Joss at Nocturnal: transcripts (long..)
Mattia Valente
The subject came up a while back, and this popped up in alt.tv.angel, so
I thought I'd forward it here. Dunno who did the transcribing, as the
original poster didn't say, just said she'd got it from someone.
It's the more or less complete transcript from the Joss Whedon parts of
the talks at Nocturnal (the all guest panel part isn't in here, 'just'
his own talk and his parts of the time he was on stage with Nick
Brendon.) I've done some editing here and there, where the transcriber
missed something I caught.
BE WARNED!! CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ALL OF BUFFY SEASON 5 AND ANGEL
S2!
Some little things about upcoming seasons are in there as well. Not very
much, though (obviously, since Joss believes spoiler are evil, and
rightly so ;-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Joss at Nocturnal (LONG)was Re: The Second Season's Top 10
Surprises...
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:17:15 +0100
From: "Elaine McCue" <voya...@ntlworld.com>
Reply-To: "Elaine McCue" <eil...@ntlworld.com>
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Newsgroups: alt.tv.angel
References: <20010714164354...@ng-cj1.aol.com>
<20010714204920...@ng-ct1.aol.com>
<Lm257.44658$WS4.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
<GGuIM...@world.std.com>
<Edited>
JOSS WHEDON NOCTURNAL SESSION TRANSCRIPT
Q: How much input into casting of Amy Acker? Will she be a regular? Is
the
physicist aspect integral to her development next season? If season
kicks
off three months down the road, nervous about our not seeing Fred's
homecoming and reaction after being away for five years.
J: Well, I can answer all those questions! And the most exciting part
is
that I get to take full credit for Amy Acker. Because I don't always,
I'm
not responsible for every piece of casting, like David Boreanaz, where I
was
saying, "I dunno, you think he's good-looking? He's kinda got a forehead
thing goin'," and the girls were like, "Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssst
hiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmm! Yeeeeeesssssssssssss!", so sometimes I miss the
mark
a little bit. We'd been looking for some time for another female for
the
show to sort of balance it out, really give us a core group, and so we
had
some generic sides written up, just so that we could see different
actresses
with different looks and different rhythms and just see if there was
somebody out there who just clicked and [where] we said, "OK, she might
work
in the group", and, y'know, it was a real crap-shoot, I mean, we'd seen
dozens and dozens, and I'd pretty much given up hope, and Amy walked in
the
room, and according to Marti Noxon, I turned into Jerry Lewis, the
moment
she did, I was like [goes Jerry Lewis, unintelligible], I was just
completely lost it all [sic], I was, "That's the girl!". Then she read,
I
was like, "Ooh, she can act too! Good!" And I was like, "I have to have
her, she's gotta be on the show, I want her to be a regular, in the
opening
credits, it's done," but of course you have to convince other people of
that
too. And also sometimes there is such a thing as a great auditioner:
somebody who comes in the room, blows you away, you put them on film and
they disappear like white on white, and you're like, "Oh, but they were
so
good in the rooooommmmmmmm!" So, y'know, panic: because I didn't want
anybody else to have her, I actually wrote a scene overnight for her and
J.
and Alexis, because I knew J. and Alexis would be my quickest studies,
and I
could just hand them a three-page scene and say, "You're doing this
tomorrow
morning," and I shot it on the schedule as quickly as I could just to
see if
she worked on screen, and she was terrific, and I sent it to the network
and
the studio and she was hired in a day. So that was great, and she came
on,
and I thought she was wonderful in Pylea.
The idea of whether or not her being a physicist matters: we want to
make it
matter, but the whole writing staff came to me, and it was like, "Do we.
have to know physics?", and I was like, "Well, I'm not gonna! I have
two
shows! I'm busy!" We want it worked out in her character: we want her
to
be a little different, bring something a little different to the mix in
terms of the gang. And as far as her homecoming and her dealing with
the
issues, we have worked it very specifically so that come, say, three
months
later as we always do on our show, everybody's kind of been in stasis,
the
whole thing with Buffy's death, everybody has been dealing with their
own
problems, so that it's almost as though it were a week later: we will be
able to deal with her, her family, how she adjusts to the world, all
that
stuff, the same way we'll be dealing with Angel's reaction to Buffy's
death
and all of that stuff. It was a problem, we were like, "We wanna make
sure
we don't lose any of the interest and fun of having this character need
to
sort of find themselves in the world," so we basically locked her in a
room
for three months.
Q: How's it going with the BBC in the talks for the Giles spinoff?
J: It's going very well. It's going very slowly, just because there's
so
much else going on, we never get a chance to talk. What we're trying to
do
now is figure out how we would budget it and how it would be produced
and
paid for and all that stuff; I want to make it over here, and the thing
that
excited me about the BBC, besides the fact that I like the kind of shows
they make, is that they only make six of them. And I was like, "Well, I
can
do that, I can do another show if there's only six." And Jane Root,
who's
head of BBC2, said, "Well, sometimes we do as many as ten" - "Oh, my
God,
when do you sleep? I only did FORTY-FOUR!" But we're still, it's so
embryonic and could fall apart, which is why Tony's being very
level-headed
about it, even though I keep saying, "Oh, it's gonna happen, it's gonna
happen." We know what the show is, we know what we wanna do with it,
it's
really now a question of when can we figure it out, when can we make it
work. My hope is to shoot the pilot this winter and for it to come out
a
year from this fall. all six glorious episodes.
Q: Is that the other reason why you're here in the country?
J: Actually, Jane and I didn't manage to get together 'cause we both got
colds at the same time. No, I'm here because whenever I can go
anywhere, I
come here.
[applause]
Q: Hello.
J [basso]: Hello.
Q: You've said on the DVD commentary that Tony Head performs more than
half
his scenes without trousers on; is that true?
J: Well, more than half, obviously. Tony has kept his trousers on very
diligently for many years now. Y'know, when you do these DVD
commentaries,
you think you're gonna have all this interesting stuff to say, you run
out
of stuff in about five minutes, and you basically start telling lies
about
your actors, so I figured I'd use Tony because he'd actually laugh about
it
instead of hunting me down and killing me.
Q: I believe you're working on a comic which is just about to come out:
can
you tell us about that and what it's all about?
J: Yeah: I've just started a comic that came out last week called Fray,
which is the name of the Slayer 200 years from now, who lives in
Manhattan,
who's a professional thief. Basically, I've always wanted to do comic
books; I started to get a little more involved with Buffy and some of my
writers were writing Buffys, and I was like [whiny], "Oh, I want to do
somethiiiiiiiing!", so I wheedled at Dark Horse and decided to do a
mini-eight-issue-series, and oh, I see somebody holding it: You're my
favourite fan of all! I wanted to do something in the Slayer mythos
because
it had already been developed and I wouldn't have to just start from
scratch, but I didn't want to do anything that would interfere with the
show, so I figure if I set it 200, 300 years from now, everybody dead,
so
they'll be fine, I won't have to worry about destroying some arc we
could
have done seasons from now. And it's really hard, it's really
interesting,
it's wonderful and it's available now!
Q: Have there been any storylines that the actors have refused to do?
J: Er, y'know, I'm trying to think if there's anything, uh. no, there
haven'
t. [Don't think he was aiming for a joke on dictatorial-ness.]
Occasionally people have had problems with certain things. I had one
actor
who for religious reasons was uncomfortable with playing a demonic
presence,
but unfortunately didn't tell us about that until right before filming,
so I
was like, "Uh, sorry dear, just this once." But my actors are game for
everything, and of course the one person who might have been thrown for
a
loop in the last couple of years would be Alyson, since I decided to
make a
slight change in her character, and she never even blinked, she was
like,
"That's cool; where do I stand?" She had no problem with it at all.
Also,
if they did refuse, I'd kill them, because they work for me. But no, we
haven't had to alter the course because of them, I'm happy to say.
Q: Is Passions a real show?
J: Passions IS a real show. Let me explain to you: this is a soap opera
that has come on in the last couple of years, and actually I started
working
it into the show because Sarah is obsessed with it. Because there is a
little boy who's actually a doll, who lives with this witch and comes to
life when nobody's looking, who's played by an 18-year-old midget, and
this
whole story arc is going on in the middle of this
young-rich-people-in-love
soap opera. It is the strangest show ever. Sarah actually has a
picture
signed by him on her trailer wall, she is completely into it, so I
decided
to throw it to Spike and Giles as well. Yeah, it's real, and apparently
they started mentioning us on their show too, and so there's a great
beautiful love between us; they may not realise we're making fun of
them,
but I just told several thousand people, so I guess that's not a problem
any
more!
Q: The Willow/Tara kiss scene: there were stories that there was a major
battle with the network to allow it. What really happened?
