Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)

19 views
Skip to first unread message

David Hines

unread,
May 14, 2001, 8:01:51 PM5/14/01
to

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
"Spiral," by Steven S. DeKnight

review by David Hines
rating: **


I think it may be time to start thinking about writing off BUFFY THE
VAMPIRE SLAYER.

At least it is for me. Barring an incredibly brilliant or incredibly
terrible episode that screams for commentary, this is the next-to-last
review I will write about the series. I haven't written a review of the
show for some time because I've been busy. I don't plan to write another
until my post-finale assessment of the season because I don't feel the
show is worth my time. This is unfortunate. To say that BUFFY has had
more promise than most television shows in memory is an understatement,
and since this is a show that has an insanely talented creator/writer at
its helm, with a powerhouse cast, a number of good and capable writers on
staff, hordes of fans in the entertainment press, and a die-hard base of
viewers whose support will go with the show to its new home on UPN, BTVS
had a real and significant chance to realize that potential. And it
hasn't done that.

The greatest and most long-standing failure of the series has been its
inability to recognize and examine implications. As a result, while it
makes some effort to deal with wrenching emotions and deep issues, BTVS is
an unfortunately superficial show. There are episodes and storylines that
embody this problem (I think this season's Joyce cancer arc is one, and
will dissect it in my season review); but oddly, this sort of problem is
most clearly demonstrated in individual scenes. We get one of those in
this episode, and it points up some problems that have plagued the season,
and the show.

Here is the summary, for those whose attention may have wandered: Glory
is a hellgod who has been banished from her own dimension. She wants to
get home, and the Key can take her there. Because Dawn *is* the Key,
Glory's use of the Key is bound to be unpleasant for Dawn. It also
promises to be unpleasant for every sentient being in the multiverse whose
name is not Glorificus: the Key opens doors to *all* the universes at
once. Dimensions wobble and leak into one another, all boundaries between
realms mystical and secular are lost, dogs and cats live together, mass
hysteria ensues.

(Given the above, that the monks who incarnated Dawn ever tried to harness
the Key's energies was, all things considered, highly stupid; that
Somebody created the Key in the first place is even more so. As tools
go, it's sort of like the lever in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN that brings the
laboratory crashing down when the monster pulls it. Yes, BRIDE's a great
movie, and the emotion of the moment is terrific, and it's a classic
ending... but at the same time, you can't help but think *damn* that's a
dangerous thing to have in a laboratory.)

Glory has found out that Dawn is the Key, so Buffy and company are
electing to bravely run away, a valid strategic action. The Knights Who
Say Ni are running after Buffy and company, because they have an alternate
strategy for preventing the Key from falling into Glory's hands. It is
true that all Glory wants is to go home, and that the only reason she's
looking for the Key in this dimension is that she was banished here by
other hellgods... but since she cannot be allowed to use the Key, the Key
must be destroyed before Glory finds it. Which means that Dawn has to
die, because the Knights don't know what Glory's mortal form is, so can't
kill her. Of course, Buffy must prevent this because It's Not Right; but
the fact that she's on the run, unable to protect Dawn -- and then gets
herself and her friends outnumbered and trapped in an abandoned gas
station -- has her questioning her abilities, and barely holding on.

Let's step back and consider this situation, leaving story construction
issues aside for the moment. Is it me, or is the entire situation with
Glory beginning to look a whole lot like an Idiot Plot? ("Idiot
Plot," coined by sf writer and critic James Blish, meaning a story that
can only function as it does if all the characters involved are
idiots.) Consider:

* The hellgods are idiots. After a hellish battle to defeat Glory, which
they apparently barely won, they do not kill her but put some horrible
means of torturing her in motion, leaving open the possibility of a
comeback. Evil Overlord Rule #4: "Shooting is *not* too good for my
enemies."

* The monks were idiots. They not only brought the Key into Glory's
reach, they damn near handed it to her, *and* screwed things up so
badly in their weak effort to hide the key that they put the entire
multiverse at dire risk. Then the one survivor ran to the Key, to tell
the Slayer where he hid it, and in so doing led Glory right to her.
Gregor, the Knights' General, actually makes their dumbness explicit in
a throwaway line. The last version of this, Snyder's explanation of the
Sunnydale PD, was nothing short of beautiful; here, though, the
stupidity is of such a monumentally higher class that I can't help but
think of Dark Helmet's line in SPACEBALLS after he suckers the hero out
of his weapon: "So you see, Lone Star, evil will always triumph --
because good is *dumb.*"

* The Knights are idiots. They know that Glory was grafted into the body
of "a male infant;" presumably they know roughly *when* this
occurred; they know when Glory (and, by extension, said male
infant) arrived in Sunnydale. Yet despite their keeping a close enough
watch on everything in town to figure out that Dawn is the Key and mount
an assault almost immediately after Glory literally blunders into that
secret, it apparently never occurs *once* to them that they might keep
an eye on Glory, follow her movements discreetly, and wait for her to
change back into her mortal and killable form. (Even if they're only
shadowing Buffy, they should have known where Glory's hideout was prior
to this episode.)

* The Knights are idiots, again. Let's take a moment to imagine what'll
happen if they *do* off the Key. There's still a nigh-unkillable
hellgod stuck on Earth. Except now she's stuck here permanently and
she's *really pissed off.* Way to save the world, boys.

(My radical suggestion: don't stop Glory. Help her. Forget the Key for
a minute: there are multiple ways of moving from one dimension to
another in the Buffyverse; vide the current episodes of ANGEL. There's
no point in wasting time fighting Glory when you can just dump her back
to her old dimension, and let the hellgods deal with her. She's *their*
problem, after all.)

* Glory is an idiot. She's planning to get back home via a device that
will make the multiverse's myriad dimensions slam into each other with
the force of oversexed sumo wrestlers, resulting in, we're told,
unimaginable destruction and eternal darkness. Admittedly, Her
Delectable Bosominess is a few fruitcakes short of a Christmas, but even
she should be able to realize that this does not exactly leave much for
her to be a god *of.*

But still, the biggest problem with this episode (and in many ways, this
series and season) for me is the lack of attention being paid to
implications. BTVS has never been good about taking the logical next
step, about asking the questions that screams to be asked... and so while
this season the character of Buffy Summers has been cut, it is only with
the shallowest of slashes. The result may be colorful, but it does not go
to the bone.

For me, the big scene in this episode, the big question, comes in the
scene in which Buffy and the Knights's General, one Gregor, are wrangling
over Dawn. Buffy says that Dawn is a person now, not a Key, so It's Not
Right to kill her. From the script:


GREGOR
Yes. The Key has been transformed.
Given breath. Life.
(sadly, to Buffy)
Yet this makes no difference. The
Key is the link. The link must be
severed. Such is the will of God.

BUFFY
She doesn't remember anything about
being this Key everyone's looking for!
All she remembers is growing up with
a mother and a sister that love her.
What kind of god would demand her
life for something she has no control
over?

Silence. Gregor ventures no response.


*Gregor ventures no response?!?!?!!* Forgetting for a moment the easy,
cop-out refutation (the *Moron Monks* were the ones who meddled in cosmic
affairs and conjured the Key into human form; if a sentient being has to
lose her life to save the multiverse, that's *their* fault -- God not only
had nothing to do with it, He was probably out for a round of skee-ball at
the time!), there's a screamingly obvious answer to Buffy's question that
not only answers her question, but pulls the rug out from under her and
raises the stakes for the character.

What kind of God would require Dawn to make that kind of a sacrifice?

Well, gee, I don't know; maybe *the same kind of God who'd pick an
unsuspecting teenage girl to fight against undead hordes every night of
her life until she dies a violent death?!?*

I think this is one reason the story isn't working for me. We're supposed
to see Buffy as being unquestionably right, standing up against the world,
and admire the hell out of her for that. (That a sorely wounded and
delirious Giles talks Buffy up only drives that point home; when
characters start giving heartfelt testimonials to each other, the hand of
the writer almost always is more heavily felt than is good for the
work.) Then we feel for her at her collapse, get worried for her, get
wrapped up... get, in short, involved. The problem for me is that I'm
not, and I think Gregor's lack of response to Buffy pointed up part of the
reason why.

As it stands, the emotional pain -- and at episode's end, collapse --
incurred by Buffy in her efforts to protect Dawn arises because protecting
Dawn is unquestionably The Right Thing To Do, but it's something Buffy
can't succeed at because the stakes are too high, the opponents too
powerful. Protecting Dawn calls to two of Buffy's instincts: her role as
big sister/caretaker, and her role as Slayer/protector of the innocent,
which she has embraced anew (again) this season. If she fails at
protecting Dawn, she fails to meet the dictates of those two callings.

There are two problems with this. First, it's simple and obvious
stuff. That is an easy criticism, but it's true; this is "pile it on,
watch her break, watch her rise" -- or, as the late producer Don Simpson
called it, "living down in the pits." As character arcs go, it's about as
compelling as Maverick's, in TOP GUN. The hero overcomes
self-doubt; well, yay, but it doesn't make for a fundamental change in the
character, or give us a fundamental new insight into him/her. (Yes,
Maverick learns the virtues of team playing, but he buzzes the tower at
the end -- he's the same ol' Mav!)

The second problem, which I acknowledge is really more of an explication
of the first, is that this sort of crisis does not call the rules of the
game into question. Buffy's internal problems are subordinate to her
external obstacles. This, as I have noted several times with respect to
ANGEL's first season, is a problem, and is innately an inferior kind of
drama.

My suggestion, to be perfectly blunt about it -- to make the crisis one
internal to Buffy, and thus more revealing of the character -- is that
Buffy's failure, rather than being an equal failure of both her roles,
Sister and Slayer, should arise from the fundamental problem that *these
two roles are incompatible.* Because in this instance, I think they
are. Like it or not, stopping the end of the multiverse is in the Slayer
job description; and if Glory can't be stopped, then Buffy may have to so
love the universe that she give the life of her only begotten sister. Is
that something Buffy Summers would do? Never in a million years. Is that
something The Slayer would do? Absolutely. Instead, now Our Heroine is
Perfect And Right, and it's the world that's wrong. I don't think that's
particularly compelling in terms of characterization, or in terms of
story. Of course Our Heroine is going to get up and come through -- she's
Perfect And Right, after all.

Given my problems with the story, this is a bit of a petty thing to close
on, but: the fight scene between our heroes in the RV and knights on
horseback, which should be thrilling, largely falls flat, with one or two
momentary exceptions. The fight choreography has been unfortunately
inconsistent this year, ranging from the fantastic to the terrible. Its
biggest and most recurring problem, which returned in spades in this
episode, is a certain stodginess. What made Jeff Pruitt's fight scenes so
good in seasons past was their constant flow; in this episode, as in many
others this season, the fighting is painfully blocky. Instead of
blockpunchkickspindodgeduck, it's block. punch. kick. spin. dodge.
duck. It's just not as exciting, and that's unfortunate, because this
fight should have been much cooler than it was.

That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
reviewing ANGEL, though.)

