#den of geek interview

[carpe-mamilia]

Ghosts’ Larry Rickard Explains Why They Chose the Captain’s First Name

Photo: Monumental,Guido Mandozzi

It couldn’t be a joke. That was one rule laid down by the Ghosts creators when it came to choosing a first name for Willbond’s character. Until series five, the WWII ghost had been known only as The Captain – a mystery seized upon by fans of the show.

“It was the question we got asked more than anything. His name,” actor and writer Larry Rickard tells Den of Geek. “Once we got to series three, you could see that we were deliberately cutting away and deliberately avoiding it. We were fuelling the fire because we knew at some point we’d tell them.”

In “Carpe Diem”, the episode written by Rickard and Ben Willbond that finally reveals The Captain’s death story, they did tell us. After years of guessing, clue-spotting and debate, Ghosts revealed that The Captain’s first name is James. At the same time, we also learned that James’ colleague Lieutenant Havers’ first name was Anthony.

The ordinariness of those two names, says Rickard, is the point.

“The only thing we were really clear about is that we didn’t want one of those names that only exists in tellyland. It shouldn’t be ‘Cormoran’ or ‘Endeavour’. They should just be some men’s names and they’re important to them. The point was that they were everyday.”

Choosing first names for The Captain and Havers was a long process not unlike naming a baby, Rickard agrees. “It almost comes down to looking at the faces of the characters and saying, what’s right?”

“We talked for ages. For a long time I kept thinking ‘Duncan and James’, and then I was like ah no! That would have turned it into a gag and been awful!” Inescapably in the minds of a certain generation, Duncan James is a member of noughties boyband Blue. “Maybe with Anthony I was thinking of Anthony Costa!” Rickard says in mock horror, referencing another member of the band.

Lieutenant Havers wasn’t just The Captain’s second in command while stationed at Button House; he was also the man James loved. Because homosexuality was criminalised in England during James’ lifetime, he was forced to hide his feelings for Anthony from society, and to some extent even from himself.

In “Carpe Diem”, the ghosts (mistakenly) prepare for the last day of their afterlives, prompting The Captain to finally tell his story. Though not explicit about his sexual identity, the others understand and accept what he tells them – and led by Lady Button, all agree that he’s a brave man.

Getting the balance right of what The Captain does and doesn’t say was key to the episode. “It wasn’t just a personal choice of his to go ‘I’m going to remain in the closet’,” explains Rickard. “There wasn’t an option there to explore the things that either of them felt. That couldn’t be done back then – there are so many stories which have come out since the War about the dangers of doing that.

“We wanted to tell his personal story but also try to ensure that there was a level at which you understood why they couldn’t be open, that even in this moment where he’s finally telling the other ghosts his story, he never comes out and says it overtly because that would be too much for him as a character from that time.

“He says enough for them to know, and enough for him to feel unburdened but it’s in the fact that they’re using their first names which militarily they would never have done, and in the literal passing of the baton”.

The baton is a bonus reveal when fans learned that The Captain’s military stick wasn’t a memento of his career, but of Havers. As James suffers a fatal heart attack during a VE day celebration at Button House, Anthony rushes to his side and the stick passes from one to the other as they share a moment of tragic understanding.

“From really early on, we had the idea that anything you’re holding [when you die] stays with you. So it wasn’t just your clothes you were wearing, we had the stuff with Thomas’ letter reappearing in his pocket and so on. And the assumption being that it was something The Captain couldn’t put down, it felt so nice to be able to say it was something he didn’t want to put down.”

Rickard lists “Carpe Diem”, co-written with Ben Willbond, among his series five highlights. He’s pleased with the end result, praises Willbond’s performance, and loved being on set to see Button House dressed for the 1940s. He’s particularly pleased that a checklist of moments they wanted to land with the audience all managed to be included. “Normally something’s fallen by the wayside just because of the way TV’s made, it’s always imperfect or it’s slightly rushed, but it feels like it’s all there.”

Rickard and Willbond also knew by this point in the show’s lifetime, that they could trust Ghosts fans to pick up on small details. “Nothing is missed,” he says. “Early on, you’re always thinking, is that going to get across? But once we got to series five, there are little tiny things within corners of shots and you know that’s going to be spotted. Particularly in that very short exchange between Havers and the Captain. We worried less about the minutiae of it because you go, that’s going to be rewound and rewatched, nothing will be missed.”

