AOQ Angel Review 2-1: "Judgment"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads.
ANGEL
Season Two, Episode 1: "Judgment"
(or "We've secretly replaced these viewers' big exciting season
premiere with this pile of half-assedness. Let's see what
happens!")
Writer: David Greenwalt; story by Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
Director: Michael Lange
You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
Maybe I should try to calm down given that it's just one bad episode.
But I've grown to have higher standards for the season premieres,
y'know? We're supposed to be hooking new viewers and setting the
agenda for the whole year to come, and that generally shouldn't
involve boring anyone to tears. So the bitterness in this review may
be a bit pronounced disproportionate to what the episode deserves,
given that it's not "Expecting"-bad or anything.
Right, so we ended last season with Lindsey McDonald losing a hand but
picking up a reincarnated vampire. There's an interesting scene
early on with the recurring nasty types, and I liked most of it,
including Lilah's crack about Lindsey's handi-capable ways, his
show of attitude over the fact that he's the only one who knows how
to talk to Darla, her using sounds to help orient herself, and her
amusement over being killed by Angel - that's very Darla. How
I've missed her. Meanwhile, we spend some time doing some goofy but
fun stuff at a demon karaoke bar. That could easily be overused (one
might argue that this episode does so) but I laughed at the first guy
rambling about the city while singing "I Will Survive." Oh, and
our heroes are in the show too, they still have to deal with the
fallout from last year, and maybe find a new office at some point.
Think any of this is interesting? Well, forget about it, since the
rest of "Judgment" is concerned with Angel's attempts to protect
a woman's unborn child. Unfortunately, he accidentally kills her
intended champion for judgment day. It makes sense that things like
this would happen on the job. To make things more unfortunate, the
script calls for Angel to undergo (I guess) emotional turmoil, but
given that he's a character who responds to everything by kinda
pensively brooding, there's not much to latch onto. The woman
herself, whose name I don't believe is ever given, appears similarly
incapable of displaying emotion of any kind, or indeed any semblance of
actually being a character. I feel strongly enough about that to
engage in more hyperbole, so: she gives lifeless blank-slate characters
a bad name. When the best you can manage at someone dooming your child
to death is mild annoyance, it's time to call it quits. I think the
body of the episode is actually blander and less eventful than
"Lonely Hearts," which was my previous gold-standard for
"constructed okay but very dull." The closest to a point that I
can get from the whole exercise is that maybe Angel is supposed to be
learning what failure is like, or how interjecting himself into the
wrong places can do more harm than good, but there are better ways to
tell those stories - some of which were in fact done early last
season.
The blandness extends to the banter amongst the AI crew. From the
first digression about the appeal of gyms all the way through the end,
I rarely even smiled, which is unusual. I'd thought the dialogue had
permanently crispened up, but that's not happening here. The most
blatant example of thudding would be the whole painful scene in which
Gunn visits. For example, the joke about him watching them in their
beds, and Wesley's sudden indignance... there was maybe the germ of
something funny there, but it's a weak idea executed badly. And the
intended comedic centerpiece of the show, the big joke all the karaoke
scenes are trying to build towards, is the "vampire with *soul*"
scene... I didn't hate it, but meh. Whatever. The Angeldance from
"She" was much funnier. I did kinda like the outtake version
during the end credits, though.
The Oracles may be gone, but the show manages to come up with some
other bizarre entities who appear theatrically and like to play games
with people's lives. It's so random and unexplained; how often do
they pick on people like this woman? What can and can't these guys
influence? Why the knights on horseback (did the ME staff just meet
one day and say "That's what this series is missing! A joust!")?
I can't help but wonder whether the writers are planning to go
somewhere long-term with this given all the unanswered questions.
I'd kinda rather it just be a failed idea that we never hear from
again, honestly. Or maybe "Judgment" is supposed to be the series
itself, in miniature. It perfectly captures the parts that are REALLY
BORING. Okay, enough of that, but it is my main comment about this
show.
Should I write something about the slightly new opening titles, since
I'm so big on such things? Um, okay. Thought I saw the
Faith-in-the-window clip at one point, the pictures have gotten
smaller, and we're up to a whopping four regulars.
I liked the idea of the whiteboard to keep track of ongoing cases. Too
bad our hero seems so adamant about attacking and/or destroying it.
So what kind of moral standing does killing a demon put you on now? We
have their karaoke bar where they're fun and wacky and have lives and
senses of humor, just like us. Then we have Kamal, about whom we
"care" only because he was the woman's champion rather than as an
individual. Not all demons are created equal, maybe.
I didn't think it was possible for an episode with Faith in it to
score below Decent. Of course, she's only in the last scene. Not
too much to say about it, except that it doesn't suck, and that I'd
like to continue seeing occasional visits, to briefly check on each
others' progress. It's oddly appropriate that these two are able
to laugh together.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- Dennis in general. He's the best character on the show.
- "Sure you did... because the tunnel is... you know, it's something we
all... Are we talking real tunnel or symbolic? Just give me that
much."
Looks like David has his own production logo too, now. I wouldn't be
so quick to associate my name with this thing, pal.
So...
One-sentence summary: This does not bode well.
AOQ rating: Weak
[Season Two so far:
1) "Judgment" - Weak]
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:You have got to be kidding me.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Other
than the green-skinned karaoke guy (I'm pretty sure
we haven't heard a name or anything for him yet),
this episode was a real disappointment.
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> bad our hero seems so adamant about attacking and/or destroying it.
there are people who go around with their mental whiteboard
cataloging all their good deeds
until they get enough points to pass through them pearly gates
other religions teach that humans cannot earn their way into heaven
that they get in on sufferance
that you do your best day by day
but accept youre going to fail
angels whiteboard is in the cordelias flat
and he starts the episode killing demons as fast as possible
so that he can earn his shanshu and get the heck out of dodgte city
by the end hes realizing that redemption isnt about being a super boy scout
its about day in day out doing his best
and realizing that his best by itself is never going to be enough
> I didn't think it was possible for an episode with Faith in it to
> score below Decent. Of course, she's only in the last scene. Not
> too much to say about it, except that it doesn't suck, and that I'd
> like to continue seeing occasional visits, to briefly check on each
> others' progress. It's oddly appropriate that these two are able
> to laugh together.
faiths actions deserve her a slow painful death
and subsequent banishment to some hell
shes on the road to redemption
but can she ever do enough penance and take enough stripes
to make up for the crimes she committed
no
Giles: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It's, it's not done
because people deserve it. It's done because they need it.
many religions teach people face a judgement after death
how does this tribunal compare to say -defending your life-
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 1: "Judgment"
> (or "We've secretly replaced these viewers' big exciting season
> premiere with this pile of half-assedness. Let's see what
> happens!")
> Writer: David Greenwalt; story by Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Michael Lange
>
> You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
> where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
> giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
> twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
> point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
> the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
> this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
I say watch up to and including episode 7 if you can (you definitely
don't want to miss episode 7 either way). However, if you do decide to
skip this show, S5 is worth a look (and highly enjoyable) so you should
give S5 a shot after your viewing of Buffy is over (after Buffy you can
make that decision).
Like I said before, I skipped out mid S3 and didn't pick up the show
again until mid S4 (for a very specific reason and it's one you would
most likely find worthy to watch) and have no desire to go back and
watch what I missed. You can easily find out the main plot points in a
few discussions before you put in S5 episode 1.
Ats isn't for everyone and I did enjoy it for the most part but it
definitely was never on par with Buffy.
Apteryx
news:1149282494....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 1: "Judgment"
> (or "We've secretly replaced these viewers' big exciting season
> premiere with this pile of half-assedness. Let's see what
> happens!")
> Writer: David Greenwalt; story by Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Michael Lange
>
> You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
> where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
> giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
> twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
> point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
> the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
> this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
Nobody said it was the first episode where AtS starts to click. In fact I'm
trying to rememember now whether I said not to go by the 1st episode, or
whether I just considered saying that. For me, its the 5th episode where the
season starts to get mainly good (although obviously not every episode after
that is great, and there is one epsiode before the 5th that's better than it
is, but isn't really indicative of the season).
That said, I do like this episode better than you (although obviously not
for the A-story). It's another one where you have to put the A-story to one
side and just look at the good stuff on the periphery. Even so, it doesn't
have much to do with why AtS 2 is my 2nd favourite AtS season, and the 6th
best season in the entire Buffyverse
> Right, so we ended last season with Lindsey McDonald losing a hand but
> picking up a reincarnated vampire. There's an interesting scene
> early on with the recurring nasty types, and I liked most of it,
> including Lilah's crack about Lindsey's handi-capable ways, his
> show of attitude over the fact that he's the only one who knows how
> to talk to Darla, her using sounds to help orient herself, and her
> amusement over being killed by Angel - that's very Darla.
