Can you hear them singing?

It's no secret- or surprise- to anyone that Saturday night's episode of Doctor Who had me crying. And no, it wasn't just because of Eleven's speech at the end. Don't get me wrong. His speech- and, to a lesser extent, Clara's- were heart-wrenching. But that's not it.

It's because after two and a half seasons that kept the fans waiting, Doctor Who is finally back. With Neil Cross writing and Farren Blackburn directing, not only did Matt Smith finally achieve his potential as The Doctor, the show also returned to its core. Going to an alien world. Exploring. Running into trouble. Saving the day and learning a lesson. If you go back to the episode and pay attention to the credits, you'll notice that Steven Moffat did not write this episode. Yes, he still runs the show (which is the reason why the episode wasn't perfect, see below), but without his words or vision running the episode, the show and The Doctor were finally able to be who they are. 

Don't get me wrong. Steven Moffat has some chops. I have nothing but respect for what he does. He wrote The Pandorica Opens, A Christmas Carol, and The Doctor, The Widow, and The Wardrobe. What made this latest episode hit so hard- at least partly- was a combination of elements from these three episodes: respectively, the ferocity of The Doctor as he calls out to beings who want to destroy everything he wants to protect; the sociological and poignant aspect of a people coming together and singing for their lives; the emotion that leads The Doctor to cry, that shows us how, sometimes, despite his two beating hearts, he is just so very human.

This is what made David Tennant so all-powerful, so moving, as The Doctor. The combination of his strength and weakness was written superbly by Russell T. Davies and his writing crew, and was portrayed without fault by Tennant. I have no doubt that Moffat has a grasp on The Doctor's characteristics, but unlike Davies, he doesn't know how to put them together to make the man. In one episode, Neil Cross succeeded where Moffat failed- for over two seasons- by writing a complete character for Matt Smith to play.

There are still issues. As a friend of mine says, the show has gotten too big for its britches. I believe that this critique should be directed at Steven Moffat, as he is the one who turned Doctor Who into somewhat of a joke. From the time he took over after the last special of the 4th series, there's always been some mystery, always a twist, that leaves the audience with a plot so convoluted it a) leaves out important character development, and b) tends to make the writers forget about smaller continuity details (aka plot holes), which has the fans (aka me) ecstatically pointing them out on the internet and longing for the days of Davies.

I believe that this is what will happen with Clara Oswin Oswald. Moffat clearly has a plan for this character's storyline, but I predict that important aspects like character development and continuity will be left by the wayside. That's why, as much as I loved The Rings of Akhaten, the parts of the episode that dealt with the mystery of Clara didn't hold any interest for me. What held interest for me was the child who needed help, The Doctor's philosophy on saving people and the development we finally saw in his speech and his sacrifice, and the companion who took part in the action and helped save the day.

"Did you know- in nine hundred years of time and space I've never met anyone who wasn't important before." The entire point of Doctor Who, for me, is that every human being is special, and you don't need to be surrounded by mystery to be special enough for The Doctor. Here's to hoping Steven Moffat will one day internalize that and continue to bring the show back to what it was. (If you scroll down a bit and look to the right, you'll see a picture of me in which I am not holding my breath.)

Why You Should Watch: Beauty and the Beast

Okay, so it's got mistakes. All first seasons do. In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a freshman run that doesn't have flaws (other than Firefly, and good luck to you if you ever set out to beat that). But it's solid. It's good, and it has a chance to become great. 

Flaws: The show seems to think that it's in its second or third season. There are too many complicated character and plot arcs going on. A freshman run should have one, maybe two, season-long arcs. For example, the first seasons of Buffy and Supernatural do really well by having a bunch of stand-alone episodes and ensuring that their arcs- respectively, killing the Master, and finding John Winchester and Azazel- don't take over the show. Multiple complex arcs in a first season can overshadow the subtle character development that needs to take place, which is, to an extent, what's happening in Beauty and the Beast so far. 

Another flaw is how quickly the writers have gotten their belle and her beast to fall in love and be together. It took Buffy 22 episodes (a season and a half) to have sex with Angel. The Doctor and Rose only kissed four seasons into the Doctor Who reboot. It took Booth and Brennan six seasons to come together on Bones. Writers, you have to keep the romance suspenseful and in danger. Your audience doesn't want to be bored. 

With all that, I am still saying that you should watch this show. Yes, their characters were brought together too soon, but regardless, Kristin Kreuk and Jay Ryan have a wonderfully alluring chemistry together. J.T., played by Austin Basis, is hilariously witty (and loyal), and Evan Marks, played by Max Brown, the token British actor every American show needs, only adds to the cast as the mysterious medical examiner.

Plot-wise, the Meerfield arc is intriguing and keeps me hooked- I'm still wondering about the first scene of the show, and what exactly happened to Cat's mother.  I'm dying to know the extent of Vincent's mutation and what the military did to him. In addition to all this, each episode also has a crime of the week- ranging from mildly interesting to OMG WHODUNIT- to keep the momentum going. 

Character-wise, Vincent is tortured enough for me to empathize and want better for him, but he doesn't brood to the point where you want to shake him (cough as-much-as-I-love-you Angel* cough). Cat is steely and strong, a character any writer would be proud of. She's not the type to fall simpering to the ground when the going gets tough (cough especially-this-season Elena** cough). There are a couple of characters I don't like, but the only show I've ever watched that has a flawless character list is, again, Firefly. 

Beauty and the Beast has a lot of potential for character depth that an audience can just sink into, and well-paced plot that they can enjoyably keep up with. So go watch. And if none of that swayed any of you to watch the show...well, this show is on the CW. These actors are HOT. 

(Yep, there it is. The sound of my audience scrambling to download all the episodes of Beauty and the Beast that have aired so far.)

*Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel

**The Vampire Diaries

#MishaCollins

There is a rule on Tumblr: do not tag your hate. If you're going to spew about how much you hate a character, actor, writer, or show, you're not allowed to tag their names in your post. It is in bad taste to do so, and users will send you messages telling you to take the tags down. 

I understand hating a character. For the sake of this article, and ONLY for the sake of this article, I will say that I cannot stand River Song from Doctor Who, I hate April in Grey's Anatomy, and the best plot line I could think of for Bonnie in The Vampire Diaries is a slow, painful death. So I understand the need to hate on a character, to actively vent about how much you can't live one more day with them on your television screen. 

HOWEVER. It is rude to do so on a public forum. It is rude to take an artist's work and tell the world that you think it's horrible, for no good reason other than to spread hate. It's even more inconsiderate when, on Tumblr, you're using a tag that people use to show their love and appreciation for said artist's work. (Side note: criticism is understood- appreciated, even, by good writers- and allowed to be tagged.)

Now, on to my main point. I understand the need to hate on a character. What I don't understand is this: hating on a writer, a showrunner, an actor, a producer, etc. In the fall, Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Sherlock) deleted his Twitter account. According to speculation, it was because of all the hate he was getting from Whovians (fans of Doctor Who) who don't like or appreciate his way of running the show. I, myself, do not like the way he runs Doctor Who, but I do not send hate or threats simply because I don't agree with him.

And now, there's this: 

THIS. IS. NOT. A. THING.

Promoting and spreading hate is a horrible thing to do. Bullying is bullying is bullying. Hate is hate is UNACCEPTABLE. Putting his acting chops aside for the moment, the man himself is incredible. He has a way with his fans that few actors have, relating to them in ways most Hollywood veterans don't even understand. In 2009, he founded Random Acts- "working with volunteers, Random Acts encourages people of all ages to perform their own acts of kindness wherever, and whenever, possible." In 2010, he rallied his fans to raise over $30,000 for UNICEF. He also holds the Guinness World Record for putting together the world's largest scavenger hunt (GISHWHES- Greatest International Scavenger Hunt the World Has Ever Seen).

I honestly don't care how much a fan dislikes Castiel on Supernatural. I love the character (although I don't always love the direction the writers take him in) and I'm very happy that he will be a regular in Season 9. What bothers me is not dislike of a character, but the terrible things a person will say about an actor as a result. 

To counter the hate, I urge you to go to TheRandomAct.org on March 30th (this Saturday) and either: donate money for funding, learn about AMOK so you can get involved next year, or put together and submit a proposal for an act. Good luck and spread the love.

