September 2002 posts


Previous September 2002  

More September 2002

Dawn Question -- Meritaten, 15:45:18 09/21/02 Sat

I have a question that has the potential to start a riot, but here goes. Why do people hate Dawn so much?

Now, I know she is annoying, but considering everything she has been through, I find it understandable. I find it far better than if she just shrugged off all that has happened to her during this crucial stage of her life.

Why do people find her reactions so unrealistic?
Or are they just so tired of it that they don't care about her issues surrounding all of the changes in her life?
Or is there something else?

I'm not a wild fan, but I think she works in the show and has potential for the future. I'm just trying to understand the opposing views.

Thanks!
[> Re: Dawn Question -- aliera, 16:03:32 09/21/02 Sat

I don't disagree with you Meritaten; I like Dawn also. I think most of the posting I've seen on this falls into one of two camps: disappointment with the lack of development of the character and/or disatisfaction with the way she handled what has happened to her.
[> Re: Dawn Question -- wiscoboy, 16:06:12 09/21/02 Sat

No opposing viewpoint here. I think the main problem people have is that ME really hasn't developed her character too far beyond a whining, screeching teenager. One of the things I liked about the final eps of S6 was that the writers finally hinted at future possiblities for Dawn(i.e. Slayer Jr. since she's made from Buffy's blood/essence). I've always thought the focus on her should be that or maybe some writing which shows powers still harnessed as the "KEY", which they never have appeared willing to extrapolate on.
[> Re: Dawn Question -- TRM, 17:59:15 09/21/02 Sat

I don't know if most people consider Dawn's progression as being unrealistic or not. This board lauds Buffy because the ensemble tends to grow as characters and they evolve. Dawn is generally seen as the one who whines and pretty much remains the same.

Arguably, Dawn's apparent lack of character progression is no more unrealistic than the rest of the ensemble's changes. In real life, there are many people who feel trapped in their position and who remain in a certain state of mind for quite a long time -- with only slight modifications to who they are. In fact, to Dawn, that was probably one of her main problems in the last season. Despite all these "growing experiences" it seemed to have little impact on her environment. And of course, Dawn's character did progress throughout the season, only her's wasn't marked by great epiphanies and trying emotional trauma.

Or are they just so tired of it that they don't care about her issues surrounding all of the changes in her life?

I think the general reaction is pretty much because of this statement. Most of us are accustomed to significant character growth and -- though I may be berated for using this word -- melodrama with the characters. Dawn may be the Key, but she's also low-key (Sorry, I had to). She throws tantrums; she doesn't have sex with vampires, turn into a vengeance demon, cast black magicks, nor wield axes. She's pretty much a normal girl who expresses herself as normal girls do. I like her character, but her problems become overshadowed by the problems of the other characters, largely because they don't manifest themselves in a fantastical way and because it takes her time to deal with them.

Since Dawn has appeared, there has been a great correlation between Dawn, whining, and a revisited dialogue of Buffy saying: "Sorry, I wasn't paying attention." The entropy on Dawn's part is as much a fault of Buffy as it is to Dawn. Some of my friends who didn't watch the show frequently, were more frustrated by Dawn's position than Dawn -- I personally agreed.
[> Re: Dawn Question -- Alvin, 19:14:58 09/21/02 Sat

I have to admit that during the season I was a big Dawn basher. All of her scenes always seemed the same whiney cryfest that I became irritated by her character. Now, after a few months distance from the season when I rewatch episodes, I find myself amazed at how much character growth there are in her scenes (and Dawn-centric episodes) for the other characters. Her rejection of Spike after the Spike/Anya table polishing, her talk to Xander where he admits he always runs away, her money dance with Anya making Xander announcing the engagement, Anya feeling responsible for Richard possibly dying in OAFA, her getting hurt and making Willow admit to her problems, and Tara realizing Willow cast a spell on her. Heck, she even got Hallie to admit to d'Hoffryn that she thought Anya was d'Hoffryn's favorite vengence demon. So, to sum up a rather long meandering reply, I've changed from hating her character to respecting her role and purpose in the show. I just wish she could find a way to use her character-building powers on herself.
[> [> You're quite right. -- HonorH, 19:48:59 09/21/02 Sat

Now, I'm a huge Dawn-defender, so I thought this all along, and it's nice to see that other people are starting to think the same way, maybe. Dawn's presence has acted as a catalyst all season for the Scoobies. She's the legitimate child in the group. They're starting to be adults and not liking it. Having someone younger, someone who needs them and looks up to them, has forced them to more quickly abandon their own childishness. Now that they're being adults, it's probable that this next season will see Dawn developing on her own as they help her grow up.
[> Dawn - the human Tamagotchi? -- Slain, 19:36:22 09/21/02 Sat

I was going to start a complicated explanation about why Dawn deserves sympathy rather than hate, but to be honest I can't be bothered. There's no point contradicting character bashing, because it's irrational. If someone really hates Dawn, I think it can only come through some personal issue of their own. Though I don't dislike any character to that extent, if I were ever hate or bash a character, I'm sure it wouldn't be because they hadn't had enough character development or that they were a tad inconsistent.

But, putting character bashing aside, on to why people find her annoying, as opposed to hate her - that, I think, is perfectly justified and rational. I think for many, she can seem superfluous and not well fleshed-out, as if she were a plot device rather than a character. Her only purpose being to demand attention, and to distract Buffy, like she's a human Tamagotchi - always complaining and demanding food or attention, until you finally 'accidentally' leave it somewhere.

While I'd generally disagree with this, as I think Dawn has a lot of depth, in terms of Dawn-centred plots she hasn't evolved a lot as a character. Any storyline which involves her can seem a little cliched - she disobeys Buffy, she tries for attention, etc, all very familiar. Again I don't agree that they're cliched, or even if they were Buffy thrives on cliche; however I can understand how these plotlines would be frustrating.

The character Dawn most reminds me of is Joyce; not in terms to the character herself, but in terms of her role in the show. Joyce was always the peripheral family member, not designed either to have a great impact on the story, or for the story to have much impact on her. In Season 6, Dawn is similar, as she doesn't serve as more than a distraction for Buffy (as Joyce was as the innocent-of-slayage mother in Season 1).

The difference is, while Joyce was always peripheral, Dawn has shifted down a gear since Season 5, where she was an interesting and original character. I think it has been an oversight to give her little individual screen time, and she's been left on the sidelines.

Which, of course, was what her storyline has been about, much like Xander in past seasons. The difference is, Dawn didn't get great character-centred episodes like "The Zeppo" and "The Replacement" to show that she was more than a sixth, or possibly seventh, wheel - instead she only had scenes which confirmed this. Dawn has quietly developed in S6, much as Joyce quietly developed throughout BtVS; but the expectations that she'd remain more than a peripheral character after Season 5 were unfulfilled by Season 6.
[> Re: Dawn Question -- Darby, 20:38:33 09/21/02 Sat

I'm swiping this from something I've read in this past week, something I flipped to from Slayage news - someone asserted that if the teenagers from Season One had been written anything like "typical teen" Dawn, there wouldn't have been a Season Two.

One the one hand, I think that that is a true statement. On the other hand, Dawn's purpose doesn't match those of the original characters. But if she's going to be transitioned into the group, she needs some more personality beyond...what? I can't think of anything specific to describe her with beyond her annoying qualities. Unlike the original Scoobs, her humor has little real voice and her personality quirks rarely rise above one step from plot device. She has potential, but someone has to decide who she is.
[> [> Is Dawn an unformed being? -- Slain, 06:45:27 09/22/02 Sun

I think most of us would agree that, in 'Welcome to the Hellmouth', none of the main characters had a great deal of depth, and they didn't really begin to be fully rounded characters until Season 2. From the writing perspective, this is Dawn's problem; she hasn't had time to develop. The difference being that she's expected to be a fully-formed character because she's, at least as far as the Scoobies are concerned, been there all along. She's treated by the writers as a fully-formed character neatly slotted into the story, whereas in fact she's a new addition, and like and new regular character she needs an episode like Tara's 'Family' to establish her. 'All the Way' didn't cut it; its main aim seemed to be to compare Dawn and Buffy, and to suggest that Dawn shares Buffy's attraction to 'bad boys', to use that unfortunate phrase.

It seems to me that Dawn is really an unformed being on other levels, too. We don't know much about the constructed memories from her past life, but from what we do know, it seems to me that she was in every way a cliched 'little sister'. The Monks constructed the memories, but what did they base them on? American network TV's 'family dramas', perhaps? When Dawn was first introduced, that was the character we saw; I'd argue that, since then, she's been struggling to escape from this constructed personality, and to find her own authentic self (hello existentialism!). This authentic self seems to be more like Buffy, and less like the archetypical kid sister. Dawn is what you'd get if you superimposed a young attention-seeking and self-centred personality on Buffy's own personality; so it seems inevitable that, as these memories and constructed personality aren't strictly 'real', Dawn's true Buffylike personality would break through.
[> Re: Dawn Question -- Miss Edith, 09:02:07 09/22/02 Sun

