Log in

No account? Create an account
Living Loz
Men with Guns... or not... 
17th-Oct-2009 10:58 am
Loz Canada
Thanks to sam80853 for posting this first.


Okay, so I'm cheap. But throw in over-the-top voice over work and meta-humour and I am yours. I am laughing forever over here.


\o/ Paul Gross has once again taken over my LJ. Good times.
17th-Oct-2009 02:23 am (UTC)
that is AWESOME!!!! omg paul gross doing gun tricks and wearing fingerless gloves! WHY did they do that to his hair though? whyyyy?
17th-Oct-2009 02:31 am (UTC)
The HAIR. I know. It is not great. I believe it's a wig?

I miss Geoffrey's hair. That was the best.
17th-Oct-2009 02:35 am (UTC)
yeah, i'm fairly confident that's not his hair. i mean, there's no way he could have grown it that long after passchendaele even if he wanted to, plus it looks horribly fake.

::makes grabby hands at geoffrey's hair::
17th-Oct-2009 02:41 am (UTC)
Also, he's dying his hair in Eastwick, y/y? There is no 'n'.

I still haven't seen Passchendaele. I keep meaning to and then I just don't.

I tend to prefer things Paul hasn't had a hand in writing because his writing frustrates the hell out of me. (In some ways he's so good. In others? HANDWAVEY DEUS EX MACHINA AHOY!)
17th-Oct-2009 02:48 am (UTC)
I thought Passchendaele was pretty awful, to be honest. And yes, my issues with Paul Gross's writing are LEGION.
17th-Oct-2009 02:52 am (UTC)

I spent a lot of 2006 just going 'why, Paul, why?' at the screen. I hated H2O, and was not fond of several aspects of his due South episodes, and I would just be like "this dialogue is really rather awesome. THIS PLOT IS NOT!"

I would practically froth at the mouth and I was all alone in my 'Paul Gross, how can you be so great in some ways and so freaking annoying in others?'

So it's nice to meet someone who also has Paul Gross writerly issues.
17th-Oct-2009 03:12 am (UTC)
Dude, LOTS of people have Paul Gross writerly issues! LOTS. I mean, I dunno, in my corner of fandom making fun of Paul Gross's insane acting talent and inexplicable insistence on doing things that are not acting is pretty routine. Maybe that's because it's not really an F/K-heavy corner of fandom though?

Part of what is so frustrating though is that okay, I have pretty major issues with "All the Queen's Horses" and "Red White or Blue" (I hate the Bolt brothers, okay? THEY ARE DUMB. In a very Paul Gross way) but in some ways they are fabulous episodes. Some of the characterization in Red White or Blue is genius. And then there's s3 and 4 which to me are a completely different and WAY less interesting characterization of Fraser. And it's like WHAT WENT WRONG? YOU CLEARLY GOT IT IN 1996!
17th-Oct-2009 03:24 am (UTC)
Yeah, see, I primarily hung out with the F/K crowd in 2006. Also, mostly it was admiration from afar. And the occasional picspam/icon-making session. The people I friended either didn't friend me back, or were super quiet. I kind of spent a lot of 2006 writing long silly posts entirely to myself.

And really, people mocked Paul all the time. ALL THE TIME. But they didn't really lament how sad it was that he could do some amazing dialogue and characterisation (total word on 'Red, White or Blue') but failed when it came to writing anything that had any semblance of sense.

I like a lot about s3 and 4. Like, for instance, RayK *draws little hearts*, and the episode "Seeing is Believing", which is SO GREAT. But I do see what you mean about how less interesting Fraser becomes as a character in some instances. (I can't remember the episode exactly, but there's one scene that is NOT FRASER. NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY. IT IS CLEARLY PAUL.) Actually, it may be from S2.

Edited at 2009-10-17 03:26 am (UTC)
17th-Oct-2009 03:29 am (UTC)
Well, Kowalski is obviously fabulous. ::throws sparkle dust in the air:: Although I think Callum gets a lot of the credit for that.

But um, I kind of am not a fan of "Seeing is Believing" if that's the hypnotism one. Because one of the things I don't like about his writing is that he'll sacrifice characters and characterization for a gag, and he loves humiliation humor. And Thatcher in that episode makes me cringe, and makes me angry. (I also think the Welsh characterization is really weird, but whatever.)

Are you talking about the Bounty Hunter episode where he's playing with her kids in a really OOC way? Or...?
17th-Oct-2009 03:35 am (UTC)
Oh God. My love of unreliable narration and using different perspectives totally overrode my dislike of Fraser-as-frankly-creepy-manipulator. (I do not think he wrote that one, either. Although, yes, he had a hand in everything by that point.)

Um, no. I am talking about when Fraser pretends to electrocute himself? He's with Thatcher.
17th-Oct-2009 03:39 am (UTC)
Hee! I can actually see Fraser doing that, because his sense of humor is ridiculous. He was REALLY relieved at that moment that she wasn't hitting on him, okay? It went to his head.
17th-Oct-2009 03:54 am (UTC)
I so disagree, but we can agree to disagree on that.
17th-Oct-2009 07:59 am (UTC)
I checked back through my posts and it was actually 2005, not 2006. Which frankly TERRIFIES me.

I also found the post when I'd first discovered what Paul was really like and it's so gosh darn cute. I was so surprised!
17th-Oct-2009 03:13 am (UTC)
PS I also have issues with the way he writes women
17th-Oct-2009 03:26 am (UTC)
Mmmm. I can't say I'd noticed he's any worse than most television writers. But they're often not that great.
17th-Oct-2009 03:38 am (UTC)
I agree he may not be worse than most television writers--he may even be better--but most television writers are awful, so. But what I mean isn't so much that he's sexist as that he just has trouble writing interesting, fully fleshed-out female characters.

I feel like Frannie and Thatcher have all this potential that never goes anywhere because Paul would rather humiliate them by having them fall all over him. At least in s1/2 they had SOME dignity, and the occasional plotline that didn't revolve around Fraser (the exception being "Dead Guy Running," of course). And Stella started out so interesting and then got turned into a stock bitch--I love the way Kowalski's relationship with her is portrayed, but the way the entire world morphs around him to make him look justified is a bit creepy. (That scene in the Christmas episode where he says "Stella was never very big on Christmas. Or me, for that matter" would be great if it weren't for all the reaction shots of everyone looking sympathetic. Really? WELSH is overcome with sympathy for Ray's obvious falsehood? It feels like a dishonest, easy writing choice, I guess.)

Also, have you seen "Men with Brooms"? There's this one character that I THINK in Paul's head was supposed to be a strong woman with control issues but then ended up as a stock frigid career woman who was...get this...an astronaut. Like that was her entire backstory was that she was an astronaut. NO OTHER CHARACTER TRAITS. It was amazing.
17th-Oct-2009 03:52 am (UTC)
You know, at the time I didn't give it much thought, but on reflection I agree with all of this. Especially Frannie. I had such issues with Frannie, all the way through dS. (On the one hand, adoring love. On the other, ack. ACK!)

I saw Men with Brooms. I mocked Men with Brooms. I did not like it much at all in many ways, and yet quite enjoyed it in others.

Can I argue that Paul has trouble writing interesting fully-fleshed out characters from scratch regardless of gender? If he's springboarding off other people's characterisation, then, okay, 7 times out of 10, he can do an awesome job. But if he had to make it up entirely he fails most of the time? We already pointed out Fraser. And then Ray K has all of these anomalies. He has flashes of characterisation genius, usually coming through his dialogue. But his overall skillz are lacking.
19th-Oct-2009 11:09 pm (UTC)
I love Frannie SOOO much! And she deserves so much better! And I mean, okay, it's not like her role in s1/2 was so empowering, but I felt like she got a bit more respect from the writers. Even when she was being embarrassing, she was being embarrassing in ways you were supposed to have sympathy for rather than just laugh at.

I guess maybe "fully fleshed-out" isn't what I meant. Because yeah, it's not his strength in general. But he seems way more able to think up interesting quirks, backstory, and plotlines for men--his women end up pretty one-note, even in terms of their surface presentation. And their goals/motivations/conflicts seem to mostly have to do with men (e.g. Janet Morse and Maggie are BOTH in town on deadbeat-ex-husband business! whyyyy?).
17th-Oct-2009 03:49 am (UTC)
omg, that meta humour is AWESOME. I am super easy, and this is hilarious. :D

(side note, I too love Seeing is Believing, but agree with belmanoir on everything else. ;D as if you asked. heh.)
17th-Oct-2009 03:54 am (UTC)
:D :D The trailer is GREAT.

(Oh good! It's my favourite out of S3/4. The way its shot adds a lot to that.)

Dude, I am always asking.
17th-Oct-2009 07:22 am (UTC)

17th-Oct-2009 08:05 am (UTC)
17th-Oct-2009 08:48 am (UTC)
What is the Montana-narrator dialog? My sound here is so bad I can't get their lines...
Anyway, looks awesome!
17th-Oct-2009 08:57 am (UTC)
N: In this frontier town, legend tells of a gun-fighter so skilled, so ruthless, so deadly, he put fear into the hearts of men. No one would face him. Until now! Paul Gross is THE MONTANA KID. He believes a man lives my a code of death.

TMK: That's not what I said.

N: He believes there is a code for living.

TMK: Never said that neither.

N: He believes he's not sure what he's said.

TMK: Listen.

N: Gunless. In theatres 2010.
17th-Oct-2009 12:58 pm (UTC)
Thank You!
24th-Oct-2009 03:34 pm (UTC)
OMG that's awesome. And Rick the Temp introducing was also kind of awesome.
24th-Oct-2009 03:36 pm (UTC)
I know!~
This page was loaded Apr 25th 2018, 8:03 pm GMT.