Ruby in the Smoke

Well, i finally watched something with Matt Smith in it for more than 30 seconds (though it still wasn't a very large part), and i must say that i'm feeling slightly better about him being Eleven, though he wasn't acting very much like the Doctor most of the time. He was nice enough, but i still feel like i have no idea who he is. Incidentally, Lance was also in the film, and got his due, and Mrs. Weasley was very murderous! Still, makes me long to see her dueling Bellatrix in Deathly Hallows. i had a hard time figuring out what was going on in this film, but it was probably the best i've ever seen Billie do at anything.

/sigh... david and zach

i found this post quite a while ago, after i had started watching Doctor Who, but before getting to series two, and while i was still basking in the Star Trek induced haze of Zach Quinto drool. Yeah, i know that sounded wrong. Anyways, now that i totally love Mr. Tennant as the Doctor, i felt that it might be worthwhile to look it up again. IMO Mr. Quinto wins, but to be perfectly fair the author of the post totally used the same hairstyle from David repeatedly, merely from different angles, so Zach wins simply on versatility. Anyways, The Hair Off.

Alas and alack that i keep getting infatuated with these actors that are pleasantly geeky, are devoid of significant others, and vote for the other party (as it were: Zach strongly supported Obama, and David votes Labour... which is also true of J.K. Rowling, which is neither here nor there, save that David was in the fourth Potter film and both Brits profess to be Christians).

i <3 Sylar

Well, yesterday in the wee hours of the morning i finished watching Heroes season 3. Right now i just finished watching the episode of Dragnet he was in, "Frame of Mind" (which you can watch on Hulu), a very small roll which was very Sylar-esque (perhaps what got TPTB at Heroes interested in casting him as Sylar? i mean, come on, they must have had some reason for thinking "he can play a feasible psycho" when they cast him). After taking in season 3 and Star Trek this summer i am a bigger Zachary Quinto fan than ever before. This of course brings out mixed feelings in me. i really liked the Sylar at the beginning of the season, that was trying to be a good guy, that had a chance at redemption as a member of the Petrelli family (who in themselves are completely messed up, as founders of the Company and occasional villians, yes even Peter when mixed up with Caitlin's brother). It used to be that Peter and Hiro were my favorite characters on Heroes, but now... it's Sylar.

How did that happen? Peter and Hiro are pretty undeniably good guys. But who are the two characters i would and do most regret the deaths of? Adam and Sylar. When did i become the girl who likes the bad boys? i never would have considered it of me, but it is true that i always drooled over Mr. Sark on Alias and drool even more over Sylar on Heroes. But i suppose there are other parallels, Edward in Twilight, Sawyer in Lost, Wolverine in X-Men, Mike Donovan in V, Alec in Dark Angel, Neo in the Matrix, V in V for Vendetta, nearly anything with Bill Nighy, pirates of the Caribbean variety, the list goes on and on and on. Though Elijah Wood's role in Sin City cured me of my crush on him, i have somehow developed a weakness for bad boys. This is shocking to me. i want to say that it says more for my strength of empathy and compassion than anyone else, but i know that's a load of tripe. i don't feel much compassion for a lot of the people that go through my line at work or walk by me on the street. No, this condition has been hiding in me for a long time, my first big crush was on a boy named J.P (who wouldn't give me the time of day), the next on a Tommy (who liked being chased), there was always Tim (first kiss on the cheek, totally blown out of proportion by his family), and then that anonymous boy at the pool (who was from Texas, that gave me my first peck on the lips, no matter how chaste that kiss was).

i have nearly always chosen my crushes based on looks and the same boyish tendency to pull pranks that my father has. What's so weird is that physically Mr. Quinto isn't really my type (other than the fact that he's the same height as my grandad: i <3 tall men): he's way too hairy, something that i warred with during his love scenes with Elle, and the same is true for Mr. Jackman as Wolverine. Give me the smooth bodies of Mr. Anders (Holt, really) and Mr. Trineer (mmm decontamination scene, anyone?), but then Mr. Sark had the tendency to be a pretty boy, too, so i cannot be going merely upon looks.

