Titles/Writers of the next few Angel episodes
johndiem
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ep 17 - "Disharmony," written by David Fury, will air April 17th.
Ep 18 - "Dead End," written by David Greenwalt.
Ep 19 - "Belonging."
Ep 20 - untitled, written by Mere Smith.
Ep 21 - untitled, written and directed by Tim Minear.
Ep 22 - ??
source: buffyworld.com
David Fury - longtime Buffy writer. Previously wrote the Angel
episodes "Lonely Hearts" (Kate's first episode) and "Parting Gifts"
(Cordelia gets her first vision). Fury episodes tend to be either
grisly or kinky. Also has one acting credit on Angel, in which he
expresses the desire to stick something into a goat. Hmmmm.
David Greenwalt - co-creator of the Angel series, has been with the
Buffy series since the beginning. Wrote the first Angel-centric
episode in the Buffy series, so he probably created the character.
Has written four episodes so far this season: "Judgment," "Dear Boy,"
"The Trial," and "Happy Anniversary." Also wrote last season's
finale, but seems to be more interested in doing standalone episodes
now. Tends towards more traditional storytelling, but usually tries
to throw in a twist. Sort of like an episode of "The Outer Limits" or
"Tales from the Crypt," is what I'd say if there was a way to say that
without being insulting. He also has three directing credits in the
Angel series.
Mere Smith - newcomer this season. Previous episodes were "Untouched"
(telekinetic girl) and "Redefinition" (fallout from the wine cellar
incident). She also co-wrote "Blood Money" (charity event for Anne's
teen shelter). Not much of a discernible pattern linking these three
episodes. Except that the first two center around repressed feelings
and climax with explosions. Hmmmmm.
Tim Minear - he wrote some stuff.
-Diem
WRENPK
>
LOL. He has written the most awesome ANGEL episodes. The most recent being "
Epiphany." Tim rocks!!!
-Wren
Sarah Trombley
johndiem <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Very, very mild SPOILERS for upcoming Angel episodes.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>Ep 17 - "Disharmony," written by David Fury, will air April 17th.
>Ep 18 - "Dead End," written by David Greenwalt.
>Ep 19 - "Belonging."
>Ep 20 - untitled, written by Mere Smith.
>Ep 21 - untitled, written and directed by Tim Minear.
>Ep 22 - ??
>
>source: buffyworld.com
>
>Buffy series since the beginning. Wrote the first Angel-centric
>episode in the Buffy series, so he probably created the character.
>Has written four episodes so far this season: "Judgment," "Dear Boy,"
>"The Trial," and "Happy Anniversary." Also wrote last season's
>finale, but seems to be more interested in doing standalone episodes
>now. Tends towards more traditional storytelling, but usually tries
>to throw in a twist. Sort of like an episode of "The Outer Limits" or
>"Tales from the Crypt," is what I'd say if there was a way to say that
>without being insulting.
Let's call a spade a spade. Always keeping in mind the collaborative
process of writing these episodes, I'd have to say the man is addicted
to the Epic Fantasy Cheese and is not all that strong on plotting. On
the other hand, his dialogue can be good (DB's line-readings in "Angel"-
the-episode were rather shaky, but the dialogue as written was pretty
strong) and, every rare once in a while, the epic actually works (Angel
cutting off Lindsey's hand).
>Mere Smith - newcomer this season. Previous episodes were "Untouched"
>(telekinetic girl) and "Redefinition" (fallout from the wine cellar
>incident). She also co-wrote "Blood Money" (charity event for Anne's
>teen shelter). Not much of a discernible pattern linking these three
>episodes. Except that the first two center around repressed feelings
>and climax with explosions. Hmmmmm.
I understand she said "Untouched" was largely rewritten by JW. A person
with "Redefinition" and "Blood Money" as her main credits does not inspire
me with confidence. It's awfully late in the season for her to be doing
another one.
>Tim Minear - he wrote some stuff.
Let's just hope he does both parts of the series finale (assuming it's
a two-parter). He gave Darla actual life, I'd like to see him take it
away. ;)
No Shawn Ryan or Jim Kouf, huh? It doesn't look good for Wesley, Gunn, and
Cordelia, folks.
--Sarah T.
Terry McNeal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On 25 Mar 2001 20:46:17 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
Trombley) wrote:
>No Shawn Ryan or Jim Kouf, huh? It doesn't look good for Wesley, Gunn, and
>Cordelia, folks.
Fury's ep is supposed to be "big with the Cordelia," ((c) Tim Minear)
and rumor has it Cordelia and Gunn will actually have something to do
for the rest of the season. Unfortunately, what it's rumored they have
to do falls under the "bored now" umbrella, but that's a personal
belief.
Nothing about Wesley though. I guess that's only fair since he was the
only one who managed to have an arc earlier this season.
OTOH, if you're a Lindsey fans, you're gonna be loving it from here on
out.
BTW, does it seem odd to anyone else that BtVS writers have written
all the Cordy- and Wesley-centric episodes?
Terry
Terry McNeal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
wrote:
>Ep 19 - "Belonging."
"Belonging" is supposedly written and directed by some guy named Joss
Whedon.
>Ep 20 - untitled, written by Mere Smith.
"Over the Rainbow".
>Ep 21 - untitled, written and directed by Tim Minear.
"Through the Looking Glass".
(From An Angel's Soul, http://www.voy.com/14810/ )
>Ep 22 - ??
Greenwalt said a long time ago he was writing the season finale.
Terry
Ian J. Ball
john...@hotmail.com (johndiem) wrote:
> Very, very mild SPOILERS for upcoming Angel episodes.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Ep 21 - untitled, written and directed by Tim Minear.
> Ep 22 - ??
>
> Tim Minear - he wrote some stuff.
Hmmmm. Never heard of him. Sounds interesting. Could you tell me more?!...
;p
--
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
SFryar
>>
>
>LOL. He has written the most awesome ANGEL episodes. The most recent being "
>Epiphany." Tim rocks!!!
Tim is amazing... and I'm always intrigued by his scripts (especially
"Epiphany"). Whenever one of his eps are on, I'm always riveted by his
storytelling skills and my mind doesn't wander like it tends to do during some
Angel eps....
Tim Rules!
>-Wren
Stephie
(aspiring writer of fan fiction without a website to house it... yet.)
"Don't think you are - know you are."
Morpheus--"The Matrix"
stephanie bennett
most amazing writer (next to joss, of course) *either* series has seen to
date!
he is an amazing storyteller. his scripts read like novels. i started
collecting the scripts after being exposed to them on rayne's site and his
are some of the best reads around. and again, he is second only to joss
when it comes to funny little asides that pepper his scripts. i constantly
react out loud while reading them, and if that isn't the mark of a good
writer, i'm not sure what is.
i am so looking forward to seeing what journey tim will be taking us on for
the rest of the season, that i have sworn off spoilers and i await...
so, i guess i agree, TIM ROCKS!!!
stephanie b
"SFryar" <sfr...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010327153123...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
sbe...@dowco.com
>
> we could just make this the i love tim thread, because i think he is the most amazing writer (next to joss, of course) *either* series has seen to date!
> he is an amazing storyteller. his scripts read like novels. i started collecting the scripts after being exposed to them on rayne's site and his are some of the best reads around. and again, he is second only to joss when it comes to funny little asides that pepper his scripts. i constantly react out loud while reading them, and if that isn't the mark of a good writer, i'm not sure what is.
> i am so looking forward to seeing what journey tim will be taking us on for the rest of the season, that i have sworn off spoilers and i await...
I agree, of course. I'm wondering if there are any other writers on
other series that haven't gotten much public exposure, but who impress
you? How many other Darin Morgans are out there that we don't know
about?
Tim, if you're listening, which non-Mutant Enemy teleplay writers
impress you?
Scott Bennie
Tim Minear
impress you?<<
Well, I guess I can't say Joss.
Darin Morgan, obviously. Vince Gilligan -- and I got to work with him. Morgan
and Wong. I used several of their scripts as reference when I wrote my X-Files
spec, which actually got me *on* the X-Files.
David Chase is brilliant. And Aaron Sorkin, I must admit. There are more, but
those you likely know. Who do you like, Scott?
sbe...@dowco.com
Ugh! Turning the question back on me, no fair! :-)
Definitely Darin Morgan. I was never an X-Files fan, but whenever I
heard he wrote an upcoming episode, I tuned in.
From the ME pack, although you all have your moments, you, Petrie and
Joss. (And I wonder what Dan Vebber is doing these days; I thought both
"The Zeppo" and "Lover's Walk" had a distinctive voice that I would
liked to have heard more often.)
I like David E. Kelley starting back from his Picket Fences days, and
I'm enjoying his writing on Boston Public this year.
I don't like most sit-com writing these days, but Joe Keenen on
"Frasier" often writes enjoyably deep episodes. And whoever writes "Sex
and the City" makes me laugh more often than I do at any other
television show at the moment, so they're doing something right.
In animation, there's Paul Dini, who's terrific when he's in form.
Scott Bennie
Lord Usher
<20010403122049...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
> >>Tim, if you're listening, which non-Mutant Enemy teleplay writers
> impress you?<<
>
> Well, I guess I can't say Joss.
>
> Darin Morgan, obviously. Vince Gilligan -- and I got to work with him.
> Morgan and Wong. I used several of their scripts as reference when I
> wrote my X-Files spec, which actually got me *on* the X-Files.
Gotta agree. Some great work here; Gilligan's "Paper Hearts" and M&W's
"Beyond the Sea" are my two favorite episodes of the series. (They also
happen to be companion pieces, of a sort.)
But let me ask you, Tim... Isn't it unusual that an X-FILES spec got you
work on THE X-FILES? I was led to believe that, for legal reasons, most TV
producers refuse to look at specs from their own series. Or is this just a
story they tell to scare the preprofessionals?
While I'm at it, let me add my other favorite TV writers to the list: STAR
TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE scribes Ron Moore and Peter Allan Fields.
Underappreciated writers on the most underappreciated TREK series of them
all.
--
Lord Usher
"You haven't murdered anybody lately? Let's be best pals!"
bethan...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>While I'm at it, let me add my other favorite TV writers to the list: STAR
>TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE scribes Ron Moore and Peter Allan Fields.
>Underappreciated writers on the most underappreciated TREK series of them
>all.
I'll vote Robert Hewett (?) Wolfe. He wrote fabulous Garak episodes.
Also, he posted to the DS9 Usenet group. You gotta love a writer who
braves Usenet. :-)
(Agreed. DS9 is far and away my favorite Trek, but now that it;s over
it's almost like it never existed.)
Bethany
*****The Official Weredragon of the State University of New Jersey*****
"Ever since she ran me through with a 2x4 things have been different."
-Angel, "The Prodigal"
***********************************************************************
Micky DuPree
<lord_...@my-deja.com> writes:
: Tim Minear <timm...@aol.com> wrote in article
: <20010403122049...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
::: Tim, if you're listening, which non-Mutant Enemy teleplay writers
::: impress you?
::
:: Well, I guess I can't say Joss.
::
:: Darin Morgan, obviously. Vince Gilligan -- and I got to work with
:: him. Morgan and Wong. I used several of their scripts as reference
:: when I wrote my X-Files spec, which actually got me *on* the X-Files.
:
: Gotta agree.
"Me too."
: While I'm at it, let me add my other favorite TV writers to the list:
: STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE scribes Ron Moore and Peter Allan Fields.
Peter Allan Fields did some good episodic work in the '60s. He was one
of the writers who occasionally injected a little moral complexity into
_The Rat Patrol_, which was otherwise a straight-ahead action-adventure
romp. I lose track of him through the '70s and '80s, then I notice his
byline on an award-winning ep. of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_, and
lo and behold, he's once again injecting some moral complexity into
_Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_. I never did find out the whole story
there, but he had a staff position with the Trek people only to
reportedly get fired. I couldn't completely stifle a suspicion that he
was too good to meet their standards.
I have a lot of technical admiration for some of the writers of '60s and
'70s American TV, back when it took a lot of skill to keep not only
within the restrictions of genre but also of the whole medium and still
do grownup work. Serial continuity (i.e., arc writing) was almost
unheard of at the time outside of soap opera, but some still managed to
turn in good work: Al C. Ward and some others who wrote for Quinn Martin
productions like _The Fugitive_ and _12 O'Clock High_; Howard Rodman,
creator of _Harry O_; some of the people who worked on _The Name of the
Game_. Stephen Kandel did some good work, as did Richard Matheson.
It's tempting to add Harlan Ellison, but if you've read his stuff,
watched his stuff, and listened to him read his stuff, it's suddenly
clear that his true calling is really radio drama or oral tradition,
which he was born too late to do commercially in the U.S. He's a genius
of the spoken word, and just about everything he writes is really an
adaptation of radio or live recitation into other media.
Honorable mentions to Rod Serling and Stirling Silliphant for ideas, but
they were both overwriters on the small screen, given to speechifying.
In a similar vein, J. Michael Straczynski had big brass ones for
attempting a five-year arc on American TV, and I admire his vision, but
he's deeply in love with ponderous expository dialogue when it comes to
actually banging out the pages.
I can no longer remember names, but I'm convinced that the people who
got _Max Headroom_ off the ground were the first people to consciously
write TV with the idea in mind that the audience may watch it using
freeze-frame and backscan capability. They were superb at visual
conceptualization without slighting the verbal dimension of the medium.
Stephen Bochco and his team did stellar work on _Hill Street Blues_ and
broke new ground for American TV in terms of finally making it
commercially viable to do regular serial continuity outside of the soap
genre. However it's worth mentioning that the Brits had been doing that
for years. A lot of my favorite TV writers are British and are
virtually unknown in the U.S.: Chris Boucher, who's known in sf fandom
for contributing to _Doctor Who_ and _Blake's 7_, as well as creating
_Star Cops_, but who also turned in fine work for crime dramas such as
_Juliet Bravo_; Ian Mackintosh, creator of the gritty spy drama _The
Sandbaggers_; James Mitchell, creator of _Callan_ (spiritual progenitor
of _The Equalizer_ and _La Femme Nikita_); some of the people who worked
on _Colditz_ and _Secret Army_, whose names escape me now; Kit Pedler
and Gerry Davis, who are probably best known for creating the Cybermen
on _Doctor Who_, but who also created the extremely intelligent and
prescient adult series _Doomwatch_. Oh, and Arthur Hopcraft for his
skillful adaptation of John le Carre's _Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy_,
still the best miniseries ever made.
Others currently contributing to ongoing series: Tim Minear, Aaron
Sorkin, and some of the people who do _Daria_, whose names I'm ashamed
to admit I haven't noted. They all do consistently intelligent, funny,
and touching stuff.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: (And I wonder what Dan Vebber is doing these days; I thought both "The
: Zeppo" and "Lover's Walk" had a distinctive voice that I would liked
: to have heard more often.)
I hate to be a poophead, but reportedly, "Lovers Walk" was almost
completely rewritten by Joss Whedon, and "The Zeppo" was likewise given
extensive rewrites.
-Micky
sbe...@dowco.com
the way that Hollywood (too often) treats its veterans, that's
extraordinary.
I like the writing in a lot of British programs too (nobody does crime
drama quite like the Brits). While the content of the British version of
"Queer as Folk" was not quite to my tastes, I thought Russell T.
Davies's dialogue was delightful. As for Who authors, Robert Holmes is
probably my overall favorite, although I can't argue with your choices,
and I loved some of the later McCoy episodes (Marc Platt's "Ghost Light"
had more great dialogue and ideas in three episodes than most *seasons*
of ST: Voyager). And "Blackadder" may be the funniest thing ever
invented by the human race.
Your 60s authors are good choices too, particularlyn Richard Matheson.
That generation wasn't as concerned about character study as the
present, but man, did they know how to make a story move.
Anyway, great post. I'm not familiar with "Callan", so I'll definitely
need to track it down.
Scott Bennie
Terry McNeal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
wrote:
>Ep 22 - ??
I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
that what you will.
Terry
Lady Psyche
> >
> > >>Tim, if you're listening, which non-Mutant Enemy teleplay writers
> > impress you?<<
> >
> > Well, I guess I can't say Joss.
> >
> > Darin Morgan, obviously. Vince Gilligan -- and I got to work with him.
Morgan
> > and Wong. I used several of their scripts as reference when I wrote my
X-Files
> > spec, which actually got me *on* the X-Files.
> >
> > David Chase is brilliant. And Aaron Sorkin, I must admit. There are
more, but
> > those you likely know. Who do you like, Scott?
>
word for David Mills. He only wrote three episodes of Homicide: Life on the
Street (Bop Gun, Cradle to Grave, Finnigan's Wake,) but all three shows
were high quality. Cradle to Grave is one of my two favorites, and the one I
would show if I wanted a "typical" H:LotS.
- L.P.
Micky DuPree
In article <3ACCF0FF...@dowco.com>, sbe...@dowco.com writes:
: Wow. I had no idea that Fields had been in the game that long. Given
: the the way that Hollywood (too often) treats its veterans, that's
: extraordinary.
Like I said, I don't have a handle on what he did throughout the '70s
and '80s (except that if he had written for any of the shows I studied
or sampled throughout the '80s and '90s, I would have noticed his
credit). I know his byline was on some O.K. eps. of _The Man from
UNCLE_ (a series that started off as a decent spy satire and degenerated
into a cartoon with live actors), and that about taps out my knowledge
of him.
: I like the writing in a lot of British programs too (nobody does crime
: drama quite like the Brits). While the content of the British version
: of "Queer as Folk" was not quite to my tastes, I thought Russell T.
: Davies's dialogue was delightful. As for Who authors, Robert Holmes is
: probably my overall favorite, although I can't argue with your
: choices, and I loved some of the later McCoy episodes (Marc Platt's
: "Ghost Light" had more great dialogue and ideas in three episodes than
: most *seasons* of ST: Voyager).
I have a soft spot for _Doctor Who_, but it has limitations built into
the very way its owner and producers conceptualize it that won't allow
it to be written in an adult manner. When I think of the high points of
_Who_, they almost all have to do with performance (I am a McCoy fan, by
the way), not with writing, even those stories written by obviously
exceptional talents. Holmes is an interesting writer, but he tends a
bit towards decadent and even perverse material for my tastes (I'm
thinking here especially of his _Blake's 7_ eps.).
: And "Blackadder" may be the funniest thing ever invented by the human
: race.
I thought series 2-4 were excellent, and both Elton and Curtis are
acknowledged superior talents in the U.K. and in cult circles in the
U.S., but that new thing that's been circulating on the PBS circuit
isn't one of their better efforts.
The funniest thing I've ever seen to come out of the U.K. was the
Channel 4 sitcom _Nightingales_, written by Paul Makin. It's not only
unknown in the U.S., but most Brits haven't heard of it either. The
premise isn't exactly a grabber: strange things happen to three
nightwatchmen when they're on duty. My high-concept pitch is "_Red
Dwarf_ without the spaceship." The cast, headed by the protean Robert
Lindsey, are excellent, but it's the writing that's brilliantly
demented.
I admit that I tend to concentrate more on drama than on straight
comedy. In the U.S., Sheldon Leonard's team on _The Dick van Dyke Show_
(notably Carl Reiner and Garry Marshall), James L. Brooks & Allan Burns'
team on _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_, Norman Lear's team on _All in the
Family_, Larry Gelbart & Gene Reynolds' team on _MASH_, Garry Marshall's
team on _The Odd Couple_, and the team on _The Simpsons_ up through the
9th season have still to this day done some of the most solid TV comedy
in the U.S. Unfortunately, Lear, while indisputably daring for his
time, had one basic trick that he borrowed from U.K. formats and
parlayed into several different flavors. It's twenty-odd years later
but he still seems to think it's the '70s. And while _MASH_ did some
innovative things, towards the end they had the clout but not the vision
to attempt serial continuity, which disappointed me a bit.
: Your 60s authors are good choices too, particularlyn Richard Matheson.
: That generation wasn't as concerned about character study as the
: present, but man, did they know how to make a story move.
Until the '70s, the constraints of American television series didn't
really allow the kind of character development that we take for granted
today. All the character creativity was contained in the premise. The
individual episodes were like certain kinds of jazz, i.e., variations on
the same theme, but at the end, they brought you back to where you
began. Clever writers, producers, and actors almost had to sneak
character development in when no one was looking, so, for example, over
the course of four seasons, Richard Kimble's implacable pursuer Lt.
Gerard on _The Fugitive_ could almost imperceptibly go from being
convinced that his quarry was a murderer capable of framing another man
for the crime, to being willing to bet his life that Kimble wouldn't
kill again, to finally being convinced of his quarry's innocence. More
often, what serial continuity there was in the '60s would be forced on
the producers by outside circumstances (e.g., kid actors growing up
before the audience's eyes), or by way of what amounted to changes in
the very premise in an attempt to beef up sagging ratings (e.g.,
characters suddenly getting married or having kids).
: Anyway, great post. I'm not familiar with "Callan", so I'll definitely
: need to track it down.
Email me if you're serious. You'll have a hard time otherwise if you
don't live in a Commonwealth country (and even then). It stars a
younger Edward Woodward giving the kind of performance he wouldn't have
been allowed to give in _The Equalizer_.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
Psyche" <lady_...@hotmail.com> writes:
: I'd like to put in a good word for David Mills. He only wrote three
: episodes of Homicide: Life on the Street (Bop Gun, Cradle to Grave,
: Finnigan's Wake,) but all three shows were high quality. Cradle to
: Grave is one of my two favorites, and the one I would show if I wanted
: a "typical" H:LotS.
*D'oh!* I inexplicably neglected the whole _Homicide_ team, but notably
Tom Fontana, James Yoshimura, Julie Martin, and Paul Attanasio.
-Micky
Lord Usher
<3acbee2a...@news-nb-ici.rutgers.edu>...
> On 3 Apr 2001 23:09:07 -0500, "Lord Usher" <lord_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >While I'm at it, let me add my other favorite TV writers to the list:
> >STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE scribes Ron Moore and Peter Allan Fields.
> >Underappreciated writers on the most underappreciated TREK series of
> >them all.
>
> I'll vote Robert Hewett (?) Wolfe. He wrote fabulous Garak episodes.
> Also, he posted to the DS9 Usenet group. You gotta love a writer who
> braves Usenet. :-)
Ah, yes. I tend to forget about RHW's past glory, perhaps because his work
on ANDROMEDA has been rather uneven. Promising, but wildly uneven.
But that's no excuse to overlook his valuable contributions to DEEP SPACE
NINE. ISTM that he was the one who kept that series honest to its
characters and its own mythology. When he left, Ira Behr's wild-and-crazy
tendencies started to rage out of control, and we got a lot more screwball
"experimental" episodes and nonsensical fantasy crap like "Sisko goes
looking for an Orb that's buried on some planet for no damn reason so he
can magically save the Prophets in some unexplained fashion."
Wolfe's Usenet posts, too, were quite enlightening. Unlike the diplomatic
and gentlemanly Ron Moore, he was never afraid to tell it like he saw it.
My favorite Wolfe quote came in response to a fan who asked him what he was
thinking when he wrote the awful, awful episode "Let He Who Is Without
Sin." His answer was something like, "I was thinking, 'Please don't let
this suck! Please don't let this suck!'" :)
Lord Usher
<GBB73...@world.std.com>...
> Peter Allan Fields did some good episodic work in the '60s. He was one
> of the writers who occasionally injected a little moral complexity into
> _The Rat Patrol_, which was otherwise a straight-ahead action-adventure
> romp. I lose track of him through the '70s and '80s, then I notice his
> byline on an award-winning ep. of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_, and
> lo and behold, he's once again injecting some moral complexity into
> _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_. I never did find out the whole story
> there, but he had a staff position with the Trek people only to
> reportedly get fired. I couldn't completely stifle a suspicion that he
> was too good to meet their standards.
That was my suspicion, as well. It was just after Fields left the staff at
the end of season two that DS9 dramatically altered its focus,
concentrating less on complex moral, political, and religious issues, and
more on focus-group-friendly stuff like space battles and growling aliens
and pulp sci-fi plots.
I've always wondered whether these two events were related. Fields, after
all, was the most sensitive and contemplative of the writers, and was the
one most prone to writing stories centered around Bajoran religion and
politics, which became verboten topics at the beginning of (spit) season 3.
Tim Bruening
Lord Usher wrote:
Stuff about the great DS9 writer Wolfe munched.
>
>
> Wolfe's Usenet posts, too, were quite enlightening. Unlike the diplomatic
> and gentlemanly Ron Moore, he was never afraid to tell it like he saw it.
> My favorite Wolfe quote came in response to a fan who asked him what he was
> thinking when he wrote the awful, awful episode "Let He Who Is Without
> Sin." His answer was something like, "I was thinking, 'Please don't let
> this suck! Please don't let this suck!'" :)
Was Worf ever disciplined for sabotaging Risa's weather control system during
that episode?
Micky DuPree
conceivably for _The Man in the Glass Booth_.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Lord Usher" <lord_...@my-deja.com> writes:
: It was just after [Peter Allan] Fields left the staff at the end of
: season two that DS9 dramatically altered its focus, concentrating less
: on complex moral, political, and religious issues, and more on
: focus-group-friendly stuff like space battles and growling aliens
: and pulp sci-fi plots.
Admittedly, his "Duet" borrowed heavily from the Edward Anhalt
adaptation of Robert Shaw's _The Man in the Glass Booth_ (and without
credit), but at least if he was going to steal, he set his sights on
good material.
I also admired his technical skill. He wasn't just one of those more-
heart-than-art hacks with good intentions but nothing else. In
"Necessary Evil" (my favorite), he balanced present-day and flashback
material with complexity and yet also with the transparency of intention
that mainstream narrative requires (something that _Angel_ usually
manages as well). The fact that it also dared to suggest that one of
the point-of-view protagonists could be guilty of something as dark gray
as murder in the service of political fanaticism, and that this would
not be acted upon by arguably the most lily-white character in the story
made the package complete (and even daring for American TV, although it
was admittedly syndicated rather than network).
: I've always wondered whether these two events were related. Fields,
: after all, was the most sensitive and contemplative of the writers,
: and was the one most prone to writing stories centered around Bajoran
: religion and politics, which became verboten topics at the beginning
: of (spit) season 3.
I never did follow what went on behind the scenes at Trek. I did notice
Fields' byline showing up again later, but I think it was mostly in a
"story by" capacity.
-Micky
Lord Usher
> Spoilers for _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_, "Duet," "Necessary Evil";
> conceivably for _The Man in the Glass Booth_.
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
> "Lord Usher" <lord_...@my-deja.com> writes:
[snip]
> : I've always wondered whether these two events were related. Fields,
> : after all, was the most sensitive and contemplative of the writers,
> : and was the one most prone to writing stories centered around Bajoran
> : religion and politics, which became verboten topics at the beginning
> : of (spit) season 3.
>
> I never did follow what went on behind the scenes at Trek. I did notice
> Fields' byline showing up again later, but I think it was mostly in a
> "story by" capacity.
Believe me, you're better off if you didn't follow all the
behind-the-scenes shenanigans. It got pretty ugly, from what I understand.
The most appalling story: Ron Moore apparently being forced off the VOYAGER
staff by former close friends who feared he was going to show them up by
writing *too well*.
But Fields, apparently, parted with DS9 on somewhat amicable terms. As you
mention, he did eventually sell them a couple of freelance stories. I
wonder if it was not his fellow writers who ousted him, but the higher-ups
at Paramount -- who have done everything in their power to kill the golden
goose called STAR TREK.
--
Lord Usher
"He's a Cardassian! That's reason enough."
"No... It's not."
Micky DuPree
: Micky DuPree <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in article
: <GBGM4...@world.std.com>...
:: I never did follow what went on behind the scenes at Trek. I did
:: notice Fields' byline showing up again later, but I think it was
:: mostly in a "story by" capacity.
:
: Believe me, you're better off if you didn't follow all the
: behind-the-scenes shenanigans. It got pretty ugly, from what I
: understand. The most appalling story: Ron Moore apparently being
: forced off the VOYAGER staff by former close friends who feared he was
: going to show them up by writing *too well*.
:
: But Fields, apparently, parted with DS9 on somewhat amicable terms. As
: you mention, he did eventually sell them a couple of freelance
: stories. I wonder if it was not his fellow writers who ousted him, but
: the higher-ups at Paramount -- who have done everything in their power
: to kill the golden goose called STAR TREK.
I don't have any inside information, but I can't shake the impression
that Paramount's desire is to keep _Star Trek_ exactly the same as much
as possible. That means that anyone who messes with the formula, with
The Franchise, has to be brought to heel. This isn't just Paramount's
fault. Gene Roddenberry could have taken _Next Generation_ in new
directions. It wasn't the '60s anymore. He could have attempted major
arcs. He could have made his universe a more morally complex place. He
obviously chose not to. I was frankly surprised that his successors got
away with as much serial continuity and Federation rotten apples as they
used on DS9. Even so, the darkness on DS9 was mostly a bitter outer
coating disguising what was essentially a Trek sugar pill on the inside.
Trek fans complain about this and that being wrong with Trek, but
Paramount doesn't have to get people to like it in order to be
successful. They just have to get people to watch.
-Micky
Shanna
>Spoiler for the title of the _Angel_ season finale
And some spoilers for the Oz series of books.
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
>wrote:
>
>>Ep 22 - ??
>
>I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
>that what you will.
Isn't one of the ep titles leading up to that "Over the Rainbow"? I suspect
they're going to pull a Wizard of Oz on us in some way. Maybe it's time to
reread the book. Or are they going for the movie version? (they're quite
different. In the book, it was real, not a dream or delusions. In fact, Dorothy
and her family ended up moving to Oz in later books.)
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
: wrote:
:: Ep 22 - ??
:
: I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
: that what you will.
I'm trying not to get my hopes up. It's just a coincidence. Besides,
they shouldn't do the Wizard of Oz until the end of the series.
-Micky
Sarah Trombley
Shanna <shan...@aol.com> wrote:
>Terry McNeal wrote:
>
>>Spoiler for the title of the _Angel_ season finale
>And some spoilers for the Oz series of books.
>
>>
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ep 22 - ??
>>
>>I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
>>that what you will.
You know, I'm such an appalling geek (by history grad student standards,
anyway) that the first thing I did was run that name through rot-13. (No
joy.)
--Sarah T.
Terry McNeal
spoilers for the Oz series of books, and personal crap-garbage
speculation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
On 09 Apr 2001 14:57:46 GMT, shan...@aol.com (Shanna) wrote:
>Terry McNeal wrote:
>>
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ep 22 - ??
>>
>>I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
>>that what you will.
>
>Isn't one of the ep titles leading up to that "Over the Rainbow"? I suspect
>they're going to pull a Wizard of Oz on us in some way. Maybe it's time to
>reread the book. Or are they going for the movie version? (they're quite
>different. In the book, it was real, not a dream or delusions. In fact, Dorothy
>and her family ended up moving to Oz in later books.)
"Over the Rainbow" would tend to be a reference to the classic movie
version of "The Wizard of Oz"; I don't recall L. Frank Baum's Dorothy
singing her way to Oz. ;-) Or was the phrase used in the book? It's
been a while. Anyway, there's a Lewis Carroll reference in between
("Through the Looking Glass") that spoils the Wizard of Oz flow.
Still, "Wizard of Oz," "Alice in Wonderland"... These episode titles
make me think Our Heroes won't even be in the same dimension as
Sunnydale, let alone able to participate in this rumored "everyone who
has ever been on BtVS returns" extravaganza.
Terry
Terry McNeal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:14:58 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply (Micky
DuPree) wrote:
>Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
>: wrote:
>
>:: Ep 22 - ??
>:
>: I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
>: that what you will.
>
>I'm trying not to get my hopes up. It's just a coincidence. Besides,
>they shouldn't do the Wizard of Oz until the end of the series.
Kinda depends on who the Wizard is, who Dorothy is, and what Glenda is
offering. I'm sure winged monkeys enter into the equation there
somewhere as well. ;-)
Terry
bethan...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hmm, I assume everyone has seen "The Empire Strikes Back" by now, but
if not, hey... major spoiler ahead.
>Wolfe's Usenet posts, too, were quite enlightening. Unlike the diplomatic
>and gentlemanly Ron Moore, he was never afraid to tell it like he saw it.
>My favorite Wolfe quote came in response to a fan who asked him what he was
>thinking when he wrote the awful, awful episode "Let He Who Is Without
>Sin." His answer was something like, "I was thinking, 'Please don't let
>this suck! Please don't let this suck!'" :)
My favorite was right before the "Improbable Cause / The Die is Cast"
two-parter, when we were all bugging him for spoilers and he responded
to the effect that he didn't want to spoil us. As an example of how
evil spoilers were, he commented that he had never forgiven the person
who told him, before he saw "The Empire Strikes Back," that Vader was
Luke's father.
About three hours after I saw "Improbable Cause" I suddenly sat up and
said "Hey... wait a minute..." (surprising my roommate slightly).
Best spoiler I've ever been given. :-)
David B.
AFAIK, no he never was.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:14:58 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply (Micky
: DuPree) wrote:
:: Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
::: I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make
::: of that what you will.
::
:: I'm trying not to get my hopes up. It's just a coincidence.
:: Besides, they shouldn't do the Wizard of Oz until the end of the
:: series.
:
: Kinda depends on who the Wizard is, who Dorothy is, and what Glenda is
: offering. I'm sure winged monkeys enter into the equation there
: somewhere as well. ;-)
You're right. It's a coincidence. And I don't want any damned
crossovers with the metaphorless _Buffy_ story bleeding into the _Angel_
side of the universe. And I should probably start putting episode
titles and ClickTV blurbs on my list of things to avoid.
It's a coincidence.
It's a coincidence.
It's a coincidence.
-Micky
Sarah Trombley
I would pay good money to see Gunn sing "Ease On Down the Road" at Caritas.
--Sarah T.
Terry McNeal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:16:31 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>You're right. It's a coincidence. And I don't want any damned
>crossovers with the metaphorless _Buffy_ story bleeding into the _Angel_
>side of the universe. And I should probably start putting episode
>titles and ClickTV blurbs on my list of things to avoid.
Spoilers don't bother me. Mostly they're someone's unwritten fanfic,
something never more apparent than with the blarney surrounding the
_Buffy_ season finale, and even the "accurate" ones are more
prophecy-like in what they don't tell you. Reading post after post of
someone complaining an episode isn't right because it doesn't match
the spoilers they read is fun, so there's an amusement factor also. (I
admit that one's a completely personal reaction.) I do wish Wanda had
kept her mouth shut about Doyle, though.
But I gotta have my upcoming episode titles and writers. Directors
would be nice too. And speculation aside, what can you tell about the
episodes from their titles? Except for a couple which were both, even
the screencaps posted at the WB's website were more tantalizing than
revealing.
>It's a coincidence.
>It's a coincidence.
>It's a coincidence.
Where'd you get the ruby slippers?
Terry
Lord Usher
> I don't have any inside information, but I can't shake the impression
> that Paramount's desire is to keep _Star Trek_ exactly the same as much
> as possible. That means that anyone who messes with the formula, with
> The Franchise, has to be brought to heel.
I think that's a fair assumption. I was amazed at the freedom that the DS9
writers had to play with the franchise, but I can't shake the feeling that
Paramount regretted giving Ira Behr such a slack leash, and are now more
dedicated than ever to the same old, same old.
(The fact that the next TREK series will apparently be *another* ship-based
series on *another* starship Enterprise isn't exactly making me rethink my
assumption.)
> This isn't just Paramount's fault. Gene Roddenberry could have taken
> _Next Generation_ in new directions. It wasn't the '60s anymore.
Actually, I think Roddenberry did quite enough to alter the franchise,
thank you very much. :)
Instead of keeping with the spirit of the original series, in which a group
of flawed but good-hearted human beings struggled to remain true to their
principles in a harsh and oft-uncaring universe, Roddenberry made THE NEXT
GENERATION about a group of perfect people in a universe over which they
had almost complete control, struggling to bring enlightenment to the poor,
backwards folks who weren't as perfect as they. In the name of producing an
"optimistic vision of the future," the Great Bird produced a vision of the
future that was, more often than not, rather trite and sterile and
downright *boring*.
Indeed, the best episodes of TNG are those that returned to the more
difficult moral spirit of the Original Series, that reminded us that, even
100 years after Kirk and Spock, people still have to fight damn hard to
maintain a just society: "The Measure of a Man," "The Drumhead," "The
Wounded," "Yesterday's Enterprise," and so on...
Micky DuPree
In article <0m47dt83vvqqv9qlh...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes [to Micky DuPree]:
: Spoilers don't bother me. Mostly they're someone's unwritten fanfic,
: something never more apparent than with the blarney surrounding the
: _Buffy_ season finale, and even the "accurate" ones are more
: prophecy-like in what they don't tell you.
I know, and when you come right down to it, you don't know which
spoilers are accurate and which aren't until the episode is over. But
past experience tells me I'm not immune to developing misplaced
expectations without even trying. I heard advance press on the final
episode of _MASH_ and without even intending to, I sketched out an
entire scenario in my head. The actual episode wasn't bad, but to this
day I don't think I gave it a fair shot, since I liked the scenario in
my head better and was therefore disappointed.
: Reading post after post of someone complaining an episode isn't right
: because it doesn't match the spoilers they read is fun, so there's an
: amusement factor also. (I admit that one's a completely personal
: reaction.)
I dare say idiosyncratic. ;)
: I do wish Wanda had kept her mouth shut about Doyle, though.
God, yes. People insisted on sharing the wealth on that one, up to and
including the Subject lines. There was no escape short of turning into
the fannish equivalent of a hermit. I can only guess the kind of impact
that episode would have had on me if I hadn't already been waiting for
the boom to be lowered.
: But I gotta have my upcoming episode titles and writers. Directors
: would be nice too. And speculation aside, what can you tell about the
: episodes from their titles?
Actually, you're right. I haven't had any bad results so far from
knowing titles, writers, and/or directors. The Wizard of Oz angle is
just the first one that's managed to hit close to my mental fanfic.
: Except for a couple which were both, even the screencaps posted at the
: WB's website were more tantalizing than revealing.
There's where not using a graphics browser comes in handy, but yeah,
what Mutant Enemy and the WB choose to tantalize us with is usually
different from what can genuinely spoil us (the lone exception in my
experience still being the trailer for "I've Got You Under My Skin").
I've tried to give the _TV Guide_ capsules a miss ever since Whedon
complained that they gave away too much, though.
:: It's a coincidence.
:: It's a coincidence.
:: It's a coincidence.
:
: Where'd you get the ruby slippers?
Everyone has ruby slippers. Some need an epiphany to realize it. :^)
-Micky
Micky DuPree
<lord_...@my-deja.com> writes:
: Micky DuPree <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in article
: <GBIu0...@world.std.com>...
:: I don't have any inside information, but I can't shake the impression
:: that Paramount's desire is to keep _Star Trek_ exactly the same as
:: much as possible. That means that anyone who messes with the
:: formula, with The Franchise, has to be brought to heel.
:
: I think that's a fair assumption. I was amazed at the freedom that the
: DS9 writers had to play with the franchise, but I can't shake the
: feeling that Paramount regretted giving Ira Behr such a slack leash,
: and are now more dedicated than ever to the same old, same old.
I don't have any hard information, but my sense was that DS9 was the
worst moneymaker of the Treks. If true, it's no wonder Paramount
tightened the leash.
: (The fact that the next TREK series will apparently be *another*
: ship-based series on *another* starship Enterprise isn't exactly
: making me rethink my assumption.)
TNG outpulled DS9 during their period of overlap. This is presumably
Paramount's response to audience demand.
:: This isn't just Paramount's fault. Gene Roddenberry could have taken
:: _Next Generation_ in new directions. It wasn't the '60s anymore.
:
: Actually, I think Roddenberry did quite enough to alter the franchise,
: thank you very much. :)
He wouldn't be the first producer whose chief talent was in gathering
people more talented to his side.
: In the name of producing an "optimistic vision of the future," the
: Great Bird produced a vision of the future that was, more often than
: not, rather trite and sterile and downright *boring*.
But you watched every single episode, no?
: Indeed, the best episodes of TNG are those that returned to the more
: difficult moral spirit of the Original Series, that reminded us that,
: even 100 years after Kirk and Spock, people still have to fight damn
: hard to maintain a just society: "The Measure of a Man," "The
: Drumhead," "The Wounded," "Yesterday's Enterprise," and so on...
"The Measure of a Man" was my favorite, and yet even it was predicated
on the need to believe that these supposedly superior beings in the 24th
century had managed to forget the Turing Test. The premise of the whole
universe as fiction for adults is inescapably flawed.
-Micky
President Chester A. Arthur
>From: trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>Date: 4/9/2001 1:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9asq1r$ujs$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
Hey, that's the first thing I tried too, and I'm not a...oh, wait, never mind.
President Chester A "Will even be a history grad student in four or five years"
Arthur.
bethan...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Actually, I think Roddenberry did quite enough to alter the franchise,
>thank you very much. :)
>
>Instead of keeping with the spirit of the original series, in which a group
>of flawed but good-hearted human beings struggled to remain true to their
>principles in a harsh and oft-uncaring universe, Roddenberry made THE NEXT
>GENERATION about a group of perfect people in a universe over which they
>had almost complete control, struggling to bring enlightenment to the poor,
>backwards folks who weren't as perfect as they. In the name of producing an
>"optimistic vision of the future," the Great Bird produced a vision of the
>future that was, more often than not, rather trite and sterile and
>downright *boring*.
I really liked TNG when it first aired -- well, except for the second
season, I had that much taste. :-) (Of course, I was in, what, 6th
grade during the first season of TNG?) After 7 years as a DS9 fan
(although I was tremendously dissapointed by it's last few seasons) I
find I don't really enjoy TNG anymore. I used to admire Picard so
much... now half the time when I see parts of re-runs at my parent's
house I think, "Wow, what an arrogent, self-righetous ass."
Add to the fact that the whole thing was pretty much the "Picard,
Data, and Sometimes Worf" show and... well, let's just say it bugs me
that TNG gets all the attention, when I think DS9 deserves it more.
It may have wasted a lot of its potential but I still think it was far
and away the best of the Treks to date, although I think it was the
least popular. Ah, well, there's no accounting for taste. I mean,
people watch "Voyager," right?
(Err, sorry if I've offended any Voyager fans. Actually, I haven't
watched any episodes since the first season, so for all I know it
could have become a worthwhile show in the meantime.)
Cindy
<bethan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2001 23:21:11 -0500, "Lord Usher" <lord_...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>season, I had that much taste. :-) (Of course, I was in, what, 6th
>grade during the first season of TNG?) After 7 years as a DS9 fan
>(although I was tremendously dissapointed by it's last few seasons) I
>find I don't really enjoy TNG anymore. I used to admire Picard so
>much... now half the time when I see parts of re-runs at my parent's
>house I think, "Wow, what an arrogent, self-righetous ass."
<g>
Well, I did like the eps the OP mentioned (Measure of a Man, Drumhead, etc).
>Add to the fact that the whole thing was pretty much the "Picard,
>Data, and Sometimes Worf" show and... well, let's just say it bugs me
>that TNG gets all the attention, when I think DS9 deserves it more.
>It may have wasted a lot of its potential but I still think it was far
>and away the best of the Treks to date, although I think it was the
>least popular. Ah, well, there's no accounting for taste. I mean,
>people watch "Voyager," right?
I thought DS9 was positively incandescent up until the beginning of
the 3rd or 4th season (don't remember any more) where they tarted Kira
up in heels and heavy makeup and moved away from exploring issues on
Bajor to the whole dominion thing, with Worf and -- oh so conveniently
-- the Defiant to go sneaking around in. Blech.
Voyager...well. I stopped watching it when they had that ep that
turned Paris and Janeway into horny little lizzards. However, I
started watching again about 3/4 of the way through sixth season and
have been more or less keeping up with the last season. It's
reasonably watchable at this point, tho I have no idea what happened
in the intervening 5 3/4 years (well, other than the obvious). But
"watchable" is a pretty low score...
--Cindy
Terry McNeal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 05:38:36 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>In article <0m47dt83vvqqv9qlh...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes [to Micky DuPree]:
>
>: Spoilers don't bother me. Mostly they're someone's unwritten fanfic,
>: something never more apparent than with the blarney surrounding the
>: _Buffy_ season finale, and even the "accurate" ones are more
>: prophecy-like in what they don't tell you.
>
>I know, and when you come right down to it, you don't know which
>spoilers are accurate and which aren't until the episode is over. But
>past experience tells me I'm not immune to developing misplaced
>expectations without even trying. I heard advance press on the final
>episode of _MASH_ and without even intending to, I sketched out an
>entire scenario in my head. The actual episode wasn't bad, but to this
>day I don't think I gave it a fair shot, since I liked the scenario in
>my head better and was therefore disappointed.
I can see that, and I'd be lying if I said some spoilers weren't more
to my liking than the episode turned out to be, but my problem with
expectation generally comes from making mountains out of molehills
with what we do end up seeing in an episode. (You may have noticed
that already. If not, ask me how much I'm dreading "Disharmony" even
as I'm looking forward to an Cordy-riffic episode. ;) )
>: Reading post after post of someone complaining an episode isn't right
>: because it doesn't match the spoilers they read is fun, so there's an
>: amusement factor also. (I admit that one's a completely personal
>: reaction.)
>
>I dare say idiosyncratic. ;)
"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."
>: I do wish Wanda had kept her mouth shut about Doyle, though.
>
>God, yes. People insisted on sharing the wealth on that one, up to and
>including the Subject lines. There was no escape short of turning into
>the fannish equivalent of a hermit.
True; even mainstream press reported the event before it occured.
> I can only guess the kind of impact
>that episode would have had on me if I hadn't already been waiting for
>the boom to be lowered.
I work with a woman who was a fan of _Angel_ (she's not happy lately;
all the usual reasons) who told me she was unaware of Doyle's
impending demise. She didn't like "Hero", but at least she was
surprised. Probably not what you mean, but I did wonder at the time if
the surprise would have been worth the Nazis.
>: But I gotta have my upcoming episode titles and writers. Directors
>: would be nice too. And speculation aside, what can you tell about the
>: episodes from their titles?
>
>Actually, you're right. I haven't had any bad results so far from
>knowing titles, writers, and/or directors. The Wizard of Oz angle is
>just the first one that's managed to hit close to my mental fanfic.
Check. Think of it as a little nod from ME to you. ;)
>: Except for a couple which were both, even the screencaps posted at the
>: WB's website were more tantalizing than revealing.
>
>There's where not using a graphics browser comes in handy, but yeah,
>what Mutant Enemy and the WB choose to tantalize us with is usually
>different from what can genuinely spoil us (the lone exception in my
>experience still being the trailer for "I've Got You Under My Skin").
I must not have paid a lot of attention to that promo 'cause I didn't
realize it outed Ryan as the possessed until someone mentioned it in
the newsgroup. My only reason for never thinking it was Seth is the
convention which says it's never the first suspect, and it's
especially not the first suspect when it's obvious that it is the
first suspect.
>I've tried to give the _TV Guide_ capsules a miss ever since Whedon
>complained that they gave away too much, though.
They certainly gave away the farm with the on-line synopsis of "The
Body".
>:: It's a coincidence.
>:: It's a coincidence.
>:: It's a coincidence.
>:
>: Where'd you get the ruby slippers?
>
>Everyone has ruby slippers. Some need an epiphany to realize it. :^)
Hee. I may use this if you have no objection.
Terry
Pamela
> Hey, that's the first thing I tried too, and I'm not a...oh, wait,
> never mind.
It's so wonderful to know that I'm not alone ::sniff:: I wonder if it does
decrypt to something. Hmm.
Pamela
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and bite me. ;-)
Sieue
"Pamela" <prpat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD654F4...@home.com...
I really cannot believe I am delurking to say if Glrb is Home, then Plrtz
is -om--
Of course it could just be an elaborate joke to just get us going...
*sigh*
Sue
back to lurking now
bethan...@hotmail.com
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> wrote:
>Allusions to "Hero"
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 05:38:36 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>
>> I can only guess the kind of impact
>>that episode would have had on me if I hadn't already been waiting for
>>the boom to be lowered.
>
>I work with a woman who was a fan of _Angel_ (she's not happy lately;
>all the usual reasons) who told me she was unaware of Doyle's
>impending demise. She didn't like "Hero", but at least she was
>surprised. Probably not what you mean, but I did wonder at the time if
>the surprise would have been worth the Nazis.
I was unaware of it, too... (I joined the newsgroup after "Parting
Gifts," because I wanted to find out if Doyle was staying dead and if
Wesley was going to stay.) However, the impact was pretty much
destroyed by the fact that I completely missed the episode in question
(still haven't seen it, in fact.) Watching "Parting Gifts" I said,
"Hey, wait a minute, what happened to Doyle!?" My parents: "Oh, yeah,
he died last episode." :-)
This was before I really because a self-described _Angel_ fan, mind.
I wouldn't miss a new episode like that now.
Actually the surprise of Wesley showing up was pretty much messed up,
too, because I didn't recognize him in all the leather until my Dad
said, "Hey, wait a minute... was that Wesley?" during the commertial
break.
I was very unhappy with both developments at the time. I still think
the potential of the Doyle character was largely wasted. However, I
have since come to terms with the addition Wesley -- a character I
seriously disliked on _Buffy_ -- to the cast of _Angel_. ;-)
Michelle Haines
> (Err, sorry if I've offended any Voyager fans. Actually, I haven't
> watched any episodes since the first season, so for all I know it
> could have become a worthwhile show in the meantime.)
Other than a few bright spots, they really haven't. But i figure
i've stuck with it this long, i'll see it through to the end.
Michelle
Flutist
Micky DuPree
bethan...@hotmail.com writes:
: I really liked TNG when it first aired -- well, except for the second
: season, I had that much taste. :-) (Of course, I was in, what, 6th
: grade during the first season of TNG?) After 7 years as a DS9 fan
: (although I was tremendously dissapointed by it's last few seasons) I
: find I don't really enjoy TNG anymore. I used to admire Picard so
: much... now half the time when I see parts of re-runs at my parent's
: house I think, "Wow, what an arrogent, self-righetous ass."
I think the best age to watch any of the Treks is around 11-14. I first
caught the original series when I was 12 and I loved it. Of course, it
doesn't have the same effect on me now that it did then. If you think
of Trek as intending to provoke thought in young adolescents, it's not
entirely unsophisticated. It's when you compare it to adult standards
of entertainment that it comes up short.
Paramount isn't going to meddle too much with the formula, because the
kids still like it and the adults keep watching even if they complain.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
_The Exorcist_.
In article <7oecdtcpnmfk5vq2n...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 05:38:36 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote [to Terry McNeal]:
:: I heard advance press on the final episode of _MASH_ and without even
:: intending to, I sketched out an entire scenario in my head. The
:: actual episode wasn't bad, but to this day I don't think I gave it a
:: fair shot, since I liked the scenario in my head better and was
:: therefore disappointed.
:
: I can see that, and I'd be lying if I said some spoilers weren't more
: to my liking than the episode turned out to be, but my problem with
: expectation generally comes from making mountains out of molehills
: with what we do end up seeing in an episode. (You may have noticed
: that already. If not, ask me how much I'm dreading "Disharmony" even
: as I'm looking forward to an Cordy-riffic episode. ;) )
O.K., why are you dreading "Disharmony"? I was just hoping for a heavy
episode rather than a light one, and it looks like we're going to get
light. Other than that, I'd like to take the episodes on their own
terms rather than measure them against spurious creations, whether my
own or someone else's.
:: I can only guess the kind of impact ["Hero"] would have had on me if
:: I hadn't already been waiting for the boom to be lowered.
:
: I work with a woman who was a fan of _Angel_ (she's not happy lately;
: all the usual reasons) who told me she was unaware of Doyle's
: impending demise. She didn't like "Hero", but at least she was
: surprised. Probably not what you mean, but I did wonder at the time if
: the surprise would have been worth the Nazis.
On the whole, I did like "Hero," and killing off a major character after
nine episodes is a stunning thing to do. (Without mentioning any series
titles, I once saw a faked TV death that worked on me to spectacular
effect because I knew this was the last episode of the series and saw no
reason not to kill the character off, and best of all, no one had told
me in advance that it was a fake-out.)
:: Actually, you're right. I haven't had any bad results so far from
:: knowing titles, writers, and/or directors. The Wizard of Oz angle is
:: just the first one that's managed to hit close to my mental fanfic.
:
: Check. Think of it as a little nod from ME to you. ;)
That's just it, though. If they're not going to do my mental fanfic,
I'd prefer they not do Wizard at all. It just provokes misguided hopes.
I keep telling myself it's just a coincidence.
:: [...] what Mutant Enemy and the WB choose to tantalize us with is
:: usually different from what can genuinely spoil us (the lone
:: exception in my experience still being the trailer for "I've Got You
:: Under My Skin").
:
: I must not have paid a lot of attention to that promo 'cause I didn't
: realize it outed Ryan as the possessed until someone mentioned it in
: the newsgroup. My only reason for never thinking it was Seth is the
: convention which says it's never the first suspect, and it's
: especially not the first suspect when it's obvious that it is the
: first suspect.
But it's still possible to do a double reverse. "It's Seth! No, that's
too obvious. It's Ryan! No, wait, it was Seth all along and he only
made us *think* it was too obvious." :) Besides which, I wouldn't have
minded at all if it had turned out to be the little girl (except I guess
the parallels to _The Exorcist_ might have started looking uncomfortably
close to plagiarism rather than pastiche).
:: I've tried to give the _TV Guide_ capsules a miss ever since Whedon
:: complained that they gave away too much, though.
:
: They certainly gave away the farm with the on-line synopsis of "The
: Body".
I was convinced at the end of the previous episode.
::: Where'd you get the ruby slippers?
::
:: Everyone has ruby slippers. Some need an epiphany to realize it. :^)
:
: Hee. I may use this if you have no objection.
Take it in good health.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
"Sieue" <sue.h...@ntlworld.com> writes:
: Organization: Work from home and make absolutely nothing!
lol.
: I really cannot believe I am delurking to say if Glrb is Home, then
: Plrtz is -om--
:
: Of course it could just be an elaborate joke to just get us going...
My first guess, which was only a guess and based on absolutely nothing,
was that the real title of the episode contained a major spoiler. They
didn't want to change the working title, but they knew there was no way
they could keep the title from leaking out, so everyone at Mutant Enemy
uses "Plrtz Glrb" instead. It doesn't decode to anything except in the
minds of those who already know the real title.
-Micky,
who's been too busy being tempted by the stories of Dorothy's companions
to concentrate on _The Wizard of Oz_ as a live-action game of backgammon
for Dorothy.
John Campbell Rees
bethan...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I think DS9 deserves it more. It may have wasted a lot of its potential
> but I still think it was far and away the best of the Treks to date,
> although I think it was the least popular. Ah, well, there's no
> accounting for taste. I mean, people watch "Voyager," right?
>
The great thing about DS9 was there was dramatic tension between the
characters. In TNG, everyone was so damn nice to everyone else, it
boring. , the crew of the Enterprise never left the safety of the
Federation's borders (with the exception of the first Borg episode but
that was due to circumstances beyond their control). When the
Enterprise visited a non-aligned world with in UFP's boundaries, its
crew were always so smug and arrogant to the indigenous population.
This is where"Voyager" scores over TNG, in their desperate attempt to
get home, they are once again "boldly going where no man has gone
before."
--
"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/
Don Sample
<mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote:
> In article <4ZtB6.8742$FD1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Sieue" <sue.h...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> : Organization: Work from home and make absolutely nothing!
>
> lol.
>
>
> : I really cannot believe I am delurking to say if Glrb is Home, then
> : Plrtz is -om--
> :
> : Of course it could just be an elaborate joke to just get us going...
>
> My first guess, which was only a guess and based on absolutely nothing,
> was that the real title of the episode contained a major spoiler. They
> didn't want to change the working title, but they knew there was no way
> they could keep the title from leaking out, so everyone at Mutant Enemy
> uses "Plrtz Glrb" instead. It doesn't decode to anything except in the
> minds of those who already know the real title.
>
> -Micky,
Or the story involves some place with a dificult to pronounce name that
Cordy pronounces as "Plrtz Glrb".
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Terry McNeal
promo for "Disharmony"; allusions to _The Exorcist_ and BtVS, "I Was
Made to Love You", "The Body", and the promo for "Forever".
Also some wailing and gnashing of teeth re: "Disharmony".
.
.
.
Snipped a bunch for length.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:59:21 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>In article <7oecdtcpnmfk5vq2n...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: [...] but my problem with
>: expectation generally comes from making mountains out of molehills
>: with what we do end up seeing in an episode. (You may have noticed
>: that already. If not, ask me how much I'm dreading "Disharmony" even
>: as I'm looking forward to an Cordy-riffic episode. ;) )
>
>O.K., why are you dreading "Disharmony"?
I didn't think you'd take me up on the offer. Well, if you promise not
to flame *any* body parts off...
I expect "Disharmony" will be Cordelia's version of Angel's obsession
with redeeming Darla. But because Harmony's already a lost cause,
it'll involve all the negative aspects of his quest with no
possibility for a positive outcome. Since this will no doubt be
brought to Cordelia's attention (as in the promo), once again we'll
have a story heavily dependent on Cordy disproving her claimed
graduation ranking. Then there's the very real prospect of yet another
evil (albeit not very bright) evil thing sent packing as opposed to
any one of Our Heroes putting the business end of a pointy stick to
good use. But lots o'Charisma and a heavy dose of Mercedes McNab, so
there is an up side.
>I was just hoping for a heavy
>episode rather than a light one, and it looks like we're going to get
>light.
ISTR Joss mentioning a deliberate effort to balance light and dark
_Buffy_ and _Angel_ episodes at some point; at the William S. Paley
festival I think. I guess the desire for balance goes on.
>Other than that, I'd like to take the episodes on their own
>terms rather than measure them against spurious creations, whether my
>own or someone else's.
As would I, but like you said, sometimes we create our own versions of
whatever, even if that isn't the intention.
>On the whole, I did like "Hero," and killing off a major character after
>nine episodes is a stunning thing to do.
"Hero" works for me too.
>That's just it, though. If they're not going to do my mental fanfic,
>I'd prefer they not do Wizard at all. It just provokes misguided hopes.
>I keep telling myself it's just a coincidence.
Okay. I misunderstood the issue.
>: [...] My only reason for never thinking it was Seth is the
>: convention which says it's never the first suspect, and it's
>: especially not the first suspect when it's obvious that it is the
>: first suspect.
>
>But it's still possible to do a double reverse. "It's Seth! No, that's
>too obvious. It's Ryan! No, wait, it was Seth all along and he only
>made us *think* it was too obvious." :)
That would have worked, and I would have been surprised.
> Besides which, I wouldn't have
>minded at all if it had turned out to be the little girl (except I guess
>the parallels to _The Exorcist_ might have started looking uncomfortably
>close to plagiarism rather than pastiche).
The girl had my vote also, but yeah, probably a little too much
homage.
>: [TV Guide] certainly gave away the farm with the on-line synopsis of "The
>: Body".
>
>I was convinced at the end of the previous episode.
"Me, too," but the synopsis for "The Body" was posted a week before "I
Was Made to Love You" aired, so anyone looking for the synopsis when
it was initially posted found out without prior knowledge of who died.
>:: Everyone has ruby slippers. Some need an epiphany to realize it. :^)
>:
>: Hee. I may use this if you have no objection.
>
>Take it in good health.
Thanks.
Terry
Micky DuPree
Everything else is guesswork.
In article <130420011500491230%dsa...@synapse.net>, Don Sample
<dsa...@synapse.net> writes:
: In article <GBqIw...@world.std.com>, Micky DuPree
: <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote:
:: My first guess, which was only a guess and based on absolutely
:: nothing, was that the real title of the episode contained a major
:: spoiler. They didn't want to change the working title, but they knew
:: there was no way they could keep the title from leaking out, so
:: everyone at Mutant Enemy uses "Plrtz Glrb" instead. It doesn't
:: decode to anything except in the minds of those who already know the
:: real title.
: Or the story involves some place with a dificult to pronounce name
: that Cordy pronounces as "Plrtz Glrb".
It can't be ruled out, but in general, Mutant Enemy has shied away from
developing fully fleshed out otherworldly places. Demon dimensions
serve largely metaphorical purposes that reflect back on the real world.
That's why it was so bold to as much as acknowledge that in "Reprise,"
and why (speaking just for myself of course) I'd much prefer that the
real title of the episode be "There's No Place Like Home Office" rather
than "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb."
-Micky
--
But it's just a coincidence.
Lord Usher
> I don't have any hard information, but my sense was that DS9 was the
> worst moneymaker of the Treks. If true, it's no wonder Paramount
> tightened the leash.
Except that DS9's highest ratings came during its first two seasons, during
which the leash was the most slack.
As for the "worst moneymaker" title: I don't have any more hard information
than you do, but I've always been under the impression that VOY was a lot
more of a financial disappointment than DS9. After all, Paramount never had
to provide free make-good advertising time to DS9 advertisers because the
show didn't manage to pull in the guaranteed ratings.
> : (The fact that the next TREK series will apparently be *another*
> : ship-based series on *another* starship Enterprise isn't exactly
> : making me rethink my assumption.)
>
> TNG outpulled DS9 during their period of overlap. This is presumably
> Paramount's response to audience demand.
Well, considering the audience is screaming, "Give it a rest! We don't
*want* a new TREK series yet!" I don't think Paramount is really listening
to audience demand.
But anyway, I'm sure this is the kind of argument that studios like to
make. Unfortunately, it's a rather weak argument. No matter how popular one
show may be, it's very rare for another show to find similar prosperity by
shamelessly duplicating the same formula. Witness the failure of dozens of
FRIENDS and SEINFELD rip-offs during the 1990s, and the inability of shows
like GREED and the new TWENTY-ONE to feed off the popularity of WHO WANTS
TO BE A MILLIONAIRE?
> : In the name of producing an "optimistic vision of the future," the
> : Great Bird produced a vision of the future that was, more often than
> : not, rather trite and sterile and downright *boring*.
>
> But you watched every single episode, no?
I was young and stupid. :)
Lord Usher
<3ad61690...@news-nb-ici.rutgers.edu>...
> I really liked TNG when it first aired -- well, except for the second
> season, I had that much taste. :-) (Of course, I was in, what, 6th
> grade during the first season of TNG?) After 7 years as a DS9 fan
> (although I was tremendously dissapointed by it's last few seasons) I
> find I don't really enjoy TNG anymore. I used to admire Picard so
> much... now half the time when I see parts of re-runs at my parent's
> house I think, "Wow, what an arrogent, self-righetous ass."
Hee. Those are exactly my sentimonies. :)
The simple truth is that drama is conflict. And Gene Roddenberry's
crazy-ass idea that "enlightened" people don't argue with each other or
sometimes, God forbid, *dislike* each other stripped the series of its
richest potential source of drama.
Lord Usher
> I think the best age to watch any of the Treks is around 11-14. I first
> caught the original series when I was 12 and I loved it. Of course, it
> doesn't have the same effect on me now that it did then. If you think
> of Trek as intending to provoke thought in young adolescents, it's not
> entirely unsophisticated. It's when you compare it to adult standards
> of entertainment that it comes up short.
I think the best episodes of DS9 transcended the adolescent
pseudo-intellectualism of other forms of TREK. It was able to move beyond
temporal paradoxes, and the Prime Directive, and racism-is-bad morality
plays, and all that overly obvious, groundlessly abstract claptrap that
sounds so deep and important when you're thirteen years old.
When it worked, DS9 could be subtle, and complex, and unflinchingly honest.
I simply can't look at an episode like "Duet" or "Necessary Evil" or "The
Collaborator" and conclude that DS9 was just a well-done kid's show.
Micky DuPree
"Disharmony."
In article <irefdtcskf91jvp3c...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:59:21 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:: O.K., why are you dreading "Disharmony"?
:
: I didn't think you'd take me up on the offer. Well, if you promise not
: to flame *any* body parts off...
Maybe a shake of the head and a tut-tut. :)
: I expect "Disharmony" will be Cordelia's version of Angel's obsession
: with redeeming Darla. But because Harmony's already a lost cause,
: it'll involve all the negative aspects of his quest with no
: possibility for a positive outcome. Since this will no doubt be
: brought to Cordelia's attention (as in the promo), once again we'll
: have a story heavily dependent on Cordy disproving her claimed
: graduation ranking.
Hm. While they sometimes make Cordelia oblivious, I figured that
particular part of the promo was deliberately misleading, since hinting
that Cordelia will ignore danger would be the most blatant way to
provoke tension in the viewers. The people who put the promos together
seem to be under orders to take material from the episodes so as to
imply the maximum amount of danger while still managing to use a few
bits of the actual plot (but not necessarily in an accurate manner).
: Then there's the very real prospect of yet another evil (albeit not
: very bright) evil thing sent packing as opposed to any one of Our
: Heroes putting the business end of a pointy stick to good use.
Unfortunately, that strikes me as likely based on past performance on
both _Angel_ and _Buffy_.
:: I was just hoping for a heavy episode rather than a light one, and it
:: looks like we're going to get light.
:
: ISTR Joss mentioning a deliberate effort to balance light and dark
: _Buffy_ and _Angel_ episodes at some point; at the William S. Paley
: festival I think. I guess the desire for balance goes on.
It seems to me that _Angel_ is getting second-class status in this
regard, and unless Whedon breaks with past patterns, _Buffy_ is likely
to stay fairly heavy through the end of the season.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
<lord_...@my-deja.com> writes:
: Micky DuPree <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in article
: <GBo19...@world.std.com>...
:: I don't have any hard information, but my sense was that DS9 was the
:: worst moneymaker of the Treks. If true, it's no wonder Paramount
:: tightened the leash.
:
: Except that DS9's highest ratings came during its first two seasons,
: during which the leash was the most slack.
I'm not convinced that's the metric they use, though.
: As for the "worst moneymaker" title: I don't have any more hard
: information than you do, but I've always been under the impression
: that VOY was a lot more of a financial disappointment than DS9. After
: all, Paramount never had to provide free make-good advertising time to
: DS9 advertisers because the show didn't manage to pull in the
: guaranteed ratings.
I see what you mean, but I think they had higher expectations for it
from the beginning. Perhaps they overestimated the advantages of being
able to give it a steady predictable slot in prime time. (Not that I'm
a programming wiz, but I expected better ratings for it on that basis
myself.)
::: (The fact that the next TREK series will apparently be *another*
::: ship-based series on *another* starship Enterprise isn't exactly
::: making me rethink my assumption.)
::
:: TNG outpulled DS9 during their period of overlap. This is presumably
:: Paramount's response to audience demand.
:
: Well, considering the audience is screaming, "Give it a rest! We don't
: *want* a new TREK series yet!" I don't think Paramount is really
: listening to audience demand.
I didn't mean polling dedicated fans. I meant analyzing numbers and
trying to establish correlations. (Of course, the first rule of
statistics is that correlation is not causation.)
: But anyway, I'm sure this is the kind of argument that studios like to
: make. Unfortunately, it's a rather weak argument. No matter how
: popular one show may be, it's very rare for another show to find
: similar prosperity by shamelessly duplicating the same formula.
True. Never stops them, though.
::: In the name of producing an "optimistic vision of the future," the
::: Great Bird produced a vision of the future that was, more often than
::: not, rather trite and sterile and downright *boring*.
::
:: But you watched every single episode, no?
:
: I was young and stupid. :)
Genre addicts have a hard time kicking the habit. :) It's not just
sci-fi fans (and yes, I use the term with precision). Mystery fans will
also watch a bad mystery and bitch about it rather than do without.
Unfortunately, there's no place in the Nielsen diary to write, "Yes, I
watched it, but under protest!" Either people watch a show, in which
case it's considered a success, or else people don't watch it, in which
case it gets cancelled. There's no way to make your viewership
contingent upon a promise that the show will be made better in the
future.
-Micky,
contractually obligated to watch Trek indefinitely.
H.G.Hettinger
Trombley) wrote:
>In article <20010409105746...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
>Shanna <shan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Terry McNeal wrote:
>>
>>>Spoiler for the title of the _Angel_ season finale
>>And some spoilers for the Oz series of books.
>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ep 22 - ??
>>>
>>>I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb". Make of
>>>that what you will.
>
>You know, I'm such an appalling geek (by history grad student standards,
>anyway) that the first thing I did was run that name through rot-13. (No
>joy.)
I guess I'm the only one who's first thought was of Mtzlplck (or how
ever you spell the name of that floating imp from Superman who could
only be banned back to his own universe if you got him to say his name
backwards) then?
Maybe it's just because of I know that Tim used to be a writer for
that series...
hgh
Visit Angel Investigations for complete and quote-riddled
episode summaries of all Angel episodes.
http://users.digitalexp.com/~users/hettinger/Angel.html
Micky DuPree
<lord_...@my-deja.com> writes:
: Micky DuPree <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote in article
: <GBqFt...@world.std.com>...
:: I think the best age to watch any of the Treks is around 11-14. I
:: first caught the original series when I was 12 and I loved it. Of
:: course, it doesn't have the same effect on me now that it did then.
:: If you think of Trek as intending to provoke thought in young
:: adolescents, it's not entirely unsophisticated. It's when you
:: compare it to adult standards of entertainment that it comes up
:: short.
:
: I think the best episodes of DS9 transcended the adolescent
: pseudo-intellectualism of other forms of TREK.
I guess it's overexposure to British genre television, but I mostly see
a superficial coating of moral complexity over what still remains the
simplistic Trek core of DS9.
: It was able to move beyond temporal paradoxes, and the Prime
: Directive, and racism-is-bad morality plays, and all that overly
: obvious, groundlessly abstract claptrap that sounds so deep and
: important when you're thirteen years old.
I think there is a place, even an important place for such things at
that age. Trek is what they now call "age-appropriate" for adolescents.
The Prime Directive isn't a trivial problem either. It was just an
unbelievable muddle in _Next Generation_. At least in the original
series, when they broke the Directive, they quite consciously broke it
and said why they were breaking it. On TNG, they seemed not to
acknowledge when they were breaking it nor could they articulate what
was wrong with it. (This week's _Voyager_ pretty much acknowledged that
without getting its hands dirty with the details.)
: When it worked, DS9 could be subtle, and complex, and unflinchingly
: honest. I simply can't look at an episode like "Duet" or "Necessary
: Evil" or "The Collaborator" and conclude that DS9 was just a well-done
: kid's show.
If it were all that honest, though, "Duet" would have acknowledged its
source material. If it were unflinching, it wouldn't have consistently
given the complexity to nonhuman, non-Federation characters. Their use
of nonhuman characters seemed to be their way of skirting disapproval.
But I'll grant that DS9 is aimed more at older adolescents rather than
younger ones. (I'd say that the ideal age to watch _The Prisoner_ and
_Blake's 7_ for the first time is around 18 too.)
-Micky
ficlogic
<bethan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ad6a9d0...@news-nb-ici.rutgers.edu...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:33:12 -0400, Terry McNeal
> <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> wrote:
>
> >Allusions to "Hero"
> >
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >
> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 05:38:36 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
> >(Micky DuPree) wrote:
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> I can only guess the kind of impact
> >>that episode would have had on me if I hadn't already been waiting for
> >>the boom to be lowered.
> >
> >I work with a woman who was a fan of _Angel_ (she's not happy lately;
> >all the usual reasons) who told me she was unaware of Doyle's
> >impending demise. She didn't like "Hero", but at least she was
> >surprised. Probably not what you mean, but I did wonder at the time if
> >the surprise would have been worth the Nazis.
She's very lucky if she didn't find out before the ep. My brother told me
the morning before the episode aired, which really annoyed me.
> I was unaware of it, too... (I joined the newsgroup after "Parting
> Gifts," because I wanted to find out if Doyle was staying dead and if
> Wesley was going to stay.) However, the impact was pretty much
> destroyed by the fact that I completely missed the episode in question
> (still haven't seen it, in fact.) Watching "Parting Gifts" I said,
> "Hey, wait a minute, what happened to Doyle!?" My parents: "Oh, yeah,
> he died last episode." :-)
>
> This was before I really because a self-described _Angel_ fan, mind.
> I wouldn't miss a new episode like that now.
>
> Actually the surprise of Wesley showing up was pretty much messed up,
> too, because I didn't recognize him in all the leather until my Dad
> said, "Hey, wait a minute... was that Wesley?" during the commertial
> break.
>
> I was very unhappy with both developments at the time. I still think
> the potential of the Doyle character was largely wasted. However, I
> have since come to terms with the addition Wesley -- a character I
> seriously disliked on _Buffy_ -- to the cast of _Angel_. ;-)
Pretty much how I feel. I wasn't expecting to like Wesley given how quickly
they brought him in after Doyle's death - it was like a replacement. But I
like what they've done with Wes now. The character has grown a lot since
the Wussley they gave us on BTVS.
--
Cortisol Junkie (formerly ficlogic)
'My parents were great. Tasted a lot like chicken.'
Sarah Trombley
So, the senior partner will turn out to be Rumpelstilskin? ;)
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
Actually, I think there was a _lot_ of potential for the promo to be
misleading on this point. IIRC, we saw very few actual lines of dialogue
being spoken by the actors, so it's hard to match events to reactions,
and it would be very easy for them to misrepresent the sequence in which
events/dialogue occurred and the time over which they took place. All
the Cordy friendliness with Harmony could easily have occurred before her
discovery that she was a vamp--heck, it could all happen in the teaser
or first act of the show, and the rest of the episode could be devoted to
other plot complications, rather than Cordy's trying to reconcile herself
to killing Harmony.
>Then there's the very real prospect of yet another
>evil (albeit not very bright) evil thing sent packing as opposed to
>any one of Our Heroes putting the business end of a pointy stick to
>good use.
Now here there is unquestionably reason to worry.
> But lots o'Charisma and a heavy dose of Mercedes McNab, so
>there is an up side.
I think Harmony has said her piece. She was funny in "The Real Me," which
I rewatched last night, but that shtick only has so long a shelf life.
--Sarah T., kicking herself for having looked at a spoiler picture last
night
Tim Minear
Carl Fink
> Mxyzptlk. Mister.
Pronounced mix-yez-pit-el-ik.
--
Carl Fink webm...@darkspawn.com
DARKSPAWN, the first epic vampire fantasy
<http://www.darkspawn.com/>
Terry McNeal
Allusions to the second-season arc, spoilers for the trailer for
"Disharmony."
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 05:45:49 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>In article <irefdtcskf91jvp3c...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:59:21 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>:: O.K., why are you dreading "Disharmony"?
>:
>: I didn't think you'd take me up on the offer. Well, if you promise not
>: to flame *any* body parts off...
>
>Maybe a shake of the head and a tut-tut. :)
Thanks. I was sure there'd be a reference to self-flagellation at
least. ;-)
>: I expect "Disharmony" will be Cordelia's version of Angel's obsession
>: with redeeming Darla. But because Harmony's already a lost cause,
>: it'll involve all the negative aspects of his quest with no
>: possibility for a positive outcome. Since this will no doubt be
>: brought to Cordelia's attention (as in the promo), once again we'll
>: have a story heavily dependent on Cordy disproving her claimed
>: graduation ranking.
>
>Hm. While they sometimes make Cordelia oblivious, I figured that
>particular part of the promo was deliberately misleading, since hinting
>that Cordelia will ignore danger would be the most blatant way to
>provoke tension in the viewers. The people who put the promos together
>seem to be under orders to take material from the episodes so as to
>imply the maximum amount of danger while still managing to use a few
>bits of the actual plot (but not necessarily in an accurate manner).
Sure. My assumption that Cordy would be warned against the wisdom
taking Harmony at her word is based on more than the promo. It's
something that would need to happen to make the parallels with Angel
and Darla complete. And there is one shot in the promo of Harmony at
Caritas, so I guess even the Host will get in on the act. I don't
know, (obviously), maybe Cordy will think she can control Harmony as
she once did. At least hubris is a more interesting character flaw
than obliviousness.
>: Then there's the very real prospect of yet another evil (albeit not
>: very bright) evil thing sent packing as opposed to any one of Our
>: Heroes putting the business end of a pointy stick to good use.
>
>Unfortunately, that strikes me as likely based on past performance on
>both _Angel_ and _Buffy_.
I have hopes for Harmony getting dusted only because Cordelia is not
as sentimental as Angel, so she may actually do what needs to be done.
But it's a small hope flying against history.
>: ISTR Joss mentioning a deliberate effort to balance light and dark
>: _Buffy_ and _Angel_ episodes at some point; at the William S. Paley
>: festival I think. I guess the desire for balance goes on.
>
>It seems to me that _Angel_ is getting second-class status in this
>regard, and unless Whedon breaks with past patterns, _Buffy_ is likely
>to stay fairly heavy through the end of the season.
Agreed. When I read the comment, it occurred to me it was a compelling
arguement for putting the two shows on seperate nights, if not
seperate networks.
Terry
Micky DuPree
"Crushed"; _Angel_, "City of," the second-season arc through "Epiphany."
Much ado about "Disharmony," but apart from the WB trailer, no genuine
spoilers. So we've been reduced to this, have we? :)
In article <ulajdt87uqfn1r2ot...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 05:45:49 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:: In article <irefdtcskf91jvp3c...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
:: <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
::: Well, if you promise not to flame *any* body parts off...
::
:: Maybe a shake of the head and a tut-tut. :)
:
: Thanks. I was sure there'd be a reference to self-flagellation at
: least. ;-)
Do you frequent the so-called genuine spoiler sites? And if Stephen
manages to convince me he enjoys self-flagellation, I'll drop the
subject. I'm telling myself now that the Wizard of Oz angle has to do
with demons who resemble Munchkins. ;)
::: I expect "Disharmony" will be Cordelia's version of Angel's
::: obsession with redeeming Darla. But because Harmony's already a lost
::: cause, it'll involve all the negative aspects of his quest with no
::: possibility for a positive outcome. [....]
:: While they sometimes make Cordelia oblivious, I figured that
:: particular part of the promo was deliberately misleading, since
:: hinting that Cordelia will ignore danger would be the most blatant
:: way to provoke tension in the viewers. [....]
: Sure. My assumption that Cordy would be warned against the wisdom [of]
: taking Harmony at her word is based on more than the promo. It's
: something that would need to happen to make the parallels with Angel
: and Darla complete.
Um, why would they need to involve Cordelia and Harmony in order to make
a statement about Angel and Darla? I can see where you *could* plot a
story along those lines in order to draw a parallel (with the attendant
problems you mention), but it hadn't occurred to me until you brought it
up that the writers might want to. I don't see where it would
illuminate anything in the Angel/Darla story, unless it was some sort of
reaction to the idea that Angel was just dumb and whipped for not
dropping Darla like a hot potato right from the beginning, as if to say,
"See, it's an easy mistake to make. Cordelia's just made it too." I
don't have an inside line, but if it makes you feel any better, I
haven't gotten any sense at all that the story is the least bit
interested in going in that direction.
There are other ways they can handle the "Oh no, Harmony is now a
vampire" bit without Cordelia insisting that she is somehow able to
redeem the soulless. E.g., Harmony could claim to have a chip like
Spike's, or could claim to be a Russell Winters type of vampire that
will honor contracts, or could claim to have been cursed by gypsies
(although I *really* doubt that one). _Angel_ has done wonders with
_Buffy's_ misfit toys, and I'm kind of looking forward to seeing what
they do with Harmony.
: And there is one shot in the promo of Harmony at Caritas, so I guess
: even the Host will get in on the act. I don't know, (obviously), maybe
: Cordy will think she can control Harmony as she once did.
If Cordelia has trouble with the idea of killing an unrepentant vamp-
Harmony, that would cast major doubt on her previous claims to be able
to kill a reemergent Angelus should the need arise.
: At least hubris is a more interesting character flaw than
: obliviousness.
Heh. Very true.
: I have hopes for Harmony getting dusted only because Cordelia is not
: as sentimental as Angel, so she may actually do what needs to be done.
It's one of the major characterization differences between Cordelia and
Angel (and, well, between Cordelia and almost everyone else too, for
that matter). My personal take is that they want to preserve those
contrasts, not make all the White Hats into Angel.
: But it's a small hope flying against history.
Ah, but if they have their hearts dead set on letting Harmony walk, they
at least have the option of writing it so that Cordelia intends to stake
Harmony in the end, but is prevented from doing so by intervening
circumstance. That's not a claim that Angel and Buffy can make in re
their recent failures. It would still look like the vamps with major
speaking parts lead charmed un-lives, but at least it wouldn't be at the
expense of Cordelia's apparent I.Q.
:: It seems to me that _Angel_ is getting second-class status in this
:: regard, and unless Whedon breaks with past patterns, _Buffy_ is
:: likely to stay fairly heavy through the end of the season.
:
: Agreed. When I read the comment, it occurred to me it was a compelling
: arguement for putting the two shows on seperate nights, if not
: seperate networks.
I'd be happy if they just bumped _Angel_ up to 10 PM, but I guess too
many affiliates like to run news at 10, and I imagine that in spite of
their warnings, the WB doesn't mind if some under-14s watch both _Buffy_
and _Angel_.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
-Micky
Tim Minear
We've finished shooting. There's one day of second unit pick ups, and we're
all feverishly cloistered away in our editing rooms.
Micky DuPree
timm...@aol.com (Tim Minear) writes:
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: Have y'all wrapped for the season yet?
: We've finished shooting. There's one day of second unit pick ups, and
: we're all feverishly cloistered away in our editing rooms.
When the hubbub dies down, maybe tell us what it was like to direct
another episode?
-Micky
William George Ferguson
>In article <20010415032724...@ng-xc1.aol.com>, Tim Minear wrote:
>> Mxyzptlk. Mister.
>
>Pronounced mix-yez-pit-el-ik.
I thought it was pronounced kilt-ip-zex es-im
oops
<pop>
--
"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
Terry McNeal
_Angel_, "Rm w/a Vu" and "Darla". Vague references to Cordelia and
Harmony throughout BtVS, specific mentions of "Bewitched, Bothered,
and Bewildered" and "The Wish".
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:53:07 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>Spoilers for _Buffy_, "The Harsh Light of Day," "The Initiative,"
>"Crushed"; _Angel_, "City of," the second-season arc through "Epiphany."
>Much ado about "Disharmony," but apart from the WB trailer, no genuine
>spoilers. So we've been reduced to this, have we? :)
A day and a half, or thereabouts. ::Sigh::
>In article <ulajdt87uqfn1r2ot...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 05:45:49 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>:: In article <irefdtcskf91jvp3c...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
>:: <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>::: Well, if you promise not to flame *any* body parts off...
>::
>:: Maybe a shake of the head and a tut-tut. :)
>:
>: Thanks. I was sure there'd be a reference to self-flagellation at
>: least. ;-)
>
>Do you frequent the so-called genuine spoiler sites?
No. I do read and occasionally post to a message board that claims to
be a spoiler board, but the participants clearly label spoiler threads
as such, so it isn't any worse than reading this or any other
newsgroup. Actually, it has an involved moderator who kills unwelcomed
threads ruthlessly, so there's one element that makes it better in
regard to spoilers. The rest is discussion not unlike the Bronze, but
without the official stamp of approval and with less socializing. And
bonus, Tim Minear occasionally posts there as well.
On the off-chance you're interested, it's at
<http://www.voy.com/14810/>, hosted by
<http://www.angelicslayer.com/angelsoul/>.
But probably "no" was enough, right?
> I'm telling myself now that the Wizard of Oz angle has to do
>with demons who resemble Munchkins. ;)
"We represent the Apocalypse Guild, the Apocalypse Guild, the
Apocalypse Guild..."
>: Sure. My assumption that Cordy would be warned against the wisdom [of]
>: taking Harmony at her word is based on more than the promo. It's
>: something that would need to happen to make the parallels with Angel
>: and Darla complete.
>
>Um, why would they need to involve Cordelia and Harmony in order to make
>a statement about Angel and Darla? I can see where you *could* plot a
>story along those lines in order to draw a parallel (with the attendant
>problems you mention), but it hadn't occurred to me until you brought it
>up that the writers might want to. I don't see where it would
>illuminate anything in the Angel/Darla story, unless it was some sort of
>reaction to the idea that Angel was just dumb and whipped for not
>dropping Darla like a hot potato right from the beginning, as if to say,
>"See, it's an easy mistake to make. Cordelia's just made it too." I
>don't have an inside line, but if it makes you feel any better, I
>haven't gotten any sense at all that the story is the least bit
>interested in going in that direction.
Mostly it appears to me there are a lot of parallels between Angel and
Cordelia as characters, two sides of the same coin as it were. They're
from similar socio-economic backgrounds, excluding the culture shock
of two centuries, one continent, and one ocean. They both squandered
their youth, both are a touch too self-centered for their own good.
(What's that you say? Angel? Self-centered? Yes, "look at me, I'm so
cool" and "don't look at me, I was so evil" are both all about me. Me,
me, me, me.) Both came to embrace the good fight after magic-induced
traumatic events, though there was a bigger time gap in Angel's case.
Heck, they've even both been run though with a piece of rebar.
There also seems to be enough similarity between Angel's relationship
to Darla and Cordelia's to Harmony that I can see "Disharmony" as an
effort to shed some light on Angel and Darla. Cordy and Harmony cut a
bloody swath through Sunnydale High much like Angel and Darla did
through Europe. When Cordy found something better to latch on to, she
was cut from the herd, (well, Cordy did the initial cutting), and when
Cordy tried to resume her life among the popular, Harmony kicked her
to the curb much as Darla rejected Angel. (Since by Buffy's account
Harmony made a mess of her reign as Queen of SHS, I guess we have an
example of a human acting against her own best interests. ;) ) So, to
boldly hazard a WAG, I'd put "Disharmony" at mirroring Angel and Darla
from China to "Epiphany".
It may be the writer's intention for "Disharmony" is to take the
Angel-Darla arc down from a complex situation involving plans within
plans to something on a more human level, with that supernatural
twist, of course, to make the arc easier for us mere mortals who don't
have 200 lawyers screwing with our heads to understand.
Alternatively, the intention may be no more than it was for "Rm w/a
Vu", which had Cordy repeat the bare-bones of Angel's experience in
"Amends". I'm not sure if "Rm w/a Vu" did anything to illuminate
"Amends" or if it just kept the score even.
The meta question also plays a part; where's the Angel of it in
"Disharmony"?
Admittedly, since our knowledge of much of Angel's and Darla's
relationship is a new revelation, it may all be coincidence, or I may
be building another mountain out of that thar' molehill. I do find it
amusing to think the whole Darla arc may have been derived from the
relationship between two characters who initially only provided
background to the high school experience. Hey, I make my own fun.
Now, wanna hear my mental fanfic wherein the baby Angel rescued in
China turns out to be Cordelia's great-grandfather? :)
>There are other ways they can handle the "Oh no, Harmony is now a
>vampire" bit without Cordelia insisting that she is somehow able to
>redeem the soulless. E.g., Harmony could claim to have a chip like
>Spike's, or could claim to be a Russell Winters type of vampire that
>will honor contracts, or could claim to have been cursed by gypsies
>(although I *really* doubt that one).
Subterfuge seems beyond Harmony's capabilities, though. Maybe the chip
thing since it wouldn't require actual original thought.
> _Angel_ has done wonders with _Buffy's_ misfit toys, and I'm kind of
>looking forward to seeing what they do with Harmony.
For the most part, I am as well.
>: And there is one shot in the promo of Harmony at Caritas, so I guess
>: even the Host will get in on the act. I don't know, (obviously), maybe
>: Cordy will think she can control Harmony as she once did.
>
>If Cordelia has trouble with the idea of killing an unrepentant vamp-
>Harmony, that would cast major doubt on her previous claims to be able
>to kill a reemergent Angelus should the need arise.
I'd have to think the "Cordy's so lonely" element recently introduced
may come into play.
>: I have hopes for Harmony getting dusted only because Cordelia is not
>: as sentimental as Angel, so she may actually do what needs to be done.
>
>It's one of the major characterization differences between Cordelia and
>Angel (and, well, between Cordelia and almost everyone else too, for
>that matter). My personal take is that they want to preserve those
>contrasts, not make all the White Hats into Angel.
One would hope. Though I gather Shanna would appreciate Wesley in
black leather more often. (Hi, Shanna.)
>: But it's a small hope flying against history.
>
>Ah, but if they have their hearts dead set on letting Harmony walk, they
>at least have the option of writing it so that Cordelia intends to stake
>Harmony in the end, but is prevented from doing so by intervening
>circumstance. That's not a claim that Angel and Buffy can make in re
>their recent failures. It would still look like the vamps with major
>speaking parts lead charmed un-lives, but at least it wouldn't be at the
>expense of Cordelia's apparent I.Q.
True. Ah, for the good old days when ME provided a reason why the bad
guy continued to exist.
>I'd be happy if they just bumped _Angel_ up to 10 PM, but I guess too
>many affiliates like to run news at 10, and I imagine that in spite of
>their warnings, the WB doesn't mind if some under-14s watch both _Buffy_
>and _Angel_.
I'd wager they count on it.
Terry
Micky DuPree
"Crushed"; _Angel_, "Rm w/ a Vu," "Somnambulist," "The Prodigal," the
second season arc, and the trailer for "Disharmony."
In article <q3nkdt4cpub26ssl5...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:53:07 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:: Do you frequent the so-called genuine spoiler sites?
: No. I do read and occasionally post to a message board that claims to
: be a spoiler board, but the participants clearly label spoiler threads
: as such, so it isn't any worse than reading this or any other
: newsgroup.
: On the off-chance you're interested, it's at
: <http://www.voy.com/14810/>, hosted by
: <http://www.angelicslayer.com/angelsoul/>.
Might be. I've heard of it, but figured that they wouldn't call
themselves a spoiler board if their main interest weren't spoilers. I'm
intrigued by the notion of a moderated forum.
:: I'm telling myself now that the Wizard of Oz angle has to do with
:: demons who resemble Munchkins. ;)
:
: "We represent the Apocalypse Guild, the Apocalypse Guild, the
: Apocalypse Guild..."
lol. Actually, I'd pay to see that, which I guess proves that one
should remain open to extreme possibilities.
:: Um, why would they need to involve Cordelia and Harmony in order to
:: make a statement about Angel and Darla? [snip]
: Mostly it appears to me there are a lot of parallels between Angel and
: Cordelia as characters, two sides of the same coin as it were. They're
: from similar socio-economic backgrounds, excluding the culture shock
: of two centuries, one continent, and one ocean. They both squandered
: their youth, both are a touch too self-centered for their own good.
Mm, I'm seeing a lot of differences too, though, and in some cases,
gaps. Liam was living down to his father's expectations. Cordy? Hard
to say (although I've often echoed Buffy's remark, "Do you [even] have
parents?"). Angelus destroyed his family. Cordelia's folks brought
themselves low.
: There also seems to be enough similarity between Angel's relationship
: to Darla and Cordelia's to Harmony that I can see "Disharmony" as an
: effort to shed some light on Angel and Darla.
But did Harmony make Cordelia into Queen C? Did Cordelia start out
beige, a slacker, and then turn really bitchy? I'm kinda seeing a
lot of differences there too.
: Alternatively, the intention may be no more than it was for "Rm w/a
: Vu", which had Cordy repeat the bare-bones of Angel's experience in
: "Amends". I'm not sure if "Rm w/a Vu" did anything to illuminate
: "Amends" or if it just kept the score even.
I've recently rewatched it. (I've been going through the first-season
eps. again since many of them I've still only seen once and without
benefit of the VCR's capabilities.) I see parallels, but also enough
differences to make for a contrast. Cordelia pulled herself out of her
tailspin in "Rm," whereas Angel needed the magic snow. Angel latched
onto a sense of outer destiny (for better or worse), whereas Cordelia
reclaimed her inner bitch (also for better or worse). Angel became
penance-directed (fbow), whereas Cordelia reaffirmed her old WASP
Princess sense of entitlement through materialism (fbow).
That sense of materialistic entitlement came through stronger to me this
time, which, while in character, was a bit depressing. It's the
superficial kind of karmic balancing that I suspect Angel's personal
story is going to run counter to: i.e., the idea that if you've suffered
enough to pay off your past sins, then you are rewarded with a higher
standard of living or better fortune in your material life. The obvious
corollary is that if you don't have a higher standard of living, then
it's because you don't deserve it, which I find morally repugnant (just
look at Xander, or at Gunn's gang, or at Anne's kids).
: The meta question also plays a part; where's the Angel of it in
: "Disharmony"?
Based on the probably misleading promo and your speculation, my first
guess is that he still hasn't rid himself of all his tendencies to
project. He may think that Cordelia's making the same mistake with
Harmony that he made with Darla, but it turns out that she's not.
Second guess: maybe he's actually right about trying to warn Cor about
Harmony, but he's way overdrawn at the credibility bank, so now no one
believes his judgment even when he's right.
BTW, this is all probably so far from what's going to be aired that it
won't even bear a mild resemblance. :)
: I do find it amusing to think the whole Darla arc may have been
: derived from the relationship between two characters who initially
: only provided background to the high school experience. Hey, I make my
: own fun.
I'll say.
: Now, wanna hear my mental fanfic wherein the baby Angel rescued in
: China turns out to be Cordelia's great-grandfather? :)
Sure. I've been curious about that baby myself, but I haven't come up
with any plausible way to relate it to Angel in the present. It would
have been impractical for him to do anything with it apart from leave it
with other missionaries as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
:: If Cordelia has trouble with the idea of killing an unrepentant vamp-
:: Harmony, that would cast major doubt on her previous claims to be
:: able to kill a reemergent Angelus should the need arise.
:
: I'd have to think the "Cordy's so lonely" element recently introduced
: may come into play.
I didn't see her as quite that desperate, though. If anything, Wes
looked to be in worse shape than Cor, and I can't see him taking up with
a soulless murderer just for the company.
:: My personal take is that they want to preserve those contrasts, not
:: make all the White Hats into Angel.
:
: One would hope. Though I gather Shanna would appreciate Wesley in
: black leather more often. (Hi, Shanna.)
I'd be curious to see a Dark Wesley arc myself, if only because I'm
having such a difficult time imagining it.
:: Ah, but if they have their hearts dead set on letting Harmony walk,
:: they at least have the option of writing it so that Cordelia intends
:: to stake Harmony in the end, but is prevented from doing so by
:: intervening circumstance.
: True. Ah, for the good old days when ME provided a reason why the bad
: guy continued to exist.
At least Angel's reluctance to kill his "family" is consistent with past
characterization. I don't know what drug Spike slipped Buffy to make
her suddenly sentimental about unchipped vampires.
:: I'd be happy if they just bumped _Angel_ up to 10 PM, but I guess too
:: many affiliates like to run news at 10, and I imagine that in spite
:: of their warnings, the WB doesn't mind if some under-14s watch both
:: _Buffy_ and _Angel_.
:
: I'd wager they count on it.
You mean the advertisers don't mind if they saturate 12-year-olds with
junk food commercials and a precocious yearning to wear makeup? I can
feel my soul turning cynical at the very thought ...
Actually, while I kind of wish they'd put _Buffy_ out of my misery,
pragmatically it's probably an important crutch for _Angel's_ ratings as
the lead-in. Artistically, I think it would be a good idea to get more
separation between the two, but commercially, _Angel_ is still _Buffy's_
baby brother. Sever the two, and it's undoubtedly _Angel_ that will
suffer for it.
-Micky
Terry McNeal
Prom", "The Harsh Light of Day", "Crush"; _Angel_, "Rm w/ a Vu",
"Somnambulist", "The Prodigal", "Darla", "Reprise", "Epiphany", the
second season arc, the trailer for "Disharmony", the 1939 movie
version of "The Wizard of Oz", a line from "The Adventures of Tom
Sawyer", a bit of idle speculation, the secret plans of Madison
Avenue, and is it Tuesday yet?
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:56:18 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>In article <q3nkdt4cpub26ssl5...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:53:07 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>: On the off-chance you're interested, it's at
>: <http://www.voy.com/14810/>, hosted by
>: <http://www.angelicslayer.com/angelsoul/>.
>
>Might be. I've heard of it, but figured that they wouldn't call
>themselves a spoiler board if their main interest weren't spoilers. I'm
>intrigued by the notion of a moderated forum.
She (AngelX) hosts two boards, a message board that tends to gather a
lot of dust and the spoiler board. When I first came across the site,
(End of season one. I figured any spoilers I saw were moot by then.),
I assumed the spoiler board was called that because all the
discussion surrounding past episodes and the attendent ficcish
speculation is confined to that board. (Ficcish speculation? The
horrors!) Pure "I heard in episode eight Gunn spontaneously combusts!"
posts are rare, and I can't recall ever seeing a spoiler in a subject
line.
>:: I'm telling myself now that the Wizard of Oz angle has to do with
>:: demons who resemble Munchkins. ;)
>:
>: "We represent the Apocalypse Guild, the Apocalypse Guild, the
>: Apocalypse Guild..."
>
>lol. Actually, I'd pay to see that, which I guess proves that one
>should remain open to extreme possibilities.
True, but I think we've ample evidence a musical version of _Angel_
wouldn't be easy on the ears. ;-)
>:: Um, why would they need to involve Cordelia and Harmony in order to
>:: make a statement about Angel and Darla? [snip]
>
>: Mostly it appears to me there are a lot of parallels between Angel and
>: Cordelia as characters, two sides of the same coin as it were. They're
>: from similar socio-economic backgrounds, excluding the culture shock
>: of two centuries, one continent, and one ocean. They both squandered
>: their youth, both are a touch too self-centered for their own good.
>
>Mm, I'm seeing a lot of differences too, though, and in some cases,
>gaps. Liam was living down to his father's expectations. Cordy? Hard
>to say (although I've often echoed Buffy's remark, "Do you [even] have
>parents?").
I know some believe Cordelia was the apple of Daddy's eye, but I think
if Cordelia making out would cause her father to lose his image of her
as a good girl, he may have set some unrealistic standards . And if he
just set standards without providing instruction on how to meet them,
you might have "Do you [even] have parents?" All pure speculation on
my part, of course.
>Angelus destroyed his family. Cordelia's folks brought
>themselves low.
True, but again I amuse myself by believing it had something to do
with a poorly established trust fund for Cordelia, so in a convoluted
"blame someone else" kind of way, (and it isn't like Cordelia hasn't
shown that trait), it'd be Cordelia's fault.
>: There also seems to be enough similarity between Angel's relationship
>: to Darla and Cordelia's to Harmony that I can see "Disharmony" as an
>: effort to shed some light on Angel and Darla.
>
>But did Harmony make Cordelia into Queen C? Did Cordelia start out
>beige, a slacker, and then turn really bitchy? I'm kinda seeing a
>lot of differences there too.
I agree it isn't a point-for-point parallel. My own fanwanking has
Cordelia pursuing popularity to win approval from her mother, who was
living vicariously through her daughter. But no matter the reason
Cordelia became what she became, I'd say Harmony was a facilitator to
much of it, as Darla facilitated Angel's excesses.
>I've recently rewatched ["Rm w/a Vu"]. (I've been going through the first-season
>eps. again since many of them I've still only seen once and without
>benefit of the VCR's capabilities.) I see parallels, but also enough
>differences to make for a contrast. Cordelia pulled herself out of her
>tailspin in "Rm," whereas Angel needed the magic snow. Angel latched
>onto a sense of outer destiny (for better or worse), whereas Cordelia
>reclaimed her inner bitch (also for better or worse). Angel became
>penance-directed (fbow), whereas Cordelia reaffirmed her old WASP
>Princess sense of entitlement through materialism (fbow).
Agreed the reactions to the events were different, but a coin isn't
identical on both sides, nor is it easy to find two people who'll
react the same way to the same (or similar) experience(s).
>That sense of materialistic entitlement came through stronger to me this
>time, which, while in character, was a bit depressing. It's the
>superficial kind of karmic balancing that I suspect Angel's personal
>story is going to run counter to: i.e., the idea that if you've suffered
>enough to pay off your past sins, then you are rewarded with a higher
>standard of living or better fortune in your material life. The obvious
>corollary is that if you don't have a higher standard of living, then
>it's because you don't deserve it, which I find morally repugnant (just
>look at Xander, or at Gunn's gang, or at Anne's kids).
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you're depressed
because the story endorsed this material view or because Cordelia did?
I thought it was the latter initially, but the part about karmic
balancing is throwing me off. All Cordelia ended up with was what she
had been legally entitled to from the start, so I don't see where she
was rewarded as the result of any suffering on her part.
[Snipped answers to the question, where's the Angel of it in
"Disharmony"?]
>BTW, this is all probably so far from what's going to be aired that it
>won't even bear a mild resemblance. :)
:) I agree.
>: I do find it amusing to think the whole Darla arc may have been
>: derived from the relationship between two characters who initially
>: only provided background to the high school experience. Hey, I make my
>: own fun.
>
>I'll say.
I can't wait to see what I have to come up with to survive the
writer's strike. :0
>: Now, wanna hear my mental fanfic wherein the baby Angel rescued in
>: China turns out to be Cordelia's great-grandfather? :)
>
>Sure. I've been curious about that baby myself, but I haven't come up
>with any plausible way to relate it to Angel in the present. It would
>have been impractical for him to do anything with it apart from leave it
>with other missionaries as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Under the assumption Angel would try to get the baby out of China, it
involves Angel finding the first tramp steamer leaving the country,
and that the ship happens to be bound for San Francisco. Angel
convinces the fleeing and childless Chase's to take the child with
them before he hides on the ship himself. But there is a problem in
getting Angel to the U.S. too early for Giles' "about eighty years
ago", which would imply Angel didn't get here until
nineteen-something-teen.
>:: If Cordelia has trouble with the idea of killing an unrepentant vamp-
>:: Harmony, that would cast major doubt on her previous claims to be
>:: able to kill a reemergent Angelus should the need arise.
>:
>: I'd have to think the "Cordy's so lonely" element recently introduced
>: may come into play.
>
>I didn't see her as quite that desperate, though. If anything, Wes
>looked to be in worse shape than Cor, and I can't see him taking up with
>a soulless murderer just for the company.
Well, Cordy is an actress. ;) I doubt loneliness would be the entire
reason Cordelia might accept Harmony's claim to wanting to become a
good guy. I see it as more of a contributing factor.
>I'd be curious to see a Dark Wesley arc myself, if only because I'm
>having such a difficult time imagining it.
I imagine Denisof would do a heck of a job with it, but I can't see
how they'd get Wesley to that point.
>At least Angel's reluctance to kill his "family" is consistent with past
>characterization. I don't know what drug Spike slipped Buffy to make
>her suddenly sentimental about unchipped vampires.
True, and to be fair, I don't think Angel's decision to let Darla go
in "Epiphany" was all that egregious either. Yes, one would think
Angel has been around the block enough times to know better, but there
is that huge disparity between Angel's emotional and physical ages.
>You mean the advertisers don't mind if they saturate 12-year-olds with
>junk food commercials and a precocious yearning to wear makeup? I can
>feel my soul turning cynical at the very thought ...
Now I feel guilty.
>Actually, while I kind of wish they'd put _Buffy_ out of my misery,
>pragmatically it's probably an important crutch for _Angel's_ ratings as
>the lead-in. Artistically, I think it would be a good idea to get more
>separation between the two, but commercially, _Angel_ is still _Buffy's_
>baby brother. Sever the two, and it's undoubtedly _Angel_ that will
>suffer for it.
Probably, but projecting at least five years for _Angel_, I'd have to
think _Buffy_ will be gone at some point whether the WB gets _Buffy_
back or not. Nine years is a long time, and, to paraphrase Mark Twain,
at some point the story would have to stop being that of a girl and
become that of a woman. At that point, I wonder where the seperation
of _Buffy_'s and _Angel_'s stories would be.
Terry
Shanna
>(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>>It's one of the major characterization differences between Cordelia and
>>Angel (and, well, between Cordelia and almost everyone else too, for
>>that matter). My personal take is that they want to preserve those
>>contrasts, not make all the White Hats into Angel.
>
>One would hope. Though I gather Shanna would appreciate Wesley in
>black leather more often. (Hi, Shanna.)
I don't mind the black leather jacket, but for me it's a tuxedo. How many times
do I have to threaten, plead, beg or bribe? The chocolate chip cookie offer
still stands, just in case Our Resident Scribe is listening. I want to see the
"new" Wes in a tux. The others can have the black leather.
Shanna
enjoying my own mental fanfic
Shanna
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:56:18 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>I'd be curious to see a Dark Wesley arc myself, if only because I'm
>>having such a difficult time imagining it.
>
>I imagine Denisof would do a heck of a job with it, but I can't see
>how they'd get Wesley to that point.
One word: Dad.
That might do the trick for making him snap, or at least just piss him off
really severely.
Or another confrontation with the Council, possibly with some tie to Dear Old
Dad.
I don't know that I see him capable of going really Dark, but I think we've
seen hints that he is capable of some degree of darkness and ruthlessness when
he's driven to that point. And if someone wanted to mess with his mind, it
would be pretty easy to mess with.
Shanna
Cindy
In article <gmtmdtor5ml4go62p...@4ax.com>,
Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> wrote:
>Spoilers for BtVS, "Angel", "Phases", "Homecoming", "Amends", "The
>Prom", "The Harsh Light of Day", "Crush"; _Angel_, "Rm w/ a Vu",
>"Somnambulist", "The Prodigal", "Darla", "Reprise", "Epiphany", the
>second season arc, the trailer for "Disharmony", the 1939 movie
>version of "The Wizard of Oz", a line from "The Adventures of Tom
>Sawyer", a bit of idle speculation, the secret plans of Madison
>Avenue, and is it Tuesday yet?
Has this (d)evolved into an unofficial competition?? :)
--Cindy
Carl Fink
About possible reasons for a Dark Wesley storyline:
> I don't know that I see him capable of going really Dark, but I think we've
> seen hints that he is capable of some degree of darkness and ruthlessness when
> he's driven to that point. And if someone wanted to mess with his mind, it
> would be pretty easy to mess with.
Actually, not. As I've posted about at no-doubt tedious length
before, Wes has *already* undergone the worst possible events, from
his point of view, and gotten over them.
There's one easy way to do a Dark Wesley story, though. After he
fulfills Angels' prophetic dream and kills off Darla (the sooner the
better!) Drusilla takes a page from "Daddy's" book and vamps him for
eternal vengeance, knowing that even a Demon-Wes will *hate* being a
vampire.
This also gives the writers a chance to have someone point out to
Buffy that she should have destroyed Drusilla when she had the
chance.
Sarah Trombley
Shanna <shan...@aol.com> wrote:
>Terry McNeal wrote:
>
>>(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>
>>>It's one of the major characterization differences between Cordelia and
>>>Angel (and, well, between Cordelia and almost everyone else too, for
>>>that matter). My personal take is that they want to preserve those
>>>contrasts, not make all the White Hats into Angel.
>>
>>One would hope. Though I gather Shanna would appreciate Wesley in
>>black leather more often. (Hi, Shanna.)
>
>I don't mind the black leather jacket, but for me it's a tuxedo.
Oh, Shanna, you are so misguided. Watch "First Impressions" again. I'm
a pro-tux girl myself, but that leather jacket just _transforms_ Wesley.
Mrowl.
--Sarah T.
Fiona
Shanna wrote:
>
> I don't mind the black leather jacket, but for me it's a tuxedo. How many times
> do I have to threaten, plead, beg or bribe? The chocolate chip cookie offer
> still stands, just in case Our Resident Scribe is listening. I want to see the
> "new" Wes in a tux. The others can have the black leather.
>
Be careful what you wish for. Or, at least, be more specific. A powder blue 70's
tux with frilly coloured shirt?
--
Cheers,
F
~*~By Sun & Candlelight~*~
http://www.envy.nu/bysun/home.html
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass." ~ Cordelia
Team Cordy™ #6
AussieAngelFan #2
Micky DuPree
Prom," "The Harsh Light of Day," "Pangs," "Crushed"; _Angel_, "Rm w/ a
Vu," "The Prodigal," "War Zone," "To Shanshu in L.A." "Darla,"
"Reunion," "Blood Money," "Reprise," "Epiphany," and the trailer for
"Disharmony."
In article <gmtmdtor5ml4go62p...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: is it Tuesday yet?
Now that you mention it ...
: On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:56:18 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
::: "We represent the Apocalypse Guild, the Apocalypse Guild, the
::: Apocalypse Guild..."
::
:: lol. Actually, I'd pay to see that, which I guess proves that one
:: should remain open to extreme possibilities.
:
: True, but I think we've ample evidence a musical version of _Angel_
: wouldn't be easy on the ears. ;-)
The regulars wouldn't have to be the ones to do the singing, or if they
did, it would be strictly for comic relief, e.g., Munchkin-demons
running screaming from the sound of Angel's voice. Who knew it would
prove to be his most dangerous weapon?
:: Liam was living down to his father's expectations. Cordy? Hard to
:: say (although I've often echoed Buffy's remark, "Do you [even] have
:: parents?").
:
: I know some believe Cordelia was the apple of Daddy's eye, but I think
: if Cordelia making out would cause her father to lose his image of her
: as a good girl, he may have set some unrealistic standards .
I don't have a strong mental image of Cordelia's upbringing other than
"negligent," since we've had so few indications of it. We found out
more about Angel's upbringing in a single episode than we've found out
about Cordelia's in four years.
:: Angelus destroyed his family. Cordelia's folks brought themselves
:: low.
:
: True, but again I amuse myself by believing it had something to do
: with a poorly established trust fund for Cordelia, so in a convoluted
: "blame someone else" kind of way, (and it isn't like Cordelia hasn't
: shown that trait), it'd be Cordelia's fault.
Even if it turned out that her parents blame her, I've never gotten a
sense that Cordelia blames herself for her parents' fate.
:: But did Harmony make Cordelia into Queen C? Did Cordelia start out
:: beige, a slacker, and then turn really bitchy? I'm kinda seeing a
:: lot of differences there too.
:
: I agree it isn't a point-for-point parallel. My own fanwanking has
: Cordelia pursuing popularity to win approval from her mother, who was
: living vicariously through her daughter.
If I had to fanwank, I'd be more inclined to see Cordelia's need for
attention in school as a substitute for attention she wasn't getting at
home, or at least not the right kind of attention. Getting presents and
indulgences and material things would become equivalent in her mind to
love. No strong basis for this theory, though.
: But no matter the reason Cordelia became what she became, I'd say
: Harmony was a facilitator to much of it, as Darla facilitated Angel's
: excesses.
Darla practically created Angelus.
:: I've recently rewatched ["Rm w/a Vu"]. (I've been going through the
:: first-season eps. again since many of them I've still only seen once
:: and without benefit of the VCR's capabilities.) I see parallels, but
:: also enough differences to make for a contrast. Cordelia pulled
:: herself out of her tailspin in "Rm," whereas Angel needed the magic
:: snow. Angel latched onto a sense of outer destiny (for better or
:: worse), whereas Cordelia reclaimed her inner bitch (also for better
:: or worse). Angel became penance-directed (fbow), whereas Cordelia
:: reaffirmed her old WASP Princess sense of entitlement through
:: materialism (fbow).
:
: Agreed the reactions to the events were different, but a coin isn't
: identical on both sides, nor is it easy to find two people who'll
: react the same way to the same (or similar) experience(s).
Well, if there are more contrasts than similarities, I'd be more
inclined to see the characters as foils rather than as doubles.
:: That sense of materialistic entitlement came through stronger to me
:: this time, which, while in character, was a bit depressing. It's the
:: superficial kind of karmic balancing that I suspect Angel's personal
:: story is going to run counter to: i.e., the idea that if you've
:: suffered enough to pay off your past sins, then you are rewarded with
:: a higher standard of living or better fortune in your material life.
:: The obvious corollary is that if you don't have a higher standard of
:: living, then it's because you don't deserve it, which I find morally
:: repugnant (just look at Xander, or at Gunn's gang, or at Anne's
:: kids).
:
: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you're depressed
: because the story endorsed this material view or because Cordelia did?
Because Cordelia did. I can't see the story as endorsing it, since it
runs counter to many other strains in the story. In some ways, Cordy
lives in her own private universe.
: I thought it was the latter initially, but the part about karmic
: balancing is throwing me off.
I'm just saying that's pretty much the way Cordelia herself explained
how she saw it at the beginning:
Angel goes to stand beside Cordy: "You know, this really is just a
place to live."
Cordy: "No, It's more. It's beautiful, - and if it goes away it's
like.."
Angel: "Like what?"
Cordy quietly: "Like I'm still getting punished."
Angel: "Punished. (Cordy nods) For what?"
Cordy: "I don't know. For what I was? For everything I said in
High School just because I could get away with it? - And then it
all ended, and I had to pay. - Oh, but this apartment - I could be
me again. Punishment over - welcome back to your life! Like, like
I couldn't be that awful if I get to have a place like that?"
Here she was judging her current state of worthiness not by what she was
or what she had done, but by the outward appearances of her material
life. Like Angel, she seemed to want forgiveness, but unlike Angel, she
wanted it to come easy and she kind of missed the point.
Cordy: "It's just like you!"
Angel nods: "Working for redemption."
Cordy frowns confused: "I - I meant because you used to have that
mansion."
: All Cordelia ended up with was what she had been legally entitled to
: from the start ...
How was Cordelia legally entitled to a spacious, sunny, rent-controlled
apartment from the start?
: ... so I don't see where she was rewarded as the result of any
: suffering on her part.
I don't either. In some ways, she was lucky. It's not easy to land a
rent-controlled apartment that good in a major metropolitan area. In
some ways, she *is* entitled, not because she's better than everyone who
has less, but because I think everyone's entitled to be comfortable (not
rich, just comfortable). But *legally* entitled? How does that follow?
Because her parents somehow owed her better than they gave her?
The way Cordelia seemed to see it by the end, she was entitled to have
everything her own way simply because she was indeed a bitch. She did
not come to any kind of reconciliation with being poor and still being a
decent person. She did not come to any realization that being poor did
not mean one was being punished. She did not have to find some way to
reconcile her old friends like Aura with her new reduced circumstances
and see if they'd still accept her. She just lucked into a great
apartment that allowed her to pretend that the days in which she
couldn't keep up appearances never happened.
Now you could say that the whole ghost-busting bit forced Cordy to fight
for the apartment, so it was an earned prize, but it's still a
materialistic prize. Whoopie. She regained self-confidence along the
way, but by her own words near the end, it was a self-confidence in what
she described at the beginning as having been a mean person. Rah.
I realize she's probably your favorite character, but I had a hard time
liking Cordy as a person (as opposed to as a character) until she got
whomped upside the head with a 2x4 cluestick in "Shanshu."
: Under the assumption Angel would try to get the baby out of China, it
: involves Angel finding the first tramp steamer leaving the country,
: and that the ship happens to be bound for San Francisco. Angel
: convinces the fleeing and childless Chase's to take the child with
: them before he hides on the ship himself. But there is a problem in
: getting Angel to the U.S. too early for Giles' "about eighty years
: ago", which would imply Angel didn't get here until
: nineteen-something-teen.
Handing the child over to fleeing Americans or Euros and then going
their separate ways would do the trick. Although why there would have
to be a connection between the baby and Cordelia escapes me.
: I doubt loneliness would be the entire reason Cordelia might accept
: Harmony's claim to wanting to become a good guy. I see it as more of a
: contributing factor.
Why would Harmony have to go that far to coax immunity from staking?
All Spike has to do is not actually cause any harm (and even then the
Scoobies give him enough slack to hang them with).
:: I'd be curious to see a Dark Wesley arc myself, if only because I'm
:: having such a difficult time imagining it.
:
: I imagine Denisof would do a heck of a job with it, but I can't see
: how they'd get Wesley to that point.
Oh, probably the same level of provocation that it would take to make
Angel go genuinely dark, i.e., a level they don't want to show on prime
time network TV.
:: At least Angel's reluctance to kill his "family" is consistent with
:: past characterization. I don't know what drug Spike slipped Buffy to
:: make her suddenly sentimental about unchipped vampires.
:
: True, and to be fair, I don't think Angel's decision to let Darla go
: in "Epiphany" was all that egregious either. Yes, one would think
: Angel has been around the block enough times to know better, but there
: is that huge disparity between Angel's emotional and physical ages.
It seemed to matter to Angel when "his girls" were out "painting the
town red, red, red," and yet not when Darla's life was the payment for
sex. Yes, I can completely see the argument that even though Darla is a
soulless murderer, they couldn't have avoided the image of Angel as a
callous son of a bitch if he had staked Darla right after screwing her
(<mutter, grumble> she did try to kill him first). However, they'll be
able to get away with Angel not looking like he values vampire sex over
human lives only by granting him script protection: i.e., by not having
Darla kill anyone the audience cares about before she dies. After all,
if Darla were to kill Cordy, Wesley, Gunn, or Kate, it would start to
look like giving Darla cab fare was the wrong choice. But as long as
all she kills are redshirts, it's not going to provoke nearly the same
outrage.
:: Actually, while I kind of wish they'd put _Buffy_ out of my misery,
:: pragmatically it's probably an important crutch for _Angel's_ ratings
:: as the lead-in. Artistically, I think it would be a good idea to get
:: more separation between the two, but commercially, _Angel_ is still
:: _Buffy's_ baby brother. Sever the two, and it's undoubtedly _Angel_
:: that will suffer for it.
:
: Probably, but projecting at least five years for _Angel_, I'd have to
: think _Buffy_ will be gone at some point whether the WB gets _Buffy_
: back or not.
My sense is that buying some time will help though. Give the WB time to
get more affiliates. Let the _Buffy_ reruns go into syndication on f/x,
which will undoubtedly pick up a new audience for first-run _Buffy_ and
a secondary new audience for _Angel_, who will tune in just out of
curiosity. And it wouldn't hurt if _Dark Angel_ would tank. At this
rate I don't expect to ever see _Angel_ do as well as _Buffy_ in the
Nielsens, but I'd be happier if the ratings could be nudged a little
higher before the apron strings are cut completely.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Spoiler free commentary on spoiler lists:
Not unless it's to see how far we can stray from the canon without
admitting that's what we're doing. :) I concede the spoiler list
trophy. I think Terry's more bored than I am.
-Micky
paradoxymoron
>In article <20010409105746...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
>Shanna <shan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Terry McNeal wrote:
>>
>>>Spoiler for the title of the _Angel_ season finale
>>And some spoilers for the Oz series of books.
>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:23:12 GMT, john...@hotmail.com (johndiem)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ep 22 - ??
>>>
>>>I hear this one is called "There's No Place Like Cyegm Tyeo". Make of
>>>that what you will.
>You know, I'm such an appalling geek (by history grad student standards,
>anyway) that the first thing I did was run that name through rot-13. (No
>joy.)
You too? Anyone know what "Cyegm Tyeo" means?
pdm
>--Sarah T.
Shanna
>Shanna wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't mind the black leather jacket, but for me it's a tuxedo. How many
>times
>> do I have to threaten, plead, beg or bribe? The chocolate chip cookie offer
>> still stands, just in case Our Resident Scribe is listening. I want to see
>the
>> "new" Wes in a tux. The others can have the black leather.
>>
>
>Be careful what you wish for. Or, at least, be more specific. A powder blue
>70's
>tux with frilly coloured shirt?
You're right, I should be more specific. Okay, classic black tux, white shirt
(no ruffles), black bow tie, a la James Bond, or even Wesley's tux in "The
Prom" (was it a rental, or does he own one? He seems like the kind of guy who
would own a tux.).
Pretty please.
He can still wear the black leather jacket for casual wear, though, so we can
all be happy. The black leather jacket should be worn more than once per
season, and should replace all those ugly old-man windbreakers that look like
rejects from the closet of my grandfather who died almost twenty years ago.
Shanna
John Hogan
>
> In article <gmtmdtor5ml4go62p...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
> <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
> : True, but I think we've ample evidence a musical version of _Angel_
> : wouldn't be easy on the ears. ;-)
>
> The regulars wouldn't have to be the ones to do the singing,
Marni Nixon meets Marti Noxon?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
John Hogan
Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
Shanna
Micky DuPree wrote:
Spoilers for _Buffy_, "WTTH" "Phases," "Lovers Walk," "The Prom"; _Angel_, "Rm
w/ a
Vu," "To Shanshu in L.A.," "Epiphany," and the trailer for "Disharmony."
>
>
>
>In article <gmtmdtor5ml4go62p...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>: I know some believe Cordelia was the apple of Daddy's eye, but I think
>: if Cordelia making out would cause her father to lose his image of her
>: as a good girl, he may have set some unrealistic standards .
>
>I don't have a strong mental image of Cordelia's upbringing other than
>"negligent," since we've had so few indications of it. We found out
>more about Angel's upbringing in a single episode than we've found out
>about Cordelia's in four years.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "negligent." Her parents seemed to have some
involvement in her life, even if it was kind of clueless. In "Gingerbread" she
mentioned that her mother had confiscated her black clothes and scented
candles, which might hint that her parents at least noticed stuff about her
life. She didn't act too shocked that her mother had noticed, unlike Willow,
who was freaking over her mom noticing her very existence. And her fear of what
her Daddy would think doesn't say to me that he has unrealistic standards. It's
more her perception, and I think it's consistent with being a Daddy's Little
Girl. If she's doing grown-up things, she's no longer Daddy's Little Girl and
might risk losing her status. It has to do with her idea of what being a "nice"
girl is, and what girl wants to think about her father knowing what she's doing
with boys? Just as kids prefer to think they're the result of immaculate
conception, kids sometimes would prefer their parents to think they're virgins
for life, no matter how many children they have.
>:: That sense of materialistic entitlement came through stronger to me
>:: this time, which, while in character, was a bit depressing. It's the
>:: superficial kind of karmic balancing that I suspect Angel's personal
>:: story is going to run counter to: i.e., the idea that if you've
>:: suffered enough to pay off your past sins, then you are rewarded with
>:: a higher standard of living or better fortune in your material life.
>:: The obvious corollary is that if you don't have a higher standard of
>:: living, then it's because you don't deserve it, which I find morally
>:: repugnant (just look at Xander, or at Gunn's gang, or at Anne's
>:: kids).
>:
>: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you're depressed
>: because the story endorsed this material view or because Cordelia did?
>
>Because Cordelia did. I can't see the story as endorsing it, since it
>runs counter to many other strains in the story. In some ways, Cordy
>lives in her own private universe.
But, let's face it, Cordy is the original Material Girl. In that respect, she
makes Madonna look like Mother Theresa. It's a consistent part of her character
that her focus is on material things as a symbol of worth. Consider her speech
in WTTH about having to have the most expensive thing, not necessarily because
of quality, but because the price means it's worth more. She measures value in
material terms, and she measures people in terms of their material worth.
That's the filter through which she sees the world.
>Here she was judging her current state of worthiness not by what she was
>or what she had done, but by the outward appearances of her material
>life. Like Angel, she seemed to want forgiveness, but unlike Angel, she
>wanted it to come easy and she kind of missed the point.
I don't know that I saw Cordy's conclusions in "Rm w/a Vu" as being indicative
of a greater philosophy, just maybe what was going through her head at that
time. If life has been going pretty well for you, then suddenly the rug is
pulled out from under you, it's natural to be a little fearful that maybe it's
because of something you did, and when things go better to think that maybe
you're not so bad, after all. It's a very self-centered world view, but we are
talking about Cordelia here. It was actually a pretty big leap for her to even
acknowledge that she hadn't been a terrific person her whole life. Up until
then, she'd never admitted that there was anything wrong with the way she'd
acted or treated people.
>The way Cordelia seemed to see it by the end, she was entitled to have
>everything her own way simply because she was indeed a bitch. She did
>not come to any kind of reconciliation with being poor and still being a
>decent person. She did not come to any realization that being poor did
>not mean one was being punished. She did not have to find some way to
>reconcile her old friends like Aura with her new reduced circumstances
>and see if they'd still accept her. She just lucked into a great
>apartment that allowed her to pretend that the days in which she
>couldn't keep up appearances never happened.
>
>Now you could say that the whole ghost-busting bit forced Cordy to fight
>for the apartment, so it was an earned prize, but it's still a
>materialistic prize. Whoopie. She regained self-confidence along the
>way, but by her own words near the end, it was a self-confidence in what
>she described at the beginning as having been a mean person. Rah.
>
>I realize she's probably your favorite character, but I had a hard time
>liking Cordy as a person (as opposed to as a character) until she got
>whomped upside the head with a 2x4 cluestick in "Shanshu."
I'll admit that I was totally not a Cordelia fan until the series Angel
started. I actually hoped that funeral Buffy and Willow walked past near the
end of "Lovers Walk" was Cordelia's. Then the first sympathy I felt toward
Cordelia was later in that episode when we saw her in the hospital, the haughty
mask finally gone as she was devastated by grief. I love her now. But she is
still a work in progress. My take on "Rm w/a Vu" is that the way things had
gone for her in LA had seriously undermined her self-esteem. Things had always
come easily for her. She was bright enough to do well in school without letting
studying get in the way of her social life. She got everything she wanted,
whether people, recognition or material possessions. Then suddenly, she loses
all of it. No matter how hard she tries as an actress, she doesn't get work.
The doors no longer automatically open for her just because she's Cordelia
Chase. She has no money, so she can't just buy what she wants. She's really
having to struggle and question her worth as a person, once the material things
are removed. But because she's an actress, she puts her brave face on and
pretends that all is going well. She can't face the fact that it isn't going
well at all for her. She won't admit it to her friends, and she won't admit it
to herself.
The events of this episode forced her to take a good look at it all. What she
did was find the inner strength and self confidence to stand up for herself.
She may have called it drawing upon "the bitch," but let's face it, "the bitch"
is probably what's kept her alive through all she's gone through. Yeah, she's
still material. That's a lesson she still has to learn. But so far, she's
managed to maintain that core of inner strength without the more negative side
effects that used to go with it.
She has learned empathy from her visions. She seems less concerned with
impressing others, as seen by her dwindling social life. She still has a ways
to go. Even Wesley, her staunchest defender (when she's not around) retracted
his statement that she was no longer the vain creature she once was (although
she was no longer carefree). It should be interesting to see what she learns
about the value of money and material goods along the way. You generally can't
get rid of one set of values without developing a new one to take its place,
and she's still building a new set of values.
But only a few more hours until we see where Cordy is when her Sunnydale past
catches up with her. :-)
Shanna
Terry McNeal
Two Gunmen". "The Wizard of Oz" is still in there somewhere too.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:00:49 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>In article <gmtmdtor5ml4go62p...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: is it Tuesday yet?
>
>Now that you mention it ...
Yay! And yet...
Dropped all the stuff about "Disharmony". I think I've dug myself a
deep enough hole there. (In fact, the Grand Canyon comes to mind.)
Trimmed the heck out of the rest 'cause we'll all have something new
to talk about in a couple of hours.
>: On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:56:18 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>: True, but I think we've ample evidence a musical version of _Angel_
>: wouldn't be easy on the ears. ;-)
>
>The regulars wouldn't have to be the ones to do the singing, or if they
>did, it would be strictly for comic relief, e.g., Munchkin-demons
>running screaming from the sound of Angel's voice. Who knew it would
>prove to be his most dangerous weapon?
So Angel's lousy singing voice literally brings the house down? :)
>I don't have a strong mental image of Cordelia's upbringing other than
>"negligent," since we've had so few indications of it. We found out
>more about Angel's upbringing in a single episode than we've found out
>about Cordelia's in four years.
Yeah, it's all speculation. If her parents ever showed up and turned
out to be Ozzie and Harriet incarnate, I can't think of any text that
would refute the idea. The subtext makes that image hard to swallow,
though.
>If I had to fanwank, I'd be more inclined to see Cordelia's need for
>attention in school as a substitute for attention she wasn't getting at
>home, or at least not the right kind of attention. Getting presents and
>indulgences and material things would become equivalent in her mind to
>love. No strong basis for this theory, though.
Not even:
Angel trying to lead her out: "You don't need this. It's just
a place. You're more than that."
Cordy: "How? How am I more than that?"
>: All Cordelia ended up with was what she had been legally entitled to
>: from the start ...
>
>How was Cordelia legally entitled to a spacious, sunny, rent-controlled
>apartment from the start?
>
>: ... so I don't see where she was rewarded as the result of any
>: suffering on her part.
>
>I don't either. In some ways, she was lucky. It's not easy to land a
>rent-controlled apartment that good in a major metropolitan area. In
>some ways, she *is* entitled, not because she's better than everyone who
>has less, but because I think everyone's entitled to be comfortable (not
>rich, just comfortable). But *legally* entitled? How does that follow?
>Because her parents somehow owed her better than they gave her?
Well, they do according to Jeb Bartlet. :) Sorry, I left a few key
words out of my statement. From the start of the conflict with Maude,
she was legally entitled to the apartment because she had a lease
saying she was. I'm not claiming she was entitled to it by right of
birth or anything.
>The way Cordelia seemed to see it by the end, she was entitled to have
>everything her own way simply because she was indeed a bitch. She did
>not come to any kind of reconciliation with being poor and still being a
>decent person. She did not come to any realization that being poor did
>not mean one was being punished. She did not have to find some way to
>reconcile her old friends like Aura with her new reduced circumstances
>and see if they'd still accept her. She just lucked into a great
>apartment that allowed her to pretend that the days in which she
>couldn't keep up appearances never happened.
>
>Now you could say that the whole ghost-busting bit forced Cordy to fight
>for the apartment, so it was an earned prize, but it's still a
>materialistic prize. Whoopie. She regained self-confidence along the
>way, but by her own words near the end, it was a self-confidence in what
>she described at the beginning as having been a mean person. Rah.
Okay, I understand. I just figured "Rm w/a Vu" was about getting
Cordelia back on her feet rather than curing all her ills; walking
before you run and all that. It would have been darn convienient if
she replaced all the values she grew up with in one fell swoop.
Anyway, I agree thinking if you have more stuff than someone else
you're better than they are is repugnant, but I also think it's pretty
sad when someones applies that standard to their own self-worth, so
overall I felt sympathy for Cordelia more than I did anything else. I
know she doesn't do much to deserve sympathy, but there you go.
>Handing the child over to fleeing Americans or Euros and then going
>their separate ways would do the trick. Although why there would have
>to be a connection between the baby and Cordelia escapes me.
There doesn't have to be a connection between Cordelia and the baby;
it's just something to connect the child with present day Angel. It'd
probably be more Jossian for Angel to have given the baby into the
care of Mr. and Mrs. McDonald on their way back to Oklahoma.
>After all, if Darla were to kill Cordy, Wesley, Gunn, or Kate, it
>would start to look like [Angel] giving Darla cab fare was the wrong
>choice. But as long as all she kills are redshirts, it's not going to
>provoke nearly the same outrage.
And so brainwashed am I, I automatically assume Darla won't be killing
anyone we know. Well, none of the good guys, anyway. I suppose there'd
be some poetic justice in Darla killing off Lindsey and/or Lilah.
Terry
Terry McNeal
No, just me proving I should never post while tired.
Terry
pjmc...@gate.net
Tim Minear <timm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010415032724...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
> Mxyzptlk. Mister.
Howie Mandell ?
Micky DuPree
and "Disharmony."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In article <8ohpdt04bsrk8q6on...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: Dropped all the stuff about "Disharmony". I think I've dug myself a
: deep enough hole there. (In fact, the Grand Canyon comes to mind.)
Dunno about that. You called the Cordy-lets-Harmony-walk conclusion. I
guess I was just in a state of denial that such bizarre twists could
come to _Angel_. I'm still not so sure the reason was to draw
characterization parallels between Angel/Darla and Cordelia/Harmony, so
much as to maybe allow Angel an out later down the line. I.e., when the
truth finally comes out about Angel letting Darla go and Cordelia
demands, "How could you?" Angel will be able to point to Cordelia's
behavior with Harmony and say, "There's your answer."
: On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:00:49 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:: If I had to fanwank, I'd be more inclined to see Cordelia's need for
:: attention in school as a substitute for attention she wasn't getting
:: at home, or at least not the right kind of attention. Getting
:: presents and indulgences and material things would become equivalent
:: in her mind to love. No strong basis for this theory, though.
:
: Not even:
:
: Angel trying to lead her out: "You don't need this. It's just
: a place. You're more than that."
: Cordy: "How? How am I more than that?"
It's certainly a suspicious indicator, but it's hard to draw a line
between parental cause and offspring effect without being able to
observe the parents.
::: All Cordelia ended up with was what she had been legally entitled to
::: from the start ...
::
:: How was Cordelia legally entitled to a spacious, sunny,
:: rent-controlled apartment from the start?
: From the start of the conflict with Maude, she was legally entitled to
: the apartment because she had a lease saying she was. I'm not claiming
: she was entitled to it by right of birth or anything.
I thought you meant from the start of the episode. At the start of the
episode Cordelia had a rundown apartment, which is more than some people
have. I'd argue she was entitled to clean hot and cold running water,
but cleaning up the dead bugs after the landlord has paid for the
exterminator to come through was her own problem.
:: Now you could say that the whole ghost-busting bit forced Cordy to
:: fight for the apartment, so it was an earned prize, but it's still a
:: materialistic prize. Whoopie. She regained self-confidence along
:: the way, but by her own words near the end, it was a self-confidence
:: in what she described at the beginning as having been a mean person.
:: Rah.
:
: Okay, I understand. I just figured "Rm w/a Vu" was about getting
: Cordelia back on her feet rather than curing all her ills; walking
: before you run and all that.
It's just that she seemed to at least question the way she used to act
at the beginning of the episode, but by the end, she was reaffirming the
way she used to act. In fact, if you believe the karmic model (which I
don't, but which Cordy seemed to be giving some credence to), she was
actually being rewarded for reaffirming her bitchiness. It seemed like
a step backwards. I like the episode and I think it's funny on the
whole, but that one part of it wasn't, shall we say, calculated to
uplift. Or at least not uplift me.
: It would have been darn convienient if she replaced all the values she
: grew up with in one fell swoop.
Oh yeah, I'm not complaining that they've been taking their time with
that. It's just that the one scrap of a new value she seemed to have
going into the episode seemed to get tossed to the wind by the end.
: Anyway, I agree thinking if you have more stuff than someone else
: you're better than they are is repugnant, but I also think it's pretty
: sad when someones applies that standard to their own self-worth, so
: overall I felt sympathy for Cordelia more than I did anything else.
My feeling is more pity. I like the word better than 'sympathy' for
these kinds of situations since 'sympathy' connotes someone who's acting
sympathetically. E.g., it was possible for me to feel pity for Darla
when she realized that Angel didn't lose his soul after all and was
kicking her out, even as I wanted the bitch staked. But sympathy for
that creature? Feh.
: There doesn't have to be a connection between Cordelia and the baby;
: it's just something to connect the child with present day Angel. It'd
: probably be more Jossian for Angel to have given the baby into the
: care of Mr. and Mrs. McDonald on their way back to Oklahoma.
LOL. Too true.
:: After all, if Darla were to kill Cordy, Wesley, Gunn, or Kate, it
:: would start to look like [Angel] giving Darla cab fare was the wrong
:: choice. But as long as all she kills are redshirts, it's not going
:: to provoke nearly the same outrage.
:
: And so brainwashed am I, I automatically assume Darla won't be killing
: anyone we know. Well, none of the good guys, anyway.
At this point, she can't kill any humans that the audience cares about,
not even the Black Hats. Otherwise it would seem like a time-delayed
version of the cellar all over again: Angel gives a vampire a walk and
she kills evil humans. I get the sense that Angel's supposed to do some
more suffering for other things, but not that he's supposed to get our
condemnation for letting Darla walk after boinking her.
-Micky
Micky DuPree
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: In article <gmtmdtor5ml4go62p...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
:: <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
::: True, but I think we've ample evidence a musical version of _Angel_
::: wouldn't be easy on the ears. ;-)
::
:: The regulars wouldn't have to be the ones to do the singing,
:
: Marni Nixon meets Marti Noxon?
Heh. Actually, for a dream sequence that could work. But for all we
know, the regulars can actually sing, and they do badly only when
directed to for plot purposes. (No one can sing as badly as Angel.)
What I was thinking, though, was that the guest characters could do most
of the singing around them, while the regulars got smaller, semi-spoken
things to do, like Rex Harrison sort of used to talk his way through
songs.
Way too much work, though, musicals.
-Micky
Terry McNeal
Vu," "Reunion," "Epiphany," and "Disharmony."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:12:03 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>In article <8ohpdt04bsrk8q6on...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
><tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: Dropped all the stuff about "Disharmony". I think I've dug myself a
>: deep enough hole there. (In fact, the Grand Canyon comes to mind.)
>
>Dunno about that. You called the Cordy-lets-Harmony-walk conclusion. I
>guess I was just in a state of denial that such bizarre twists could
>come to _Angel_.
Yeah. I suppose I should be pleased; Cordelia has joined the ranks of
vampire slayers, ensouled vampires, and red-headed witches. And yet
I'm not. Go figure. It was only made worse by Gunn's comments about
why they aren't killing vampires anymore.
> I'm still not so sure the reason was to draw
>characterization parallels between Angel/Darla and Cordelia/Harmony, so
>much as to maybe allow Angel an out later down the line. I.e., when the
>truth finally comes out about Angel letting Darla go and Cordelia
>demands, "How could you?" Angel will be able to point to Cordelia's
>behavior with Harmony and say, "There's your answer."
Agreed, although Angel had a reason to let Darla go, sort of. Cordelia
just let Harmony go for the hell of it. I'm sure Angel won't point
that out to her, though.
On a positive note, there were a lot of nice moments aside from
Harmony being let go. No one had to act like their brain was on
vacation, and the Host even provided what could have been construed as
his blessing to Cordelia's "Reform Harmony" campaign, although he's
getting to be more and more prophecy-like himself. I'm still puzzled
as to why Cordelia felt the need to call Willow, though. Anyway,
dreading was unnecessary, so if you want to say 'I told you so', it's
deserved. ;)
>: On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:00:49 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>:: If I had to fanwank, I'd be more inclined to see Cordelia's need for
>:: attention in school as a substitute for attention she wasn't getting
>:: at home, or at least not the right kind of attention. Getting
>:: presents and indulgences and material things would become equivalent
>:: in her mind to love. No strong basis for this theory, though.
>:
>: Not even:
>:
>: Angel trying to lead her out: "You don't need this. It's just
>: a place. You're more than that."
>: Cordy: "How? How am I more than that?"
>
>It's certainly a suspicious indicator, but it's hard to draw a line
>between parental cause and offspring effect without being able to
>observe the parents.
We'll likely never get the opportunity to observe the parents. Of
course, as time goes on, it becomes more meaningless anyway.
>::: All Cordelia ended up with was what she had been legally entitled to
>::: from the start ...
>::
>:: How was Cordelia legally entitled to a spacious, sunny,
>:: rent-controlled apartment from the start?
>
>: From the start of the conflict with Maude, she was legally entitled to
>: the apartment because she had a lease saying she was. I'm not claiming
>: she was entitled to it by right of birth or anything.
>
>I thought you meant from the start of the episode.
I figured. Again, I apologize for not being clear.
> At the start of the
>episode Cordelia had a rundown apartment, which is more than some people
>have. I'd argue she was entitled to clean hot and cold running water,
>but cleaning up the dead bugs after the landlord has paid for the
>exterminator to come through was her own problem.
Agreed.
>: It would have been darn convienient if she replaced all the values she
>: grew up with in one fell swoop.
>
>Oh yeah, I'm not complaining that they've been taking their time with
>that. It's just that the one scrap of a new value she seemed to have
>going into the episode seemed to get tossed to the wind by the end.
Well, not tossed to the wind exactly, just long delayed
semi-gratification. Cordelia was all about helping Harmony this week,
and it was especially nice to hear Cordelia acknowledge she's happier
now than in the "powerful, rich, and popular" days, even if that's
been evident for a while. Though it was a shame Gunn had to get
"dumbass" in return. Cordelia's been watching too many episodes of
_That 70's Show_.
>: Anyway, I agree thinking if you have more stuff than someone else
>: you're better than they are is repugnant, but I also think it's pretty
>: sad when someones applies that standard to their own self-worth, so
>: overall I felt sympathy for Cordelia more than I did anything else.
>
>My feeling is more pity. I like the word better than 'sympathy' for
>these kinds of situations since 'sympathy' connotes someone who's acting
>sympathetically. E.g., it was possible for me to feel pity for Darla
>when she realized that Angel didn't lose his soul after all and was
>kicking her out, even as I wanted the bitch staked. But sympathy for
>that creature? Feh.
You're correct in your use while I'm diffusing mine with unwarranted
empathy, but, again, there you go.
>At this point, [Darla] can't kill any humans that the audience cares about,
>not even the Black Hats. Otherwise it would seem like a time-delayed
>version of the cellar all over again: Angel gives a vampire a walk and
>she kills evil humans. I get the sense that Angel's supposed to do some
>more suffering for other things, but not that he's supposed to get our
>condemnation for letting Darla walk after boinking her.
True, and in a way, too bad. The ultimate in irony for Lindsey would
be his having an epiphany of his own, devising a safe way to seperate
himself from W&H, and then get vamped by Darla on his way to the
Hyperion.
Terry
Micky DuPree
"Disharmony."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
shan...@aol.com (Shanna) writes:
: Micky DuPree wrote [to Terry McNeal]:
:: I don't have a strong mental image of Cordelia's upbringing other
:: than "negligent," since we've had so few indications of it. We found
:: out more about Angel's upbringing in a single episode than we've
:: found out about Cordelia's in four years.
:
: I wouldn't go so far as to say "negligent." Her parents seemed to have
: some involvement in her life, even if it was kind of clueless.
It doesn't have to be "neglecting to pay any attention to her at all" in
order to qualify as negligent. It need only be "neglecting to give her
what she needs to be a decent human being."
::: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you're
::: depressed because the story endorsed this material view or because
::: Cordelia did?
::
:: Because Cordelia did. I can't see the story as endorsing it, since
:: it runs counter to many other strains in the story. In some ways,
:: Cordy lives in her own private universe.
:
: But, let's face it, Cordy is the original Material Girl. In that
: respect, she makes Madonna look like Mother Theresa.
I've never said otherwise. I've liked her as a character ever since she
came over to _Angel_, and "Rm w/ a Vu" is perfectly consistent with her
character. But like I said to Terry, it looked like she had a glimmer
of a new value at the beginning of that episode, but by the end of the
ep., she's completely reverted to form. That was a bit of a downer to
me. Your milage may vary.
:: Here she was judging her current state of worthiness not by what she
:: was or what she had done, but by the outward appearances of her
:: material life. Like Angel, she seemed to want forgiveness, but
:: unlike Angel, she wanted it to come easy and she kind of missed the
:: point.
:
: I don't know that I saw Cordy's conclusions in "Rm w/a Vu" as being
: indicative of a greater philosophy, just maybe what was going through
: her head at that time.
Well, not in the overarching capital-P sense of the word, but in terms
of little-p philosophy, i.e., the way you interpret life, it was the way
in which she was thinking about how her material life related to her
behavior.
: If life has been going pretty well for you, then suddenly the rug is
: pulled out from under you, it's natural to be a little fearful that
: maybe it's because of something you did, and when things go better to
: think that maybe you're not so bad, after all. It's a very
: self-centered world view, but we are talking about Cordelia here. It
: was actually a pretty big leap for her to even acknowledge that she
: hadn't been a terrific person her whole life. Up until then, she'd
: never admitted that there was anything wrong with the way she'd acted
: or treated people.
And she ceased thinking there was anything wrong with the way she'd
acted or treated people by the end of "Rm w/ a Vu." That disappointed
me. I didn't think it was inconsistent with her character. I didn't
think it made for a bad story. I'm not sure what it is you think you're
disagreeing with here unless it's that I shouldn't have a personal
reaction to Cordy's conclusion.
: The events of this episode forced her to take a good look at it
: all. What she did was find the inner strength and self confidence to
: stand up for herself. She may have called it drawing upon "the bitch,"
: but let's face it, "the bitch" is probably what's kept her alive
: through all she's gone through.
Yeah, and ain't that a shame (for her as a person, not as a character).
: Yeah, she's still material. That's a lesson she still has to learn.
: But so far, she's managed to maintain that core of inner strength
: without the more negative side effects that used to go with it.
I've liked her a lot more since "Shanshu." The contrast between her and
Harmony in "Disharmony" was interesting, and the way she described the
air pockets filling up inside her was very sympathetic.
: She has learned empathy from her visions.
Basically, Fate picked her up by the scruff of the neck and threw her in
the deep end with the rest of us. Rough, but hey, ain't it always.
: It should be interesting to see what she learns about the value of
: money and material goods along the way. You generally can't get rid of
: one set of values without developing a new one to take its place, and
: she's still building a new set of values.
Oh, I have hopes, but it doesn't change my reaction to "Rm w/ a Vu."
-Micky
Micky DuPree
"Doppelgangland," "Crush"; _Angel_, "Rm w/ a Vu," "Reunion,"
"Redefinition," "Epiphany," "Disharmony."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:12:03 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote [to Terry McNeal]:
:: You called the Cordy-lets-Harmony-walk conclusion. I guess I was
:: just in a state of denial that such bizarre twists could come to
:: _Angel_.
:
: Yeah. I suppose I should be pleased; Cordelia has joined the ranks of
: vampire slayers, ensouled vampires, and red-headed witches. And yet
: I'm not. Go figure.
Sometimes you pray to be wrong.
: It was only made worse by Gunn's comments about why they aren't
: killing vampires anymore.
Taking in the totality of the episode, I saw it as a very deliberate
announcement that the writers realize what they're doing and they're
quite self-consciously doing it anyway. I'm still trying to figure out
what they're trying to say, though. Simply, "This is harder than you
think"? So far, only Gunn has managed to kill the monster with a dear
one's face on the first try. Buffy's managed it on the second try when
the world was at stake. Angel managed it on the third try when Buffy
was at stake, but failed on three subsequent attempts when Buffy was not
at stake (although setting Darla on fire is worth brownie points).
Cordy's now down one attempt. The whole Scooby gang gave a pass to
vamp-Willow, although Buffy looked like she was completely able to
follow through.
And then there's Buffy giving a free pass to the Kendra-murdering
Drusilla, whom at one point Buffy was almost unwilling to give a pass to
when the world was hanging in the balance.
: I'm still puzzled as to why Cordelia felt the need to call Willow,
: though.
I thought maybe Cordelia had made several previous calls to others,
e.g., to Aura, but they all said Harmony had dropped out of sight and
that Willow was the last one to see her.
: Anyway, dreading was unnecessary, so if you want to say 'I told you
: so', it's deserved. ;)
Funny, I thought you were going to say it to me. :) On balance, it was
a very fun episode, but more seriously, I would not have predicted
Cordelia letting Harmony go in a million years, especially not right
after Harm tried to kill them all.
::: It would have been darn convienient if she replaced all the values
::: she grew up with in one fell swoop [in "Rm w/ a Vu"].
::
:: Oh yeah, I'm not complaining that they've been taking their time with
:: that. It's just that the one scrap of a new value she seemed to have
:: going into the episode seemed to get tossed to the wind by the end.
:
: Well, not tossed to the wind exactly, just long delayed
: semi-gratification. Cordelia was all about helping Harmony this week,
: and it was especially nice to hear Cordelia acknowledge she's happier
: now than in the "powerful, rich, and popular" days, even if that's
: been evident for a while.
It was nice. "I mean, that's like, substance, right?"
: Though it was a shame Gunn had to get "dumbass" in return. Cordelia's
: been watching too many episodes of _That 70's Show_.
Even I cut Cordy a lot of slack when she's having or just had a vision.
When pain talks, it often snaps.
:: I get the sense that Angel's supposed to do some more suffering for
:: other things, but not that he's supposed to get our condemnation for
:: letting Darla walk after boinking her.
:
: True, and in a way, too bad. The ultimate in irony for Lindsey would
: be his having an epiphany of his own, devising a safe way to seperate
: himself from W&H, and then get vamped by Darla on his way to the
: Hyperion.
Ow. That would be heartbreaking.
-Micky
Chelsea Christenson
I'm not convinced this is the fault of her upbringing. Teenagers can choose
from among a number of roles or cliques; Cordelia chose to be popular. (I
have a feeling her parents didn't disapprove of her choice, though.) That
requires meeting the expectations of her peers -- and at that stage in her
life, her peers were her strongest sources of input. The benefits of going
the popular route? Well, popularity. Also acceptance and status.
Drawbacks? She had to sacrifice those aspects of her self that didn't fit
the mold.
I think Cordelia's development shows that she's fundamentally sound -- she
had the capacity to feel empathy, for example. What she's doing now is
getting in touch with those parts of herself she closed off in order to fit
the popular mold.
Terry McNeal
"Redefinition," "Epiphany," "Disharmony."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:55:12 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
(Micky DuPree) wrote:
>Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
>
>: On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:12:03 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
>: (Micky DuPree) wrote [to Terry McNeal]:
> [Cordy not staking Harmony] was only made worse by Gunn's comments
> about why they aren't killing vampires anymore.
>Taking in the totality of the episode, I saw it as a very deliberate
>announcement that the writers realize what they're doing and they're
>quite self-consciously doing it anyway.
At the time, I couldn't get past the idea we were being given the
bird, and not a big red one. I've since worked through it.
> I'm still trying to figure out what they're trying to say, though.
> Simply, "This is harder than you think"?
That'd work for _Angel_, but they've gone way past that excuse on
_Buffy_. I know, seperate shows and all, but the effect seems to be
spilling over.
> So far, only Gunn has managed to kill the monster with a dear
> one's face on the first try. Buffy's managed it on the second try when
> the world was at stake. Angel managed it on the third try when Buffy
> was at stake, but failed on three subsequent attempts when Buffy was not
> at stake (although setting Darla on fire is worth brownie points).
> Cordy's now down one attempt. The whole Scooby gang gave a pass to
> vamp-Willow, although Buffy looked like she was completely able to
> follow through.
While I'm sure Buffy would have gone through with staking vampWillow
to save Willow's life, she agreed with Willow later on that she
couldn't just kill vampWillow.
An aside, I reviewed Alexander Thompson's transcript of
"Dopplegangland" to make sure that's what happened. I appreciate the
service he rendered, but reading his transcripts makes me appreciate
H. G. Hettinger's efforts all the more. Thought I'd mention it.
>: I'm still puzzled as to why Cordelia felt the need to call Willow,
>: though.
>
> I thought maybe Cordelia had made several previous calls to others,
> e.g., to Aura, but they all said Harmony had dropped out of sight and
> that Willow was the last one to see her.
Maybe.
>: Anyway, dreading was unnecessary, so if you want to say 'I told you
>: so', it's deserved. ;)
>
> Funny, I thought you were going to say it to me. :)
Well, except for Harmony wistfully reminiscing about the glory days,
there wasn't a lot of Angel and Darla after all. Cordelia seemed
genuinely interested in helping Harmony fill her air pockets for
Harmony's sake without overidentifying with her, and it was Harmony
who claimed Cordelia made her happy, not Cordelia claiming Harmony
didn't. 'Course we did get mistaken identity; Angel thought Darla was
still a vampire and Cordelia thought Harmony was a lesbian, so all is
not lost.
> On balance, it was a very fun episode, but more seriously, I would not
> have predicted Cordelia letting Harmony go in a million years,
> especially not right after Harm tried to kill them all.
I hate to go down the out of character road, but this does present one
of the best cases for the arguement I can recall. Even my worst case
scenario didn't have Harmony caught so dead to rights. So to speak.
>: The ultimate in irony for Lindsey would
>: be his having an epiphany of his own, devising a safe way to seperate
>: himself from W&H, and then get vamped by Darla on his way to the
>: Hyperion.
>
>Ow. That would be heartbreaking.
Well, it'll never happen then, 'cause those folks at ME are such a
fun-loving bunch, always turning out that happy, upbeat stuff. ;)
Terry
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
In article <o3qudto4bkuu1cmpi...@4ax.com>, Terry McNeal
<tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> writes:
: On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:55:12 GMT, mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply
: (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:: I'm still trying to figure out what they're trying to say, though.
:: Simply, "This is harder than you think"?
:
: That'd work for _Angel_, but they've gone way past that excuse on
: _Buffy_. I know, seperate shows and all, but the effect seems to be
: spilling over.
Maybe that's my problem, which is funny, because usually I do separate
the shows. But Buffy letting Drusilla go beats all the other vampire
walks hands down.
: An aside, I reviewed Alexander Thompson's transcript of
: "Dopplegangland" to make sure that's what happened. I appreciate the
: service he rendered, but reading his transcripts makes me appreciate
: H. G. Hettinger's efforts all the more. Thought I'd mention it.
He put a lot of effort into them, but he sometimes missed things. As an
aside, I used to give punctilious credit whenever I quoted from them,
but once Fox went after Alexander, I started being a bit more oblique.
Mutant Enemy obviously knows it's going on, but I didn't want to perhaps
shove it in Tim Minear's face.
:: On balance, it was a very fun episode, but more seriously, I would
:: not have predicted Cordelia letting Harmony go in a million years,
:: especially not right after Harm tried to kill them all.
:
: I hate to go down the out of character road, but this does present one
: of the best cases for the arguement I can recall. Even my worst case
: scenario didn't have Harmony caught so dead to rights. So to speak.
I'm wondering, maybe this is supposed to be the down side to the new
kinder, compassionate Cordelia? Is that supposed to be why we didn't
see it coming? (Yeah, I know, the very idea reminds me of my personal
motto: "Bleeding heart, not bleeding brain.")
::: The ultimate in irony for Lindsey would be his having an epiphany of
::: his own, devising a safe way to seperate himself from W&H, and then
::: get vamped by Darla on his way to the Hyperion.
::
:: Ow. That would be heartbreaking.
:
: Well, it'll never happen then, 'cause those folks at ME are such a
: fun-loving bunch, always turning out that happy, upbeat stuff. ;)
<snort> More likely what's going to save him is that he'd be a lot
duller and less conflicted as a vampire. Besides, I think Darla thinks
of him as a chump.
-Micky
paradoxymoron
>Spoilers for _Buffy_, "Angel," "Innocence," "Becoming," pt.2,
>"Doppelgangland," "Crush"; _Angel_, "War Zone", "Dear Boy", "Reunion,"
>"Redefinition," "Epiphany," "Disharmony."
>An aside, I reviewed Alexander Thompson's transcript of
>"Dopplegangland" to make sure that's what happened. I appreciate the
>service he rendered, but reading his transcripts makes me appreciate
>H. G. Hettinger's efforts all the more. Thought I'd mention it.
Is AleXander still transcripting? If that's who i think it is, then I
owe him a big, fat "thanks." Those transcripts made me feel like I
actually watched every season of BtVS instead of the past few. And
technical on the fighting lingo, too. I have a fairly good guess on
what an inside-outside axe-kick is, but the writing is fluid and
lively.
pdm
i've tried to incoperate that into my ficcing, and i've recieved an
actual complement about writing...
> Terry
Don Sample
<parado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry McNeal <tymc...@remove.this.zdnetonebox.com> wrote:
>
> >Spoilers for _Buffy_, "Angel," "Innocence," "Becoming," pt.2,
> >"Doppelgangland," "Crush"; _Angel_, "War Zone", "Dear Boy", "Reunion,"
> >"Redefinition," "Epiphany," "Disharmony."
>
> >An aside, I reviewed Alexander Thompson's transcript of
> >"Dopplegangland" to make sure that's what happened. I appreciate the
> >service he rendered, but reading his transcripts makes me appreciate
> >H. G. Hettinger's efforts all the more. Thought I'd mention it.
>
> Is AleXander still transcripting? If that's who i think it is, then I
> owe him a big, fat "thanks." Those transcripts made me feel like I
> actually watched every season of BtVS instead of the past few. And
> technical on the fighting lingo, too. I have a fairly good guess on
> what an inside-outside axe-kick is, but the writing is fluid and
> lively.
>
> pdm
Fox's lawyers shut AleXander down. Dopplegangland was the last
transcript he did (that got posted anywhere anyway) Other people have
been doing them since then, but they generally aren't as well done.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati