The Snowflake Challenge; Day 12

[scripsi]

Day 12

What makes you fannish? And by that we mean, what is it about a tv show/movie/book/band/podcast/etc that takes you from, "Yeah, I like that," to "I need MOAR!!!" Is it a character? A plotline? The pretty? Subtext that’s just screaming to be acknowledged?

Hmm… On a general level I tend to enjoy media which is well written. I enjoy character’s who are a bit ambiguous, or at least well nuanced with both good and bad characteristics. I like, if not exclusively, media with fantastic elements. I like visual media where care has been put into what we see. I loved Hannibal for example thought it was far too bloody and violent for my usual taste because it was so heartbreakingly beautifully filmed. And I can’t stand period dramas like The Tudors and Reign because they so blatantly disregard what fashion actually looked like. It’s not that I have to have historically accurate costumes into itty bitty details, but I like costumes who has a message and are thought through and at least gives the basic idea of what a certain fashion looked like. I love Reine Margot for example, despite not being HA, because they are so visullý stunning and fits into the narrative. And the Man in the High Castle show us what an early 60’s fashion may look like in a culture that has stagnated under dictatorship.

But what it is that makes me actively fannish, well, that is harder. There are a lot of media I adore that I never feel inclined to write for, or often even read fanfics about. But most of the fandom I have felt compelled to write in (and all I have written a lot in), have characters with a moral ambiguity, regardless if they are good or bad ones.

Comments

[analise010]

YEEEEEEEES! I love horror-fantasy, so Hannibal was only a little too gory for me, but the gore was so beautiful that I had to keep watching.

[creascendo]

I wonder, have you seen In the Flesh? It's a zombie show with a twist where being "Partially Deceased" is treated as an affliction, and people affected are being reintroduced into society after treatment. There's some gore (especially in the opening episode), but it's incidental to the story, and never for "flash". It has an element of the fantastic, morally complex characters, and the cinematography is gorgeous. It was canceled after 2 series, unfortunately. Well worth a watch, though. Sorry for going off on a tangent, I know this isn't what your post is about.

I had no idea the fashion in The Tudors is inaccurate. Did they use the clothes from another era?

There are so many possibilities with the morally ambiguous characters, so many "what if?" to explore!

[scripsi]

No, I haven't seen it. I'm not very keen on zombies and tend to stay away from them. :) It does sounds interesting to and I think I shall look it up.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, I know this isn't what your post is about.

Don't be! It's only fun to have a discussion which moves on.

I had no idea the fashion in The Tudors is inaccurate. Did they use the clothes from another era?

Not so much, but they did a lot of hotting it up in a way I found jarring. Women with a cap, but not with their hair up and with a veil, for example. Or a lack of shifts and shirts. But compating to Reign it has a lot to speak for it. The latter basically only use modern clothes with a semi-historical feel to it.


There are so many possibilities with the morally ambiguous characters, so many "what if?" to explore!

Yes, exactly! :D

[creascendo]

I'm not into zombies in general either, but the moody atmosphere and excellent writing focused on characters drew me in. Also, it helps that there are 3 canonically queer characters. Don't know if that's a factor for you, though.

Oh, thank you for the information. It's so interesting. I've never seen Reign, but it's not surprising that The Tudors would hot things up. *sigh*

[scripsi]

I'm not into zombies in general either, but the moody atmosphere and excellent writing focused on characters drew me in. Also, it helps that there are 3 canonically queer characters. Don't know if that's a factor for you, though.

Well, that sounds like very good reasons to watch it to me. :) I'm not completely opposed to zombies, I just don't seek them out, but this show do sound interesting. (I like vampires a lot more if I have to have monsters)

[thisbluespirit]

Yes, whatever that magic thing is that takes us from liking and even loving a thing to being fannish about it is hard to pin down and doesn't always make much sense. I find myself simply not being fannish for nearly every current show I watch, no matter how I enjoy it. (I'm fannish over OUaT and would be over Ripper Street, if there was anyone else much in the fandom, but that's been it.) Whereas, I keep leaping off into lonely fannish love for the weird old things I get on DVD - but not by any means all of them...

And, aha, you have a liking for ambiguous characters? I'd never have guessed!! ;-p

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

Come to think about it, I have never felt fannísh for something with a contemporary timeline. (I don't count Who in that.)

And, aha, you have a liking for ambiguous characters? I'd never have guessed!! ;-p

It's because I'm so discreet about it! ;)

[thisbluespirit]

Ah, no, I meant TV shows on at the moment, not ones set in the present day. And I can't say why, because I am now watching and enjoying a few of them!

:-D It came as quite the shock.

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

Ah, no, I meant TV shows on at the moment, not ones set in the present day. And I can't say why, because I am now watching and enjoying a few of them!

Aha. It still made me think I don't much care for contemporary settings. Unless tehre are a bit more to it like OUAT or Grimm. Well, I do like them, but I never feel remotely fannish about them.

It came as quite the shock.

So sorry! XD

[thisbluespirit]

I must admit, I do also tend to fantasy, sf, and historical, but I will pick up a contemporary fandom from time to time, especially somewhere in the crime genre. (Although which category 'thing that were contemporary in the 1960s/70s' falls into, I'm not sure, but whatever it is, I get into that, too.)

[liadt]

If someone does know what makes them fannish and they like popular stuff they should contact mass media makers because they'd make a tonne of money because it's not easily quantifiable.

I'm def not bothered by pretty since I was bored by 'And then there were none'! Boring TV winds me up espc if it's new as new is meant to be superior to old stuff.

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

If someone does know what makes them fannish and they like popular stuff they should contact mass media makers because they'd make a tonne of money because it's not easily quantifiable.

So true!

Pretty without substance is just boring- there has to be something else too. :)

[liadt]

Pretty without substance is just boring- there has to be something else too

That's so true too:)

[a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com]

This is a hard one to answer. Do any of us truly KNOW? :D

*HUGS*

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

I doubt it. I guess we can find thhemes one return to again and again, but not give a definite answer.

[gillo]

To be fair, The Tudors and Reign are also crap because their plotlines, characterisation and, often-as-not, settings, are also totally historically inaccurate. Not to mention poor writing and some very dodgy acting. Wolf Hall, now, that's different. Even if I was unconvinced by Anne Boleyn's bodice.

Costume is a major reason why I can't bear either of Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth films.

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

That's true, I gave up on The Tudors when they made Henry's two sisters into one, married her of to the king of Portugal(!) and had her suffocate him with a pillow. As if Mary's real life wasn't interesting enough...

[gillo]

Exactly. There is so much drama in the lives of Henry VII's four children. It's ridiculous to cut out so much and then invent more. And Portugal? WTF?

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly! A couple of friends and I have, just for the fun of it, written a synopsis of the dramatic lifes on the Vasa family, the royal family in Sweden contemporary with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I without adding anything but facts and rumours that was around at the time.
Beginning with Gustaf I who had a terrible temper and was reputed to have killed his first wife with a hammer (He didn’t). He then proceeded to marry two young women from the aristocracy of Sweden, who was closely related to each other (aunt and niece). At least one of them was already betrothed when Gustav pointed and demanded. He also, like Henry VII denounced the Catholic church. He was, on all accounts, a very good father and not a bad husband either. his second wife died in childbirth and the third survived him.


The four sons who reached adulthood, all had psychological problems. Magnus was so mad he was shut off in a castle in a minor city where he evidently had as good time as psychic health permitted. Erik XIV proposed to Elizabeth I who is supposed to have thought him very handsome. He then had a number of children out of wedlock and then scandalised everyone with marry the last mistress, a woman of very humble birth. He had violent psychotic episodes, the most serious when he in paranoia imprisoned some close relatives and then in a fit of rage actually stabbed them to death himself. In the end he was imprisoned by his two younger brothers, and, by popular believe given arsenic in his pea soup by them. What is a fact is that his exhumed body contained a lot more arsenic than it ought to, but the pea soup may be an invention. His brothers are still very much suspected.

And so on- the Vasa continues to have colourful lives until Kristina who abdicated and converted to Catholicism and Sweden got the warmongering Holstein-Gottorp instead. History really don’t need invention to be interesting!

[velvetwhip.livejournal.com]

I know exactly what you mean about costuming (and you would understand why I am so irritated with Singin' in the Rain because they botch 1920's fashion so completely and for no discernible reason).

I also understand the mysteriousness of why one fandom inspires and another merely entertains.


Gabrielle

[scripsi.livejournal.com]

I can accept old movies when they do costumes all wrong as actor and actresses had such defined looks that the movie makers wasn't allowed to deviate from. Marilyn Monroe, for example, has a very similar hairdo in all her movies, but if it's a period piece, they just attach a chignon at the back of her head... But yeah, Singin In the Rain doesn't even pretend to be the Twenties. :)