Thank you for commenting; the thing is, I can't even really argue with you, because I can see why you'd look at it that way. For me it's a bit like those optical illusions where you see either an old woman or a young girl depending on how your brain processes the picture. Of course in that case both images are meant to be there, so I'm not saying the argument makes a lot of sense.
I don't see it this negatively, I simply can't (and to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I want to make an effort), because for me on a emotional, dramaturgical level the story simply works, but I do recognise the possibility for this interpretation.
that gay relationships fundamentally aren't worth as much as straight relationships Serious question - was CoE better or worse in this respect than S2 with all its Jack/Gwen subtext in your opinion?
that gay men in particular shouldn't be allowed around children Can I say as a mostly straight person that this thought never occurred to me, watching CoE?
and that RTD gets off on torturing his heroes But compared to Joss Whedon he at least does it in more interesting and dramatically satisfying ways, and, generally speaking, is more on the humanist/existentialist side than on the existentialist/nihilist?
to get rid of the sex in favour of violence and political intrigue The thing is, for me TW even during S1&2 was never all that much about sex (exempting, perhaps Day One, which kind of lived up to what everyone said that TW was about) and CoE wasn't primarily about political intrigue; I see the same motives running through all three seasons. On the whole I think it was the new format that influenced the plot of CoE more than anything else, because it demanded something big and dramatic.
I experienced CoE as "burning down the show", Can't really argue with that either, because I also had this kind of feeling the first time I watched it; that this was the end of TW, full stop. But since apparently it (probably/possibly) isn't, I'll reserve speculation and judgement on how S4 will look like until I see it. So far characterisation has, on the whole, developed in ways that felt inherently logical to me, rather than surprising, so I think I'll take my chances until then.
no subject
I don't see it this negatively, I simply can't (and to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I want to make an effort), because for me on a emotional, dramaturgical level the story simply works, but I do recognise the possibility for this interpretation.
that gay relationships fundamentally aren't worth as much as straight relationships
Serious question - was CoE better or worse in this respect than S2 with all its Jack/Gwen subtext in your opinion?
that gay men in particular shouldn't be allowed around children
Can I say as a mostly straight person that this thought never occurred to me, watching CoE?
and that RTD gets off on torturing his heroes
But compared to Joss Whedon he at least does it in more interesting and dramatically satisfying ways, and, generally speaking, is more on the humanist/existentialist side than on the existentialist/nihilist?
to get rid of the sex in favour of violence and political intrigue
The thing is, for me TW even during S1&2 was never all that much about sex (exempting, perhaps Day One, which kind of lived up to what everyone said that TW was about) and CoE wasn't primarily about political intrigue; I see the same motives running through all three seasons. On the whole I think it was the new format that influenced the plot of CoE more than anything else, because it demanded something big and dramatic.
I experienced CoE as "burning down the show",
Can't really argue with that either, because I also had this kind of feeling the first time I watched it; that this was the end of TW, full stop. But since apparently it (probably/possibly) isn't, I'll reserve speculation and judgement on how S4 will look like until I see it. So far characterisation has, on the whole, developed in ways that felt inherently logical to me, rather than surprising, so I think I'll take my chances until then.