--
David Hines

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 14, 2001, 8:32:58 PM5/14/01
to
David Hines wrote:

>
>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
>
>--

Why?


DesertRoaz
You think your wing hurts? Imagine my fingers wiggling in your duck-brain.

David Hines

unread,
May 14, 2001, 8:39:43 PM5/14/01
to
In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,

DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>David Hines wrote:
>>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
>>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
>
>Why?

*blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?

--
David Hines

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 14, 2001, 9:41:13 PM5/14/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: hra...@mib.org (David Hines)
>Date: 5/14/2001 5:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>

Et tu brute?

Still?

Even with this silly alternate reality with the Star Wars rejects?

Braintrick

unread,
May 14, 2001, 11:53:19 PM5/14/01
to
I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to speak.


dorthsteve

unread,
May 14, 2001, 11:57:01 PM5/14/01
to

Braintrick <brain...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com...

Yeah! Cause David's had them all bound and gagged!!

That bastard!!!!


Stoneco864

unread,
May 14, 2001, 11:59:27 PM5/14/01
to
>I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
>Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
>speak.
>

You know I do not always agree with David Hines but I respect his opinion

Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 14, 2001, 11:55:17 PM5/14/01
to
In article <20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com>,

Braintrick <brain...@aol.com> wrote:
>I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
>Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to speak.

It's Usenet, mastermind. Anyone who wants to post, can.

So, come on: let's hear your thoughtful and well-developed defense of
season five.


--Sarah T.


victoria p.

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:08:59 AM5/15/01
to
dot wrote...

> Braintrick <brain...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic
> ramblings.
> > Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
> speak.
>
> Yeah! Cause David's had them all bound and gagged!!
>
> That bastard!!!!

<snicker>

Hines, you've been indulging in bondage games and you didn't invite me? For
shame.

vicificus
aka victoria p.
Miss July
her most new and improvedness

--

Josh: "I'm just saying, if you were in an accident, I wouldn't stop for a
beer."
Donna: "If you were in an accident, I wouldn't stop for red lights."
_The West Wing_

--

The Muse's Fool - http://www.unfitforsociety.net/musesfool

Lord Usher

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:19:02 AM5/15/01
to
Braintrick <brain...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com>...

> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic
> ramblings. Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a
> chance to speak.

Um... and exactly what was stopping the drooling fanboys from speaking
before? Aside from the fact that they're still figuring out how to work
their keyboards, I mean.

--
Lord Usher
"You haven't murdered anybody lately? Let's be best pals!"

Lord Usher

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:23:11 AM5/15/01
to
dorthsteve <dorth...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<hO1M6.3830$Az.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

(points to Tim Bruening)

Hey, David, you missed one!

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:06:28 AM5/15/01
to
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
: In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,

Still? Have you been watching it since it stopped doing everything you were
praising it for at the beginning of the season?

Or do all the horrible missteps midseason reveal a hidden logic I missed?

It's better than season one, I'll say that much for it. Most weeks.

Shawn

David Hines

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:52:57 AM5/15/01
to
In article <20010514214113...@ng-de1.aol.com>,

DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>>*blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
>
>Even with this silly alternate reality with the Star Wars rejects?

Absolutely. It's stupid fun, but it's *good* stupid fun.

--
David Hines
who remembers when three bob got you a meal, a bottle, *and* a tavern
wench

David Hines

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:54:55 AM5/15/01
to
In article <vZ1M6.24053$t12.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

victoria p. <victo...@worldnet.att.netizen> wrote:
>
>Hines, you've been indulging in bondage games and you didn't invite me? For
>shame.

Everybody wants to come to my bondage games all of a sudden. Is it my new
shampoo?

--
David Hines

LilyRei

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:53:51 AM5/15/01
to
On 15 May 2001 01:41:13 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (DesertRoaz) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>>From: hra...@mib.org (David Hines)
>>Date: 5/14/2001 5:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
>>
>>In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
>>DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>>>David Hines wrote:
>>>>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
>>>>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>*blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
>>
>
>Et tu brute?
>
>Still?
>
>Even with this silly alternate reality with the Star Wars rejects?

At least it's funny. I don't think I'm going to make the 100th
episode of Buffy. After reading the Early Bird Review I can't think
of a single reason why I would want to watch Buffy this week.

Sarah, I'm think just gonna whip out my favorite LFN tapes and have at
it. Slo-mo Mikey. Action Mikey. Mission Mikey. All Mikey. All the
time.

LOL

LR
=====
"Failure is not an option. It's bundled in your software."

BtVS|Angel|LFN
http://hotslayer.com

Braintrick

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:03:43 AM5/15/01
to
xanders the key

Maggie Morris

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:12:26 AM5/15/01
to
In article <9dqa04$57f$6...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Or do all the horrible missteps midseason reveal a hidden logic I missed?

i agree with you on this. but given that hines put up with TWO seasons of
buffy that squandered the potential of seasons one and two before giving
up, it'll take a little more than half a season of crap angel for him to
give up on that too.

-mags

--

La la la la la . New clothes, I have new clothes.
I have new clothes." -Cordelia Chase

Nick Rheinwald

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:20:18 AM5/15/01
to
"DesertRoaz" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20010514214113...@ng-de1.aol.com...

> >Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
> >From: hra...@mib.org (David Hines)
> >Date: 5/14/2001 5:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
> >
> >In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> >DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> >>David Hines wrote:
> >>>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
> >>>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
> >>
> >>Why?
> >
> >*blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
>
> Et tu brute?
>
> Still?
>
> Even with this silly alternate reality with the Star Wars rejects?

No kidding. If there were ever a good time for the "Angel is better than
Buffy" argument, this is definitely not it.

--NIck


Nick Rheinwald

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:25:13 AM5/15/01
to
"Braintrick" <brain...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com...

Agreed. His one post every three weeks is really clogging things up.

--Nick


Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:19:08 AM5/15/01
to
In article <zE2M6.3959$Ox.21...@typhoon.san.rr.com>,

Didn't watch the commercials for Herbal Essences before you started using
it, huh?


--Sarah T.


Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:20:10 AM5/15/01
to
In article <ded1gtsta4brhj2c7...@4ax.com>,

Michael would not hesitate two seconds before cancelling Dawn. Maybe
we can have him flown in.


--Sarah t.

Ian J. Ball

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:34:39 AM5/15/01
to

> Sarah, I'm think just gonna whip out my favorite LFN tapes and have at
> it. Slo-mo Mikey. Action Mikey. Mission Mikey. All Mikey. All the
> time.

Be sure to whip out "Recruit" and "New Regime" for me! :)


Ian (You know, I really got ta make an effort to see these two epies
again... :( )

--
Ian J. Ball | "What's not to understand? You think you're the first guy
TV lover, and | who ever rolled over, saw what was lyin' next to him,
Usenet slacker | and went 'Gueeeyah!'" - The Host, from "Angel"
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html

Ian J. Ball

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:54:49 AM5/15/01
to
In article <9dqeaa$63b$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:

At the end, I don't think *Nikita* would have hesitated more than 5
seconds before cancelling Dawn!


Ian (Ya know, that Nikita turned into one major league b*tch! ;> )

Ian J. Ball

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:57:13 AM5/15/01
to
In article <tg1f8mg...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Nick Rheinwald" <toast...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "DesertRoaz" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
> news:20010514214113...@ng-de1.aol.com...

> > >From: hra...@mib.org (David Hines)
> > >Date: 5/14/2001 5:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
> > >
> > >In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> > >DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> > >>David Hines wrote:
> > >>>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
> > >>>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
> > >>
> > >>Why?
> > >
> > >*blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
> >
> > Et tu brute?
> > Still?
> > Even with this silly alternate reality with the Star Wars rejects?
>
> No kidding. If there were ever a good time for the "Angel is better than
> Buffy" argument, this is definitely not it.

Well, to be fair, it's my opinion that both show's have had some tankage
in the last third of their seasons.

In "Buffy's" case, it's just fortunate that the tankage doesn't compare to
the tankage we got in the second half of season #4.

As for "Angel", I'm hoping it may bounce back. But, I must admit, I'm not
altogether confident that it will...

LilyRei

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:18:28 AM5/15/01
to
On Tue, 15 May 2001 05:34:39 GMT, "Ian J. Ball"
<iball***SPAM-No***@socal.rr.com> wrote:

>In article <ded1gtsta4brhj2c7...@4ax.com>,
> LilyRei <mocha...@SNIP.TO.REPLY.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sarah, I'm think just gonna whip out my favorite LFN tapes and have at
>> it. Slo-mo Mikey. Action Mikey. Mission Mikey. All Mikey. All the
>> time.
>
>Be sure to whip out "Recruit" and "New Regime" for me! :)

I'll see what I can do. But "Rescue" (best opening sequence ever) and
"Hard Landing" (I love that Hong Kong scene) are definitely on the
schedule.

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:20:52 AM5/15/01
to
Lili wrote:

>
>At least it's funny.

It is?

I said "heh" once or twice during whatever the heck that last episode was.
Humor is in the funny bone of the beholder, I guess.

"Angel" last week was mildly funnier than BtVS. OTOH I still care a little
about the Buffy characters (well, mostly Spike but a little about Buffy, Dawn
and Giles...the rest can go jump in their respective lakes) whereas if everyone
on "Angel" were to be killed off tomorrow I'd just do an Oz and say "Huh."
Kate's gone, Dru's gone, Lindsey's gone, Holland's gone. Chirpy!Angel,
Migraine!Cordie, Serious!Wes and Lobotomy!Gunn now bore me to tears.

Oh well. At least there's no more Darla.

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:22:04 AM5/15/01
to
Shawn wrote:

>
>It's better

You misspelled "much, much worse" <g>

> than season one, I'll say that much for it. Most weeks.
>

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:26:40 AM5/15/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: "dorthsteve" dorth...@earthlink.net
>Date: 5/14/2001 8:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <hO1M6.3830$Az.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>

But we like it, so where's the big?

Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:24:31 AM5/15/01
to
In article <nei1gt8406jpe9spk...@4ax.com>,

LilyRei <mocha...@SNIP.TO.REPLY.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 05:34:39 GMT, "Ian J. Ball"
><iball***SPAM-No***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <ded1gtsta4brhj2c7...@4ax.com>,
>> LilyRei <mocha...@SNIP.TO.REPLY.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah, I'm think just gonna whip out my favorite LFN tapes and have at
>>> it. Slo-mo Mikey. Action Mikey. Mission Mikey. All Mikey. All the
>>> time.
>>
>>Be sure to whip out "Recruit" and "New Regime" for me! :)
>
>I'll see what I can do. But "Rescue" (best opening sequence ever) and
>"Hard Landing" (I love that Hong Kong scene) are definitely on the
>schedule.

I feel a viewing of "Mercy" coming on.

I often wish someone had made Beige Angel watch "Gates of Hell":

Operations: (faintly incredulous) You of all people aren't going to warn me
against playing God?

Madeline: No. (smiles) Provided we do a decent job of it. God doesn't make
clumsy mistakes.