The team were also grateful they’d resisted the temptation to tell The Captain’s story sooner. “We’d talked about it every series since series two, whether or not now was the time, but because he’s such a hard and starchy character in a lot of ways you needed the time to understand his softer side I think before you had that final honest beat from him.”

“What a ridiculously normal name to have so much weight put on it for five years,” laughs Rickard fondly. “Good old James.”

From Den of Geek

[ewanmitchellclub]

“Although Aemond is the second son, he very much thinks that he should have been the first,” Mitchell says. “Aegon squandered his inheritance while Aemond lived with the maesters, trained with Ser Criston Cole, and became the baddest man in the Red Keep yard.”

Ewan Mitchell for Den Of Geek

[harveyguillensource]

In an interview with Den of Geek, Harvey talks about the prosthetics work used to realize Guillermo's transformation-in-progress on WWDITS season 5:

[invisibleicewands]

[munsongirly]

New interview with Joseph Quinn, Lupita Nyong'o and Michael Sarnoski about 'a quiet place: day one' for DEN OF GEEK. ✍️: DEN OF GEEK.

[jocia92]

Photo: Nick Morgulis

You’ve had this incredibly interesting, varied career so far, but when researching, one of the first things that comes up is the interview on Good Morning Britain with Susanna Reid when she asks you how many actors you had to beat off to get the role in The Guest…

That has probably been seen more than all of the rest of my body of work combined and will probably outlive everything I’ve ever done. That’s kind of great. It was very early one morning after getting off a red-eye flight, and Susanna Reid had been given very odd questions. I love moments like that. They’re unexpected. That was a good nine or 10 years ago, and because of the nature of the internet, it pops up on these viral meme sites every few weeks, and someone will send it to me as if it just happened that week. There’ll be a crew member who doesn’t know who I am from Adam and hasn’t seen any of my work. But they did see that clip on Good Morning Britain and thought it was hilarious. It was just pure reaction and pure very tired Dan on live television.

It was very funny.

The real answer I should have given was 17. But you know, I wasn’t thinking that fast. 

[nalyra-dreaming]

Yes please

(older article but it contained the music title I was looking for 😈)

x

[i-want-my-iwtv]

That you for being supportive of people criticizing the new show! All is see when I go into the tags is what feels like toxic positivity while Lestat's "it wasn't that bad, Louis was making shit up" narrative that show is adapting is literally typical abuser rhetoric, and as an abuse victim this whole "Louis is a liar and Lestat wasn't that bad" narrative makes me really uncomfortable and angry and I hate that with this show it will probably only become more prevalent in the fandom, as I'm already starting to see it.

[Tha[nk] you for being supportive of people criticizing the new show!] 

You're welcome, Anon! *hugs* 💗 (I assume you meant “thank” 😅) 

This response got very lengthy, my apologies, I can’t edit it down further. Also, I’m using brackets for your message clips, and italics for things I’m quoting later on, I wanted them both indented.

[All is see when I go into the tags is what feels like toxic positivity...  and I hate that with this show it will probably only become more prevalent in the fandom, as I'm already starting to see it.]

Yes, I’m seeing it pushed harder in both directions, as more pics, clips, articles, and trailers come out, the side that is super excited about it is going to intensify, and the side that wants to criticize it is going to do that, too, as they get more material to evaluate. There’s tons of criticism about fandom and canon, that’s the way some ppl happily engage, especially if they’re writers/artists themselves, by trying to unpack what the showrunners/writer’s goals are and how they seem to be achieving those goals (or not). 

If you need to take a break from fandom, you might want to do it. You can also block my #iwtv amc tag, bc I’m still going to be posting about it, but this way you can block seeing content about it from my blog, at least. I am sorry, though. I don’t think there’s any chance of ppl agreeing to use one unified tag so that others can blacklist it if they need to. I’m trying to navigate how much I want to engage, myself. Fandom is supposed to be a happy place, an escape from reality, not a battleground... but this is a historic moment in the fandom, so I’m documenting with as much capacity as I am able, and advocating for people to express themselves.

TL;DR: All this to say, I can understand where you’re coming from, that the changes to the story seem to disrespect the actual suffering Louis reported as a victim of abuse. Perhaps they’ll take that part out. It seems like they’d prefer to mold Louis into a better companion for this revised, softened Lestat. 

