a great distance away even from the closest neighbours, and with people visiting only a few times a week. How dark, cold and lonely it got even before losing her partner, I could only begin to imagine.
It's not that she does badly at all for her age otherwise. Given some of the blunt language she used half shocking my brother, it's not as if she's not in fighting spirits in general either. There is a lot of fire, but it's hard up there in any case. The attitude may show in her scoffing at the thought of a Norwegian long-haired cat to keep her company, and claiming it would get eaten by foxes while out.
I have some sort of a post brewing somewhere about the care industry, but I need to keep that separate from this, since it mostly is. I also need to write about all the things discovered only once up there, once your mother had left and your grandmother was freer to talk, whether for being hushed up otherwise or what, we couldn't tell. My maternal grandfather died at the age of fifty when I was five, so it was very interesting from one angle to hear her talk about him, even if it wasn't easy for her to live through. Calling the police to come take away his guns so that he'd at least have to use an axe or his hands to try killing her kind of automatically falls under difficult, you know?
Closets and what lurks in them, and what you possibly never learn. Especially if you leave things too late.
Likewise, talk about your past to your kids and grandchildren. Even if they'd claim not to be interested or have heard it already. Write down people's names behind your old photographs and write down at least some of what happened in your life if none of the family claim to want to listen. The records will exist for when they do want them, and sooner or later someone no doubt will. If you have care workers coming in, they might be interested in knowing more if nothing else. Someone should remember, and someone will eventually care.
The thinking seems to be that from the UK it's difficult in any case, but while in the same country, you as if should or could. Especially with the tradition of leaving candles burning on holidays, visiting and remembering the lost. The thought that after whatever locals knew her die themselves, stop caring, remembering or being able to otherwise visit the grave themselves, that the grave would always be dark is heartbreaking.
There are of course guilty consciences involved, no matter how great the distance to travel. That you don't see relatives for years is not excused by the fact that yours isn't a particularly close family in any case, when there was never any question of your not getting along with your grandmother. She was always the closest of your grandparents, after all.
Everyone said they'd visit more often now that they got there once after however many years in each respective case. It doesn't mean she's not there alone in the meantime, having already wanted to take a dog a bit earlier in the year to alleviate the loneliness when her partner was in the hospital. Unfortunately, the grown puppy pulled her over a little before the death of her partner, and cracked ribs lead to her having to give the dog up. She's a great distance away even from the closest neighbours, and with people visiting only a few times a week. How dark, cold and lonely it got even before losing her partner, I could only begin to imagine.
It's not that she does badly at all for her age otherwise. Given some of the blunt language she used half shocking my brother, it's not as if she's not in fighting spirits in general either. There is a lot of fire, but it's hard up there in any case. The attitude may show in her scoffing at the thought of a Norwegian long-haired cat to keep her company, and claiming it would get eaten by foxes while out.
I have some sort of a post brewing somewhere about the care industry, but I need to keep that separate from this, since it mostly is. I also need to write about all the things discovered only once up there, once your mother had left and your grandmother was freer to talk, whether for being hushed up otherwise or what, we couldn't tell. My maternal grandfather died at the age of fifty when I was five, so it was very interesting from one angle to hear her talk about him, even if it wasn't easy for her to live through. Calling the police to come take away his guns so that he'd at least have to use an axe or his hands to try killing her kind of automatically falls under difficult, you know?
Closets and what lurks in them, and what you possibly never learn. Especially if you leave things too late.
Likewise, talk about your past to your kids and grandchildren. Even if they'd claim not to be interested or have heard it already. Write down people's names behind your old photographs and write down at least some of what happened in your life if none of the family claim to want to listen. The records will exist for when they do want them, and sooner or later someone no doubt will. If you have care workers coming in, they might be interested in knowing more if nothing else. Someone should remember, and someone will eventually care.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Harry's adorable (D)
 | To not give the wrong idea about where my character balance lies overall, I did say that I found Harry Crawford from Boon ridiculously adorable. I've been busy as of late and having to see to some other things during my online time, but once I get the chance I'll be getting back to watching more Boon for sure. |
Michael Elphick, Neil Morrissey and the female cast seen so far all seem fine enough, but I have to say that Harry is adorable, anyway. Slightly daft and pompous (as people have said) or not, and my still greatly relying on one Boon site out there for most of the episode synopses and what happened over the years, I'm tremendously fond of the character already after seeing only a few episodes. I had no idea I was missing a Harry Crawford from my life until Boon.
I'm also going to have a treasure trove of actors to get to check out in their earlier years if I ever get the DVDs in my hand. I actor-spotted through episode lists for familiar names and will enjoy getting around to those. Sometime. Where's my chance to live in London again when I need it?
I have to say starting with the "Comes up as the top result" option, or the last episode with Jason Isaacs as a guest, really was a bad choice in terms of hooking anyone to the series though. Had I not jumped to the Christmas special and Shot in the Dark after 2-3 parts, well, I'd still be watching Boon since I'm stubborn when curious, but I don't recommend the top search result for other newbies, no.
It's a bit of a non-starter for a post and saying nothing, but maybe I'll get to do episode commentary as I get around to more of them. I'd already forgotten that I last started Trouble in the Fields, there being funeral trips and other things to see to in between, commentary probably helping me keep track of things.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Vulnerability? Comedy? Hmmh (D)
It seems one of Daker's strengths was the ability to be both physically menacing and full of vulnerability in the same roles. I'm still digging up more material to some day try to acquire, so my conclusions may be inadequate for the time being, but from what I have seen and read so far, that.