--Sarah T.

LilyRei

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:46:36 AM5/15/01
to
On 15 May 2001 06:20:52 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (DesertRoaz) wrote:

>Lili wrote:
>
>>
>>At least it's funny.
>
>It is?
>
>I said "heh" once or twice during whatever the heck that last episode was.
>Humor is in the funny bone of the beholder, I guess.
>
>"Angel" last week was mildly funnier than BtVS. OTOH I still care a little
>about the Buffy characters (well, mostly Spike but a little about Buffy, Dawn
>and Giles...the rest can go jump in their respective lakes) whereas if everyone
>on "Angel" were to be killed off tomorrow I'd just do an Oz and say "Huh."
>Kate's gone, Dru's gone, Lindsey's gone, Holland's gone. Chirpy!Angel,
>Migraine!Cordie, Serious!Wes and Lobotomy!Gunn now bore me to tears.
>
>Oh well. At least there's no more Darla.

Well then we're polar opposites. I watch Angel because I care about
him. The others are basically filler, but as long as they're amusing
I can deal. I don't care about anything or anybody on Buffy. I feel
so much better now that I've said it out loud.

LilyRei

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:50:10 AM5/15/01
to
On 15 May 2001 06:22:04 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (DesertRoaz) wrote:

>Shawn wrote:
>
>>
>>It's better
>
>You misspelled "much, much worse" <g>

I see the <g> but this is starting to look like we have to tear down
one in favor of the other, instead of just acknowledging the shows are
very different now and loyalties have changed.

George Avalos

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:03:46 AM5/15/01
to

Braintrick wrote in message
<20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com>...

>I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
>Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
speak.


David H. and I last agreed on a Buffy episode with "Becoming 2," I imagine.

Nevertheless, he has been consistent in his objections to the show. What
seems to be inconsistent is his suddenly-sanguine attitude about 'Angel.' I
did happen to catch the mirror universe episode that aired recently. And
David is right about 'Over the Rainbow' being stupid. Not sure about the
"fun" part, though. I'm also a bit surprised that David seems satisfied that
the middle arc re Darla and Drusilla seems to have vanished into the ether.

Plus: no matter how often David H. or anyone posts about any TV show ...
that does NOT reduce the opportunity for someone -- you, for instance -- to
post about BTVS. No one is preventing you from posting anything you wish.

--George


Sean Daugherty

unread,
May 15, 2001, 3:50:09 AM5/15/01
to
On 15 May 2001 03:55:17 GMT, in article <9dq9b5$5d9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Sarah Trombley did sayeth unto the world...

OK, so the invitation wasn't extended to me, but I'll bite anyway....

We've got a reasonable focus on the ensemble cast again. In S4, a number of
characters (*cough*Xander and Giles*cough*) shifted into the background. In
short, the show seemed unable to come to terms with two relatively "normal"
characters. This had been in the works since the end of S2, particularly when Oz
joined the cast and there was a general shift, taking the idea of a group of
relatively normal teenagers facing the supernatural towards a group of
supernaturally powered teenagers facing the supernatural. The downside to this
is that the shift convinced most people, and few are willing to accept these
characters, Xander in particular, unless they have some supernatural speciality
grafted onto them. But S5, in a haltering sort of way, went towards placing a
little more focus on them. We've seen Giles, if nothing else, as at least more
useful than in S4, and Xander has become an active member of the group,
particularly following Riley's departure, as the one Scooby who routinely helps
Buffy in her work.

Furthermore, the story has been building up to something. The leadup was
probably too long, but there's been the sense of a strongly unfolding plot,
unlike, for instance, S2, where the major threat unfolded at a very awkward
pace, and the setup wasn't even there until the penultimate episode, or S4,
where the pacing fell apart quite quickly towards the end, and the concept was
hackneyed to begin with. It hasn't quite matched S3, but its got a complex,
involving storyline that keeps you guessing, which is why I've enjoyed it.

In short, I don't think its the best season the series has seen (that honor goes
to S3), but I don't think its as bad as people want to think. Ultimately, I
think a great deal of the problem ultimately comes down to the specter of S4:
the transition from the high school setting to the collegiate/post-high school
setting was the more important one in the show's history, and it was, if not
completely bungled, mishandled. The show has changed, and it didn't make the
transition particularly easy. But I think, if you can look beyond that, it
remains one of the most intelligent and exciting shows on television.

Alright, I'm nowhere near as eloquent as Hines, but I make up for my lack of
eloquence with my open-mindedness (I hope... ^_^ )

--
Sean Christian Daugherty (sean.da...@oberlin.edu)
A proud member of the neo-socialist, leftist intelligentsia
"KING: Friend of yours? / CONSTANTINE: Must be. He's dead."
- "John Constantine, Hellblazer", Issue #69

Elf Bard

unread,
May 15, 2001, 4:06:55 AM5/15/01
to

>Didn't watch the commercials for Herbal Essences before you started using
>it, huh?


<sigh> Typical, I've been using Herbal Essences for six months and my sex
life hasn't improved.

Hehe still, considering my sex life that's probably a good thing ;)


Mike Zeares

unread,
May 15, 2001, 7:11:20 AM5/15/01
to
DesertRoaz wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
> >From: "dorthsteve" dorth...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 5/14/2001 8:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <hO1M6.3830$Az.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> >
> >
> >Braintrick <brain...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic
> >ramblings.
> >> Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
> >speak.
> >
> >Yeah! Cause David's had them all bound and gagged!!
> >
> >That bastard!!!!
> >
> >
>
> But we like it, so where's the big?

Hey, I still like the show, and I haven't been bound and gagged.

<pout>

-- Mike Zeares

S. Norlock

unread,
May 15, 2001, 7:59:18 AM5/15/01
to

"David Hines" <hra...@mib.org> wrote in message
news:Pl_L6.3438$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> "Spiral," by Steven S. DeKnight
>
> review by David Hines
> rating: **
>
>
> I think this is one reason the story isn't working for me. We're supposed
> to see Buffy as being unquestionably right, standing up against the world,
> and admire the hell out of her for that. (That a sorely wounded and
> delirious Giles talks Buffy up only drives that point home; when
> characters start giving heartfelt testimonials to each other, the hand of
> the writer almost always is more heavily felt than is good for the
> work.) Then we feel for her at her collapse, get worried for her, get
> wrapped up... get, in short, involved. The problem for me is that I'm
> not, and I think Gregor's lack of response to Buffy pointed up part of the
> reason why.

Buffy needing to protect Dawn makes no sense, without the death of Joyce
this year. Having her mother die, on it's own, put her (like anyone else
with human emotions) on the verge of collapse. BUFFY IS INCAPABLE OF DOING
THE 'RIGHT THING' RIGHT NOW. Ok?

What is debatable is the Scooby Gang's unquestioning acceptance of Buffy's
leadership here. In season 3 there was debate over whether Buffy should have
sacrificed Willow to stop the Mayor. The "right thing to do" isn't the
question, the question is "What is Buffy capable of doing?" and I think the
writers have set this up just fine. If Buffy was even remotely capable of
sacrificing Dawn right now the show would be a complete waste.

. What made Jeff Pruitt's fight scenes so
> good in seasons past was their constant flow; in this episode, as in many
> others this season, the fighting is painfully blocky. Instead of
> blockpunchkickspindodgeduck, it's block. punch. kick. spin. dodge.
> duck. It's just not as exciting, and that's unfortunate, because this
> fight should have been much cooler than it was.
>

What made Jeff Pruitt's fight scenes so dull in seasons past the constant
repetion of the same blockpunchkickspindodgeduck. With few exceptions all of
Pruitt's choreography could have been cut out of one episode and pasted into
another and no one would notice. The fights this year are choreographed to
the needs of the plot, at least somewhat more than in the past. The make use
of setting and the uniqueness of the characters involved.

Mike Zeares

unread,
May 15, 2001, 7:22:19 AM5/15/01
to
George Avalos wrote:
>
> Braintrick wrote in message
> <20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
> >I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
> >Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
> speak.
>
> David H. and I last agreed on a Buffy episode with "Becoming 2," I imagine.
>
> Nevertheless, he has been consistent in his objections to the show. What
> seems to be inconsistent is his suddenly-sanguine attitude about 'Angel.' I
> did happen to catch the mirror universe episode that aired recently. And
> David is right about 'Over the Rainbow' being stupid. Not sure about the
> "fun" part, though. I'm also a bit surprised that David seems satisfied that
> the middle arc re Darla and Drusilla seems to have vanished into the ether.

I'm actually back to agreeing with Hines on ANGEL. I enjoyed the heck
out of OTR. I'll take "stupid fun" any day.


> Plus: no matter how often David H. or anyone posts about any TV show ...
> that does NOT reduce the opportunity for someone -- you, for instance -- to
> post about BTVS. No one is preventing you from posting anything you wish.

Of course, the funny part of Brainfart's post is that Hines hasn't
posted at all in weeks, if not months, and has hardly been around the
group all season.

My response to Hines these days is usually "yeah but." Yeah, the
problems he points out are usually real problems, but I'm still enjoying
this season. I'd be hard-pressed to say exactly why, though.

-- Mike Zeares

Kevinstein

unread,
May 15, 2001, 9:54:38 AM5/15/01
to
And to paraphrase Spike: You should take out royalties on this one. The whole
"Mayb I'm gonna stop watching" thing got tired near the end of Season 3, Hines.
Stop watching and let yourself relax, or keep watching and stop whining. I
think all of us (save the resiliant Ms. Trombley) are pretty sick of it.

>I think it may be time to start thinking about writing off BUFFY THE
>VAMPIRE SLAYER.


"I owe you PAIN!"
-Willow, "Tough Love"

Kevinstein

unread,
May 15, 2001, 10:06:28 AM5/15/01
to
You know, my favorite part about posts like this is the assumption that if
you're not cynical and jaded about the show you're talking about, you're a
drooling fanboy who will suck anything Joss puts near your mouth.

I happen to love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Love it. Best show on TV. I like
Angel, too (yep, even the wacky dimentional portal thingy), but it doesn't even
approach the epic nature and exceedingly hihg stature of Buffy. You have to go
to shows like The Sopranos and The West Wing to challenge something like Buffy,
shows that have deeply involving stories that draw you in and make you care.

If it makes me a drooling fanboy to watch an hour of TV each week and actually
enjoy it (the fact that so many newsgroupers seem to watch the show and hate it
every time mystifies me), then fine, I'm a drooling fanboy. I don't think
that makes me any less of a viewer as someone who watches a show they purport
to hate and then lambast it in public so other drooling cynics can adore them.


Kev, Optimism THICKENer

>Um... and exactly what was stopping the drooling fanboys from speaking
>before? Aside from the fact that they're still figuring out how to work
>their keyboards, I mean.