"You Are My Sunshine, My Only Sunshine"

For the past twenty-four hours, I've been sharing this picture of Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof (oh hey, Tom Lenk) on every social media platform I'm a part of:

It's on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and even my own personal social network profiles- and I've seen it on plenty of others as well. Many fans who have only clued in to Joss Whedon's brilliance throughout the past year or so, with Avengers, have no idea why this picture holds so much significance to us Whedonites, and more specifically, Angel fans. 

I fell in love with Winifred Burkle the moment she graced my screen in the first of the Pylea episodes in Season 2. The same can't be said of Wesley Wyndham-Pryce's entrance in the third season of Buffy, although it can definitely be said of Alexis Denisof (who, in my opinion, ended up playing the most complex character in the Whedonverse). It took two and a half years for Fred and Wesley to finally become a couple, although in the hearts and minds of many Angel fans, they already were from the moment they met. 

When Fred died and Illyria took her body, I was overcome with disbelief. Not complete disbelief. After all, this was Whedon- Tara, Cordelia, Joyce, Anya, and even Buffy herself (although with a resurrection after) had been killed. These were all characters we loved and cherished. So I wasn't completely surprised. But I- along with other fans- was hurting. Fred and Wesley had finally gotten to the place we'd all been rooting for them to get to, and she was torn away at the first sign of their happiness.

So it's understandable- the excitement that has overtaken me, along with the rest of the Internet. Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof playing Beatrice and Benedick in Joss Whedon's production of Much Ado About Nothing? Finally! Aside from Acker and Denisof's undeniable chemistry, which I can't wait to see again, Fred and Wesley get to "be together." We've been waiting for this for what seems like eternity. 

But I'm just scratching at the surface here. We, as an audience, were introduced to heartbreak and star-crossed love very early on in the Whedonverse. Buffy and Angel, Willow and Oz, Tara and Willow, Buffy and Spike, Cordelia and Doyle, Angel and Cordelia. Why were Fred and Wesley so important? Why did their story hit us so hard? Why the excitement and the passion, almost eight years later?

Because they weren't star-crossed. There was nothing magical or fantastical separating them- no vampire immortality keeping them from living a life together, no memory spells being used on each other, no lycanthropic violence tearing them apart, no Powers That Be Bitches raising one of them to a different plane of existence. Just...another boy. Charles Gunn, who made his move before Wesley could. 

Wesley and Fred's separation was the romantic equivalent of Joyce's death on Buffy- completely natural, in a world that was anything but. For two and a half years, we rooted for a couple that was separated only by human apprehension and mistakes. We wanted to see them together so badly- because, despite Joss's penchant for not just breaking but destroying our hearts, he made us believe in love in a way that no writer has, before or since.

So I, for one, can't wait until June 7th. Not just because of the movie itself and the excitement that's surrounding Joss's interpretation of Shakespeare, but because the couple who stole our hearts will finally return them to us, safe and intact again. 

So here's to you, Joss, Amy, and Alexis, for making our dreams come true. 

Soul

I don't normally like to talk about television completely subjectively. Mostly because it opens a lot of room for people to argue with me, and I don't have patience for that (when obviously I am right, duh). But I will now. And I'll preface it by saying that I've read pieces on this topic before, but I'm still writing this as a 100% opinion piece (not that the SupernaturalShake is the most sophisticated piece of evidence a person could use to back up an argument).

TV shows that are based on the supernatural will always bring more depth than realistic dramas. It's my experience that this is true, and if you ask any of my friends, I watch a hell of a lot of TV, so I know what I'm talking about (wow, this blog post is coming out sounding SO arrogant).

A lot of people scoff at the fantasy or sci-fi genres, especially when you bring up show titles like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, (as much as I wouldn't have it any other way- seriously Joss, you could've done better with that, really). Fantasy or sci-fi are not mature enough, they say. It's all about the monsters and gore, they say. 

They're kinda wrong. Very wrong, in my opinion. I will never know as much about Tami Taylor as I do about Buffy Anne Summers. (That's a great place to start, actually. Does Tami Taylor have a middle name, even?) Seeley Booth's PTSD-y past will never reach the level of detail and knowledge fans have of Spike's scarred and tortured depths (or Angel's*, for that matter). These realistic characters will never be pushed to their limit the way the supernatural ones are. As stand-alone shows, Friday Night Lights and Bones are damn good at developing their characters (FNL more than Bones), but when they're compared to Buffy, Angel, and Supernatural, their characters just seem...shallow. 

Don't get me wrong. I love these shows. They, and other true-to-life shows, are so incredibly well-written that I hesitated to even write this post. Let me stress that I am not putting them down in any way. But genre shows have always left me, as a viewer, with more of a sense of their characters than other shows. You know exactly how far these people will go and how far they have gone, and you will never doubt their consistency (unless Steven Moffat suddenly takes over the show).

I simply think we don't know even a fraction of who characters on a true-to-life show really are. I can know how Tami and Eric Taylor would react to Julie playing hooky, but I'll never know them to the depths of their soul the way I know Dean Winchester. Hell, I don't think we know who we are- human beings are capable of so much more than we know. And the only television shows or literature that prove this to us are of the supernatural persuasion.

"Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be- to show it what it can be." How often is something like this said by a character in a regular drama? How often do regular television characters inspire you to be better, do better, save the world or even just your little corner of it? (I'm genuinely curious about that. If someone like Meredith Grey or Juliette Barnes has ever inspired you to save the world, drop a comment and let me know.) Who knows? Maybe I'm just a world-class geek who grew up on Power Rangers, The Chronicles of Narnia, Charmed, and Harry Potter.

Oh, and P.S.- I wouldn't have it any other way. (In fact, if I had a TARDIS I'd probably go back in time and give 12-year-old me my DVD's and files of Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, Firefly, Doctor Who, Supernatural...oh, you get the point).

*Seeley and Angel are both played by the same actor, David Boreanaz

Dust

There are people in Hollywood who suck. They don't appreciate their audience, they don't care about their audience. After their fans help them get to where they want to be in their career, these people turn their backs on their audience and betray them. 

Like Dan Stevens, for example, who I adore, but who left his fans high and dry with his exit from Downton Abbey after the third series* without an explanation. He's a wonderful actor and he did his character justice, but not his fans.

Then there's Sarah Michelle Gellar, who everyone knows is my favorite actress. But when she had a chance to guest star on the one hundredth episode of Angel, she turned it down. Her schedule was too "busy." Seriously, woman? Your schedule wouldn't have been busy if it hadn't been for Joss Whedon's genius and his genius (if I do say so myself) fans.

And then there are people like Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams. There's also the cast of Firefly. There's Jensen Ackles, Jared Padalecki, and Misha Collins (known to their fandom as J2M, I kid you not).

I certainly respect actors, producers, and directors like Sarah Michelle Gellar and Dan Stevens. They're great at what they do, and I have so much admiration for their skill in their chosen art (let's face it, I'm a little bit obsessed with them). 

But the people who will get my loyalty and love as a fan? Joss Whedon gets my loyalty for his smart writing, which shows that he knows his fans are intelligent people who don't need their shows dumbed down. He, and the cast, get my respect for hearing the call of their fans and coming back together to film Serenity, the movie that takes place after the events of Firefly. (I could go on and on about Joss, but for your sake, I won't.)

The people who do this : Supernatural Shake (Jared Padalecki, and the cast and crew of Supernatural), and the person who does this: Eye of the Tiger (Jensen Ackles), are the people who get my loyalty. My devotion goes to Misha Collins and Jensen Ackles, who are aware of, and play into, their fanbases's love for Dean and Castiel's relationship on Supernatural. They see it and they utilize it as inspiration and motivation, instead of ignoring their audience and leaving them in the dust.

J.J. Abrams and the rest of the writers for LOST get my respect because they worked out a plan for their show and stuck to it- six years, end of story. They could have capitalized on great ratings to make more money by airing more seasons, as I'm sure the network would have loved for them to do, but they didn't. They respected the story, the actors, and the fans, and ended it.

You don't have to buy each of your fans a piece of pie and tell us over coffee how much you appreciate us as we gush to you about how Buffy changed our life. You just need to know that we're here and show us that you know. 

I mean, without us, your work would be sitting on the shelf, collecting the above-mentioned dust, wouldn't it?

*In Britain, seasons are called series.