Pictures not tied to the relevant episode until I can make some edits, by the way.
I'll get back to Captain Spiker from Dick Turpin below, but want a word about convict roles first. There are at least three that I know of, in Only Fools and Horses, Porridge and Thriller's "Kill Two Birds" episode. The physicality must have played some part in his being cast as convicts and villains, aside from what he can do with his voice. He doesn't look like he'll break in two, and rolls up his sleeves to trash Rigsby in his role in Rising Damp, too.
If I'm right about the Only Fools and Horses episode, I think I've actually seen it in the UK, too. Picture reminders elsewhere jogged my memory to suggest some details about the son, but until I get a chance to see it again sometime, I better not claim one thing or another.
It may or may not say something that when prompted, I remember a random episode and characters from it some 8-12 years later though, when I was never religious about getting acquainted with the series and saw it at random. If it is the one I think it is, jolly well done to Daker, I remember the character and story after the prompt despite not having had a clue at the time who I was watching.
What I recall of Spiker offhand always includes his (slightly petulant) "But what if the girl don't like me?" line from The Hero episode, where Sir John Glutton is trying to marry his steward Spiker off to the daughter of someone who owes him, to get his hands on the riches and dowry. The DVD offers the scene up as "Reluctant Groom" but I have to say that I read more actual concern behind the question, too. Spiker isn't the usual entirely hardened and one-layered figure and there are several moments where something more shows as a glimpse.
I have a particular fondness for the second episode, The Capture, due to Spiker's black eye in it. It says so much about the character when Spiker is shown examining his eye in the mirror while Sir John goes on about whatever it was at that time again. Poor man, losing a fight and having to deal with his vanity both from that angle as well as the looks side, getting nothing but grief from his employer. Not to mention dealing with something that is obviously rather sore.
I like how Daker sells that it is sore, the slight touches from the hand on the cheek and corner of the eye. I love that slight intake of breath and how Spiker jerks his head back when Sir John dabs the cheek with his cane. I love details like that if notice them in whatever I watch.
I also like the ever so slight hints of vanity that it all adds to an already prideful character. Oh the smug smiles here and there. There are further interactions with Annabelle Lee's actress-character Jane Kelsey in the episode that are in part either hilarious or add to Spiker's tendency to be somewhat pleased with himself. The insecurity or uncertainty over his lack of a proper or better position in life doesn't show in that episode, but peeks out every now and then otherwise.
There is that strange vulnerability and softness or something in Daker that lies just under the surface even when he plays the menacing types. I love a good voice and Spiker's "You filthy renegade!" growls don't hurt the part for sure, but he comes off as having more loyalty (whether misguided or not) and some decency than most villainous types of his sort. Spiker is a complete bastard on so many levels, and yet there are the bits that are just human and even to some extent appealing. I like the complexity.
I must say that the more I watch Turpin though, the more I also begin to appreciate Christopher Benjamin's hilarious turn as Sir John. The man has some of the best expressions ever and I imagine the role must have been at least somewhat fun to play. Same goes to Annabelle Lee's roles in both Turpin and Robin of Sherwood, but that's another post again.
As to the line from The Hero... The girl likes you just fine, you just need the right girl. There, there, dearie. We know it's tough being seen as the villain when you're only concerned about the law and getting ahead in life and all the rabble keeps getting the popular vote instead. No justice in life.
Pictures not tied to the relevant episode until I can make some edits, by the way.
I'll get back to Captain Spiker from Dick Turpin below, but want a word about convict roles first. There are at least three that I know of, in Only Fools and Horses, Porridge and Thriller's "Kill Two Birds" episode. The physicality must have played some part in his being cast as convicts and villains, aside from what he can do with his voice. He doesn't look like he'll break in two, and rolls up his sleeves to trash Rigsby in his role in Rising Damp, too.
If I'm right about the Only Fools and Horses episode, I think I've actually seen it in the UK, too. Picture reminders elsewhere jogged my memory to suggest some details about the son, but until I get a chance to see it again sometime, I better not claim one thing or another.
It may or may not say something that when prompted, I remember a random episode and characters from it some 8-12 years later though, when I was never religious about getting acquainted with the series and saw it at random. If it is the one I think it is, jolly well done to Daker, I remember the character and story after the prompt despite not having had a clue at the time who I was watching.
What I recall of Spiker offhand always includes his (slightly petulant) "But what if the girl don't like me?" line from The Hero episode, where Sir John Glutton is trying to marry his steward Spiker off to the daughter of someone who owes him, to get his hands on the riches and dowry. The DVD offers the scene up as "Reluctant Groom" but I have to say that I read more actual concern behind the question, too. Spiker isn't the usual entirely hardened and one-layered figure and there are several moments where something more shows as a glimpse.
I have a particular fondness for the second episode, The Capture, due to Spiker's black eye in it. It says so much about the character when Spiker is shown examining his eye in the mirror while Sir John goes on about whatever it was at that time again. Poor man, losing a fight and having to deal with his vanity both from that angle as well as the looks side, getting nothing but grief from his employer. Not to mention dealing with something that is obviously rather sore.
I like how Daker sells that it is sore, the slight touches from the hand on the cheek and corner of the eye. I love that slight intake of breath and how Spiker jerks his head back when Sir John dabs the cheek with his cane. I love details like that if notice them in whatever I watch.
I also like the ever so slight hints of vanity that it all adds to an already prideful character. Oh the smug smiles here and there. There are further interactions with Annabelle Lee's actress-character Jane Kelsey in the episode that are in part either hilarious or add to Spiker's tendency to be somewhat pleased with himself. The insecurity or uncertainty over his lack of a proper or better position in life doesn't show in that episode, but peeks out every now and then otherwise.