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 10:34:39 AM5/15/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: LilyRei mocha...@SNIP.TO.REPLY.hotmail.com
>Date: 5/14/2001 11:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <18k1gt88o6t53r7e0...@4ax.com>

>
>On 15 May 2001 06:22:04 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (DesertRoaz) wrote:
>
>>Shawn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It's better
>>
>>You misspelled "much, much worse" <g>
>
>I see the <g> but this is starting to look like we have to tear down
>one in favor of the other, instead of just acknowledging the shows are
>very different now and loyalties have changed.
>
>

It's been like that on alt.tv.angel for quite awhile (Angel Good, Buffy Bad).
However, I'm not tearing down one in favor of the other. I'm angry that imo
"Angel" has become so mediocre, especially in light of the fact Season 5 BtVS
is going out with a whimper instead of a bang. I'd like ONE of these shows to
be strong right now and imo, neither one is. It's made me pretty cranky.


>
>
>
>LR
>=====
>"Failure is not an option. It's bundled in your software."
>
>BtVS|Angel|LFN
>http://hotslayer.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

darkmagics35

unread,
May 15, 2001, 10:36:31 AM5/15/01
to

"Kevinstein" <books...@aol.comma> wrote in message
news:20010515100628...@ng-mq1.aol.com...

> You know, my favorite part about posts like this is the assumption that if
> you're not cynical and jaded about the show you're talking about, you're a
> drooling fanboy who will suck anything Joss puts near your mouth.
>
I think this is an overstatement. Obviously the posters are watching the
show and care enough about it to go to a newsgroup and post their opinion.
Most of the posts here are intelligent criticisms of the show (by far more
interesting than any of the other groups I read) even if I don't always
agree with them. I wouldn't be surprized if more of the writers and
producers check out what's on this newsgroup than any of us think. Some of
the posters may be hoping that if their posts are taken seriously the show
will improve.

> I happen to love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Love it. Best show on TV. I
like
> Angel, too (yep, even the wacky dimentional portal thingy)

Buffy/Angel are my favorite shows too. With all of their faults (and I
think there have been a few this year) they are still the best two shows on
television.

> If it makes me a drooling fanboy to watch an hour of TV each week

Okay, to be politically correct it would be "drooling fan-person"> and for
the most part I am only drooling whenever Angel removes his shirt.
>
> SLB

EGK

unread,
May 15, 2001, 11:23:38 AM5/15/01
to
On 15 May 2001 06:20:52 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (DesertRoaz) wrote:

>Lili wrote:
>
>>
>>At least it's funny.
>
>It is?
>
>I said "heh" once or twice during whatever the heck that last episode was.
>Humor is in the funny bone of the beholder, I guess.
>
>"Angel" last week was mildly funnier than BtVS. OTOH I still care a little
>about the Buffy characters (well, mostly Spike but a little about Buffy, Dawn
>and Giles...the rest can go jump in their respective lakes) whereas if everyone
>on "Angel" were to be killed off tomorrow I'd just do an Oz and say "Huh."
>Kate's gone, Dru's gone, Lindsey's gone, Holland's gone. Chirpy!Angel,
>Migraine!Cordie, Serious!Wes and Lobotomy!Gunn now bore me to tears.
>
>Oh well. At least there's no more Darla.

This is similar to how I feel about the two shows. I think Angel is the
better written show now but part of that is probably because my expectations
for it are a lot less. When Angel has what i think are a few bad episodes i
just shrug it off. When Buffy has them I care a lot more.
Unfortunately, I don't think Buffy has been nearly as good since the start
of season 4. The character development seems shoe horned in between the
convoluted plot developments of both seasonal arcs.
Plus, what happened to the fun?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:27:35 PM5/15/01
to
George Avalos <gav...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: Braintrick wrote in message


: <20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
:>I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
:>Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
: speak.


: David H. and I last agreed on a Buffy episode with "Becoming 2," I imagine.

: Nevertheless, he has been consistent in his objections to the show. What
: seems to be inconsistent is his suddenly-sanguine attitude about 'Angel.' I
: did happen to catch the mirror universe episode that aired recently. And
: David is right about 'Over the Rainbow' being stupid. Not sure about the
: "fun" part, though. I'm also a bit surprised that David seems satisfied that
: the middle arc re Darla and Drusilla seems to have vanished into the ether.

As was I. Which is why I don't (but then I never did) think it's about
consistent critical evaluation of undeniable standards of quality, and more
about personal preference and tastes based on what one likes and what one
doesn't. Still feeling affection for something blinds you to some flaws; having
lost that positive emotion throws every flaw into stark light and shadow.

: Plus: no matter how often David H. or anyone posts about any TV show ...


: that does NOT reduce the opportunity for someone -- you, for instance -- to
: post about BTVS. No one is preventing you from posting anything you wish.

It sounds more like the constant criticism is just getting him down. As it does
me.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:24:27 PM5/15/01
to
darkmagics35 <smb...@home.com> wrote:

: "Kevinstein" <books...@aol.comma> wrote in message


: news:20010515100628...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
:> You know, my favorite part about posts like this is the assumption that if
:> you're not cynical and jaded about the show you're talking about, you're a
:> drooling fanboy who will suck anything Joss puts near your mouth.
:>
: I think this is an overstatement. Obviously the posters are watching the
: show and care enough about it to go to a newsgroup and post their opinion.
: Most of the posts here are intelligent criticisms of the show (by far more
: interesting than any of the other groups I read) even if I don't always
: agree with them. I wouldn't be surprized if more of the writers and
: producers check out what's on this newsgroup than any of us think. Some of
: the posters may be hoping that if their posts are taken seriously the show
: will improve.

that's a wonderfully rational response, but I think it's far too hopeful and
idealistic. Does any reviewer here really hope they're affecting the show
itself? Has anyone not noticed how most Hollywood producers regularly discount
the internet as a bunch of rabidly negative freaks who don't really reflect the
audience, probably for their own self-preservation as most of our "content"
would be too demoralizing (and off-base) to read regularly? Certainly to
follow.

People write their reviews and post online to discuss the show they love, like,
or used to like (a bit more questionable of an activity, but, then, these
aren't "fan" groups). But getting attention and getting noticed and starting a
long thread? That sad parody of fame is part of it, too.

Also the comfort of finding those who are like-minded in their assessments.

:> I happen to love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Love it. Best show on TV. I


: like
:> Angel, too (yep, even the wacky dimentional portal thingy)

: Buffy/Angel are my favorite shows too. With all of their faults (and I
: think there have been a few this year) they are still the best two shows on
: television.

:> If it makes me a drooling fanboy to watch an hour of TV each week

: Okay, to be politically correct it would be "drooling fan-person"> and for
: the most part I am only drooling whenever Angel removes his shirt.

Me, too. Also when he cracks a joke.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:13:23 PM5/15/01
to
LilyRei <mocha...@snip.to.reply.hotmail.com> wrote:

: On 15 May 2001 06:22:04 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (DesertRoaz) wrote:

:>Shawn wrote:
:>
:>>
:>>It's better
:>
:>You misspelled "much, much worse" <g>

: I see the <g> but this is starting to look like we have to tear down
: one in favor of the other, instead of just acknowledging the shows are
: very different now and loyalties have changed.

It's only starting to look like that? <eg>

Some like both to varying degrees (me), some prefer one over the other (me),
and some use one to praise or disparage the other (sometimes me).

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:28:54 PM5/15/01
to
Mike Zeares <zea...@swbell.net> wrote:

: Of course, the funny part of Brainfart's post is that Hines hasn't


: posted at all in weeks, if not months, and has hardly been around the
: group all season.

: My response to Hines these days is usually "yeah but." Yeah, the
: problems he points out are usually real problems, but I'm still enjoying
: this season. I'd be hard-pressed to say exactly why, though.

Because you still care about Buffy and SMG's consistently entertaining and apt
portrayal of her? If you have sympathy for Buffy, this has been a great season
to pull those heart strings.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:06:29 PM5/15/01
to
DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
: Lili wrote:

: "Angel" last week was mildly funnier than BtVS. OTOH I still care a little


: about the Buffy characters (well, mostly Spike but a little about Buffy, Dawn
: and Giles...the rest can go jump in their respective lakes) whereas if everyone
: on "Angel" were to be killed off tomorrow I'd just do an Oz and say "Huh."
: Kate's gone, Dru's gone, Lindsey's gone, Holland's gone. Chirpy!Angel,
: Migraine!Cordie, Serious!Wes and Lobotomy!Gunn now bore me to tears.

: Oh well. At least there's no more Darla.


At least there's your last point to be grateful for, true.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:11:55 PM5/15/01
to
DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
: Shawn wrote:

:>
:>It's better

: You misspelled "much, much worse" <g>

:> than season one, I'll say that much for it. Most weeks.

:>

I dunno, Roaz, I love ya, sweetie, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me
that all the episodes that were so bad I prayed for Will & Grace not to switch
nights could compete with some of the actually entertaining Lydnsey, Dru, Kate
and Anne (yep, I kinda like Anne) moments this season.

I mean, Cordy with DemonSpawn? NinjaSexBabes on Ice?

I didn't mind "I Married A Demon who did Very Bad things" so much, or even
parts of "Nazi Demons Kill My Little Doyley", but S1 Angel was the definition
of Spotty.

Oh, I've forgotten this season's Nadir of "If I Could Freeze Back Time, the
Physicist's Breakup Song," haven't I? Euwwww.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 12:31:56 PM5/15/01
to
Nick Rheinwald <toast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: "Braintrick" <brain...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com...

:> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic
: ramblings.
:> Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
: speak.

: Agreed. His one post every three weeks is really clogging things up.

There's frequency of posting, and then there's the aura of reverance with which
every snippet is greeted.

Plus all the endless threads (that I'm really trying to avoid contributing to
this time, I'm going to wait to deal with the review until after seeing the
season finale, I think) that his posts habitually generate.

He may not come around often anymore, what wonderfully accurate and literal
technical point you make. But that just increases the notice he always,
consistently receives when he does.

Shawn


John Campbell Rees

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:17:03 PM5/15/01
to
In message <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
hra...@mib.org (David Hines) wrote:

> In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> >David Hines wrote:
> >>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
> >>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
> >
> >Why?
>
> *blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
>
To be perfectly honest, you never have, have you?

I cannot recall ever reading one of your reviews that has praised the
episode in question. They have just been excuses to produce clever, but
vitriolic prose that makes you look clever.

To me, the series has never been perfect, some episodes are so awful I
have only watched them once. For all its faults, and the last two years
have had more than their fair share, on the whole I like the series.
Can you honestly say that David?

--
"Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but
it certainly deals with the flies." - Lord Miles Vorkosigan.
From "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold
jw...@gardd-lelog.org.uk http://www.gardd-lelog.org.uk/

Nick Rheinwald

unread,
May 15, 2001, 1:18:03 PM5/15/01
to
"Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9drlls$a8q$9...@news.fas.harvard.edu...

> Nick Rheinwald <toast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "Braintrick" <brain...@aol.com> wrote in message
> : news:20010514235319...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> :> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic
> : ramblings.
> :> Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
> : speak.
>
> : Agreed. His one post every three weeks is really clogging things up.
>
> There's frequency of posting, and then there's the aura of reverance with
which
> every snippet is greeted.

