AOQ Review 1-2: "The Harvest"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season One, Episode 2: "The Harvest"
(or "next!")
Writer: Joss Whedon
Director: John T. Kretchmer
"Welcome To The Hellmouth," _BTVS_'s very first episode, ended on
a cliffhanger. "The Harvest" resolves it in literally about three
minutes. The cross introduced in "Hellmouth" comes into play at an
opportune time, Buffy saves the worthwhile 2/3 of her new circle of
friends, roll opening credits. Huh.
Dramatically speaking, there's really no reason at all that I can
think of that "Hellmouth" shouldn't have ended with Jesse getting
kidnapped and our heroes escaping to regroup. It literally feels as if
"Hellmouth" ran a few minutes overtime and the ending got dumped
into the next episode. Maybe Joss was just trying to be
unconventional, but dramatic conventions generally exist for a reason,
and being different for its own sake doesn't always work. If
you're going to end an episode in ZOMG CRISIS! Mode, it's going to
be a letdown if said crisis ends so quickly. This is basic common
sense.
[Note: The above was my original new-viewer reaction. Now that I know
that WttH and TH began life as separate stories... well, makes sense.
This smash-together is less than ideal.]
>From there, "The Harvest" settles down into a rhythm of Sunnydale
High scenes alternating with our villains acting all sinister (and
Jesse doing his job of standing around looking stupid). Actually,
"The Harvest" improves on the pilot in an important aspect here -
the scenes with the Master have some semblance of comedic timing now.
Even when the Master isn't actually saying anything one-linerish, the
little pauses he throws into his Villain Speeches make them sound more
_Buffy_ and less B-movie. This isn't to say that I like the
character or anything (seriously, are all villains contractually
obligated to laugh maniacally when things are going well, yell
"nooooo!" when they're not, and beat up their servants during
quiet moments?), but there's progress being made. Actually, the
award for Most Improved Vampire goes to the vessel-boy, Lucas, who was
worthless in "Hellmouth" but had two of "The Harvest"'s best
deadpans: effortlessly ticking off the last date he was defeated, and
the classic "Next!" while sucking blood in The Bronze. Naturally,
he dies just as he's getting interesting, but hey, afterlife ain't
fair.
[Some people responded to the last review and convincingly argued that
the Master is MEANT to be cheesy and awful, as a riff on old-style
monster movies. That's quite possible. But let me just say that I can
see three problems with this approach:
1) It'd be nice to see a wink or nod somewhere within the show saying
"yes, we realize how silly this is." Sad to say, parody doesn't
necessarily speak for itself, no matter how "obvious" it is.
2) Our heroes have to take the Master and company seriously because of
the damage they've been able to cause. It limits the potential for
drama when your villains are ridiculous from the viewer's perspective
but the characters act scared of them. Buffy and company are
diminished by having to play along.
3) It's one joke, and after two episodes of constantly hammering on
it, it's becoming a very tired joke.]
In the high-school scenes, things start out promisingly enough with
Giles being "rather British," and Xander convincingly going from
disbelief over "having a conversation with vampires in it" to his
desire to get involved. The problem, as Buffy points out, is that
however loyal and courageous he might be, Buffy's the Slayer and
he's not. Any normal kids our hero befriends are going to be way out
of their league; I'd rather the show continue to play up that dynamic
rather than just loading them up with stakes and holy water. We'll
see.
The rest of the school stuff, though, is much weaker than in the
premiere. They're divided between Willow and Giles sitting around and
blandly worrying, and Cordelia. I don't have a clue why Cordelia is a
major character at this point, so I do hope Joss has some sort of plan
in mind. "The Harvest" is actually a step back for her: the Cordelia
from WttH didn't seem like a moron, and was capable of BTVS-style
wordplay. Now she's an idiot. The scene in which Willow tricks her
into deleting her program is one of those moments where I laughed at
the time and liked it less the more I thought about it. Was anyone in
1997 really unaware of the "Delete" key? It's impressive how much time
the episode spends following her around for apparently the sole purpose
of mocking how popular kids (supposedly) act. So let me pretend my
words can influence the content of the DVDs and say to the writing
staff: okay, Cordelia is stupid and shallow, we get it. Ha ha. Move
on, please.
Maybe the reason so many characters and elements get shortchanged is
that "The Harvest" is really crammed full of stuff. There are three
major action sequences, and plenty of stuff between them from the
perspectives of several sets of characters. As a result, the pacing is
off and everything happens faster than it feels like it should. It
doesn't help that the chase in the sewers is a badly-shot mess, and the
climactic fight in The Bronze isn't much better in that regard.
Speaking of messes, what the hell was the deal with the ending? If
there was any explanation for why everyone "forgot" most of what
happened and went on with their lives as normal, I missed it. And even
if everyone forgot, what about the dead people? Shouldn't this have a
major impact on a one-Starbuck's town like Sunnydale? I hope I missed
something (it'd have to have been something really brief, though...),
because the alternatives aren't good: either no one's bothering to
think this stuff through, or they believe that they can hold off on
explaining away apparent oversights and viewers won't mind having to
wait weeks for it to make sense.
I don't want to suggest that "The Harvest" is a total loss. Besides
being entertaining enough, it has three very nice moments centering
around the title character. The first is the scene between Buffy and
Flutie at the fence. It's funny, of course, since Flutie's in it, but
it also demonstrates how ready Buffy is to shift into Superhero Mode on
the spur of the moment. The second is between Buffy and her mom, not
so much for the scene itself but just for the fact that Buffy gets
grounded. Sixteen seems a little old for that, but it's not unheard
of. The Slayer is still a kid living under her parent(s?)' roof, and
is bound by their rules (in theory, anyway). Like Shuggie put it,
"being a teen feels like you against the world," and here it's
literally true. And then soon after that, we see Buffy's poise and
confidence when confronting "Vessel-Boy," like she's completely used to
that kind of thing. We realize that she's probably killed dozens of
vampires in her short life. SMG does a good job playing
old-beyond-her-years, and it's a good way to write the character.
And then there's Angel. He gets a name and one substantial scene,
which is intriguing. Buffy's hostility towards him is overplayed a
bit, but the rest of the scene works, particularly her mocking his
"wise old man routine" and his matter-of-fact admission that he's
scared. Granted, I'm not seeing things with totally unspoiled eyes
here since I do in fact know that Angel will be kinda an important
character in the Buffyverse. Would I still be intrigued if it were
1997? Probably. In any case, I don't know where they're going with
this character yet, and I'm interested in watching more and seeing for
myself.
So....
One-sentence summary: Disappointingly generic compared to the
premiere, with hints of something better.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season One ratings so far:
1) "Welcome To The Hellmouth" - Good
2) "The Harvest" - Decent]
Shuggie
<snip>
> Dramatically speaking, there's really no reason at all that I can
> think of that "Hellmouth" shouldn't have ended with Jesse getting
> kidnapped and our heroes escaping to regroup. It literally feels as if
> "Hellmouth" ran a few minutes overtime and the ending got dumped
> into the next episode. Maybe Joss was just trying to be
> unconventional, but dramatic conventions generally exist for a reason,
> and being different for its own sake doesn't always work. If
> you're going to end an episode in ZOMG CRISIS! Mode, it's going to
> be a letdown if said crisis ends so quickly. This is basic common
> sense.
>
Actually this is Joss being *very* conventional. The convention of the
cliffhanger is that it's there to create suspense and make you want to
watch the next part, it's almost always resolved very early on.
> Even when the Master isn't actually saying anything one-linerish, the
> little pauses he throws into his Villain Speeches make them sound more
> _Buffy_ and less B-movie. This isn't to say that I like the
> character or anything (seriously, are all villains contractually
> obligated to laugh maniacally when things are going well, yell
> "nooooo!" when they're not, and beat up their servants during
> quiet moments?)
You didn't get the memo? ;)
>, but there's progress being made. Actually, the
> award for Most Improved Vampire goes to the vessel-boy, Lucas, who was
> worthless in "Hellmouth" but had two of "The Harvest"'s best
> deadpans: effortlessly ticking off the last date he was defeated, and
> the classic "Next!" while sucking blood in The Bronze. Naturally,
> he dies just as he's getting interesting, but hey, afterlife ain't
> fair.
One of my favourite villains dies just as they were getting interesting.
Still better than to outstay your welcome.
>
> [Some people responded to the last review and convincingly argued that
> the Master is MEANT to be cheesy and awful, as a riff on old-style
> monster movies. That's quite possible.
I said that because it's pretty much what Joss himself says in the
commentary - which I know you're avoiding for now. Not that the Master
is meant to be 'awful' just that he's meant to be a more traditional
horror movie villain. I suspect he likes them more than you.
> But let me just say that I can
> see three problems with this approach:
> 1) It'd be nice to see a wink or nod somewhere within the show saying
> "yes, we realize how silly this is."
Indeed and elsewhere they do have plenty of winking and nodding.
Sometimes too much so IMHO.
> Sad to say, parody doesn't
> necessarily speak for itself, no matter how "obvious" it is.
I wouldn't call it parody exactly. But I might be alone in that. One of
my fiercest arguments on usenet was as to whether a particular BtVS
episode was intended to be a self-parody or not. Let's just say I think
you can be self-aware about the genre you're in without being parody.
> 2) Our heroes have to take the Master and company seriously because of
> the damage they've been able to cause. It limits the potential for
> drama when your villains are ridiculous from the viewer's perspective
> but the characters act scared of them. Buffy and company are
> diminished by having to play along.
Yes but the show is inherently ridiculous. This is not Ultraviolet where
the vampires live in a plausible reality. I think what keeps it dramatic
for me is that the characters play it real. For me, at least, if I am
willing to accept a world in which vampires and demons and slayers etc
exist then I have to adjust what counts as ridiculous.
> 3) It's one joke, and after two episodes of constantly hammering on
> it, it's becoming a very tired joke.]
Again, I'm not sure if I'd call it a joke per se.
<snip>
> The rest of the school stuff, though, is much weaker than in the
> premiere. They're divided between Willow and Giles sitting around and
> blandly worrying, and Cordelia. I don't have a clue why Cordelia is a
> major character at this point, so I do hope Joss has some sort of plan
> in mind.
One thing Joss does time and again is take a form you know and play with
it so it becomes slightly different. So you have the Master who's
playing the trad horror villain, but he's alongside Buffy who's
explicitly not from that trad horror world. So Cordelia is pretty much
the standard 'popular queen of high school bitch' from the high school
dramas. From the high school side of the fence she's part of the form we
know. Whether she becomes more than that remains to be seen...
>"The Harvest" is actually a step back for her: the Cordelia
> from WttH didn't seem like a moron, and was capable of BTVS-style
> wordplay. Now she's an idiot. The scene in which Willow tricks her
> into deleting her program is one of those moments where I laughed at
> the time and liked it less the more I thought about it. Was anyone in
> 1997 really unaware of the "Delete" key?
In 1997 and in 2005 I suspect. I once wrote a program for my dad that
displayed a 'Press any key to continue' - he spent at least 5 minutes
looking for a key labelled 'any'. Never under-estimate the apparent
stupidity of the computer illiterate.
I say apparent because neither my dad nor Cordelia are stupid, just not
terribly interested in technology.
> It's impressive how much time
> the episode spends following her around for apparently the sole purpose
> of mocking how popular kids (supposedly) act. So let me pretend my
> words can influence the content of the DVDs and say to the writing
> staff: okay, Cordelia is stupid and shallow, we get it. Ha ha. Move
> on, please.
