Doctor Who plans and other various notes:

[butterfly]

I watched the rest of "Doctor Horrible" and found it to be quite a good critique of the 'Nice Guy' and why he really isn't. That was enjoyable in a painful way.

I've made plans to do a rewatch of Doctor Who which will feature the following key elements in each episode review:

a) whether or not the episode passes the Bechdel Test (at least two women talk to each other about something other than a man).
b) clothes and their hidden meanings.
c) Bunnies! Okay, no. I lie. There will be no bunnies. There may be kitties.
d) the Doctor as Lonely God.
e) character evolution (and, related to that, relationship evolution). You might think that this would be related to d), but it really isn't.
f) foreshadowing and/or anvils.
e) squee about how pretty the show is (a section that can include: actors, lighting, color correction, editing, directing, writing and more).

Bought that Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking book that I've been wanting to read for ages. I'm looking forward to checking that out.

Comments

[sol-se.livejournal.com]

Also, for the Bechdel Test, the two female characters talking to eachother have to have names.

b) clothes and their hidden meanings.

Ooooh...I am intrigued. *g*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Also, for the Bechdel Test, the two female characters talking to eachother have to have names.

It actually doesn't specify that anywhere (link to the comic strip that started it all (http://alisonbechdel.blogspot.com/2005/08/rule.html)). And I've definitely seen people go 'named main female character spoke to a random female extra! It passes the Bechdel!' Personally, I considered that to be passing on a technicality. I wouldn't count Rose saying 'Hi!' to a random female extra on my own accounting of it (but I would count the officially and purposefully unnamed 'hostess' in "Midnight" talking to the female passengers because she has characterization and depth).

Ooooh...I am intrigued. *g*

Clothes are fun. And they reflect characterization.

[sol-se.livejournal.com]

Ah, got it. Yeah, I wouldn't count a passing comment to an extra either. Maybe that's why the "named" amendment starting floating around?

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Probably. Because counting passing comments to extras might meet the letter of the rule but not the spirit of it all. And I care a lot more about meeting the spirit of that kind of rule.

[coneyislandbaby]

Well in that case, technically, couldn't two women FBI agents or police officers talking about a male suspect count? Except it apparently doesn't because it's a man and I don't quite see (I'm presuming he's not a romantic interest for either in this case) how it wouldn't be what people were looking for. But perhaps that goes to spirit rather than letter? It's slightly confusing.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's just about romance. I think it's about the general use of male versus female characters. For example, in a recent movie (being general to avoid spoilers), the choice was made to focus on a male child as very emotionally important while that child's female sibling got only brief screen time and no lines. That's just as much a reflection of the values of the movie as the women only talking about men. More men get used in movies and television than women, in all kinds of roles.