J: What really happened was our mission statement was. There have been
a
lot of shows, and I don't know if they show here, but a lot of shows in
the
last couple of years have been very big with the heavily advertised
lesbian
kiss: this is a great ratings ploy - they take one of their characters,
they
tell you for about five months that she's gonna have a lesbian kiss, she
has
it, doesn't like it or gets over it or whatever it is and they get a big
ratings boost. And so our one mission statement on Buffy was when they
kiss
it will be when they should, it will be in the most mundane of moments
or
emotional, it will not be a big stunt, we just wanna slip it under the
radar, we wanna make it natural, we wanna make it not exploitative but
something real. So we didn't even really mention it; I never tell the
network what I'm gonna do ahead of time any more anyway; every now and
then
they'll call me and they'll say, "Um, when you say Buffy's dead. GOOD, '
cause she's going to another network!" They did call and they said,
"Can we
take out the kiss?" And I said, "No." They said, "Can she just kiss
her on
the forehead?" I said, "No." And they said, "Well, we may have a
problem
with that." And I said, "Well, just so we're clear." I have a very
good
relationship with their Standards & Practices, we always have a
back-and-forth, but with respect: these are good, hard-working people,
it's
not like, "Oh, the censors, they're idiots!" We don't have that
attitude.
Besides, they let us get away with anything, because half the things we
say,
I don't think they understand! They've been good, but that particular
thing, I felt, was so important to that show, it was such the perfect
moment
for that kiss, and there comes a point where if two characters who are
in
love don't kiss, it starts to be fake, it starts to be a little
offensive.
So I basically said, "Just so we're clear: if the kiss is cut or trimmed
in
any way, I'm walking out of this office and I'm never coming back,"
which
was so cool! [applause] It was cool because I don't usually say things
like
that; if I was one of those guys who, "Rarr-rarr-rarr!" every. I always
want to collaborate with my network, they're the people who show the
show
and I respect them, but this particular issue, I was like, "Let's just
avoid
the barter system, let me just make it fast [in the sense of "firm"],
this
is what's gonna happen," and they called me next day, they were like,
"Kiss
is in," I was like, "God bless ya."
Q: Have you ever seen the show Forever Knight, and if so, what do you
think
about the comparisons that people make between it and Angel?
J: I haven't, actually: I've seen bits of one. I heard about it, and
then I
was like, "Oh, my God, I suck! It's the same show!" But people when we
first came on started to mention it, and then I think every show has its
own
identity; it's like, there can be two shows about doctors, y'know, this
one
is a little more esoteric, but from what I understand there must not be
too
much confluence, because I actually stopped hearing about it pretty soon
after we started airing. But when I first introduced the concept,
people
did say, "Yeah, there has been this thing called Forever Knight," but
I'm
constantly. Because I don't actually watch a huge amount of American
television - I've watched plenty, I'm not like a snob or anything, but I
don
't watch a huge amount. I'm always doing things that I think are
sparklingly original and then finding out that every shmoe who's ever
run a
show has done it. Like bringing in Dawn: I thought, "In the fifth year
I'll
bring in this younger character who's completely different to everyone
else,
at a different time in her life, and that'll be really original," and
then
they start listing like The Cosby Show, all these shows that did that
because their ratings were failing and they felt they needed a cute
little
moppet or whatever, and I was like, "Oh, so I just basically suck." And
this is one of those instances where I basically suck, thank you so much
for
bringing it up.
Q: No, actually the fans of both shows enjoy the little comparisons that
we
can make between them. And my other question is: is Amy ever gonna be
de-ratted?
J: Y'know, it's just getting cruel at this point, isn't it? Amy is
going to
be de-ratted, this is a promise! [cheers] As a matter of fact, I called
Marti Noxon from London, and one of the first things I said was, "Oh,
and by
the way, with that story we were talking about. de-rat Amy, 'cause it's
just
getting cruel, it's just bad, we gotta do it." So it's gonna happen.
[Beat.] She's going to become an antelope.
Q: Did Larry actually die in the Series 3 finale?
J: Yes, Larry did die, we killed Larry. There are certain things that
are
integral, that you have to do for the integrity of character [obviously
some
gag, since laughter] [ed: he said 'he asked for a raise'], so. I had to
kill somebody, I was like, "If we have a war and nobody we like dies."
So
I killed him and I killed Hamony, although that seems to have helped her
career.
Q: Also, given the many vital uses of the Buffybot towards the end of
the
series.
J: [English accent] You perv!
Q: .don't those vital uses make Warren something of a hero for inventing
the
whole process?
J: I'm sorry.?
Q: Doesn't the good and valuable work done by the Buffybot validate
Warren's
experiments in the first place?
J: OK, y'know, I know we're talking about the Buffybot, but I'm still
not
sure what the question is. not all at once. [Audience: "Is Warren a
hero
now?"] Is Buffybot the new hero? [Audience: "No, WARREN!"] Oh,
Warren!
Actually, no, Warren isn't really a hero, he's kind of a [??? sounds
like
"shimp"] [Ed: Shemp.], but Warren is actually gonna make a reappearance,
we've got some plans for him. We've got some plans for some of our old
characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my heart
is Jonathan. [cheers]
Q: One last question.
J: Really enunciate!
Q: Why did you choose Buffy's last name to be Anne?
[slow-burning ribald audience laughter]
J: Is that funny for some reason I don't know?
Q: There's a rather famous chain of adult lingerie shops called Anne
Summers.
[leering applause]
J: [giggly but I reckon beneath it genuinely embarrassed]: I had no
idea.!
Er, no, no, it wasn't that.! Actually I did it because I wanted
something
very plain that just sounded right rhythmically, and because the whole
thing
led up to that other girl taking the name Anne, it had to be the right
name,
it had to be exactly, very simple. Actually, this is a little
embarrassing:
has anybody here ever read A Little Princess? [almost entirely female
"Yes"]
This is actually my favourite book, and I re-read it recently and
discovered
many things that were very similar to the way Buffy worked that I hadn't
even noticed, 'cause I read it like ten times when I was a kid, and one
of
the things is that it ends with this homeless girl in the bake shop, who
has
been taken in and they've created a new life for her, and she's called
Anne,
and the chapter is just called "Anne", it's the very end of the book,
and I
think somehow that must have been in the back of my mind somewhere,
because
it's the same dynamic I wanted to do. That character who was
Chanterelle
when she was a vampire-worshipper and then she was Lily, she became Anne
and
then she was on a couple of episodes of Angel, was really important to
me
because she was so weak, she was such a follower and for her growth,
even
though it happened over five [sic] episodes and probably almost nobody
has
seen all five of them, to me that was a huge thing that she became
somebody
in her own right over the course of the series, and that's sort of the
feeling I got from the end of the book there. Sorry, you wanted
lingerie, I
gave you A Little Princess.
Q: Have you ever had anything refused by the censors that you wanted to
put
in?
J: No, but I'm still tryin'! Y'know, when we started the show they were
uncomfortable with the word "virgin". This is when we were airing at
nine,
and then we moved to eight and by the time we moved to eight there were
things in the show that I am appalled by! Once we became a hit they
pretty
much just backed off; they were a little twitchy at first. The one
thing
that they are very twitchy about is anything to do with issues, like
teen
suicide and the gun thing; they were very nervous about us doing an
episode
where someone brings firearms to school, and they could not have been
righter, because Columbine happened three days before we were supposed
to
air, and it blew up in our faces and we couldn't show the episode for
months
even though I think it's one of our best, but we knew the moment it
happened
that they'd have to pre-empt the show. Those are things they care about
the
most. We're not a very violent show, at least I don't think so
[laughter],
although there's some channel here that thinks we are. Four? ["Yes!"].
Lamoes!. And the sexual content hopefully has some aspect of poetry or
metaphor to it so it's not just completely. porn. So we get stuff by.
No,
we don't have a lot of problems with that.
Q: Was your motivation in setting up recent plots in Angel and Buffy to
get
as many women into as much skimpy clothing as possible?
J: Actually, Cordelia's bathing suit was the second bathing suit we've
had
in 144 episodes; I believe Anya wore one in "Buffy Meets Dracula" [sic].
And if anybody noticed, there was a period of about three years where
Buffy
wore nothing but really long, shapeless coats; we started referring to
her
as "Doctor Buffy". I think we actually have the lowest skimpy-outfit
quotient for a show with as many beautiful women on it as we have, of
any
show on TV. Absolutely I want these girls to be sexy, and absolutely I
want
them to be physical; same with the boys. But we always try not to be
exploitative about it. We put Charisma in an exploitative outfit
because
she was being exploited, that was the whole point, and then we put her
in
something similar when she was being exalted, as both a comment on the
way
people see women and as a joke. But Charisma is fun, y'know, she was
great
about it and it all went very well, everyone was very respectful.
Things do
get skimpy every now and then, but that's not really what we're after,
and I
think we have a pretty good track record of not being completely heinous
people.. although that's about to change.
Q: How do you come up with the names of the characters, and does Pike
from
the movie have anything to do with Spike?
J: No. I came up with Spike and Dru and I was all into that, and then
somebody reminded me several months later that I had a character named
Pike,
and I was like, "OK, I suck" - that was another one of those exciting
moments. I love the name "Spike", I always love it in pair with a
woman;
"Drusilla" I took from Emperor Caligula, his wife-slash-sister, whatever
she
was, 'cause I loved I, Claudius when I was a kid, and so I was very into
the
idea of this very twisted relationship, and "Drusilla" seemed a perfect
classical match to "Spike".
The first characters. it takes us a very long time to name characters:
it's
about finding a name that, most importantly, doesn't sound like any of
the
other characters, so they really have their own feel every time you hear
their name. The great exception to this is Scully and Mulder, who both
have
the "ul" sound, I'm like, "That shouldn't work, but it does; that's
totally
good", but for me it's like very important to separate them aurally, so
I
sort of see, "What have I got left? I've got Aaa. OK, Anya!", or
whatever.