>
As I say, I don't think she's stupid. Shallow yes. But you're right, for
a recurring character she needs more depth.
> Maybe the reason so many characters and elements get shortchanged is
> that "The Harvest" is really crammed full of stuff. There are three
> major action sequences, and plenty of stuff between them from the
> perspectives of several sets of characters. As a result, the pacing is
> off and everything happens faster than it feels like it should. It
> doesn't help that the chase in the sewers is a badly-shot mess,
The slowest moving vampires in the world you mean?
> and the
> climactic fight in The Bronze isn't much better in that regard.
>
I think it's ok. I especially like the gag with which Buffy finally gets
Luke.
> Speaking of messes, what the hell was the deal with the ending? If
> there was any explanation for why everyone "forgot" most of what
> happened and went on with their lives as normal, I missed it. And even
> if everyone forgot, what about the dead people? Shouldn't this have a
> major impact on a one-Starbuck's town like Sunnydale? I hope I missed
> something (it'd have to have been something really brief, though...),
> because the alternatives aren't good: either no one's bothering to
> think this stuff through, or they believe that they can hold off on
> explaining away apparent oversights and viewers won't mind having to
> wait weeks for it to make sense.
>
OK first, here's what you missed:
Cordelia: Well, I heard it was rival gangs. You know, fighting for
turf? But all I can tell you is they were an ugly way of looking. And
Buffy, like, knew them! Which is just too weird. I mean, I don't even
remember that much, but I'm telling you, it was a freak show!
Girl: Oh, I wish I'd been there!
Cordelia: You should have been there. It was so creepy...
(She and her friend walk off. Buffy meets Xander.)
Buffy: What exactly were you expecting?
Xander: I don't know, something. I mean, the dead rose. We should at
least have an assembly.
(They run into Giles and Willow, and the four continue to walk.)
Giles: People have a tendency to rationalize what they can and forget
what they can't.
Buffy: Believe me, I've seen it happen
and that's about all the explanation you get.
Second, and don't take this personally, but it doesn't augur well that
this bothers you. As I said above I've had discussions like this many
many times over the years and that's because Joss simply isn't
interested in the kind of consistency you're after. At least he's far
more interested in getting to the emotional reality of the story.
Here's what he says on the commentary over the scene of them looking up
the sewer plans on the computer
"The computer. Our lover, our demon, our nemesis, our biggest doofy
plot thing is the computer. We use it all the time to access things that
could never be found on a computer, back then let alone now. It's the
element of cheese we can't get around because it just makes life so much
easier, when you're designing a plot, is to get the information you need
on a computer.
"Coroner's reports, police reports, maps of the sewer system, things
that could never be there. We're shameless in that respect, we'll throw
anything on there because it makes life easier.
"Some shows, X-Files for example, very much into the realism, the
science behind whatever the horror is, explaining it, really justifying
it in the world. We are so much more about the emotion resulting from
this. Not why there might actually be vampires, but how you might
actually feel in high school if you had to fight them. And as a result
we tend to gloss over the really intense deatils about how we might go
through procedure, how we might find something, how we might kill
something, how something might exist. We tend to say 'It's on the
computer and it's cos we're on The Hellmouth' and just get away with it.
But that doesn't make us bad."
I guess what it comes down to is that there are different levels of
suspension of disbelief and some people get pulled out of the story
easier than others. I'm fortunate I guess in that I can accept these
things and enjoy the story. But there are plenty of people who love the
show who still trip over stuff like this.
> I don't want to suggest that "The Harvest" is a total loss. Besides
> being entertaining enough, it has three very nice moments centering
> around the title character. The first is the scene between Buffy and
> Flutie at the fence. It's funny, of course, since Flutie's in it, but
> it also demonstrates how ready Buffy is to shift into Superhero Mode on
> the spur of the moment. The second is between Buffy and her mom, not
> so much for the scene itself but just for the fact that Buffy gets
> grounded. Sixteen seems a little old for that, but it's not unheard
> of. The Slayer is still a kid living under her parent(s?)' roof, and
> is bound by their rules (in theory, anyway). Like Shuggie put it,
> "being a teen feels like you against the world," and here it's
> literally true.
Well it's nice to be quoted but it wasn't exactly the most original
insight especially when Joyce actually has the line: "I know. If you
don't go out it'll be the end of the world. Everything is life or death
when you're a sixteen-year-old girl."
> And then soon after that, we see Buffy's poise and
> confidence when confronting "Vessel-Boy," like she's completely used to
> that kind of thing. We realize that she's probably killed dozens of
> vampires in her short life. SMG does a good job playing
> old-beyond-her-years, and it's a good way to write the character.
>
I'm glad you like the character. Oddly enough there are plenty of fans
of the show that don't really like Buffy, or grew to dislike her. For
me, though I love Xander and Willow and Giles, I really do like Buffy
and see her as a hero.
> And then there's Angel. He gets a name and one substantial scene,
> which is intriguing. Buffy's hostility towards him is overplayed a
> bit, but the rest of the scene works, particularly her mocking his
> "wise old man routine" and his matter-of-fact admission that he's
> scared. Granted, I'm not seeing things with totally unspoiled eyes
> here since I do in fact know that Angel will be kinda an important
> character in the Buffyverse. Would I still be intrigued if it were
> 1997? Probably. In any case, I don't know where they're going with
> this character yet, and I'm interested in watching more and seeing for
> myself.
>
>
> So....
>
> One-sentence summary: Disappointingly generic compared to the
> premiere, with hints of something better.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
>
>
> [Season One ratings so far:
> 1) "Welcome To The Hellmouth" - Good
> 2) "The Harvest" - Decent]
>
Interesting. I'd probably reverse that. Whilst I do like WttH, it's
mostly set-up and The Harvest is about pay-off. It also has some nice
dramatic moments.
--
Shuggie
Daniel Damouth
rather forgettable, beyond introducing the show. It's also hard to
respond to the review, which contains questions and speculations, in
any detail without spoiling.
