partly: (OpenD)
I belong to the landcomm [livejournal.com profile] tvholics and for one of our challenges we were supposed to create a drinking game for any show, past or present. Because Man from U.N.C.L.E. seems to have eaten my brain, I did one for that classic show.

Keep in mind, I love Illya best. If I had more time, I would write more rules... Actually, [livejournal.com profile] finabair, if you are up sometime, we will have a marathon, drink some Rain and write more rules!

Man from U.N.C.L.E. drinking game

  1. Take a drink when Illya answers a question with an enigmatic, philosophical statement. Two the question deals with his personal life.

  2. Take a drink if Illya is wearing black. Two if it’s a turtleneck. Three if he’s also wearing a hat.

  3. Take a drink if Illya gets wet. Two if he gets completely soaked. Three if he’s not near a body of water.

  4. Take a drink if Napoleon hits on the girl. Two if she’s one of the bad guys. Three if she turns him down. Drink the whole bottle if the girl prefers Illya.

  5. Take a drink every time someone uses a secret entrance

  6. Take a drink every time someone says “Open Channel D”. Two if the channel has a different letter.

  7. Take a drink every time Mr. Waverly infers that death is an acceptable risk. Two if he actually forbids one of the boys from going and rescuing the other.

  8. Take a drink anytime Mr. Waverly draws a gun. Two if he shoots it.

  9. Take a drink if THRUSH is behind a plot to destroy U.N.C.L.E. Two if they are out to take over the world.

  10. Take a drink if someone mentions that Illya is Russian. Two if that someone is Napoleon. Three if it’s Illya. Buy a bottle if this happens anytime in season 3.

partly: (Lurker)
Come and join a cool landcom called [livejournal.com profile] fandomverse. It’s a fun place and you can use any fandom — tv, movie or book. It looks fun and some teams need some more people. Come. Play. Have fun.



Come play with me!

partly: (No One Gets Hurt)
I belong to the landcomm [livejournal.com profile] tvholics and for one of our challenges we were supposed to create two new characters for any two shows, past or present. For totally random reasons I picked Man From U.N.C.L.E. and The Big Bang Theory.

Chastity Irons in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. )

Jonathan Dillinger Moore in The Big Bang Theory )

And, just because I can (and I like it), here is my sig for the comm:
partly: (Don't)
More graphics from my entries over at [livejournal.com profile] tvrealm. I usually don't do graphics because my skills are very lacking, but I'm happy with these, so I'm sharing.

We had to nab a lyric from lyrics2liveby and create something from one of the lyrics. I made this with a ridiculously gorgeous screencap of Dean Winchester:

(Click for a larger size if you want)

We also had to do some "photobombing". I chose to put John Reese in with White Collar and CSI:NY. I think they turned out pretty well considering how much I suck at doing this sort of thing:

partly: (Dean)
For [livejournal.com profile] tvrealm, we had to do a "My Life, My Way" challenge where we got to chose TV Characters populate parts of our lives. Since I don't hate the way my entry turned out, I thought I'd share it here. My life would be populated with very dangerous and usually well armed people...



Click for my life! )
partly: (Jake)
For [livejournal.com profile] tvrealm we had to come up with our own awards show. We only needed five awards and I chose to make up categories rather than use the usual ones.

I didn't want to pick winners, so I went with the poll option. Feel free to vote...


Follow the cut )
partly: (24)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has A Challenge of Doing Things. You were supposed to make eight images of some one doing something. I'm sharing here because I love Jack Bauer with a gun. I'm easy that way.



A gun is the best accessory... )
partly: (Psycho)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Cause & Effect.

I’ve always been interested in psychology of characters: the why of who they are. The very best shows use the psychology of their characters to move the plots forward or to provide complications to those plots. When you’ve watched a show for years, knowing the psychology of the characters (and having faith that the writers will keep the characters in character) adds a layer of tension and expectation to a show. If you know the psychological bent of a character, you are able to predict what situations have the most impact on them.

But consistent psychology also lets you work backwards.

One of the reasons I love Person of Interest is because John Reese is so wonderfully psychologically true to his history: he does what he does because of who he is and he is who he is because of what he does. We know quite a bit about Reese’s background and psychology. On the other hand, we know very little about Finch. But, because the show is psychologically consistent, we can actually get a good idea of who Finch is (and what may have happened to him) by his actions now. This consistency is also why Carters actions in the last episode were believable and her dilemma on what to do with Reese was very real. It’s why Fusco is a good cop despite being a dirty one.