If people are treating his posts with an 'aura of reverence,' that's their
fault, not his. I, along with most others here, believe that every post by
every person is fair game for any sort of reasonable, thoughtful response,
positive or negative. Some people are agreeing with Hines' review; some
people aren't. But I don't see anyone falling to their knees and saying,
"You are correct, O great sage of all that is Buffy."

> Plus all the endless threads (that I'm really trying to avoid contributing
to
> this time, I'm going to wait to deal with the review until after seeing
the
> season finale, I think) that his posts habitually generate.

Do his posts generate 'endless threads' on their own, or are the threads a
result of people agreeing or disagreeing with what he says and then
responding in kind? All posts here are meant to invite discussion. That's
why it's called a discussion group.

> He may not come around often anymore, what wonderfully accurate and
literal
> technical point you make. But that just increases the notice he always,
> consistently receives when he does.

So are you suggesting that he post more often to decrease the amount of
attention he receives? What *are* you suggesting?

--Nick


Don Sample

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:47:37 PM5/15/01
to
In article <e8b1247...@dendarii.btinternet.com>, John Campbell
Rees <jw...@gardd-lelog.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
> hra...@mib.org (David Hines) wrote:
>
> > In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> > DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> > >David Hines wrote:
> > >>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
> > >>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
> > >
> > >Why?
> >
> > *blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
> >
> To be perfectly honest, you never have, have you?
>
> I cannot recall ever reading one of your reviews that has praised the
> episode in question. They have just been excuses to produce clever, but
> vitriolic prose that makes you look clever.
>
> To me, the series has never been perfect, some episodes are so awful I
> have only watched them once. For all its faults, and the last two years
> have had more than their fair share, on the whole I like the series.
> Can you honestly say that David?

He did like one or two episodes back in the first three years. He was
almost fawning in his praise for "The Witch" (an episode that I've
never particularly cared for.)

After the start of the fourth season most of the effort he put into his
reviews seemed to go into thinking up new names he could call Riley.

Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
writing 101 the worse it is.

--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 2:51:19 PM5/15/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: Don Sample dsa...@synapse.net
>Date: 5/15/2001 11:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <150520011444478801%dsa...@synapse.net>

That's my main criticism of David Hines' criticisms. For the most part, he is
looking for conformance with proper script writing standards. To me, that's a
question of the tail wagging the dog. Some things turn out well even when they
don't follow the rules very well, and other things turn out deadly dull even if
they are technically perfect.

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 15, 2001, 4:06:57 PM5/15/01
to
Nick Rheinwald <toast...@hotmail.com> wrote:

: So are you suggesting that he post more often to decrease the amount of


: attention he receives? What *are* you suggesting?

That he post as frequently as he chooses, and that it's understandable that he
might have a cadre of anti-fans as well as fans at this point.

Shawn


H.G.Hettinger

unread,
May 15, 2001, 5:41:19 PM5/15/01
to
On 15 May 2001 04:06:28 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
>: In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
>: DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>:>David Hines wrote:
>:>>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
>:>>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
>:>
>:>Why?
>
>: *blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
>

>Still? Have you been watching it since it stopped doing everything you were
>praising it for at the beginning of the season?
>
>Or do all the horrible missteps midseason reveal a hidden logic I missed?

Well, I've gotten the suspicion that there actually is a very well
thought out character arc underlying the whole season and that
everything that happened, happened only to get the characters
(especially Angel) from point A (at the beginning of S2) to point B
(the end of S2) in a believable way - but, of course, I can't be sure
of that until after we've seen the finale.

I've I'm right with my suspicion, that would change the significance
of some to the stuff we saw and explain why some issues were
apparently just dropped or some implications completely ignored by the
follow-up episodes.

hgh
Visit Angel Investigations for complete and quote-riddled
episode summaries of all Angel episodes.
http://users.digitalexp.com/~users/hettinger/Angel.html

Mike Zeares

unread,
May 15, 2001, 4:49:56 PM5/15/01
to
Don Sample wrote:

> He did like one or two episodes back in the first three years. He was
> almost fawning in his praise for "The Witch" (an episode that I've
> never particularly cared for.)

Off the top of my head, Dave really liked:

School Hard
Lie To Me
Innocence
Bad Eggs (I think)
Becoming Part 2
Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered
The Wish
Doppelgangland
Fear, Itself
Consequences (again, I think)


He absolutely hated:

What's My Line? 1&2
Surprise
The Freshman
I Only Have Eyes for You
Beauty and the Beasts
The Body
Riley

-- Mike Zeares

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 6:20:20 PM5/15/01
to
Mike Zeares wrote:

>Consequences (again, I think)

I'm pretty sure David didn't like Consequences. I remember being so pleased
that S3 had finally come up with an ep I really liked (the first since Lovers
Walk and The Wish) and thinking it was ironic that David was ripping into it.

Christopher Rickey

unread,
May 15, 2001, 6:30:41 PM5/15/01
to

"John Campbell Rees" <jw...@gardd-lelog.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e8b1247...@dendarii.btinternet.com...

> In message <jV_L6.3441$Ox.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
> hra...@mib.org (David Hines) wrote:
>
> > In article <20010514203258...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> > DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> > >David Hines wrote:
> > >>That's it for me. See you at the season wrap-up. (I'll still be
> > >>reviewing ANGEL, though.)
> > >
> > >Why?
> >
> > *blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
> >
> To be perfectly honest, you never have, have you?
>
> I cannot recall ever reading one of your reviews that has praised the
> episode in question. They have just been excuses to produce clever, but
> vitriolic prose that makes you look clever.
>
> To me, the series has never been perfect, some episodes are so awful I
> have only watched them once. For all its faults, and the last two years
> have had more than their fair share, on the whole I like the series.
> Can you honestly say that David?

If you read closely, you will see he is referring to ANGEL, not BtVS.

If anything, he likes ANGEL too much for his critical good.


Christopher Rickey

unread,
May 15, 2001, 6:40:14 PM5/15/01
to

"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:150520011444478801%dsa...@synapse.net...

> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
> writing 101 the worse it is.

The opposite way of putting the very same point is that any story that does
not attend to the very basics of storytelling is probably not very good.


M. Scott Eiland

unread,
May 15, 2001, 7:05:23 PM5/15/01
to
Mike Zeares wrote:

(Since Roaz suggested that Hines hadn't liked "Consequences", and I wanted to
play around with Google's Usenet search program, I thought I'd track down his
review of it and post it again. . .a brief skim of it indicates that he did
indeed like the episode quite a lot):


BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
"Consequences," by Marti Noxon

review by David Hines


"Consequences" really is not your typical Marti Noxon episode. This,
it goes without saying, is a good thing -- and I'm not saying it for
the reason you think. I really think it's a good thing for Marti
Noxon. As her track record shows, there are a few things that Marti
Noxon really likes. She likes big emotional confrontations. She
likes dramatic, sob-punctuated speeches. She likes her 'ships extra-
sappy and she *really* likes people to yell and cry simultaneously.
And maybe make up with smoochies.

Unfortunately, she's not very good at any of that. Worse, she has a
tendency to leave her plot by the wayside, to better concentrate on
the weepiness and the whining -- which results in an episode drenched
in tears and as perforated as a colander.

So what's the *least* likely kind of episode you'd expect Marti Noxon
to write? Say, a tense, dynamic script with a plot that moves like
a mother? Yeah, me too. I'd give long odds. Long, as in "orbital
tether." Odds, as in "snowball in hell."

And then she had the nerve, the brass cojones, the unmitigated frigging
*gall* to sit down and write it.

Good show, Marti.

+++

This isn't to say "Consequences" is perfect, because it's not. A
few of Noxon's longstanding flaws crept through, and there were a
couple of other problems. But I admire the hell out of Marti Noxon
for doing it. Rather than indulge her weaknesses, she challenges her
strengths, and rises to the occasion.

Because this sucker *moves.* The rules keep changing. There's always
something new on screen, some new dynamic coming in, some new surprise
to whack you upside the head with a baseball bat. "Consequences"
keeps spinning, and a lot of the time you're not sure where it's going
to land. Sometimes it's predictable, sometimes it's not -- but even
when it is, it moves fast enough to keep you breathless.

Here's an example: Buffy finally goes to tell Giles about Faith being
responsible for the death of Deputy Mayor Allan Finch. Whoops. Faith
is there. Buffy backtracks, but Giles explains that Faith told him
everything. About how Buffy stakes Allan through the heart. Worse,
Giles appears to believe Faith. But once they're alone, Giles reveals
to Buffy that he was shamming. He knows she's not to blame. But now
they have to figure out what to do about Faith, and by all means keep
the Watchers out of it. Whereupon the camera pans over to reveal
Wesley Wyndham-Price listening in.

Okay, so every one of these twists (except maybe Faith's blaming Buffy)
is predictable. But they unfold *fast,* and they keep coming one
after the other. The effect is a little breathtaking, especially
when compounded by Tony Head's terrific acting and Chris Beck's
fabulous music -- and the episode keeps doing stuff like that. Oh,
sure, every once in a while, Noxon throws her old shtick in for
a scene or two; but for once she's tremendously careful to let the
plot retain its prime mover status, and it pays off in spades,
because *despite* the bits that don't quite work, "Consequences"
remains an exciting hour of television. This is to Noxon's credit.
She knows that the stuff going down is exciting on its own merit,
and she doesn't need to embroider it with histrionic bells and
whistles; it's an important step for her, and one I hope she'll
use to move into the future.

When Noxon slips, it's a case of not being forward-thinking
enough. The problem with emphasizing emotion is that one de-emphasizes
logic -- and while Noxon downplays the histrionics through most of
her script, she doesn't take enough logical steps forward.

A for instance: Buffy and Faith are arguing about Allan's death.
Noxon stumbles a bit, writing some outrageously cheesy lines for
Buffy, as her fondness for histrionics surfaces. Faith comes back
with the rather Nietzchean argument that Slayers, being superior to
your average human, aren't bound to human laws. Buffy heatedly
rejects that. And the argument continues, until the scene ends,
on that emotional yes-they-are no-they-aren't impasse.

But it's not a *logical* argument. Faith has a beauty of an
opportunity here, and it's the kind of angle a writer has no excuse
not to play up: Buffy *does* consider herself above human law.
She breaks into City Hall to investigate Allan's activities.
Fergoshsakes, she appoints herself and her friends judge, jury and
jailor over Faith. As far as Buffy is concerned, as long as Faith
acknowledges her mistake and gets counseling, jail is entirely
out of the question. Far be it from me to agree with Snyder about
"wooly-headed, liberal thinking" -- but Dread Cthulhu, Faith *killed*
a guy and then covered it up. And if we really want to get nasty,
where do Buffy and Giles get off deciding that there's no need to
warn Sunnydale's populace about the vampire threat? What's that,
about forty thousand counts of depraved indifference and reckless
endangerment? (This last, in particular, is one of the all-time
most important questions in the show as far as I'm concerned, and
I *really really* want somebody to ask, or even answer, it.) The
scene still works, although it doesn't cut deep or hard as it could
and should -- but emotional handwringing aside, it serves the *plot,*
which is a great stride forward.