But, thinking back to 1997, before I was used to the Joss humor, there
was one exchange that helped to hook me. Here's how I remember it:
Buffy: "There's something you forgot about, too!" (Breaks a window).
"Sunrise!"
Luke: (covers face) "Aauuuuggh!"
Buffy: (impales him) "It's in about nine hours, moron."
-Dan Damouth
kenm47
think of that "Hellmouth" shouldn't have ended with Jesse getting
kidnapped and our heroes escaping to regroup. It literally feels as if
"Hellmouth" ran a few minutes overtime and the ending got dumped
into the next episode. Maybe Joss was just trying to be
unconventional, but dramatic conventions generally exist for a reason,
and being different for its own sake doesn't always work. If
you're going to end an episode in ZOMG CRISIS! Mode, it's going to
be a letdown if said crisis ends so quickly. This is basic common
sense."
Perhaps memory plays tricks, but it is my recollection that when the
first two eps aired they either were a two hour block or possibly, two
days in a row. So the issue you raise was not really an issue then.
(Just checked; a reputable Buffy site confirms both eps aired on March
10, 1997)
BTW I wrote a long post re your first review which has diappeared (I
may have hit the worong button). It was very touching, but I can't
recall mnost of it. I did note I envied you seeing this stuff for the
first time.
I also noted I did not envy you in other ways. E.g., I still think
there was impact in the gaps from commercial breaks, weekly waits for
the next ep, rerun hell periods, and summer hiatuses. None of which you
experience with the DVDs.
Another reason why I do not envy you was how no matter what you do you
can't help but be spoiled in different ways. One example of that is you
KNOW the show lasted 7 seasons just from seeing them on the shelf at
Virgin or wherever. We who were fans from S01E01 did not know if there
would be anext season when S1 ended until later that summer (IIRC) and
the same thing following years. You might try to imagine that mind set
as you get to each season's finale.
Also, sadly, I think some of the material, including the cultural
referneces, is becoming dated. Example: Cordelia's "softer side of
Sears" comment echoes a long discontinued advertising campaign.
Anyway, welcome to the Buffy-verse! I hope you get even half the
pleasure the show gave me for so many years.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Eric Hunter
>> Speaking of messes, what the hell was the deal with the ending? If
There was a convention/conceit in the early years of
the show that the world at large refused to admit that
vampires existed, and they would go to great, even
absurd, lengths to explain away any vampiric activity
that they encountered. Additionally, the show aired
at 8 PM, and having a pile of corpses in the Bronze
at the end of the battle would not look good in
"family hour", and Joss was telling a story about the
emotional impact of being a teenage superhero, not
a story about the superheroic deeds of a teenager,
and the pile of corpses would have distracted the
audience from where Joss wanted them focused.
Eric.
--
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dramatically speaking, there's really no reason at all that I can
> > think of that "Hellmouth" shouldn't have ended with Jesse getting
> > kidnapped and our heroes escaping to regroup. It literally feels as if
> > "Hellmouth" ran a few minutes overtime and the ending got dumped
> > into the next episode. Maybe Joss was just trying to be
> > unconventional, but dramatic conventions generally exist for a reason,
> > and being different for its own sake doesn't always work. If
> > you're going to end an episode in ZOMG CRISIS! Mode, it's going to
> > be a letdown if said crisis ends so quickly. This is basic common
> > sense.
> >
>
> Actually this is Joss being *very* conventional. The convention of the
> cliffhanger is that it's there to create suspense and make you want to
> watch the next part, it's almost always resolved very early on.
I guess you're right in one sense. There are cliffhangers and there
are cliffhangers. Kids' shows and such do tend to take the WttH route
("Can Batman and Robin survive Catwoman pouring acid-filled coffee on
them?!"). What I'm more used to is the "to be continued" screen coming
up over a natural midpoint in the story (or alternatively something
that viewers might really be concerned/interested about), not just a
fight scene where no one seriously believes that the hero won't
survive.
So to me, a "conventional" way to end WttH would have been with Jesse
disappearing and Buffy and co. being left alone; if you wanted to be
really conventional, at least one of the following lines would have to
be used: "it's not over yet" and/or "we have to go after them."
> > 2) Our heroes have to take the Master and company seriously because of
> > the damage they've been able to cause. It limits the potential for
> > drama when your villains are ridiculous from the viewer's perspective
> > but the characters act scared of them. Buffy and company are
> > diminished by having to play along.
>
> Yes but the show is inherently ridiculous. This is not Ultraviolet where
> the vampires live in a plausible reality. I think what keeps it dramatic
> for me is that the characters play it real. For me, at least, if I am
> willing to accept a world in which vampires and demons and slayers etc
> exist then I have to adjust what counts as ridiculous.
That's the issue, though. I care about characters. So if Buffy is an
interesting person and stands out in in some way, one can accept that
she's a supernatural being who kills hellspawn or whatever. Whereas if
someone is a dull stock-character, and particularly an over-the-top
one, viewers will roll their eyes at any scene that includes said
character and become painfully aware that they're watching a ridiculous
show.
> In 1997 and in 2005 I suspect. I once wrote a program for my dad that
> displayed a 'Press any key to continue' - he spent at least 5 minutes
> looking for a key labelled 'any'. Never under-estimate the apparent
> stupidity of the computer illiterate.
>
> I say apparent because neither my dad nor Cordelia are stupid, just not
> terribly interested in technology.
I guess. But keep in mind that Cordelia's a child of the computer age;
it's a given nowadays that even people who don't have any interest in
technology will have a passing familiarity with The Internets and
computers in general.
> > It doesn't help that the chase in the sewers is a badly-shot mess,
>
> The slowest moving vampires in the world you mean?
Indeed.
> > and the
> > climactic fight in The Bronze isn't much better in that regard.