In theory the audience should emphasise with Dawn as she has every excuse to act out following the ordeal she has been through. I try to be rational about Dawn, but I confess I had some serious Dawn hatred during season 6. I have managed to talk myself out of that and am now simply bored with the character unfortunately. My problem is that Dawn is self-centered and makes everything about her. She has no supernatural powers and is simply presented as the irritating little sister. I presume that was intentional.
To put my feelings about Dawn in context the following episodes were the central episodes that caused me to struggle to warm to the character:
Older And Far Away: I'm sorry but to make her big sisters birthday all about her just grated. I did feel for Dawn when she told Buffy she felt alone but that feeling didn't last. Dawn herself seemed to have little emphacy for others telling Buffy that no one could understand how alone she felt, completely forgetting that he big sister had spend an entire summer on her own in LA. Dawn just seemed to throw tantrums and when her stealing was discovered there was no talk of punishment except from Anya who has always been portrayed as quirky. I can understand Buffy being sympathetic to Dawn's pain but to completeley fail to address the stealing with a grounding or similiar punishment shocked me. Instead Dawn was rewarded with more attention. Without wanting to come across as irrational Dawn's smile at the end just came across as self-satisfied to me. The problem with that episode was that I do sympathise with mothers trying to control troubled toddlers screaming and causing trouble publicly. Do I wish to spend my free time watching a 15 year old girl scream "Get out, Get out, Get out" for entertainment. Not really.
Normal Again: Buffy was hullucinating and Dawn's main concern was that she didn't play a significant part in her sisters psychotic delusions. I don't care how troubled Dann was, if I cannot see basic compassion shown I will not warm to a character. Dawn was so busy ranting about her hurt feelings she didn't catch on when Buffy was trying to kill her. I'm afraid I actually smirked when Buffy put some tape over Dawn's mouth.
Without wishing to come across as bashing I think the problem may also be with the actress. I thought that Michelle was astonishingly good for her age in season 5. She build up a moving relationship with Buffy and her mother, and her interaction with Spike came across as sweet such as the moment when she cried about being a lightening rod for pain and suffering and worries she will never be good. Her work in The Body and Forever was exceptional. I was also impressed with Blood Ties and The Gift as she got over emotion very well.
But in season 6 she just comes across as obnoxious and whiny to me. For instance in Normal Again I may have felt more sympathy if Dawn had been near tears when questioning if she was a part of Buffy's "ideal reality" I could have related to her pain perhaps. But the actress did not choose to play Dawn as fearful of her place in the world and needing a sense of belonging. She choose to portray a Dawn who snapped at her ill sister and stormed off in a tantrum. I understand Dawn was covering up her pain and fear but there was no subtle hints siggesting that, just angry ranting and shouting. I have read so many posts on other forums calling Dawn "ShinyMCwhiny" and commenting on how she is irritating they way she flounces from the room like a walking shampoo commercial so clearly Joss has a problem if a significant number of fans share my irritation with the character.
There are so many things that niggle me about the character and the way she is written as a ten year old. Dawn doens't come across as a real teenager to me, she seems like a walking cliche of what adults think teenagers are like. E.g Dawn stands next to the stove and tells Buffy "my pancakes are burning". When I was Dawn's age I prepared my own meals if my parents were out, as did my friends. And what 15 year old can reasnably expect her older sisters friends to drop all their plans, at the last minute, and take the day off work to go shopping with them? I understand Dawn is insecure but seeing her sulk about irrational things will not endear her to many.
And I found All The Way, the only episode which focused on Dawn in season 6, deadly boring and one of the laset interesting Buffy episodes ever personally. The spoilers for Dawn in season 7 have me feeling the same way. No anticipation whatsoever I'm afraid, the only emotion I have right now for her character is boredom. And I was truly afraid in Grave when Dawn was presented as a superior fighter. The last thing I want is Dawn to be made a slayer and I pray that is not what the writers have in mind. Sorry just the way I feel.
[> [> Re: Dawn Question -- meritaten, 16:13:07 09/22/02 Sun

No need to apologize. I asked for opinions.

I also find Dawn annoying, but then, I found most of the characters annoying in S6. I'm warming to the season now that I have had time to really analyze the episodes, but the season was about people retreating into the negative aspects of their personalities.

So, what I'm trying to say is that I hope Dawn will be less annoying in S7. I think there is potential for her, but she has to start growing up. I can understand her behaviour in S6, even if I got tired of it. And, I agree that it could have been either written or portrayed better. However, I still have hope for the future. After all, Buffy, pre-calling, was pretty self-centered and not very mature.

Also, people tend to percieve their younger sisters as whiny and self-centered. Perhaps now that Buffy has changed her perspective on both Dawn and life, we will start to see Dawn more from Dawn's perspective than from that of an older sister. Just a random thoguht.
[> Repost: Dawn's character development in S6 -- HonorH (Official Dawn Defender), 11:42:14 09/22/02 Sun

Just thought this might be germaine to the current discussion, so I rescued it from the archives:

I'm an official Dawn Defender, so at this point, I have to point out that Dawn doesn't really whine that much. Compared to the fine whines the Scoobies churned out in S1 and S2, in fact, she's downright average. If she'd been introduced then as their contemporary rather than as a little sister (who obviously must whine a lot), I doubt anyone would have called her a whiner. Let's look at where her character's gone this season:

In the first ep, she seems okay on the outside. She draws comfort and security from Willow and Tara's presence and Spike's protection and friendship. Still, sometimes at night, she crawls into bed with the BuffyBot. Things are frightening in her world. She's lost so much, and she's afraid to lose more.

Then Buffy returns. On the outside, it's a dream come true. Dawn is very mature at this point, dealing with traumatized Buffy, and even smacking down the Scoobies when they get overwhelming. Only at one point does this maturity crack: when reversing the spell that brought Buffy back is mentioned. Then she instantly reverts to a frightened 15-year-old. But the crisis is averted and things seem fine--but they're not.

Financial disaster looms, something Dawn was heretofore unaware of. Spike all but disappears from Dawn's life. Buffy's back, but she's not really *back*. Tara and Willow are quarreling. Dawn gets caught up in teenage prankstering that ends disastrously.

Then the other shoe drops: Buffy was in heaven. She didn't want to be brought back. She doesn't even want to be alive. Perhaps the only thing keeping her from committing suicide is the fact that Dawn needs taken care of. It's not unreasonable to assume that Dawn, at this point, feels Buffy must resent her.

After this, we get the exodus of Tara and Giles, the two most secure adults in Dawn's life. Buffy sinks further into depression and starts spending more and more time away. Willow also withdraws, and then nearly gets Dawn killed. This is when we start to see real resentment on Dawn's part. She's 15, and all the adults in her life are imploding. She's got no one to help her out with growing up. At this point, Dawn starts lashing out at Buffy, who, after all, obviously resents her as well.

Buffy's birthday takes place right after Buffy's abortive attempt to turn herself in. Dawn's desperate enough by now to try an obvious ploy for attention: getting caught stealing. What with one thing and another, the problems get exposed, and Buffy and Dawn reconcile. They're almost back to their old loving selves for "As You Were" and "Hell's Bells."

It's not coincidental that Dawn's insecurity makes an encore appearance after Xander and Anya's spectacular breakup. Another seemingly-steady couple has gone blooey, and now Buffy's acting crazy. In Buffy's asylum world, where her parents are alive and together, Dawn doesn't exist. Learning this cuts Dawn deep. She'd hoped things were getting better, but apparently somewhere in Buffy's mind, Dawn's not a part of her world. Hence the anger.

It's at this point that all Dawn's worst fears come true: her protector turns into her attacker, insisting Dawn isn't real, just like she feared all along. But then Buffy makes the decision that makes all the difference: faced with two worlds, one of which is comfortable and secure and the other of which is frightening and hard, but includes Dawn and her friends, Buffy chooses this world. She chooses to stay with Dawn. Thus, the rebuilding relationship we see in "Entropy."

In "Entropy," Buffy and Dawn and Willow and Tara are paralleled. Buffy's trying hard to win Dawn's trust and love back, which is exactly what Willow is doing with Tara. The only thing is, both Dawn and Tara are all too eager to be caught. Just as Tara re-enters Willow's territory--the Summers house--at the end, Dawn wants to enter Buffy's world: patrolling. Buffy's still caught in the trap of believing she needs to--and can--protect Dawn from the world, however.

SR puts paid to that. Buffy is attacked twice in her own home, and Tara is killed. Willow, a friend, turns out to be a tougher opponent than Buffy's faced all year. "People I love are dying, and you can't protect me," Dawn tells Buffy in "Grave." Buffy doesn't want to believe this, but she's got no choice.

The final straw comes when Buffy starts crying with relief that the world isn't ending, and Dawn mistakes it for crying with disappointment. Buffy finally realizes just what a toll her depression has taken on Dawn, and she resolves to change that. She resolves to show Dawn not only the world, but that she herself is no longer afraid of life. As they climb out of the earth together, the reconciliation is complete. Dawn's secure in her sister's love, and she's now ready to journey on toward womanhood with Buffy's guidance.
[> [> Re: Repost: Dawn's character development in S6 -- Miss Edith, 11:58:03 09/22/02 Sun

Great defence. My problem though has always been that I know Dawn's behaviour is perfectly understandable but I just find it dull and irritating to watch.
I suppose the real reason Dawn seems to whine so much is because we mainly see her from Buffy's perspective. If we saw her interacting with friends her own age she would not appear such a tiresome nuisance (Buffy's view for most of season) or irritating hanger-on (scoobies).
Season 6 was about examining the characters flaws. I did like Dawn in season 5 so hopefully the writers will work on making her likeable in season 6.
[> [> [> Well, you're in luck, I think. -- HonorH, 12:13:03 09/22/02 Sun

This season, she was mainly a catalyst for Buffy's development, as well as some of the others'. Next season will, I think, show her stepping out more into her own and give her character more development, as well as a definite place in the gang.
[> [> [> My thoughts exactly! -- meritaten, 16:20:08 09/22/02 Sun

"I suppose the real reason Dawn seems to whine so much is because we mainly see her from Buffy's perspective."

Thank you!

I didn't mean to steal your thoughts when I responded to your message earlier in the thread. I just read this post, but I had gotten the same idea while reading your earlier message.
[> Thanks everyone! -- meritaten, 16:22:54 09/22/02 Sun

Thanks for your responses. This helps me understadn other people's perspective on Dawn.
[> [> A few more curmudgeonly reasons -- dream of the consortium, 11:55:18 09/23/02 Mon

In addition to the complaints above (she whines a lot, no aspects of her character outside of her little-sisterliness have been developed, etc.), I have a few other reasons why the Dawn character bothers me.

