![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pondering casting/writing decisions
Apr. 16th, 2009 01:00 pmOkay, as you may have figured out from my last few posts, I have an inappropriate love for Kings. Which is the Saul-David story retold in the current day. Which they built in so much background and detail and depth and thought that I may have expired a few times from sheer joy. You think BSG had backstory, design and production detail and depth? BSG was SHALLOW, LAZY AND ILL THOUGHT-OUT.
I have no problem with *any* of the casting and writing choices for the characters. none whatsoever. I fangirl. However, I am curious about their writing and casting choices for Jack/Jonathan. Everyone's been given about 300% more depth and so on than what we get in the legends as written down in the King James. I love Jack/Jonathan as the spoilt, overlooked, constantly beaten down by daddy who is desperate for approval and acts out, with added supreme jealousy for new golden boy David. it adds loads to the story, but I am wondering why they did so much of a 180 on his character (everyone else who had more than 2 lines in the legends is their legend character, only with depth). I'm sure I remember Jonathan as favoured son, dutiful *good* soldier and general and supporter of the cause, who when he meets David, falls head over heels and gradually cedes leadership to him because David is golden boy and more charismatic/capable. (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
daegaer, feel free to correct me) So, y'know, curious to why they changed him so much. Were there any interviews with the writers about it? Oh, and has anyone noticed whether he's got any canon feelings for David beyond 'STABBY'?* (no problems slashing them on that level or seeing if in later eps Jack tries to seduce David to get control over him in some way)
*I still can't believe some afterelton reviewers were going 'but whyyyyyyy does the gay character have to be the mean one?' :eyeroll: It's called 'depth'. That thing you're always asking for? Jack is a complex character, where his personality comes first and him being gay is only one bit of the issue. Get over it.
I have no problem with *any* of the casting and writing choices for the characters. none whatsoever. I fangirl. However, I am curious about their writing and casting choices for Jack/Jonathan. Everyone's been given about 300% more depth and so on than what we get in the legends as written down in the King James. I love Jack/Jonathan as the spoilt, overlooked, constantly beaten down by daddy who is desperate for approval and acts out, with added supreme jealousy for new golden boy David. it adds loads to the story, but I am wondering why they did so much of a 180 on his character (everyone else who had more than 2 lines in the legends is their legend character, only with depth). I'm sure I remember Jonathan as favoured son, dutiful *good* soldier and general and supporter of the cause, who when he meets David, falls head over heels and gradually cedes leadership to him because David is golden boy and more charismatic/capable. (
daegaer, feel free to correct me) So, y'know, curious to why they changed him so much. Were there any interviews with the writers about it? Oh, and has anyone noticed whether he's got any canon feelings for David beyond 'STABBY'?* (no problems slashing them on that level or seeing if in later eps Jack tries to seduce David to get control over him in some way)*I still can't believe some afterelton reviewers were going 'but whyyyyyyy does the gay character have to be the mean one?' :eyeroll: It's called 'depth'. That thing you're always asking for? Jack is a complex character, where his personality comes first and him being gay is only one bit of the issue. Get over it.