Noxon also takes a step forward in her treatment of Angel. Instead
of being a barechested cardboard stand-up, Angel's actually out and
about and acting on his own. You *go,* Dead Boy. He lurks, he
thinks, he investigates, he wields a bat. Unfortunately, he gives
awfully long speeches when he does get around to talking (another
longstanding weakness reasserting itself) -- and disturbingly, his
speech to Faith sounds like it comes straight from the mouth of Angelus.
Maybe the two are closer than the Angel droolers have believed. I'd
be all in favor of that, 'cause anything is better than Angel the
wuss... but Angel makes murder sound downright like a privilege,
which is *especially* disturbing considering what he was up to around
this time last year. (And yes, as everyone else has pointed out,
the term is "safeword," not "safety word.")

Yes, the Watchers should have drugged Faith before they took her;
yes, they should have manacled her feet; yes, they were idiots;
and yes, K. Todd Freeman and Mr. Trick deserved better. I *liked* the
actor, *liked* the character, and thought he always deserved better
than he got. If he had to leave, fine; but could he at least have
gone out executing a plan that had, oh, I don't know, *some* semblance
of planning to it? Especially in light of his comment regarding the
merits of Uzis. Which, for those who keep track, was *just last week.*

I'd also like to have seen Joyce Summers's reaction to Buffy's
involvement in Allan's death. For one thing, this is big stuff --
for another, in this instance, Buffy's taking her problem to Giles and
leaving Joyce out of the loop shows that, in some respects, Buffy is
a lot closer to Giles than to her mother. That's an angle that
deserves to be examined. It's also a means of keeping tension
between Joyce and Giles without doing lame things like having them
screw under the influence of mind control -- oops. Too late.

The biggest flaw in the episode is Faith's fall to the dark side. Not
because it's a bad idea or poorly conceived; frankly, it's great,
especially her alignment with The Mayor. But the reasons behind it
aren't even remotely clear. Is Faith having a breakdown due to her
guilt? Maybe. Does she actually think she's the uberfraulein? Could
be. Is Faith just a psycho? Again, it's possible. The key to Faith's
behavior could be any or all of these, but it's not clear which.
This may change in future episodes, but for now nothing has been
settled on -- which, I think, undercuts Dushku's performance,
because *she* isn't entirely clear on what's going on in the writing.

But Marti Noxon is making strides. Sure, she's got problems... but
she seems to realize at least some of them. Even if she doesn't,
she's challenging herself, moving on to things she hasn't tried before,
and turning out a script that, despite its flaws, is really pretty
dang good.

Performances overall are fairly strong, especially Tony
Head (who deserves an Emmy nomination for his *fabulous* work this
season) and intermittently Alyson Hannigan (who's great when she's
understated, but can't shoulder Noxon's hideously botched Willowspeak
in longer speeches). Nicholas Brendon is still annoyingly self-conscious,
and Boreanaz... um, I'm not sure what to make of Boreanaz this week.
Chris Beck's score is excellent. I want to make special mention
of Michael Gershman, whose direction was absolutely *magnificent.*
Put him in the stable of rotating BUFFY directors; this man deserves
it.

Next week -- um, make that "tomorrow:" Alyson Hannigan wears leather
again. Helloooo, *nurse.*

--
David Hines


M. Scott Eiland

"If the cultivation of understanding consists in one thing more than another,
it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions."- Mill

"Nothing hath an uglier look to us than reason, when it is not on our side."-
Halifax

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 15, 2001, 7:18:26 PM5/15/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: "Christopher Rickey" cri...@midway.uchicago.edu
>Date: 5/15/2001 3:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <qfiM6.169$F4.6786@uchinews>

However, the proof is in the pudding. If the story is good and enjoyable, that
is more important than the basics of storytelling. Violating basics of
storytelling can explain why a story was dissatisfying, but it shouldn't in and
of itself make a story dissatisfying.

William George Ferguson

unread,
May 15, 2001, 7:34:25 PM5/15/01
to
>Don Sample wrote:
>
>> He did like one or two episodes back in the first three years. He was
>> almost fawning in his praise for "The Witch" (an episode that I've
>> never particularly cared for.)

Mike Zeares <zea...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Off the top of my head, Dave really liked:
>
>School Hard
>Lie To Me
>Innocence
>Bad Eggs (I think)
>Becoming Part 2
>Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered

(for a very long time, he refused to admit that Marti Noxon really
wrote it, maybe he still doesn't)


>The Wish
>Doppelgangland
>Fear, Itself
>Consequences (again, I think)
>
>
>He absolutely hated:
>
>What's My Line? 1&2
>Surprise
>The Freshman
>I Only Have Eyes for You
>Beauty and the Beasts
>The Body
>Riley

My memory of Hines' reviews is that the above list should read

What's My Line (both parts, but he disliked part 2 more)
I Only Have Eyes For You
Ted
I Only Have Eyes For You
The Freshman
I Only Have Eyes For You
Beauty and the Beasts
I Only Have Eyes For You
The Body
I Only Have Eyes For You

There were also some parts of I Only Have Eyes For You that he didn't
like.
--
"If someone had told me beforehand that there'd be a Willow/Tara kiss
scene followed by an Angel/Kate shower scene, I'd have had completely
different expectations." - johndiem, alt.tv.angel

Lord Usher

unread,
May 15, 2001, 11:40:02 PM5/15/01
to
Kevinstein <books...@aol.comma> wrote in article
<20010515100628...@ng-mq1.aol.com>...

> You know, my favorite part about posts like this is the assumption that
> if you're not cynical and jaded about the show you're talking about,
> you're a drooling fanboy who will suck anything Joss puts near your
mouth.

Actually, my assumption was merely that if someone (i.e., Braintrick) is so
dreadfully insecure in his feelings for the show that he must hurl pathetic
insults at one of the group's most thoughtful and thorough reviewers in
order to reassure himself of his rightness, he is probably not the most
reasonable or discerning fan in the world.

--
Lord Usher
"You haven't murdered anybody lately? Let's be best pals!"

AlyAdmirer

unread,
May 15, 2001, 11:41:00 PM5/15/01
to
>> >> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic
>> >ramblings.
>> >> Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to
>> >speak.
>> >
>> >Yeah! Cause David's had them all bound and gagged!!
>> >
>> >That bastard!!!!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> But we like it, so where's the big?
>
>Hey, I still like the show, and I haven't been bound and gagged.
>
><pout>
>

Well, my fandom's been on life support since "Into the Woods", but hey, all
this promise is enough to make me re-evaluate my position. :)

--Darryl

"Unrequited love--it's fantastic, 'cause it never has to change, it never has
to grow up, and it never has to die." Vince Tyler, "Queer as Folk" UK

AlyAdmirer

unread,
May 15, 2001, 11:55:07 PM5/15/01
to
>>> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
>>> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
>>> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
>>> writing 101 the worse it is.
>>
>>The opposite way of putting the very same point is that any story that does
>>not attend to the very basics of storytelling is probably not very good.
>>
>
>However, the proof is in the pudding. If the story is good and enjoyable,
>that
>is more important than the basics of storytelling. Violating basics of
>storytelling can explain why a story was dissatisfying, but it shouldn't in
>and
>of itself make a story dissatisfying.

Depends on how you define the term "good". :)

Personally, I can differentiate between episodes or stories I find to be good
from those I find to be enjoyable. A "good" episode isn't always enjoyable,
while an "enjoyable" episode isn't always good.

To cross fandoms for a moment (because it's the best example I can think of for
me), my favorite Doctor Who story of all time is "Battlefield", one that many
criticize. And yes, it has it's faults. It's not the best constructed story
in the run. But dammit, I love the hell out of that episode.

Meanwhile, I think the best Who story is "Caves of Androzani". I can find very
few faults with that episode, from the acting to the writing to the direction.
It's probably the closest thing to a flawless Who story I've found. And I do
enjoy it. But not as much as "Battlefield".

If you were to ask me which is the better story, I'd say "Caves". But if I
could only watch one of the two, that wouldn't be the one I'd choose.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of an appropriate example from Buffy,
probably because I expect Buffy eps to live up to a higher standard of
excellence than I do Who eps. The closest I can come up with is "Killed by
Death", which doesn't really have anything wrong with it. There's nothing in
the episode that screams "BAAAD" to me. But by the same token, there's nothing
really *right* with it either.

Lord Usher

unread,
May 16, 2001, 12:59:08 AM5/16/01
to
DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in article
<20010515191826...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...

> >> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
> >> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
> >> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
> >> writing 101 the worse it is.
> >
> >The opposite way of putting the very same point is that any story that
> >does not attend to the very basics of storytelling is probably not very
> >good.
> >
>
> However, the proof is in the pudding. If the story is good and
> enjoyable, that is more important than the basics of storytelling.
> Violating basics of storytelling can explain why a story was
> dissatisfying, but it shouldn't in and of itself make a story
> dissatisfying.

Whoever said that it did? Not David, as far as I can tell.

I think you're confusing cause and effect here. I hardly think Hines sits
down with a Storytelling 101 Scorecard, adds up all the pluses and minuses,
and then decides whether an episode was successful or unsuccessful. ISTM
that he watches an episode, forms an opinion of it, and then refers to
dramatic theory and the fundamentals of screenwriting to explain why it did
or did not work for him.

Which, BTW, is an immensely productive thing to do. There's no better way
to improve one's critical sense -- and one's own writing -- than to analyze
why an episode elicits a certain reaction.

Ian Galbraith

unread,
May 16, 2001, 3:32:48 AM5/16/01
to
On Tue, 15 May 2001 17:40:14 -0500, Christopher Rickey wrote:

:"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message

There is more to good storytelling than just the simple mechanics of
plot structure. I can name dozens of great films that don't follow
storytelling conventions at all.

--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631

"Being cool requires no work. Mostly it requires detachment.
You can be cool and not care about being cool. Being hip
requires both style and effort. You can't be hip without
working at it." - The A.I. War by Daniel Keys Moran

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 16, 2001, 10:51:59 AM5/16/01
to
In alt.tv.angel H.G.Hettinger <h...@digitalexp.com> wrote:
: On 15 May 2001 04:06:28 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

: Well, I've gotten the suspicion that there actually is a very well


: thought out character arc underlying the whole season and that
: everything that happened, happened only to get the characters
: (especially Angel) from point A (at the beginning of S2) to point B
: (the end of S2) in a believable way - but, of course, I can't be sure
: of that until after we've seen the finale.

: I've I'm right with my suspicion, that would change the significance
: of some to the stuff we saw and explain why some issues were
: apparently just dropped or some implications completely ignored by the
: follow-up episodes.

don't hesitate! If they're not spoilers (or even if they are, with appropo
warnings) let us know your suspicions. It sounds believable to me that there
are some underlying points to the developments thus far, but Angel has been odd
this season for having hints of broad story arcs but no unifying seasonal one
(a la buffy) that I could discern.