> >
>
> I think it's ok. I especially like the gag with which Buffy finally gets
> Luke.
What's funny is that I liked the sunrise gag too, and then immediately
forgot about its existence until another poster quoted it.
> OK first, here's what you missed:
>
> Cordelia: Well, I heard it was rival gangs. You know, fighting for
> turf? But all I can tell you is they were an ugly way of looking. And
> Buffy, like, knew them! Which is just too weird. I mean, I don't even
> remember that much, but I'm telling you, it was a freak show!
[rest of scene snipped]
>
> and that's about all the explanation you get.
I caught that part; it's just not a good explanation. Even if we
pretend that absolutely everyone who isn't blessed enough to hang out
with Buffy willfully forgets about the supernatural, there are still at
least two dead people. In a small town like Sunnydale, people don't
agressively ignore that kind of stuff; they demand assurance that
someone, somewhere, is doing something about it. I'd imagine the cops
out in force and lots of loud denunciation of gang activity.
> Second, and don't take this personally, but it doesn't augur well that
> this bothers you. As I said above I've had discussions like this many
> many times over the years and that's because Joss simply isn't
> interested in the kind of consistency you're after. At least he's far
> more interested in getting to the emotional reality of the story.
> I guess what it comes down to is that there are different levels of
> suspension of disbelief and some people get pulled out of the story
> easier than others. I'm fortunate I guess in that I can accept these
> things and enjoy the story. But there are plenty of people who love the
> show who still trip over stuff like this.
Well, at least I got prepared for such things nice and early. On its
own, it's not enough to ruin the show or anything, so...
> > 1) "Welcome To The Hellmouth" - Good
> > 2) "The Harvest" - Decent]
>
> Interesting. I'd probably reverse that. Whilst I do like WttH, it's
> mostly set-up and The Harvest is about pay-off.
Sadly, for TV (and entertainment?) in general, the setup is generally a
lot more interesting than the payoff.
-AOQ
John Briggs
> "Dramatically speaking, there's really no reason at all that I can
> think of that "Hellmouth" shouldn't have ended with Jesse getting
> kidnapped and our heroes escaping to regroup. It literally feels as
> if
>
> "Hellmouth" ran a few minutes overtime and the ending got dumped
> into the next episode. Maybe Joss was just trying to be
> unconventional, but dramatic conventions generally exist for a reason,
> and being different for its own sake doesn't always work. If
> you're going to end an episode in ZOMG CRISIS! Mode, it's going to
> be a letdown if said crisis ends so quickly. This is basic common
> sense."
>
> Perhaps memory plays tricks, but it is my recollection that when the
> first two eps aired they either were a two hour block or possibly, two
> days in a row. So the issue you raise was not really an issue then.
> (Just checked; a reputable Buffy site confirms both eps aired on March
> 10, 1997)
Yes, but that was an afterthought (by the network) - they were always
intended to be two episodes (see the scripts.) As I keep saying, WTTH is
really a self-contained story, adapted from Joss's draft pilot script. He
extended it into a two-parter by adding "The Harvest", which is really
"Jesse's Story". It is done skilfully - you wouldn't believe that Jesse has
just been added to the WTTH script.
--
John Briggs
Tomas Andersson
>> I say apparent because neither my dad nor Cordelia are stupid, just not
>> terribly interested in technology.
>
> I guess. But keep in mind that Cordelia's a child of the computer age;
> it's a given nowadays that even people who don't have any interest in
> technology will have a passing familiarity with The Internets and
> computers in general.
>
Remember that the show was shot in 1997, lots of people didn't have
computers back then, things have changed alot the last 8 years.
kenm47
intended to be two episodes (see the scripts.) "
IMO then wiser heads prevailed because they work as a two hour show.
Give another point to the same suits that insisted Joss recast Willow.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
It's a miracle they do - they were shot by two different directors. Joss
had to re-shoot some bits, and shoot additional scenes.
--
John Briggs
kenm47
Joss
had to re-shoot some bits, and shoot additional scenes.
--
John Briggs "
That's when Joss was still a God in the Buffyverse, before he left it
for the Firefly-verse and the Buffy-verse fell into the hands of the
lesser demon who thought she could wing her godhood.
Ken (Brooklyn)
William George Ferguson
>>
>> > Dramatically speaking, there's really no reason at all that I can
>> > think of that "Hellmouth" shouldn't have ended with Jesse getting
>> > kidnapped and our heroes escaping to regroup. It literally feels as if
>> > "Hellmouth" ran a few minutes overtime and the ending got dumped
>> > into the next episode. Maybe Joss was just trying to be
>> > unconventional, but dramatic conventions generally exist for a reason,
>> > and being different for its own sake doesn't always work. If
>> > you're going to end an episode in ZOMG CRISIS! Mode, it's going to
>> > be a letdown if said crisis ends so quickly. This is basic common
>> > sense.
>Shuggie wrote:
>> Actually this is Joss being *very* conventional. The convention of the
>> cliffhanger is that it's there to create suspense and make you want to
>> watch the next part, it's almost always resolved very early on.
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>I guess you're right in one sense. There are cliffhangers and there
>are cliffhangers. Kids' shows and such do tend to take the WttH route
>("Can Batman and Robin survive Catwoman pouring acid-filled coffee on
>them?!"). What I'm more used to is the "to be continued" screen coming
>up over a natural midpoint in the story (or alternatively something
>that viewers might really be concerned/interested about), not just a
>fight scene where no one seriously believes that the hero won't
>survive.
>
>So to me, a "conventional" way to end WttH would have been with Jesse
>disappearing and Buffy and co. being left alone; if you wanted to be
>really conventional, at least one of the following lines would have to
>be used: "it's not over yet" and/or "we have to go after them."
But that wouldn't be a cliffhanger. By definition, a cliffhanger
involves the protagonist(s) being in a situation of immediate and
seemingly inescabable peril (originally physical peril, but now by
extension, it can be emotional or psychological peril). The term derives
from Pearl White hanging off the edge of a cliff at the end of episodes
of the Perils of Pauline serials.
Example:
Love Interest: "I'm leaving, and I never want to see you again!" [slams
door behind her]
[chyron: "To be continued"]
is a cliffhanger ending
Love Interest: "I'm leaving, and I never want to see you again!" [slams
door behind her]
Hero: "What happened? Why?"
Best Friend: "She just got fed up with your dithering. If you really
love her, you'd better go after her right now."
Hero: "I'll do it, I'll go after her."
[chyron: "To be continued"]
Is not a cliffhanger ending.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
John Briggs
So you're saying that whereas our Arbitrarily Elegant one said that "There
are cliffhangers and there are cliffhangers", you are saying there are
cliffhangers and not cliffhangers?
--
John Briggs
Carlos Moreno
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
Man, this is becoming torture !!!!
You're hitting so many "right spots" that I'm almost tempted to
believe that you actually have seen the entire series and are
just pulling a prank on us!! :-)
And what I mean with "torture" is that you make several comments
(I'll obviously refrain from specifically saying which ones) in
which one is sooo compelled to respond with references to the
future of the show... But then one has to bite our tongue and
remind ourselves to keep quiet for the sake of not spoiling the
surprises and future plot twists and character developments...
Let's say that there are at least three instances that strongly
call for a "you have noooooo idea what's in store for you" kind
of reply (the "you have no idea" with the proper tone --
meaning that you're wondering about things in which there are
particularly nice events/surprises/developments in the future)
Oh well, enough with the pseudo-spoilers ... You know, by
attempting to "bias" your expectations I could be indeed
spoiling the show or some aspects of it for you... I'll take
this opportunity to re-remind myself to keep quiet :-)
Cheers,
Carlos
--
Arbitrar Of Quality
William George Ferguson wrote:
> >Shuggie wrote:
> >> Actually this is Joss being *very* conventional. The convention of the
> >> cliffhanger is that it's there to create suspense and make you want to
> >> watch the next part, it's almost always resolved very early on.
>
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >I guess you're right in one sense. There are cliffhangers and there
> >are cliffhangers. Kids' shows and such do tend to take the WttH route
> >("Can Batman and Robin survive Catwoman pouring acid-filled coffee on
> >them?!"). What I'm more used to is the "to be continued" screen coming
> >up over a natural midpoint in the story (or alternatively something
> >that viewers might really be concerned/interested about), not just a
> >fight scene where no one seriously believes that the hero won't
> >survive.
> >
> >So to me, a "conventional" way to end WttH would have been with Jesse
> >disappearing and Buffy and co. being left alone; if you wanted to be
> >really conventional, at least one of the following lines would have to
> >be used: "it's not over yet" and/or "we have to go after them."
>
> But that wouldn't be a cliffhanger. By definition, a cliffhanger
> involves the protagonist(s) being in a situation of immediate and
> seemingly inescabable peril (originally physical peril, but now by
> extension, it can be emotional or psychological peril). The term derives
> from Pearl White hanging off the edge of a cliff at the end of episodes
> of the Perils of Pauline serials.
I've always equated "to be continued" with "cliffhanger," although I
can see it your way too.
The definitions start to get fuzzy once you allow for "emotional or
psychological peril" though. The distinction here is between
"cliffhanger" as a situation of some immediate impact that will be
resolved quickly (i.e. the next show has to pick up at the instant
where the first one left off) versus "cliffhanger" in the sense of Part
I setting up an involved situation so that most of Part II will be
devoted to the payoff. Whether or not the second option is truly a
"cliffhanger" per se, it's certainly a common way to break up a
multi-part story.
The purpose of ending part I with a really killer scene or image is to
make the audience say "oh, the next show is going to kick ass; better
make sure to watch it." That can be done through setup as well or
better than through a _Perils Of Pauline_-style cliffhanger.
-AOQ
William George Ferguson
I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Cliffhangers can be done well. Although it is much unbeloved as a series,
Andromeday did a bang-up job with a cliff-hanger ending for its season 1.
However, 'leave in the middle, without being a cliffhanger' can also work
marvelously well. Unfortunately, my very best example can't be talked
about since I'm honoring your request :), but let's see...
Okay, here's a classic, from books rather than tv series or movies. Way
back in 1911, Edgar Rice Burroughs had a story serialized in Argosy
All-Story magazine, the title of the story being Tarzan, The Ape Man.
After over 20 chapters of chills and thrills, the final chapter ends in,
of all places, a train station in Wisconsin.
Back in Africa, Tarzan had saved Jane and the Porter party, but stayed
behind to rescue the French naval officer, Lieutenant d'Arnot. After
nursing him back to health, during which time, d'Arnot taught Tarzan
spoken French, then spoken English (Tarzan already knew written English,
having learned to read from the picture books his parents had brought with
them in anticipation of his birth), with the result that for the next
several novels, Tarzan spoke English with a French accent, they made their
way north to the Sahara where d'Arnot could contact French forces, and
they then traveled to France. Because of gold that Tarzan had located in
Africa, he waw quite well off, and was able to travel to Baltimore to find
Jane. In Baltimore he found that Jane and her father, along with others
had traveled to Wisconsin, and set out to catch up with them there.
One of the early sub-plots in the story was that a rich industrialist in
Baltimore had funded the Porter expedition to Africa as a way of getting
Professer Porter to agree to him marrying Jane (who detested him). Since
the expedition had failed, and had to be rescued by the French navy,
Profesor Porter felt that the only way to pay off the debt was for Jane to
marry the industrialist. William Clayton, who was heir to the Greystoke
fortune since his uncle John was dead in Africa, along with his cousin
John Clayton III, whose infant skeletion the Porter expedition had though
they had found in his crib in the Clayton cabin in Africa, offered to
marry Jane instead, which would make paying off the debt trivial. Jane
accepted, she didn't love William, but at least she liked him, which made
him a vastly better choice than the industrialist cockroach.
The group was trapped in a forest fire, and Tarzan showed up in the nick
of time and rescued them. At the train station, they are saying various
goodbyes. Tarzan and Jane admit they love each other, but Jane has
already promised to marry William. Tarzan receives a telegram from
d'Arnot, who had taken John Clayton III's baby handprint which his father
made on a page of his diary and sent it to friends the Surete (french
police) along with Tarzan's fingerprints. The telegram just said
"fingerprints confirm, you Lord Greystoke". Tarzan realizes that he can
take everything away from his rival and cousin William, but is certain
(the book says correctly) that Jane will go through with the marriage even
if William was paupered, because she had given her word.
So at the very end of the story, someone asks how he ended up in Africa,
and he says that he doesn't know who his father was, and his mother
couldn't tell him, because she was a Great Ape (litereally the last lines
in the story).
So, no real cliffhanger, just an obvious 'the story cannot end this way,
there has to be more.'
KenM47
second hour of the two hour pilot.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as the
> second hour of the two hour pilot.
It's not a pilot.
--
John Briggs
KenM47
>KenM47 wrote:
>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as the
>> second hour of the two hour pilot.
>
>It's not a pilot.
That's what Joss called it.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That show's
called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people who pick shows
and on the strength of that one show, they decide if they wanna make more
shows. Some get chosen and become television programmes. Some don't, become
nothin'."
He meant premiere. Which it was.
--
John Briggs
KenM47
You're probably right. But he also seems to refer to TH as more a part
of rather than a separate continuation of WttH.
BTW, what ever happened to the little Slayer history lesson they
broadcast that first time before WttH? Is it on any of the DVD
collections?
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> KenM47 wrote:
>>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> KenM47 wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
>>>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a pilot.
>>>
>>> That's what Joss called it.
>>
>> He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That
>> show's called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people
>> who pick shows and on the strength of that one show, they decide if
>> they wanna make more shows. Some get chosen and become television
>> programmes. Some don't, become nothin'."
>>
>> He meant premiere. Which it was.
>
>
> You're probably right. But he also seems to refer to TH as more a part
> of rather than a separate continuation of WttH.
As it was first broadcast as a single episode, he would be right to call it
part of the premiere. Which it was. But he conceived them (and made them)
as separate episodes.
> BTW, what ever happened to the little Slayer history lesson they
> broadcast that first time before WttH? Is it on any of the DVD
> collections?
As explained in another thread, that was a promo made by The WB, so it was
not owned by Fox or ME, and not available for the DVDs.
--
John Briggs
KenM47
Thanks. Missed that other thread. Did not know that.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Shuggie
> KenM47 wrote:
>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> KenM47 wrote:
>>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
>>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
>>>
>>> It's not a pilot.
>>
>> That's what Joss called it.
>
> He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That show's
> called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people who pick shows
> and on the strength of that one show, they decide if they wanna make more
> shows. Some get chosen and become television programmes. Some don't, become
> nothin'."
>
And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
KenM47
>John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> KenM47 wrote:
>>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> KenM47 wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
>>>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a pilot.
>>>
>>> That's what Joss called it.
>>
>> He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That show's
>> called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people who pick shows
>> and on the strength of that one show, they decide if they wanna make more
>> shows. Some get chosen and become television programmes. Some don't, become
>> nothin'."
>>
>
>And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
Nice catch.
Ken (Brooklyn)
John Briggs
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> KenM47 wrote:
>>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> KenM47 wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
>>>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a pilot.
>>>
>>> That's what Joss called it.
>>
>> He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That
>> show's called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people
>> who pick shows and on the strength of that one show, they decide if
>> they wanna make more shows. Some get chosen and become television
>> programmes. Some don't, become nothin'."
>>
>
> And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
As far as I can tell it's called a "Royal Cheese"...
--
John Briggs
vague disclaimer
shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > KenM47 wrote:
> >> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> KenM47 wrote:
> >>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
> >>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
> >>>
> >>> It's not a pilot.
> >>
> >> That's what Joss called it.
> >
> > He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That show's
> > called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people who pick shows
> > and on the strength of that one show, they decide if they wanna make more
> > shows. Some get chosen and become television programmes. Some don't, become
> > nothin'."
> >
>
> And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
Just to muddy the waters, the first episode of Dead Like Me, Veronica
Mars and DB's new thing Bones were all called "Pilot" (oh, also
Invasion, which has just started in C4 in the UK). Likewise Tru Calling,
for which there was also an unaired pilot.
Joss refers to what most Buffy fans call the unaired pilot as "The
Presentation" in at least a couple of commentaries.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
kenm47
the "two hour pilot."
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Say what you will about the others, but "The Best Of Both Worlds" was a
great example of cliffhanger done right.
My favorite way to end books in a series is like the Burroughs example.
Come to some sort of conclusion for the immediate story, but set the
agenda for future work.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Say what you will about the others, but "The Best Of Both Worlds" was a
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Say what you will about the others, but "The Best Of Both Worlds" was a
classic example of how to do a cliffhanger right. ("Descent" was okay
too.)
The Burroughs example sounds like my favorite way to end a book that's
part of a series. Bring the current story to an end or stopping point,
but do something to set the agenda for future volumes.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
I was a trekkie growing up, so this talk brings back memories... Say
what you will about the rest of the annual season enders, but "The Best
Of Both Worlds" was the perfect cliffhanger ["Mr. Worf... fire."]. You
had an immediate crisis which could've been resolved so many different
ways (especially since it was the season finale, and there were rumors
that Stewart might not be back the next year), and after that there
were still plenty of major ongoing issues to resolve over the rest of
Part II. But yes, sadly it seemed to convince the TNG staff that they
had to go out of their way to do cliffhangers every year, and they
never even came close to BOBW-level again (although "Descent" was
decent)... DS9 finally got it right again, especially with "In
Purgatory's Shadow."
The Tarzan thing sounds like an example of my favorite way to end books
in a series. The plotline does come to some sort of conclusion or
resting-place, but it sets the agenda for what could come next.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Say what you will about the others, but "The Best Of Both Worlds" was a
great example of cliffhanger done right.
My favorite way to end books in a series is like the Burroughs example.
Come to some sort of conclusion for the immediate story, but set the
agenda for future work.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Say what you will about some of them, but "The Best Of Both Worlds" is
a great example of how to do a cliffhanger right.
The Burroughs thing is my favorite way to end books in a series. Bring
the current story to an ending or stopping point, but start setting the
agenda for the next one.
-AOQ
kenm47
Shuggie wrote:
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > KenM47 wrote:
> >> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> KenM47 wrote:
> >>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
> >>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
> >>>
> >>> It's not a pilot.
> >>
> >> That's what Joss called it.
> >
> > He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That show's
> > called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people who pick shows
> > and on the strength of that one show, they decide if they wanna make more
> > shows. Some get chosen and become television programmes. Some don't, become
> > nothin'."
> >
>
> And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
>
> --
> Shuggie
>
Nice catch.
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
Shuggie wrote:
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > KenM47 wrote:
> >> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> KenM47 wrote:
> >>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
> >>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
> >>>
> >>> It's not a pilot.
> >>
> >> That's what Joss called it.
> >
> > He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show. That show's
> > called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the people who pick shows
> > and on the strength of that one show, they decide if they wanna make more
> > shows. Some get chosen and become television programmes. Some don't, become
> > nothin'."
> >
>
> And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
>
> --
> Shuggie
>
Nice catch.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not disagreeing, I get mortally tired of faux-cliffhangers for the
> sake of being a cliffhanger (for instance, those Star Trek TNG season
> enders that were part 1 of a two-parter, ending in a cliffhanger).
Say what you will about the others, but "The Best Of Both Worlds" was a
classic example of how to do a cliffhanger right. ("Descent" was okay
too.)
The Burroughs example sounds like my favorite way to end a book that's
part of a series. Bring the current story to an end or stopping point,
but do something to set the agenda for future volumes.
-AOQ
John Briggs
> In article <0vd893...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de>,
> shu...@gmail.com (Shuggie) wrote:
>
>> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> KenM47 wrote:
>>>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> KenM47 wrote:
>>>>>> FWIW, on the DVD commentaries, Joss W. refers to "The Harvest" as
>>>>>> the second hour of the two hour pilot.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a pilot.
>>>>
>>>> That's what Joss called it.
>>>
>>> He's wrong. "The way they pick TV shows is they make one show.
>>> That show's called a pilot. Then they show that one show to the
>>> people who pick shows and on the strength of that one show, they
>>> decide if they wanna make more shows. Some get chosen and become
>>> television programmes. Some don't, become nothin'."
>>>
>>
>> And if it's dialogue from Pulp Fiction therefore it must be true...
>
> Just to muddy the waters, the first episode of Dead Like Me, Veronica
> Mars and DB's new thing Bones were all called "Pilot" (oh, also
> Invasion, which has just started in C4 in the UK). Likewise Tru
> Calling, for which there was also an unaired pilot.
It's normal to show the pilot as the first episode, which is how this sloppy
usage arose. The Tru Calling premiere is a re-make of the pilot. The
"Star Trek" (unaired) first pilot, 'The Cage' (1965) was later cannibalized
for the first season episodes 'The Menagerie', Pts I & II. The second pilot
'Where No Man Has Gone Before', was broadcast as the third episode of the
first season. For "Firefly", the pilot "Serenity" was shown last...
> Joss refers to what most Buffy fans call the unaired pilot as "The
> Presentation" in at least a couple of commentaries.
That probably because Fox refused to come up with the money to make the
pilot (for which Joss had written the script) and he had to make a cut-down
version himself on a limited budget. That didn't stop Fox (or possibly ME)
from pocketing the money for making the pilot! (The first season deal was a
standard '13-episode' one - i.e. 12 episodes plus the pilot.)
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
> FWIW, on the DVDs Joss W. refers to The Harvest as the second part of
> the "two hour pilot."
He wrong - so you wonder what they taught him in Film Studies at Wesleyan
:-)
--
John Briggs
Arbitrar Of Quality
Arbitrar Of Quality
_Firefly_. It's just sloppy usage.
-AOQ
John Briggs
> "With a new show, I consider the first six episodes the pilot." - JW
> on _Firefly_. It's just sloppy usage.
No, that's actually a better usage - he's using it to mean the episode(s)
which test the water for the network and the audience. Now, as far as The
WB were concerned, the Unaired Pilot was the pilot for S1 of BtVS, because
they commissioned the whole of S1 on the strength of it. The whole of S1
was completed before the first episode was shown. And the decision to
commision S2 was made before the final episodes of S1 were shown - so it's a
matter for debate how much of S1 should be considered the 'pilot' in that
sense.
--
John Briggs
arnold kim
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1fVvf.31068$q4.2...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> KenM47 wrote:
>> BTW, what ever happened to the little Slayer history lesson they
>> broadcast that first time before WttH? Is it on any of the DVD
>> collections?
>
> As explained in another thread, that was a promo made by The WB, so it was
> not owned by Fox or ME, and not available for the DVDs.
Yet they had no problem including the WB tv spots...
Arnold Kim
doppelganger
or "movie" as the WB called it at the time, if that makes the editing
make more sense for you. Cliffhangers do tend to be resolved quickly
though, and they don't make a habit out of it the way Alias season one
did. Also, neither episode was the Pilot. The original Pilot had a
different actress playing Willow and was never aired.