(Anon, I’m going to need to keep going with this response a bit more, I hope that’s alright with you. You can skip this from here if you’d prefer.)

The fandom seems to be on the brink of war over this show and some ppl have said that I have also spread “toxic positivity” myself, not about the show, but by running the fandom gift exchange last year, when the fighting was at a fever pitch, and my few statements basically saying: “Let’s try to be kind to each other.” I have friends on both sides, which makes things difficult, and I’ve chosen not to engage in those discussions. Maybe there are issues in the fandom, but no one has any obligation to enter a discussion with strangers on the internet. This is the case even if one of your friends has chosen to fight about it, but I have on rare occasions stepped in when it was needed to stop a fight from escalating. A person can ask for peace even when their friends, with their own agency, choose to engage in public discussion and even fights.

But because of those fights, I’ve stopped asking for peace. I’m instead trying to state the obvious that there’s enough room in fandom to criticize the show (as we would ANYTHING else), and be hopelessly in love with it, and everything in between. 

Hit the jump for more, cut for length.

---

I think some of the friction we’re having currently is that the new series uses all the familiar canon tags, and I’m seeing a growing trend that at least some of the fans who are excited about it want it to subsume previous adaptations and canon. Rolin Jones re: essentially hopeful that this will in fact replace the (much beloved) 1994 film: (Den of Geek, July 22, 2022)

What are you most excited about for this adaptation?

Most people have this image of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. In this, the emotional stakes are super high. It’s Love with a capital L and Hate with a capital H, Remorse and Regret, and mostly reverence and respect. I gotta say, I’m really mostly excited for everybody to see Sam and Jake. You will not be thinking about Tom and Brad, ever again. Of that, I am supremely confident. It’s a very big, grand show. AMC is taking all the right risks on this thing. They are putting something very aggressive out there. They put more money into this than they thought they would, and I don’t think that they’re upset about it. There’s a big, big thing coming.

So this reads like he definitely wants the AMC show to replace the ‘94 movie. Again, I think some fans are thrilled about that. RJ has big shoes to fill, and he knows the comparisons are already being made, so as a showrunner I think he’s probably obligated to address it and show confidence that his adaptation will overcome the previous ones, but it does come across as smug, to my mind. 

[while Lestat's "it wasn't that bad, Louis was making shit up" narrative that show is adapting is literally typical abuser rhetoric,]

I think you make a very good point here. More on that in a bit. 

[and as an abuse victim this whole "Louis is a liar and Lestat wasn't that bad" narrative makes me really uncomfortable and angry and I hate that with this show it will probably only become more prevalent in the fandom, as I'm already starting to see it.]

I’m sorry you’re an abuse victim, and I can’t begin to understand how belittling it must feel be to see, essentially, an abusive character softened/defanged, “washed of his sins,” and therefore make the victim look like a liar. Jacob!Louis certainly looks terrified of Sam!Lestat in some of the promo stills, but is he afraid of Lestat as a vampire, as an abusive person, or is he frightened of being in love with Lestat despite those things? Or, and I hesitate to even call it out, is it none of those, but instead, “gay panic,” because this is the first male person that Jacob!Louis is attracted to romantically? “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have laid down with the devil” maybe he means it metaphorically? 😬 That’s another topic for discussion when we see the show. I hope they handle that respectfully. 

Rolin Jones seems to have made this Louis a more confident person, he’s not wallowing in depression when Lestat meets him. I think they’re taking out the abuse entirely, and skipping to the shipping.

Will the new adaptation be able to explore the fluid sexuality of the books? 

It’s aggressive subtext in the first book, but by the time you read books eight and nine, it was the love affair of the century. Without spoiling too much, subtext becomes text in our show.

Why is Louis’ situation changed from the book?

...I’ll say this, we’ve given Louis a little bit more of a spine.

Rolin Jones re: inserting later canon Lestat back into IWTV:

How does the contemporary setting affect the timeline?

One of the things AMC asked when they tasked me with the gig was: here and now, how does it change?... The timeline is not going to be wildly different. Lestat was born exactly when he was born. He might meet Louis a little bit later than in the books. We’d go into a big hole if we were to write the Lestat from book one because book two and onward is the “Brat Prince.” We wanted to quickly establish the Lestat that she settled on and put him back into the first book.

Canon Lestat of IWTV has only been a vampire for 10 years in 1791, and he’s been abandoned by his only 2 fledglings, one of which was his mortal lover Nicki, and the other was his own mortal mother. He’s barely 30 years old in mortal years. He’s already gone to ground to deal with these losses, and not much time passes before Marius scoops him up, makes him feel like he might finally fit in somewhere, and then Lestat’s fiasco with waking Akasha gets him kicked out of Marius’ life. AND he has his mortal father to take care of. 

But in AMC’s timeline, which I think starts in 1910, if we keep Lestat as being turned in 1780ish, then he’s 130 years older. Maybe he slept through all that time, and was frozen psychologically. 

So he comes to the New World fairly battered by all he experienced in his first 10 years as a vampire*, and in the novel, Louis has been inviting death so much that the state of his health seems to pressure Lestat into turning him sooner than he might have preferred.

*Of course, all this is a retcon because of TVL being written after IWTV, it’s up to the reader to decide what they want to accept as canon, and how. 

Either bc of Anne Rice setting Lestat up initially as an exciting, beautiful, but also horribly cruel antagonist in IWTV, or bc of Lestat’s backstory revealed later, (or both), the Lestat of IWTV era is cagey, secretive, abusive, and dismissive of Louis in many ways. He acts impulsively to create Claudia (as I always believe, to save Louis from the ultimate shame/guilt of giving into his own vampiric nature to kill an innocent child, which Louis might never have recovered from) to keep Louis with him. Would later canon Lestat have made that same choice? Knowing Armand’s suffering as an immortal teenager? 

Also, there seems to be a sort of flip flopping between this Lestat and the original. In the clips we’ve seen, he seems to be this almost kind and generous teacher that canon IWTV era Louis would have adored. Then in one scene, he tears a priest out of the confessional with Louis in the adjacent booth, to brutally murder the (innocent?) man in front of Louis, to terrify him? Into compliance? I’m confused about what the showrunners want here. Is Lestat the angelic wonderful person (debatable lol) that he tries to be as the Brat Prince in later canon? Hearing disputes and trying to resolve conflicts? Or is he the brash and frightened young vampire who was terrified of revealing too much about himself or showing weakness for fear that Louis would leave him, like Gabrielle did? Or hate him, like Nicki did? 

It looks like this Lestat is a confident, at ease, more generous, more compassionate (or trying to be) like later canon Lestat. We’ll see. 

[ewanmitchellclub]

“One of the first things we talked about in the development stages of Aemond was the legend of the Cyclops in Greek mythology,” Mitchell says. “How he traded one of his eyes to Hades in order to see the day he would die. What would that do to a person to possess that extreme degree of self-certainty and belief? It’s scary, you know. Aemond scares me.”

Ewan Mitchell for Den Of Geek

[richardarmitagefanpage]

Five years ago today, Den of Geek shared an interview with Richard about Pilgrimage, Ocean's 8, anti-cyberbullying and Castlevania.

[invisibleicewands]

[darksisterkayde]

“From Jace’s point of view, it’s Jace’s war now,” actor Collett says. “Because he’s lost his little brother over it. He is one of the characters that actually wants to be in the war.”

“Though would-be monarch Rhaenyra is the driver of the Blacks’ efforts, Jace may be their most important player.”

-Den of Geek: House of the Dragon Interview

[jocia92]

Hunter Schafer and Dan Stevens star in wild new film CUCKOO | SXSW

Nice interview at SXSW 2024 with Dan Stevens, Hunter Schafer, and Tilman Singer about their movie 'Cuckoo'.

[fernthewhimsical]

Hopepunk Primer pt. 2

Philosophy of Hopepunk

I cannot express this better than other people have done before me. So I'll start with an interview Kayti Burt had with several hopepunk authors in 2019.

"What is hopepunk? It depends on who you ask…

Rowland, quoting her essay “One Atom of Justice, One Molecule of Mercy, and the Empire of Unsheathed Knives,” says: “Hopepunk is a subgenre and a philosophy that ‘says kindness and softness don’t equal weakness, and that, in this world of brutal cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act. An act of rebellion.’”

To understand hopepunk as a concept it helps to understand what it stands in contrast to. Grimdark is a fantasy subgenre characterized by bleak settings in which humanity is fundamentally cutthroat, and where no individual or community can stop the world’s inevitable decline. Hopepunk, in contrast, believes that the very act of trying has meaning, that fighting for positive change in and of itself has worth—especially if we do it together." [4]

When Alexandra Rowland was asked on Tumblr to expand on the initial statement she made she elaborated:

"Hopepunk says that genuinely and sincerely caring about something, anything, requires bravery and strength. Hopepunk isn’t ever about submission or acceptance: It’s about standing up and fighting for what you believe in. It’s about standing up for other people. It’s about DEMANDING a better, kinder world, and truly believing that we can get there if we care about each other as hard as we possibly can, with every drop of power in our little hearts." [5]

I also love the definition of the Tumblr blog @hopepunk-humanity:

"What is Hopepunk?

Wild laughter from ragged throats

Flowers growing choked from crumbling asphalt

A warm bed after a long, hard journey

Your partner’s hand cupped in your own

Bright graffiti on cracked tunnel walls

The chains falling loose to the stone floor

A glint of silver beneath a century of tarnish

A long rain after a blistering wildfire

Just one more step, and then another

A single candle flame joining the stars against the night

A loved ones voice calling your name after hours lost in an unfamiliar place

A hand taking yours, just when you’d given up on reaching out

Smiling, laughing again, when you thought you’d forgotten how

Knowing, despite everything, that humans are inherently good

It’s not simply blind optimism, or naivety. It’s choice. It’s taking the human race by the hand and saying, “I will love you, because I am you”. It’s facing a world dripping with cynicism and fashionable hopelessness and saying, “no, I will not give in”. It’s putting kindness out into the world, knowing you might not get it back, knowing you may be scorned for it, knowing it might not change anything, but with a certainty that kindness is what the world needs the most.

It is choosing hope" [6]

Hopepunk is choosing hope in a world where they want us to have none. It's choosing humanity when they want us to forget we are human. It's choosing community when they would benefit of us staying individuals. It's choosing action and hope when they want us struck down and paralyzed.

Alexandra Rowland emphasizes to not forget the second part of the word: Punk. In another interview with Kayti Burt for Den of Geek she says: "it’s important to remember that punk is the operative half of the word – punk in the sense of anti-authoritarianism and punching back against oppression." and "The instinct is to make it only about softness and kindness, because those are what we’re most hungry for. We all want to be treated gently. But sometimes the kindest thing you can do for someone is to stand up to a bully on their behalf, and that takes guts and rage." [7]

What is Hopepunk to me?

That spark that is both love and spite that keeps me going. It's seeing the good in humanity, while also acknowledging the harm. It's refusing to lay down and die, refusing the accept the status quo, refusing to believe that this is it. It's believing in a better world. In kindness. In the inherent sense of community in humanity. It's believing in the power of stories. It's seeing kindness and hope as an act of Sacred Rebellion. And spreading that kindness and hope is a Vow that I have taken. It's taken the anger I have against corporations, injustice, bigotry, capitalism, oppression, and letting it fuel the fire within me in a constructive way. It's working to dismantle systems that are oppressive to work towards a more inclusive world. It's pruning the garden of dead weight so new things can grow. Late stage capitalism wants us all to be docile, to work, not to live. So I will shout my small joys from the rooftops. I will create for the sake of creating. I will practice radical acceptance so that I stand strong above the masses of ads that wants me to hate myself. I will choose to see the good so that I can believe change is possible. Hopepunk a fire that says "Rage. Rage against those who deserve it. Stand up for those who do not and show them a better world is possible."

[4] Den of Geek - Are you afraid of the darkness: a hopepunk explainer [5] Alexandra Rowland tumblr post [6] Hopepunk-humanity - what is hopepunk [7] Den of Geek - a hopepunk guide: interview with Alexandra Rowland

Part 1: Intro and history Part 2: Philosophy of Hopepunk Part 3: How to practice hopepunk and further reading Part 4: Extra! Hopepunk and magic

[zeglersource]

RACHEL ZEGLER Den of Geek interview SXSW 'Y2K' Press March 9, 2024

[theroseeatsribs]

Aw! This is so cool!! 🧡 (from den of geek’s interview with Shannon brown jr)