![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Comic Con for those who aren't attending (& Hamlet)
The great thing about fandom in the Internet Age is that vicariously experiencing things is getting more and more real-time. And more and more outright real!
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
thefannishwaldo liveblogged the Julie Gardener - Stephen Moffat panel (small spoilers for Christmas special at end). There'll be a separate post for the Torchwood panel at some point. So far all she's posted is that there was a "marry, shag, or cliff" game with John, Julie, and Gareth, and Naoko (in which Naoko volunteered to be cliffed - John said he'd shag her first - he'd then shag Julie, but he'd marry Gareth "because I've seen him naked.")
And I don't know who grabbed the minute-long clip of John Barrowman and Naoko Mori singing Miss Saigon with Gareth in the middle.
The OG links to three interviews with Stephen Moffat from Comic Con
In Hamlet news, I'm more than a little appalled that the Tennant website has had to post basic theater etiquette - and I mean REALLY basic stuff, like "don't disturb the actors or the rest of the audience." *facepalm* The RSC/actors (who started it I'm not sure) have also put out a huge set of warnings that they will only sign stuff about Hamlet, not Star Trek or Doctor Who memorabilia. That makes sense enough. However, I'm sure it's the RSC that has added the rider that it must be materials from the RSC shop which does piss me off. For those of us who *have* theater diaries and/or favorite script copies, it seems frankly petty.
Not that anyone could necessarily tell in a glance say, an Arden that came from the RSC vs the Borders downtown DC anyway.
(I have a copy of the Arden complete that has served as notes and theater diary ever since I started going to Stratford Ont. & ushering at the DC Shakes; I've been writing down the dates/locations of the productions and (in the script itself) details of the particularly notable bits of business.)
PS - and since this is suddenly turning into the overarching Who post of the day, the Sun will just print anything they wank onto a page, won't they? The latest article is so full of facepalm fail I don't even know which loose end to start yanking to unravel it. Poor Freema, is she always going to end up being the whipping girl of the Whoniverse? (There was even Yet Another Ugly Rumor about the poor woman at Shore Leave, which was quickly and tidily shot down.)
It's going to be frickin' hilarious in retrospect if she's in both Torchwood and Law and Order: London, as is easily likely considering England's short show seasons. Far more likely than an experienced, professional showrunner somehow assuming that a working actress would turn down work in the hopes of some sort of last-minute "oops, we wrote huge scenes for you but forgot to actually sign you up" contract.
Truly, there is not enough eyeroll in the world.
thefannishwaldo liveblogged the Julie Gardener - Stephen Moffat panel (small spoilers for Christmas special at end). There'll be a separate post for the Torchwood panel at some point. So far all she's posted is that there was a "marry, shag, or cliff" game with John, Julie, and Gareth, and Naoko (in which Naoko volunteered to be cliffed - John said he'd shag her first - he'd then shag Julie, but he'd marry Gareth "because I've seen him naked.")And I don't know who grabbed the minute-long clip of John Barrowman and Naoko Mori singing Miss Saigon with Gareth in the middle.
The OG links to three interviews with Stephen Moffat from Comic Con
In Hamlet news, I'm more than a little appalled that the Tennant website has had to post basic theater etiquette - and I mean REALLY basic stuff, like "don't disturb the actors or the rest of the audience." *facepalm* The RSC/actors (who started it I'm not sure) have also put out a huge set of warnings that they will only sign stuff about Hamlet, not Star Trek or Doctor Who memorabilia. That makes sense enough. However, I'm sure it's the RSC that has added the rider that it must be materials from the RSC shop which does piss me off. For those of us who *have* theater diaries and/or favorite script copies, it seems frankly petty.
Not that anyone could necessarily tell in a glance say, an Arden that came from the RSC vs the Borders downtown DC anyway.
(I have a copy of the Arden complete that has served as notes and theater diary ever since I started going to Stratford Ont. & ushering at the DC Shakes; I've been writing down the dates/locations of the productions and (in the script itself) details of the particularly notable bits of business.)
PS - and since this is suddenly turning into the overarching Who post of the day, the Sun will just print anything they wank onto a page, won't they? The latest article is so full of facepalm fail I don't even know which loose end to start yanking to unravel it. Poor Freema, is she always going to end up being the whipping girl of the Whoniverse? (There was even Yet Another Ugly Rumor about the poor woman at Shore Leave, which was quickly and tidily shot down.)
It's going to be frickin' hilarious in retrospect if she's in both Torchwood and Law and Order: London, as is easily likely considering England's short show seasons. Far more likely than an experienced, professional showrunner somehow assuming that a working actress would turn down work in the hopes of some sort of last-minute "oops, we wrote huge scenes for you but forgot to actually sign you up" contract.
Truly, there is not enough eyeroll in the world.
no subject
I think, at this point, that it's unlikely that Freema could do both. I think L&O is supposed to begin filming in August, and Torchwood begins in either August or September.
Thus, the Torchwood ship has sailed. I think that's pretty clear, even if The Sun had to layer on lurid dross on top of that.
My guess on what happened vis a vis the Torchwood situation is this — Freema's people were negotiating a contract with the BBC. The BBC had made it clear that they wanted Freema. They even had scripts that used Freema.
From Freema's point of view (and I'm referring here to her people, not necessarily herself), she was in the driver's seat. She knew that the BBC wanted her in Torchwood. She had a strong hand, and she could ask for... well, whatever.
This makes her sound mercenary, but it's not. It's the same issue the Star Trek films had; the actors weren't under contract, and when it came time for another movie, the actors were in a strong negotiating position, because they knew that they were already in the script. (This is also how we got Ezri Dax in the final season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine; Terry Ferrell's contract was up, and Paramount wouldn't meet her salary demands. Or Claudia Christian on Babylon 5. There's another example.)
My guess is that the negotiations were ongoing, with Freema wanting a higher number and the BBC wanting a lower number. And when the Law & Order offer came, it may have been in between the two numbers, but was still higher than where the BBC was willing to go. So, she went for Law & Order.
Writers livid? Sure. The word they'd done needs to be scrapped and reworked.
But the producers? They shot themselves in the foot by making Freema a low-ball offer.
That's how I'm reading the situation. It's not as lurid. It's just business.
no subject
Bingo. But to *cough* some fans, anything that disses their darling is not only Lurid, it's A Personal Insult.
It's love, yes, but it's also a job. And it's a job first, or actors, like writers, starve. Cluefulness, sadly, is not an entrance requirement for fandom.
no subject
no subject
But on the other hand, if she is choosing, then the smart professional decision is to take the full-season show with potential for growth over the five-episode miniseries with an uncertain future - and that's before one even considers the bank account!
But the Sun has to go and make it sound like Freema's gone jump roping with another set of kids at recess and Davies is having a red-faced tantrum about it. "Smart professional" - which they both are - doesn't enter into it at all.