Gene vs. Sam, and the ending of LOM
May. 4th, 2007 04:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hmpfI'm not posting this anywhere within the fandom - TRA or lifein1973 or even the dissident haven of jumping_off - because I feel I've made myself unpopular enough. I mean, I'm cool with not being universally liked, but I'd like to avoid being universally hated. *g*
But, I have to ask/wonder...
I just noticed that Gene has now overtaken Sam by quite a margin in the 'favourite character' poll at TRA. I also read several threads there by Gene fans, one in which people expressed surprise at themselves liking him so much, and one in which people expressed confusion over why liking him so much would be considered strange. (And I could swear that I read a statement in one of those threads to the effect of 'wouldn't it be great if we could all go back to those times and have men take care of us so we wouldn't have to do anything difficult ourselves anymore?', although it seems to be gone now.) I also remember the completely irrational panic, a few weeks before the ending, about "OMG, what if Gene dies?!?!!?!" - information, already available then, about Gene reappearing in Ashes To Ashes notwithstanding. (Incidentally, there never was a "OMG, what if Sam dies??!!?!?" panic, although logic would indicate that Sam would be a more likely candidate to die, given the entire setup of the show. To be honest, I think that even then, people didn't care about him as much as they did about Gene.) I've also noticed that the public reaction to Gene in the British press has been overwhelmingly positive - there's hardly a review of LOM that does not emphasise that he is the real draw of the show.
And, you know, I like Gene, too. He's *fun*. He even sneaked into one of my fics, although I didn't plan on having him in there and I certainly don't know how to write him. I don't get the sexual attraction, but then, that's always a very personal thing. So, yeah, Gene's important; Gene makes LOM fun.
However... I always thought the *real* focus and point of the show was Sam's 'journey', and that certainly was always *my* focus when watching it. And John Simm is an absolutely astounding actor who made me believe in, and empathise with Sam every second of that journey (except for the ending, but that wasn't his fault), so I sometimes get a bit miffed that people just seem to take him for granted yet praise Philip Glenister and Gene to high heaven. But, okay. The more flamboyant characters often get more attention, that's just how it is.
And this is not really what I meant to post about; forgive the somewhat disorganised nature of this post, I'm in a bit of a hurry and thus don't have the time to organise my thoughts as well as I usually would.
What I really meant to post about is this: I think that the overwhelming popularity of Gene goes some way to explain why so many people are so happy about the way LOM ended. Because with that ending, Sam gets to 'live' in a world that has Gene in it, and Gene is the most important thing about LOM, right? How could an ending without Gene be a happy one? The ending is in fact 'happy' on two counts: 1.) it has Gene in it, and 2.) it has Sam making a radical choice pro Gene and contra 2006 - a choice for the *only* thing that really matters, right? Isn't that the *best* imaginable outcome of the situation? ;-)
I think the writers themselves fell into that trap, too. This is why Sam returning to 2006 seemed so unbearably 'cold' to them that they couldn't bring themselves to keep him there.
But, I have to ask/wonder...
I just noticed that Gene has now overtaken Sam by quite a margin in the 'favourite character' poll at TRA. I also read several threads there by Gene fans, one in which people expressed surprise at themselves liking him so much, and one in which people expressed confusion over why liking him so much would be considered strange. (And I could swear that I read a statement in one of those threads to the effect of 'wouldn't it be great if we could all go back to those times and have men take care of us so we wouldn't have to do anything difficult ourselves anymore?', although it seems to be gone now.) I also remember the completely irrational panic, a few weeks before the ending, about "OMG, what if Gene dies?!?!!?!" - information, already available then, about Gene reappearing in Ashes To Ashes notwithstanding. (Incidentally, there never was a "OMG, what if Sam dies??!!?!?" panic, although logic would indicate that Sam would be a more likely candidate to die, given the entire setup of the show. To be honest, I think that even then, people didn't care about him as much as they did about Gene.) I've also noticed that the public reaction to Gene in the British press has been overwhelmingly positive - there's hardly a review of LOM that does not emphasise that he is the real draw of the show.
And, you know, I like Gene, too. He's *fun*. He even sneaked into one of my fics, although I didn't plan on having him in there and I certainly don't know how to write him. I don't get the sexual attraction, but then, that's always a very personal thing. So, yeah, Gene's important; Gene makes LOM fun.
However... I always thought the *real* focus and point of the show was Sam's 'journey', and that certainly was always *my* focus when watching it. And John Simm is an absolutely astounding actor who made me believe in, and empathise with Sam every second of that journey (except for the ending, but that wasn't his fault), so I sometimes get a bit miffed that people just seem to take him for granted yet praise Philip Glenister and Gene to high heaven. But, okay. The more flamboyant characters often get more attention, that's just how it is.
And this is not really what I meant to post about; forgive the somewhat disorganised nature of this post, I'm in a bit of a hurry and thus don't have the time to organise my thoughts as well as I usually would.
What I really meant to post about is this: I think that the overwhelming popularity of Gene goes some way to explain why so many people are so happy about the way LOM ended. Because with that ending, Sam gets to 'live' in a world that has Gene in it, and Gene is the most important thing about LOM, right? How could an ending without Gene be a happy one? The ending is in fact 'happy' on two counts: 1.) it has Gene in it, and 2.) it has Sam making a radical choice pro Gene and contra 2006 - a choice for the *only* thing that really matters, right? Isn't that the *best* imaginable outcome of the situation? ;-)
I think the writers themselves fell into that trap, too. This is why Sam returning to 2006 seemed so unbearably 'cold' to them that they couldn't bring themselves to keep him there.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-04 05:00 pm (UTC)All things considered, it makes sense that people focus on Gene instead of Sam in series 2. Gene's more consistant (Personally, I thought he'd turned too much into a caricature, but I still liked him).
I admire you for still loving the show so much. I love series 1, but if I had a choice, I would have preferred if the series had ended at the end of series 1. Series 2 felt like a completely different show to me. A show that I wouldn't have fallen in love with, actually. It's not bad, but it's just not great, y'know? Just my humble opinion. And that's why I avoid TRA and other comms because I don't wanna be the one who ruins the parade.
It's funny, but all this reminds me of series 2 of The Lakes. In comparion with series 1 it sucks, but at least it's fun to watch because you can't take it seriously any more. If you know what I mean...
Love, fannish love, ...
Date: 2007-05-04 05:08 pm (UTC)That's just how my fannishness works. It's not even a conscious choice or anything.
Character consistency
Date: 2007-05-04 05:14 pm (UTC)And I find it a bit sad that you're leaving the field to the happy people... why should that be the only voices that deserve to be heard in the fandom?
Then again, if you really don't care much anymore, there really isn't much need to discuss anything, I suppose.
One more thing...
Date: 2007-05-04 05:17 pm (UTC)I don't get the impression that character consistency has anything to do with people preferring Gene to Sam. It's mostly about the fun (and the sex appeal, apparently), as it has been from day one.
(And I actually happen to think it was *Gene* who was portrayed a bit inconsistently in series two - he really wavered a lot between being totally horrible and being almost civilised...)