For one thing, it's a big cast. A very big cast. I'm beginning to think too big a cast - some very intriguing characters aren't given much time. I don't find Dawn nearly as interesting as Tara was, but we saw an awful lot of her in comparison. So her presence can be felt as a drain on the time constraints. Further, I don't like being pulled back into a younger phase. I've enjoyed moving forward in time with these characters, and seeing how they each change in responses to changing stresses as they age. Dawn sends us back a few years, and I'm not thrilled about that. Personal preference, nothing more. Finally, and this is where the curmudgeonliness really comes in, I don't really enjoy the "importance of family" theme being drummed again and again in relation to her character (particularly annoying was the closing door at the end of OAFA, an episode I like more than most did, otherwise.) One of the big themes in Buffy has been that created families are ultimately just as important if not more so than bloodties -think about Tara in Family. Something about the intensity of the Buffy-Dawn relationship - or rather, the supposed intensity, without very much actual exhibited closeness - rubs me the wrong way. But then again, I'm personally not very sentimental about family as a concept. Finally, I don't like the Buffy as single mother angle. She's still in college, expected to save the world on a fairly regular basis - and then she is supposed to take on the guardianship of a sister just a few years younger than herself? Seems like that would be a full story in its own right, and serves as just an unnecessary overload to/distraction from Buffy's main Slayer story. Again, just me.

I don't find her character unrealistic, by the way. From what I remember, a lot of teenagers (myself included), whined a good bit. I do find her dull, though. I wonder what happened to the literary edge she seemed to exhibit when she first arrived. It might have helped me to like her more. I want to feel for her more than I do - for instance, I lived with a depressive and should have sympathized deeply with her pain at Buffy's depression. But I just didn't.
[> [> [> Have to agree with Dream, across the board... -- Dead Soul, 14:02:53 09/23/02 Mon

Especially in resenting the time her story siphons off that could be spent on the other characters.

Just the way I feel. I don't find her at all interesting.

Dead (but still with the irrational likes and dislikes) Soul
[> [> [> I'm curious.... -- meritaten, 18:36:50 09/23/02 Mon

...what did you think of the portrayal of Buffy's depression?
[> [> [> [> Not dream here, but -- HonorH, 20:13:56 09/23/02 Mon

I found it quite realistic. I went through a two-year, very painful depression myself. When I watched Buffy this year, I knew exactly what she felt like. To have life lose its color, its flavor, and to feel like you're all alone and no one can understand what's happening to you--it's all too familiar. You don't make the best choices when you're like that. You don't want people to be around you, or to touch you. Any responsibility feels like too much. That's why I didn't find this season as hard to swallow as some, I think: because I've been there, and I could empathize with where Buffy was, and I saw every little step she took to get out of that place as a triumph.
[> [> [> [> [> Pretty true to life -- dream of the consortium, 06:30:22 09/24/02 Tue

My ex-husband suffered terribly from deep depression. I hav had a few bouts myself, though nothing as severe as his. I thought the portrayal of Buffy's depression was very good - the reckless behavior, the dulling of all aspects of life, the inability to connect to people at all. She didn't seem to be sleeping much, and that seemed right, and the little things were hard for her to get done -garbage, for example. Oh, and she was eating badly, neglecting herself in all respects. I even thought Dawn's reponses were fairly well-written, in the sense that being on the outside of depression is terribly frustrating. You are constantly calling to the person inside the person you see, and never getting a response. Hysteria, nagging, anger all make sense - they are the ways that people can try to break down the wall built by depression, ways people try to get back in touch with the person they miss. But the problem is that those methods don't work, nor does the calm, understanding waiting you always try to maintain. Nothing can actually get through to the person from outside - the depressed person needs to break through from inside. So the way Dawn was acting was realistic, understandable, and yet somehow that didn't come through for me. One good sppeach would have helped, one time when she articulated how desperate she was to have Buffy truly back, but she didn't get one. And MT wasn't quite able to convey everything she needed to with the script she was given.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pretty true to life -- Tamara, 08:29:30 09/24/02 Tue

I dont know much about depressed people. Do they usually take anger out on others? Like people online saying Buffy doing wrong things to Spike was undderstandable as she was depressed and doesnt know what shes doing. Do many depressed people beat up others and do you think they have a right to escape jail for it? I have read a lot of posts saying its okay Buffy mistreated Spike because she wasnt in her right mind. Do you think thats accurate?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pretty true to life -- dream of the consortium, 09:43:43 09/24/02 Tue

Just speaking from my own experience here: yes, depressed people have a lot of anger, and they can take it out on others, but not directly in the way you mean. When I was depressed, I certainly had anger, but I was way too lethargic to have considered violence against anyone. I could barely get out of bed, let alone attack somebody. My husband's depression was different in tone - he had periods of experience like mine, but he also suffered from more hysterical misery, usually on the down swing from a manic episode. In his case, the violence he threatened was self-directed - he frequently used to threaten to kill himself (which is, by the way, a strange form of agression and an expression of anger). The medical literature seems to be in agreement that men exhibit violent tendencies as a symptom of depression much more frequently than women. Manic depressives also kill themselves more frequently than depressives do. Depressives find it hard to take any action. Manic-depressives are in greatest danger during the swing periods, when they experience the energy from the mania, but not the euphoria - rather, they feel the pain of the depression.

As for the moral judgment, that's another thing entirely. Depression does not take away responsibility, even it it does cause a disposition towards acts that the person would not desire to commit in a more rational state. You still choose to do what you do. I think the writers made a clear distinction between being in a understandably bad place, but still fully responsible (Buffy beating Spike), psychotic to the point of no longer being responsible or legally insane (Buffy in Normal Again) and the murky, dark waters between (Willow choosing to put herself under the influence of drugs to allow herself to do things she would not do otherwise - but how far did she want to go, how much did she understand about what the dark magic would do to her. No clear answer.)
[> [> [> [> [> I think... -- celticross, 09:30:02 09/24/02 Tue

...that its realism was what, sadly enough, really hurt the entertainment value of season 6 for me. Buffy's depression was very real, but it also seemed to suck the life out of more than just her. Much like real life. I dated a guy who suffered from episodes of depression, and it didn't just hurt him, it hurt me too. I found myself pulled into it too. So on an artistic level, I could appreciate Buffy's depression was being handled in a realistic way, the part of me that turns on BtVS to be entertained felt that familiar pulling sensatation and really wished I wasn't.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not dream here, but -- desert rat, 16:03:24 09/24/02 Tue

I agree that S6 resonated with those of us who have experienced depression. Something, however, seemed off to me, but it is hard to put my finger on what. Buffy was withdrawn and had trouble coping with the demands of daily life. That was realistic enough. Maybe I just don't think SMG understands what it was like, that her acting wasn't as convincing as in other areas.

In some ways, I found that my own experience helped me to understand the season. In other ways, I felt that it didn't do justice to what depression is like. I saw the numbness on the screen, but not the deep, unbearable pain. I didn't see the intense guilt or the feeling that Dawn and the others would be better off without her. I thought that it only showed one side of depression.

Granted, I probably wouldn't have watched if it had showed all of the above, but .....
[> [> [> [> [> [> Matter of perception, I suppose. -- HonorH, 16:20:35 09/24/02 Tue

I saw deep, unbearable pain, particularly in TR. When those memories hit "Joan" near the end, I could just feel the gut-punch. And her withdrawal from her friends also struck me as "they don't really want to see me like this." Furthermore, I think it was more than just feeling guilty about her affair with Spike that led to Buffy breaking down and begging Tara, "Please don't forgive me," in DT. She felt *wrong* in the wrongest way possible, which, to me, was very familiar.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...and possibly.... -- desert rat, 22:35:20 09/24/02 Tue

it hit home so much that I blocked things out.
[> Apprehending the perceptions of whining about whining -- Cleanthes, 16:15:03 09/23/02 Mon

The original Cleanthes of Assus, Lydia lived 331-232 BC. He took over from Zeno of Citium as head of the Stoic school which Zeno founded. I surely would like to be 1% of what that other Cleanthes was

I do not find Dawn especially whiney, although she does embody a somewhat true-to-life teenage reality. I have an 18-year-old son and a 21-year-old daughter, so I've seen the teenage years as a parent. I myself survived from ages 13 to 19. I whined. My children whined.

Nonetheless, I find it absolutely delightful that LOTS of people have let their own whiney natures mature and blossom in consideration of Dawn. It's clear to me that the real world contains a huge quantity of sniveling whiners. They don't just whine about economic disparities, bad health or the difficult problem of world terrorism; no, they whine about a character on a TV show, which they watch entirely on their own discretionary time.

Asked, "Who is the rich man?", Epictetus replied, "He who is content."
[> [> Re: Apprehending the perceptions of whining about whining -- Miss Edith, 16:33:23 09/23/02 Mon

Lol that is so true. I have spend a lot of time whining about Dawn in the past. I know I do choose to watch the show, and it is certainly a volountary decision on my pasrt, nevertheless I do feel that Dawn does bring down the quality of my viewing experience. The way she was almost inflicted on the audience out of the blue, taking time away from other characters does cause complaints if fans feel she is a drain on the show. I have in the past been a very snively whiner about Dawn I have to say and the irony does not escape me. The horror of it all, so much Dawn the writers have committed the ultimate sin and caused me to turn into the character that I have previously loathed.
I have tried to like her, and am proud to say I no longer detest her. But I am just bored by her now, which in a way is almost worse.
Nice article about Joss Whedon... -- Sarand, 16:23:22 09/21/02 Sat

in the NY Times Sunday Magazine for September 22. Ostensibly about Firefly but says some great things about Buffy. Like it's one of the most intelligent and underestimated shows in television! I usually read the Magazine from cover to cover without looking at the T of C so it was a nice surprise to turn the page and see Whedon's face. And TVGuide picked the season premiere, along with The Sopranos, as one of the week's best dramas. So I take back what I said below about remaining in the closet. What do I have to be embarassed about?
[> Definitely a must read! -- ponygirl, 09:06:24 09/22/02 Sun

Spoiler Trollops has the complete article up (thanks Rufus!). And yes, you can get to it and stay spoiler free, just don't give in to temptation and open up other posts! (I will stay strong, I will stay strong).

Really nice article, more Joss than Firefly, lots of Buffy praise and a mention of "the show's [BtVS's] insanely challenging Internet discussion groups" which I'm taking as a shoutout to this board.
[> [> Adding my recommendation here - one of the best Joss articles in quite a while! -- OnM, 11:48:46 09/22/02 Sun

Just finished reading - it's a very good size article (several full pages) and contains no actual spoilers for upcoming BtVS or Firefly eps.

If you want to avoid the spoiler board, here is the addy to the Sunday Magazine page for today, but be aware you have to be a 'member' of the NYT, and log in with a password (there is no fee, you just have to sign up).

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/

A couple really quoteworthy excerpts, this first one of which I might respectfully suggest be up at the top of the page with Marster's quote:

The idea of changing culture is important to me, and it can only be done in a popular medium. --Joss

And get this:

Television creators like David E. Kelley and Aaron Sorkin may be better known, but to many critics,
Whedon is the more original artist, one who has been unfairly denied prizes and high ratings. To J.J.
Abrams, creator of Alias -- a show about a tough female spy -- Whedon is a pioneer, stubbornly resisting
the pressure to take the easy route to cultural respect. "He's not the normal adult in any way that I can see,"
Abrams says. "He's the mischievous kid and the wise-adult kid in one package. You know, if he wanted to
be taken seriously in the conventional way, he could write a medical show or a legal show. But he cares
more about telling stories he wants to tell, and he's being taken seriously on his terms. It's like the title
'Buffy the Vampire Slayer': if you don't smile, you're not going to get the show anyway."

And finally this:

Whedon discusses these frustrations with me one night over dinner. "There were so many times I thought,
It's time to retire in rage and confusion," he says. "Some of this was just forgetting how difficult it is getting
a pilot on the air. And some of it was hubris." He pauses to sip some chardonnay. "As I learned, pride
goeth before a fall season. Or, as my writer Mere Smith put it, 'There are no atheists in Fox shows.'"

So do check this out!

:-)
[> [> [> Agreed. Possibly THE best, ever! (Which leads me into a longish ramble...) -- Wisewoman, 12:53:32 09/22/02 Sun

There are so many significant and meaty Joss quotes/insights in this particular article it's going to take me some time to assimilate and process it, but I'm sure excited about doing that. It actually may constitute a kind of epiphany for me, as I've always doubted the value of "popular entertainment" such as film, television, and even theatre in respect to making an impact on society. Joss doesn't doubt, and it can be argued that he's actually done it.

I recently picked up an old harcover book someone had discarded at work, a novel written in 1985 (okay! not that old). It's a D.A. & Cop-based mystery by the guy who wrote The Prince of the City and Year of the Dragon, both of which were made into big-screen films. The author's name is Robert Daley and this particular book is titled "Hands of a Stranger," and I'd never heard of it, so I'm about one-quarter of the way into it.

I am totally blown away by the vast differences that are obvious in the society I'm living in today and what was acceptable in 1985. Hey, I was alive and aware and definitely an adult in 1985, but it's easy to forget just how things were. Daley has used most of this first section of the book to introduce us to the two main characters, Judith, an assistant district attorney, and Joe, a police captain in charge of the narcotics division. Judith's specialty is prosecuting rape cases. Joe isn't interested in rape cases, at all. Joe is married. Daley uses this character to explore what he considers to be the fairly universal attitudes of sexism among males in that particlar time (mid-80s) and place (NY, NY, USA).

I'm not going to argue with Daley's take on this--I can remember that's pretty much how things were--but the point is, the book is almost impossible to read now because it's so steeped in exploring a situation that is no longer relevant. Now before you all recommend that I have my head looked at AGAIN, I'm not trying to say that sexism no longer exists, and is no longer an issue, especially for women in fields like law and law enforcement. What I'm trying to say is that we've gone past that time and place and we no longer remember it. Maybe a brief excerpt from the novel will illustrate what I'm talking about--Judith and Joe have just met and Joe has observed Judith interviewing a rape victim:

"Those questions you asked that girl," he began cautiously.
"Usually I probe even more deeply than that, but you were there. I guess I felt a little self-conscious."
"Some people might object to those questions."
"Like who?"
It was Joe himself who had found them objectionable. "Well," he said, "her father, for instance."
Judith gazed out over the wheel. She may have frowned.
"My job is to force the victim back through every detail of the crime," she said, "even the ones they don't want to talk about."
"Why?"
"To make sure she is telling the truth, for one thing, and to develop evidence against the defendant for another."
Joe Hearn nodded. Age had made him more tolerant, but many old ideas were still imbedded in his psyche. Consciously or unconsciously they still swayed him. Women, to Joe Hearn, were creatures apart. He would have preferred a world in which they sat in party dresses being admired by suitors, and then became housewives and mothers, because life was simpler that way. The modern woman, including, he now believed, the one driving this car, was not a woman at all. She was a business associate. She demanded constant adjustments from all who did business with her. She kept rewriting the rules. She was hard to deal with. Nearly everything she did threw a man off balance. [...]
"You may very well indict the guy," he said, "but no jury is going to convict him." When Judith did not respond, he added, "Sure the law's been changed. It now favors the victim. But you haven't changed juries. In the absence of corroborating evidence, juries still prefer to believe the woman led the man on. That she wanted to be raped. As you know very well."

I hope you see what I mean about this passage being hopelessly outdated. All this is a roundabout way of saying that I believe Joss and Buffy have changed the world, but it may be 15 or 20 years before we have the perspective to be able to see that.

;o) dub
[> [> [> OK, here's an even better quote that could head off our page ;-) -- OnM, 22:04:28 09/22/02 Sun

Or at least, it's funnier:

*** I don't want to create responsible shows with lawyers in them. I want to invade people's dreams. ***

Oh, yeah.

:-)
[> [> [> [> Oooh, I like it! -- dub, 06:51:26 09/23/02 Mon

[> I found a link that posted this article on-line... -- Rob, 13:11:55 09/22/02 Sun

The site's probably breaking copyright laws, since NY Times charges members to see archived articles, but here's the link:

http://jossisahottie.com/firefly/index2.shtml

And you should definitely read this article...and commit sections to memory!

Rob
[> [> Re: many thanks... -- aliera, 13:34:49 09/22/02 Sun

[> [> [> You're welcome...and here's a legal link ;o) -- Rob, 16:29:01 09/22/02 Sun

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/magazine/22WHEDON.html?ex=1033728856&ei=1&en=780602a8b40455c3
[> [> A quote I am particularly interested in... -- Rob, 13:36:19 09/22/02 Sun

"'Mal's politics are very reactionary and 'Big government is bad' and 'Don't interfere with my life,'' Whedon explains. ''And sometimes he's wrong -- because sometimes the Alliance is America, this beautiful shining light of democracy. But sometimes the Alliance is America in Vietnam: we have a lot of petty politics, we are way out of our league and we have no right to control these people. And yet! Sometimes the Alliance is America in Nazi Germany. And Mal can't see that, because he was a Vietnamese.'"

______________________________________

At first, I was confused about whether the Alliance was meant to be a huge faceless evil government like the Empire from "Star Wars" or the Peacekeepers from "Farscape"...and, if they were, why they didn't seem that evil. This statement of Joss' clarifies things, though. I find it very intriguing, and unusual, that this government is not evil. The main characters disagree with it, and yes, some of its actions are either bad or uncaring for the welfare of the people...but sometimes, Joss implies, this government might be right, but Mal refuses to accept this possibility. This opens up so much room for moral ambiguity and questions about whether Mal and his crew are heroes or just petty criminals...and what it is that impels them to do what they do, as opposed to just moving to an Alliance planet and getting "real" jobs. I can already see the essays that might be churned out in the near future on Existentialism in "Firefly"!

I'm also interested to see Mal and the crew's exact reasons for wanting to distance themselves from the Alliance. They each seem to have his or her own personal reason for disliking it.

When the government or empire is classified as Evil with a Capital E in sci-fi, it makes things much simpler and black-and-white. I'm glad to see Joss still refuses to play like that. This really is a very different type of sci-fi.

Rob
[> He sells me on his vision of Firefly. -- Rochefort, 17:34:11 09/22/02 Sun

... but I still feel Buffy needs his direct care and attention.

But the way he talks about Firefly it certainly seems worth watching. Even for a busy grad student who has previously only watched one show. I suppose if Buffy dies after (or during) this season... then I'll just try going where Joss is.
How I saved my cousin from a year without Buffy... -- Rob, 22:42:20 09/21/02 Sat

My cousin Rachel (also a huge "Buffy" fan--yay her!) had a mini--no make that a major crisis today. She is 16, and recently moved to Florida with her mom. The cable bill was too high, so her mom got DirectTV. It was only today that Rachel realized that her local UPN channel was not available on DirectTV, and her mom refused to pay extra for it. Rachel was absolutely freaking out. She is a major spoiler trollop and spends her internet life finding out spoilers and then chatting about an episode as soon as it airs. Even though I told her I'd send her tapes, it just wasn't the same. The poor girl was literally in tears.

So I told her I'd check on-line to see if I could help her out, by maybe finding a DirectTV Channel that airs "Buffy." She knows how to go to the "Buffy" sites online, but that's about it. So I entered her zip code to the DirectTV database, entered a search on "Buffy" and tada! I found UPN for her! It turns out that, although she can't get her local Florida UPN channel, DirectTV does have a different channel that also airs all of the UPN programming. With over 300 channels (and UPN was not specified in the name of the station), she hadn't been able to locate the right channel.

Now, I know that finding out the info wasn't hard or anything, but when I told her to check out channel 33, and she saw the UPN logo emblazoned on the bottom right hand corner of the screen, I swear she couldn't have been happier if I told her that her mom decided to move back to New York--which Rachel really wants her to do.

A potential disastrous, Buffy-less year averted. Phew! All in a day's work. ;o)

Rob
[> Re: How I saved my cousin from a year without Buffy... -- Rob, 22:43:30 09/21/02 Sat

Grammar error much?

Should, of course, be "potentially disastrous, Buffy-less year." Stupid me!

Rob
[> How cool. You are a gentleman and a scholar. How rarely one can rescue damsels these days. -- Rochefort, 23:04:04 09/21/02 Sat

[> [> Heh heh...Yes, these opportunities are few and far between. -- Rob, 07:25:24 09/22/02 Sun

[> Such a hero! -- HonorH, 12:16:10 09/22/02 Sun

Truly, you are. Being WB-deprived, I had to get Buffy tapes (still have to wait for Angel), and it was a true pain, having to wait. I'd have given my favorite shoes for a WB affiliate!
Seeing Red' (exclude the attempt rape incident) -- luvthistle1, 23:53:42 09/21/02 Sat

notice that everyone who saw "Seeing Red" was so focus on the attempted rape incident, that we all fell to notice anything else. so, before the season start, I'm asking everyone to point out everything and anything about that episode. everything except the rape incident.




I notice a lot of people were wearing red. Anya, one of the nerds, and Xander were all wearing red. In the movie the "six sense" , every thing that was in red, were thing he could not communicate with /or touch. What do you think the red might indicate in "Seeing Red"

Did you notice anyone else wearing red, what do you think it symbolize?


A lot of people think that the title is in reference to willow anger over Tara death, but that not necessary so, in joss universe it could mean a number of things. what else seems strange or stand out to you?
[> Re: Seeing Red' (Xander in bar) -- rabbit, 14:28:01 09/22/02 Sun

I was really surprised when I went back and re-read all the synopses to notice that in the scene of Xander in the bar when he spilled the drink and the girl said he was wet and he made the laughing comment "good thing I'm part fish."
I believe he was in danger of becoming a fish demon at one time.
[> Re: Seeing Red' (exclude the attempt rape incident) -- Dariel, 15:57:30 09/22/02 Sun

At times, "Red" has been Spike's nickname for Willow. Following the incidents of SR, we (and the Scoobies) see an aspect of Willow (Red) that we've never seen before.
[> Thing I notice in "Seeing Red" -- luvthistle1, 18:36:56 09/22/02 Sun

This is what I notice.

who's wearing red:

willow night shirt-when she wakes up.
(also,Tara is wrap in red bed sheets)

Buffy red leather jacket-at warren place

Xander's red plaid shirt/leather jacket at buffy's house.
Anya red shirt.


What I notice:


-Anya 's hair kept going from straight to curly, in the same episode. like she was two different people. maybe she was.


-Spike appears from inside the house

-Buffy spent the whole night out according to Willow.(before the incident) Dawn thought she was going to talk to Spike.
where was she? she did not arrive at Warren's until a little after 10am.

-we never see Spike leave out the front door. they showed the front door after she kicked him out.

-Xander did not once ask about the chip.
-warren shot at Xander first,buffy save him. but if you look close, it looked as if he was hit.


-Xander personalty seems to switch back and forth between sweet and mean.
-Anya hair switch back and forth between curly and straight.


Maybe, we are seeing something, that will play into season 7. They also wore a lot of red in "Entropy". Why and how do Anya change her hair so quick? where is Xander staying, in
Entropy?
[> [> Re: Thing I notice in "Seeing Red" -- Artemis, 20:51:04 09/22/02 Sun

"Xander did not once ask about the chip"

While tiny things might have seemed off this season to me. Over-all I loved Season 6. I can rationalize just about anything. But this point(above) always eats at me. First of all I expected them to make the fact that Spike could hit Buffy, a major revelation. But since they didn't are we to assume that Tara or Buffy mentioned to Xander off camera that Spike was capable of hurting her. I mean Xander says in the bathroom scene . "What did he do, did he hurt you?" Why would Xander think that Spike could hurt Buffy? Why wouldn't the writers at least have him say "How?" before Willow burst in? Any other problems I've had, I've been able to release or like I said rationalize, but this one really bugs me . If anyone has any ideas that could help me justify the chip not being mentioned, it would help.
[> [> [> Re: Thing I notice in "Seeing Red" -- meritaten, 21:00:22 09/22/02 Sun

Maybe it should ahve botheres me, but it didn't. Xander is always quick to blame Spike for anything, chip or no. remember in Hush, when Xander saw Spike near ANya with blood on his face? He started to pummel Spike without asking (or signing!) qustions. So, it didn't strike me as out of character.
[> [> [> [> Re: Thing I notice in "Seeing Red" -- Artemis, 19:33:38 09/23/02 Mon

Thanks. I forgot about the incident in "Hushed". It's a thin argument. Because the chip was so new then, that Xander hadn't had the time to trust the validity of it. But maybe that is part of Xanders character, like you said. He would never really trust the chip. Anyhow it gives me something to latch on to. As I mentioned I can rationalize just about anything.
[> [> [> Re: Thing I notice in "Seeing Red" -- luvthistle1, 00:06:42 09/23/02 Mon


you are right about that. Tara had stated to Willow the next morning after"Entropy ", that she hasn't told XANDER anything,and that this was the only time she spoke about it,because Buffy told her not to. so , how did Xander know? not once did he ask about the chip, even though he know the chip had stop Spike from hurting him. Also, we never see Spike go into her home, he just appear inside the home. we also never see him leave. after Buffy throws him out, they focus in one the outside of the house, we never see Spike leave.
why would Spike need to take his jacket off to go upstairs?

although,Xander called up to Buffy , she never answers him. Yet, he goes directly into the bathroom. how did he know, Tara , willow or dawn weren't in there?

I think the big bad spoiler that suppose to come about in season 7 that everyone has been talking about has been present in season 6 all along. we were all to focus on the incident to notice. I notice.

luvthistle1@yahoo.com
[> Re: Seeing Red' (exclude the attempt rape incident) -- Purple Tulip, 12:00:23 09/23/02 Mon

Tara and Willow's sheets were red in the first scene. I always thought, and I've posted this here before, that "Seeing Red" could in fact refer to Willow's rage after Tara is killed. What I mean is, Willow has often been referred to as "Red" (by Spike) or "The Red Head" (by Oz), so I instantly thought that "seeing red" could actually mean "Seeing Willow" as in we are about to see how powerful and evil she can really be- not that this is the real her, but that this is the her that's been hiding deep down within herself, waiting to come out.

There was also the use of phallic symbols which I've talked about here before, and Warren is the one who uses them---- the gun and the Orbs of Nez la Khan are obviuous phallic symbols, symbols of masculinity and of violence. I thought it was interesting that Warren had to resort to these forms to gain power and to triumph over the slayer- sort of falling back on his testosterone as a last resort because nothing else has worked. But it also goes to prove Whedon's original concept of "Girl Power" that Buffy could overcome any obstacle, even one specifically targeting her femininity by using masculinity (no object of destruction is a match for a slayer). And it was interesting that Warren posed the question to Buffy (when under the power of the "orbs") "What's the matter baby? Haven't you ever fought a REAL man before"? Making it appear that a "real man" had to rely on his testosterone and male attributes to defeat someone, even a small girl (which actually works against Warren appearing as some Big Bad that he had to go back to this in order to defeat Buffy).

I don't know, these are just my ramblings---if anyone has more insight to add, by all means add away :)
What do you think they should make an episode about? -- xaliasslayer, 14:13:10 09/22/02 Sun

Pretend you are writing the script for an episode of Buffy ~ if you could, what story would you have them do a show around? A phenomena, villain... just character development or plot development?
[> Already wrote my own episode. Kinda. -- HonorH, 18:26:03 09/22/02 Sun

I envisioned this "episode" someplace between "As You Were" and "Hell's Bells":

Venom

It's one of perhaps two fics I've ever written that I consider "episodic"--that is, about the length of an episode and including all the elements a stand-alone ep usually does.
[> [> Five oddball concepts for Buffy episodes -- cjl, 14:10:40 09/23/02 Mon

FIVE CONCEPTS FOR BUFFY EPISODES:

1. Buffy alone. No Scoobs, no friendly banter, no X/W/D/G cuteness and no backup from anyone. Could be a delusion created by VotW; but I've been toying with fanfic casting Buffy as Last Babe on Earth.

2. Lilith. What with Anya as the patron saint of scorned women, and Buffy herself as a feminist alternative to the traditional mythological male power narrative, wouldn't it be interesting to run with the legend of Lilith, supposedly Adam's first wife before she got too uppity for Yahweh's taste? Wouldn't it also be interesting to discover that Anya and Buffy's powers had the same source?

3. Little Red Riding Hood. As a huge fan of Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves, I think it would be a hoot to let one of the Buffy staff (Jane Espenson would be a good choice) recast the fairy tale for the series. Willow, of course, would be Red, Spike would be the BBWolf, and Buffy would be the huntsman who slays 'im. We've already had Hansel and Gretel ("Gingerbread")--why not this?

4. While on a Slayer-related mission, Buffy time travels 16 years back to Sunnydale 1987, and meets and falls hopelessly under the cuteness spell of six-year-old Willow and Xander (yes, around the time of the "breaky crayon" incident). She also gets to know Sheila and Ira Rosenberg and Tony and Jennifer Harris, and begins to understand why Willow and Xander are who they are. She's also tempted to interfere with the past and undo the misery of her best friends' horrible childhood years.

5. As a corollary to number 3, a golem is running loose through Sunnydale, and Willow is forced to confront and explore her Jewish heritage in order to stop it.


I also have a much larger fanfic in mind about the origin of Dawn that might involve number 4. Since the Chained Fates project didn't pan out, I'm tempted to start up a collaborative effort with some of the more ambitious writers on this board. Then again, with all the work I have to do--at home and in the office--that might officially put me in the rubber room next to Asylum!Buffy....)
[> [> [> Re: About one of the concepts for Buffy episodes.... -- Arethusa, 14:54:19 09/23/02 Mon

Ya know, I've always thought of "Helpless" as a Little Red Riding Hood episode. (I don't know if I dreamed that up or read it in a writers' interview.) Kralik is the wolf, of course, and Joyce is Grandma, while Buffy is Red and the Huntsman-an interesting aspect, since she has the power to defeat Kralik even without her supernatural abilities. In the fairy tale, the Huntsman slits the wolf's belly and Red and Grandma exit, then he fills the wolf with stones and throws him down a well. Buffy also kills Kralik from the inside, with the Holy Water. The Company of Wolves was a kind of coming-of-age tale, and so was Helpless.

I'd like to see other fairy tale-inspired episodes, too.
[> [> [> [> "Helpless" = Little Red Riding Hood? Never thought about it that way... -- cjl, 15:24:00 09/23/02 Mon

But you're probably right. Oddly enough, I think the sanitized version of the fairy tale matches up better with "Helpless," since the original stories about RRH and the Wolf had the undertones of budding sexuality so brilliantly reflected in the movie. Then again, BtVS vampires are almost a walking, talking sexual metaphor in themselves--so any further vampire sexuality in the episode (we already had Angel) would have been overkill.
[> Wanna Be Slayer -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:06:15 09/23/02 Mon

We know that the Watchers' Council trains some girls who are potential Slayers for the day when they might be called. See Kendra. But, what would happen if one of these girls, who spent fifteen years training to be the Chosen One, had in fact based her entire life around it, found out some cheerleader from California became the Slayer instead? I bet she'd be seriously pissed and would do anything to take the Slayer powers from Buffy (hence the episode plot). I think it would be a neat story.
Buffy, product placement, and me -- Rochefort, 17:08:15 09/22/02 Sun

I've never understood brand recognition, product placement, or celebrity endorsements as advertising strategies, especially in terms of my own psychology. I've wracked my brain trying to think if I ever saw someone in a movie or television show drink a "coke" and then want a coke, or see "Tide" and then really really wanna wash my clothes with "Tide." Ah, well, so much for my delusions of non-manipulatability.

At the grocery store yesterday, I just... couldn't.... help.... buying a box of "Weetabix." I didn't even know what it WAS. But I was just standing there with this stupid smile on my face at the market remembering Spike telling Giles that he was out of Weetabix. And Giles saying that he thought vampires didn't eat food. And Spike saying that he liked to mix the the blood with the Weetabix cause it gave it some crunchiness.

So I had Weetabix for breakfast today. Though I must say in my own defense, I ate it with soy milk. And that Weetabix is "organic" and so good for the environment.

Apparantly they just had to find a celebrity sponsor that I thought was cool enough.

"Hi, I'm not really a compact yet well muscled poetic English vampire modeled off of Sid Viscious.... but I play one on T.V."

"So eat your Weetabix. And let's FIGHT that evil... for the safety of puppies..."

"When I'm not busy hunting happy-meals on legs I like to settle down for a nice crunchy bowl of...."

"I may be Weetabix's bitch. But at least I'm man enough to admit it." (crunch crunch crunch)

(xander could be in this one "is the wittle wampire woving his weetabix)

Hopefully I won't be at a restaraunt with a bloomin onion any time soon.
[> *Giggle!* -- HonorH, 17:41:48 09/22/02 Sun

You know, I nearly did the same thing. Didn't, as it looked like Shredded Wheat, which I really don't care for, but nearly. I think you've got an idea, though. If Weetabix wants to market in the U.S., Spike would be the perfect spokesman . . . er, spokesvampire.
[> [> I think "spokesbeing" is the word you're looking for -- leslie, 18:15:52 09/22/02 Sun

[> [> [> Eh. Whatever. -- HonorH, 18:19:12 09/22/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> Well, it will make things easier when Spike and Clem sign on to promote kitten chow... -- leslie, 12:12:37 09/23/02 Mon

[> ROFLMAO -- Kitt, 17:53:39 09/22/02 Sun

[> succumbed -- SpikeMom, 18:16:46 09/22/02 Sun

I can now also confess...
I know what Wheetabix taste like, having had them as a kid, and normally wouldn't stock them in my pantry (think Wheaties without any added sweetener).
Yes, I put a box on the cereal shelf, and I get a little smile every time I open the door...
Whew, I feel much better now that I've confessed.
[> [> a few more words from our sponsor... -- Rochefort, 19:11:28 09/22/02 Sun

I'm supposed to be writing a paper on liberal politics, but where does my energy go instead? (sigh)

Exterior shot of a dark L.A. street. Spike in the shadows, eating some Weetabix(tm).

Enter Angel. Looking broody. He suddenly sees Spike and is suspicious.

Angel: Spike. What are you doing here?

Spike: (looks down at his box) Eating Weetabix. (long pause) Did you want some?

Angel: No. I'm on a quest for redemption.

Spike: Yeah. Big poofta.

Exit Angel with billowing coat.

Spike (voice over): Weetabix. Not for men who wear nancy boy hair gel.

Or here's some other snippets... this one for Bravo.

"And Weetabix is organic. So let's FIGHT that genetically modified evil....for the safety of puppies... and strawberries without fish parts, right?"

Or this one for Lifetime:

Spike, looking worn: "Ever since I got this chip in my head, the only food I can choke down is this high-fiber Weetabix."

Announcer: Weetabix... for hollow looking cheek-bones.

Or for ESPN

Buffybot: Look. It's Spike. And he's eating his Weetabix. You're the big bad, Spike. You're the BIG bad.

pfff.. holy procastination.
[> Re: Buffy, product placement, and me -- Cheryl, 20:21:47 09/22/02 Sun

"At the grocery store yesterday, I just... couldn't.... help.... buying a box of "Weetabix." I didn't even know what it WAS. But I was just standing there with this stupid smile on my face at the market remembering Spike telling Giles that he was out of Weetabix. And Giles saying that he thought vampires didn't eat food. And Spike saying that he liked to mix the the blood with the Weetabix cause it gave it some crunchiness."

Ohmygosh! This is just too weird. Not two weeks ago I was checking out the British Boutique here in Scottsdale - looking for candy I usually pick up in Canada (cuz it's just SO much better than what we get in the states). I'd never been there before and was perusing the aisles when I came upon Weetabix and the exact same thoughts went through my head (along with the visual). I didn't buy it, but was thinking of going back to get it (forget the candy), just to see what Spike liked. Reading your message was like deja vu.
[> Watch out, it'll be Marmite, Twiglets and Ready-Brek next! -- Slain, 05:12:03 09/23/02 Mon

[> Re: Buffy, product placement, and me -- ponygirl, 11:33:11 09/23/02 Mon

Weetabix is but a small investment of cash and tastebuds, I am on an ongoing battle not to buy Buffy's sushi pyjamas. You know the ones she wears in s4, Goodbye Iowa, I think -- she makes the big speech about stopping the Initiative and saving Riley, looks down and says "that would have been more impressive if I weren't wearing my yummy sushi pyjamas." There's a store my friend works out that carries the EXACT same pj's but they are massively expensive, even with my friend's discount. I keep eyeing them and bravely walking away, but I know it's just a matter of time. And I can't admit that I want to buy overpriced sleepwear because I saw it on Buffy. The last time I was in the store a friend commented that they looked like something she had seen on BtVS and I, very smooth, said I hadn't noticed.
[> [> HA! lol, that's hilarious. I want yummy sushi pijammas too. -- Rochefort, 19:37:31 09/23/02 Mon

[> [> I bought these PJs for my daughter, she loves them -- Cleanthes, 21:30:48 09/23/02 Mon

They have an online store. Don't remember the url, but I betcha any who want some of these can find it with only a bit of searching.
[> [> [> pretty expensive -- oboemaboe, 00:39:40 09/24/02 Tue

They even mention Buffy on the site.

http://www.thecatspjs.com/sushi.html
[> Maybelline -- Eric, 00:02:50 09/24/02 Tue

My lowest moment as a consumer ad target monkey came when I briefly considered buying Maybelline lip products because SMG endorsed them. Let us never speak of this again. (and thank God she doesn't do beer commercials!)
Mild Spoiler... Angel season 4 -- monsieurxander, 20:02:54 09/22/02 Sun

I read the newspaper today, and there was a nationally syndicated column about TV's Sunday night lineups. On the WB section, they mentioned Angel. "Angel is at the bottom of the sea, and Cordelia's been kidnapped. Don't be surprised if one of them gets rescued in the season premiere."

Cordelia's been kidnapped? Seems like it gives credence to the whole "Skip wasn't all that he seemed" school of thought....
[> Re: Mild Spoiler... Angel season 4 -- luvthistle1, 00:22:56 09/23/02 Mon

I always wonder about Skip . But is you remember she wasn't allow to tell her friends goodbye when she became a higher being. so, they will not know where she gone off to. with Angel in a box, Cordy being a higher being. that leaves A.I in the hands of Fred and Gunn. I wonder if they are going to ask Wes for help?


BACK TO CORDY:

I never understand what skip meant by "higher being"?
in BTVS , "Doppelgngland", D'Hoffryn refers to Anyanka human status as a lower being, and her demon status as a higher being. Maybe when Cordy return she will be a true demon.
Classic Movie of the Week - September 21st 2002 -- OnM, 21:42:16 09/22/02 Sun

*******

Do... or do not. There is no try.

............ Yoda

*******

Yo, Yoda my man... lighten up already, OK?

............ OnM

*******

Stuff happens, right? Itís a cliche because itís true. I had hopes that this weekís column would feature a
review of a film by a guest reviewer, a film that is one of my all time favorites, as it is of many other
moviegoers. Itís not a happy film, but it is a brilliant one, and after first suggesting the possibility of a guest
review to the potential reviewer, it triggered a series of thoughts that eventually led to the pre-Buffy-
premiere ëambiguous warfareí concept that Iíve played around with for the previous two weeks.

But, ëtis not to be, at least not this week. Due to the usual unforseen circumstances (and I know them well,
they play continual havoc with my life in the Realverse also), my guest has not yet completed the review.
When itís ready, rest assured it will get posted, but not just right this mo.

Nothiní to do but... pivot!!

So hereís the deal. As most of yaíall already know, during the official BtVS/Angel season, when new eps
are airing each week, I try as best as possible to choose a film that relates in some fashion-- thematically,
philosophically, style of cinematography, whatever-- to the ep and then extemporize. During the hiatus
periods and especially during the long summer months, I allow for a much more freeform means of
selection criteria, although even that can get to be at least partly organized, such as with the ëGuilty
Pleasuresí month of August or the ëAnniversary Specialsí in February. This week being the last week
before the new season, and with the planned guest column on temporary hold, Iím going to compromise.
The film this week will be:

1) A film that involves conflict.
2) A film that ties in to a Jossian creation.
3) A film that is both brilliant and awful, sometimes at the same time.
4) A film about ëthe best laid plans... etcí

So, letís git a moviní now. You will have no doubt noticed that I started the column with one of the
best-known cinematic quotes of recent genre film history. In the context of the scene in which the character
speaks the line, it is a perfect fit, resonant with meaning. There is a dynamic that has occurred between
Yoda and Luke, in which Luke is despairing of his abilities as a potential Jedi, and loses his faith in himself.
Yoda cannot allow this to happen, for he forsees that Luke a crucial part of the future to be. Thus, the
exceedingly grave nature of Lukeís responsibilities must be clearly spelled out for him-- he cannot afford to
fail. Thus, ëDo or do not-- there is no ëtryí.

Of course, Luke does fail, and Yoda must show him that that failure is all of his own doing. The tiny figure
raises the spacecraft from the muck of the swamp, to Lukeís stunned amazement. The question is, just
what kind of a reading should one place on this entire scene? Did Yoda expect him to fail (watch his
expression when Luke almost succeeds in raising the ship-- he seems almost startled), so that he
could then illustrate that power has little to do with size, or youth, or other ephemera, but with confidence
and a true understanding of oneself.? Was the ëdo or do notí just a means-to-an-end statement, not the end
statement itself?

Or is the statement meant to be more literal? Is is really a matter of whether, in the reaching of the goal,
one is successful or one is a loser?

I rather prefer the first reading, myself. Surely, someone as old and wise as the little wrinkly alien guy
understands that there is such a thing as a noble failure, a ëtryí that perhaps did not move all the way over
to ëdoí, but nonetheless made as best an effort as possible under the circumstances. Such is my opinion of
Jossís new storytelling effort, Firefly, which debuted last Friday night. Such is also my opinion of
one of director David Lynchís early substantive efforts, the 1984 film version of Frank Herbertís epic
science-fiction novel Dune.

Itís still way too early to tell about Firefly. Joss is taking a big chance on trying to mix the normally
disparate traditional science-fiction and Western genres together, and then further meld the melange with
his trademark existentialist quirkiness. I think that he can succeed, and I personally see the few weaknesses
in the opening ep as recoverable ones. There were a lot of strengths, and on the whole I enjoyed the hour. I
especially loved the apt and interesting choice of music, and the special effects that worked to actively help
suspend oneís disbelief, rather than just scream ëlook at me! Iím so damn clever and high tech!í The
characters have potential to grow into detailed, three-dimensional people. A number of the professional TV
critics whose reviews I read seem to be disappointed that the show is not another ëBuffyí. I hope not, since
I donít want another Buffy. There is/should be only one, and thus all is right(eous) with the world.

Lynchís Dune, which was made when he was still a relatively novice director, is a brilliant attempt
to film what could very well be an unfilmable piece of literature. The novel upon which the screenplay is
based is one of the most complex pieces of genre fiction ever written. Realizing it visually had to be a
challenge even with the substantial budget ($44 million in 1984, about $100 million in todayís dollars) the
studio allowed, very reluctantly if I recall the press reports issued at the time the film was released. A large
cast of experienced actors were chosen to play the various roles. It is obvious looking at the results that
Lynch was willing to take chances on something plainly unconventional.

When the film was released, the reviews were generally very negative. Part of the reason for this may have
been that many film critics saw the original, full-length cut of the movie, and not the more widely
distributed ëstandard lengthí cut that the vast majority of audiences saw. I have seen both versions (the
ëoriginal cutí was aired a few years ago on cable) and the extra time tends to add a lot of exposition
without really enlightening the viewer to a much greater extent as to just what is going on. People who
were familiar with the novel could follow the proceedings, but even repeated viewings would have baffled
most audiences. So, to me, the shorter version works just as well, maybe even better.

Think of taking an entire season of Buffy or Angel, and trying to put together a condensation of all the
events in a form that would play in under three hours. How would you do it? What would you leave out? I
think this was the basic dilemma. Dune was a well known novel, but it was not in the class of, say,
Tolkienís works. The studio would have been unlikely to consent to an arrangement similar to what was
done for the Lord of the Rings last year, so it pretty much needed to be a single film.

Faults or no, the attempt was sincere. First, like Joss and Firefly, Lynch and his creative staff made
no attempt to present the story in a ëtraditionalí science-fiction fashion. Conventionally, if an adventure
such as this was taking place 10,000 years in the future, everything would be sleek, metallic, and highly
tech-y looking. People would probably be wearing shiny skin-tight silver plastic suits and not have any
body hair. Instead, most of the time we see what looks like a renaissance-era aestheticism, except with
occasional subdued flashes of technology. Light globes float under highly decorated anti-gravity carrier
devices, moving just ahead of the people who desire the illumination. The viewscreen of a spaceship is
framed in ornate gold relief sculptures. Travel through the vast reaches of space is achieved by the pure
mental efforts of almost-but-not-quite-bug-like alien creatures whose bodies have been genetically mutated
by the deliberate ingestion of ëThe Spiceî which is the secretion of the giant sand worms of Arrakis, the
ëDuneí of the title. Nary a ëwarp driveí is in sight.

The evildoers of the story, in fact, are the ones who seem to lean towards ëtraditionalí technology, but only
in a highly perverted form. It is always harsh, ugly, violent-- for example, the slaves and prisoners of the
Harkonnen empire are fitted with ëheart plugsí, allowing them to constantly feel the vulnerability of being
killable at a secondís notice. The vile Baron Harkonnen is depicted as being constantly diseased, not as a
weakness, but as some perverse way of acknowledging the supposed power of evil over death.
(ëDegradation most Holyí, comes to mind?)

The acting is one area where I have no real certainty. The cast, as previously mentioned, is more than
qualified from a talent and experience standpoint. However, they often recite their lines as if reading
blankly from a cue-card-- stiffly, with a detached air. Did Lynch deliberately intend this, perhaps to further
keep us in ëaliení territory? Or was it some more mundane cause, a genuine fault?

Iím willing to overlook the occasionally stiff dialog and the series of more rushed events that make up the
latter third of the film. (In the book, I personally found the parts about life with the Fremen and Paulís
gradual ëevolutioní into the Kwisatz Haderach the most interesting, but in the film, these get very short
shrift compared to the buildup to and events after). The cinematography is stunning, and as long as you
have read the novel, there is no real problem following the story. Would this have been a better film if
Lynch could have broken it into two parts, perhaps with the dividing point set when Paul and Lady Jessica
flee into the desert and are adopted by the Fremen? Weíll never know, short of a remake-- whatís done is
done.

But is was a really superb try, even if the director, cast and crew ëdid notí in some ways. If you havenít
seen this movie for a long time, get yourself a DVD copy, the biggest screen you have, and go boldly
where... uhh, take a trip on the wild side, sugar.

Or is that ëspiceí?


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technically, a little rain must fall:

Dune is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc. The film was released in 1984, with
running time of 2 hours and 17 minutes for the ëstandardí version, and supposedly 3 hours and 10 minutes
for the ëlong versioní. The original cinematic aspect ratio is 2.35:1, which is likely preserved on the DVD
edition.

The film was produced by Raffaella De Laurentiis with associate producer JosÈ LÛpez Rodero. The
screenplay was by the director, David Lynch, based of course on Frank Herbertís novel. The
cinematography was by Freddie Francis, with film editing by Antony Gibbs. Production Design was by
Anthony Masters, with art direction by Pier Luigi Basile. Set Decoration was by Giorgio Desideri and
costume design was by Bob Ringwood.

Special effects were by Terence J. Cox, Charles L. Finance, Barry Nolan, Carlo Rambaldi, Bruno Van
Zeebroeck, Kit West, Albert Whitlock and Gary Zink. Additional visual and other effects were by Syd
Dutton, Charles L. Finance, Judith Miller, Eric Swenson and Mark Whitlock.

Original music was by Brian Eno, Roger Eno and Daniel Lanois (for the ëProphecy Themeí) and
Steve Lukather, David Paich, Jeff Porcaro, Mike Porcaro, Steve Porcaro and Joseph Williams (as ëTotoí).
Additional music was by Marty Paich. The original theatrical soundtrack mix was 70mm 6-track for 70mm
prints, and standard Dolby Surround for 35mm prints.

Cast overview:

Francesca Annis .... Lady Jessica
Leonardo Cimino .... The Baron's Doctor
Brad Dourif .... Piter De Vries
JosÈ Ferrer .... Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV
Linda Hunt .... Shadout Mapes
Freddie Jones .... Thufir Hawat
Richard Jordan .... Duncan Idaho
Kyle MacLachlan .... Paul Atreides / Usul / Muad'Dib
Virginia Madsen .... Princess Irulan
Silvana Mangano .... Reverend Mother Ramallo
Everett McGill .... Stilgar
Kenneth McMillan .... Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
Jack Nance .... Nefud
Si,n Phillips .... Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
J¸rgen Prochnow .... Duke Leto Atreides
David Lynch .... Spice Worker (uncredited)


*******

Miscellaneous:

1) Did you know David Lynch at one time considered directing Return of the Jedi? Whooo.....

2) It may be of some background interest to note the films that came just before and after Dune in
1984, which were Eraserhead (1977), The Elephant Man (1980) and Blue Velvet
(1986). Or maybe Lynch is just naturally strange this way, and still is.Your call. (But we thank him.)

3) The Unbearable Lightness of Search Engines: When I did the usual research on the IMDb to gather info
for Dune, the list of films located included the recently reviewed flick Legally Blonde. Huh??

Well, it turns out that the search engine picked this film because in France, Legally Blonde was
released as ìLa Revanche d'une blondeî. Is that supposed to be ìRevenge of the Blondeî, I find
myself wondering? Humm... loses something in the translation, doesnít it? Now I wonder how Darth
Vader and the Emporer would have fared against Elle...

4) The world tinest Bene Gesserit witch, the sister of Muad'Dib / Paul Atreides, was played by a child
actress named Alicia Witt. I certainly didnít remember the name, but years later a much older Ms. Witt
played a role as Cybill Shepardís daughter on the TV series that bore her name. A stunning redhead (at
least in the show) who could also play a mean piano, Alicia has starred in a variety of often off-beat
productions. Check out this list if youíve never seen her at work, or didnít know of her Lynchian
connection. (Courtesy, as usual, of the IMDb):

Alicia Witt: Actress - filmography

Two Weeks Notice (2002) .... June Carter
Vanilla Sky (2001) .... Libby
Ten Tiny Love Stories (2001)
Playing Mona Lisa (2000) .... Claire Goldstein
Cecil B. DeMented (2000) .... Cherish
Gen 13 (1998) (voice) .... Caitlin Fairchild
Urban Legend (1998) .... Natalie Simon
Hercules (1998) TV Series (voice) .... Iris
Bongwater (1998) .... Serena
The Reef (1997) .... Sophy Viner
Citizen Ruth (1996) .... Cheryl
Mr. Holland's Opus (1995) .... Gertrude Lang
Four Rooms (1995) .... Kiva (segment "The Missing Ingredient")
Cybill (1995) TV Series .... Zoey Woodbine
Fun (1994) .... Bonnie
The Disappearance of Vonnie (1994) (TV) .... Janine
Hotel Room (1993) TV Series .... Diane (episode "Blackout")
Bodies, Rest & Motion (1993) .... Elizabeth
Liebestraum (1991) .... Girl in Dream
Dune (1984) .... Alia


*******

A Special One-Time Only Preface to the Question of the Week:

The times they are a-changiní, the folk prophet once proclaimed, and this is one of those times.

It has been about a year and a half now that I have done this ëClassic Movieí column each week for you,
and while I would very much like to continue, I have decided to take an extended leave from doing so, for
at least the length of the next BtVS season. I have really enjoyed putting my thoughts down here each
week, and I hope that you have been entertained by my efforts. Hey, youíve read this far, havenít you? :-)

The problem is not one of desire, itís that same old demon, Time the Avenger. Last season, I started doing
long-form episode reviews of Buffy, and not surprisingly, my obsession being well known and
regularly demonstrated here at ATPo, I enjoyed doing them also. I intend to begin doing them again,
starting this very next week. This is a Buffy/Angel board, after all, so they even have the advantage of
being directly on-topic, which is always a plus! Besides the planned ep reviews, I am currently engaged in
extensively redesigning my companyís web site, which will take much extra effort over a period of months,
in addition to the daily demands of the regular audio/video grind.

Since I can no longer do all of this in a weekís time, the CMotW simply has to go and hibernate for a
while. I may very well bring it back again next summer, depending of course on what happens with the
show(s). If I see some film-related references during the course of viewing an ep, I will of course bring
them to bear in the text of the review-- itís kind of in my nature at this point in time to see a lot of things
more ëcinematicallyí than I have at any previous time of my life.

I will miss this weekly outing, but unfortunately I know from many previous experiences-- all of them not
ending well-- that if you allow something done for enjoyment to become an obligation, the joy will leave it.
At one time, I was a devoted audiophile, and thought it would be fabulous to have a career in the field.
Now, it is just a job that I begrudgingly put up with to make a living, and obligation is everything, and
there is very little joy. I wonít make that mistake again. Iím happy to be ëThe Movieísí bitch, but I wonít
do without the joyous part anymore. And you, my loyal fans (all 9 or 10 of them!), deserve the pleasure
too.

So, I have planned to do one remaining regular column next week, thereby finishing out this month, and
kicking off the new Mutant Enemy season. Unless the 1st ep of Buffy turns out to be something totally
different than what I expect (nah, that never happens!!), I have a really good, and reasonably
appropriate film in mind, and itíll be a fine one to sign off on.

So, thatís about it, except for one last thing-- if there is anyone out there who wishes to take over this
weekly spot, or work in conjunction with several other ATPo-ers to keep the Classic Movie scene going,
by all means, let me know, or just go do it. Regular visitors to this spot know that my occasional
ëguest hostsí have done a fine job in sharing their own ëCineBuffyí knowledge and visions with the rest of
us. Iíd be very happy to have them take my place here, and will even help them along with doing so in any
way that I can.

I wish to very sincerely thank all of you who have supported my efforts here over the last 20
months, as your words of praise and encouragement have boosted my personal well being, and brought
me to feel that I have developed at least some modest abilities in the field of writing, which is something
that I have always wanted to do. You are the wind beneath my keyboard, which is good, ëcos it helps keep
the dust out!

Thank you! ..... :-)

... OnM


*******

The Question of the Week:

So, you wanna write a ëClassic Movieí column?

If I can help in any way, just let me know, either by posting or better yet by e-mailing me at:

objectsinmirror@mindspring.com

In the meantime, as always, take care, and Iíll see you next week! And Happy Buffy Premiere Day
to one and all!

:-)

*******
[> Thank you, OnM, for so many fascinating and beautifully written reviews! -- Dead (and missing them already) Soul, 22:20:11 09/22/02 Sun

[> Thanks, OnM! -- Scroll, 05:16:17 09/23/02 Mon

Even though I hardly ever have time to watch all the movies you write about, I always find something fascinating and relevant in your reviews. Thanks for doing this for us, and I hope you'll be back one day!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - September 21st 2002 -- Rendyl, 05:46:21 09/23/02 Mon

Ah, you expose my eternal dilemma. How to drag the reel out, stomp all over the tape, and set it on fire without making the director cry?

I could comment at length on the movie except I have never managed to stay awake for the entire thing. It is the only movie I have ever fallen asleep watching while in the theater. (on a date to increase the embarrassment factor) Much like OnM I put this to 'Dune' being an extremely difficult book to adapt. (looking like 4 instead of 44 mil was spent did not help the movie either)

Then I watched the Sci-fi channel adaptation. OnM, if you haven't seen it you should try and catch it next time they air. It is in three parts (which as you said might have improved the Lynch version) and I managed to stay awake the 6 or so hours it ran. (no Patrick Stewart in this version but we get William Hurt as Leto so it is an okay trade-off)

----------------
I have read your column every week since it began. Sometimes I loved the movie you chose, sometimes I hated it, and many times I was prompted to rent what you recommended. It was a fun fixture of my week and I will miss it. Thank you again for sharing it with us.

Ren
[> Okay,I'll admit to enjoying this movie,I'll even admit to owning the DVD. -- AurraSing, 06:59:29 09/23/02 Mon

It may have been a critical failure but it did generate a fan-base of those who realised that Lynch's vision was not as seriously flawed as the reviewers would have us think.

The look and the scope of the movie is impressive,the casting was good and it retains the restrained feel of the book while allowing us new images to go along with the ones we have had in our minds ever since we picked up our first copy of "Dune"....the still-suits alone are a marvel.

A guilty pleasure to be sure but one that I don't mind admitting to.
[> [> And profound thanks for your weekly posts on "cinema magic".. -- AurraSing, 12:51:51 09/23/02 Mon

I totally forgot to mention this morning how much I've enjoyed your posts over the last while and how much I will miss them.......sigh,I should never post before I've had my first cup of coffee in the morning......
[> Thanks for all your efforts -- Cactus Watcher, 07:04:49 09/23/02 Mon

Sorry that there were weeks like last week, when your review blew off to the archives, before everyone had a chance to see it.

I sort of put the De Laurentis 'Dune' on a guilty pleasures list. I can't say that really like it, but I have watched it many times, so there is some kind of appeal there. I really get the feeling that Lynch largely misinterpreted the book, and threw out the powerful spiritual story for a more blatant and not terribly well worked out drug story. But, it is none the less a compelling, and visually intriguing movie. I hate MacLachlan as Paul, and it is impossible for me to believe that Prochnow as his biological father. Ferrer, Hunt, and, yes, Prochnow add a touch of class to a very spotty cast. Annis is OK as Jessica, although she looks a little too young. Lynch's concept of Baron Harkonnen is so over-the-top, that it's difficult not to laugh whenever he's on screen. In his final scene that turns out not to be a problem.

I second the earlier recommendation. The Sci-Fi Channel's version is a far more true adaptation of the book. It's out on DVD. It's especially worth watching just to see how much they did with so little funds.
[> Thanks for your contributions -- Masq, 07:15:57 09/23/02 Mon

"CMoTW" always made the board a more interesting place to be. But I know what it means to be busy busy busy and to have to chose your projects. Glad to hear your reviews will be returning.

And here's my personal hope that CMoTW will someday return.... : )
[> You've been swell, you've been great...thanks!! -- dub, 10:48:01 09/23/02 Mon

Always love the CMotW. But I love your Buffy analyses even MORE!
;o)
[> [> I'm with my fellow Canadian..... -- Rufus, 02:06:42 09/24/02 Tue

I like anything you write, but a Buffy review is better than nothing......and if you don't mind I'd like to re-post them over where the Trollops live and you fear tread...as some of them don't make it over here very often...;)
[> No, thank you. -- matching mole, 12:23:16 09/23/02 Mon

Make sure you put the emphasis on the right part of my title sentence. It's not a statement of refusal. Thanks for the always interesting reviews and philosophical introductions.

I'm probably in a tiny minority that really enjoyed Dune the movie. I read the Dune trilogy when I was pretty young and didn't really like it all that well. I never revisited it and then when I saw the movie years later I found myself pleasantly surprised.
[> [> Re: Thanks for all the filmic goodies & goodness -- Brian, 12:35:41 09/23/02 Mon

[> Thanks OnM, looking forward to your show reviews! -- ponygirl, 13:33:54 09/23/02 Mon

[> Thanks! -- verdantheart, 14:16:43 09/23/02 Mon

I will definitely miss your CMotW! As much as I love movies, I'd love to try taking it over for a while, but I doubt I could live up to your example (& then there's the schedule ...).

Good luck with your projects!
[> Thanks for making our summer more enjoyable! -- Arethusa, 14:28:46 09/23/02 Mon

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - September 21st 2002 -- Rattletrap, 17:36:14 09/23/02 Mon

I'll add my voice to the growing chorus of those who'll sorely miss this weekly column. Your estimate of 9 or 10 was, of course, quite conservative--remember that there are many of us who read this column every week, but post only sporadically, but enjoy it none the less.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your eppy reviews again this year, and hope some well deserved time off comes your way in the near future.

thanks for your contributions, OnM

'trap
[> Oh, no! What am I gonna do w/o my weekly CMoTW fix?!? -- Rob, 23:57:19 09/23/02 Mon

...I guess make do with eagerly awaiting your Buffy ep reviews. Honestly, just about everything you write down is pure gold. So I can't wait to keep reading your stuff...in whatever form your writing takes (although I do hope you can get back to the movies column next summer).

Rob
(who, even though it's been awhile, is still deeply remorseful about revealing the name of the movie in your "Election" column in the post title)

Current board | More September 2002