Good psychology makes for interesting and complicated characters, it allows for a greater variety of stories and, once the audience has faith that the writers will keep the characters in character it allows the writers to do far more interesting things with the characters.
partly: (Brothers)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Wacko.

One of the more interesting tropes in Supernatural is the thought that Dean and Sam are insane -- their behaviors, their attitudes and their relationships are all dysfunctional, their actions deranged. Quite honestly if they would live in our world, that assessment would be right, but I’m always drawn back to R. D. Laing’s statement.

“Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.” - R. D. Laing

It’s not paranoia if everyone is really out to get you. Co-dependency is necessary when both of the brothers have to survive in order for, well, the world to survive. And you really can’t call it “delusions of grandeur” when they actually have killed gods and stopped the apocalypse. Dean’s willingness to sacrifice himself could be considered a psychological problem -- if he wouldn’t always have a way that his sacrifice wasn’t the only way to make the situation work out for the best. Sure, Sam sees Lucifer everywhere, but quite honestly, that is probably the least psychologically damaged thing that could have come from being in locked in the cage.

The problem with establishing a psychological “norm” is that you can’t apply it to people who don’t live in our “normal” world. It’s the reason why our psychological diagnoses don’t always travel well to other cultures. Its why people who have lived outside our “norm” for any length of time have such a hard time readjusting when they return. Ask any combat vet -- and I’m not even talking about PTSD, I’m just talking about adjusting to the noise and chaos of our everyday life.

Sure if Dean and Sam were just siblings who grew up in average-world America their behavior would definitely be insane. But they didn’t, they grew up in completely bat-shit crazy America -- their “insanity” is perfectly sane.
partly: (Locke)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Motion.

For me to like a show, it has to have more than good characters and interesting plots, it has to have forward motion. There has to be progress and answers and conclusions. It’s why I love so many of the USA network shows, they are experts on the “episodic television with overreaching story arcs”. They give me an interesting story within the episode and bits and pieces of an larger story that continues over several episodes or over the whole season.

When a show loses that forward momentum, when everything that happens just leads back to the same question or puzzle, when every time you learn something new it turns out to just reverse everything you already thought you knew, it loses me.

Shows like Lost or Fringe, shows that depend on never giving an answer to a question frustrate me on a level that’s almost primal. I watched Lost when it first come on and I loved the show because the characters were so awesome, but the more I watched the more it felt like a bait-and-switch. It didn’t matter what we were told, it wasn’t going to lead to any real answers, just more questions.

Without forward motion, it feels too much like a lie, like the kids that would pretend to hand you something, and then pull back at the last second, just to laugh that you were gullible enough to believe they were actually going to give you something. Now I get that I may be unique in feeling that, but that doesn’t change the feeling.
partly: (That Girl)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Like A Boss.

I’ve talked occasionally about how I don’t often identify with the female characters in shows. Lately, however, I’ve come to realize that has been changing. There are a lot of female characters out there that I have come to love. For me to love a female character they just need one thing: agency.

Agency: the capacity of an agent (a person or other entity) to act. “Agency” has become a fairly common term as of late and it’s a concept that is extremely powerful. Notice it doesn’t have anything to do with success or power nor does it have anything to do with the type of acts. Just the ability (or potential ability) to do something. What it basically boils down to is that the character has some choice and control, even if it’s just over their own reactions.

The male characters I like are full of agency -- even when they are on the losing end, when they are caught and captive, they still are strong and active. It doesn’t matter if they are held at gun point or tied to a chair or are being coerced into doing something they don’t want to, they still have agency. Agency is almost a requirement when writing a male protagonist.

It’s something that was not usually given to female protagonists. When women are caught they are usually immediately reduced to helplessness. They are terrified and weak and vulnerable, weepy and pliable -- every misogynistic cliche that’s out there. And if the writers didn’t want to present a female protagonist in that light, it usually meant that the character wasn’t even put into that type of situation. Lack of agency was sort of a given when it came to women. In fact, agency was often seen as not feminine -- if a female character was given agency, that would have to be countered by making sure that she somehow compensated for that deficiency by being properly feminine in other areas. Even then though, it was best not to make them too capable and to make sure they had the proper male counterpart keep them from being too self-sufficient.