I think it's made some interesting points along the way, about friendship,
about loyalty, about humanity and the 'human curse,' and used it's LA setting
surprisingly well in ones like AYNOHYEB and Angel's Elevator to Hell w/Leland's
Shade. Even two weeks ago with Cordy's acting nightmare there has been a theme
(jobs suck, some worse than ever, often in direct proportion to their purported
glamor) that is so LA, and of course the use of the humor on this show gives it
a particular charm.

But, where they're going with Angel, when he's not under the influence of
various sex-babes, is a mystery to me.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 16, 2001, 10:58:45 AM5/16/01
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: Kevinstein <books...@aol.comma> wrote in article

: <20010515100628...@ng-mq1.aol.com>...
:> You know, my favorite part about posts like this is the assumption that
:> if you're not cynical and jaded about the show you're talking about,
:> you're a drooling fanboy who will suck anything Joss puts near your
: mouth.

: Actually, my assumption was merely that if someone (i.e., Braintrick) is so
: dreadfully insecure in his feelings for the show that he must hurl pathetic
: insults at one of the group's most thoughtful and thorough reviewers in
: order to reassure himself of his rightness, he is probably not the most
: reasonable or discerning fan in the world.

Aura of reverance anyone? "Thou must not touch the holy peplum, infidel!!!!"

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 16, 2001, 11:00:40 AM5/16/01
to
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:

: BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
: "Spiral," by Steven S. DeKnight

: review by David Hines
: rating: **


: I think it may be time to start thinking about writing off BUFFY THE
: VAMPIRE SLAYER.

You're only starting to think of it now? Could have fooled me. Maybe it's time
to take the plunge and do it rather than threaten repeatedly?

Shawn

Jeff and Lisa

unread,
May 16, 2001, 12:17:29 PM5/16/01
to
brain...@aol.com (Braintrick) wrote

> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
> Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to speak.

I disagree.

I greatly appreciate the time and effort Mr. Hines puts into his
reviews. While I don't always agree with all points, his reviews
are unquestionably excellent.

Christopher Rickey

unread,
May 16, 2001, 12:19:39 PM5/16/01
to

"Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b0e1827...@news.latrobe.edu.au...

> On Tue, 15 May 2001 17:40:14 -0500, Christopher Rickey wrote:
>
> :"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> :news:150520011444478801%dsa...@synapse.net...
> :> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
> :> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
> :> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
> :> writing 101 the worse it is.
>
> :The opposite way of putting the very same point is that any story that
does
> :not attend to the very basics of storytelling is probably not very good.
>
> There is more to good storytelling than just the simple mechanics of
> plot structure.

Naturally. There are thousands and thousands of stories that merely follow
the simple mechanics that suck wind.

I can name dozens of great films that don't follow
> storytelling conventions at all.

Films don't have to have a story at all to be considered great. Roger Ebert
is probably the most famous critic who believes that.

The attendant question is whether tv drama or comedy are like movies. Hines
believes that tv is much more a writer's medium than film, so he evaluates
tv shows according to how well they are written.

Also, note that I said "probably." An exception to the good tv depends upon
a good story would be "The Body," which had no story. (I would argue,
however, as I would argue for almost any recent episode of Buffy, that much
of the impact depended upon the earlier stories that made us care about the
characters; I have my doubts that "The Body" done as a standalone drama
would have worked.)


Jeff and Lisa

unread,
May 16, 2001, 12:27:34 PM5/16/01
to
> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
> writing 101 the worse it is.

I don't agree with that.

His posts go into great detail about various scenes of an
episode, the episode itself, and how the episode fits into
the continuing story line. In that kind of detail, there will
be elements he liked and elements he disliked. Even if he
disliked some aspect of an episode it most certainly does not
mean he disliked the episode as a whole.

Further, he explains the reasoning behind his opinions thoroughly.


David Hines

unread,
May 16, 2001, 1:30:32 PM5/16/01
to
In article <9du4mo$l6b$5...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote (re: writing off BUFFY):

>
>You're only starting to think of it now? Could have fooled me. Maybe it's time
>to take the plunge and do it rather than threaten repeatedly?

"Repeatedly?" Um, how often have I done it?

I don't expect to review the show after this season, if it makes you feel
any better. Maybe I'll watch it, depending on when it shows up in my
UPN-less market, but just annoying you isn't nearly fun enough to make it
my raison d'etre for writing reviews. Will that be good enough for you?

--
David Hines

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 16, 2001, 3:41:14 PM5/16/01
to
Shawn wrote:

>
>Aura of reverance anyone? "Thou must not touch the holy peplum, infidel!!!!"
>
>Shawn
>

At last someone has acknowledge the sanctity of the peplum. They've hardly
been seen since the 1980s. I am terribly fond of them, and would wear nothing
but dresses with peplums if I could.

Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 16, 2001, 4:02:02 PM5/16/01
to
In article <20010516154114...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,

DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>Shawn wrote:
>
>>
>>Aura of reverance anyone? "Thou must not touch the holy peplum, infidel!!!!"
>>
>>Shawn
>>
>
>At last someone has acknowledge the sanctity of the peplum. They've hardly
>been seen since the 1980s. I am terribly fond of them, and would wear nothing
>but dresses with peplums if I could.

I knitted a cardigan with a peplum last year. It kicks ass.


--Sarah T.

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 16, 2001, 5:01:52 PM5/16/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>Date: 5/16/2001 1:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9dumbq$oct$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>

I think I am your fan.

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 16, 2001, 5:17:59 PM5/16/01
to
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
: In article <9du4mo$l6b$5...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,

: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote (re: writing off BUFFY):
:>
:>You're only starting to think of it now? Could have fooled me. Maybe it's time
:>to take the plunge and do it rather than threaten repeatedly?

: "Repeatedly?" Um, how often have I done it?

Your growing ennui with the show, and your preference of Angel to it, has been
clear in nearly every review you've written this season (except, paradoxically,
for Crush, which I remember you quite liking).

: I don't expect to review the show after this season, if it makes you feel


: any better. Maybe I'll watch it, depending on when it shows up in my
: UPN-less market, but just annoying you isn't nearly fun enough to make it
: my raison d'etre for writing reviews. Will that be good enough for you?

It'll make me sad, actually (the show losing a fan), but yes, it will suffice.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 16, 2001, 5:15:37 PM5/16/01
to
Sarah Trombley <trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
: In article <20010516154114...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,

I think they're very flattering to some figures, actually, especially in really
nice fitted suits. I believe Miranda Richardson had a jacket with one as the
unforgettable Jude in The Crying Game.

Shawn

Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 16, 2001, 7:22:51 PM5/16/01
to
In article <20010516170152...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>>From: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>>Date: 5/16/2001 1:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <9dumbq$oct$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>>
>>In article <20010516154114...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
>>DesertRoaz <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>>>At last someone has acknowledge the sanctity of the peplum. They've hardly
>>>been seen since the 1980s. I am terribly fond of them, and would wear
>>nothing
>>>but dresses with peplums if I could.
>>
>>I knitted a cardigan with a peplum last year. It kicks ass.
>>
>
>I think I am your fan.

"Think?" That is insufficient dedication! I demand certainty! And
Dreg-class groveling!


--Sarah T.

DesertRoaz

unread,
May 16, 2001, 7:41:06 PM5/16/01
to
>Subject: Re: BUFFY: "Spiral" (Hines's Spoiler review)
>From: trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>Date: 5/16/2001 4:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9dv24b$ps0$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>

:p How's that?

Tim Bruening

unread,
May 16, 2001, 7:45:13 PM5/16/01
to
Spoilers For Season 5:

`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
u
y
t
r
e
w
q

This season, I'm annoyed at Whedon for:

Glory's two rival Hellgods idiotically putting Glory in a mortal body (thus
giving her a chance to make a comeback) instead of simply killing her outright
after barely wining their hellish battle to defeat Glory.

The monks idiotically leading Glory right to the town where they hid the Key
and practically to the person they put in charge of the Key's security. The
monks also failing to destroy a device which can destroy the entire universe!

The Knights idiotically failing to shadow Glory in order to identify her
mortal and killable form, and falling to account for the fact that if they
kill the Key, they will have a very angry HellGod to contend with. The
Knights also failing to consider the possibility of helping Glory get back to
her dimension, or helping the Scoobies defeat Glory.

When Buffy asks the Knight's General Gregor what kind of God would require
that Dawn be sacrificed, Gregor failing to respond "The same God who would
pick an unsuspecting teenage girl to fight against undead hordes every night
of her life until she dies a violent death". Thus Whedon passed up a golden
opportunity to cut Buffy to the quick. Another response is "What kind of God
would turn the Key into a sentient being in the first place?".

Glory failing to consider that if the Key destroys the universe, it leaves
nothing for Glory to rule.


David Hines

unread,
May 16, 2001, 8:15:54 PM5/16/01
to
In article <e8b1247...@dendarii.btinternet.com>,

John Campbell Rees <jw...@gardd-lelog.org.uk> wrote:
>
>I cannot recall ever reading one of your reviews that has praised the
>episode in question.

I regret to inform you that is your fault, not mine. Take a swing by
http://www.blueshifted.com, where my friend Mike Barklage archives my
reviews. You'll see some that are harsh, some *shrug*-variety, and some
that are swoony and gushing.

>To me, the series has never been perfect, some episodes are so awful I
>have only watched them once. For all its faults, and the last two years
>have had more than their fair share, on the whole I like the series.
>Can you honestly say that David?

I could honestly say it through, say, (the flawed) season three, maybe
even as far as mid-season four. I can't say it any more.

--
David Hines

Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 16, 2001, 8:26:23 PM5/16/01
to
In article <_KEM6.5191$Ox.30...@typhoon.san.rr.com>,

Which just goes to show what an awful, critical person you are, David.
Imagine--showing loyalty to a series for a whole year after you stopped
liking it overall, continuing to invest your time and attention in it
just because it used to be good! You're impossible to please!


--Sarah T.

Tim Bruening

unread,
May 16, 2001, 8:45:36 PM5/16/01
to
Spoilers For May 15:

`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
u
y
t
r
e
w
q

For May 15, I'm annoyed at Whedon for:

I. Passing up a golden opportunity to explore Buffy's true feelings
about Spike, Riley, and Angel via Willow's mind quest.

II. Showing much less of Buffy's mind than I expected.

III. Pylea having two suns, yet nobody or nothing casting two shadows.

Ian Galbraith

unread,
May 16, 2001, 11:14:07 PM5/16/01
to
On Wed, 16 May 2001 11:19:39 -0500, Christopher Rickey wrote:
:"Ian Galbraith" <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
:news:3b0e1827...@news.latrobe.edu.au...

[snip]

:The attendant question is whether tv drama or comedy are like movies. Hines


:believes that tv is much more a writer's medium than film, so he evaluates
:tv shows according to how well they are written.