There is that strange vulnerability and softness or something in Daker that lies just under the surface even when he plays the menacing types. I love a good voice and Spiker's "You filthy renegade!" growls don't hurt the part for sure, but he comes off as having more loyalty (whether misguided or not) and some decency than most villainous types of his sort. Spiker is a complete bastard on so many levels, and yet there are the bits that are just human and even to some extent appealing. I like the complexity.
I must say that the more I watch Turpin though, the more I also begin to appreciate Christopher Benjamin's hilarious turn as Sir John. The man has some of the best expressions ever and I imagine the role must have been at least somewhat fun to play. Same goes to Annabelle Lee's roles in both Turpin and Robin of Sherwood, but that's another post again.
 | Then again, since I started rewatching bits of The Capture episode again, I ended up laughing over the expressions in the scene 17 minutes in. That: "It's tomorrow, Sir John." "What is?" "You know... (mimes getting strung up)" bit and that miming of getting hanged in particular. Oh, thank you, series and everyone involved. Thank you, me, too, for having been born where I was and having seen it when younger, to get to appreciate it all again now as well. Followed by his return to a more villainous bastard with the evil laughs to boot, it's great fun to watch. Add the low and contained "What was that?" demand to Sir John's nephew in The Poacher episode and you have yet more layers with its chilling menace. |
As to the line from The Hero... The girl likes you just fine, you just need the right girl. There, there, dearie. We know it's tough being seen as the villain when you're only concerned about the law and getting ahead in life and all the rabble keeps getting the popular vote instead. No justice in life.
Women. Shockingly, possibly not just about looks
As shallow as all my talk about fancying this or that person was in the Age, Diversity + More post, I still have a problem with running into reviews that only ever bring up a woman's beauty if something more is to be said of them.
I understand that whatever you prefer, you prefer, but while reading through someone's reviews of an older series with several different actors in each episode, I was forced to take notice of their only ever bringing up the women's looks. Whoever was beautiful and what other woman gorgeous, stunning or some other thing. Actresses are often reduced to their looks, and I'm not sure I'm any less guilty of it if looked at over a longer period of time. After all, women are apparently only to be looked at and need to be desirable to men, and that's their worth and value all too often.
As said, we are geared toward beauty by nature. I remain a hypocrite in having criticized the super-skinny and the incomprehensible fad of the silicone plumped lips, as well as having taken note of men's physical features or attributes, and liking whatever it is that I do like. I just find it limited and limiting to always to keep going on and on about the beauty or (relative) ugliness of whatever actress or any other female figure.
Female politicians are either lookers or frumpy nobodies that are probably battle-axes and difficult, right? You have one doing a stately visit and their clothes and hairstyle will be the things talked about. Sportswomen these days are criticized if they don't appear in makeup and try to conform to beauty standards. However ill-advised it might have been on all fronts to go the route East Germany did with their women athletes as well (or so they say), I'm also sure it wasn't any better to make fun of their looks back in the day either.
Likewise, I found it very jarring to see a comment on that rather well-known video clip site along the lines of "God, what happened to him? I used to have such a crush on him" about a person who'd simply hit their 50s and looked... normal. Or quite lovely, if you were to ask me, but no longer how they did in their thirties.
Age happened. The world happened. Shallow happened in your case, and given that you'd apparently fancied the actor when he was younger, you should possibly have matured some by now as well. Possibly. One can never tell.
I knew someone in the UK who said that while growing up with the Carry On movies, they were more inclined to want to be the Hattie Jacques and woshername wifely or matronly figures than the giggling Barbara Windsor bimbettes. She was also aware of the fact that she was quite likely in the small minority with her opinion.
What she said was that the others seemed to get to do better things, which is also true. There can be some independent power in being the battle-axe, whether you get ridiculed for it or not. You are a threat to supposed ways of How Things Are Supposed to Go and thus to be put down any chance there is, but you may accomplish more in any case. There is the saying about well-behaved women rarely making history.
However, given that when I broke my arm at the age of six, my laconic and resigned commentary on it was that I would thus never be able to take part in Miss World type contests, something is wrong in what is sold to girls and women. If a six-year-old already some thirty years ago was acutely aware that any flaws in beauty would cut you out of the "competition" and make you a lesser thing, the world might need an unladylike punch or two.
I understand that whatever you prefer, you prefer, but while reading through someone's reviews of an older series with several different actors in each episode, I was forced to take notice of their only ever bringing up the women's looks. Whoever was beautiful and what other woman gorgeous, stunning or some other thing. Actresses are often reduced to their looks, and I'm not sure I'm any less guilty of it if looked at over a longer period of time. After all, women are apparently only to be looked at and need to be desirable to men, and that's their worth and value all too often.
As said, we are geared toward beauty by nature. I remain a hypocrite in having criticized the super-skinny and the incomprehensible fad of the silicone plumped lips, as well as having taken note of men's physical features or attributes, and liking whatever it is that I do like. I just find it limited and limiting to always to keep going on and on about the beauty or (relative) ugliness of whatever actress or any other female figure.
Female politicians are either lookers or frumpy nobodies that are probably battle-axes and difficult, right? You have one doing a stately visit and their clothes and hairstyle will be the things talked about. Sportswomen these days are criticized if they don't appear in makeup and try to conform to beauty standards. However ill-advised it might have been on all fronts to go the route East Germany did with their women athletes as well (or so they say), I'm also sure it wasn't any better to make fun of their looks back in the day either.
