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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Question for Tim Minear - 3x03 Spoilers - Script queries

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tafka

unread,
Jan 31, 2002, 4:52:28 PM1/31/02
to
Originally posted back in November....

Also includes a URL natalie supplied at the time, but her & Niall both
held back from discussion until S3 was 'live'. So it is now :P

SPOILERS FOR ANGEL SERIES 3 (THREE) EPISODE 3 (THREE)
That Old Gang Of Mine written by Tim Minear

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
-
F
O
R
-
E
P
I
S
O
D
E
-
O
F
-
A
N
G
E
L
-
NOT
-
BROADCAST ON
CHANNEL 4.

Look away NOW if you have not seen 3x03.

Ok, having watched the episode - and read the shooting script - I
notice a quite a few significant changes from script to film.

The first one is the issue, near the beginning, of Gunn - I'll quote
the script as it's easier:

EXT. HOMELESS SECTION OF TOWN - NIGHT

[snip]

GUNN'S TRUCK pulls up. Gunn gets out of the truck, pulls back the tarp
over the truck bed -- and WE SEE everything he owns in the world. He
grabs a blanket. Moves back to the cab of the truck, settles in for
the night. As he looks to the other homeless around him, the MUSIC
swells in that we're about-to-fade-out kinda way, and we do in fact
... FADE OUT

And the following scene (tow-truck/Gunn's introduction to Angel/Wesley
in Merl's apartments ("I called the hotel").

How come this was dropped and replaced with him waking up in a bed? I
admit that through showing the recap of Gunn's sister we get freshly
reminded of what is to follow (later with Gio) but for me - from
reading - the issue of home and belonging [1] would/could have been
addressed with this exposure of Gunn's "home"??

[1] Gunn doesn't belong to his gang, quite clearly, and doesn't belong
to AI else he could be inclined to stay in the Hyperion (instead of
no-where, which never happened. So I suppose we're supposed to assume
he has 'somewhere'.)

Point 2;

Why was the whole fight scene dropped at the end of the episode? As I
watched, it wasn't clear how we progress from Gio's timely demise to
the peaceful departure of "the gang" and Angel et al. After all, it
was Rondell (IIRC) who prompted Cordelia to go and bring Angel back
for Gunn to stake him.

With the scene in the shooting script, there's a clear resolution (at
least for now) and all seems well - how come therefore it was dropped
without any reference?

Many thanks,

-Tafka-
About your father. If it's any help, he's in the ground now.
Sure, it's bad news for him. But on the other hand, it's party time
for all those little worms!

Tafka

unread,
Jan 31, 2002, 5:26:52 PM1/31/02
to
Tafka <ta...@nospam-spamfree.boltfree.net> on Thu, 31 Jan 2002

21:52:28 +0000 in uk.media.tv.angel said:

>Originally posted back in November....
>
>Also includes a URL natalie supplied at the time, but her & Niall both
>held back from discussion until S3 was 'live'. So it is now :P

I'd forget my head today if it wasn't screwed on!!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=minear+posts&hl=en&group=alt.tv.angel&rnum
=3&selm=GL3wIB.8wI%40world.std.com

Contains spoilers (IIRC).

-Tafka-
Plenty of girls and bands and slogans and lots of hoopla,
but remember, no politics.
Issues confuse people.

Tim Minear

unread,
Feb 4, 2002, 1:48:15 AM2/4/02
to
Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>>How come this (re: Gunn's living in his truck) was dropped and replaced with


him waking up in a bed?<<<

You've got part of your answer here:

>>I admit that through showing the recap of Gunn's sister we get freshly
reminded of what is to follow (later with Gio)<<

That seemed the important point to make. Beyond that, it didn't quite play the
way it was shot -- and it was shot.

>> but for me - from reading - the issue of home and belonging [1] would/could
have been
addressed with this exposure of Gunn's "home"??<<

Agreed, But again, Gio's rant had so much to do with Gunn's sister, as did
Gunn's reasons for fading out from his gang that it seemed important to have
this in more than jus the re-cap.


>>Point 2;

Why was the whole fight scene dropped at the end of the episode? As I
watched, it wasn't clear how we progress from Gio's timely demise to
the peaceful departure of "the gang" and Angel et al. After all, it
was Rondell (IIRC) who prompted Cordelia to go and bring Angel back
for Gunn to stake him.

With the scene in the shooting script, there's a clear resolution (at
least for now) and all seems well - how come therefore it was dropped
without any reference?<<

Again, it was shot was somehow the story wasn't getting told. So we paid a bit
of money for the CGI monster and canned the fight, which was all moves and no
real drama as it turned out.

pikelet

unread,
Feb 4, 2002, 6:17:54 AM2/4/02
to
Around 04 Feb 2002 06:48:15 GMT, after erotically slowdancing for the
pleasure of uk.media.tv.angel, timm...@aol.com (Tim Minear)
declared:

>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Why was the whole fight scene dropped at the end of the episode? As I
>watched, it wasn't clear how we progress from Gio's timely demise to
>the peaceful departure of "the gang" and Angel et al. After all, it
>was Rondell (IIRC) who prompted Cordelia to go and bring Angel back
>for Gunn to stake him.
>
>With the scene in the shooting script, there's a clear resolution (at
>least for now) and all seems well - how come therefore it was dropped
>without any reference?<<
>
>Again, it was shot was somehow the story wasn't getting told.

^^^

Tim, am I right in reading that second 'was' as a 'but'?

>So we paid a bit
>of money for the CGI monster and canned the fight, which was all moves and no
>real drama as it turned out.

True, but hey - comic effect.

Tim.
(t'other one)

--
Well, what do you think it is, hmm? A space helmet for a cow?

Tafka

unread,
Feb 4, 2002, 2:09:52 PM2/4/02
to
On 04 Feb 2002 06:48:15 GMT, timm...@aol.com (Tim Minear) wrote:

>Spoiler space

Cheers for answering those points,

Hope to see some more postings from you here - we've missed you
(especially Niall).

-Tafka-

Tim Minear

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 2:30:03 AM2/5/02
to
>>Tim, am I right in reading that second 'was' as a 'but'?<<

Yep.

pikelet

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 3:47:47 AM2/5/02
to
Around 05 Feb 2002 07:30:03 GMT, after erotically slowdancing for the

pleasure of uk.media.tv.angel, timm...@aol.com (Tim Minear)
declared:

>>>Tim, am I right in reading that second 'was' as a 'but'?<<
>
>Yep.

Ah, excellent. Thanks for replying :)

Tim

--
'And you can count on me - because I'm the Dark Avenger.'

0 new messages