I do like the idea that one of Angel's principle nemises is now a one-armed
man.
> Think any of this is interesting? Well, forget about it, since the
> rest of "Judgment" is concerned with Angel's attempts to protect
> a woman's unborn child.
No, don't forget about it. If it's interesting, it's still interesting,
regardless of what they do with the lame A-story.
> something funny there, but it's a weak idea executed badly. And the
> intended comedic centerpiece of the show, the big joke all the karaoke
> scenes are trying to build towards, is the "vampire with *soul*"
> scene... I didn't hate it, but meh. Whatever. The Angeldance from
> "She" was much funnier.
Well true, but there is plenty of room for things to be less funny than the
Angeldance, and yet still be funny. He's dying out there, even though he's
already dead.
> influence? Why the knights on horseback (did the ME staff just meet
> one day and say "That's what this series is missing! A joust!")?
Yeah, I dunno. Maybe one of the writers really liked A Knight's Tale, or
maybe The Fisher King.
> So what kind of moral standing does killing a demon put you on now? We
> have their karaoke bar where they're fun and wacky and have lives and
> senses of humor, just like us. Then we have Kamal, about whom we
> "care" only because he was the woman's champion rather than as an
> individual. Not all demons are created equal, maybe.
Kamal is made briefly interesting for me by the scene where Wesley starts to
say that he was a Whatsit demon and Whatsit demons are "always: evil, and
then realises that so are vampires. Maybe Kamal was a Whatsit demon with a
soul. Those gypseys got around.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: This does not bode well.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
For me its a good Decent. It didn't have a story worth watching, but it had
some nice touches. I loved the opening shot, with the sinister looking demon
who then starts to sing. In fact everything was great until they got to the
titles (damned titles...). And Wesley finally got the 180 that he falsely
claimed in Sanctuary - but still can't be cool when trying to impress the
girl. And it's got the set up for the Darla story - "Id love to see that
boy". For me its the 43rd best AtS episode, 16th best in season 1 (although
close enough to numbers 17 and 18 to be in some danger when I rewatch them).
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
news:e5qgvm$pu6$1...@nntp.aioe.org...
>For me its the 43rd best AtS episode, 16th best in season 1 (although
Ahem, 16th best in season 2. Actually it's good enough to be 9th best in
season 1, if it were in it. Which is a pretty good indication of how much I
preferred season 2 to season 1.
--
Apteryx
BTR1701
wrote:
> For me its a good Decent. It didn't have a story worth watching, but it had
> some nice touches. I loved the opening shot, with the sinister looking demon
> who then starts to sing. In fact everything was great until they got to the
> titles (damned titles...). And Wesley finally got the 180 that he falsely
> claimed in Sanctuary
How was that a false claim?
BTR1701
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
True, it far surpassed "Buffy" by the time it's parent show devolved
into the Season 6 morass.
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
> where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
> giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
> twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
> point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
> the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
> this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
Next episode. The one after that is kind of blah (or at least I
thought it was). But then #4 is one of the best of the series, IMHO.
And the rest of the season clicks along pretty well after that. Not
all Excellent, but pretty consistantly Good. "Judgement" is, in my
opinion, the worst of the season (it's one of the worst of the series).
I don't think I can say more without veering into plot territory.
-- Mike Zeares
MBangel10 (Melissa)
Wrong.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You can't score more than 60 with a single dart. For a 180 he'd have to
throw three darts, and hit triple 20 with all of them.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
One Bit Shy
news:1149282494....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 1: "Judgment"
> (or "We've secretly replaced these viewers' big exciting season
> premiere with this pile of half-assedness. Let's see what
> happens!")
> Writer: David Greenwalt; story by Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Michael Lange
>
> You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
> where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click?
Then take a moment for a modest laugh. I got all the way to the fourth
paragraph of your review before I realized that I didn't kow what you were
talking about. After sitting here worrying what was wrong with me that I'd
forget there was a pregnant woman in the episode, I looked more closely and
realized I had started with Disk 2 because it had been sitting in the Disk 1
slot, and I had watched Episode 5 thinking it was the season opener. Oy
vey. That episode is written *and* directed by Greenwalt, incidentally. I
won't say what that bodes for the future. Though I must say that there was
nothing about it that made me think I'd missed something important.
Fortunately I had only looked ahead one additional episode, so hopefully I'm
not too screwed up with the season flow. Unfortunately, however, I soon
found that my Disk 1 has a ton of scratches on it, and I had to skip a
couple of scenes and reference the transcript instead to get through it.
Sheesh.
I haven't had time yet to get all rankled about the episode like you - I'm
too rankled about the circumstances of watching it. So far now I'm a tad
more charitable about the episode itself than you, though I'm hardly going
to nominate it for any awards.
> Maybe I should try to calm down given that it's just one bad episode.
> But I've grown to have higher standards for the season premieres,
> y'know?
Something speical for the season opener has been kind of a tradition in the
Whedonverse - though, honestly, The Freshman was pretty ordinary in BtVS S4.
The story here seems to be too pedestrian for that to be considered special.
There is a new character of sorts introduced at the start - and he is kind
of cool looking, but not cool enough to be the big thing. So I suppose, if
there is something special, it's probably in the theme.
Well, the show is called Judgment, and there is one judgment made by the
Tribunal. Which turns out to be totally arbitrary - based only on which
side comes up with the better jouster. (Which, from the girl being judged's
point of view, is completely outside of her control.) So, um, final
judgment isn't something you get to argue - or even influence? Hmmm.
Actually, we know next to nothing about why she was being judged or her true
worthiness. Hmmm. Maybe it's all about the fight? Hmmm.
Well, let's look at Angel. He makes a big deal about how his potential for
becoming human felt so strong to him that he imagined he was practically
there. Got sloppy, I guess, killing the good demon. (Arbitrary judgment
for the dead good demon?) Or maybe a lesson that his good deeds won't come
easy? We also see Angel get rid of the white board. According to Wesley
because they shouldn't be keeping score. Just keep doing day by day.
That leads back to the futility of looking ahead to judgment. Which I
suppose fits in nicely with the visit to Faith. Neither of them know if
they'll make it - I think they each suspect not. But they each move ahead
day by day. (While I'm not entirely sure of the underlying meaning of their
conversation - just having it in the way they do was really refreshing. The
most entertaining part of the episode to me.)
Ok. Fine. But this is hardly mind blowing stuff. Either I'm missing
something essential, or I'm trying to work out a big theme that doesn't
exist.
> Meanwhile, we spend some time doing some goofy but
> fun stuff at a demon karaoke bar. That could easily be overused (one
> might argue that this episode does so) but I laughed at the first guy
> rambling about the city while singing "I Will Survive."
The concept of having to sing karaoke for that guy to read your aura is
pretty good. But the big pitfall of all concepts involving laughing at bad
talent, is that you have to put up with bad talent to get the joke. Angel
singing wasn't funny. It was just bad. Though they did make up for it some
by getting him to admit that he thinks Mandy is pretty.
> The woman
> herself, whose name I don't believe is ever given, appears similarly
> incapable of displaying emotion of any kind, or indeed any semblance of
> actually being a character.
I have to agree with you there. Quite forgettable. I have this sneaking
suspicion that part of this is intentional. That we're not really suupposed
to have a reason to feel for her. But if so - bad choice. Just consumes
time not caring about what you're seeing.
> The blandness extends to the banter amongst the AI crew. From the
> first digression about the appeal of gyms all the way through the end,
> I rarely even smiled, which is unusual. I'd thought the dialogue had
> permanently crispened up, but that's not happening here. The most
> blatant example of thudding would be the whole painful scene in which
> Gunn visits. For example, the joke about him watching them in their
> beds, and Wesley's sudden indignance... there was maybe the germ of
> something funny there, but it's a weak idea executed badly.
Pretty much with you there too. The dialogue seems very poor to me. The
only thing I recall particularly laughing at was the Dennis moment, followed
up quickly by Cordy's yelp when she sees the demon in the book.
> The Oracles may be gone, but the show manages to come up with some
> other bizarre entities who appear theatrically and like to play games
> with people's lives. It's so random and unexplained; how often do
> they pick on people like this woman? What can and can't these guys
> influence? Why the knights on horseback (did the ME staff just meet
> one day and say "That's what this series is missing! A joust!")?
Actually, that kinda sounds a lot like Joss. He'd walk around saying,
you've got to have a joust.
> I can't help but wonder whether the writers are planning to go
> somewhere long-term with this given all the unanswered questions.
> I'd kinda rather it just be a failed idea that we never hear from
> again, honestly. Or maybe "Judgment" is supposed to be the series
> itself, in miniature. It perfectly captures the parts that are REALLY
> BORING. Okay, enough of that, but it is my main comment about this
> show.
I'm assuming it's a one time thing for thematic purposes. Though I did
really like the notion that they would appear wherever the girl was. Not
only can't you influence judgement, you can't avoid it either.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: This does not bode well.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
I'm not as put off as you. (I rather liked the joust myself. And pretty
much all of the teaser. Faith. Darla - though Lindsey annoyed me for some
reason.) It doesn't have a whole lot going for it, but I'm not terribly
offended either. It's biggest problem to me is just being a letdown after
the setup to end last season.
OBS
sjelena
> You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
> where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
> giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
> twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
> point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
> the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
> this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
I've watch it two months ago for the first time and now had a hard
time remembering what this episode was about, needless to say I have no
idea about next one, but I have to tell you that it gets better, really
better. Try to stay with it and IMO you'll enjoy it.
Sjelena
_________________________________
Quiet! You'll miss humorous conclusion.
BTR1701
"MBangel10 (Melissa)" <mban...@comcast.net> wrote:
LOL! No, it's an opinion and it's no more wrong than yours is.
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <btr1702-0C72C4...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <e5qgvm$pu6$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For me its a good Decent. It didn't have a story worth watching, but it
> > > had some nice touches. I loved the opening shot, with the sinister looking
> > > demon who then starts to sing. In fact everything was great until they got to
> > > the titles (damned titles...). And Wesley finally got the 180 that he falsely
> > > claimed in Sanctuary
> >
> > How was that a false claim?
>
> You can't score more than 60 with a single dart. For a 180 he'd have to
> throw three darts, and hit triple 20 with all of them.
Well, that's pretty silly. Wesley's comment was not meant literally. It
was just a short-hand way of saying that he'd thrown true.
BTR1701
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> I'm not as put off as you. (I rather liked the joust myself. And pretty
> much all of the teaser. Faith.
A bit of trivia. If you notice, Eliza Dushku does not appear in the
opening guest star credits of the episode. She agreed to be listed with
the (typically) minor guest stars in the final credits to preserve the
surprise of Faith's sudden appearance at the end of the episode.
MBangel10 (Melissa)
Sarcasm, you gotta love it. Anyway, I stole that response from Burt, I'm
pretty sure he holds the copyright to it around here. :p
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season Two, Episode 1: "Judgment"
>(or "We've secretly replaced these viewers' big exciting season
>premiere with this pile of half-assedness. Let's see what
>happens!")
>Writer: David Greenwalt; story by Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
>Director: Michael Lange
>
>You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
>where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
>giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
>twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
>point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
>the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
>this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
It's kind of telling that I think the longest discussions this ep
engendered when it was aired was the spelling of the title (quite a few
folks really want to spell it 'judgement') and the final 70 seconds (which
have nothing to do with the main story of the ep).
As for your question, how to answer without being to spoilery? The Darla
sub-plot will percolate slowly in the background over the next few
episodes (stand-alones), then will take a major turn. You will love some,
and hate some, of the next 8 episodes, but I can't predict which. If you
haven't by then, I'm pretty sure that with episode ten you will be able to
bring yourself to care. You'll probably mostly like from 10 through 16,
then you will either utterly love, or utterly hate, the last 6 episodes.
Further than that, deponent sayeth not.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Vanya6724
It's funny - Angel S5 seemed to rub a lot of people the wrong way when
it aired, at least the dedicated AtS fans, but I think most Buffy fans
might agree that S5 is the most consistently enjoyable season of Angel.
It never sinks to the depths of S1. S2 gets much better in the second
episode, but I have to say rewatching it, Angel S2 has not held up that
well, certainly not as well as Buffy does. Angel S3 & S4 are a little
over the top with the soap opera plots but they work a lot better on
DVD than they did on broadcast television.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> It's kind of telling that I think the longest discussions this ep
> engendered when it was aired was the spelling of the title (quite a few
> folks really want to spell it 'judgement')
Bloody limeys (and Canadians, and...).
> and the final 70 seconds (which
> have nothing to do with the main story of the ep).
But they have Faith. Funny how when she's around the show tends to not
suck.
> As for your question, how to answer without being to spoilery? The Darla
> sub-plot will percolate slowly in the background over the next few
> episodes (stand-alones), then will take a major turn. You will love some,
> and hate some, of the next 8 episodes, but I can't predict which. If you
> haven't by then, I'm pretty sure that with episode ten you will be able to
> bring yourself to care. You'll probably mostly like from 10 through 16,
> then you will either utterly love, or utterly hate, the last 6 episodes.
>
> Further than that, deponent sayeth not.
Sounds interesting. Anyway, I'm just continually reassured that many
fans of the series share my low opinion of the premiere.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> A bit of trivia. If you notice, Eliza Dushku does not appear in the
> opening guest star credits of the episode. She agreed to be listed with
> the (typically) minor guest stars in the final credits to preserve the
> surprise of Faith's sudden appearance at the end of the episode.
Following in the footsteps of TSILA Special Guest Star Julie Benz.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> it aired, at least the dedicated AtS fans, but I think most Buffy fans
dont know about season five
i think the whole idea of an earthquake opening an fissure
which was a portal to a hell dimension
where they had to search for a demon lord that could portal back
with cordelia constantly whining about no good shoe store
wesley doubting his intelligence and gunn doubting his courage
and angel wishing he had a beating heart again
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Then take a moment for a modest laugh. I got all the way to the fourth
> paragraph of your review before I realized that I didn't kow what you were
> talking about. After sitting here worrying what was wrong with me that I'd
> forget there was a pregnant woman in the episode, I looked more closely and
> realized I had started with Disk 2 because it had been sitting in the Disk 1
> slot, and I had watched Episode 5 thinking it was the season opener. Oy
> vey. That episode is written *and* directed by Greenwalt, incidentally. I
> won't say what that bodes for the future. Though I must say that there was
> nothing about it that made me think I'd missed something important.
Well, you can opine on whether you liked it better than this one.
> Fortunately I had only looked ahead one additional episode, so hopefully I'm
> not too screwed up with the season flow. Unfortunately, however, I soon
> found that my Disk 1 has a ton of scratches on it, and I had to skip a
> couple of scenes and reference the transcript instead to get through it.
> Sheesh.
Your DVD set is trying to protect you. That is indeed good for a mild
laugh, but I hope it doesn't interfere too much with your viewing of
#2-4.
> Something speical for the season opener has been kind of a tradition in the
> Whedonverse - though, honestly, The Freshman was pretty ordinary in BtVS S4.
> The story here seems to be too pedestrian for that to be considered special.
"The Freshman" couldn't be mistaken for anything but a season premiere.
Actually, it's more important (at first glance, anyway) than something
like BvD, since It's all about reinventing BTVS with the thinned cast
and new setting, and more thematically about finding out where our
heroes' old selves fit in to their new world. "Judgment," on the other
hand is just another episode.
> Either I'm missing something essential, or I'm trying to work out a big theme that doesn't
> exist.
I'm betting on the latter. I had the same reaction as you to the
blandness of the pregnant woman; if a character is unnamed and that
nondescript, maybe she's supposed to reflect something bigger. But I'm
not seeing anything more profound than the (snipped) ideas you mention.
"Judgment" holds together thematically, but the themes aren't that
profound or noteworthy, as far as I can tell.
-AOQ
tennessee_vol
believe I would have given up on the show as it was in season one and
early season two. That said, I do like like the Darla arc, and it's
good to see FOOL FOR LOVE and DARLA together.
I do think you definitely need to try to stick it out through episode
seven, at least. If it does nothing for you, then you should at least
watch season five of ATS after season seven of BTVS.
Kevin
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> When exactly does
> this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
You might enjoy a great deal of this 2nd season, I think.
I, for one, hope that you continue watching and posting reviews through
the end of both series, even if you grow to detest them. Or even if
you are compelled at some point to shorten your reviews, for lack of
interest. (After all, you bought the complete sets.) Stimulating the
discussion here is worth it. Well... to me, anyway.
I will sympathize with you, certainly, if you end up forcing yourself
to watch, in horror, as one does at a terrible wreck.
--Kevin
Arbitrar Of Quality
> You might enjoy a great deal of this 2nd season, I think.
>
> I, for one, hope that you continue watching and posting reviews through
> the end of both series, even if you grow to detest them. Or even if
> you are compelled at some point to shorten your reviews, for lack of
> interest. (After all, you bought the complete sets.) Stimulating the
> discussion here is worth it. Well... to me, anyway.
I have the complete set of BTVS, but I'm buying ATS season-by-season
given that it hasn't inspired that kind of confidence in me yet.
Although one could argue that FxF/Sanct justify the existence of the
entire seris... i say they only justify the existence of S1.
-AOQ
(Harmony) Watcher
news:1149282494....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 1: "Judgment"
> (or "We've secretly replaced these viewers' big exciting season
> premiere with this pile of half-assedness. Let's see what
> happens!")
> Writer: David Greenwalt; story by Greenwalt and Joss Whedon
> Director: Michael Lange
>
>
> The Oracles may be gone,
>
basement in the same plane or an even "higher" plane. Only time will tell.
There's so little and so much of it.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - Dennis in general. He's the best character on the show.
>
Why do you think Dennis hadn't "moved on"?
==Harmony Watcher==
Don Sample
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149282494....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> > - Dennis in general. He's the best character on the show.
> >
> Why do you think Dennis hadn't "moved on"?
He enjoys watching Cordy in the shower.
angelbuffy0
Don Sample wrote:
>
> > > This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> > > - Dennis in general. He's the best character on the show.
> > >
> > Why do you think Dennis hadn't "moved on"?
>
> He enjoys watching Cordy in the shower.
>
Lrf gur zna jvgu gur cbjre bs gur yhssn.
(Harmony) Watcher
"angelbuffy0" <ta...@and-then-some.com> wrote in message
news:1149311233.2...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ununun!! EBSY. V qvqa'g xabj gung yhssn=ybbsnu. Gur cbjre bs vzntvangvba
qbrf gur erfg (uggc://oqo.ieln.arg/oqo/pyvc.cuc?pyvc=4716).
==Harmony Watcher==
Elisi
outlines of the case, but the only thing that is fresh in my head is
the jousting! Because: OMG Angel on a horse! In the middle of LA! (Also
liked the court that just popped out of nowhere).
Anyway, to me it's a very much a *guh* moment. (Mmmmm, Angel on a
horse.... its' like a Willow/Tara moment to you!)
Dunno why this show (and Buffy to a certain extent) has such a problem
with season openers. Most are decent, but I can only think of one
that's a straigh 'Exellent'.
Actually I've been meaning to ask you - do you want to be told of
season structures, or would that be spoilery? (F. ex. mentioning that
S1 of Angel is largely stand alones)
As for S2, then for some inexplicable reason they put the worst episode
at the start of the season. I hope you enjoy the rest!
Elisi
> judgment isn't something you get to argue - or even influence? Hmmm.
> Actually, we know next to nothing about why she was being judged or her true
> worthiness. Hmmm. Maybe it's all about the fight? Hmmm.
I like how your mind works.
One Bit Shy
news:1149317804.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
LOL! Well, maybe you can explain it to me sometime 'cause I wasn't sure
where my mind was.
OBS
Lord Usher
> Maybe I should try to calm down given that it's just one bad episode.
> But I've grown to have higher standards for the season premieres,
> y'know?
And yet "Buffy vs. Dracula," which manages to make a legendary literary
villain both ludicrous and boring (and doesn't even bother to integrate
him into the series' own mythology) gets a "Good." No accounting for
taste. :)
Which is not to say that "Judgment" deserves higher esteem, because it
doesn't. To my mind, it's a lot like BvD -- half-assedly realized in
places, plain old uninteresting in others, and overstuffed with
arbitrary fantasy hooey, but with enough good moments interspersed
throughout that it promises good things from the season ahead.
(Though IMHO, "Judgment" does have a slight edge, since this episode's
high points are higher, even if its low points are just as snoozeworthy.
The final scene between Angel and Faith is one of the best moments of
the whole damn *series*.)
> Think any of this is interesting? Well, forget about it, since the
> rest of "Judgment" is concerned with Angel's attempts to protect
> a woman's unborn child. Unfortunately, he accidentally kills her
> intended champion for judgment day. It makes sense that things like
> this would happen on the job. To make things more unfortunate, the
> script calls for Angel to undergo (I guess) emotional turmoil, but
> given that he's a character who responds to everything by kinda
> pensively brooding, there's not much to latch onto. The woman
> herself, whose name I don't believe is ever given, appears similarly
> incapable of displaying emotion of any kind, or indeed any semblance
> of actually being a character.
Her name is Jo, IIRC. But she is indeed awful; the actress does nothing
to elevate a role that was in desperate need of some altitude.
Which is odd, because Justina Machado was superb as Vanessa Diaz on SIX
FEET UNDER.
> And the intended comedic centerpiece of the show, the big joke all the
> karaoke scenes are trying to build towards, is the "vampire with
> *soul*" scene... I didn't hate it, but meh. Whatever. The Angeldance
> from "She" was much funnier.
But this joke had the advantage of actually contributing to the point of
the story -- the idea that Angel needs to open up and live a little,
instead of chasing after his destiny like a crazy person -- whereas the
joke in "She" was at best pointless, and at worst actively detrimental
to the theme of the episode.
> The Oracles may be gone, but the show manages to come up with some
> other bizarre entities who appear theatrically and like to play games
> with people's lives. It's so random and unexplained; how often do
> they pick on people like this woman? What can and can't these guys
> influence? Why the knights on horseback (did the ME staff just meet
> one day and say "That's what this series is missing! A joust!")?
> I can't help but wonder whether the writers are planning to go
> somewhere long-term with this given all the unanswered questions.
> I'd kinda rather it just be a failed idea that we never hear from
> again, honestly.
Then let me reassure you -- the ridiculous Medieval Times crap has
nothing to do with anything, and will never be mentioned again.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Elisi
> where my mind was.
>
> OBS
For someone who hasn't watched AtS before that was so spot-on as to be
scary!
Espen Schjønberg
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>>You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
>>where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
>>giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
>>twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
>>point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
>>this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
>
>
I so agree with you: although I would say next episode is so good, Mr.
Quality should make Mrs Quality see it.
Everybody should see it, it is of class.
How good number three is wont matter so much after such a gem.
--
Espen
lili...@gmail.com
>
> It's funny - Angel S5 seemed to rub a lot of people the wrong way when
> it aired, at least the dedicated AtS fans, but I think most Buffy fans
> might agree that S5 is the most consistently enjoyable season of Angel.
> It never sinks to the depths of S1. S2 gets much better in the second
> episode, but I have to say rewatching it, Angel S2 has not held up that
> well, certainly not as well as Buffy does. Angel S3 & S4 are a little
> over the top with the soap opera plots but they work a lot better on
> DVD than they did on broadcast television.
Hmm, I guess what finally turned me away from actually making Angel
must watch was all the attention spent on Wesley. I liked him up to the
middle of s3 and then his character got so boring (not to mention that
AD's acting tends to put me to sleep) that I just totally gave up on
the character.
Oddly enough though, the time at which I dislike Wesley the most, seems
to be the time he's most popular to everyone else... Tastes and colours
and so on...
lili...@gmail.com
>
> > Meanwhile, we spend some time doing some goofy but
> > fun stuff at a demon karaoke bar. That could easily be overused (one
> > might argue that this episode does so) but I laughed at the first guy
> > rambling about the city while singing "I Will Survive."
>
> The concept of having to sing karaoke for that guy to read your aura is
> pretty good. But the big pitfall of all concepts involving laughing at bad
> talent, is that you have to put up with bad talent to get the joke. Angel
> singing wasn't funny. It was just bad. Though they did make up for it some
> by getting him to admit that he thinks Mandy is pretty.
>
hmmm, I think part of this is showing that Angel is far from perfect.
Making him clearly bad at something, aka singing, it's not just funny,
it also stops him from being the perfect hero, so it's another step in
the eps motive of making clear that Angel is far from ready to actually
be the champion he's already starting to think he is.
Lore
Stephen Tempest
>When exactly does
>this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
Next episode is interesting.
Three or four episodes later, you've got one of the best scenes, and
most memorable lines, of the entire series.
('Tbq qbrfa'g jnag lbh, ohg V fgvyy qb')
Just less than halfway through the season, you've got an episode that
ranks up there with 'Five by Five' and 'Sanctuary', in my opinion.
(Gung jbhyq or Erhavba)
Stephen
Arbitrar Of Quality
Yeah, hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess it does tie in. "You
know how you're not really good at anything?"
Again we run into the disconnect that this episode suffers between
"thematically approprite" and "watchable."
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Dunno why this show (and Buffy to a certain extent) has such a problem
> with season openers. Most are decent, but I can only think of one
> that's a straigh 'Exellent'.
This is the first season opener I've disliked, so I can't really agree
thus far. The only one to score below a Good for me is "Anne," which
at least had its heart in the right place. WTTH and CO are solid
pilots, setting the stages for potentially good series. "When She Was
Bad" rocks, and "The Freshman" and BvD are a little lightweight but
plenty of fun, and the former (probably the latter too, based on what
people are saying) set the agenda for the season to come.
> Actually I've been meaning to ask you - do you want to be told of
> season structures, or would that be spoilery? (F. ex. mentioning that
> S1 of Angel is largely stand alones)
Yeah, I'd prefer to not know that kind of stuff. I did kinda make an
exception here in even asking for quality assesments, just because I
was rather desperate to make sure that the people who gush over S2
weren't thinking of this one as a favorite.
-AOQ
KenM47
I agree. The best is yet to come. Soon enough. (Before everything
goes to Hell IMO)
Ken (Brooklyn)
Elisi
> exception here in even asking for quality assesments, just because I
> was rather desperate to make sure that the people who gush over S2
> weren't thinking of this one as a favorite.
Heh. As you can see, people don't really think of this one much at all!
One Bit Shy
news:1149338567.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think that's probably true, but it's an idea that can be expressed many
different ways. I'm fairly confident that choosing karaoke as the way was
for its humor. Zl crefcrpgvir vf nyfb n ovg gnvagrq. Nf punapr jbhyq unir
vg, gur rcvfbqr V jngpurq ol zvfgnxr guvaxvat vg jnf gur frnfba bcrare, nyfb
unf Natry fvatvat va vg. Fb, sbe zr, guvf vf ab ybatre abiry, juvpu znxrf
gur onqarff bs gur fvatvat nyy gur zber sebag naq pragre.
OBS
Don Sample
Ybear jnf n bar abgr wbxr, gung gurl ena vagb gur tebhaq va guvf
rcvfbqr. Gbb onq gurl xrcg cynlvat vg sbe gur arkg sbhe lrnef.
One Bit Shy
Really? All I did was break down the evident components of the Tribunal and
related them to the idea of judgment - or perhaps final judgment. It will
come wherever you are - you can't avoid it. It's arbitrary and beyond your
influence. It's content is battle. I suppose I could add that it appears
to respect power over justice and is motivated by outside interests (PTB?)
rather than those of whoever is being judged.
If that's big thematic insight, then I suppose I should give the episode a
little more credit for laying a thematic foundation than I recognized at
first. But, gee, it's still an awfully limp watching experience. And
that's not a terribly difficult analysis to make.
OBS
(One, two, three, four!)
Sha la la la la la live for today
Sha la la la la la live for today
And don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey
Sha la la la la la live for today
Live for today
(By the way, I read the_royal_anna blog entry you pointed me too - that was
you wasn't it? Terrific read. I can't get completely behind all of it -
but, hey, what's the fun in an idea if you can't argue it? But I still
agree a lot more than disagree and picked up a few useful notions for future
reference. So thanks.)
peachy ashie passion
> In article <btr1702-0C72C4...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <e5qgvm$pu6$1...@nntp.aioe.org>, "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For me its a good Decent. It didn't have a story worth watching, but it had
>>>some nice touches. I loved the opening shot, with the sinister looking
>>>demon
>>>who then starts to sing. In fact everything was great until they got to the
>>>titles (damned titles...). And Wesley finally got the 180 that he falsely
>>>claimed in Sanctuary
>>
>>How was that a false claim?
>
>
> You can't score more than 60 with a single dart. For a 180 he'd have to
> throw three darts, and hit triple 20 with all of them.
>
Oh for gods sakes.. if he'd called it a home run, would that have
been a lie too?
Elisi
> related them to the idea of judgment - or perhaps final judgment. It will
> come wherever you are - you can't avoid it. It's arbitrary and beyond your
> influence. It's content is battle. I suppose I could add that it appears
> to respect power over justice and is motivated by outside interests (PTB?)
> rather than those of whoever is being judged.
Appply all those to Angel himself (and the PTB) and you have a good
part of the thematic side of the show. It's an interesting distinction
that in this 'verse (as opposed to say Christian theology) redemption
is earned. Or at least that's the impression you get in this episode as
Angel keeps score. Of course in the end he throws the board away...
> If that's big thematic insight, then I suppose I should give the episode a
> little more credit for laying a thematic foundation than I recognized at
> first. But, gee, it's still an awfully limp watching experience. And
> that's not a terribly difficult analysis to make.
Most (bad) episodes have some redeeming feature, usually in trying to
present a theme or idea. Although often this can only be seen in
retrospect (as I'm sure you know very well! *g*)
> (By the way, I read the_royal_anna blog entry you pointed me too - that was
> you wasn't it? Terrific read. I can't get completely behind all of it -
> but, hey, what's the fun in an idea if you can't argue it? But I still
> agree a lot more than disagree and picked up a few useful notions for future
> reference. So thanks.)
Yes that was me! The_royal_anna (and many others) has (have) an awful
lot of fabulous posts - I'll try to link as they become topical.
Espen Schjønberg
Really, I do my best to pretend it never happened.
It was really bad, and that on many levels.
I think I only can accept it because of the last 20 seconds, it is
Faith! And then my mood is so much better. But this only really tells
how much I liked that girl.
(To Elisi: It would be nice if you told the world who you quoted... it
can be deduced, but it is supposed to be in your post? Thanks in
advance! :-) )
--
Espen
peachy ashie passion
I gotta say, I'd completely forgotten it
Elisi
> can be deduced, but it is supposed to be in your post? Thanks in
> advance! :-) )
>
> --
> Espen
Not sure what you mean... what quote? Or is do you mean which season
opener?
Slayah
Quality says...
>You have got to be kidding me. THIS is the beginning of the season
>where everyone gets hooked and ATS starts to click? Mrs. Quality was
>giving _Angel_ another shot for S2, and that experiment lasted about
>twenty-five minutes. I'm not much happier about it. I think at this
>point I'm going to have to break from the usual policy and ask about
>the future (not plot information, just opinions). When exactly does
>this series allegedly get good and stay that way?
>
Oh dear, I had forgotten how bad it was! I was literally cringing with
embarrassment while I was watching it again, having been one of the S2 gushers.
About the joust scene - I got the impression it was created solely to showcase
DB's mad riding skills. Surely that was no trick or stunt double, was it?? That
looked like some dangerous stunt riding!
--
Espen Schjønberg
I mean, like I do here. The top line in this message says: "Elisi wrote".
You don't have those lines, like this message I am answering here, it
doesnt say I have written the "To Elisi" - part. It just says someone
else than yourself did.
I know my english is bad, obviously it's worse than I thought?
--
Espen
KenM47
On the plus side, there is some additional Darala, some more W&H info,
and nice enough interactions by the core AI team (And more Gunn as a
continuing chaacter - not necessarily a good thing IMO).
Merl was OK (the Host was a tad too gay for my taste in humor).
And, of course, the big moral quandry of Angel judging a book by its
cover, and the also odd element of yet another kind of demon seeking
to do "good" supposedly contrary to its inner nature and, as far as we
know, without a curse.
Yes, the trial by combat business sucked, and was a bad move for a
season opener. BUT DB did look like he actually knew how to ride a
horse, which was good in a way.
(Naq bs pbhefr jr fubhyq unir urneq nobhg gur "qnhtugre" ur fnirq ng
fbzr yngre cbvag ohg jr arire qvq VVEP)
And nice to see someone didn't forget about Faith.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
Your English is fine. It's Elisi who seems to have the comprehension
problem.
Apteryx
news:4Jkgg.4720$523.3708@trnddc07...
Certainly! Because even though it would be more apt to describe the
successful result of a single action, it would cast doubt on Wesley's entire
claim to be British. But Wesley has been shown by his "180" claim to be a
calculating and self-aggrandising liar, and I think we have to be careful
now about accepting anything he says. I'm beginning to doubt even his claim
to be a Rogue Demon Hunter (in fact, I'm not even sure there is such a thing
as a Rogue Demon).
