August 2004 posts


July 2004  

More August 2004

Something bad about Buffy and Angel the Series ;) -- SS, 05:43:01 08/01/04 Sun

Before Buffy and Angel came on the air I used to enjoy various vampire movies....The Lost Boys, Interview with a Vampire, Once Bitten etc.

No matter how good or bad they were.

But last night I was watching a vampire movie on Sci Fi and as the characters went along, I couldn't stop thinking:

"Why are you doing that? You don't know what you are doing! Go get Buffy! Go get Angel!"....

When three fourths of the way through I started going "Go get Dawn!"

I decided enough was enough and flipped the channel.

And cursed Buffy and Angel for ruining bad Vampire movies for me. ;)

SS

Replies:

[> LOL. So right. -- Jane, 15:44:55 08/01/04 Sun

And curse(in a good way, of course) Joss Whedon for making it impossible for me to watch crappy TV ever again. Buffy, Angel and Firefly just set my standards way too high. *sigh*

[> Re: Something bad about Buffy and Angel the Series ;) -- leslie, 22:31:51 08/01/04 Sun

Plus, whenever you see a vampire staked, aren't you disconcerted when they don't explode into dust? It's like watching a glass of water fall over and the water doesn't spill out--it's just against the laws of nature!

[> [> Re: Something bad about Buffy and Angel the Series ;) -- Cordelia'sGhost, 09:56:02 08/06/04 Fri

Oh, absolutely! I scream at the screen and say, "That's so full of crap! Where's the dust?"

I mean, they're immortal for pete's sake...they can't just fall over with a thud! Where's the beauty?

[> Re: Something bad about Buffy and Angel the Series ;) -- MaeveRigan, 15:29:38 08/02/04 Mon

Absolutely. First thing through my mind when I saw previews of Van Helsing (never mind the movie itself, which I still haven't bothered to see) was, "I can already tell it's not going to be funny enough. It would be so much better with SMG/Buffy as the lead instead of Hugh Jackman."

Obviously, there is no hope for me, because normally, I think Hugh Jackman is adorable!
is this a continuity error, or is it just making the kind of sense that's NOT?? -- ghady, 13:09:21 08/01/04 Sun

Doyle was half-demon. He got visions. He felt INTENSE pain.

Cordelia was human. She got visions. She felt IMMENSE pain.

It is revealed that only demons can handle the visions, pain-free.

Cordy is demonized. The visions become like "a walk in the park."

See where i'm lost?

Replies:

[> Cordy was turned into a different kind of demon than Doyle. -- Rob, 16:08:33 08/01/04 Sun


[> Re: is this a continuity error, or is it just making the kind of sense that's NOT?? -- Kana, 01:24:48 08/02/04 Mon

And I think she was turned into a much more powerful part demon than Doyle, judging by her amazing feats.

[> Re: Is Cordelia really a demon(spoilers S4)? -- Raphael, 17:51:12 08/03/04 Tue

Spoilers S4...

Are you sure Cordy was a demon?That's what Skip said in "Birthday" but Skip doesn't seem to be very reliable when you think about it."Inside out" proved this.And Cordelia was tricked into giving her consent for a partial demonization,but was it a demonization?
What is the definition of a demonization?Humans can be demonized(vampires through blood and death)or become half-demons at birth(through genetic),but I can't remember other examples.
After S4,I wonder if,in fact,she already was "contaminated" with Jasmine's essence.Not a possession,but the beginning of a process leading to Cordy's complete alienation/possession in S4,a slow building of a powerful vessel for Jasmine's "birth" and may be her powers/transformation/mutation(?) were a part of this process.Cordelia was never able to control them(a little like the visions),they were only appearing when she was in danger.Cordy's survival was neccessary for the success of Jasmine's plan and Jasmine/Skip gave her,IMO,only a powerful shield against agression.

Can we talk about "powers" if you can't control them?Are the visions a power?Doyle could control his powers,the other demons can too.
Angel,Buffy,...the demonized/super-heroes,Willow,the witches,the demons,gods... have active/aggressive(?)-powers.
Cordy(and Lorne!)had passive/receptive...abilities.

And Jasmine is not a demon(I think),but a "fallen-power".
The peaceful and soothing effect of Cordy's "abilities/powers" are in line with Jasmine's.As soon as she's in danger,this power kicks in(the slugs were desintegrated when she was attacked in the hotel,Connor was stopped when he wanted to slit her throat),the white light is a devastating force,adjusting itself to the opponent.
May be Cordy's powers are "higher-being"'s powers which could explain the *no pain at all* when she was having visions...if she was having visions from the PTB after 'Birthday'and not 'false-visions'coming from Jasmine,but that is another problem.

[> [> Interesting idea -- KdS, 00:02:05 08/04/04 Wed

The consensus seems to be that the demonisation was necessary foir Jasmine's later development, but it might have been when Jasmine was first "implanted".

Incidentally, Doyle never showed any sign of controlling his visions that I can remember.

[> [> [> Re: Interesting idea -- Kana, 04:34:44 08/04/04 Wed

If i understand you correctly it wouldn't make sense for Jasmine to be implanted there and then (i.e. when Cordy was demonised. Why would she go onto a higher plain? It would be a waste of time and would arouse too much suspiscion IMO.
I'm not too concerned whether Cordy is a part demon or higher being, the point is she is a different species to Doyle. We know that demons vary in power and ability so it makes that some could withstand the visions more easily than others.
Another thing. Why would Skip lie about her being half demon. Wouldn't seem necessary. She could have quite easily been manipulated without that lie.

[> [> [> [> Re: Interesting idea -- Raphael, 18:26:03 08/04/04 Wed

Why not?
Theory one:Cordy is part-demon.
They needed(the bad guys) Cordelia's consent to be demonized,that much is sure.
The FG would have been very suspicious of a demonization without meaning,so,with the events of "Birthday",they had their explanation.Cordy had accepted the demonization to save her life and they never,ever wondered in the show if it was a good thing or not and barely wondered what kind of demon she was.Cordy can stand the vision without any pain,get unbelievable powers and finally she's tricked a second time into ascending on a higher plane where she is "implanted" with Jasmine.Because she's part-demon,she is strong enough to bear with her pregnancy once she's sleeped with Connor.It's the classical theory.

Theory two(mine):The "demonization" is Jasmine's essence.After all,Jasmine can be considerd a demon,can't she?
And from "Birthday to "Inside out",it's a long pregnancy.

My thesis:it's all about colors... white and black.

Cordy's main power is the glowing white light and when she was "up",she was bathing in a white light.The White is Jasmine,the color of her flower.

From her return after her vacations with Groo to her own kidnapping,Cordy's wearing white clothes more and more frequently.She comes back blonde.
In "Tomorrow",she's ascending in a white light,dressed in white and with blond hair.(nice contrast by the way,with a brunette Angel,going down, in black clothes,in the very dark see.Certainly not a coincidence.)
May be they(the writers) just wanted a lovely image.Good work for the PTB=reward=Cordy's ascension to "higher being"=happiness.White is the shiny color of hope.
A deep contrast with Angel's terrible ordeal,drowning in black,the color of death and despair.

That's what they wanted us to believe,IMHO,but in S4,we've learnt that everything was a lot more complicated:Cordy's unhappy in the higher plane,she's bored in her very white,shiny heaven.
Why was she hijacked?May be because they needed her out of harm's way (the FG) to finish a very unusual and visual
"transformation".We never had any explanation in the show of what happened to Cordy when she was there.Only speculations.
And she comes back with no memory!How useful!

Once the deed (with Connor) is done,she's going to go gradually,from ep to ep, from blonde to brunette.The white is slowly fading because Jasmine's is building her new body and is getting her essence back.

It's not an usual pregnancy, being impregnated by Connor is,only,the final touch necessary for the PHYSICAL manifestation of Jasmine and Cordelia was carrying the shiny godess all the time.Skip said that every cell of her body was contaminated by Jasmine.

In "inside out",Cordelia is all in black.The long process is finished,the white's returned inside(Jasmine's birth is imminent and soon she will be ...out).

And,I can add to defend my theory that in "Your welcome" ,the vision awakening her from her coma seems to be like the old ones,painful.She's not a "demon" anymore(if she ever was).
If she was part-demon ,the vision would not be fatal.
She's a human being and this vision is the last blow for her damaged brain.Like Skip said in "Birthday",this last one is going to cause her death.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting idea -- Kana, 03:08:30 08/06/04 Fri

I'm still not really satisfied with why she would have to go on to the higher plane. It seems to foolhardy and pointless. If she was to be out of the PTBs way, i.e. hijacked from 'heaven' then why put her up there in the first place? If it is part of the ritual to bring forth Jasmine it still doesn't make as much sense as theory 1. Bathing in magic white light seems a little less logical than a former power arranging for Cordy to become a strong enough entity for Jasmine to be poured into and make her move. Plus Jasmine, demon or not, is clearly a powerful entity so it seems unlikely that she was a part of Cordy at that point. Otherwise she might have just killed her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> They might just have not been giving anyone too much opportunity to think -- KdS, 02:12:57 08/07/04 Sat

Classic Movie of the Week - August 1st 2004 - *Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures* Pt. I -- OnM, 18:38:14 08/01/04 Sun

*******

Avoid the reeking herd
Shun the polluted flock
Live like that stoic bird
The eagle of the rock

Elinor Hoyt Wylie

*******

I m from New Jersey / I don t expect too much
If the world ended today / I would adjust

John Gorka

*******

Oh, oh, Mom --
I wonder when I ll be waking
It s just that there s so much to do
And I m tired of sleeping

Suzanne Vega

*******

Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.

Stella Adler

*******

About 15 years or so ago, when I was working for this fellow who had a rather conservative bent both socially and politically, there were a number of interesting conversations that occasionally took place between us.

He definitely was not the Bill Buckley or George Will type of intellectual conservative, one whose take on things could be backed up with at least some degree of intellectual rigor. Fortunately, he also wasn t a Rush Limbaugh hyper-opinioned vitriolic windbag type either, and to be fair, I m not exactly a Victor Navasky type myself. The primary form of Marxism that I find appealing is the Bros. Groucho, Harpo and Chico et al.

Whatever the case, we usually ended up agreeing to disagree on a lot of topics. For example, I could never convince him that he was the only individual I had ever met who thought that the National Rifle Association was a liberal organization and not a conservative one. His reasoning, which I had great difficulty in countering, was along the lines that I don t like guns, because they cause a lot of death and suffering, especially in the hands of criminals. And since I don t like them, and the NRA wants to actively promote their sale and use, they must be a bunch of irresponsible liberals. Liberals always want everybody to be able to do whatever they feel like, and never worry about the consequences. To say the least, he was really big on the responsibility trip, and spoke often about the general lack of it in modern America.