And, y'know, just find something that reflects what's gonna be their
character. Y'know, you don't take somebody named Xander that seriously,
it'
s kind of a nicknamey name, stuff like that; Willow is all about
vulnerability, and Cordelia is somebody who was in my wife's school that
she
didn't like. And I said, "The one thing you have to worry about, honey,
is
this character may become beloved," and she said [derisively], "That
won't
happen!"
Q: So the characters may come up earlier than the names?
J: Oh, yeah, yeah. And the Grooselugg, that took for ever, we didn't
know
what to call him right up until shooting. The characters can definitely
come before the names, but it really helps you define a character once
you
have it. Everything that we do is really important in terms of the
story,
and it's one of the things that I've told my writers is. I try not to do
this, because I consider it a sign of disrespect, but sometimes I will
change the title of a show, because I think the title is really, really
important to defining what the show needs to be; I actually had Doug
Petrie
come up to me and say, "I didn't get this show until I figured out what
the
title was," like, the one he was writing, because it crystallises things
and
it tells you what's important, and you wouldn't think of it because you
guys
don't see the titles. you know them, because you guys know more than
your
average person, but it's really important for the process of building
it.
The names is a more obvious example of the same thing.
I can be long-winded about almost anything. Except physics.
Q: Which elements of the overall story arc to date were sketched out
from
the beginning, and which have evolved, and how have they evolved? I'm
thinking in particular of the Angel/Buffy love story, and also the way
Spike
's character has developed.
J: Nothing was really sketched out from the beginning except the very
basic
premise: Buffy and Xander and Willow, and the romance with Angel. It
wasn't
until, I think, late in the first season that I had the idea for "Buffy
sleeps with Angel and he goes bad and becomes the villain". That
wasn't. y'
know, we were just like, "How do you sustain this romance?" And that
was
our answer: by making it as ugly as possible.
Everything evolves; it comes usually maybe six months ahead, or it comes
from a sudden shock or a sudden stroke of luck. Two obvious examples:
Seth
turning to me and saying, "I'm going to go make movies - goodbye" right
at
the beginning of Season 4, and me going, "Ohhh-kay, whaddoIdo,
whaddoIdo?",
and the answer was Amber Benson, so [audience whooping] that worked out
fine. But at the same time Spike coming back for one episode. We
wanted to
bring him and Dru back in season 3 and there was so much going on, we
didn't
have time, but we did bring him back for the one; we were gonna bring
Dru
back as well, and she was doing a movie, we couldn't get her, so at the
last
minute we had to write a script, and we were like, "Well, what do you do
with Spike if he hasn't got Dru?", and the whole episode was about Spike
hasn't got Dru, he's miserable, he's lost her and it's all about love.
And
it worked beautifully for us, and it was watching that episode when I
was
suddenly like, "Oh, my God - we need James as a regular," and I hadn't
even
seen that before, "I need him in the Scooby gang". I knew I was gonna
lose
David and Charisma, and I was like, "He can fulfil that Charisma role in
a
way of being.", y'know, we hired him to be Cordelia, the person who says
the
thing that nobody else wants to say. Of course, now we have him and
Anya,
so an embarrassment of riches, but. It became clear also in the second
year
that David should have his own show, and that the way to resolve the
Buffy/Angel romance was to have him go away. I mean, we're going into
year
6; if we were still trying to dance our way through making that
relationship
interesting, y'all wouldn't be watching any more. But separating them
meant
that every time they come together it has enormous power, enormous
meaning.
assuming they show it in the right order. [laughter]. I'm fine, I'm
fine.
It really just sort of comes to me some months before, what's gonna
happen
and how it's gonna work, and it's always extraordinarily exciting when
it
does, and I run and tell Marti right away, and it's all cool. But it
just
sort of comes, and it's based on what we know, what are people
responding
to, who we're gonna lose, who we're gonna keep and where we need to be
emotionally, so we have all those things working and it just tells me
what
to do, every now and then it just whispers in my ear and we go on.
Q: And at what point did you decide to have Spike fall in love with
Buffy?
J: That was towards the end of his first season [?Does he mean 3 or 4?],
where he had come on and really didn't have that much to do, he'd show
up
and go [Spinal Tap voice] "I hate the Scooby gang. 'bye!", he was sort
of
the wacky neighbour, and we thought, "Well, there's more there; how do
we
find it?" And it was like one of those things that just hits you on the
head like a baseball bat, because it made such perfect sense for him to
fall
in love with Buffy because he wants to get his ass kicked and she's the
person who always does that. And their relationship was so intense and
so
filled with the hate that it was as though we had been writing towards
it
anyway. And when I told James, he was like, "I wanted to pitch that but
I
thought that would be presumptuous of me," and I was like, "Well, don't
worry, 'cause we're gonna go there the full nine yards." It seemed so
obvious when I thought of it that I was like, "Why didn't I think of it
before?", but I just have to wait for it to come.
Q: That there is [sic] demons walking the Earth all the time in Buffy
and
Angel, does that come from any fact or research, or is it just your
idea?
[uproar of incredulity]
J: It comes from living in L.A. [applause at his fielding such a nutter
question] We always had to go to great lengths to hide the fact, and we
explained in the very first episode how we would hide the fact that
there
were all these monsters roaming about. But as we would go on more and
more
that got really tiresome, and eventually we had to tell Mom. And we
just
figured that in L.A. people really wouldn't notice or they really
wouldn't
care. Which really is why the show is so realistic. So many people are
just blasé about it, every so often someone will be surprised, but
that's
kind of what it's like there: it's very hard to surprise people. So it
is
in fact based in fact.
Q: In "The Witch", Xander makes this comment to Willow about her not
sticking it into him like a railroad spike. After that, were you just
waiting to create a villain who did that?
J: OK, one more time. something about sticking it in.?
Q: [rephrases]
J:. and then we actually had a railroad spike character. but then he
turned
out to have made up the legend of William the Bloody after all. That's
probably Greenwalt. Railway spikes make him laugh. It's one of the
things
about him that makes him special.
Q: You say that everyone who asks you about "Restless" asks about the
cheese, so I figured I'd come up with something else.
J: [right into mic] Bless you.
Q: Will Xander ever get lucky enough to reach the back of the ice cream
truck?
[whooping uproar]
J: [pause; laughter] Since the character of Xander is largely based on
myself, I can say with some assurance that he never will.
["Awww!"]
Actually, he did, they made us cut it, we have all the footage, but
you'll
never see it.
Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
hero
figure, or do you think he'll never.?
J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
next
season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless things,
he's
shown real caring, and at the same time he can be a complete pain in the
butt. We don't know the answer to that, and we're sort of gonna feel
our
way around and find out. And different writers have different opinions
about how heroic he's been and his motivations and what's gone on, and
we
debate about it a lot. The only thing I can tell you is it's a real
issue
for us: where is he heading and how far can we take him in that
direction
and still feel that we're being true to the character?
Q: Are you gonna kill Kate off or are the rumours true that she's gonna
be
Angel's love interest?
J: Well, Kate did get a little better after he saved her life, she
wasn't so
depressed, she felt better. in fact, she felt so much better that she
got
another show. She's gonna be the new Assistant D.A. on Law & Order next
year, which is a huge high-profile gig and a great thing for her and
we're
all excited, but it means that we probably won't be seeing quite so much
of
her. She was actually on another show last year on TNT, and she made
herself available to do the number of shows that she did 'cause she's
really
sweet and really co-operative and really grateful, she's a terrific
lady,
but now she's gonna be shooting in New York on a really big show, so I
have
a feeling that we're not gonna kill her, we like her, but I don't think
she'
s gonna be gettin' the smoochies any time soon because she's gonna be
busy
prosecuting people.
Q: [the question about repeated killing for an army of Slayers]
J: [mimes repeated drowning] .dunk. dunk. No, I think first of all,
this
will probably be the last time we kill her, and hopefully different from
the
time before, and no, in fact her death will not create a new Slayer.
The
line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith, and if you
want us
to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
Q: How did the actors and the network react when you pitched the idea of
"The Body" to them?
J: They didn't get a treatment; they just saw the first cut. I
literally
don't even pitch stories to them any more. Every now and then they
check
in, "How's it going?", and we'll tell them a thing or two, but we really
just go our own way, they pretty much trust us at this point. We warned
them in advance that this was gonna be a show that might gonna make some
noise and we wanted to send it out to reviewers and whatnot, but they're
never frightened by us doing something different because we kind of do
something different every week, we really try to keep it fresh, so if we
have a sort of experiment it's not like some other show getting
completely
postmodern and strange, our show's strange enough already that to do
something that upsets the boundaries isn't that big a deal for us, so
they'
re cool about it.
Q: Do you think you're gonna get an Emmy for it?
J: No, but it would be nice. It would be lovely, it was so cool to get
nominated at all last year, that was fun. But I still don't think that
we'
re in the consciousness of the Academy in such a way that it would
actually
get an award, but. not like I'm not hopin' for it.
Q: Have you got any plans to bring Lindsay back?