Fortunately, that’s changing.

Right now, Kate Beckett is my favorite example of a female character who has great agency. Even when she is at her most vulnerable, she still has the capacity to act. She’s allowed to be scared and overwhelmed and not in control, but she’s never powerless. The choices she makes aren’t always the smartest or healthiest, she has issues and problems that come from some of her actions, but she gets to act. It makes her a strong character, even when she makes mistakes.

She’s even given agency when it comes to her emotions. The lack of agency that female characters are given in general is nothing when compared to the lack of agency that they are given when dealing with emotional issues. Television thrives on the fact that most women lose all agency once they fall in love. It’s not that Beckett isn’t passionate -- she is. It’s that you know she always is choosing how she’s going to act on those passions.

I have to admit that it’s that form of agency that really appeals to me -- it’s the agency that allows a woman to be emotional without being controlled by those emotions.
partly: (Kiss)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Just Kiss The Girl.

I’m not a shipper. Don’t get me wrong, I love stories that have romance in them, it’s just that too often when fans (and writers) say “romance” or “ship” they really only mean sex. And quite frankly (fictional) sex bores the hell out of me.

What I love about romance the the dance that leads up to it. The relationships that need to be built and tested and worked on in order for something special to be crafted. For that matter, that dance doesn’t have to lead to a romance at all -- friendship and family also have the ties of loyalty and love (and like I’m talking to middle schoolers, I will point out that love does not equal sex).

I find it interesting that in our societal drive to remove the (very real) negative stigmas that are still (occasionally) attached to sex, we have made the act of sex both the ultimate expression of (almost any form) of love and, at the same time, made the act essentially meaningless. You have two people who work together everyday -- especially in high danger/stress situations -- and when they develop a bond, it automatically goes “well, sex is the only way to truly express that love”. And yet, it also goes the other way -- two people’s eyes met across the room they have this attraction and *bam* they have sex, because well, why not, it’s “just sex” after all, it doesn’t mean anything.

To me the bonds between people are more complicated and infinitely more interesting than ever can be contained in a sex scene. Relationships aren’t meant to be one-dimensional, it’s-all-about-sex pairings. More than that, defining them that way, limits the relationship. Even in the most Penthouse-fantasy-style relationship, you’re going to spend a very small portion of your life having sex. And no matter how hot and steamy the sex, it won’t make up for the times when one is outside shoveling snow in -10° and the other is in the warm house because they don’t care enough to help.

The romances in fiction that capture my heart are those that deal with all that messy real-life crap in all it’s messy real-life glory and still manage to carry a strong bond of friendship into the (possible) sex. Castle and Beckett. Booth and Bones. Peter and Elizabeth Burke. Shawn and Juliet. What makes those relationships great isn’t the fact that they are “doing it”, but rather that they obviously love and care for each other. The sex? Not required.
partly: (Stand)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Monsters.

I don’t like horror as a genre. I do watch a few shows that fall under "horror" -- Supernatural and The Walking Dead are the two most obvious -- but as I’m not a big fan of gore or shock horror usually falls flat for me. I also think that I look at “monsters” and their place/use in literature differently than most do.

Take, for example, the Walkers in The Walking Dead. I get that the concept of Walkers/zombies -- hordes of mindless, decaying corpses that methodically track you down to kill you -- is creepy, even horrifying. But once you really start thinking about it, it fails the “pragmatic” monster test. They are, after all, decaying corpses, it won’t take long until they are nothing more than rotting goo on the streets. And since cremation stops the dead from becoming Walkers, get some pyres going and make the world a safer place. Unless you toss in some sort of supernatural element and have the Undead not decay or have them heal themselves, they are a limited time threat. And if The Walking Dead would be just a zombie flick, I wouldn’t watch it.

The same is true with Supernatural. If all Supernatural did was toss creepy creatures and blood and gore at me, I wouldn’t watch it. Granted, Supernatural has an advantage in that it has a greater variety of monsters and can create and dispose of them before their obvious practical faults can distract me. Plus it’s, well, supernatural, meaning that it can magic wand and make everything work (at least for a bit). But even different flavors of monsters are still basically the same and wouldn’t hold my attention for very long.

See to me, people are always the most interesting monsters. There is so much more story dynamic and thematic potential that comes from using people as your monsters. I would say that the show I watch that has the most monsters on it is Criminal Minds. What makes them really terrifying is that they are just people and usually people that you could meet and know and like and never realize that they are monsters. More than that, they can also be people whom you can identify with, who you empathize with but who are still monsters.

For me, the point of a monster in fiction isn’t to be an outside force that prompts people to act, but rather the psychological and moral battles that take place within a person. In The Walking Dead it’s the fact that people may become monster before they die and become Walkers. In Supernatural it’s the battle of the hunters to stay human. The tragedy isn’t that someone gets infected or taken over and are monsters, it’s that little-by-little its possible (for all the right reasons) for someone to become monstrous.
partly: (Adorable)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: GQMF

TV is full of good-looking men. You don’t become a television star if the camera doesn’t love you, you know? There’s lots of sites dedicated to the beauty of the actors, and I’m human enough to enjoy them. The thing is, though, that no matter how good looking an actor is, I’m really all about the character. In fact, there are times when an actors good looks will actually make him harder for me to like.

Take “White Collar” for example. Clearly Matt Bomer is extremely good-looking. They dress him impeccably and top him off with a classy hat and then take beautiful, beautiful pictures of him. But I would never watch a show where it was just Neal Caffrey. As interesting as Caffrey is, he’s just not the type of character that will keep me watching, as I have issues with grifter characters who lie, manipulate and take advantage of other people. For that matter I never liked Bryce Larkin, either. For me good looks alone are never enough to keep me coming back and good looks aren't enough of a reason for me to want to redeem a character. In fact, characters who feel that their good-looks entitle them to special treatment tend to piss me off in the same way people do who believe that their wealth or status entitle them to special treatment.

Now Peter Burke -- there’s a character I can get behind. Yes, Tim DeKay is good-looking but not in the same way as Matt Bomer. And yes, that makes a difference to me. But more than looks, Peter is more interesting, more like people I know and people I would like to know. I would watch a show that focused on Peter Burke. That said, it's the combination of Neal and Peter that really makes the show, it's the interaction between Peter and Neal that is the real draw of the show.

It's not just White Collar, either. On Criminal Minds, Shemar Moore is arguably the best looking cast member, yet I have a hard time liking Derek Morgan and if I had to rely on Shemar's looks for me to like Derek, it wouldn't work. But Derek's interaction with Garcia saves the character for me.

This is probably why, as much as I like an actor, I'm rarely able to follow them from series to series. If I don't like the character, I'm not going to like the show. This is also why I don't enjoy slash or porn. Just because two characters are good-looking doesn't make them interesting enough for me to care about. The concept of "but they're so hot together" doesn't mean anything to me. Just because they're hot doesn't guarantee that they're not a complete waste of oxygen.
partly: (24)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Guns.

I know a little about guns. I grew up (and still live) in a small town in North-Central Wisconsin, where hunting and guns are a part of life. I’ve shot pistols and rifles, at both paper and live targets. I know how to clean any number of guns, even how to reload shells. I fully understand the power, the sound and the feel of them.

Now I know that most shows and movies tend to play fast and loose with the capabilities and effects of guns. Mostly for drama. A real .22 shot, even with a .22 rifle, barely sounds like a shot at all. Now something substantial, like a .270 or a .308 (both rifles), those are real noise makers, with substantial kickback that will leave a hell of a bruise or even knock you on your ass if you don’t properly support the gun. As for shotguns, they are filled with, well, shot, small- to medium-sized BBs that spread out from the barrel when fired. The shorter the barrel and the more buckshot in the cartridge the wider the spread and the more damage that can be caused. And, believe it or not, guns don't have unlimited ammo. All of this? Routinely ignored or tweaked by writers to make the everything more dramatic for an audience that usually doesn’t know the difference.

There are some shows that do a fine job with guns (most of the time, at least): Supernatural, Person of Interest, Bones, 24, Burn Notice... Shows that deal with people who know guns often have technical experts who keep guns fairly accurate. That’s always nice to see. For example in the latest episode of Supernatural Bobby says that he would be able to use his 30-30 (an actual hunting rifle), when we see him later he is carrying a bolt-action rifle -- consistent with a 30-30. This actually made me very happy.

Supernatural actually does it really well. The number of people on the show who know guns and know how to handle guns is very realistic. As is the fact that not everyone who knows guns turn out to be psycho’s waiting to kill innocents. They handle the guns well and with a keen eye to the safe handling of the guns. In Person of Interest, Reese pointed out the stupidity of holding a gun sideways and shooting it. 24 usually had the pistols lock back when out of ammo rather having the hammer hit an empty chamber. Burn Notice is especially awesome when it comes to guns -- Michael’s voice-overs often explain the real way guns work and how it’s different than the myths we believe. These shows have writers that usually write intelligent (or at least researched) interactions with guns.

My gun-geekiness aside, I don’t usually get upset if they have a prop or effect wrong. It’s television after all and if the general viewing public won’t believe the shot using the accurate props, well, I get why they would change it. It is just television after all.

It still surprises me, however, when writers get basic facts wrong about the people who own guns and about the laws that surround them. Two easily researcheditems. In the episode of Criminal Minds called “The Tribe”, Morgan states that a group of ~200 people have over 400 guns between them. This is said in a way to imply that this is an unheard of and (probably) nefarious number of guns. Ah... not it’s not. A gun is not a one-size-fits-all tool. Most of the people I know who own guns own several different guns. You wouldn’t take a .22 to hunt dear and you certainly wouldn’t shoot a rabbit with a .308. And a lot of people who own guns own pistols in addition to rifles. And shotguns, as I said before, are a different animal altogether. Quite honestly, if you would have a group of ~200 gun-owning people, I would expect there to be a hell of a lot more guns than 400.

And for that matter, where did Morgan get that information from? Because New Mexico (like Wisconsin and a lot of other states) doesn’t have a gun registry. There is no record of who owns guns or how many guns any person owns. Yes, there are background checks when you go to purchase a gun (and a waiting period for the purchasing of a handgun), but that’s it. And if I would receive a gun as a gift (which is acceptable), I don’t get a background check, just the person buying the gun gets the background check. And that’s only if it’s bought through a store. If I buy it out of the want ads or off a garage sale, there is no background check. And, yes, I can do that.

I know, I know. It’s TV. It’s not real. I get that. I just really enjoy it when the shows take the time to get it right.
partly: (IMNSHO)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: Deal With It.

Madeline Westen: “I’m not talking about closure. I’m talking about good old fashioned gutting it out. You know what families do, when people lie, betray each other? They suck it up and move on”

Dean Winchester: “That’s what family does -- the dirty work. . . . you can be pissed all you want, but quit being a bitch.”


I’ve never been able to hold a grudge, to me it’s like voluntarily tethering yourself to a particular place in time -- and a particularly unpleasant one at that. Things like “the silent treatment” is jsut so blatantly passive/aggressive and self-destructive. There’s no moving forward, no progress, no growth in letting vindictiveness consume you. It’s probably why I’m drawn to characters who work through their problems -- and by that I mean, they keep working even though they have problems.

It’s why I prefer action shows over drama. Action shows, by their nature, force people to move on, to keep moving forward. Drama, on the other hand, can spend endless hours lost in angst, moping around doing nothing but navel gazing. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need to take some time, to figure out what you feel and what happened, how to go on and what should and can be done. But then something should be done.

Be pissed. Be angry. Then suck it up and move on. Shows -- and characters -- that do that... they’re always my favorite.
partly: (Girl)
[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm has a prompt where you are supposed to claim 10 words and do something off of them. "Meta" was one of the choices, so I'm going with that. This post's prompt: HBIC

HBIC? I don't think so..."

Perhaps it’s the generation I come from -- that being the generation who is over 40 and actively remembers the years when casual sexism was so accepted that someone who didn’t participate in it was seen as abnormal -- but I don’t think that the word “bitch” will ever be co-opted into being a positive term. When the word is most often used, even by women, it is as a condemnation of petty and mean behavior, someone who is a capricious bully who belittles or insults others for personal satisfaction or a play for power.