Of course I got to enjoy a certain, albeit pyrrhic victory when about a year and a half later, he filed for bankruptcy and left town, owing thousands of dollars to dozens of people. Did he ever follow up with the responsibility thing, and pay those folks back? Uhmm, no, I don t think so. When the bank auctioned off the business property (they had first dibs), there wasn t enough collected to settle all the bills, which of course in liquidation proceedings is hardly uncommon. I lost about three weeks pay, but I couldn t fret too much since many customers who had paid equipment deposits of several thousand dollars (and now had no merchandise to show for it) came out far worse. Meanwhile, I got some temp work helping my sister out at her greenhouse business, and nobly resisted the urge to track down my former boss and point out how very liberal-like he was behaving.

Ah, well, water up the downspout, ya know? I m pretty easy-going for the most part, I try not to get upset, or at least not in public. There was one instance, though, where my ex-employer really did astound me with the abyssian depth of his cluelessness, and that was the time when we were arguing about the need for the minimum wage laws and the need for some manner of publically assisted welfare (he was strongly against both). The facts were, as I saw it, that the current minimum wage was far too low to allow anyone to achieve even a basic, minimal food and shelter existence.

Well, he replied, they don t have to work only 40 hours. They can take a second job. Lots of people do that.

Leaving aside the fact that that s physically and mentally exhausting, I retorted, twice very little is still only more very little. You might be able to support yourself that way, but you could never support a spouse and/or children even if you worked 80 hours a week. And if you did, when would you get to see your kids? (He was big on the absentee parent issue, so I figured this might be an in to work on.)

This kind of back-and-forth went on for probably 20 minutes or so, after which the discussion had veered into the odd values that American society often places on particular job descriptions. For example, I noted, what exactly makes a top executive of some investments company worth $50,000,000 a year in pay and perks, when the guy who services your car or the nurse who tends you when you re sick make like, less than 1/10 of 1% of that amount. The scale is way, way out of balance.

I continued, and what about those-- there must be tens or even hundreds of thousands of them out there-- who have no marketable skills whatever? What do we let them do, just curl up and die somewhere?

His next remark was the stunner. He gestured with his hand, dismissively.

That s nonsense. Everybody has some kind of marketable skill. There s no reason for not being able to get a decent paying job doing something.

Agitated now, I ardently attempted to refute this, but soon gave, up, lost as to what logical approach could be used to debunk such an intrinsically absurd thought. I mean, what dream world was he living in? Some things seem just obvious, and one of the sad facts of human existence is that some unfortunate people simply have no real talent for anything.

From my perspective, the best that we can hope for is to give such individuals some sense of basic human dignity by allowing them a living wage for performing unskilled labor. I mean, a good part of the labor movement effort from early on in the previous century was directed at making sure that the worker who only had the necessary talent to operate a machine in a factory that punched holes in widgets still could afford a roof over his head, and to care for his (or her) family. If he or she could learn a more remunerative skill, that was even better, but there had to be a baseline of income that meant you didn t have to exist at a bare, animalistic level. After all, society needed those widgets and the holes they came with, didn t they?

Now I, personally, am very fortunate in many ways. I do have some skills, and a few talents, and while only a very few of them are marketable , I have managed to keep free of the dimension of eternal poverty and the psychological desperation that typically overtakes those who get trapped there. Not by much, much of the time, but free nevertheless. I ve met plenty of other individuals over the years who are not so lucky. And it is largely luck, people, don t tell me it isn t. It s whatever hand you were dealt with when you were born, in terms of what skills/talents reside within your mortal form. If you don t have the gene that makes you an exceptional musician, all the practice in the world won t make you one. I ve been tapping away at some sort of keyboard since about the sixth grade now, and I still can t hit the right keys about 10% of the time. The fingers just don t always go where I want them to, and frankly if it wasn t for the sweet forgiving grace of a modern word processor, you would never have read any of my stuff, here or elsewhere, because correcting the endless mistakes I make is just too slow and thought-inhibiting a process.

(And I m assuming that if you ve already read this far, you are now not currently muttering Curse them! Curse those infernal word processors, damn them all to hell! ;-)

Which brings me to the subject of this week s Classic Movie, the first 2004 entry in my now regular Augustian Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures series. What you may find curious is that the story this film relates, based on the life experiences of an actual, still living person, both supports and refutes the statements that I ve just made regarding the ability of the seemingly talentless to find a productive niche within society and even make a decent living with it.

This is as it should be, since what I really have a problem with is not conservatism per se, but presumptuousness per fact. The problem with both left and right political/social extremes is that they seem unable to accept the thought that the more ordinary demeanor of the world can t be changed. I maintain that the world for the greater part is boring and repetitive, like a heartbeat, and no less important for being so. It is what it is, yo, to quote someone about to receive a life-changing revelation.

Such a revelation comes to one Harvey Pekar, hero or ordinary inhabitant of the world of American Splendor, a film released well within the last year, but one that really did not get anywhere near enough screen time in American theaters. Co-directed by screenwriters Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, American Splendor is finally starting to receive some recognition with the occasion of its video release, and it certainly deserves it.

Barely three minutes have passed after leaving the DVD main menu screen, and I m already admiring the sheer craft of imagination this movie exhibits. One of many delights to come is to see how the filmmakers have deftly integrated comic book style graphics, animation, live-action acting and a documentary real life series of scenes into a smoothly integrated whole. It s not that this particular cinematic technique hasn t been executed before, it s that it usually works poorly or appears more like an attempt to gain attention for cleverness rather than further the story itself.

That s not the case here. If you ve never seen the comic books that the main character has written for, then seeing From off the streets of Cleveland as the textual lead-in to the main title sequence doesn t particularly grab your attention, because it s simply rendered as a part of a larger comic panel graphic, not emblazoned over the entire screen. If you have seen the comics, this more subtle approach suggests that the directors understand that Harvey s work isn t about the extraordinary elements of life, but the day-to-day aspects we all have to live through, and how those inevitably boring moments shape us for better or ill.

Stylistically speaking, the regular integration of the ordinary life into the extraordinary life is one of the many things that first drew me into the Jossverse, and Berman and Pulcini state their similar artistic intentions right up front. The above-mentioned comic panel shifts smoothly from hand-drawn (stationary) art to an animated shot to a live action filmed insert, while the voiceover outlines the preliminary setup in gloriously ergonomic fashion. When we exit the comics and enter real-life, we already know what to expect, but the story is still interesting-- no, fascinating-- because there is music hidden in the noise of randomness if we only know how to listen.

Harvey Pekar surely appears to quantify the definition of a random life. As he unceremoniously explains to us in the real-life voiceovers and through the channel of his avatar (inhabited by actor Paul Giamatti, since merely saying played by effects little justice to this man s performance skills), Pekar relates a tale of an ordinary file clerk working long years in an ordinary V.A. hospital, whose Ph.D.-holding wife has just left their plebian existence, looking for greater things.

As she walks out the door carrying a cardboard box of her possessions (after first tolerating, then bluntly ignoring Harvey s desperate pleas not to leave him), Harvey quickly nabs a small sculpture of a brass flower from the contents of the box. His ex-wife doesn t break stride, so apparently possession of the flower is not a big issue with her. This little objet d art shows up several more times in the film and seems to act as a metaphorical indicator for the changes in Harvey s love life, but each time the visual is so fleeting (I missed it entirely the first times it appeared, only noticing after a member of the commentary track group pointed it out) that the device could have been removed entirely and no one would miss it.

That, the writers seem to be saying, is the point, and then go on to illustrate the principle through the character of Harvey himself. Harvey, who if he were suddenly not a part of the world, would never be missed by nearly everyone. Harvey, to most external viewers, is a schlub. Not particularly attractive in appearance, commonly irritable, possessed of a decent mind and an appreciation for art, music and even poetry but doing very little with that appreciation besides entertaining himself, Harvey is a brass flower if ever there was one. Nevertheless, the brass flower may be made of metal, but it is just sheet metal, and sheet metal can be bent, thus changing its form.

As Harvey s story unfolds, we are far more likely to notice the other recurring metaphorical object, which is Harvey s cat. The cat behaves the way that most cats do, one moment all sleek grace and fluid movement, the next sleeping life away as if it (and its keeper) were irrelevant, the next seeking food, warmth, companionship and possibly some stroking behind the ears. If the flower is Harvey, then the cat is no less of a model for his psyche. Harvey is not any one thing, he is diversity masquerading as randomness. Like the flower, the cat shows up repeatedly as the film progresses, and seems to suggest Harvey s desire to escape from his once almost-shiny, now quasi-tarnished sculptural stasis.

Does he escape? In a way he does, and maybe mostly so, but it isn t a perfectly or even remotely clean escape, depicting a realistic viewpoint very different from the stereotypical movie-land happy ending . Harvey s new paramour and soon-to-be spouse, a woman named Joyce Brabner (inhabited by actor Hope Davis just as completely as Giamatti s read on Harvey) changes his life forever, but on balance she s every bit as odd as Harvey himself. As a result of the mutual peculiarity, the evolving interaction between the two only reinforces the film s underlying viewpoint that imagines no ultimate resolution to the philosophical argument of the all is destiny vs. sh*t happens dialectic.

We first meet Joyce when she is employed as a part-owner of a comic book store in Delaware. Outside the shop, a Volkswagen beetle with a paint job making it resemble an American flag is parkd to one side, inside the shop a Jeff Spicolli-like fellow is arguing (or more correctly, avoiding one in the most laid back manner possible) with Joyce about having sold the last of the current American Splendor comics before she had a chance to read it.

By this time in the film, you see, Harvey has finally found an artistic niche that fits him. Being an ardent fan of comic books, and admiring the work of his friend Robert Crumb (of Zap Comix, Mr. Natural and steatopygic females fame), Harvey wants to create his own comics. Unfortunately, he can t draw worth a damn-- even making crude stick figures is an effort. Despite this limitation, Harvey thinks that he can at least write the dialog for the comics, and then maybe get someone else to draw them. Harvey s idea (which, if the film presents it accurately, came from a humorous/aggravating incident with a particularly cheap old lady holding up the line at a supermarket) is that the most boring and unremarkable aspects of life are actually full of opportunities for insightful commentary, and that no one else is seriously mining this vein. He writes up page after page of panels and shows them to Crumb, who happens to be in town for a visit.

Crumb, reading over the text, likes what Harvey has come up with, and offers to illustrate the scenes for him. Harvey is ecstatic, and soon after, the American Splendor series becomes a reality. Harvey gets a measure of fame, albeit a tiny measure, but it is enough to bring he and Joyce together. Deprived of reading her favorite, and unwilling to wait the several weeks necessary for the publisher to replenish the store s stock, Joyce decides to take a chance and write to Harvey directly, asking if he could send her a copy. The two establish a rapport all but immediately, and after a few months Harvey manages to cajole Joyce into traveling out to Cleveland to meet up with him.

In a more cliched movie, this initial meeting would be either love at first sight , or antagonism at first sight that develops into love just in time for a happy ending . What transpires instead is something akin to the recognition that each person is probably too weird to make a go of it, but that the alternative is worse, so what the hell. One of the many defining characteristics of the Harvey/Joyce relationship is that they seem immune to the desire to pretty things up or paint a false impression of the real nature of their respective personalities. After taking Joyce out to dinner, Joyce reveals that she isn t sick now, but expects to be sometime in the near future , based on the fact that her entire family is screwed up in this way. This isn t a desire on her part, but just perhaps unavoidable destiny, and she s trying to deal with it head on. Later, Harvey takes her to his home, and points out that the place is a mess (putting it kindly) because I was going to clean it up some, but then thought that I d rather be honest. This is me, it s the way I am.