--
Apteryx
Slayah
>
>Slayah <Sla...@hellmouth.com> wrote:
>
>>About the joust scene - I got the impression it was created solely to showcase
>>DB's mad riding skills. Surely that was no trick or stunt double, was it?? That
>>looked like some dangerous stunt riding!
>
>On the plus side, there is some additional Darala,
Too little! It was a letdown, I kept waiting for her to come back. Of course,
seeing Faith at the end softened the bitterness a bit.
some more W&H info,
>and nice enough interactions by the core AI team (And more Gunn as a
>continuing chaacter - not necessarily a good thing IMO).
>
>Merl was OK (the Host was a tad too gay for my taste in humor).
Agreed. Merl is cool. I could do without listening to green Host sing.
>And, of course, the big moral quandry of Angel judging a book by its
>cover, and the also odd element of yet another kind of demon seeking
>to do "good" supposedly contrary to its inner nature and, as far as we
>know, without a curse.
I'll admit that threw me for a loop, but somehow it seemed a bit glossed over
afterward, like Angel didn't quite feel bad enough about it or something.
>Yes, the trial by combat business sucked, and was a bad move for a
>season opener. BUT DB did look like he actually knew how to ride a
>horse, which was good in a way.
>
>(Naq bs pbhefr jr fubhyq unir urneq nobhg gur "qnhtugre" ur fnirq ng
>fbzr yngre cbvag ohg jr arire qvq VVEP)
Bu lrnu, gur qnhtugre. dhvgr sbetrggnoyr, yby
--
(Harmony) Watcher
"Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e5stpa$jps$1...@nntp.aioe.org...
interpretation when he was close to finishing off translating the ancient
prophecy about Angel. :p
==Harmony Watcher==
Elisi
Espen Schjønberg wrote:
> You don't have those lines, like this message I am answering here, it
> doesnt say I have written the "To Elisi" - part. It just says someone
> else than yourself did.
>
> I know my english is bad, obviously it's worse than I thought?
>
> --
> Espen
*facepalm*
Nope. My fault. Sorry, I've been very rushed today. Obviously did more
cutting than I thought!
(Harmony) Watcher
Oh, come on now, people. The next time anyone of us hears Manilow singing
"Mandy", it'll bring back this episode. There's no escape.
IIRC, Manilow said he didn't write it, and the original was a rock-n-roll
version titled "Brandy" which never made it to the vinyl. Now imagine Angel
singing "Brandy" with electrons jittering on the guitar fretboard. It could
have been worse.
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"William George Ferguson" <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:qkh182psfdjpecke3...@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
> (quite a few folks really want to spell it 'judgement')
>
Do they spell it "judgment" or "judgement" on the videocassettes and on
recent DVD labels?
==Harmony Watcher==
One Bit Shy
news:r6ogg.234362$WI1.36757@pd7tw2no...
My DVD package says Judgement. Buffyworld.com says both, depending which
page you're on. Wikipedia says Judgment.
Hardly an earth shaking issue, but now I'm curious if there's a definitive
answer to what the chosen spelling really was.
OBS
Apteryx
>
> "peachy ashie passion" <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hRkgg.4815$523.3303@trnddc07...
>> Elisi wrote:
>>
>> > I did kinda make an
>> >
>> >>exception here in even asking for quality assesments, just because I
>> >>was rather desperate to make sure that the people who gush over S2
>> >>weren't thinking of this one as a favorite.
>> >
>> >
>> > Heh. As you can see, people don't really think of this one much at all!
>> >
>>
>> I gotta say, I'd completely forgotten it
>
> Oh, come on now, people. The next time anyone of us hears Manilow singing
> "Mandy", it'll bring back this episode. There's no escape.
>
> IIRC, Manilow said he didn't write it, and the original was a rock-n-roll
> version titled "Brandy" which never made it to the vinyl.
Yes it did. It was a hit here in New Zealand for a local singer, Bunny
Walters, a couple of years before the Manilow version (and I believe also
for Scott English, who wrote it, in the UK).
Certainly the subtext of the lines "well you kissed me and stopped me from
shaking
And I need you today" is a lot more obvious when the girl's name is Brandy.
And the "Mandy" version sounds even wetter when you have heard the "Brandy"
version first than it does when you haven't.
--
Apteryx
Slayah
>
>In article <e5ss1i$n8l$1...@readme.uio.no>,
> Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03.06.2006 21:22, Elisi wrote:
>> >>(To Elisi: It would be nice if you told the world who you quoted... it
>> >>can be deduced, but it is supposed to be in your post? Thanks in
>> >>advance! :-) )
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>Espen
>> >
>> >
>> > Not sure what you mean... what quote? Or is do you mean which season
>> > opener?
>>
>> I mean, like I do here. The top line in this message says: "Elisi wrote".
>>
>> You don't have those lines, like this message I am answering here, it
>> doesnt say I have written the "To Elisi" - part. It just says someone
>> else than yourself did.
>>
>> I know my english is bad, obviously it's worse than I thought?
>
>Your English is fine. It's Elisi who seems to have the comprehension
>problem.
Both his English and Elisi's comprehension are fine. At first I thought he meant
a quote, as in a sig. I didn't realize he was talking about attributions,
either.
--
(Harmony) Watcher
> "(Harmony) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in message
> news:AVngg.234253$WI1.203107@pd7tw2no...
> >
> > "peachy ashie passion" <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:hRkgg.4815$523.3303@trnddc07...
> >> Elisi wrote:
> >>
> >> > I did kinda make an
> >> >
> >> >>exception here in even asking for quality assesments, just because I
> >> >>was rather desperate to make sure that the people who gush over S2
> >> >>weren't thinking of this one as a favorite.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Heh. As you can see, people don't really think of this one much at
all!
> >> >
> >>
> >> I gotta say, I'd completely forgotten it
> >
> > Oh, come on now, people. The next time anyone of us hears Manilow
singing
> > "Mandy", it'll bring back this episode. There's no escape.
> >
> > IIRC, Manilow said he didn't write it, and the original was a
rock-n-roll
> > version titled "Brandy" which never made it to the vinyl.
>
> Yes it did. It was a hit here in New Zealand for a local singer, Bunny
> Walters, a couple of years before the Manilow version (and I believe also
> for Scott English, who wrote it, in the UK).
>
>
Manilow told in a recent interview with Larry King. In this concert video,
Manilow said Clive [Davis], founder of Arista Records, bought a record and
insisted Manilow re-do it, and the rest was, shall we say, history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObcJB9rJqIM&search=manilow
And here's a young Manilow doing a Spanish(?) version of "Mandy" in Spain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIKKg_rs6cc&search=manilow
> Certainly the subtext of the lines "well you kissed me and stopped me from
> shaking
> And I need you today" is a lot more obvious when the girl's name is
Brandy.
> And the "Mandy" version sounds even wetter when you have heard the
"Brandy"
> version first than it does when you haven't.
>
Here's an OT question about what it means to "sell your song to another". If
the original group who did "Brandy" are still kicking today, do they still
have the rights to perform "Brandy" in a live concert? I presume radio
stations can still play the record "Brandy" if they want to?
==Harmony Watcher==
Don Sample
Yes, the original author of 'Brandy' can still perform it. In fact the
original 'Brandy' song writer (or his heirs) probably gets a little
money every time Manilow performs 'Mandy,' or 'Mandy' is played on the
radio, or downloaded from iTunes. If anyone else wants to perform
'Brandy' (or even 'Mandy' for that matter) it is the author of the song
who gets paid for it, not Manilow. It would be the author of 'Brandy'
who probably got paid for the use of 'Mandy' in 'Judgment.'
(Harmony) Watcher
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-C765A1...@news.giganews.com...
"home-made" videos available? Many of these "home-made" videos are playing
complete songs in the background.
==Harmony Watcher==
Stephen Tempest
>Certainly! Because even though it would be more apt to describe the
>successful result of a single action, it would cast doubt on Wesley's entire
>claim to be British.
"Hit for six" would be more in character than "home run", of course...
But Wesley has been shown by his "180" claim to be a
>calculating and self-aggrandising liar,
Unless he'd already thrown two more darts at the assassin off-camera,
of course...
> I'm beginning to doubt even his claim
>to be a Rogue Demon Hunter (in fact, I'm not even sure there is such a thing
>as a Rogue Demon).
Wouldn't Spike be the perfect example of a rogue demon?
Stephen
Lord Usher
news:128446d...@news.supernews.com:
> My DVD package says Judgement. Buffyworld.com says both, depending
> which page you're on. Wikipedia says Judgment.
>
> Hardly an earth shaking issue, but now I'm curious if there's a
> definitive answer to what the chosen spelling really was.
Unless the folks who copied it to the Internet did some editing, the
shooting script uses the preferred spelling -- "Judgment."
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Opus the Penguin
> Appply all those to Angel himself (and the PTB) and you have a
> good part of the thematic side of the show. It's an interesting
> distinction that in this 'verse (as opposed to say Christian
> theology) redemption is earned.
Depends on which brand of Christian theology, I guess. You'd still have
to sharpen it up by saying "redemption is earned *by the person being
redeemed*". Most brands of Christian theology agree that redemption is
earned, but it's earned by another on behalf of the one in need.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Arbitrar Of Quality
> "Apteryx" <apt...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
> But Wesley has been shown by his "180" claim to be a
> >calculating and self-aggrandising liar,
>
> Unless he'd already thrown two more darts at the assassin off-camera,
> of course...
Or unless he was counting the assasin as the third shot in a game from
which he'd been interrupted. That would make him a cheat, but not a
liar per se.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Here's an OT question about what it means to "sell your song to another". If
> the original group who did "Brandy" are still kicking today, do they still
> have the rights to perform "Brandy" in a live concert? I presume radio
> stations can still play the record "Brandy" if they want to?
Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
concert.
-AOQ
(Harmony) Watcher
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97D790497F511op...@127.0.0.1...
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149396734....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are you sure? I rather doubt that. I read that you'll have to get permission
from ASCAP or even pay royalties if you want to perform "Happy Birthday" in
public (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp). According to that
site, "Happy Birthday" reportedly earns about 2M dollars annually, some of
which goes to charity via the Hill Foundation.
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
then again with disney copyrights
congress has been bribed into taking copyrights
whrer they were never intended to go
people should occasionally read where the constitution makes copyrights possible
it dont say what most people say it says
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-B4903...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1149396734....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> >
> > > Here's an OT question about what it means to "sell your song to another".
> > > If
> > > the original group who did "Brandy" are still kicking today, do they
> > > still
> > > have the rights to perform "Brandy" in a live concert? I presume radio
> > > stations can still play the record "Brandy" if they want to?
> >
> > Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
> > knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
> > concert.
>
> since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
Copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to
authorize any pubic performance of a musical work.
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----
000-.html>
Lord Usher
news:mair_fheal-B4903...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>> Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
>> knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
>> concert.
>
> since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
For all intents and purposes, the performance *is* the copy. And it's
exactly the kind of thing that copyright law is designed to prevent -- one
person profiting, without permission or remuneration, off the intellectual
fruits of another.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:mair_fheal-B4903...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>
> >> Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
> >> knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
> >> concert.
> >
> > since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
>
> For all intents and purposes, the performance *is* the copy. And it's
actually it isnt in terms of what the law was before disney bribed congress
copyright was the right to make copy in a permanent medium
such as paper or vinyl or magnetic media
a performance is not any kind of persistent or tangible copy
> exactly the kind of thing that copyright law is designed to prevent -- one
> person profiting, without permission or remuneration, off the intellectual
> fruits of another.
not what the usa constitution says
try reading it
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-B4903...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1149396734....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > (Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's an OT question about what it means to "sell your song to
> > > > another".
> > > > If
> > > > the original group who did "Brandy" are still kicking today, do they
> > > > still
> > > > have the rights to perform "Brandy" in a live concert? I presume radio
> > > > stations can still play the record "Brandy" if they want to?
> > >
> > > Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
> > > knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
> > > concert.
> >
> > since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
>
> Copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to
> authorize any pubic performance of a musical work.
which has nothing to do with making a tangible copy
the law is become a joke since congress took bribes from people like disney
Lord Usher
news:mair_fheal-CCB4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>> Copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to
>> authorize any pubic performance of a musical work.
>
> which has nothing to do with making a tangible copy
>
> the law is become a joke since congress took bribes from people like
> disney
Yeah, how dare the government prevent people from profiting off
intellectual property they don't own!
Disney and company have done a lot of crappy things to screw up copyright
law, but this just ain't one of them.
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-CCB4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Copyright isn't just about tangible copies, and it never has been. The
performance part of it has been there pretty much from the beginning.
Probably before things like phonorecords were added to the law.
Going right back to the constitution:
The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries;
It says nothing about copying there. Authors have the exclusive right
to their writings. That includes any performance of anything they've
writen.
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-D9FD2...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> In article <Xns97D8E76393...@216.40.28.76>,
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:mair_fheal-B4903...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> >
> > >> Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
> > >> knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
> > >> concert.
> > >
> > > since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
> >
> > For all intents and purposes, the performance *is* the copy. And it's
>
> actually it isnt in terms of what the law was before disney bribed congress
>
> copyright was the right to make copy in a permanent medium
> such as paper or vinyl or magnetic media
>
> a performance is not any kind of persistent or tangible copy
Copyright isn't, and never has been, just about making tangible copies.
>
> > exactly the kind of thing that copyright law is designed to prevent -- one
> > person profiting, without permission or remuneration, off the intellectual
> > fruits of another.
>
> not what the usa constitution says
> try reading it
Try it yourself. It says nothing about making copies. It says that
Congress can grant authors have the exclusive right to their writing,
for a limited time.
What Disney and the other corporations have done is get Congress to
extend the time that they still have that right. It's still limited,
but the limit is larger.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:mair_fheal-CCB4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>
> >> Copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to
> >> authorize any pubic performance of a musical work.
> >
> > which has nothing to do with making a tangible copy
> >
> > the law is become a joke since congress took bribes from people like
> > disney
>
> Yeah, how dare the government prevent people from profiting off
> intellectual property they don't own!
since you seem unable to find nara (or hundreds of others) yourself
article i section viii (powers of congress)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
note theres nothing here about -intellectual property-
theres nothing requiring congress to do this
theres something about extending copyrights without limit
theres nothing about right to make a profit
its a deal that congress can make or retract
that gives private parties a chance to make a profit
if that is that is the best way to get new expressions and discoveries
also this clause is in direct opposition to first amendment freedom of press
so until recently it recognized there needs to be a balance
resulting in notions such as fair use
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
which part of -copy- and -right- is difficult to understand
> The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of
> science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
> authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
> writings and discoveries;
>
> It says nothing about copying there. Authors have the exclusive right
> to their writings. That includes any performance of anything they've
> writen.
patents arent copyrights either
if you want something else it would not be a copyright
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
since youre not going to take my word for it
why not look it up
> Try it yourself. It says nothing about making copies. It says that
> Congress can grant authors have the exclusive right to their writing,
> for a limited time.
>
> What Disney and the other corporations have done is get Congress to
> extend the time that they still have that right. It's still limited,
> but the limit is larger.
the limit is extended without limit
happy birthday is hundred years old
when does it limit run out?
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-2C499...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Copyright isn't, and never has been, just about making tangible copies.
>
> since youre not going to take my word for it
> why not look it up
>
> > Try it yourself. It says nothing about making copies. It says that
> > Congress can grant authors have the exclusive right to their writing,
> > for a limited time.
> >
> > What Disney and the other corporations have done is get Congress to
> > extend the time that they still have that right. It's still limited,
> > but the limit is larger.
>
> the limit is extended without limit
It isn't without limit. For corporate owned works the limit is now 95
years.
> happy birthday is hundred years old
> when does it limit run out?
Life of the author, plus 70 years.
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-2A59A...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Copyright isn't just about tangible copies, and it never has been. The
>
> which part of -copy- and -right- is difficult to understand
>
> > The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of
> > science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
> > authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
> > writings and discoveries;
> >
> > It says nothing about copying there. Authors have the exclusive right
> > to their writings. That includes any performance of anything they've
> > writen.
>
> patents arent copyrights either
Neither are cabbages.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-2C499...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Copyright isn't, and never has been, just about making tangible copies.
> >
> > since youre not going to take my word for it
> > why not look it up
> >
> > > Try it yourself. It says nothing about making copies. It says that
> > > Congress can grant authors have the exclusive right to their writing,
> > > for a limited time.
> > >
> > > What Disney and the other corporations have done is get Congress to
> > > extend the time that they still have that right. It's still limited,
> > > but the limit is larger.
> >
> > the limit is extended without limit
>
> It isn't without limit. For corporate owned works the limit is now 95
> years.
and once the 95 years runs out
it will be extended again
as it has everytime mickey mouse is about to become public domain
or havent you noticed?