Likewise, I found it very jarring to see a comment on that rather well-known video clip site along the lines of "God, what happened to him? I used to have such a crush on him" about a person who'd simply hit their 50s and looked... normal. Or quite lovely, if you were to ask me, but no longer how they did in their thirties.
Age happened. The world happened. Shallow happened in your case, and given that you'd apparently fancied the actor when he was younger, you should possibly have matured some by now as well. Possibly. One can never tell.
I knew someone in the UK who said that while growing up with the Carry On movies, they were more inclined to want to be the Hattie Jacques and woshername wifely or matronly figures than the giggling Barbara Windsor bimbettes. She was also aware of the fact that she was quite likely in the small minority with her opinion.
What she said was that the others seemed to get to do better things, which is also true. There can be some independent power in being the battle-axe, whether you get ridiculed for it or not. You are a threat to supposed ways of How Things Are Supposed to Go and thus to be put down any chance there is, but you may accomplish more in any case. There is the saying about well-behaved women rarely making history.
However, given that when I broke my arm at the age of six, my laconic and resigned commentary on it was that I would thus never be able to take part in Miss World type contests, something is wrong in what is sold to girls and women. If a six-year-old already some thirty years ago was acutely aware that any flaws in beauty would cut you out of the "competition" and make you a lesser thing, the world might need an unladylike punch or two.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Age, diversity and more
There's a potential post or three in the 1980s still having had most of any series leads be at least in their thirties, and more likely older, in contrast to today's "Let's cast 16-year-olds, that'll sell the best" TV and movies where a 20-year-old is old. Lauren Bacall started at age 19 I'm told, but she managed to look a little older in the movies, which was a good thing. These days it's supposedly required to go the other way. To look much younger and that for as long as you can, and then hit the Botox or knives after it.
In the 80s it was a token young character as a sidekick or on the side in general, and that someone in their twenties maybe, not mere series with ten 18-year-olds and then the token parents on the side. Series where there is nothing to watch unless you happen to like one of the token adults. I apologize for any further shallowness in the post in advance.
While I realize that the opposite might have been true back in the day, too, and that, say, David Hasselhoff was only around 33 when playing Michael Knight, looking very adult to my ten year old eyes, well. It's possible that my perspective is skewed and others didn't see it like that, but it seemed to be a bit of a trend among those known that whoever was the lead in whatever series was liked or fancied. You were supposed to, after all, their being the lead for that.
For example, that Jake & The Fatman had the younger assistant Derek in a sidekick role was not who you were supposed to fancy. That was the older Jake, whatever age the actor Joe Penny was back in the late 80s. I was in the minority for liking Alan Campbell's blond Derek, and that wasn't about age in my case either, as opposed to personality or character and looks or whatever.
In checking later, I see Penny's only a year older than Campbell, but Derek was sold as being the young one in the series. Perceptions.
So I can imagine that teenagers are all agog over having younger stars to fancy to their heart's desire, but if all there was around was the older cast, you still appreciated them in any case. I preferred Dick Turpin to young "woobie" Swift-Nick in that series for another example. While it's probably not even arguable that TV series can have more going for them these days, plots and other developments having (at least theoretically and hopefully) become more complex over time, it seems the ages of people cast haven't done the same.
I think the argument is that youth sells, but then what does it sell? Advertising time? What are teenagers these days supposedly buying in such numbers that selling to them is more beneficial than selling to people in their forties, say? The people providing their children most of whatever money they see, or otherwise established and perhaps even in an age where they'll want to keep doing things or seek out new things, branch out to what is being sold to them?
If you've seen pictures from your great-grandparents' generation or time, there may (depending on where you live and fashions) be a stark contrast in what people aged 40-50 looked like back then compared to how they look and dress now. Heck, I recently saw a picture of my great-grandmother who died at age 28, looking at least twice the age by more modern standards. Based on the change in appearances and finances, it would still make more sense to try and lure slightly older people in. "Set in their ways" or whatever other excuses or not.
I don't know how it goes in general, but since even I found shows like Smallville slightly empty, being too old for what they were trying to sell in my late twenties, somebody missed several memos or twisted their message big time. John Glover's Lionel Luthor was the only reason I started watching, their having the token adult I happened to like there.
Lost is one example from recent years where the cast seems diverse in any way, but somehow all too many shows (since Beverly Hills 90210? Even if you still had a 30-year-old playing a teenager back then) just go for young for the sake of it.
No, it's not tied to my age.
It's tied to "I want to see diversity in modeling, in advertising. I want to see the biggest woman you can imagine in a sexy perfume ad and the oldest woman you can imagine in a flirty make-up ad, and on and on," style comments at Fashion's diversity problem still a problem.
It's tied to things like Peter deLuise probably not having been at all "fat" or chubby or anything in his role as Dagwood in SeaQuest, but since he was the only bigger guy seen anywhere on TV back whenever it was in the 90s, your feeling it was highly unacceptable in any way to supposedly fancy him. Your youth as an excuse or not (and your having fancied him in any case). It's probably tied to Matt Parkman from Heroes and the like, too, there being several posts in whatever it all actually is in the end, it being difficult to articulate when everything connects to everything and it's more about diversity or acceptance of the supposedly ugly, which older people these days supposedly then end up as more than in the 80s, for example.
You look at half the cast from back then and their being presented as fanciable enough (usually to skinnier or younger women, that never changing, or being another issue entirely) and you see more normal looking people compared to now. Heaven forbid looking at things like On the Buses and those two male leads and their pulling power. Okay as they might look otherwise, just not to such Always Pull levels.
Beauty standards change and that goes for faces as well. Have you seen footage from 1950s beauty pageants? I'm not talking about the bodies now, I'm talking about the faces that were considered beautiful back then. You wouldn't look twice at half of that these days, fine enough as they look. And you know that there must have been just as beautiful people back then as these days, what with genes and all, looks passing in lines. It's just "What the hell?" to today's standards. Ugly swollen (upper) lips and more or less alien features on half the women? Looking near skeletal, instead of some better looking slightly curvy things? What happened, and when?
There's also the old US-UK divide, of there still being more normal looking people on British screens. Plus the other side, that people like Marina Sirtis from Star Trek- The Next Generation fame had to specifically head to the States because she wasn't cast as anything other than a good-looking gangster's girlfriend or whatever in the UK. I don't know much about her career post TNG, but doubt she fared that much better in Hollywood either, if talking character diversity.
Women's lot and all that, when you start getting cast as a mother instead of the girlfriend. I think she skipped some Mother of Young Kids stage and ended up straight as Mother of Teenager after whenever, slightly putting her at unease at some stage from what I recall of interviews somewhere over time.
And what was it about Sally Field playing Tom Hanks's girlfriend six years before playing his mother in wositsname, women ageing differently?
Several posts' worth of material, like I said. Age and size acceptance or diversity or reality nominally, but probably about "diversity" or that reality more so in general. Beautiful as we like our people from fairytales on, the trope saying Beauty equals Good, or studies on symmetrical faces being more beautiful and pleasing even babies more, apparently there's still a fight or several in not narrowing the supposedly acceptable more as time goes on.
There was a Dutch documentary about some 30-something woman looking into beauty industry selling you being old by 30, and plastic surgery so rampant all around her, whatever it was. Plastic surgery in particular of the genital regions as well, based on what girls apparently saw in porn or the Net or something. That you're supposed to have non-visible and neat folds or be considered ugly, whether everything's photoshopped or not. The comparison to magazines from the 80s having real women with folds galore and everything showing was rather obvious when shown, and again, the 80s looks seemed better. It was like something sewn up or porcelain dolled with airbrushing on top for what supposedly passed for today.
I think I'm not going to go into male members here, since they can look extremely ugly, yes. Colours and shapes and where there's hair, really not what you want to look at for any sort of aesthetical reasons more often than not. I don't like the look of some of the things seen in porn over the past two decades either, with the lack of hair or ew looks of some of them, long and supposedly it or not.
Bad as it is to say "It's a question of taste" after the previous paragraph, people like different-looking people based on whatever quirks of their past or natural tendencies, whatever it all comes down to in the end. Some people even *gasp* claim to ignore looks and simply choose partners based on personality and other factors. Whichever way, you get riddled with whatever else the person comes with, whether body or health related or an intolerable family or eating in bed so there's f'n crumbs all over, ngh. No, I never had that, but I can imagine well.
People get chubbier or go bald, and you're still supposed to want that despite media claiming people who look like you or are your age don't even exist to begin with, let alone as sexual or desirable entities. That without going into the continuing fight to bring some minorities into the playing field for such things in the first place. All sorts of issues, as said.
I doubt I'm actually saying anything in any of the above, it being more of a "Here's what, now you tell me what you think or what actually happens with it all" thing as often with me. To sum up badly, could we please have more different-looking people from different age groups back on our screens? Without going back to it being only the men who are allowed to look a bit dodgy or older, the women still needing to be 20. Or the Sirtises of the world having a chance to play past their looks when young, too.
Not to mention people not spreading nasty things via someone googling for pictures to go with their posts. I very specifically do this from public computers, I can change which one I use and call in tech support, but still.
In the 80s it was a token young character as a sidekick or on the side in general, and that someone in their twenties maybe, not mere series with ten 18-year-olds and then the token parents on the side. Series where there is nothing to watch unless you happen to like one of the token adults. I apologize for any further shallowness in the post in advance.
While I realize that the opposite might have been true back in the day, too, and that, say, David Hasselhoff was only around 33 when playing Michael Knight, looking very adult to my ten year old eyes, well. It's possible that my perspective is skewed and others didn't see it like that, but it seemed to be a bit of a trend among those known that whoever was the lead in whatever series was liked or fancied. You were supposed to, after all, their being the lead for that.
For example, that Jake & The Fatman had the younger assistant Derek in a sidekick role was not who you were supposed to fancy. That was the older Jake, whatever age the actor Joe Penny was back in the late 80s. I was in the minority for liking Alan Campbell's blond Derek, and that wasn't about age in my case either, as opposed to personality or character and looks or whatever.
In checking later, I see Penny's only a year older than Campbell, but Derek was sold as being the young one in the series. Perceptions.
So I can imagine that teenagers are all agog over having younger stars to fancy to their heart's desire, but if all there was around was the older cast, you still appreciated them in any case. I preferred Dick Turpin to young "woobie" Swift-Nick in that series for another example. While it's probably not even arguable that TV series can have more going for them these days, plots and other developments having (at least theoretically and hopefully) become more complex over time, it seems the ages of people cast haven't done the same.
I think the argument is that youth sells, but then what does it sell? Advertising time? What are teenagers these days supposedly buying in such numbers that selling to them is more beneficial than selling to people in their forties, say? The people providing their children most of whatever money they see, or otherwise established and perhaps even in an age where they'll want to keep doing things or seek out new things, branch out to what is being sold to them?
If you've seen pictures from your great-grandparents' generation or time, there may (depending on where you live and fashions) be a stark contrast in what people aged 40-50 looked like back then compared to how they look and dress now. Heck, I recently saw a picture of my great-grandmother who died at age 28, looking at least twice the age by more modern standards. Based on the change in appearances and finances, it would still make more sense to try and lure slightly older people in. "Set in their ways" or whatever other excuses or not.
I don't know how it goes in general, but since even I found shows like Smallville slightly empty, being too old for what they were trying to sell in my late twenties, somebody missed several memos or twisted their message big time. John Glover's Lionel Luthor was the only reason I started watching, their having the token adult I happened to like there.
Lost is one example from recent years where the cast seems diverse in any way, but somehow all too many shows (since Beverly Hills 90210? Even if you still had a 30-year-old playing a teenager back then) just go for young for the sake of it.
No, it's not tied to my age.
It's tied to "I want to see diversity in modeling, in advertising. I want to see the biggest woman you can imagine in a sexy perfume ad and the oldest woman you can imagine in a flirty make-up ad, and on and on," style comments at Fashion's diversity problem still a problem.
It's tied to things like Peter deLuise probably not having been at all "fat" or chubby or anything in his role as Dagwood in SeaQuest, but since he was the only bigger guy seen anywhere on TV back whenever it was in the 90s, your feeling it was highly unacceptable in any way to supposedly fancy him. Your youth as an excuse or not (and your having fancied him in any case). It's probably tied to Matt Parkman from Heroes and the like, too, there being several posts in whatever it all actually is in the end, it being difficult to articulate when everything connects to everything and it's more about diversity or acceptance of the supposedly ugly, which older people these days supposedly then end up as more than in the 80s, for example.
You look at half the cast from back then and their being presented as fanciable enough (usually to skinnier or younger women, that never changing, or being another issue entirely) and you see more normal looking people compared to now. Heaven forbid looking at things like On the Buses and those two male leads and their pulling power. Okay as they might look otherwise, just not to such Always Pull levels.
Beauty standards change and that goes for faces as well. Have you seen footage from 1950s beauty pageants? I'm not talking about the bodies now, I'm talking about the faces that were considered beautiful back then. You wouldn't look twice at half of that these days, fine enough as they look. And you know that there must have been just as beautiful people back then as these days, what with genes and all, looks passing in lines. It's just "What the hell?" to today's standards. Ugly swollen (upper) lips and more or less alien features on half the women? Looking near skeletal, instead of some better looking slightly curvy things? What happened, and when?
There's also the old US-UK divide, of there still being more normal looking people on British screens. Plus the other side, that people like Marina Sirtis from Star Trek- The Next Generation fame had to specifically head to the States because she wasn't cast as anything other than a good-looking gangster's girlfriend or whatever in the UK. I don't know much about her career post TNG, but doubt she fared that much better in Hollywood either, if talking character diversity.
Women's lot and all that, when you start getting cast as a mother instead of the girlfriend. I think she skipped some Mother of Young Kids stage and ended up straight as Mother of Teenager after whenever, slightly putting her at unease at some stage from what I recall of interviews somewhere over time.
And what was it about Sally Field playing Tom Hanks's girlfriend six years before playing his mother in wositsname, women ageing differently?
Several posts' worth of material, like I said. Age and size acceptance or diversity or reality nominally, but probably about "diversity" or that reality more so in general. Beautiful as we like our people from fairytales on, the trope saying Beauty equals Good, or studies on symmetrical faces being more beautiful and pleasing even babies more, apparently there's still a fight or several in not narrowing the supposedly acceptable more as time goes on.
There was a Dutch documentary about some 30-something woman looking into beauty industry selling you being old by 30, and plastic surgery so rampant all around her, whatever it was. Plastic surgery in particular of the genital regions as well, based on what girls apparently saw in porn or the Net or something. That you're supposed to have non-visible and neat folds or be considered ugly, whether everything's photoshopped or not. The comparison to magazines from the 80s having real women with folds galore and everything showing was rather obvious when shown, and again, the 80s looks seemed better. It was like something sewn up or porcelain dolled with airbrushing on top for what supposedly passed for today.
I think I'm not going to go into male members here, since they can look extremely ugly, yes. Colours and shapes and where there's hair, really not what you want to look at for any sort of aesthetical reasons more often than not. I don't like the look of some of the things seen in porn over the past two decades either, with the lack of hair or ew looks of some of them, long and supposedly it or not.
Bad as it is to say "It's a question of taste" after the previous paragraph, people like different-looking people based on whatever quirks of their past or natural tendencies, whatever it all comes down to in the end. Some people even *gasp* claim to ignore looks and simply choose partners based on personality and other factors. Whichever way, you get riddled with whatever else the person comes with, whether body or health related or an intolerable family or eating in bed so there's f'n crumbs all over, ngh. No, I never had that, but I can imagine well.
People get chubbier or go bald, and you're still supposed to want that despite media claiming people who look like you or are your age don't even exist to begin with, let alone as sexual or desirable entities. That without going into the continuing fight to bring some minorities into the playing field for such things in the first place. All sorts of issues, as said.
I doubt I'm actually saying anything in any of the above, it being more of a "Here's what, now you tell me what you think or what actually happens with it all" thing as often with me. To sum up badly, could we please have more different-looking people from different age groups back on our screens? Without going back to it being only the men who are allowed to look a bit dodgy or older, the women still needing to be 20. Or the Sirtises of the world having a chance to play past their looks when young, too.
Not to mention people not spreading nasty things via someone googling for pictures to go with their posts. I very specifically do this from public computers, I can change which one I use and call in tech support, but still.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Why I'm here (D)
So. The reason this blog is in existence. David Daker and wanting to talk him some, the way there's basically nothing about him anywhere online. I thought I could at least post a few screen captures every now and then to add to the material, even if unable to put up a proper website as a fan or anything. I could, but I lack the time to get it properly organized right at the moment.
I saw Dick Turpin from Super Channel's reruns of the series when I was around 12-14 back in the 80s. If you're unfamiliar with the show, it's Kip Carpenter & co. running amok with their pre-Robin of Sherwood "Rob from the rich, possibly at times even give to the poor, but rob from the rich and corrupt in any case" romantic hero, Dick Turpin. The series begins after the historical Turpin is declared hanged and dead, so we can ignore all the nasty reality and just have a bit of a romp in 18th century gear. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and trust me, when 14-year-old me finally saw Adam Ant's Stand and Deliver video after the series, teenage me was quite aghast at such a pretty boy young upstart trying to pretend to the role. Go figure that a few years later I'd love Ant's songs and style, anyway.
While in the UK some years ago I saw the DVD of the series on sale and knowing that I'd loved it as a kid, had to buy it while still in the country. Fast forward another 5 years and I finally get around to watching it, too. I postpone a lot of things if not in the mood or with other excuses not to watch something. It doesn't mean I theoretically like them any less, I'm just not in the mood for whatever.
Conclusion? I still like the series, still half fancy Richard O'Sullivan's Turpin, still think Swift-Nick is too much of a blonde and babyface to be my thing, and hel-looo, all of a sudden appreciate Daker's Captain Nathan Spiker a lot more than before. I can't remember what I thought as a teen regrettably, but as an adult I most definitely appreciated Spiker. A caveat may need to be inserted about my having a tremendous fondness for most villainous types, all the way to applause or slight cheerleading for the best ones. That wasn't in play here, but I do like villains, yes.
Spiker, anyway. I appreciated him slowly all along the first season/series, but must confess that there was a particular episode and a turning point when I thought that I really must go back and watch it all again with more of a focus on Spiker. Yes, it's that sad. Why? Because, ahaha, I appear to have more of a thing for good arms than I keep remembering.
If you get a chance to watch the series, you can nod sagely once you come to The Whipping Boy episode. You can mutter gravely and shake your heads once Spiker loses his position (and usual uniform or attire), and sigh and tut and tsk out loud over my fate when you reach the fight in the water. Meanwhile, I'll be over here writing comical blog posts about what fantastic arms Spiker had underneath the uniform, revealed in the fight in the water. We are talking seriously good arms there. Me like, I approve, please sir I'd like some more? You probably get the picture (and will get a picture once I figure out where I stashed that cap). And were this an entirely informal affair, we'd be inserting *smile* type things here to denote the amusement, but I haven't figured out yet how informal a tone I'll be keeping up.
Then of course there was The Turncoat episode with more things I'll no doubt later embarrass myself over, but I'll tally ho over all that when it's time for it.
Long story short, I spent August-September last year reacquainting myself with the first series and developing a burgeoning appreciation for Daker. As much as one role never fully lets you appreciate even half the sides of any actor worth anything, it was a start. In this case, I'd say there's a lot to appreciate. There are some delightful clips on a rather well-known video site that I've spent some time slowly watching this August and September now and I absolutely crave to see the Doctor Who material, not to mention to hear the Who audio he's in that gets such praise online, but again, more of those later, probably.
I have to thank the person who'd uploaded the Boon episodes in particular already though, since I had no idea I was missing a Harry Crawford from my life until I got to see those to introduce me to the character. Harry is adorable, and I'm grateful for the chance to see even a few of the episodes. As well as maybe even the fact that I got to them in adult years.
I always seem to end up in Fandoms of One, and while I know there are some sites out there where 2-3 people suggest an interest in Daker, there is practically zero information and even less talk out there. I want to talk. I'll probably be alone in the talking, but I want to talk in any case. I know he missed out on the Internet with most of the series he was in, I can tell he's somehow missed out on cult TV type attention despite the Doctor Who appearances and more, and maybe there is no need for more than the work either, but I wish there was a little bit more online even so. Apparently I'm going to try and contribute to the pot.
I saw Dick Turpin from Super Channel's reruns of the series when I was around 12-14 back in the 80s. If you're unfamiliar with the show, it's Kip Carpenter & co. running amok with their pre-Robin of Sherwood "Rob from the rich, possibly at times even give to the poor, but rob from the rich and corrupt in any case" romantic hero, Dick Turpin. The series begins after the historical Turpin is declared hanged and dead, so we can ignore all the nasty reality and just have a bit of a romp in 18th century gear. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and trust me, when 14-year-old me finally saw Adam Ant's Stand and Deliver video after the series, teenage me was quite aghast at such a pretty boy young upstart trying to pretend to the role. Go figure that a few years later I'd love Ant's songs and style, anyway.
While in the UK some years ago I saw the DVD of the series on sale and knowing that I'd loved it as a kid, had to buy it while still in the country. Fast forward another 5 years and I finally get around to watching it, too. I postpone a lot of things if not in the mood or with other excuses not to watch something. It doesn't mean I theoretically like them any less, I'm just not in the mood for whatever.
Conclusion? I still like the series, still half fancy Richard O'Sullivan's Turpin, still think Swift-Nick is too much of a blonde and babyface to be my thing, and hel-looo, all of a sudden appreciate Daker's Captain Nathan Spiker a lot more than before. I can't remember what I thought as a teen regrettably, but as an adult I most definitely appreciated Spiker. A caveat may need to be inserted about my having a tremendous fondness for most villainous types, all the way to applause or slight cheerleading for the best ones. That wasn't in play here, but I do like villains, yes.
Spiker, anyway. I appreciated him slowly all along the first season/series, but must confess that there was a particular episode and a turning point when I thought that I really must go back and watch it all again with more of a focus on Spiker. Yes, it's that sad. Why? Because, ahaha, I appear to have more of a thing for good arms than I keep remembering.
If you get a chance to watch the series, you can nod sagely once you come to The Whipping Boy episode. You can mutter gravely and shake your heads once Spiker loses his position (and usual uniform or attire), and sigh and tut and tsk out loud over my fate when you reach the fight in the water. Meanwhile, I'll be over here writing comical blog posts about what fantastic arms Spiker had underneath the uniform, revealed in the fight in the water. We are talking seriously good arms there. Me like, I approve, please sir I'd like some more? You probably get the picture (and will get a picture once I figure out where I stashed that cap). And were this an entirely informal affair, we'd be inserting *smile* type things here to denote the amusement, but I haven't figured out yet how informal a tone I'll be keeping up.
Then of course there was The Turncoat episode with more things I'll no doubt later embarrass myself over, but I'll tally ho over all that when it's time for it.
Long story short, I spent August-September last year reacquainting myself with the first series and developing a burgeoning appreciation for Daker. As much as one role never fully lets you appreciate even half the sides of any actor worth anything, it was a start. In this case, I'd say there's a lot to appreciate. There are some delightful clips on a rather well-known video site that I've spent some time slowly watching this August and September now and I absolutely crave to see the Doctor Who material, not to mention to hear the Who audio he's in that gets such praise online, but again, more of those later, probably.
I have to thank the person who'd uploaded the Boon episodes in particular already though, since I had no idea I was missing a Harry Crawford from my life until I got to see those to introduce me to the character. Harry is adorable, and I'm grateful for the chance to see even a few of the episodes. As well as maybe even the fact that I got to them in adult years.
I always seem to end up in Fandoms of One, and while I know there are some sites out there where 2-3 people suggest an interest in Daker, there is practically zero information and even less talk out there. I want to talk. I'll probably be alone in the talking, but I want to talk in any case. I know he missed out on the Internet with most of the series he was in, I can tell he's somehow missed out on cult TV type attention despite the Doctor Who appearances and more, and maybe there is no need for more than the work either, but I wish there was a little bit more online even so. Apparently I'm going to try and contribute to the pot.
Introductory welcomes
You can call me Maude. It may or may not be more my name than I'm plagued by optical floorboard patterns in real life if talking the picture that I may use for the profile, but it'll do.
The original purpose for this place was to talk more about the actor David Daker, for lack of a better place to do it. Regrettably, I remain a rambling type of a person unwilling to have several blogs just to get everything I might want to say said, so now this is going to be On Actors, Life and Everything. I appear to have gained Views on Things in the past years, dearie me. I also appear to be under the delusion that said views may interest anyone, but alas, one survives all sorts of things in life. I dare say I'll probably survive that as well.
I'm not British, but have lived in the UK
I've never used this site before so have a lot to acquaint myself with, as well as far too little online time to actually get even half of it done. I apologize in advance to anyone I may talk about, time putting limits on what I can both watch and write about, interested as I may be.
I'm a complete layperson when it comes to acting so whatever I say of whichever actor also comes with the full force of Because I Say So as its background. I was involved in a local theatre between the ages of fourteen and seventeen back in the day, and then the "grand performance" of "playing" Magenta from Rocky Horror Picture Show around age twenty, but that's about it for my illustrious theatre career. I did get asked by the director if I'd like to go on an expenses paid theatre camp in Luxembourg the first year, with 8 kids from my country there that year among the 200-250 Europeans altogether, so presumably I wasn't entirely rubbish for a 14-year-old, but I never pursued it study-wise. Hello if you were there. Now shoo, don't blow my cover, I'm incognito.
Same goes to anyone else who may know or recognize me from other circles. I don't expect or seek particular visibility, I just wanted to say some things on a slightly more public arena than what ever have thus far. It may backfire on me in ways I can't yet see, but I'll have to worry about that if it happens. For now, this.
Psst of a keeping the head down but not goes to the email. I don't want excessive spam, your getting that sooner or later, anyway, but am as of yet uncertain where I stand on all the public post comments angles either. actorsmaude may be the name (yeah, yeah, I got that before maudemade came into being, pardon me for it only tying to part of the blog's name otherwise) to attach in front of that (at) yahoo. co. uk thing. Without spaces and you know what for (at).
As in, actorsmaude
(at)
yahoo.
co.
uk
Likewise, the site could get its act together and not tell me Meta tag is not allowed in HTML, when they were the ones who shoved it there for this first post, not me.
Psst of a keeping the head down but not goes to the email. I don't want excessive spam, your getting that sooner or later, anyway, but am as of yet uncertain where I stand on all the public post comments angles either. actorsmaude may be the name (yeah, yeah, I got that before maudemade came into being, pardon me for it only tying to part of the blog's name otherwise) to attach in front of that (at) yahoo. co. uk thing. Without spaces and you know what for (at).
As in, actorsmaude
(at)
yahoo.
co.
uk
Likewise, the site could get its act together and not tell me Meta tag is not allowed in HTML, when they were the ones who shoved it there for this first post, not me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)