The scene that follows is one of the most brilliantly written, touching and yet hilarious bits of moviemaking that I can think of since Woody Allen s masterpiece Annie Hall. La-dee-dah, indeed. At its conclusion, we somehow become certain that whether brought together by blind fate or unseen external forces, it matters not-- these two are meant for each other, and such turns out to be exactly the case.

I won t go into a description of the remainder of the film, but at this point I see no need to do so anyway. Some of you who are reading this may even be familiar with the American Splendor comic series, which I was not until hearing about this film, or have seen Harvey Pekar on one of his many past appearances on the David Letterman Show (which I haven t viewed either). What I want to emphasize is that no matter what you think about the comics world-- positively, negatively or indifferently-- such opinion has no bearing on your potential enjoyment of this superb piece of moviemaking. This isn t a story about the comics, or even about the people who love them or create them.

What it is, is a tale of how any of us can be lost to the dustbin of history, or rise up out of it, and that either way it doesn t really matter. Success may be enduring or it may be fleeting, or it may never happen at all, and the harsh truth is that the latter is by far the commonest outcome. You are what you are, and that s got to be damn well good enough. Seek solace in the thoughts and affections (or afflictions) of the like-minded, and attempt to tolerate the rest with some grace and not too much complaining. Try not to lose your voice. You are a fluke of the universe, and you have no right to be here. And if the universe is laughing behind your back, try to point that out for all to see, and thus give the universe the finger.

Oh, and the pina colada Jelly Bellys really are superb. Trust me on this.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technical floral brass:

American Splendor is available on DVD, which was the format of the review copy. The film was released in 2003, and the run time is 1 hour and 41 minutes. The original cinematic aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which is preserved on the DVD edition. The disc contains a number of extended features, including an excellent cast and crew commentary track, a making-of type featurette, a music video of the title song by the songwriter, DVD-ROM features and the original theatrical trailer.

Screenwriting credits go to Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini. Cinematography was by Terry Stacey, with film editing by Robert Pulcini. The film was produced by Ted Hope, Julia King and Christine K. Walker. Production design was by Th r se DePrez with set decoration by Robert DeSue. Costume design was by Michael Wilkinson. Original Music for the title song was by Eytan Mirsky with other contributions by Mark Suozzo. The original theatrical soundtrack was presented in Dolby Digital.

(OnM s Overall Quality Rating - 9 out of 10)

Cast overview:

Paul Giamatti .... Harvey Pekar
Hope Davis .... Joyce Brabner
Judah Friedlander .... Toby Radloff
Earl Billings .... Mr. Boats
Madylin Sweeten .... Danielle
James Urbaniak .... Robert Crumb
Harvey Pekar .... Real Harvey
Joyce Brabner .... Real Joyce
Toby Radloff .... Real Toby
Danielle Batone .... Real Danielle
James McCaffrey .... Fred
Vivienne Benesch .... Lana
Maggie Moore .... Alice Quinn
Mike Rad .... Rand
Shari Springer Berman .... Interviewer (voice)
Chris Ambrose .... Superman
Joey Krajcar .... Batman
Josh Hutcherson .... Robin
Cameron Carter .... Green Lantern
Daniel Tay .... Young Harvey
Larry John Meyers .... Throat Doctor

*******

Miscellaneous Department:

Some films in current release that I think are surely worth your time and money include (some likely obvious) recommendations such as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2 . My strongest recommendation among this varied group of fantasy efforts easily goes to the Harry Potter production. I didn t see the first Potter film, and to date haven t even gotten it on video. I did see some parts of it on its TV debut, and didn t find it all that intriguing. The second film was so good, however, I suppose I need to see the first in its entirety (and certainly uninterrupted by STUPID, EVIL commercial breaks, which personally speaking call out for the employment of Dementors if ever anything has) before making any final judgement about it. Definitely hoping they follow up logically on the tone of the second when the third is released.

OQ Ratings: Harry Potter II (8.5 out of 10) / Spiderman (7.5 out of 10) / Shrek II (7 out of 10)

Staying with the fantasy mode for a mo , I do want to say a few kind words about a film that has split a lot of professional critics, and announce which side I m on. That film would be King Arthur, and while not an excellent film, I maintain that it has enough worthwhile aspects that you should ignore the overall balance of mainstream critical opinion (mostly negative with a few scattered positives) and go see it for yourself. Yes, the great battle of the last act has the ridiculous appearance of the other Gwen as some kind of Xena, or maybe the warrior queen Boudica, but what bothered me about that has much less to do with the fact that she s out there making with the mass carnage than that there were no other fellow tribal women out there with her. In other words, this is a fantasy, and if the writers want to add in ass-kickin warrior chicks, I m down with that, but just one? Nuh, uh-uh.

On the other hand, the rest of the film was pretty decent, with the exception that all the fighting gets a bit tiresome. (Maybe I m just Lord-of-the-Ringed wrung out, but there ya go.) I thought the actor portraying Arthur did a marvelous job desite the occasionally lame dialog, and that the much darker, moodier take on this classic character was refreshing. The battle sequence on the ice was clever, and well done technically. I also loved the big power shot of the round table, which has forever altered the way I picture it in my head when the term gets mentioned. In fact, I could see it showing up sometime late in BtVS season 8 or early season 9, or some eventual BtVS movies. Isn t there an image from Fray where there is some kind of Hall of the Slayers , having a representation of the Scythe tiled into the floor? Good place for a round table like in King Arthur, sez moi. (OQR - 5.75 out of 10)

So, if it s still playing in your area, please go see and judge for yourself.

In the category of non-SF/fantasy flicks, one absolute must-see if you haven t already, and if it s still in your local multiplex would be Spielberg s astoundingly excellent The Terminal. Do expect a future CMotW on this film when it eventually gets to video. Meanwhile GO NOW! I mean it! (OQR 9 out of 10)

The most recent flick I ve checked out was The Bourne Supremacy, which despite a certain excess of annoyingly jiggly hand-held camera work in places that threatened to give me dizzy spells until I moved from the center of the theater to the back, is a first rate piece of work. This is classic James Bondian stuff, without the silliness (not counting the car chase stuff, which no matter how well executed technically will never top the chase sequence in The Road Warrior), and the acting work is excellent all around. (OQR 7.5 out of 10)


*******

The Question(s) of the Week:

At one time in the not so distant past, it could take anywhere from 1 to 2 years for a movie to go from theatrical release to the video shelves of your local rental or sales salon. Studios felt that video was there just to catch the dregs of the remaining viewership, after first runs, second runs, discount theater runs, sales to Pay TV networks, then commercial TV networks, and finally-- release on VHS and now DVD.

But this certainly isn t the case any more. Some films go from big screen to little in as few as three months. There are occasionally films still playing in theaters and you can go buy the video anyway! PBS has taken to debuting TV and video releases all but simultaneously.

What happened to change the entrenched thinking here? If it s all about money (which it is), then just when did it become more remunerative to rush the video release as opposed to holding it back as long as possible? Is it simply a technical thing, made possible by the relative cheapness and high quality of DVD? Is it the extra features that add what the public sees as greater value to purchasing or renting a DVD?

It is that the younger generation sees recorded movies the same way their parents saw music recordings, and they buy accordingly?


Your thoughts go here, or more precisely,

Post em if you ve got em

and I ll see you next week with another Guilty Pleasure and/or Buried Treasure!

Take care.

*******

Replies:

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 1st 2004 - *Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures* Pt. I -- Cactus Watcher, 20:06:48 08/01/04 Sun

I suspect the movie industry discovered there were folks like me who have no interest any more in driving a few miles to stand in line to buy a ticket for a single viewing of a movie any more. Add that to the coughing and loud talking, I gave up on theater showings of movies a long time ago. That was before anyone thought of answering a cell phone in a theater. I'll pay a little extra for things like wide-screen aspect and directors babbling about production. So it makes some sense for the movie industry to bring out DVDs with lots of features while the original run of movie ads is still reasonably fresh in the public's memory. If it's something others don't like because for example it might shorten the time you can watch a particular movie on the big screen, blame me. It's certainly the fault of folks like me.

[> Release schedules -- KdS, 23:59:29 08/01/04 Sun

I'm pretty sure its a piracy thing. The ease with which people can now bootleg movies means that artificially prolonging the life cycle to build up demand leads to massive piracy. When I was doing my degree four years ago, a guy in my lab was already taking advantage of our huge bandwidth availability to swap whole feature films with his friends. It isn't just a question of moves between formats. A couple of years ago, it took months for the latest blockbuster to get from the USA to Europe, and now some are even released simultaneously all over the world.

And incidentally, Azbakan is the third Potter film, not the second.

[> [> Really? Thanks for that info. -- OnM, 07:28:25 08/02/04 Mon

*** And incidentally, Azbakan is the third Potter film, not the second. ***

I'll see it gets corrected before this ends up at ES.

Appreciate your diligence, that one got by my fact-checker.

;-)

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 1st 2004 - *Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures* Pt. I -- Marie, 04:18:52 08/02/04 Mon

As a single parent, until fairly recently, I came to the decision that I preferred to spend what little I had for personal treats on a meal I didn't have to cook and serve up myself, rather than going to the pictures when I could get the video relatively cheaply (DVD-player? In my dreams!), so I got out of the habit of big-screen watching.

I have been a few times over the last couple of years, and have discovered that while I love the overall atmosphere and big-screen, I loathe the other people watching with me! Since when did society become so inconsiderate? I teach my child manners - why can't adults behave themselves in a manners-ful way? Since when is it okay to hold conversations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the film they've come to see, and respond loudly and with real nastiness when asked to please be quiet? To eat crisps and open noisy sweet-wrappers almost continuously through the viewing? And as for mobile 'phones! I won't go on... Or do I just imagine that I remember movie-going as a much more enjoyable experience? Am I wearing rose-tinted spectacles?

Ah, well.

I also think that people want such immediacy nowadays. It's a throw-away society, and once a film has been out a matter of weeks, it's already an 'old' film and we're moving on to the next. Does that make sense?

Marie

p.s. I've never heard of the comic you mention (is it on the Web, I wonder? I'll have to Google it!), but as usual, love your review.

[> American Splendor may well have been the best movie of 2003. -- cjl, 07:41:33 08/02/04 Mon

I cannot say enough about the performances by Paul Giamatti and Hope Davis as Harvey and Joyce. They don't really LOOK like the characters they play (and we know that, since the real Harvey and Joyce appear in the movie!) but they've captured the souls of the characters so well that the differences don't matter.

There is one phenomenal sequence in this movie that kicks it to another level: it's when Harvey passes out (you'll know it when you see it) and he "wakes up" inside the borders of his comic book panels and muses on life, identity and the persistence of a man's dreams.

American Splendor is the only movie I can remember paying to see twice: once with some fellow ATPoers on an sunny afternoon in Brooklyn, and once for a special Manhattan double feature with Revenge of the Nerds (you'd have to see American Splendor to know why that's a perfect double bill). Along with directors Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News hosted along with the real Toby Radloff.

Agree with you about Harry Potter--best of the three so far, but not so surprising, since it had the best source material. Still, credit to director Cuaron for stuffing every frame with richly textured magical goodness. Had the real sense that I was watching a fully-realized world rather than Chris Columbus' glorified Disneyworld ride. I'd kick Spidey2 a notch or two higher than your 7.5; Peter's wrenching monologue to Aunt May honest-to-God brought a tear to my eye. That NEVER happens to me in superhero movies. And Shrek2? It was funny. Puss stole the movie, and when Banderas wasn't doing it with his voice, the animators did it with those moon-sized kitty eyes.

[> [> Wow, I guess it's find-out-what-Rob-isn't-cheerleadery-about month! -- Rob, 12:56:15 08/02/04 Mon

I actually disliked American Splendor, although I admired some things about it. I thought the pacing was deadly, and the entire structure was overly self-indulgent and not nearly as smart as it thought it was. Although the performances were sublime, I didn't find the characters particularly compelling and furthermore didn't find their situations all that believable from a human perspective, and since this is based on a true story, I'd qualify that as a problem in the film, at least for me. I don't think the film really gave a proper sense of who the characters are, and why Harvey and Joyce decided to get married. Although I'm sure they love each other in real life, I had a hard time believing in the film that Paul Giametti and Hope Davis even remotely liked each other. Also, the "documentary" sections, although intellectually I thought they were a cool idea, did nothing but take me out of the story. Add on top of this that I'm not that big a fan of Harvey Pekar's work (I find it quite dull), and that his raspy voice drives me crazy, and you have just some of the reasons why I thought this might have been the most overrated independant film of 2003...had Lost in Translation not also been released that year.

Rob

[> [> Being agreeable certainly agrees with me, what can I say. -- OnM, 19:06:14 08/02/04 Mon

*** They don't really LOOK like the characters they play (...) but they've captured the souls of the characters so well that the differences don't matter. ***

I completely agree with this, that is, the 'capturing the souls' part, but then I really didn't feel the slightest discontinuity between the look of the real Harvey and Joyce and the look of the actors portraying them. After all, most of the movie took place several decades ago, and the Harvey and Joyce we got to see were photographed within the last 2 years or so.

BTW, while I hate to do this to someone so agreeable, I did smack Rob for this gaffe last year, so I've gotta be fair-- please don't give away the movie title in your post title!

I may change my mind about Spiderman 2 if I see it again, but the rating accurately represents my evaluation. Perhaps so many critics have reviewed it so effulgently that my expectations were too high. I really liked it, and admired the technical craftmanship and decent screenwriting, but if it wasn't for the brilliant ending (one I had really hoped to see, but didn't expect to) I probably would have given it a 7 out of 10.

Other than that, thanks for the comments. BTW, do you have any thoughts on the quicker-now-to-video questions?

[> [> [> Spiderman 2 -- Masq, 09:29:30 08/03/04 Tue

I wasn't overly impressed with Spiderman 2 the first time I saw it, either. But I think it *was* expectations based on reviews. I enjoyed it a lot more the second time.

[> [> Hmmm -- Tchaikovsky, 14:37:32 08/06/04 Fri

Well, I'm delighted to see someone, (let alone OnM), review it so well, and I agree with both of you about the delicious Harry Potter movie. Though I wouldn't consider this one fo the best movies of 2003, (at times, the narrative is so tastily real that it knocks the forward flow out completely), I had a ball watching it, and seeing cjl adn OnM give it such plaudits is only likely to recommend it to a wider audience. And that can only be a good thing.

TCH- stoically not mentioning the title

[> I definitely agree about "The Terminal"... -- Rob, 13:06:03 08/02/04 Mon

This was one of the biggest surprises of the year for me. I was particularly impressed that the film, which had been advertised as a romantic comedy, was really not a romantic comedy at all, and had a treasure trove of subplots and comedic and character-driven sequences that were just as, if not more, important as the love story. Tom Hanks' performance was brilliant, the screenplay was episodic but focused, and the terminal itself was such a compelling character and setting that it didn't even occur to me until the end of the film that, just like Viktor, we the audience had not left the terminal for the entire span of the film, until the end.

Rob

[> [> I haven't seen "The Terminal" yet . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:44:33 08/02/04 Mon

. . . but I'm going to have to, because it's inspired by one of my favorite true stories: that of an Iranian refugee, stranded through bureaucratic snafus and bad luck in Charles De Gaulle airport, Paris.

I'm waiting for it to hit the dollar theaters. Because while I might be excited, I'm still cheap.

[> [> [> Quote of the week! -- Masq, 16:01:52 08/02/04 Mon

Actually, with the frequency with which I declare these, it might be quote of the month, or quote of the quarter:

"Because while I might be excited, I'm still cheap."

[> [> [> See, in Rufus's guide to the unwed Golddigger I warn gals about guys like you.........;) -- Rufus, 19:02:39 08/02/04 Mon

If a guy has a change-purse...run...cause he's stingy...:):):):):):) Of course not mentioning I'm the queen of double standards...;)

[> Quick to video - or quick to DVD question -- s'kat, 18:47:40 08/03/04 Tue

What happened to change the entrenched thinking here? If it s all about money (which it is), then just when did it become more remunerative to rush the video release as opposed to holding it back as long as possible? Is it simply a technical thing, made possible by the relative cheapness and high quality of DVD? Is it the extra features that add what the public sees as greater value to purchasing or renting a DVD?

I think the change occurred with the onset of DVD, which can include things the movies can't such as games, extra footage, commentaries, and music reels. What happened is what we call in the rights field as the derivitive products or ancillaries. DVD release isn't exactly the same as a movie going direct to video, you aren't getting the same movie. What you get is ehancements, different ways of watching it - letterbox or square and unlike video you don't have portions edited out, so much as edited back in.

So wait, you think, wouldn't it make more sense to hold back on DVD release? Since DVD's would compete with the movie on the screen? Well, DVD's are more lucrative than movies or videos. Not rentals, the buying of DVD's - studios make lots of money off of them. They can also release one version of the DVD, then wait about a year and release an enhanced one, such as the Lord of The Rings DVD's
which were released as the standard, then released again with added footage. The first you can find on video. They second you need a DVD player to see.

Movies? Well you only get whatever the movie theater chain is willing to give you - distribution is more limited, I think. DVD's? You, the producer of the DVD can control distribution more directly. You sell the movie to the buyer, direct. In some respects it's cheaper to make a movie and send it directly to DVD then send it to the movie theaters first. Same thing with video, which is why we got so many films going direct to video, cheaper for the studio to produce.

I remember my Dad, who once did consulting work for a big theater chain, telling me way back in the 1980s that movie theaters didn't make a dime off ticket sales (that just paid the overhead of buying the movies and showing them), what they made money off of was concessions. So a movie theater needs to bring in a bush load of people to make money off of a movie it's showing - because the more people, the more concessions it sells, and more tickets.
If it doesn't get lots of people, it takes a loss on that picture. Showing movies is a little bit of a gamble on the movie theater's end of things. So they tend to be picky.
Choosing films they feel will bring in the largest crowd.

If you produced a small little noir film such as Red Rock West or The Last Seduction (both showed up on video first then went to the big screen afterwards, Last Seduction even
caused a rucus at the Oscars because people wanted to nominate the actress in it, but it didn't qualify that year because on video first, to qualify for an Oscar you have to be shown first on big screen - not sure if they changed that rule or not after the hoopla.) But back to my point - the reason Red Rock West and Last Seduction went direct to video is they couldn't find a distributor. It was too expensive to go to the big screen, so they put the film on video. Word of mouth spread and a few art theaters asked to screen the movies on the big screen. Both got distribution
after the fact. And Hollywood sat back in shock. Wait? People will watch something in a movie screen that's out on video first? Why? Simple. People like to go to the movies, the experience of sitting in a darkened theater with a crowd of people watching a film with no distractions (well almost no distractions). Also not everyone owns a VCR or
DVD Player. Add to this the advent of digital - which makes it possible to create a movie off of a video camera with the same quality as a movie camera. Digital changed how movies were made - it made moviemaking accessible to just about everyone. I remember in an informational interview last year a TV producer suggesting that I buy a cheap digitial video camera and just start making my own movies.

So now if you are producing a movie - you have several distribution options to choose from, not just one like in the 1970s/80s: the most expensive (showing it on the big screen), the least expensive (producing a video cassette), and possibly the most lucrative (getting a DVD sold), in between all that is the wide range of television channels to choose from, not to mention the internet where people can now download movies and TV shows before they air on a movie screen or television screen. I have friends who have downloaded movies for free off the internet a month after they came out on screen. Other's who downloaded TV shows before they even aired. Sort of like publishing a book - you can self-publish via print on demand, post it on the internet, publish portions on a web site, electronic publish, get an agent and have a publisher publish it. Somewhat freeing actually.

So what changed? In one word: Digitial. Two words? Digitial, Internet.

PS: Agree on American Splendor. I liked Spiderman 2 better than Harry Potter (which I thought was great, certainly the best directed of the movies, but had a few leaps in logic).
Also loved Shrek 2 and Bourne Supremacy (completely agree with your review of Bourne.)

May check out King Arthur, got scared off by the bad reviews.

[> [> Digital & Dollars -- OnM, 11:45:55 08/04/04 Wed

*** You, the producer of the DVD can control distribution more directly. You sell the movie to the buyer, direct. In some respects it's cheaper to make a movie and send it directly to DVD then send it to the movie theaters first. ***

Exactly why I thought that ME should make Angel Season 6 and go direct to DVD with it. One of the reasons that the music (recording) industry is so freaked these days is the ever-increasing number of musicians who have figured out that they really don't need the record companies any more. Digital studio gear is now so inexpensive that you can make your own recordings, certainly if you are part of a band and everyone can chip in. There are plenty of mastering houses out there that will happily press all the CD's you want, even do artwork and everything, at very reasonable prices. You can buy 1000 or 100,000 copies. You can advertise on the internet, and reach a worldwide audience, or sell your discs at your concerts. The cut to the recording companies? Zip. Your money is your money.

Now, I don't think the same thing will happen in the same way to the movie studios, but I believe they should pay attention to this lesson nevertheless.

*** I remember my Dad, who once did consulting work for a big theater chain, telling me way back in the 1980s that movie theaters didn't make a dime off ticket sales (...), what they made money off of was concessions. ***

Which strikes me as ridiculous. Honestly, maybe it's time for the public to realize that $10.00 for a movie isn't unreasonable. (In a decent theater, of course, and without the idiocy/irritation of commercials before the film showing.) I know I've been paying $4.00 to $6.00 for matinee showings for over ten years now. Costs for nearly everything else in this American life have gone up 50%, 100%, 200%, 300% or even more over the last 20 years. Movie ticket prices have what, gone up maybe 30%? 50%?

*** Digital changed how movies were made - it made moviemaking accessible to just about everyone. I remember in an informational interview last year a TV producer suggesting that I buy a cheap digitial video camera and just start making my own movies. ***

Yes and no. Digital still has a long way to go before it can compete with film for picture quality on a big screen. The digital cameras the pros use (like Spielberg and Lucas) are not cheap at all. Plus, you need to do editing, although the powerful current PC's out there are bringing this cost in line. Finally, very few theaters are equipped to show digital movies in digital format. Therefore, you need to transfer it to 35mm. And that really isn't cheap!

*** I have friends who have downloaded movies for free off the internet a month after they came out on screen. Other's who downloaded TV shows before they even aired. ***

True, but again there is a big quality issue here. Top quality video is a bandwidth hog, even compressed to DVD standards. You need a fast high-speed connection and/or the willingness to take all-night or longer to download. Otherwise, the picture quality is extremely poor (below even VHS) if you are looking at a larger than 15"-19" screen. On a 40, 50, 60 inch screen? Fahgedaboutit!

*** May check out King Arthur, got scared off by the bad reviews. ***

I did emphasize this in the review, but it doesn't hurt to repeat-- not a great film, but many good moments, and Arthur himself was well acted. If you do miss it, definitely worth a rental on DVD, but it does work best on a big screen.

[> [> [> Re: Digital & Dollars -- LittleBit, 17:13:30 08/04/04 Wed

One other thing that seems to be becoming more prevalent is to release the movie on DVD fairly soon after its theatrical release and then around the same time as it would have been released to video market another version, the "Special Edition" or "Director's Cut" or "Extended Edition" with enough appeal that a good percentage of people will buy it again. And if we're lucky there's $5 rebate with proof-of-purchase of the original release.
Demons & Dinosaurs -- Elliot, 01:54:34 08/02/04 Mon

I was wondering, since most of the supposedly "pure-blood" demons we've seen in the Buffyverse appear to be gigantic reptillian beasts (e.g. the Mayor-Monster in "Graduation Day" and the demons seen in Urkonn's flashback in "Fray"), is it possible they may have some sort of connection to dinosaurs, or could this just be coincidence? Then again, some of the other pure demons in eps like "Prophecy Girl" and "The Zeppo" to a degree resemble deep-sea creatures like giant squid, but that sure doesn't mean cephalopods are related to demons. What do the rest of you think?

Replies:

[> If they were demons, they'd be more like... -- Majin Gojira, 04:48:54 08/02/04 Mon

...Showa-Era Daikaiju (Godzilla, Rodan, Anguirus, Mothra, Etc)

Old Ones are generally considered Older than that (IE: Were around when natural life wasn't even multicelular), though the link between Daikaiju and Old Ones is suprisingly strong (at least in a few dubs).

[> [> Re: If they were demons, they'd be more like... -- David, 12:49:10 08/03/04 Tue

I think the Old Ones were here before dinosaurs walked the earth. Also i don't know that much about dinosaurs but aren't they mammals and Giles said the earth belonged to the Old Ones and demons before the time of mammals.

[> [> [> Of Dinosaurs, Old Ones, and other things -- Majin Gojira, 14:25:51 08/03/04 Tue

Dinosaurs are diapsid archosaurs (meaning they have extra holes in their head than other reptiles or even mammals do to allow jaw muscles to expand), somewhere between Crocodiles (the only living archosaurs left) and birds.

Old Ones walked the earth before the evolution of Mortal Animals (ssume he meant multicelular animals) so that places them at over 600 million years old. At most, over 3 billion years ago.
Has anyone seen "Dead Like Me?" -- Seven, 13:29:10 08/02/04 Mon

Hey everyone

I was wondering if anyone has seen this show. I've read a couple synopses and reviews on it and it seems like it could be a really good show. I'm wary though. I don't have Showtime, and for me to watch it I would need new cable or buy it on DVD (which I'm not even sure is available) So can anyone fill me in? I don't want to miss out on a really good show, but then again, I haven't read about anyone on this board watching it so maybe it's not worth it. Can anyone give me an honest opinion?

Replies:

[> Re: Has anyone seen "Dead Like Me?" -- Dead (like me) Soul, 19:48:41 08/02/04 Mon

I've watched all but the most recent episodes. It was created by one of the creators of Wonderfalls so there is a very similar tone to the show.

I loved it at the beginning and liked it less and less as the first season went along and it became schmoopier and schmoopier and each episode had its tidy little life lesson. It got to the point that the creator (whose name I'm blanking on right now) finally gave up in disgust and quit, decrying that it had become something far from his vision for the show and calling it "Touched by a Reaper."

Masochistically, I kept on watching just to see if the show would turn around at all, and so far, it hasn't.

Just my opinion, of course, many people do love it.

[> [> Re: Has anyone seen "Dead Like Me?" -- Brian, 19:44:25 08/03/04 Tue

One of my favorite shows this season. Good humor and quirky characters.

[> [> [> Re: Has anyone seen "Dead Like Me?" -- Marginal Drifter, 04:05:28 08/04/04 Wed

Yes!!!

Oh my god I was starting to think that it was a huge halluciination because nobody IRL watches it and you'd think it would have come up on at least one Btvs related site.

I do agree that it got a wee bit dull and gooey towards the end(No more Wee George flashbacks!!! PLeeeeeease!!!!), but nevertheless 'twas quirky enough to keep me enchanted.

[> [> [> [> So riddle me this Deadlikes... -- Seven, 09:59:33 08/04/04 Wed

Is it worth getting new cable? Or better yet, are there dvds for it out? And if so, are they worth buying?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: So riddle me this Deadlikes... -- Tymen, 11:41:07 08/04/04 Wed

Season 1 is available on DVD and definitely worth buying.
I thought the series was great. (I own it.)

[> [> Rent it from NetFlix -- change, 18:32:52 08/06/04 Fri

Basically each episode is a little lesson on why you should live life to the fullest. Nice idea, but it gets a little tiresome after the 3'rd or 4'th episode. Don't expect much of a fantasy or SF aspect to it. The Reaper's don't do much other than realize how they should have lived their lives better.

You can rent the first season from Netflix. That might be cheaper than buying it, and I'm not sure the show would be worth owning anyway.

[> Wunnerful! Wunnerful! -- skeeve, 09:30:48 08/11/04 Wed

I rather like it.
I don't know what life lesson one would get from George's retreat, but I liked it anyway.

The lead in is amusing,
but it really has no relationship to the rest of the show.

Can one take the soul of a graveling?
aren't willow and michelle from american pie portrayed by AH in almost the same way? -- ghady, 13:58:52 08/02/04 Mon


Replies:

[> Re: aren't willow and michelle from american pie portrayed by AH in almost the same way? -- DEN, 15:05:17 08/02/04 Mon

IMO, the portrayals are mirror-images.AH gives Willow a "knowing" subtext beneath her innocence and complementing it, while Michelle has a corresponding innocence underlying her "knowingness." The result in each case is a character more complex and appealing than might be expected from the role description. A funny and well done piece of fanfic, reference now lost, has Michelle exiled for her sins to a Catholic girls' school in Sunnydale; and Willow taking temporary refuge from vampires in the same school! Slash wackiness ensues.
Both the AtPO posting board and the Trollop board made it into Keith Toppings new book! -- Rufus, 16:48:11 08/02/04 Mon

There are numerous books about Buffy out there, and I only get a few of them for budgetary reasons. So, one I just can't miss out on is by Keith Topping from England. His series of books on Buffy or Angel are worth the money. He isn't picking sides in any shipper wars and presents information with humor. The book is more than just a list of the episodes and what happened in them. Keith loves the series, both series and it shows. But to the part I'm most interested in...


From SLAYER The Last Days of Sunnydale by Keith Topping


Keith gave a list of sites for Buffy in the section called "Buffy and the Internet"

On page 183 Keith Topping starts to list resources on the internet. In the first section he goes into Newsgroups. He gives us alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.

However, it has also, occasionally, attracted an aggressive contingent and, that curse of usenet, 'trolls' (people who send offensive messages simply to stir up trouble). Hell hath no fury like overgrown schoolchildren with access to a computer Keith Topping

He then goes to Mailing Lists:

More relaxed than usenet, at http://groups.yahoo.com/ you'll find access to numerous Buffy-lists. Simply type the name of your favourite character or actor into the 'search groups' box. Be warned, however, Mailing lists can be very addictive, so resist the temptation to join too many. Keith Topping


He lists 'The Bloody Awful Poets Society' and especially recommends JossBTVS. Now I'll quote the interesting part which pertains to US!!!!!

If you're up for a lively debate, join the fun at conversebuffyverse. Fans of gossip can catch the latest media articles and news from other forums at spoiler-crypt. Keith Topping



The site where I started my Buffy internet career at is mentioned in the Posting Board section:


"Posting Boards: The original BTVS Posting Board, The Bronze, is sadly no more. But its spirit lives on at www.bronzebeta.com. This includes occasional contributions from Joss Whedon and other members of the production team (Jane Espenson, David Fury, and Steven DeKnight have all posted, for example). It's fast, cliquey and, to a newcomer, can seem bewildering with its shout-out lists and in-jokes. But it's worth sticking around as you'll find yourself participating in some fascinating discussions. All Things Philosophical on BtVS (www.voy.com/1467/) is also well worth a visit." from Slayer The last days of Sunnydale by Keith Topping.


I have to mention another bit he said about character specific boards...

"An amusing diversion is to visit a number of 'shipper-sites' and note the wildly differing reactions to the same episodes or events. What is nirvana to a Bangel (a Buffy/Angel 'shipper) will likely infuriate a Spuffy (Buffy/Spike 'shipper), while the Spanders (Spike/Xander) and Spangels (Spike/Angel) eagerly seize upon each 'West Hollywood' moment in Buffy and Angel where the subtext seems to become the text. Meanwhile, The Redemptionistas (see www.tabularasa.com) battle it out with the Ducks and The Evilistas in a never-ending game of 'my vampire's better than your vampire'. Fans argue, endlessly, about the amount of screen time devoted to their object of affections. Even those who've fallen out of love with the series have their own forums, known as 'bitter boards' or 'ranting rooms' Enter at your own risk. If all of this sounds a bit silly then, yes, it probably is. But it's mostly good fun, especially if you remember to take most of what your read with a healthy pinch of salt. You will, however, be amazed that a television show can inspire such passion and devotion. And, within a few weeks, you'll brobably wonder how you ever lived without knowing this world existed." Keith Topping

That paragraph alone makes me dizzy, but Keith gets the job done, describing the episodes and being pretty darn impartial about it. Slayer, The last Days of Sunnydale...buy it, if only to make me happy...;)

Replies:

[> For those who don't know it's "conversebuffyverse" aka The Trollop Board -- Rufus, 17:09:00 08/02/04 Mon

The shame is I didn't see a listing for the main ATPO web site. This new book is the first time AtPO or the Trollop board has made it to any publication. Keith has a new book coming out in December...

Slayer: The Complete Unofficial & Unauthorised Bumper Edition by Keith Topping

[> [> Re: For those who don't know it's "conversebuffyverse" aka The Trollop Board -- deb w, 06:23:12 08/04/04 Wed

my fault, I did some research for that section and because I have the message board book marked I pointed people here and hoped they'd find the main site . Hopefully the error will be rectified in the Angel Season 5 guide because people really need to be able to read the stuff on the main site as well. ( makes mental note to add main site to Internet section of the season 5 file )
Got cast in my second vampire related play... (and another thanks to Rob) -- Rochefort, 17:53:25 08/02/04 Mon

I got cast as Dr. Seward in Dracula. They said they originally wanted me as Dracula (weird), but needed a Dr. Seward. He has the most lines and he has to be in love and an alcoholic and crazy (runs the asylum), and I get to stake my girlfriend after she vamps out and tries to seduce me, and I think Dracula throws me into a few walls. Second vampire related play (Bat Boy) I have a large role in. And people keep telling me all that Buffy watching is a waste of time. ha!

Another thanks to Rob cause if he'd have never posted about Bat Boy, I'd maybe never have discovered my talent for being in vampire plays.

Rochefort
Illyria seen from an sf angle -- lakrids, 12:07:04 08/03/04 Tue


Illyria story on Angel was one of the more interesting sub plots on Angel in this season. I saw her story as a more or less as a first contact story, and for Illyria are we cavemen. And with some reason, if we accept Arthur C. Clark rule: that sufficient advanced technology will be indescribable from magic. And Illyria had at start some strong magic abilities, to say at least.
We know very little about Illyria, and most of what we know comes from herself. She have said that she was feared and loved, when she ruled ( Machiavelli would probably have approved ). This tells us, that she values these emotions, and that she has at least intellectual concept about these feelings. Coupled with the fact that she is a strong empath, that must at least give her strong empiric knowledge about feelings, from a wide range of creatures. I don t think we conclude that she herself do or do not have the emotion love, or how high she personally values it. An empath feels the emotion from creatures around her, and therefore would I not consider the possibility that an empath would knowingly harm another feeling creature, because that in some way would be like hurting oneself. But in season one were there an empath demon, that took pleasure in hurting other creatures. One must then conclude that in the Ats-universe, empathy can in some cases be turned off, or that some creature with empathy like abilities, are not true empathy, but only reads the state of emotions in a creature, or the empath is one twisted masochist. Illyria seems to be a true empath, because she could not detach herself from Freds parents feelings, when they came to visit Fred. This gives us the problem on how we can explain, that Illyria seems to enjoy physical battle? And frankly I can not come with better explanation, than that in battle she don t really register pain, her own and others, as a proff boxer turns off the pain in a match. I think that we can conclude that she knows and understand the feeling love. But we cannot conclude, that she does give the same importance and social value, as a human would. And even humans from different cultures can have different values and social behaviour coupled to an emotional concept like love. Illyria alien biology and society nearly dictates, that her concept of love is very different from us own. C. J. Cherryh has written the SF novel Foreigner , where humans more or less, coexist with a race of aliens, that don t have an emotional concept about the feeling love. Betrayal is for them, as for Illyria a neutral word, and they do have seven different words for it, and one of them can be roughly translated to doing-the-necessary-action. Out from these facts could it sound like, that they were a race amoral alien monsters. But one of the points in the book is that the aliens are alien, and one should try to build a conceptual framework, that can bridge the divide between the alien otherness and humanity, and not fit them into bo. It should be mentioned that the aliens, had central emotion in their life called Manchi, which could be very roughly be translated as loyalty /comradeship, but then again only very roughly. Another SF novel that could be linked to Illyria, would be Frank Herbert Dune saga, where Leto II, sacrifices his humanity and becomes an immortal worm, to save humanity from itself. Where as Illyria goes from something truly alien to something of an hybridisation between man and an old one, does Leto II go from neo humanity to an alien mindset as a sentient giant worm. When Leto ruled his empire in the form of a giant worm, was he called God Emperor. When Illyria ruled as a pure old one, was she called God King, same difference.
Another interesting thing with Illyria, is that the she can create a completely believable sub persona that have all of the impersonated entity mannerism and speech pattern. An entity that can mimic an other creature feelings and behaviour, and at the same time is an empathy, must have some very solid or perhaps very fluid ideas about it self. Perhaps is it her memory, that must be extremely long, that gives her that background, that anker her selfs, when she feel other creatures emotions and when she mimics another creature. Her long memory must give her a nearly reflexive action, over for an long range of complex (for a human) problems. Because she will see patterns of old problems, that she have dealt with countless of times in the past. She is probably aware of the problem that this could possible give her, if she did not recognise, that the world change and the patterns in it change with it. Because she makes the decision from the start to get a guide/high priest who can tell her about the world
Other things we know we know about her, is that she is a God to a God. But what does see mean with the concept god? Is a god only an entity with unlimited destructive powers? Or does a god for cover a wider concept that also covers over life and creation? Most likely do I think that, that she thought it sounded really cool, and Illyria really do indeed like, her own monologues. I thought that they had a rather Shakespearean sound, not good Shakespearen, but better than Buffyeren speech speech.
I have used the feminine gender when I have described Illyria, and that is at best a very incomplete projection, only based on the form of her shell. When we first heard described from Knox (evil-geek-dark-shadow-of-Wesley), does he calls it , and I would think that Knox at that point had the most comprehensive knowledge of Illyria. So it, she is.
If we move the world of books into the movies. Can one also find parallels to the movie Alien 4. Where Ripley is going from is going from fighting the aliens and dying to defeat them, end in the movie as hybridisation of the aliens and the old Ripley. I think Joss, did some work on the script to the Alien 4 movie. And I have heard that Joss were not satisfied with the end result of the Alien 4 movie,. Personally am I one of 17 people worldwide, which found Alien 4, to be the most interesting movie in the array of Alien movies.

Replies:

[> Actually, fantasy already beat you to this -- Majin Gojira, 14:07:17 08/03/04 Tue

It all matters with what the Old Ones are. The Term comes from the writings of H.P. Lovecraft to describe vastly horrible alien entities as far removed from humanity as men are from insects. Though called by subsiquent writers "Great Old Ones".

Now when I use the word "Alien", I do not mean simply "Etra-Terrestrial" or even 'Extra-Dimensional' (as Buffyverse demons are), but an evil combination of the two beyond human comprehension.

This is what Illyria is. It is both a Science Fiction and Fantasy Concept, a horrific amalgam of ululant blasphemy (I just wanted to use that phrase, damnit!)

To quote a Cthulu Mythos FAQ

"To begin with, Lovecraft himself did not use the terminology outlined below. He referred to the "Old Ones" (or "Great Old Ones", "Elder Ones", "Ancient Ones", and so forth) as applying to different beings in different stories. For example, Lovecraft used the term "Great Old Ones" in only two stories: in "The Call of Cthulhu" it referred to Cthulhu's spawn, and in "At the Mountains of Madness" it was the title of the starfish-like beings who lived in Antarctica and warred with the Cthulhu-spawn! The list below covers the standardizations which have come into use after Lovecraft's death:

"Great Old Ones: Vastly powerful creatures which are the most famous creations of the Cthulhu Mythos. Although most of these beings differ widely in appearance from each other, some are actually 'leaders' or high priests of one species (i.e. Cthulhu is a "Great Old One" but he is of a race called, for lack of a better name, the "Spawn of Cthulhu"). The individual Great Old Ones, however, do not necessarily belong to the same species. Various authors have tried to come up with elaborate family trees of the Great Old Ones, but for the most part these are unconvincing and need not concern anyone but diehard Mythos fans.

One trait of most Great Old Ones is a limitation on their influence. Cthulhu is imprisoned beneath the Pacific Ocean in the city of R'lyeh, Ithaqua the Wind-Walker is confined to the far north of our planet, and so forth. Even those Great Old Ones less able to act may reach out and talk in their dreams to humans, who learn to revere these beings. The Great Old Ones are often worshipped on Earth by insane human cultists and other species; Cthulhu himself is served by humans, the amphibious deep ones, and his own spawn."

Or, like Illyria, trapped in the Deeper well until a cultist awakened her.

From the Wikipedia:

"Cthulhu Mythos is the label coined by the writer August Derleth for the shared world based upon the themes, characters, and story elements found in the works of H. P. Lovecraft, as well as his proteg s and later writers influenced by him. Combined, they form a kind of mythos a system of symbols upon which Lovecraft could craft his dreamy, richly resonant stories. However, it should be noted that much of the mythos published after Lovecraft's death is at great variance with Lovecraft's original concept of a valueless, meaningless universe of chaos. Derleth presents a codified mythos influenced by his own Christian values, a struggle of good versus evil. Lovecraft himself was an atheist who claimed Kant's "ethical system is a joke." Indeed, some Lovecraft scholars contend that the Cthulhu Mythos is merely a theory proposed by Derleth; it was never intended to be a cohesive, singular entity by Lovecraft, but rather a collection of images which can be used in separate works to provoke the same emotions.

(Snippy!)

"If anything, the collection of monsters in Lovecraft's writings are far from consciously hostile to humanity, but rather absolutely indifferent, and as such, causing harm with as little regard as an unaware human foot crushing an insect.

"Central to the mythos are the Great Old Ones, a fearsome assortment of deities led by the dreaded Cthulhu (though there are other beings in the mythos that are even more monstrous), who lies in a state of hibernation in the lost and sunken city of R'lyeh. "When the stars are right," Cthulhu will awaken and wreak havoc upon the earth."

Which pretty much fits in line with Illyria's attitudes until they were contaminated with the human shell's remnant emotions towards the 'muk' of her time (or, she simply re-applied her values to the muk once she began to interact with them).

But indeed, Alien is a good way to describe Illyria...it's just a little more complicated than that.

[> [> Re: Actually, fantasy already beat you to this -- lakrids, 12:50:34 08/04/04 Wed

I agree with that the Illyria inspiration most likely comes from the Cthulu Mythos, and an interpretation with acknowledge of that, would at best inadequate. But I wanted to look at Illyria from a purely sf angle with a minimum of fantasy elements in it.
Is Angel really unredeemable? -- megaslayer, 12:18:13 08/03/04 Tue

In the first years as Angel he kill evil people to prove that he was just the same pre-curse. But then he saved a family's baby even though Darla killed them. He tried to help people in the 50's twice with the sub then the hotel. Decades later he helped Buffy numerous times and save lives. For the first four years of his time of L.A., he helped save people souls and make them care. In the last season he thought he was helping people but didn't care about unitl midseason. My Personal opinion anyone is redeemable as long as they care about their acts of kindness.

Replies:

[> If Angel is unredeemable than redemption itself is worthless and meaningless. (MHO) -- SS, 19:26:12 08/04/04 Wed

In order to have the concept of redemption, one would have to redeem themself to a something or a someone greater than themself. In my humble opinion, any higher power worth worshipping, whether called God, Allah, Great Spirit, or whatever, would never deem a living (and for this purpose Angel is living) sentient being with free will unredeemable. (And yes I am including even Hitler and Usama Bin Laden in that category. And I am truly no fan of Bin Laden. I lost a classmate on 9/11.)

If that higher being would deem a sentient living person with free will unredeemable, then salvation becomes just one big fat lottery or even worse, a popularity contest.

That kind of salvation, salvation being the point to redemption, isnt worth having. So that redemption wouldn't be worth having. Would be meaningless.

Changing your question just a little bit, another question could be: Will Angel ever be redeemed?

The answer to that would be that only that higher power and Angel (someday) would ever have the answer to that question.

But his redemption wouldn't come from his acts. Many murderers have done time in prison, and they come out as bitter and murderous as when they went in, even if they have "paid their debts to society".

It would only come from how desperately Angel wanted and how purely he wanted to be redeemed.

To want to be reconciled with that greater power.

I hope my answer helped.

S(ister) S.
Fray -- David, 12:51:40 08/03/04 Tue

Hi i was wondering does anyone know where i can get summaries of the Fray comic books since it isn't available in England and i kinda want to read it or at least a summary

Thanks

Replies:

[> There is an Fray Fansite (link inside) -- Majin Gojira, 14:08:58 08/03/04 Tue

http://www.geocities.com/josswhedon_fray/

Enjoy

[> Re: Fray -- Sheri, 15:37:01 08/03/04 Tue

www.tfaw.com ships internationally. They have a soft cover book containing all 8 fray comics (plus a forward by Joss and some of the conceptual art work at the back) for $20. Worldwide shipping costs $7.

[> Re: Fray -- Matthew Wilson, 13:02:35 08/04/04 Wed

Not true, Fray *is* available in England. If you live near any fantasy/comics shop such as Tenth Planet then they will either have it in stock or be able to get hold of it. Some larger general bookstores may also stock it, I think I remember seeing it in Waterstones. Finally amazon.co.uk will happily sell you a copy.

[> [> Re: Fray -- Matthew Wilson, 13:04:02 08/04/04 Wed

I was talking about the paperback collected version, by the way.

[> Re: Fray -- O'Cailleagh, 18:14:03 08/05/04 Thu

Try Ottakar's. They will order pretty much anything in (that's if it isn't already on their shelves-check the fantasy/sci-fi area). Based on the other Buffy type comics, the Fray comic (collected) will probably be about 9.99. If not, try a local comic store or similar. You can totally get it. I don't recommend checking out the Fray site, unless you don't mind spoilers, as it will spoil the entire thing for you. (Which is probably why they're called spoilers!)

O'Cailleagh
Final Episode -- Allen Garmendia B, 20:28:10 08/03/04 Tue

I mean, come on what happened, i can't believe how desappointed was to see and hear the final of my favorite series ever, It was so lame, even thou I understand Joss, I was hopping the final when angel and buffy got back together, really, I'm desapointed, i was hoping for more, if anybody have any links about Joss and what he said about the final of angel,please write me back, or if you think you can explain me better, because I'm really hurt.....

Allen...

Replies:

[> There's no disputing taste, but... -- Seven, 10:11:02 08/04/04 Wed

The show was not about Angel and Buffy. Or Buffy at all for that matter. There is some disagreeing whether or not the show made the best of sense. Many see the season as a cop out. That is, the majority of the season dealt with the group making the wrong decisions, but magically in the end, those decisions turn out to be right. I, for one, enjoyed how it played out, but still realize that the season wasn't supposed to go like this. The show needed one or two more seasons to really create the proper send off. Joss and ME got caught between trying to make a great season that moved the overall "message" or theme along, but suddenly had to jump right to the ending that they had always wanted without enough lead in. Am I disapointed? A little, but not for any reasons that you stated. Personally, I didn't want Buffy and Angel together, but others did. The point is, any show, this included, is not about seeing only what you want to see. If that were the case, the show would be quite boring. Happily ever after doesn't really exist because there are always the problems that tomorrow brings. It's fine if Angel and Buffy come together, but I don't like the idea of "ending" up together. That was never what the show was about. It was more about redemption and the everyday battles, not Bangel. If you didn't care for the ending, at least dislike it because of inconsistancies or plot holes, not because what you wanted to see didn't happen.

7

[> Re: Final Episode -- slappymonkey, 11:38:42 08/04/04 Wed

It is completely a right for you to have your own opinion, but to be honest I would have been extremely disappointed if Buffy and Angel had ended up together in the end. Angel (other than the Italy episode) has moved past Buffy throughout the seasons of Angel. To me, his relationship with Cordelia was much more defining to his person and character. Buffy started him on the right path but it was truly Cordelia that was there assisting his path to redemption. I was more disappointed that Angel and Cordy did not get back together (although brining back Cordy probably could not have been done uncornily -- not really a word but i hope the point is made).
In terms of the last episode itself. I loved it. My love and respect for Angel grew out of the constant uphill battler being waged that could never end. I never fooled myself in believing the prophecy to turn him into a 'real boy' (too Disney). Can one ever truly be redeemed, no matter how much good is done??? It is a philosophical and religious question that can never be truly answered. Don't get me wrong, you may believe in redemption because your religion teaches that, but until people start coming back from the dead the answer can never be attained. The finale was in that vain for me. Buffy is a mortal (albeit a Slayer), but eventually she will die so her arch needed closure which they attained by destroying Sunnydale. Angel is immortal which means his war will constantly be waged throughout his life and by allowing that continuation by starting a war in the last five minutes of the finale, I felt was priceless and right on the money for the message the show was attempting to portray.
At the same time I would not have minded seeing that war continue. Too early to end the show, but respect for the way it was done.
The first? in a series of AtS reviews/thoughts: AtS, season 1 eps 1-10 -- Masq, 10:33:59 08/05/04 Thu

So I'm doing a marathon see-every-episode-Angel-was-ever-in thing in order to bone-up on my Angel history for the Season 6 Project, and my viewing has moved from BtVS into AtS.

What follows are just some general impressions on what I've watched so far, which is everything up to the middle of "Parting Gifts". In short, all the Doyle episodes and the first appearance of Wesley.

I liked Doyle. He was a good character, and good for Angel. A demon-guy for Angel to hang with and talk to, someone to kick him in the butt when he needed it. I think Lorne took over this role in the subsequent seasons. Anyway, despite my love for Doyle, the show didn't really take off until Wesley appeared. Which is ironic, because back when Season 1 of Angel originally aired, a lot of fans thought Wesley coming on the show was the worst.idea.ever. It was going to "utterly ruin the show". I was one of these fans.

But think about it: what had we seen of Wesley except the close-minded wimpy little dandy from Season 3 of BtVS? I was posting at the Bronze in those days, and people weren't happy to see the return of him. It was like bringing back Eve into a hypothetical Angel Season 6.

Nowadays, a leather-clad, scruffy, cross-bow carrying "Rogue Demon Hunter" doesn't strike a fan as completely ridiculous the way it did when "Parting Gifts" first aired. You barely blink now. Wesley's character development over the next few seasons was that good. And one of the reasons it was good? You see the Wesley of Season 5 of AtS, then go back and see the Wesley of Seaon 3 of BtVS, and you have no problem believing it's the same person. The one-track-mind ruthlessness is still there. The book-man is still there. Wesley's just become the thing he wanted to be in "Parting Gifts", and it's a delicious "Be careful what you wish for."

Of course, we joked back then that Wesley wanted to *be* Angel. In retrospect, though, I think he just found other parts of himself through the angsty events of Pylea, Connor's kidnapping, the gang's rejection of him, etc, etc.

Watching the Season 1 episodes, though, it bugs me to realize that every member of Angel's little family, including probably Angel himself, will all be dead within a few years. I look at how amazingly they were developing Cordelia, how much growth she was showing in just those first 10 episodes, and I'm like, "what's the point? She'll be abducted by an evil PTB within two years, and die without barely a blip of life again a year and a half after that."

I'm not fond of how devoted Cordelia was to the PTBs in "You're Welcome". I wanted some bitterness. I wanted the episode to end by having her hang up her champion hat and walk out of Wolfram and Hart and go have a life somewhere, disillusioned but struggling to continue to grow as a person. [/end Cordelia rant]

I Will Remember You doesn't go down as well as it used to. Of course, at the time, I was still a Buffy/Angel 'shipper, and I found the idea of Angel getting to have the one (or two?) thing(s) he could never have very romantic. Because you knew he'd have it ripped away from him by the end of the episode--the humanity and the woman he loved.

(I always love Angel getting the things he thinks he can never have and then losing them. But that's a story for another season.)

Now the happy!bedroom scenes in IWRY seem kind of sappy. I'm remembering people bitching about the episode back then and now I'm like, "I see what you mean." Give me the angsty!sex scene of Angel and Darla in "Reprise", please! But back when these first few episodes of Angel were airing, Darla was still a memory of a boring ditz in a Catholic school-girl uniform (OK, mostly--the alley way scene in Becoming did give her a *little* depth).

"Hero" still makes me cry, even though I also finally see the point of people who said the Scourge was a complete and utter anvil.

Methinks I was more forgiving of Mutant Enemy's anvils and wish-fulfillment-plots in those days. Subsequent seasons made my standards higher.

Replies:

[> Re: The first? in a series of AtS reviews/thoughts: AtS, season 1 eps 1-10 -- Ames, 14:06:42 08/05/04 Thu

I wasn't all that impressed with early Angel S1 the first time through, but now I feel nostalgic about it when I see the episodes. It seems so simple and pure of concept back in those days when it was just Angel + Cordelia + Doyle (later Wesley). Like watching home movies of old friends.

[> [> Ah, for simpler days -- Masq, 19:34:06 08/05/04 Thu

Yeah, running a business and good and evil and life in general seemed simpler in those days. And Angel was the head of his own little family.

Then Joss came and threw a big a big wrench o' pain and angst into it.

And then did it again, and again, and again.....

[> Re: The first? in a series of AtS reviews/thoughts: AtS, season 1 eps 1-10 -- Cactus Watcher, 14:43:23 08/05/04 Thu

It's interesting how our likes and dislikes are different. I liked the character Doyle, but by the end of Bachelor Party I was convinced he had to go for the show to survive to a second season. Dave Greenwalt and Joss both semed to like the idea of a Whistler character, but the type really belonged in 1950's TV not in 1990's TV and I don't think they knew what to do with him. (Much as Joss' stab at doing a semi-western genre was a weak part of Firefly, if you are familar with the westerns of the 1950's. It had a lot of the pseudo-western flavor of the show Wild Wild West of the 1960's, but wasn't as well done.) I was very pleased that Doyle got a good send off in Hero.

I was absolutely unspoiled when Wesley showed up. I thought it was an excellent idea to replace Doyle, the character they couldn't quite get a grip on, with Wes, one who already had a past and someone with already known strengths and weaknesses. It was clear even in his first appearance on Angel that while he still was and always would be something of a mental klutz, he was going to be someone trying to make something better of himself on Angel, not kidding himself as he did on Buffy that everything was fine in his way of doing things.