J: Lindsay is another one of those actors who keeps getting other gigs,
and
we hate him for it, but the answer is most assuredly yes.
Q: Have you ever thought about putting Harmony into her own vampire
sitcom?
J: Actually, yes! We love Harmony very much, she really cracks us up
and
she's such a sweetheart. There's actually been a struggle, because the
network said, "We're not sure how we feel about a character recurring on
both shows," and the Buffy staff and the Angel staff were both like,
"She
belongs on our show, we should have her!" So we'll see more of her
because
she's funny, but it will not be in a sitcom format any time soon.
Q: Is that you doing the "Grrr! Arrrg!"?
J: Yes, that's me. You're supposed to have a fancy logo, and my head of
post-production came to me and said, "You need a logo, and you have
twenty
minutes." So I drew the demon on a piece of paper, cut it out, then I
drew
the logo and said, "OK, take the demon and go like this across the
screen,
and I'll record something for it later." So yes, "Grrr! Arrrg!" was my
first great acting job.
Q: The Anita Blake series [of novels] started before BTVS really kicked
off.
Have you ever taken any inspiration from it?
J: I've never actually heard of it. Part of that is that the moment I
started Buffy I never opened a book or saw a movie or did anything or
had
any fun again for the rest of my life (although I somehow managed to see
The
Matrix ten times). I stay away from similar things in that genre
because I
wanna do my own thing and I don't wanna steal from them, I wanna steal
from
other people. If something is very similar, I'll never go near it
because I
don't want to get into that area of starting to do the same thing. So I
haven't actually heard of it; sounds vaguely familiar, but. There are
more
than a few things that have similarities. I like to think that I'm the
most
original person in the world, but as we've already discussed, I'm really
wrong.
Q: There are rumours that in S6 Buffy's going to quadruple her powers
because of her death; isn't she powerful enough already?
J: Well, I hadn't actually heard that one. No. Not gonna happen. Just
a
rumour.
Q: Who thought up "I Will Remember You", and was it that that gave you
the
idea for the end of Angel S1?
J: I don't know if it was that episode that gave us the idea. "I Will
Remember You" was, I think, largely my idea; I tend to come up with the
basic story ideas of most of the shows. It was, I think, finally
broken,
because it was a tough one to figure out, by me and Marti Noxon; Marti
and I
work very well on that sort of thing, and we were really struggling with
it,
and Marti and I went to dinner and sort of clicked the whole thing into
place, and she's very good with the romance and the heart and the sex
and
the chains and the. [double-take]. started that all heartfelt and got
weird.
But everybody worked on it and everybody worked on the script as well;
Tim
did a lot of work on it, uncredited I believe, and David and myself, so
it's
sort of a group effort. I think the idea was a little bit separate
because
we didn't know if he did become human, if that meant he would ever be
able
to be with Buffy anyway - she had a relationship with a human; it didn't
go
that well.
Q: Were you disappointed with the end result of the X-Men movie?
J: [into mic] Oh, yeah. That was a very bad experience for me, one of a
long series. I keep doing these movie jobs thinking that now I'm a big
muckety-muck in telly they'll all pay attention to me, but movies and
television are completely separate and they just treat me like dirt
every
single time, and in this instance more than usual. Funny story: I did a
complete overhaul of the script, they threw it out, they invited me to
the
read-through of the script by the cast right before filming, asking if I
would come and hear it and punch it up a little bit, add some jokes,
whatever, and didn't tell me that they had thrown out my entire script.
They, I guess, assumed I would find out by listening to the actors say
nothing that I had written, except for approximately three lines, one of
which was delivered really badly, one of which was taken out of context
and
therefore had no meaning, and one of which got a laugh. So that was a
big.
I lost my entire brain over that; it was a big scandal for me, because
it
was so incredibly thoughtless, but that's just how movies work: nobody
pays
attention to the writer; no matter how important the writer thinks he
is, he
's nobody in movies. And that's why the next movie I write, I'm going
to
direct.
[enter Nicky: much banter and Brendon questions not transcribed]
J: I'm gonna stick around for a couple of minutes and then I'm gonna
fade
slowly away.
N: Or dissolve.
Q: If Angel visits Buffy's grave in Sunnydale, is he gonna have a big
bust-up with Spike, because [cont. p. 94].
J: Well, you've worked it out, so why don't you write me a treatment
and.
There's all sorts of possibilities, but we're not really thinking in the
crossover mode now because of the whole network thing. But it's
certainly
an issue.
Q: At the end of S5 we saw Anya get crushed: is she still alive or does
she
end up in a wheelchair or something?
J: Y'know, she was supposed to die and I wasn't really paying attention
to
the footage and he was supposed to be carrying her dead body and she
kept
looking up, so she outsmarted me this time!
N: [Python voice] "I'm not quite dead yet! I'm feeling better!"
J: No, she's gonna be OK, she's gonna be fine. She will probably have
no
visible scarring at all, which is oddly often the case on our show.
Q: I've heard a rumour that in S6 Spike gets his bite back and
Drusilla's
involved.
J: Keep these rumours comin', 'cause I know exactly how many of them are
true and how many of them are ridiculous, and the more ridiculous ones
there
are, the easier it is to hide the true ones, and that is one of the ones
that you've just talked about. [I've no idea what he meant; probably
deliberate obfuscation.]
Q: Nicky, when are you gonna persuade Joss that Xander's the real hero?
J: I was actually talking to people last night and said the exact same
thing. People come up and say, "Xander should have brain power! or he
can
fly! and do this! and this! and this!." The point is this is the guy
who
doesn't have the power who's in every single fight who's always in
there,
and yeah, that makes him The Hero for me.
N: And next year I might actually get into glassblowing.
Q: [Welsh flag behind the bar in "Beer Bad"]
J:. because of my deep commitment to the Welsh cause to get some vowels
in
their language! We had absolutely no idea until somebody pointed it out
yesterday. The set designers are a wacky bunch.
Q: [sounded like "Dioch am bawb" - "Thank you very much" in Welsh,
anyway]
J: [after some confusion] I thought she said, "Don't come out"!
Q: After "The Pack", are there any more plans to show us the dark side
of
Xander?
J: Well, we have a real journey for Xander to go through, obviously:
he's
engaged now, so he's definitely got some problems comin' up. But we
have no
plans at this point to make him evil, but y'never know. The one thing
I'll
say about "The Pack": we watched the first cut of that show, and we were
just blown away, we were like, "We have a show here! This is something
different! That guy scares me!" He came to me at the end of it and was
like, "I'm so happy to be playing lovable again, because that thing got
into
me!" I thought he was talking about playing evil, but it was the pants
coming back.
Q: Are you ever gonna bring Doyle back?
J: Wow, that's a great idea! I think I won't! Ever! As I've said
before.
Q: Did you lose a bet for Numfar?
J: Are you implying there was something, oh, less than dignified.? I
kept
pitching it and saying, "Oh, he does this, he does this." and they were
finally, like, "Oh, why don't you just do it? Come on, you know you
want
to!" And I was like [transparent modesty] "Noooo, I couldn't
possiblyyyyyy!" And I was terrified, especially because there was so
much
dancing, and I didn't actually prepare a dance, I knew the basic dumb
thing
and then I realised I had to dance for like a page and a half. So every
take is completely different.
N: It was like watching a Russ Meyers [sic] film, sans the nudity.
J: Well, they cut that. Yeah, it was an interesting experience. What I
always wanted to do was get completely made up without any of the actors
knowing and just sit amongst them and find out what they're really like.
But the period where they amend their behaviour when I come onstage is
so
over, so I know what they're really like and I don't have to do that.
And
you can't keep a secret; I tried to keep that a secret from all the
actors,
and Andy was the only one who didn't know about it. And Boreanaz the
moment
I started dancing figured out who I was, and he basically nudged Andy,
and
was like, [mouths and points] "That's Joss!"
Q: I was curious as to whether you've seen Monty Python And The Holy
Grail,
because a lot of the dancing was like John Cleese?
J: [triumphantly] Yes! Yes! That was one of the things that I thought,
"Well, I should probably do this with my head" [does so], I was like,
"But
you need the big gloves that he had 'cause they stuck out", and I didn't
even mean for it, and the moment I started doing it, I was like, "Oh, I
know
what this is - this is John Cleese in the castle!" - Good call! Even my
choreography is unoriginal.
Niall Harrison
> BE WARNED!! CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ALL OF BUFFY SEASON 5 AND ANGEL
> S2!
> .
[Fred]
> The idea of whether or not her being a physicist matters: we want to
> make it
> matter, but the whole writing staff came to me, and it was like, "Do we.
> have to know physics?", and I was like, "Well, I'm not gonna! I have
> two shows! I'm busy!"
This worries me a whole lot. If they're going to do science and have the
same suspension of disbelief that we give to the fantasy elements, they
have to do some basic background checking.
> We want it worked out in her character: we want her to
> be a little different, bring something a little different to the mix in
> terms of the gang.
I don't see how the physics is necessary for this; I would've thought her
personality should be the thing that differentiates her.
<snip>
> but Warren is actually gonna make a reappearance,
> we've got some plans for him.
As long as he doesn't bring more robots with him...
> We've got some plans for some of our old
> characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my heart
> is Jonathan. [cheers]
'ray!