(Harmony) Watcher
> In article
> <mair_fheal-2C499...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Copyright isn't, and never has been, just about making tangible
copies.
> >
> > since youre not going to take my word for it
> > why not look it up
> >
> > > Try it yourself. It says nothing about making copies. It says that
> > > Congress can grant authors have the exclusive right to their writing,
> > > for a limited time.
> > >
> > > What Disney and the other corporations have done is get Congress to
> > > extend the time that they still have that right. It's still limited,
> > > but the limit is larger.
> >
> > the limit is extended without limit
>
> It isn't without limit. For corporate owned works the limit is now 95
> years.
>
> > happy birthday is hundred years old
> > when does it limit run out?
>
> Life of the author, plus 70 years.
>
1. Who owns the copyrights to the lyrics of "Happy Birthday"?
2. Does anyone own the copyrights to the tune of "Happy Birthday" and to the
*re-publication* of the tune in musical notations?
3. If someone writes "sung to the tune of 'Happy Birthday'", would they get
a cease and desist letter?
4. If somebody put the lyrics of "Happy Birthday" to another totally
different tune, would they be violating copyrights?
5. I wonder if somebody owns the copyrights to the phrase "Merry Christmas
and a Happy New Year" yet?
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
hallmark cards
stick to joyeaux noel
the copyright belongs to les humanoides associes
but its french copyright and they cannot get a settlement in a usa court
because french are such unpatriotic americans
happy birthday song is about 150 years old
think what would it be like if modern copyrights had applied in the past
and we would still be paying for royalities on shakespeare or the iliad
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-61594...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> In article <Xns97D813B3485...@216.40.28.76>,
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:mair_fheal-CCB4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> >
> > >> Copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to
> > >> authorize any pubic performance of a musical work.
> > >
> > > which has nothing to do with making a tangible copy
> > >
> > > the law is become a joke since congress took bribes from people like
> > > disney
> >
> > Yeah, how dare the government prevent people from profiting off
> > intellectual property they don't own!
>
> since you seem unable to find nara (or hundreds of others) yourself
>
> article i section viii (powers of congress)
>
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
> Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
> Writings
> and Discoveries;
>
> note theres nothing here about -intellectual property-
What would you call the writings and discoveries of authors and
inventors?
> theres nothing requiring congress to do this
But it explicitly states that they *can* do it.
> theres something about extending copyrights without limit
Actually, the it says the opposite.
> theres nothing about right to make a profit
No, but it does give the author exclusive rights over their creation.
Whether or not the author chooses to use those rights to make a profit
is up to the author.
>
> its a deal that congress can make or retract
Yep. You seem to have a problem with that.
> that gives private parties a chance to make a profit
> if that is that is the best way to get new expressions and discoveries
Yep.
> also this clause is in direct opposition to first amendment freedom of press
> so until recently it recognized there needs to be a balance
> resulting in notions such as fair use
Fair use is still part of Copyright law.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > so until recently it recognized there needs to be a balance
> > resulting in notions such as fair use
>
> Fair use is still part of Copyright law.
geez
get educated in this matter
Horace LaBadie
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Mark Twain famously proposed to Congress that copyright should be as
near perpetual as could be constitutionally managed. He insisted that
the property right in ideas was as real as that in real property. He was
willing to accept a fifty year limit after death, however, as that would
cover his daughters, whom he had educated to be ladies and therefore
unable to perform any useful labor, but would leave the grandchildren to
fend for themselves.
He was primarily exercised by the fact that publishers could profit from
his work forever, but that his family could not. He had been swindled by
publishers in his lifetime, and had a natural resentment toward them.
HWL
Stephen Tempest
>mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
><mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:mair_fheal-CCB4F...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
>
>>> Copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to
>>> authorize any pubic performance of a musical work.
>>
>> which has nothing to do with making a tangible copy
>>
>> the law is become a joke since congress took bribes from people like
>> disney
>
>Yeah, how dare the government prevent people from profiting off
>intellectual property they don't own!
Last time I checked, Disney didn't own the Thousand And One Nights or
Grimms' Fairy Tales, yet they've profited off them in the past...
As for Bill Shakespeare, his descendants are due for an absolute
fortune in royalties if they make copyright permanent and
retrospective, which is where they seem to be heading...
Stephen
BTR1701
<mair_fheal-B4903...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> In article <1149396734....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> >
> > > Here's an OT question about what it means to "sell your song to another".
> > > If the original group who did "Brandy" are still kicking today, do they
> > > still have the rights to perform "Brandy" in a live concert? I presume radio
> > > stations can still play the record "Brandy" if they want to?
> >
> > Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
> > knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
> > concert.
>
> since a live performance doesnt mean making a copy
>
> then again with disney copyrights
> congress has been bribed into taking copyrights
> whrer they were never intended to go
>
> people should occasionally read where the constitution makes copyrights
> possible it dont say what most people say it says
It says "Congress shall have the power to... promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries.
It says nothing about only prohibiting unauthorized copies. "Securing
the exclusive right" includes the right to live performances.
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-61594...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > also this clause is in direct opposition to first amendment freedom of press
> > so until recently it recognized there needs to be a balance
> > resulting in notions such as fair use
>
> Fair use is still part of Copyright law.
As it stands, yes. However the RIAA and the MPAA are doing their
damndest to stamp it out.
When some recording industry stooge is on Capitol Hill lobbying for the
right to hack into my personal computer based on nothing but the mere
suspicion that I might have a downloaded song file, things have gotten
really bad. (And my favorite part of that proposed bill was that they
wouldn't even be responsible if their hacking attempts caused loss of
data or hardware failure EVEN IF THEIR TARGET WAS FOUND TO BE ENTIRELY
INNOCENT.)
Arbitrar Of Quality
(Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149396734....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > (Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> >
> > > Here's an OT question about what it means to "sell your song to
> another". If
> > > the original group who did "Brandy" are still kicking today, do they
> still
> > > have the rights to perform "Brandy" in a live concert? I presume radio
> > > stations can still play the record "Brandy" if they want to?
> >
> > Don's probably right about recorded versions, but to the best of my
> > knoweldge, anyone can legally perform any song s/he wants in a live
> > concert.
> >
> from ASCAP or even pay royalties if you want to perform "Happy Birthday" in
> public (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp). According to that
> site, "Happy Birthday" reportedly earns about 2M dollars annually, some of
> which goes to charity via the Hill Foundation.
Live music has a long and proud tradition of spontaneous playing and
riffing. I'm just thinking of all the bands who've played "Happy
Birthday" for someone, or who've played Zepplin riffs or entire songs
that clearly weren't planned in advance. 'Weird Al" Yankovic has a few
parodies where he coudn't get the rights, or never even tried, so
they've never been released but he still plays them live.
Maybe everyone has lawyers to quietly deal with this stuff, or maybe
the law is on the books but not strictly enforced in this context.
-AOQ
Lord Usher
> article i section viii (powers of congress)
>
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries;
>
> note theres nothing here about -intellectual property-
Um... what would you call "Writings and Discoveries"?
Note, also, that the quoted passage makes no reference at all to making
"tangible copies" in a "permanent medium," which you seemed so certain was
the only specific right granted to creators under the Constitution.
Lord Usher
>> > also this clause is in direct opposition to first amendment freedom
>> > of press so until recently it recognized there needs to be a
>> > balance resulting in notions such as fair use
>>
>> Fair use is still part of Copyright law.
>
> geez
> get educated in this matter
Wow, I guess the five pages on fair use in the newest edition of the
CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE are wrong, then. Surely you must be more well-
informed in this matter than the bible of the publishing industry.
Lord Usher
news:pti582d4ei3momdd0...@4ax.com:
>>Yeah, how dare the government prevent people from profiting off
>>intellectual property they don't own!
>
> Last time I checked, Disney didn't own the Thousand And One Nights or
> Grimms' Fairy Tales, yet they've profited off them in the past...
Yeah, because *no one else* owns them either. I fail to see how that's a
meaningful exception.
> As for Bill Shakespeare, his descendants are due for an absolute
> fortune in royalties if they make copyright permanent and
> retrospective, which is where they seem to be heading...
"Permanent"? Possibly, though to get around the Constitution they'll have
to maintain an expiration date and then keep pushing it back. (This is the
*real* problem with the current copyright landscape, BTW, not the simple
fact that you can't steal things that belong to someone else.)
"Retrospective"? Never. Why would the corporate owners of IP lobby Congress
to make permanent copyright retroactive, when that would force *them* to
pay big bucks for material they've always been getting for free?