IWRY is interesting because with Doyle not working out as a long term character it seemed to me at the time that Angel desperately needed the visit from Buffy to shake things up and get them back on the right track. I think it succeeded in that. By the time Buffy returned in Sanctuary things had turned around completely for the series. Buffy was no longer needed to keep the Angel show going. They could have her be a guest without her becoming central to the episode which was largely an Angel and Faith's story.

[> [> Re: The first? in a series of AtS reviews/thoughts: AtS, season 1 eps 1-10 -- Masq, 19:19:20 08/05/04 Thu

I liked Doyle, but Wesley was one of the best things that ever happened to that show.

If you'd told me that when the spoilers saying "Doyle out, Wesley in" appeared, however, I would have never believed it.

[> Re: The first? in a series of AtS reviews/thoughts: AtS, season 1 eps 1-10 -- LittleBit, 15:01:23 08/05/04 Thu

I've said this in various places before, but when I was finally able to watch AtS S1, my take was that Doyle leaving and Wesley joining the group was necessary. Not because they didn't know what to do with Doyle's character but because of how they had developed him. As long as AI was Angel/Cordy/Doyle it remained primarily a one-man operation with office staff. Cordelia wasn't yet invested in what they were actually trying to do, so she was quite satisfied to stay behind to answer the phone and make sure the client got billed. Doyle made no question about his non-involvement---he was there to give Angel the messages from the PtB, not to go out there at Angel's side and help him. It was when Wes joined them that AI began to become a true ensemble operation. Wes wasn't content to stay on the sidelines. He did the research, yes, but when he learned things Agnel needed to know he was right out there to tell him. And to be at his side, or protecting his back, and he dragged Cordelia with him. By the end of S1 AI had become a true group; all of them, including Gunn, were willing to do whatever was necessary to take on the next fight. And it was this involvement with others, the working with them and having to trust them, that I think truly put Angel onto the path to become someone who mattered.

[> [> Re: The first? in a series of AtS reviews/thoughts: AtS, season 1 eps 1-10 -- Masq, 19:06:42 08/05/04 Thu

Cordelia got dragged in not only by Wes, but by getting Doyle's visions. After that, she was completely invested, whether she wanted to be or not.

[> Rants (not about Dennis Miller) Angel s.5 spoilers -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 05:22:07 08/07/04 Sat

Lots of buzzy thoughts from your post but mostly want to say how much I like your Cordelia rant. I wasn't a big fan of "Your're Welcome" when it aired (a rather lonely position at the time) and you articulate one major reason. I've always seen Angel's Avengers more as soliders than friends (the opposite of the Scoobs) and it would have been nice to have a solider who had done as much as Cordelia to leave the service, to say that the she had done her duty (more than) and that she wanted to live a decent, normal existence in the world. I thought the episode never really allowed us to get to see Cordy but merely gave us this idealized version of her (for obvious reasons by the end).

Also, I thought "You're Welcome"had blown-up a really good plotline (Angel's spiritual desolation & Lindsey's behind-the-scenes machinations) for no better reason than (an admittedly bitchin') swordfight. Didn't know the Whedon had an even better plotlne (Illyria & the fallout from Fred's death) up his oh, so talented sleeve.

I understand why Whedon & Co. did what they did with this episode (big, honkin' hundreth episode after all) but I would have liked to see these plotlines play-out over two episodes, if for no other reason than to give the rest of the Fang Gang some screentime.

[> [> Re: Rants (not about Dennis Miller) Angel s.5 spoilers -- Masq, 08:07:01 08/07/04 Sat

Lindsey's machinations all season did come full-circle and fit in nicely with the Circle of the Black Thorne story line in Power Play, as Rob explains here.

[> [> [> Re: Rants (not about Dennis Miller) Angel s.5 spoilers -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 10:02:13 08/07/04 Sat

Totally agree about the Black Thorn thingy. I was merely suggesting how all the narrative momentum built-up by "Destiny", "Soul Purpose" (an episode that strikes me as really underrated), & "Damage" comes to a screaching halt in "You're Welcome" so much so that Whedon & Co. need to kill off a lead to jump-start the seasonal arc.

[> [> [> [> Re: Rants (not about Dennis Miller) Angel s.5 spoilers -- Masq, 12:43:15 08/07/04 Sat

Well, if you want momentum built up over 12 or more episodes that then has the air taken out of it, try all the build-up from "Conviction" through "You're Welcome" that the memory-wipe was going to create a major blow-up when it was revealed.

"You raped the minds of your friends"

And then in "Origin", only Wesley is really affected by getting his memory back. Illyria gets Fred's memories, but it doesn't phase her much. Gunn and Lorne are out of range and never get their memories of Connor back. And Connor comes out of the experience as healthy and well-adjusted as he was before.

And no one ever calls Angel on the spell, not even Wes, after a lot of promisory notes from comments made by Eve, Cordelia, and others that this was to be one of the turning points of the season.

Oh, well, I guess they had to sort of tone that down to get the season to be a series-ender instead of just a seasonal-ender, so Angel could go out at least partly heroic.

And I enjoyed Origin anyway.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rants (not about Dennis Miller) Angel s.5 spoilers -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 18:50:24 08/07/04 Sat

Not to be a contrarian, but I never thought the mind-wipe would be as crucial as most people at this gorup did (have whole long post about it below) so it's resolution in "Origin" was very much in line with my thinking on the matter. With the noteable exception of Cordy's infamous line, I also don't really see the S5 narrative building to the mindwipe in any concrete way (outside of an allusion to it here & there).

Also, "Origin" which pretty much puts the mindwipe to rest as a storyline was going into production right as the cancellation was announced so I don't see the episode as something throw together to take the issue of the table but as a genuine expression of how the creative team thinks about the mindwipe & it's consquences/morality.

[> In the Beginning, Joss Created... -- hebrokeaway, 17:17:09 08/07/04 Sat

This topic requires a delurking, as I've always enjoyed revisiting earlier episodes. Some thoughts:

I'm all about the arc. I love sprawling, season-long stories that take patience and attention to get the most out of. Season One sorely lacked this. It's understandable given the network's desire to attract to new viewers, but it does hurt the flow of the show.

"City Of" is quite wonderful. It's a shame many ignore it when bringing up the excellent Joss episodes.

Many of the stand alones felt forced. Often ME came up with a great idea, but the episode's execution felt thin and stretched out. Examples of this in the first half include "Lonely Hearts," "Rm w/a Vu," and "The Bachelor Party." It's even worse in the second half.

I like "I Will Remember You," but wished Buffy remembered it. The fall-out would have made for a more interesting story and relationship between them. The bedroom scenes are cheesy, but then can you blame Angel? I also dug the Oracles.

"Hero:" Loved the ending, bored by the episode. I may be the only person who isn't a big fan of Doyle. His sacrifice was surprising, and Glen Quinn sometimes hit the right note of charm, but otherwise he left me cold. I see his purpose in teaching Angel (even if Angel didn't learn his lesson until much later), but trading-off for Wes is fine by me.

I also may be the only person who is a fan of Kate Lockley. She made for an interesting contrast to Angel, and it was fascinating to see him through her perspective. If the average person somehow got sucked into the Buffyverse, we wouldn't start fighting vampires and opening portals. We wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Kate is torn between her loyalty (conditioning?) to the system and Angel's message. She's even torn over Angel himself. I enjoyed how this played out, and wished there was a better resolution to her story.

But that's a rant for the second half of Season Two.

[> [> I love Kate -- Masq, 22:44:47 08/08/04 Sun

Kate is one of the most misunderstood characters in the Buffyverse. Here's an essay I wrote several years ago defending her.

It Ain't Easy Being Blue

[> [> [> Another Kate lover chiming in -- shambleau, 11:34:02 08/09/04 Mon

Loved the essay, Masq. I'd say though, that, in Lonely Hearts, she doesn't just think originally that Angel's "a cute guy in a bar". She connects with him almost immediately. She's telling someone she barely knows about her trust issues with men, after all, and I don't think it's just because she's a little loaded or that she makes a habit of it. That asttraction colors a lot of her original interactions with Angel.

I do wonder how someone who is so dedicated never picked up on the demonic threat. A police captain is using zombies, demon fights-to-the-death are going on, with rich people attending, not to mention all the weird murders and the cop on the beat doesn't know ?

[> [> [> [> Re: Another Kate lover chiming in -- Masq, 12:49:06 08/09/04 Mon

For the reason fictional characters always do inexplicable things... it serves the story. Give Kate trust issues. Introduce her to cute guy. Have her discover a whole world of supernatural evil she never knew existed. Have cute guy be part of it. Then he becomes the personification of the new threat.

See Kate freak out!

[> [> [> [> [> Hey Masq, we agree on something. I wish Kate had come back. She was cool. -- Rochefort, 19:18:50 08/09/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> You and me, agreeing on something? *my world is askew and cockeyed* -- Masq, 07:18:37 08/10/04 Tue

That's cool. ; )
Firefly deleted scenes -- Ames, 14:38:24 08/05/04 Thu

I see there's a couple of interesting deleted scenes on the Firefly DVDs.

A scene was cut from Serenity where Zoe explains some things about the battle of Serenity Valley to Shepherd Book. She tells him that Sgt. Reynolds ended up in command of 2000 rebels after the senior officers were all killed, but only about 400 were left by the time of the ceasefire. Then all but 150 of them died during the two-week negotiations before they were extracted. This explanatory scene was cut after they decided to open the episode with a scene from the actual battle. That scene is a little inconsistent with the deleted scene. In the actual episode opening, the officer that Mal rips the authorization tag from seems to have just recently died, and the battle seems to be over a few minutes later.

In the version of Objects in Space on the DVD, a scene that actually aired is deleted. The scene near the beginning of the episode where Capt. Mal is arguing with Inara about her plan to leave the ship (overheard by River) was cut and replaced by a version where they are quietly discussing when Inara is going to tell the others about her decision. Apparently Joss changed the originally aired version of the scene because it was setting up a future episode that never happened.

Replies:

[> Re: Firefly deleted scenes -- Tymen, 17:06:00 08/05/04 Thu

Actually the Objects in Space scene was changed back to what it was supposed to be, Joss had to change it the first time, because the original episode Inara said she was leaving hadn't aired at the time. So, Joss had to put it at the beginning of Objects in Space.

[> Firefly DVD contents list -- Ames, 09:57:14 08/08/04 Sun

I've added the Firefly DVD contents list to the Buffy and Angel list here: http://tinyurl.com/3hy5b

[> Funniest blooper in Firefly -- Ames, 10:01:45 08/08/04 Sun

The funniest blooper in Firefly is not in the outtakes, but the scene in Serenity pointed out by Joss Whedon in the commentary where the camera goes a little too wide on Wash piloting the ship at the main console, and we see that he is miming steering with nothing in his hands. The scene cuts away and then back again, and we see that now the control wheel is back in place.

[> [> Re: Funniest blooper in Firefly -- Loki, 11:12:23 08/13/04 Fri

My favorite is from the full blooper reel; the 13 minute version. It's where the crew's standing around Tracey and listening to his recording, and Nathan starts showing up in everyone's shot, looking very mournful, while everyone else is cracking up.

Current board | More August 2004