The label of “Head Bitch in Charge” isn’t one that I would ever claim or use to describe any of the female characters that I love (and that includes the wonderful pic of Zoe in my icon). And quite honestly, I’m not sure that the phrase would ever be voluntarily used. I mean, I can’t see Kate Beckett, Theresa Lisbon or any of the myriad of strong, professional women on TV walking up to someone and introducing themselves as the HBIC. In fact, I would bet that any of the people who work for or with them would die before describing those women in that fashion.

Now if someone was was being an asshat and used the term “bitch” to describe them (or for that matter any woman in a position of authority) I could see any of those women reply that they were the HBIC -- because it’s a way of turning the insult into a power statement. You get to defuse the insult and point out that the asshat is an asshat by using his (or her) words against him (or her).

Think about it. When you hear the world “bitch” what is your first thought? Is it someone who is competent and strong and fair? Someone who is an inspiring and loved leader? No. More than likely it was an image of someone who could be on a show like “Real Housewives” or “Bridezilla”. I’m not ever going to voluntarily label myself or anyone I respect (fictional or not) as a “bitch”. Simply because there are so few (if any) positive connotations that pop to mind when a person hears the word.

There’s a desire to do a “Yankee Doodle” on insulting words -- to take them and claim them and thereby remove any power they may hold. But that only works if those words are never again used as an insult or in a derogatory manner. Or if when they are used that way, people point out that they shouldn’t be. Now the world “gay” may actually accomplish this. I’ve seen less and less usage of the word as a negative (as in “that’s gay”), and when it is used that way I see more and more people jumping in to put a stop to it.

I don’t ever see the word “bitch” doing this. Too many people who would use the word "bitch" as positive term will still turn around and use “bitch” to describe whiny, petty behavior. Plus the history of words (where is it actually defined as a negative) that working against it. There’s a possibility that “Bitch” with a capital “B” might be able to obtain some semblance of that -- what with “Bitch Media” and other feminist outlets using the word as a banner statement.

In the end, though, I would be insulted if anyone who knew me would describe me as a “bitch”, especially in casual conversation. A great deal of a word’s power comes from how the listener defines the word -- very little rests in how the speaker defines it. If the listener has to take a moment to discern whether or not there was an insult intended, the message is lost.
partly: (Auggie)
For [livejournal.com profile] tvrealm we had to "bling" up a picture, using blingee. So I present to you "Marshall Bling".

Marshall Bling
bling pictures



I really think I should have used the picture of Marshall with his green scarf....

Pimp Post

Sep. 7th, 2011 10:47 am
partly: (Cool)
This is the only landcomm that I'm on right now and it's great fun. I'm on Team Chiller (Crime and Thriller) and we did well last round. It's a very active Team, too, which is a first for me as I've never been part of a team that was really active.



[livejournal.com profile] tvrealm

A landcomm for all things TV. Four teams, unique challenges, and endless fun.
Season 2 starts September 5th. Join the madness.


Rules | Apply


If you're looking for something to prompt you to be a little creative and are looking for a new comm that will keep you entertained, come and check us out!
partly: (Cowboy)
For the landcom [livejournal.com profile] tvrealm we were asked to create a TV show of our own, provide a synopsis and cast the characters. Loving Westerns the way I do, I created a Western. While that isn't surprising, the fact that I cast women as three of the five major characters, should be. I'm really fond of the setup, so I thought I'd share my idea with you all!

Redemption Falls


The year is 1885 and in the Wyoming Territory the town of Redemption Falls is facing the difficult transition from an isolated outpost to booming railroad hub. The new influx of easterners bring with them money and business, but also laws and societal rules that war with the established life of the western town. It’s into that turmoil that Charlotte O’Shea returns. She’d left the town ten years before, sent back to her family home in Charleston to convalesce from Cholera and to mourn the death of her young daughter. She had been surviving on the last of her family’s money and reputation and just when both were running out, she receives word that her estranged husband has died, leaving behind a large ranch. With no other options, she takes the train to Redemption Falls, looking to quickly sell the Lazy O Ranch and to escape back to her home in Charleston.

But Redemption Falls holds more than painful and tragic memories, and Charlotte’s life is about to become as conflicted and turbulent as the town she is going to.

Characters )

Set Up )

Profile

partly: (Default)
partly

November 2012

S M T W T F S
    1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8910
11 1213 14 15 16 17
18 192021 222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 12:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios