I really liked James Nesbitt in this too, especially the OTT Hyde character. While I didn't like the overall series as much as I liked James Nesbitt, sometimes you have to watch a show just for the performances.

I also find myself casting John Simm in almost everything I watch. He is the most versatile actor doing television at the moment, IMO, and I have a long list of types of roles I'd love to see him play. I think I'd like to see him play a really unsympathetic character just to see if I could distance my fangirly tendencies from the part and actively dislike him.

Because be honest, most of us were secretly rooting for The Master, weren't we?

Because be honest, most of us were secretly rooting for The Master, weren't we?

*cough*

I didn't think it was *that* secret....

That's true.

What's a little thing like the decimation of the population compared with the opportunity to be The Master's personal body servant?

I think the line went out the door and around the block.

Plus, a million language pedants swooned when they heard *that* line.

(well, Fi and I did, anyway!!!)

I certainly did, I almost cheered, although how you can get the warm fuzzies from someone saying "Kill one tenth of the population" is a bit of a mystery. Bit of a red-pen geek, me.

WHY WHATEVER DO YOU MEAN?

*blinks innocently*

I don't cast John in almost everything I watch! Just, this :D He is a very versatile actor.

Danny, for me, was largely unsympathetic. I liked his monologues, but, wow, he annoyed me. I sympathised with him much for the same reason I sympathise with Sam.

Ahh, The Master. I loved camp!John so much, I wasn't really on a side.

He'd have had a very different physical presence -- I adore Nesbitt in this role -- but I would love to see Simm in a period piece Stevenson Jekyll & Hyde, because he *needs* to do Victorian Repressed and he *needs* to be Hyde.

John's physical presence would probably appeal to me more, though - and I think his Jekyll and Hyde would look considerably different from each other (Point in fact: Elling versus The Master - basic same time period and yet, just completely freaking different.) Nesbitt's don't, really, not to me.

Oh, oh! I would love him in the original, yes. Sadly it's been done to death.

Like that stops anyone? says the woman who spent the weekend screening different Frankenstein films to talk about the evolution of perceptions of the monster with a class that's just finished the book . . .

It might stop John. Unless the screenplay was really very good, offered something unique. Can't see him doing it.

Er, I meant the people who make 'em?

And my basic contention stands -- would like to see him in a Victorian period piece, but one where he'd have a chance to strain against the constraints. I can think of some more obscure stuff that would work.

But I thought Nesbitt was *fantastic* and totally the reason to watch a sometimes uneven show.

I'd love John to play an out and out nutcase (he has done before, hasn't he?). Someone like the Joker from Batman. No, seriously. I think John could nail a difficult, complex part like that.

Thinking more...the Master is a bit like the Joker. A total psycho, but someone you want to know about and could sometimes even agree with things he says, even despite how twised he is. John needs to play more freaks.

John wouldn't willingly do the make-up for that one, but that type of role would suit him to a T.

It's a brilliant show. Really trippy and just all around brilliantly acted. :D The chick from Coupling is pretty good in it too. And the American guy has some incredible awesome one liners (As does Hyde of course). It gets better. :D

Great! :D

I also tend to cast JS in every single movie or TV show I watch. Hell, I also cast him in many of the books I read (yeah, I'm that crazy)!

A few weeks ago I read 'Mes Amis, Mes Amours' (soon to be translated into English with the title 'London, mon amour': http://marclevy.info/books.aspx?id=8 ) by my favourite author, Marc Levy, and my imagination immediately cast John Simm as Mathias and a younger David Threlfall as Antoine. :)))

This book is made of awesome, so very funny and touching, and they'd be perfect together! If I had a lot of money (a huge lot of it, I mean), I'd most definitely produce a film out of this book and beg JS to take the starring role! *sighs*

Hee :D

Well, I don't quite cast JS for everything, but I can see why you would.

I think I'd love to write something that John would want to do. He seems to have a very discerning taste - he knows good writing. And if John Simm thought it was good, chances are, it'd be good.

James Nesbitt will completely own you by the end of the series.

When you start slashing Jackman/Hyde, come see me.

What? Stop looking at me like that...

HAHAHAHAHA, best OTP ever! XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Also, I second that he'll own you by the end of the series. I can't believe I've actually seen it before you! XDXD

The best thing about it is IT'S COMPLETELY CANON.

*snicker* Shhh, don't give it away! ;)

Hyde is totally the best part about that show. I wasn't totally sold on Nesbitt until I saw that and then I was, to quote Loz, "OH MY YES." XD

I decided this was one that could wait until I was feeling less like Jekyll and Hyde myself.

Already started, my friend :D

I actually started thinking that too, especially towards the end...Lol.

You liked it? Really? Hmm.

Are you forgetting our different respective thresholds for over the top?

Like, the beginning, with Katherine? I did spend the whole of that rolling my eyes. But then we got to CLIMBING UP THE WALLS, OMG. And Moffat's oneliners. And I was sold.

I saw the first episode when it first aired over here and spent the whole of it wanting to slap James Nesbitt's stupid smug face.

And am I misremembering the scene where Hyde beats up a teenage boy in an alley, and does not beat up/rape/kill the girl (who stood by and watched and stupidly did not run away, call the police, do anything useful)?

Ahh. My mum doesn't like James Nesbitt much either. I quite like him, depending on the role(s). Once again, though, yearning for the actor that never was. Sigh.

And am I misremembering the scene where Hyde beats up a teenage boy in an alley, and does not beat up/rape/kill the girl (who stood by and watched and stupidly did not run away, call the police, do anything useful)?

Nope, but they're establishing scenes. Hyde can't kill that early, it would negate the danger later in the episode, where Jackman is fearful for his wife and children. And people are often stupid, useless and disinclined to go to the law in the television world of those situations.

I understand what you mean from a narrative perspective, but from a realistic story perspective (and yes, I do see the daftness in expecting a Jekyll-and-Hyde story to be realistic) it didn't work for me. He didn't attack her, and that snapped me out of the story. After that all I could see was smug James Nesbitt chewing up the scenery.

Hey-ho! I think you have more fun than me with TV.

Well, it comes down to equal parts forgiveness and suspension of disbelief. And no, I wasn't hoping for realism from Jekyll.

Realistic stories are not exactly paramount, for me. High fantasy isn't either. I like a mixture, a medium. Enough realism to say, 'yes, I know these people', and enough fantasy to say, 'yes, I don't have to.'

I'm up to episode three and there is still a lot of eye rolling, but lots of fun too. I guess I do have more fun with TV.

Typing of fun with TV, what do you think of Arrested Development? I'm half way through the second series now and still madly in love with it.

Thinking more about realism etc, I can't stop myself from being annoyed when characters do unlikely things just for narrative convenience. I kind of feel like there's no point in them having a character at all if it's not going to be consistent or believable.

Thinking more about realism etc, I can't stop myself from being annoyed when characters do unlikely things just for narrative convenience.

There are some things I've done that just aren't in my character at all - and if anyone were writing my fate they'd say they went OOC at that stage, or overdid the crack, or were jumped up on red cordial. People do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, that seem to contradict everything about them. People aren't consistent, they aren't always believable. However, you can usually tell when it's a narrative convenience issue as opposed to a fluke or phenomenon, the thread snapping and personality unravelling.

I've only ever seen ten minutes of Arrested Development, but it's on my list of 'shows I should probably watch, only I get distracted'.

Now you've got me wondering if real life is controlled by narrative imperative! Is the real world character-driven or plot-driven? Maybe, when lots of things are happening it can seem like it's plot-driven (action film!) -- this thing happens so you do this other thing that you wouldn't ordinarily do but now you have to because that's what you do when the first thing happens. I wonder if that would seem OOC from the outside.

Narrative imperative is beginning, middle, end. So is life. I... am I wrong in thinking this? Like the best stories, life is both character and plot driven, because you can't have one without the other (is he/she really a character if they don't do anything? How can anything really happen without someone to enact it?)

I've always assumed life is one big story. Mine is as if it were written by me - unevenly paced, with some pointless scenes, but some nice turns of phrase, filled with unlikeable characters who you sympathise with anyway.

Perhaps this is my greatest failing. I assume life is full of plot points. Maybe it's not.

I assume life is full of plot points. Maybe it's not.

Maybe it is!

But I can see now that I think it's driven by character, really.

One example: Matt and I know someone who is frequently beset with financial problems, and time-management problems, and difficulties in one particular relationship. What we can see, and what this person apparently can't (or won't) see, is that all his problems stem from himself. He's driven by his own character to make his life difficult. But from where he's standing, life keeps hurling crappy plot points at him, leaving him feeling powerless and put-upon. There's no way of helping him, because he's in control of the plot.

I meant to add that I think you're right that's it's a mixture of the two -- narrative and character -- but I think the narrative issues in real life are relegated to natural disasters or other unexpected situations (eg, being attacked by an insane person).

And now I'm wondering who all your unlikeable characters are...

Oh, well, I was thinking mostly me and my family, to begin with. To an outsider, I mean.

I guess --- I don't think anyone's instantly likeable, which could be why I find it difficult to connect with people. I think the worst of others, perhaps, or concentrate on negativity.

Yeah, see, for me, I got to this point where I realised my life was a character-driven narrative and I had to do something. And I did. And that something was so far off from who I am, as a character, that if I were in some kind of Truman Show, the audience would swear we had a fill-in director.

I was a bit ambivalent on Jekyll, although not on James Nesbitt who I would love even if he was acting in dorky ads for Yellow Pages (oh hang on...) I decided in the end I wasn't really supposed to be rooting for Hyde quite as much as I was. Dark!Nesbitt is a sexy beast and that's the truth.

I'd love to see John Simm in something like this, but then again (as above) that's at least in part because I just love seeing him! Confident he could more than do it justice, though, and it would be interesting seeing him go properly dark like this. (And yes, I cast him in everything anyway, to the extent that I found myself feeling like a proper traitor watching Shaun of the Dead, because much as I adore Simon Pegg, I just wanted to see John Simm in it!)

I'm all for things like Jekyll anyway. I found myself desperate to watch the second episode all today, so I have a feeling I'll continue to like it.

God, I really, really want to see John play a serial killer. Really. He could do such an amazing job, I know he could. Something clever, funny and dark. God, yes.