> J: Nothing was really sketched out from the beginning except the very
> basic premise: Buffy and Xander and Willow, and the romance with Angel.
> It wasn't until, I think, late in the first season that I had the idea
> for "Buffy sleeps with Angel and he goes bad and becomes the villain".
Well, that's scotched *that* rumour.
[...]
> Everything evolves; it comes usually maybe six months ahead, or it comes
> from a sudden shock or a sudden stroke of luck.
....and that gives Little Miss Muffet a serious knock.
> Q: And at what point did you decide to have Spike fall in love with
> Buffy?
> J: That was towards the end of his first season [?Does he mean 3 or 4?],
> where he had come on and really didn't have that much to do, he'd show
> up and go [Spinal Tap voice] "I hate the Scooby gang. 'bye!", he was
> sort of the wacky neighbour, and we thought, "Well, there's more there;
> how do we find it?"
And, wow, they actually did just keep Spike around with no idea what to do
with him for a season. That's shaken my faith...
> Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
> because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
> hero figure, or do you think he'll never.?
> J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
> next season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless
> things, he's
> shown real caring, and at the same time he can be a complete pain in the
> butt. We don't know the answer to that, and we're sort of gonna feel
> our way around and find out.
Jee-zus! You'd think they'd at least have decided on that one...!
> Q: [the question about repeated killing for an army of Slayers]
> J: [mimes repeated drowning] .dunk. dunk. No, I think first of all,
> this will probably be the last time we kill her, and hopefully different
> from the time before, and no, in fact her death will not create a new
> Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith,
> and if you want us
> to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
> Q: Have you got any plans to bring Lindsay back?
> J: Lindsay is another one of those actors who keeps getting other gigs,
> and we hate him for it, but the answer is most assuredly yes.
...in a sweeps two-parter, with Darla, right? :-)
Some interesting stuff there, though.
Niall
--
Could be a city thing
Could be a country thing
Could be a blues thing
Could be the real thing.
Mattia Valente
We'll have to see how that pans out. Later on he did go on to say they
would be exploring what it meant to be back after all those years, blah
blah blah..
> > We want it worked out in her character: we want her to
> > be a little different, bring something a little different to the mix in
> > terms of the gang.
>
> I don't see how the physics is necessary for this; I would've thought her
> personality should be the thing that differentiates her.
Well, yes. Skill set is important though. She could've been the Zeppo, I
suppose..
> > but Warren is actually gonna make a reappearance,
> > we've got some plans for him.
>
> As long as he doesn't bring more robots with him...
Heh.
> > We've got some plans for some of our old
> > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my heart
> > is Jonathan. [cheers]
>
> 'ray!
Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
> > J: Nothing was really sketched out from the beginning except the very
> > basic premise: Buffy and Xander and Willow, and the romance with Angel.
> > It wasn't until, I think, late in the first season that I had the idea
> > for "Buffy sleeps with Angel and he goes bad and becomes the villain".
>
> Well, that's scotched *that* rumour.
Which rumor?
> > Everything evolves; it comes usually maybe six months ahead, or it comes
> > from a sudden shock or a sudden stroke of luck.
>
> ....and that gives Little Miss Muffet a serious knock.
Not necessarily. he says usually, not always. To me that makes sense.
He's said before that they get a basic outline, important points, etc
done in advance and fill in the rest as they go along. Example: he
pitched 'Angel' around the time Becoming II was being made, told Joyce
that he was going to kill her off in S5 in S2 or 3.
Most of the stories may not break waaaay in advance, but I'd guess
there's a sense of where he wants to go. Little Miss Muffet seems to be
something that has been planned a good long while in advance. I'm
actually a little annoyed I didn't ask if he knew about Dawn (the little
sister concept) when he wrote 'Graduation Day', or whether he just had a
vague idea. In any event, this is the one example of real long term
planning that we've had.
> > Q: And at what point did you decide to have Spike fall in love with
> > Buffy?
> > J: That was towards the end of his first season [?Does he mean 3 or 4?],
> > where he had come on and really didn't have that much to do, he'd show
> > up and go [Spinal Tap voice] "I hate the Scooby gang. 'bye!", he was
> > sort of the wacky neighbour, and we thought, "Well, there's more there;
> > how do we find it?"
>
> And, wow, they actually did just keep Spike around with no idea what to do
> with him for a season. That's shaken my faith...
...towards the end of the season. But, well, yes. S4 is shaky and weak
that way, and it was pretty obvious that Spike seemed out of place and
criminally underused. S5 rectified that.
> > Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
> > because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
> > hero figure, or do you think he'll never.?
> > J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
> > next season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless
> > things, he's
> > shown real caring, and at the same time he can be a complete pain in the
> > butt. We don't know the answer to that, and we're sort of gonna feel
> > our way around and find out.
>
> Jee-zus! You'd think they'd at least have decided on that one...!
Perhaps they have, now, but they're just not telling us. Spike is the
most complex character on either show as far as motivations are
concerned, because we've got the luggage of a bizarre fourth season and
strange developments in the fifth. I will admit that Spike worries me.
It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
streak. It's part of who he is.)
> > Q: [the question about repeated killing for an army of Slayers]
> > J: [mimes repeated drowning] .dunk. dunk. No, I think first of all,
> > this will probably be the last time we kill her, and hopefully different
> > from the time before, and no, in fact her death will not create a new
> > Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith,
> > and if you want us
> > to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
>
> Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
Hehe.
> > Q: Have you got any plans to bring Lindsay back?
> > J: Lindsay is another one of those actors who keeps getting other gigs,
> > and we hate him for it, but the answer is most assuredly yes.
>
> ...in a sweeps two-parter, with Darla, right? :-)
Possibly :o)
> Some interesting stuff there, though.
Indeed. The panel talk was alos nice and revealing, but I can't seem to
remember much of it. I want vids, dammit!
Mattia
--
"My beagle went swimming today and now he's typing on my keyboard with
his ample nose. Oh, and he's the bestest handsomeest beagle EVER."
--Tim Minear, Salon.com, May 2001
Niall Harrison
>> > be a little different, bring something a little different to the mix in
>> > terms of the gang.
>>
>> I don't see how the physics is necessary for this; I would've thought her
>> personality should be the thing that differentiates her.
>
> Well, yes. Skill set is important though. She could've been the Zeppo, I
> suppose..
Important that she has skills, yes. But physics is not, and should not be
made to be, relevant to the fantasy happenings in 'Angel'.
>> > We've got some plans for some of our old
>> > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my heart
>> > is Jonathan. [cheers]
>>
>> 'ray!
>
> Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
Eh? You didn't like 'Superstar'?
>> > J: Nothing was really sketched out from the beginning except the very
>> > basic premise: Buffy and Xander and Willow, and the romance with Angel.
>> > It wasn't until, I think, late in the first season that I had the idea
>> > for "Buffy sleeps with Angel and he goes bad and becomes the villain".
>>
>> Well, that's scotched *that* rumour.
>
> Which rumor?
The rumour that all the major events up to the end of S3 were planned in
advance.
>> > Everything evolves; it comes usually maybe six months ahead, or it comes
>> > from a sudden shock or a sudden stroke of luck.
>>
>> ....and that gives Little Miss Muffet a serious knock.
>
> Not necessarily. he says usually, not always. To me that makes sense.
> He's said before that they get a basic outline, important points, etc
> done in advance and fill in the rest as they go along. Example: he
> pitched 'Angel' around the time Becoming II was being made, told Joyce
> that he was going to kill her off in S5 in S2 or 3.
I can believe he knew Buffy was going to die at the end of S5; but on this
basis I don't see him having the whole Glory/Dawn thing worked out back
then.
>> > Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
>> > because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
>> > hero figure, or do you think he'll never.?
>> > J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
>> > next season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless
>> > things, he's shown real caring,
I'm amazed that the redemptionists on the alt groups haven't jumped on
this...
>> > and at the same time he can be a
>> > complete pain in the butt. We don't know the answer to that, and
>> > we're sort of gonna feel our way around and find out.
>>
>> Jee-zus! You'd think they'd at least have decided on that one...!
>
> Perhaps they have, now, but they're just not telling us.
No, I think in that case he'd have said 'you'll have to wait and see'.
> Spike is the most complex character on either show as far as motivations
> are concerned, because we've got the luggage of a bizarre fourth season
> and strange developments in the fifth.
Well, precisely. To have gone into it without a clear idea of where Spike
is going seems crazy to me.
> I will admit that Spike worries me.
> It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
> streak. It's part of who he is.)
Let's face it, it's more or less gone already. Everything he has done can
be explained in terms of selfishness, but I can't see him going bad any
time soon. :-/
>> > Q: [the question about repeated killing for an army of Slayers]
>> > J: [mimes repeated drowning] .dunk. dunk. No, I think first of all,
>> > this will probably be the last time we kill her, and hopefully different
>> > from the time before, and no, in fact her death will not create a new
>> > Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith,
>> > and if you want us
>> > to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
>>
>> Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
>
> Hehe.
I'm serious, actually.
Niall
--
Honesty is a beautiful lie
People say what they will to get by.
Mattia Valente
Indeedy.
> >> > We've got some plans for some of our old
> >> > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my heart
> >> > is Jonathan. [cheers]
> >>
> >> 'ray!
> >
> > Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
>
> Eh? You didn't like 'Superstar'?
Not particularly. The "ooh, it's fun and nifty and NEW!!" thing wore
off. It's not an ep I hate, but I felt that at that point in time, in a
season that already wasn't paying very much attention to the arc
(although we got some form of strange exposition..) it was out of place.
Not a fave of mine.
> >> > J: Nothing was really sketched out from the beginning except the very
> >> > basic premise: Buffy and Xander and Willow, and the romance with Angel.
> >> > It wasn't until, I think, late in the first season that I had the idea
> >> > for "Buffy sleeps with Angel and he goes bad and becomes the villain".
> >>
> >> Well, that's scotched *that* rumour.
> >
> > Which rumor?
>
> The rumour that all the major events up to the end of S3 were planned in
> advance.
Oh. That was rumored? Never heard that one (which surprises me..)
> >> > Everything evolves; it comes usually maybe six months ahead, or it comes
> >> > from a sudden shock or a sudden stroke of luck.
> >>
> >> ....and that gives Little Miss Muffet a serious knock.
> >
> > Not necessarily. he says usually, not always. To me that makes sense.
> > He's said before that they get a basic outline, important points, etc
> > done in advance and fill in the rest as they go along. Example: he
> > pitched 'Angel' around the time Becoming II was being made, told Joyce
> > that he was going to kill her off in S5 in S2 or 3.
>
> I can believe he knew Buffy was going to die at the end of S5; but on this
> basis I don't see him having the whole Glory/Dawn thing worked out back
> then.
No. Agreed. Definately not completely. Perhaps he had this 'new
character, perhaps little sister' thing in there, and that (obviously)
she wasn't real, and that it would be dramatic and strange, but that
doesn't quite constitute 'knowing what is going to happen'.
> >> > Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
> >> > because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
> >> > hero figure, or do you think he'll never.?
> >> > J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
> >> > next season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless
> >> > things, he's shown real caring,
>
> I'm amazed that the redemptionists on the alt groups haven't jumped on
> this...
Indeed..perhaps because it was posted to ata only?
> >> > and at the same time he can be a
> >> > complete pain in the butt. We don't know the answer to that, and
> >> > we're sort of gonna feel our way around and find out.
> >>
> >> Jee-zus! You'd think they'd at least have decided on that one...!
> >
> > Perhaps they have, now, but they're just not telling us.
>
> No, I think in that case he'd have said 'you'll have to wait and see'.
True. I'm just trying to repress the slight panic. Gotta repeat that
'trust in Joss' mantra a few times..although in this case it's more of a
'listen do Fury, listen to Fury..'
> > Spike is the most complex character on either show as far as motivations
> > are concerned, because we've got the luggage of a bizarre fourth season
> > and strange developments in the fifth.
>
> Well, precisely. To have gone into it without a clear idea of where Spike
> is going seems crazy to me.
Scary, on the one hand, but interesting on the other. Makes him
unpredictable and 'organic', developing as things move along...I'm not
sure it's good. I'm worried.
> > I will admit that Spike worries me.
> > It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
> > streak. It's part of who he is.)
>
> Let's face it, it's more or less gone already. Everything he has done can
> be explained in terms of selfishness, but I can't see him going bad any
> time soon. :-/
I don't expect him to at this point. But I don't want him fluffier than
he already is. Please, no true goody goody Spike. He needs to keep that
edge there (ie, Buffy needs to keep rejecting him. Hard, if necessary.
Be mean to him, I don't care..)
> >> > Q: [the question about repeated killing for an army of Slayers]
> >> > J: [mimes repeated drowning] .dunk. dunk. No, I think first of all,
> >> > this will probably be the last time we kill her, and hopefully different
> >> > from the time before, and no, in fact her death will not create a new
> >> > Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith,
> >> > and if you want us
> >> > to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
> >>
> >> Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
> >
> > Hehe.
>
> I'm serious, actually.
I know, but it's still funny...you think people read the FAQ?
<ducks and runs..>
Reality
Mattia Valente <mat...@nksf.nl> wrote in message
news:3B5CB7B5...@nksf.nl...
Indeed, given the dodgy physics in previous eps.. but then again, it`s
fantasy physics, so that`s o.k then :) Suspension of disbelief? *two thumbs*
hahaha ;)
> We'll have to see how that pans out. Later on he did go on to say they
> would be exploring what it meant to be back after all those years, blah
> blah blah..
Oh, christ.. what`s next? We have the "Dallas shower scene" explanation of
Buffys return?? OI !! Joss!! NO !! ect ;)
> > > We want it worked out in her character: we want her to
> > > be a little different, bring something a little different to the mix
in
> > > terms of the gang.
> >
> > I don't see how the physics is necessary for this; I would've thought
her
> > personality should be the thing that differentiates her.
>
> Well, yes. Skill set is important though. She could've been the Zeppo, I
> suppose..
Or she may have needed the work and Joss fancied her.. allegedly.. haha ;)
Who knows? ;)
> > > but Warren is actually gonna make a reappearance,
> > > we've got some plans for him.
> >
> > As long as he doesn't bring more robots with him...
>
> Heh.
>
> > > We've got some plans for some of our old
> > > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my
heart
> > > is Jonathan. [cheers]
> >
> > 'ray!
>
> Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
Oh, no.. Jesus Christ Johnathan star?? Hasn`t that been done?? mmm... ;)
Still, It`d give the wardrobe dept a bit of a boost.. ;)
> > > J: Nothing was really sketched out from the beginning except the very
> > > basic premise: Buffy and Xander and Willow, and the romance with
Angel.
> > > It wasn't until, I think, late in the first season that I had the idea
> > > for "Buffy sleeps with Angel and he goes bad and becomes the villain".
> >
> > Well, that's scotched *that* rumour.
>
> Which rumor?
Indeed.. lost me on that one.. Where you by any chance living real life
there?? ;) (joking ppl.. sheesh ;)
> > > Everything evolves; it comes usually maybe six months ahead, or it
comes
> > > from a sudden shock or a sudden stroke of luck.
> >
> > ....and that gives Little Miss Muffet a serious knock.
>
> Not necessarily. he says usually, not always. To me that makes sense.
> He's said before that they get a basic outline, important points, etc
> done in advance and fill in the rest as they go along. Example: he
> pitched 'Angel' around the time Becoming II was being made, told Joyce
> that he was going to kill her off in S5 in S2 or 3.
> Most of the stories may not break waaaay in advance, but I'd guess
> there's a sense of where he wants to go. Little Miss Muffet seems to be
> something that has been planned a good long while in advance. I'm
> actually a little annoyed I didn't ask if he knew about Dawn (the little
> sister concept) when he wrote 'Graduation Day', or whether he just had a
> vague idea. In any event, this is the one example of real long term
> planning that we've had.
Or could otherwise be interpreted as, "we haven`t a bloody clue".. Stephen
King once said he sits down to write a story with all but the first few
chapters in his head.. where it
goes from there, it goes.. I agree.. I`ve done that loads of times, with
music, writing ect.. maybe they`ll surprise us for by once writing out of
the box? :)
> > > Q: And at what point did you decide to have Spike fall in love with
> > > Buffy?
> > > J: That was towards the end of his first season [?Does he mean 3 or
4?],
> > > where he had come on and really didn't have that much to do, he'd show
> > > up and go [Spinal Tap voice] "I hate the Scooby gang. 'bye!", he was
> > > sort of the wacky neighbour, and we thought, "Well, there's more
there;
> > > how do we find it?"
> >
> > And, wow, they actually did just keep Spike around with no idea what to
do
> > with him for a season. That's shaken my faith...
>
> ...towards the end of the season. But, well, yes. S4 is shaky and weak
> that way, and it was pretty obvious that Spike seemed out of place and
> criminally underused. S5 rectified that.
Indeed, esp with Tim`s "fool for love/darla" crossover.. but JM was never
really a weak character.. he`s made both series for me.. I just hope they
don`t use him in S3/S6 in the
same lightweight way.. :)
> > > Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
> > > because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
> > > hero figure, or do you think he'll never.?
> > > J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
> > > next season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless
> > > things, he's
> > > shown real caring, and at the same time he can be a complete pain in
the
> > > butt. We don't know the answer to that, and we're sort of gonna feel
> > > our way around and find out.
> >
> > Jee-zus! You'd think they'd at least have decided on that one...!
>
> Perhaps they have, now, but they're just not telling us. Spike is the
> most complex character on either show as far as motivations are
> concerned, because we've got the luggage of a bizarre fourth season and
> strange developments in the fifth. I will admit that Spike worries me.
> It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
> streak. It's part of who he is.)
And see above.. Is JM contractually obligated to remain on a network, now
they`ve split? mmm...
> > > Q: [the question about repeated killing for an army of Slayers]
> > > J: [mimes repeated drowning] .dunk. dunk. No, I think first of all,
> > > this will probably be the last time we kill her, and hopefully
different
> > > from the time before, and no, in fact her death will not create a new
> > > Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith,
> > > and if you want us
> > > to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
> >
> > Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
>
> Hehe.
Christ, how many shower scenes do we need?? hahaha ;)
> > > Q: Have you got any plans to bring Lindsay back?
> > > J: Lindsay is another one of those actors who keeps getting other
gigs,
> > > and we hate him for it, but the answer is most assuredly yes.
> >
> > ...in a sweeps two-parter, with Darla, right? :-)
>
> Possibly :o)
Haahah ;) Oh, well, maybe.. he can be "the dancing demon" ;)
> > Some interesting stuff there, though.
>
> Indeed. The panel talk was alos nice and revealing, but I can't seem to
> remember much of it. I want vids, dammit!
>
> Mattia
> --
> "My beagle went swimming today and now he's typing on my keyboard with
> his ample nose. Oh, and he's the bestest handsomeest beagle EVER."
> --Tim Minear, Salon.com, May 2001
I`d rather have a frontal lobotamy, than a an Angel chatopony.. erm.. did I
screw up that quote?? um.. ;) hahaha ;)
No offence peeps :)
Mattia Valente
Erm....no thanks. 'Happy Aniversary' was bad enough as dodgy physics is
concerned.
> > We'll have to see how that pans out. Later on he did go on to say they
> > would be exploring what it meant to be back after all those years, blah
> > blah blah..
>
> Oh, christ.. what`s next? We have the "Dallas shower scene" explanation of
> Buffys return?? OI !! Joss!! NO !! ect ;)
We're talking about ANGEL, not Buffy, you nit..what it means for Fred to
be back in LA after living in a cave for five years, isolated and alone.
Besides, Joss has said, re: Buffy ressurection a la Dallas: "No. Dallas
was lame." Here's hoping it's not a bluff...
> > > I don't see how the physics is necessary for this; I would've thought
> > > her personality should be the thing that differentiates her.
> >
> > Well, yes. Skill set is important though. She could've been the Zeppo, I
> > suppose..
>
> Or she may have needed the work and Joss fancied her.. allegedly.. haha ;)
> Who knows? ;)
According to Amy, she was hired because of her glasses.
> > > > We've got some plans for some of our old
> > > > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my
> > > > heart is Jonathan. [cheers]
> > >
> > > 'ray!
> >
> > Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
>
> Oh, no.. Jesus Christ Johnathan star?? Hasn`t that been done?? mmm... ;)
> Still, It`d give the wardrobe dept a bit of a boost.. ;)
It has, which is the point. I'd rather have another 'Earshot' than
another 'Superstar', as far as quality of ep is concerned.
> Or could otherwise be interpreted as, "we haven`t a bloody clue".. Stephen
> King once said he sits down to write a story with all but the first few
> chapters in his head.. where it
> goes from there, it goes.. I agree.. I`ve done that loads of times, with
> music, writing ect.. maybe they`ll surprise us for by once writing out of
> the box? :)
Sometimes it has happened, IMO (S4 Spike; they had no plan, and it
showed.) Writing can be a dynamic process, but you have to have a plan
as to where you're headed, where you want to go with it all, or it just
becomes muddled and strange (X-Files, anyone?). Specifics can be worked
out later, fleshed out, but you need a framework. 6 months isn't very
long, though..
> > ...towards the end of the season. But, well, yes. S4 is shaky and weak
> > that way, and it was pretty obvious that Spike seemed out of place and
> > criminally underused. S5 rectified that.
>
> Indeed, esp with Tim`s "fool for love/darla" crossover.. but JM was never
> really a weak character.. he`s made both series for me.. I just hope they
> don`t use him in S3/S6 in the same lightweight way.. :)
They're not going to use him at all in S3, I should think. What with the
no crossover thing the WB's insisting on. Spike was a weak and
directionless character in late S4; he still had charisma and presence,
because, well, James is good, but strenght he lacked.
Oh, and Tim Minear wrote 'Darla', Petrie wrote 'FFL'.
> > Perhaps they have, now, but they're just not telling us. Spike is the
> > most complex character on either show as far as motivations are
> > concerned, because we've got the luggage of a bizarre fourth season and
> > strange developments in the fifth. I will admit that Spike worries me.
> > It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
> > streak. It's part of who he is.)
>
> And see above.. Is JM contractually obligated to remain on a network, now
> they`ve split? mmm...
Whaa? JM is a Buffy regular. He never, ever was an Angel reg. He's in
Buffy's credits, where he's going to stay by all accounts. There will be
no Spike on Angel (in any way, you slash-whores..sheesh..) next season.
JM's contract has nothing to do with the network the show airs on; he's
under contract with Fox, who produce the show and own all the rights.
UPN and the WB just air them.
> > > > Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill Faith,
> > > > and if you want us
> > > > to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
> > >
> > > Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
> >
> > Hehe.
>
> Christ, how many shower scenes do we need?? hahaha ;)
Well, Sarah has a 'no shower contract', apparently..
> I`d rather have a frontal lobotamy, than a an Angel chatopony.. erm.. did I
> screw up that quote?? um.. ;) hahaha ;)
>
> No offence peeps :)
If I knew what you were trying to say, I probably still wouldn't take
any..
Reality
Mattia Valente <mat...@nksf.nl> wrote in message
news:3B5E119D...@nksf.nl...
And my point was?? hello?? ;)
> > > We'll have to see how that pans out. Later on he did go on to say they
> > > would be exploring what it meant to be back after all those years,
blah
> > > blah blah..
> >
> > Oh, christ.. what`s next? We have the "Dallas shower scene" explanation
of
> > Buffys return?? OI !! Joss!! NO !! ect ;)
>
> We're talking about ANGEL, not Buffy, you nit..what it means for Fred to
> be back in LA after living in a cave for five years, isolated and alone.
> Besides, Joss has said, re: Buffy ressurection a la Dallas: "No. Dallas
> was lame." Here's hoping it's not a bluff...
I was talking about both series.. this "is" a discussion on "previously
stated" S2 and S5 spoilers?? erm.. Read between the lines.. sheesh ;)
> > > > I don't see how the physics is necessary for this; I would've
thought
> > > > her personality should be the thing that differentiates her.
> > >
> > > Well, yes. Skill set is important though. She could've been the Zeppo,
I
> > > suppose..
> >
> > Or she may have needed the work and Joss fancied her.. allegedly.. haha
;)
> > Who knows? ;)
>
> According to Amy, she was hired because of her glasses.
Really?? what a fun comment ;)
> > > > > We've got some plans for some of our old
> > > > > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my
> > > > > heart is Jonathan. [cheers]
> > > >
> > > > 'ray!
> > >
> > > Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
> >
> > Oh, no.. Jesus Christ Johnathan star?? Hasn`t that been done?? mmm...
;)
> > Still, It`d give the wardrobe dept a bit of a boost.. ;)
>
> It has, which is the point. I'd rather have another 'Earshot' than
> another 'Superstar', as far as quality of ep is concerned.
I was taking the piss?? Sheesh.. ;)
I know, I was joking?? See below..
> > > Perhaps they have, now, but they're just not telling us. Spike is the
> > > most complex character on either show as far as motivations are
> > > concerned, because we've got the luggage of a bizarre fourth season
and
> > > strange developments in the fifth. I will admit that Spike worries me.
> > > It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
> > > streak. It's part of who he is.)
> >
> > And see above.. Is JM contractually obligated to remain on a network,
now
> > they`ve split? mmm...
>
> Whaa? JM is a Buffy regular. He never, ever was an Angel reg. He's in
> Buffy's credits, where he's going to stay by all accounts. There will be
> no Spike on Angel (in any way, you slash-whores..sheesh..) next season.
> JM's contract has nothing to do with the network the show airs on; he's
> under contract with Fox, who produce the show and own all the rights.
> UPN and the WB just air them.
Indeed, but is he contractually obligated to either network? agh.. Just
wondering.. :)
> > > > > Slayer. The line now runs through Faith. So we'd have to kill
Faith,
> > > > > and if you want us
> > > > > to do that. ["NOOOOOO!"] All right.
> > > >
> > > > Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
> > >
> > > Hehe.
> >
> > Christ, how many shower scenes do we need?? hahaha ;)
>
> Well, Sarah has a 'no shower contract', apparently..
>
> > I`d rather have a frontal lobotamy, than a an Angel chatopony.. erm..
did I
> > screw up that quote?? um.. ;) hahaha ;)
> >
> > No offence peeps :)
> If I knew what you were trying to say, I probably still wouldn't take
> any..
Well there you go.. a one sentence summary on the attitude everyone should
take on the newsgroups.. They should include it in every group.. :)
Mattia Valente
>
> Oh, and here we go again.. sheesh ;)
Always :-)
> > > Indeed, given the dodgy physics in previous eps.. but then again, it`s
> > > fantasy physics, so that`s o.k then :) Suspension of disbelief? *two
> > > thumbs* hahaha ;)
> >
> > Erm....no thanks. 'Happy Aniversary' was bad enough as dodgy physics is
> > concerned.
>
> And my point was?? hello?? ;)
It's hard to tell what your point is sometimes.
> > > > We'll have to see how that pans out. Later on he did go on to say they
> > > > would be exploring what it meant to be back after all those years,
> > > > blah blah blah..
> > >
> > > Oh, christ.. what`s next? We have the "Dallas shower scene" explanation
> > > of Buffys return?? OI !! Joss!! NO !! ect ;)
> >
> > We're talking about ANGEL, not Buffy, you nit..what it means for Fred to
> > be back in LA after living in a cave for five years, isolated and alone.
> > Besides, Joss has said, re: Buffy ressurection a la Dallas: "No. Dallas
> > was lame." Here's hoping it's not a bluff...
>
> I was talking about both series.. this "is" a discussion on "previously
> stated" S2 and S5 spoilers?? erm.. Read between the lines.. sheesh ;)
Well, no, S3 and S6 stuff, really, but this particular segment of text
was commentary on bits relating to what Joss said about Fred, and how S3
of Angel is going to be developed. The you went off and dragged Buffy's
ressurection (which Joss wasn't saying very much about, and still
isn't..) into it.
> > According to Amy, she was hired because of her glasses.
>
> Really?? what a fun comment ;)
It was half in jest, but it seems the glasses she has on the show are
very much like the ones she wore to the audition..heh.
> > > Oh, no.. Jesus Christ Johnathan star?? Hasn`t that been done?? mmm...
> > > ;)
> > > Still, It`d give the wardrobe dept a bit of a boost.. ;)
> >
> > It has, which is the point. I'd rather have another 'Earshot' than
> > another 'Superstar', as far as quality of ep is concerned.
>
> I was taking the piss?? Sheesh.. ;)
Euh, why are you taking this personally? I'm a) agreeing with you and b)
suggesting that an ep of 'Earshot' quality would be more interesting. To
me, anyway.
> > > Indeed, esp with Tim`s "fool for love/darla" crossover.. but JM was
> > > never really a weak character.. he`s made both series for me.. I
> > > just hope they don`t use him in S3/S6 in the same lightweight way..
> > > :)
> >
> > They're not going to use him at all in S3, I should think. What with the
> > no crossover thing the WB's insisting on. Spike was a weak and
> > directionless character in late S4; he still had charisma and presence,
> > because, well, James is good, but strenght he lacked.
> >
> > Oh, and Tim Minear wrote 'Darla', Petrie wrote 'FFL'.
>
> I know, I was joking?? See below..
Erm, right. Didn't look like joking. Now if you'd use smileys only where
appropriate....
<g, d+r>
> > Whaa? JM is a Buffy regular. He never, ever was an Angel reg. He's in
> > Buffy's credits, where he's going to stay by all accounts. There will be
> > no Spike on Angel (in any way, you slash-whores..sheesh..) next season.
> > JM's contract has nothing to do with the network the show airs on; he's
> > under contract with Fox, who produce the show and own all the rights.
> > UPN and the WB just air them.
>
> Indeed, but is he contractually obligated to either network? agh.. Just
> wondering.. :)
He's not contractually obligated to any network, that's the point. He's
cotractually obligated to Fox TV, ME and Joss Whedon (one or several of
the above..) He makes the show, and the way things look, with zero
crossovers (due to the WB) the liklihood (already slim) of Spike on
Angel isn't very high. Unless, of course, he moves, which is bloody
unlikely.
> > > I`d rather have a frontal lobotamy, than a an Angel chatopony.. erm..
> > > did I screw up that quote?? um.. ;) hahaha ;)
> > >
> > > No offence peeps :)
> >
> > If I knew what you were trying to say, I probably still wouldn't take
> > any..
>
> Well there you go.. a one sentence summary on the attitude everyone should
> take on the newsgroups.. They should include it in every group.. :)
Erm, right. It doesn't preclude critical commentary. Doesn't mean I'm
taking anything personally, though...
<eg>
Niall Harrison
>> >> > We've got some plans for some of our old
>> >> > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my heart
>> >> > is Jonathan. [cheers]
>> >>
>> >> 'ray!
>> >
>> > Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
>>
>> Eh? You didn't like 'Superstar'?
>
> Not particularly. The "ooh, it's fun and nifty and NEW!!" thing wore
> off. It's not an ep I hate, but I felt that at that point in time, in a
> season that already wasn't paying very much attention to the arc
> (although we got some form of strange exposition..) it was out of place.
> Not a fave of mine.
Fair enough. I loved it. :-)
>> >> > Q: Spike has often done heroic things, whether because he's had to or
>> >> > because he wanted to. How far do you think he can go to being a real
>> >> > hero figure, or do you think he'll never.?
>> >> > J: That's one of the questions we're asking ourselves now as we break
>> >> > next season, is like, y'know, 'cause Spike has done very selfless
>> >> > things, he's shown real caring,
>>
>> I'm amazed that the redemptionists on the alt groups haven't jumped on
>> this...
>
> Indeed..perhaps because it was posted to ata only?
S'alright, they've spotted it now. :-)
>> > I will admit that Spike worries me.
>> > It could get really bad (please, please don't let him loose his evil
>> > streak. It's part of who he is.)
>>
>> Let's face it, it's more or less gone already. Everything he has done can
>> be explained in terms of selfishness, but I can't see him going bad any
>> time soon. :-/
>
> I don't expect him to at this point. But I don't want him fluffier than
> he already is. Please, no true goody goody Spike. He needs to keep that
> edge there (ie, Buffy needs to keep rejecting him. Hard, if necessary.
> Be mean to him, I don't care..)
Thing is, they've got to go *somewhere*. They can't just keep teasing
people as they have been doing - they do have to come down on one side or
other of the fence at some point.
>> >> Someone put that in the umtb FAQ, quick. A direct quote!
>> >
>> > Hehe.
>>
>> I'm serious, actually.
>
> I know, but it's still funny...you think people read the FAQ?
I live in hope...
Followups set, since this is now Buffy-only.
Niall
--
If I walk by the trees
I'll catch the falling leaves.
Andrew Poulter
Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9ji3qj$mpn$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
I couldn't agree more. Lets hope that they leave the phyisics well alone -
it has nothing to do with *this* show.
AJP
Andrew Poulter
Perhaps as a physisist she'd be more analytical - one to back Wes up in the
"think before you leap" camp.
> >> > We've got some plans for some of our old
> >> > characters coming back, not the least of whom and very dear to my
heart
> >> > is Jonathan. [cheers]
> >>
> >> 'ray!
> >
> > Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
>
> Eh? You didn't like 'Superstar'?
I loved it, but its been done & I don't want to see it again.
AJP
Andrew Poulter
Reality <Reali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b5e0806$0$3764$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
"Fantasy Physics"? I do hope you were joking.
AJP
Niall Harrison
> Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:9jki4k$5ij$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>> >>
>> made to be, relevant to the fantasy happenings in 'Angel'.
>
> Perhaps as a physisist she'd be more analytical - one to back Wes up in the
> "think before you leap" camp.
Good point.
>> > Rah. As long as it's not another 'Superstar'.
>>
>> Eh? You didn't like 'Superstar'?
>
> I loved it, but its been done & I don't want to see it again.
Well, yeah. But I don't see why anyone would assume that brining Jonathan
back means another 'Superstar'.
Niall
--
Today is whatever I want it to mean.
Niall Harrison
> news:3b5e0806$0$3764$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
>> > >
[Fred]
>> Indeed, given the dodgy physics in previous eps.. but then again, it`s
>> fantasy physics, so that`s o.k then :) Suspension of disbelief? *two
>> thumbs* hahaha ;)
>
> "Fantasy Physics"? I do hope you were joking.
Oh, it'll be all the rage soon, you mark my works. You pick a crack team
of famous physicists and get points every time they publish a paper.
Niall
--
Two hamsters, five minutes.
Andrew Poulter
No, indeed not. I was really just following the argument through.
AJP
Andrew Poulter
ROTFL!
I love it!
(Although I think you'd need to weight the points system to reflect the
importance of the paper. A new Hawkin or Gell-Mann paper must be worth more
points than one by "J. Random Graduate-Student" on falling toast, or shower
curtains). :-)
AJP
Niall Harrison
>>
>> Oh, it'll be all the rage soon, you mark my works. You pick a crack team
>> of famous physicists and get points every time they publish a paper.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> I love it!
>
> (Although I think you'd need to weight the points system to reflect the
> importance of the paper. A new Hawkin or Gell-Mann paper must be worth more
> points than one by "J. Random Graduate-Student" on falling toast, or shower
> curtains). :-)
Oh, indeed. You'd also have to take into account the impact factor of the
journal they publish in. So, do you stock your team with geniuses [1]
who'll publish one paper a year in _Nature_, or hard-working but average
scientists who'll knock out twenty papers for, say, _Journal of
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics_ [2] ? It's a gamble, and that's part of
the fun!
Niall
[1] Geneii?
[2] http://www.elsevier.nl/inca/publications/store/5/0/2/6/9/3/
--
I am a fraction - a part of a broken man.
Reality
Andrew Poulter <ajpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9jn6gv$8upb$1...@ID-98124.news.dfncis.de...
Hahaha ;) Nope, being as they`ve already crossed the threshold on pretty
much everything.. Hence my "fantasy physics" joke.. ;)
Reality
P.S Has to be Hawking and the unification theory.. ;) Always seemed a bit
self evident?? agh ;)
David Meadows
I agree. This is one of the reasons why Buffy/Angel are not "science
fiction" (as we've discussed in another thread). Fantasy requires a
suspension of disbelief. True SF doesn't, at least not in the same way. True
SF should be plausible; therefore you don't suspend your disbelief, you
*believe*.
--
David Meadows
"That's the kind of woolly-headed liberal thinking
that leads to getting eaten"