i think that it's not really that these men are bad, so much as the fact that they are dangerous. i mean, what about Edward is bad? Sure he killed a couple of psychos in his day, so they would stop hurting innocent people, but he's so traditional and careful that it's enough to drive anyone bonkers. Donavan and Neo and V are all freedom fighters, trying to do the right thing, though sometimes with the wrong methods. i think that what draws me to these men is really shallow but is also what psychiatrists that believe in cavemen would expect of me: i go for the guy who seems most likely to be able to protect me when things go fubar. Peter and Hiro and Matt (mmm gotta love cuddly little Matt / Eric) are definitely capable of doing that against the human element, but Sylar... for all that is strong about the rest, you've got to admit that no one can put down 5-10 members of a SWAT team with the mere flick of the wrist quite like he can. Which of course leads me to Dumbledore... who though always seemed to me to be the epitome of good was also always the most dangerous man of all, for he could bring down governments and Voldemort, had he set his mind to it (oh wait, he did).

This of course leads me to the question of whether i am only attracted to guys that are gay. i mean, there has always been the niggling question in the back of my mind about the guy i worked with in Lynchburg, we all know what Rowling says about Dumbledore, and now i've come to find out that Quinto has kissed a guy in a sauna and is mum about his sexuality in real life. For all i know he voted for Obama because he's gay, but he doesn't want to come out. And then there's T.R. Knight, another good guy that i used to be into, but also decidedly gay. Why the heck is it that i have to worry about guy's sexuality??? What is so wrong with this world that it's not enough that i have to wonder why i'm not attractive enough to a guy, but if it's because he just doesn't like girls??? i have worked with gay guys, and sat next to them in class, i'm not trying to be a hater, but now i maybe possible have to crush on them, too, and never have that emotion returned?

i don't know that Quinto is gay, only that he can act like he is, but i do know that i have this stupid tendency to fixate on men that are totally unavailable. The guy that led worship in Charlotte was the worst, one child with another on the way, and as it turns out this is nothing new. The guys who are most nice to me are inevitably always unavailable, the one flirty customer at the gas station, the soldier that sat next to me in Shakespeare, Kimbo and Robert and Justin at work. The guys who are nice to me, who get me, who care, are already married, already have the things that i want, that i guess most guys don't know that they want until they already have them, that got them kicking and screaming. And then there is my tendency to fixate on actors, to wonder "what if?" i feel like such an idiot for ever believing that i could be an actress, that i would become an actress, that Voyager or Dark Angel were ever a possibility for me (am i insane?), but that is still a small part of me. i grew up crushing on Elijah Wood, then there was Freddie Prinze, Jr. (/gag), then Mr. Sark was always in my happy place, and now Sylar? Why does this always happen to me? Why am i always alone, curled up with pillows and a dilapidated white rabbit in the dark, imagining that someone--who doesn't even know i exist--loves me?

i want to be loved, and protected, and i'm going insane because i'm alone, which so makes me unattractive to the opposite sex, but it's a vicious cycle that i don't know how to prevent. i don't want to love an Obama supporter, i don't want to love a murderer, i don't want to love anyone who doesn't love me for who i am, but i don't know how to stop. Unfortunately, i <3 Sylar.

HBP

So we went to see Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, which was meh compared to Alias, and i saw a featurette on the new Harry Potter and a preview of it which actually contained some snippets of Harry fighting Malfoy and Snape and some inferi... which look surprisingly like Gollum instead of zombies. i believe that it was Gambon who said that this is the best Potter film yet, and after seeing the preview, i do believe it. Have to laugh about Hermione beating Ron with the book and Ron bemoaning the fact that the girls are going to kill him. i am soooo looking forward to the moments with Ginny, they never feature her enough for my liking, and i am still annoyed that they changed her patronus to a horse (the original phoenix was so much more her, and meaningful because of the events in the Chamber). i simply cannot wait to see it, i will most likely attend the midnight viewing again. It makes me want to work on my Fair Ginny sweater and knit some more house scarves. Yeah, the preview gave me chills, and ironically enough... i don't think that Dumbledore looks ostentatious enough when he's going to see Tom for the first time. Wonder if it's actually different in the film? i hate how they wash all the colors out. ): Argh, i feel like reading the books, too, i don't know that i have the time, and it will only make me more aware of the differences between the book and the movie, but HBP is probably my favorite book of the series now, and OotP was disappointing enough. Only the Dumbledore's Army scenes really made the movie bearable.

Suddenly it's all so clear...

Last week we read "The Importance of Being Earnest" in Brit Lit and the professor had a slideshow with images of Oscar Wilde. One of them was the cover/poster for the movie Wilde (which i know Orli Bloom is in, but it somehow escaped me that it stars Stephen Fry, which is ironic in light of V for Vendetta). And suddenly, the message that J.K. Rowling had subtly told her readers (as much pains me to admit) that Dumbledore is gay was blatantly staring me in the face. Remember when he goes to meet Tom Riddle for the first time in the orphanage? Yes, well, i guess this image is worth a thousand words.

Twilight reviewed

Well i finally saw Twilight at the theater on Thanksgiving Day. It was a bit distracting because of who was sitting behind me and down the row on my right. Both groups were very vocal. The women beside me were bemoaning the fact that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is so far away, and were prone to make appreciative noises while Edward was gracing the screen. The guys behind me were less appreciative (lol), most noticeably when Bella is freaking out about Edward leaving her at the hospital, and is rendered heart wrenchingly speechless as a result.

Let me start by saying that the music and casting in this film was for the most part excellent. I have no major complaints about the movie, but the book is sooooooo much better. In fact, my biggest complaint about the film is that they condensed it too much, leaving out really, really good dialogue and handling the exposition poorly as a result. The movie felt like it was on fastforward, and probably slightly confuses people who don't know the books in some ways.

So i guess i feel compelled to list what my complaints are, along with what i liked about the movie. In a very minor way, Bella's house, father, and the Cullen's house is nothing like what i pictured, which isn't necessarily bad, it's just different. James was very weak, and also annoying. The scene in the ballet studio was too short, and also a bit campy with the dancing around the fire. There were many things that were slightly changed, that left me feeling wrong, such as the way Bella's leg is broken, how James doesn't feel any bloodlust when Bella is bleeding, and how he bites her on the forearm, not her hand. Carlisle having to order Edward to stop because Bella's blood is clean and he's killing her was also just wrong. There are lots of little things in the film like this that they just did not need to change and weakened the film. In fact, the movie ended up feeling like a rough draft with large parts left out, nowhere near ready to be filmed, let alone on the screen.

My biggest complaint, i think, is the accident in the school parking lot. TPTB didn't make it obvious that Tyler's van had slid on ice and Charlie was sort of over the top with how hostile he was. More importantly, they changed details far too much; in the book, Edward not only stopped the van, he lifted it off Bella and adjusted her position so it wouldn't pin her beneath it. She also hit her head, and he didn't abandon her. As the scene stands in the movie, it is completely inexplicable how she could have survived from the perspective of a bystander, because Edward didn't "push her out of the way;" the van apparently miraculously stopped just short of hitting her and inexplicably acquired a dent in the process. In other words, movie Edward majorly botched things, while book Edward actually handled things more smoothly.

That said, there were things from the movie that i enjoyed, and of course wanted to see more of. The Cullen household is a good example, despite campy repeatings of "we'll tear him apart and burn the pieces." Alice, in particular, was awesome, from start to finish: dancing with Jasper in the cafeteria, walking on the branch and stepping into the kitchen, pitching the baseball, seeing the vision in the hotel and fighting the urge to drink Bella's blood in the ballet studio. Ashley Greene is perfect in Alice's shoes, i really regret that they totally cut large parts of her story out, though i will admit that her backstory wasn't integral to the plot. i definitely would have loved to see more of the Cullens.

There was so little character development in the film that i'm afraid that people who haven't read the book aren't going to understand at all the depth of the bond between Edward and Bella, or his bloodlust, nor Carlisle's full history. The biggest complaint i have read from reviewers is of course the usual one, that the Cullens are too perfect to identify with (rather like complaints i have heard in the past about Lost in Space). i do not struggle with this at all... i mean, if i was by some "accident" turned into a vampire, would i just surrender to my "nature" (as most vampires do in vampire stories)? No, i would be like Carlisle and the rest of the Cullens, i would be at odds with and fight against those urges. Which is why i don't generally like the vampire genre, to be perfectly honest: Van Hellsing stunk for the most part and MSC's production of Dracula was horrible, i was so glad after seeing it that i hadn't been cast in it, i would have been so embarrassed to be in such a lame play. i guess the trouble is that most people don't fight against their sinful nature anymore, but from a Christian (or Mormon) standpoint, the Cullens are much more realistic than any other vampires we've ever read about or seen. That's in part why i like the Underworld series as well, Selene is not a mindless killer, she doesn't want to murder humans, she quenches her thirst by visiting a blood bank, etc.

The whole diner bit was annoying, but i liked Stephenie Meyer's cameo. i hadn't been expecting it at all. i have no idea why they made Bella go in that stupid bookstore (again, not what happened in the book) instead of letting Jacob tell her that the Cullens are vampires like he was supposed to. Edward revealed far too much to Bella far too early as a result, it makes much more sense in the book when she knows what Edward is when she gets in the car and guesses that he can read minds, etc. For some reason TPTB forgot that Edward and Bella were supposed to be tucked into a secluded corner of the restaurant, left them smack dab in the middle, and cut out lots and lots of character development that really would have helped the film so very much. The meadow scene, while okay, just turned out to be a bit lame as a result. In fact, Bella's angry walk into the woods, when Edward cannot read her mind, just doesn't really make sense. The planned date to the meadow (in the book) does... in fact, it is perhaps the most integral scene in the book because it was Stephenie's dream of said scene that inspired her to write Twilight.

They did capture Edward's self loathing, but he just seemed a little too much of a whiner. i was really relieved that they didn't cast Hayden Christensen but it still felt like Rob Patterson was trying to channel him (a la Ani in Star Wars II and III). Ugh, my review is coming across really harsh. So... in conclusion, great casting for the most part, sub par script, slightly jarring cinematography, excellent music, overall it was okay, but could have been so, so much better.

It doesn't surprise me that people who haven't read the books think that the movie stinks, i would too, would shrug it off as yet another lame teen chick flick. Stephenie Meyer's is such a better writer than that, she doesn't deserve her incredible book being hacked up like this. i'll write more if i see the movie again, but right now i'm just feeling a bit let down and complained more than i meant to as a result.

Grey Day Flower Power

Today i watched the last two episodes of Grey's Anatomy. The past couple of weeks i saw a lot more of That '70's Show than usual cuz i was housesitting and they had satellite. In fact, most of the episodes i had never seen before. Both shows have extramarital sex, one show has drugs, a part of me wonders if i should even be watching them.

But they make me laugh. They don't give me an overwhelming urge to smoke a joint or jump into the sack with someone, they make me feel better for a minute. Right now, i can take all of the laughter i can get. i've been far too depressed lately. What's great about Grey's Anatomy is that everyone is more psychotic than i am, so i don't feel so bad. What's great about That '70's Show is that everyone messes up, does stupid stuff, laughs at themselves and each other, and at the end of the day they're still friends.

i don't have that: i have no friends, i don't have a "person" to talk to about my problems that helps me get through the day. God doesn't say anything. No guys or gals like me for me, not really. If the people i know really knew me, they wouldn't want to have anything to do with me. It's very sad really. Anyway, all i know is that, while there are sinful actions taking place, i am not endorsing said actions, or participating in them, and sin happens, i can't control it. All i can do is try to control myself, like Edward in Twilight and Midnight Sun, or Harry Potter. i cannot control the circumstance i am in, i can only try to make the best of them. And that's what i'm trying so very hard to do.

Off to finally see Eagle Eye tonight, can hardly wait for Wrath and Twilight. i need to get ready to go to the theater.

i've been bitten

Some of you that are observant may have noticed: i changed the header again. There's been a sudden influx of women on it, but what can you do (not everything can be equal all the time). Anyway, the newest addition (two were just new photos from the same show as before, a newer image of Ellen Pompeo and Hayden Panetierre instead of Milo Ventimiglia) is from a poster for the upcoming film Twilight, which stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson.

Yes, i have been turned, or bitten if you will, by the Twilight Saga bug. i started reading them about two and a half weeks ago and have been completely unable to put them down, truth be told. i cannot get enough of Edward and Bella and Alice. i was even certain, from the moment in Breaking Dawn when (highlight) Bella realizes she's pregnant, that she was going to have a girl and that Jacob would imprint on her. It's a bit surprising to me, for Cedric (from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) to be Edward, but i have no real objection to it i suppose, from the previews and stills he seems to have done an excellent job. i haven't seen Kristen Stewart in anything since Panic Room, and she isn't exactly how i picture Bella, but i'm not sure that Emily Browning would have been a better choice, and i certainly didn't like Michelle Trachtenberg for the part (i've been checking out fanart on DeviantArt, can you tell?). The van on ice accident doesn't look as good as i imagined it (i see it in slow mo with Edward clearly lifting the van and shouldering it out of the way, not slamming his hand into it in a way that looks overkill and unnecessary), but i have hopes that the finished product will look better on the big screen. Some of the casting choices aren't exactly how i pictured things, but aren't overtly terrible either. i am certainly looking forward to the movie. One of the nice things about becoming a fan later on is that there isn't as much waiting, i read all the books back to back and the movie is already in (or out of) post production.

Now if only Stephenie Meyer would continue writing Midnight Sun (/sad)... the chapter on her site is really good, and the Host just isn't cutting it for me right now. i'm going to reread Twilight soon. Anyways, time to get ready to go to church.

Harry Potter and the Onion Forward (for Children's Lit)

When people talk about banned books for children, one of the first controversies that many people think of is the Harry Potter series. The fact that many Christians are anti-Harry Potter is a well known fact; for a while many Evangelicals were trying to get the books banned and were taking part in book burnings (ironically enough, they had to buy the books to burn them). There is also a very famous forward, their smoking gun, which gets passed around every time a book or movie comes out. In fact, the forward in question was how I heard of Harry for the first time, and every time my mother receives it she sends it to me yet again. This is because five years ago I found out that the forward (which had been presented to me as absolute truth) was actually a satirical article published by The Onion. Not only was I shocked, but I decided to find out the truth about the series by reading the books for myself.

The first quote of the article “Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children” is indeed a cause for concern for the Christian community (if we are to believe it’s real):

“I used to believe in what they taught us at Sunday School," said Ashley, conjuring up an ancient spell to summon Cerebus, the three-headed hound of hell. "But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies."

There are several things wrong with this paragraph from the viewpoint of a fan of the series: the first is that Cerebus isn’t in the series, and Fluffy is nothing more than an overgrown guard dog who cannot be summoned by using a spell (Sorcerer’s 160-161, 192-193). More importantly, there’s nothing in the series that says the Bible is “boring” or full of “lies.” The book is not even mentioned until Deathly Hallows, when it is quoted on a tombstone: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (325). Those words were, of course, originally spoken by Jesus Christ in Matthew 6:21 and Luke 12:34 (Student’s), so Rowling is clearly not anti-Bible or anti-Christ. In fact, Rowling indicates that she is a Christian and doesn’t even believe that magic is real (Wyman). The students and faculty at Hogwarts even observe Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

The article in the Onion also claims that: “Ashley was captivated…by the strange occult doings” and that the books “teach you all about magic and how you can use it to control people and get revenge on your enemies” (Harry). Christian radio commentator Charles Colson, on the other hand, reported: “The magic in these books is purely mechanical, as opposed to occultic…The plots reinforce the theme that evil is real, and must be courageously opposed” (Bewitched). That is, of course, the theme of the entire series, which is clear when Quirrell states that the ultimate villain—Lord Voldemort—has shown him that: “There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those to weak to seek it” (Sorcerer 291). Dumbledore later reaffirms that such a concept is false when he says: “you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy...” (Goblet 724).

In the article one child claims that he wants to become a Necromancer and “summon greater demons to Earth” (Harry). In contrast, Necromancy is communicating with the dead, not with demons (Necromancy). In most fantasy books and video games it also involves bringing the dead back to life (rather, an undead state) so that they can fight. Once again, this issue isn’t dealt with until The Half-Blood Prince, when Voldemort uses Inferi (565-566), which is frowned upon as Dark Magic (43). Rowling also stated in an interview: “The natural laws of death applies to wizards as it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you’re properly dead” (Connection).

Even if the magic in these books were real, it is clear that there are rules that govern its use. You can’t read any of the books in the series and learn how to cast spells (they’re really only words in Latin). Harry inherited his powers from his parents (Sorcerer 53), one can’t acquire magic through a correspondence course (Chamber 127-128, 145), and he certainly didn’t try to obtain them for any selfish gain (Sorcerer 58).

Every time I read the article or the forward (which does not quote the article in full, nor cite the Onion as its source) I am astonished that people can take it serious<ly> (or that I once did). Some of the so-called quotes are absolutely hilarious and obviously made-up, such as: “’Harry is an absolute godsend to our cause,’ said High Priest Egan of the First Church Of Satan in Salem, MA” (Harry). Some of the quotes would be downright offensive if they were real, but what I find most offensive is that someone out there started e-mailing people this article and claiming that it was truth.

Ironically enough, the Harry Potter series is about an epic struggle between good and evil. The books contain many historical and mythological references that lend to the suspension of disbelief. Ultimately these books challenge the reader to live better lives, one where they are tolerant of others despite differences and put others’ needs first in the face of great difficulty. The books aren’t overtly Christian, but the hints of Rowling’s faith are there. I anticipate rereading the series for many years to come.

Works Cited
"Bewitched by Harry Potter." The Washington Times. 13 Nov. 1999: A11. LexisNexis. Academic. Mesa State College, Grand Junction, CO. 24 Sept. 2008. http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.www.millennium.marmot.org/.
The Connection. WBUR Radio, Boston. 12 Oct. 1999. 24 Sept. 2008. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc.html.
“Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children.” The Onion. Issue 36•25 (26 Jul. 2000). 24 Sept. 2008. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/harry_potter_books_spark_rise_in.
"Necromancy." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 24 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/necromancy.
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New York: Scholastic, 1999.
---. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. New York: Scholastic, 2007.
---. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. New York: Scholastic, 2000.
---. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. New York: Scholastic, 2005.
---. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997.
Student’s Life Application Bible, New Living Translation. David R. Veerman, senior ed. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1997.
Wyman, Max. “’You can lead a fool to a book but you can’t make them think’: Author has frank words for the religious right.” The Vancouver Sun. 26 Oct. 2000. 24 Sept. 2008. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-vancouversun-wyman.htm.

hmmm

Harry Potter Personality Quiz by Pirate Monkeys Inc.