:Also, note that I said "probably." An exception to the good tv depends upon
:a good story would be "The Body," which had no story. (I would argue,
:however, as I would argue for almost any recent episode of Buffy, that much
:of the impact depended upon the earlier stories that made us care about the
:characters; I have my doubts that "The Body" done as a standalone drama
:would have worked.)

I would say TV is a writers and producers medium in general terms,
because of the speed of production and number of episodes, but that
doesn't mean individual episodes can't be evaluated on the same basis as
films eg as you say The Body. And IMHO just the scripts themselves can
evaluated using other considerations than some arbitrary rules that
someone has defined as being important to writing.

Tom Breton

unread,
May 16, 2001, 8:28:24 PM5/16/01
to
brain...@aol.com (Braintrick) writes:

> I am so glad I don't have to listen to your arogant and pathetic ramblings.
> Maybe now, some people who actually like the show will have a chance to speak.

Too bad that you were forced to listen to his ramblings before. Was
it a school assignment, part of your job, an addiction, a pathological
obsession, what?

--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
BTVS geek code, http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- 5+/-- W--- B-- Bbot++ F+ Dar++ J+ A&B--- A&Dar+
W&Moloch+++ T&O++ S&Bbot+ X&C+ XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- SR-! JW---- JM+ MN- DF---

Tim Bruening

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:47:51 AM5/17/01
to
What are you pleased with Whedon for?

Spoilers For May 15:

`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
-
=
\
]
[
p
o
i
u
y
t
r
e
w
q

For The Weight Of The World, I'm pleased with Whedon for:

I. Spike panicking and trying to slap Buffy awake.

II. Everyone but Spike forgetting about Ben being Glory.

III. Glory's heated argument with Ben.

IV. Spike smoking in a no smoking zone.

V. Spike and Xander fighting the Doc, and Spike reaching into a fire to
rescue some books.

For Through the Looking Glass, I'm pleased with Whedon for:

I. Cordelia jokingly ordering her friends beheaded.

II. Wesley putting three books together with the pictures of a Wolf, a
Ram, and a Hart.

III. Cordelia, Wesley, and Gunn trying to escape Cordelia's date with a
Gruslug (sp?), and Cordelia attempting to steal jewels from the Pylean
government.

IV. Cordelia discovering that her date is a human.

V. Lorne's brother doing the "Dance of Joy".

VI. Angel telling the villagers about the "Evil Lawyer Beast who lost
his hand", and being urged to retell the story about the Sorcerer who
could dismantle himself.

VII. Lorne singing the villagers into submission to help Angel and Fred
escape.

VIII. Angel turning into a demon.

IX. Cordelia attempting to issue proclamations to ban slavery and
polyester, only to be presented with the head of Lorne by the priests as
a message that she is just a figurehead.

mK[mark]

unread,
May 17, 2001, 6:18:47 AM5/17/01
to
Tim, I have a question. How old are you?


Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:28:08 PM5/17/01
to
Mike Zeares <zea...@swbell.net> wrote:
: Don Sample wrote:

:> He did like one or two episodes back in the first three years. He was
:> almost fawning in his praise for "The Witch" (an episode that I've
:> never particularly cared for.)

: Off the top of my head, Dave really liked:

: School Hard
: Lie To Me
: Innocence
: Bad Eggs (I think)

Hilarious, if true. Yes, I like this one too. And a friend of mine (not
on-line) considers it one of his favorite of the amusing AND scary Buffy eps.

: Becoming Part 2
: Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered
: The Wish
: Doppelgangland
: Fear, Itself
: Consequences (again, I think)


: He absolutely hated:

: What's My Line? 1&2
: Surprise
: The Freshman
: I Only Have Eyes for You
: Beauty and the Beasts
: The Body
: Riley

I thought IOHEFY had many clever twists to its standard template of a story.
LOVED What's My Line 1&2 ("Why, Oz, you're a genius redhead, too?").

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:25:45 PM5/17/01
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
: In article <e8b1247...@dendarii.btinternet.com>, John Campbell
: Rees <jw...@gardd-lelog.org.uk> wrote:

:> >
:> > *blank look* Because I honestly think it's a really good show?
:> >
:> To be perfectly honest, you never have, have you?

Wasn't he talking about Angel here, not Buffy?

: He did like one or two episodes back in the first three years. He was


: almost fawning in his praise for "The Witch" (an episode that I've
: never particularly cared for.)

There were intermittent positive reviews of S3, S4, and even one instance in
S5.

: After the start of the fourth season most of the effort he put into his
: reviews seemed to go into thinking up new names he could call Riley.

Well, they were often amusing.

: Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the


: way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
: characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
: writing 101 the worse it is.

Why? Well, because then it lacks "structure?!" Apparently there are only a few
types of those that don't fall over.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:46:56 PM5/17/01
to
Sean Daugherty <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

: joined the cast and there was a general shift, taking the idea of a group of
: relatively normal teenagers facing the supernatural towards a group of
: supernaturally powered teenagers facing the supernatural. The downside to this

My interest definitely piqued at this point.

And, hey, even Cordy has a super power now.

: is that the shift convinced most people, and few are willing to accept these
: characters, Xander in particular, unless they have some supernatural speciality
: grafted onto them. But S5, in a haltering sort of way, went towards placing a

I don't think that's really true, in fact many people seem to regret the
"enhancing" of the Scooby Gang.

: little more focus on them. We've seen Giles, if nothing else, as at least more
: useful than in S4, and Xander has become an active member of the group,
: particularly following Riley's departure, as the one Scooby who routinely helps
: Buffy in her work.

And he's just a great old friend.

: In short, I don't think its the best season the series has seen (that honor goes
: to S3), but I don't think its as bad as people want to think. Ultimately, I
: think a great deal of the problem ultimately comes down to the specter of S4:
: the transition from the high school setting to the collegiate/post-high school
: setting was the more important one in the show's history, and it was, if not
: completely bungled, mishandled. The show has changed, and it didn't make the
: transition particularly easy. But I think, if you can look beyond that, it
: remains one of the most intelligent and exciting shows on television.

: Alright, I'm nowhere near as eloquent as Hines, but I make up for my lack of
: eloquence with my open-mindedness (I hope... ^_^ )

Signs point to yes!

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:30:12 PM5/17/01
to
Christopher Rickey <cri...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

: "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
: news:150520011444478801%dsa...@synapse.net...

:> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the


:> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
:> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
:> writing 101 the worse it is.

: The opposite way of putting the very same point is that any story that does


: not attend to the very basics of storytelling is probably not very good.

Irrelevant in this case, however, as "the very basics of storytelling" are
exactly what are up for grabs here. If you don't except Hines' premises as to
what these are, his reviews lose all meaning for you.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:49:41 PM5/17/01
to
In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: Spoilers For May 15:

Are we in the dark about those? Hasn't she stated her feelings quite clearly on
several occasions?

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:37:49 PM5/17/01
to
Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote:

: I would say TV is a writers and producers medium in general terms,


: because of the speed of production and number of episodes, but that
: doesn't mean individual episodes can't be evaluated on the same basis as
: films eg as you say The Body. And IMHO just the scripts themselves can
: evaluated using other considerations than some arbitrary rules that
: someone has defined as being important to writing.

Nor is there a reason to ignore the visual in tv just because it's a smaller
screen. There are plenty of movie critics who pay much more attention to script
and dialogue than they do the spectacle they're watching as well.

Buffy has expressly tried to do more than stage cheesy CGI battles, by using
unique cinematography and framing/compositional/storytelling devices.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:35:03 PM5/17/01
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

:> However, the proof is in the pudding. If the story is good and
:> enjoyable, that is more important than the basics of storytelling.
:> Violating basics of storytelling can explain why a story was
:> dissatisfying, but it shouldn't in and of itself make a story
:> dissatisfying.

: Whoever said that it did? Not David, as far as I can tell.

: I think you're confusing cause and effect here. I hardly think Hines sits
: down with a Storytelling 101 Scorecard, adds up all the pluses and minuses,
: and then decides whether an episode was successful or unsuccessful. ISTM
: that he watches an episode, forms an opinion of it, and then refers to
: dramatic theory and the fundamentals of screenwriting to explain why it did
: or did not work for him.

I'm as convince he does the former as I am he does the letter. His standards
are as rigid as if there were a scorecard.

: Which, BTW, is an immensely productive thing to do. There's no better way
: to improve one's critical sense -- and one's own writing -- than to analyze
: why an episode elicits a certain reaction.

Not quite the same thing, however, as convincing yourself your emotional
responses are actually founded on universally applicable principles that should
be clear to everyone.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:39:32 PM5/17/01
to
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:


: I regret to inform you that is your fault, not mine. Take a swing by


: http://www.blueshifted.com, where my friend Mike Barklage archives my
: reviews. You'll see some that are harsh, some *shrug*-variety, and some
: that are swoony and gushing.

I think most of us are aware of that, David, anyway. I hesitate to imagine you
swoony and gushing ... oh, yeah, I'll just say the magic word: Darla.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:31:58 PM5/17/01
to
AlyAdmirer <alyad...@aol.com> wrote:

: Off the top of my head, I can't think of an appropriate example from Buffy,
: probably because I expect Buffy eps to live up to a higher standard of
: excellence than I do Who eps. The closest I can come up with is "Killed by
: Death", which doesn't really have anything wrong with it. There's nothing in
: the episode that screams "BAAAD" to me. But by the same token, there's nothing
: really *right* with it either.

Oh, I'm sure others can.

Becoming2: doing everything right

The Zeppo: mucking everything up on purpose, and being even more fun to watch

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
May 17, 2001, 12:51:20 PM5/17/01
to
Jeff and Lisa <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
:> Hines seems to think that any episode that isn't written exactly the
:> way he would have done it is "bad." The more the plot,
:> characterization, style, etc deviate from the way he learned in script
:> writing 101 the worse it is.

: I don't agree with that.

: His posts go into great detail about various scenes of an
: episode, the episode itself, and how the episode fits into
: the continuing story line. In that kind of detail, there will
: be elements he liked and elements he disliked. Even if he
: disliked some aspect of an episode it most certainly does not
: mean he disliked the episode as a whole.

: Further, he explains the reasoning behind his opinions thoroughly.

And yet it often remains thoroughly unconvincing and misguided.

Go figure.

Shawn

Sarah Trombley

unread,
May 17, 2001, 2:20:59 PM5/17/01
to
In article <9e0uak$1q6$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,

Wait, now reactions have to based on universally true principles to be valid?
Personal feelings aren't enough? Shawn, when, oh when, are you going
to extend to other people the approach you demand for your own posts?

I don't agree with all of Hines's principles of storytelling--I think, in
particular, he frets too much about plot structure, though it's not like
the show hasn't tended to go astray on plot structure often enough in bad
episodes to make him not unreasonable in that. However, he offers a good
and useful and well-thought-out perspective to at least consider. If all
the people who enjoyed the show put that much effort into writing reviews
instead of complaining about the negativity in the group, well, there'd be
less negativity in the group.


--Sarah T.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages