[LMB] Re: OT: Sex and Captain Jack and the themes of Torchwood
azurite at rogers.com
Tue Dec 19 14:25:56 GMT 2006
--- Ruth Frey <solsticebiz at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whoa. Take a weekend away from the computer
> and watch those digests multiply!
They do that. You'd think we weren't busy getting
ready for Christmas or something.
We were chatting about Captain Jack:
> As you said in another portion of your post
> (snipped for space), that's probably a strategic
> move on their part; they probably figure a
> mainstream audience ha a lot more tolerence for
> someone male *talking* about having boyfriends than
> with someone, er, demonstrating that affection
Which is probably true and wise on their part, but I
can't help thinking it's unfair. I like gender
parity. They're not stinting on the girl/girl scenes.
I like it all but I can't help feeling frustrated that
they are still playing to television taboos.
> >Being straight isn't boring. Really.
> Heh. It is to hear some people say it. Not
> that I mind; when people run down "vanilla" in my
> hearing, my usual response is, "there's regular
> vanilla, and then there's double-rich French vanilla
> with little dark seed-sprinkles in it -- guess which
> *I* like."
> Hoping one of these days to meet up
> with you and other folks from this list and put
> names to faces, though we really are from all over,
> aren't we? :)
Makes it fun. I used to go to a lot of conventions -
even, occasionally, on the west coast - can't afford
it these days. But you never know.
> It *is* cool -- I think it's important to
> have the sense that there's more to people than
> their orientation;
Yes. Handled well on Torchwood, I think.
> I honestly
> believe it is possible to be fully identified at one
> end of the spectrum or the other.
Most people think so.
> I'd say more important at this point is
> getting more people to think outside the box, as it
> were. ;)
Agreed. I'm just happy that they are showing us a box,
or non-box, that is usually totally unacknowledged.
(By which I mean: the popular media is much more
likely to show us gay characters than bi characters,
and most characters are portrayed as
> >[Captain Jack] sees gender boxes as absurd
> >artificial concepts.
> Yeah, I think that's a nice touch. Very much
> suits the character.
It does. "People with their categories."
> It definitely *used* to be the case that more
> adult content would be shown later at night, but
> with the advent of cable/satellite networks that run
> off of a single feed for all the time zones in the
> US, that seems to have broken down quite a bit.
Understandably. It's probably the consequence of the
fact that *everybody* in the UK has the same time
zone. (They do, don't they?) I never thought about
that before. Do they even have 'timeshift' channels on
TV? I bet they don't. Or that "half hour in
Newfoundland" thing. It's a whoe different scale of
time/space. (Note which what delicate self-control I
stopped myself from saying 'time and relative
> Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I thought
> Zack *was* gay.
He seemed to think he was! But the producers have
officially said otherwise, apparently.
> That was certainly my take-home
> message, anyway.
Yes. If he isn't gay, what was all that talk about
identity and being himself even if he's different?
> No clue, there -- maybe there will be some
> characters showing up later on who are gay? The
> story arcs are really still getting going.
Yes, and we're still learning about the characters.
I'll forgive them anything if Peter should turn out to
be bi. (g) But I'm not holding my breath.
> BTW, heard the news that list fave
> Christopher Eccleston will have a part in "Heroes"
> starting in Jan.?
Yes! Good news.
> Buzz is he'll be playing a
> character with the power of invisibility, who ends
> up being something of a hero-mentor to Peter.
Good. Peter needs a hero-mentor, I think.
> *that* info is proven correct, I'd love to see CE
> some more,and that part sounds perfect for him . . .
I agree on all counts.
[re Captain Jack meeting the Doctor again]
> >> Heh. Really wondering what'll happen if the
> >> current Jack meets up with the Tenth Doctor
> >Not 'if', when. Jack will be in series 3 "Doctor
> Oh, yeah, I know Jack will be there for sure,
> but from which point in his personal timeline --
> will it be the Jack from "now" (the Jack in
> "Torchwood") or will it be an earlier Jack?
Ah! Now I understand the question. Rumour is that
Steven Moffatt and Russell T. Davies are working on a
script about 'the origins of Captain Jack' - that
might imply a young Jack. Or not.
> I know
> there've been hints about finally clearing up what
> happened during Jack's "missing time," and it would
> have been possible for him to have met the Doctor
> during those two years and then not recognized him
> when they met up later in "The Empty Child", thanks
> to Jack's amnesia.
And the Doctor just pretended not to know him? Hmm.
> Personally, I really hope it'll
> be the "current" Jack, since I'm dying to know how
> the heck he got off that space station and back to
> the 21st century, among other unresolved plot
Absolutely! But I'm willing to let them leave plot
issues for series 2 of Torchwood.
> Hope that makes sense -- talking about time
> travel plots can get very confusing, in terms of
> tenses . . .
Can't it just! Especially when Jack isn't exactly
> Yessssss! Cool. I think Moffat writes great
> Yeah, I bet Jack's changed quite a bit in
> "Torchwood" -- I can see where he would have gotten
> rather grimmer by then . . . Getting left behind in
> "The Parting of the Ways" *can't* have been
> psychologically good for the lad, among other things
Well, no. Totally traumatic. Cast out of paradise?
Abandonment issues, anyway.
More information about the Lois-Bujold