The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
Ian J. Ball
topic. I'm adding alt.tv.angel, but will leave a.tv.b-v-s in, for now...]
In article <20000604164446...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
lor...@aol.com1ic18789 (Lorelai) wrote:
> Here is my take on the GQ situation. I don't believe the official story.
> Killing off Doyle at that early date in the season really didn't make
> dramatic sense.
Bingo! Killing him off in episode #9 made basically no dramatic sense, but
*did* piss off those of us who saw a lot of (unrealized) *potential* in
the Doyle character.
> Doyle's backstory hadn't been developed enough for his
> to be death nearly as meaningful as it could have been, say, at the end of
> the season, if this was something planned from the beginning.
Also, think about it this way. I don't know how likely it is, but let's
say that the events in "Shanshu" were already bouncing around in either
Joss Whedon's or David Greenwalt's head before they even started filming
the first episodes of "Angel".
What happens in "Shanshu"? Well, Angel's office gets blown up. Except
that, in this final, aired version, Wesley survives.
Now imagine that Doyle had been around for all of season #1. What happens
in "Shanshu" when the building blows up?
Doyle dies. (And, then, at the end of the episode, we see the restored
Darla.)
Now imagine how powerful *this* incarnation of "Shanshu" would be: Cordie
is nearly crazy, Doyle gets blown up and killed, Angel's a mess, Leslie is
hoppin' mad, and Darla's been brought back. Great stuff.
When you think about it *this* way, then I can easily believe that the
plan *was* to kill off Doyle, BUT IN THE "ANGEL" SEASON #1 FINALE! *not*
in "Hero".
So, will I ever believe that the plan was to kill Doyle off in episode #9?
Not a chance! I will *never* believe that.
> Furthermore, I just don't believe that the WB would spend all that money
> during the winter, spring and summer of 1999 promoting a series about
> three specific characters, and then dump one of them 9 weeks into the show.
And that really is something else to consider: The WB made an *investment*
in the original incarnation of "Angel". Does anyone believe that they
would have promoted the show the way they did, had they known that Doyle
would be gone in episode #9? And does anyone really believe that Joss
Whedon would have deliberately hidden that fact from The WB, his network
sponsors?!
> And finally, it is quite apparent from what I've seen on shooting scripts
> for episodes 10, 11 and 12, that it was intended for Doyle to be in those
> eps when the eps were written.
And Wesley's very awkward insertion into those episodes, especially
"Parting Gifts" (and also "Expecting") would tend to bare that out.
> On the other hand, the Internet world being what it is, and every rumor
> eventually reappearing as incontrovertible Truth, I'm going to be taking
> all the "what-really-happened" stories with a grain of salt too ;-)
The specifics are unimportant to me now, and probably will never be known
anyway.
What I do believe is that it became impossible for Glenn Quinn to remain
on the show, for whatever reason, and I tend to think that it was either
something that Quinn did, or something to do with on-set tensions. So the
writers quickly excised him from the show.
And I can understand that. What I *can't* understand is Joss Whedon and
Co. than lying to the fandom about it. And it's something I am *still*
angry about...
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Matthew J. Wahoske
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iball***death-to-SPAM***-3BC9B3.143...@news-server.socal.rr.com
...
> What I do believe is that it became impossible for Glenn Quinn to remain
> on the show, for whatever reason, and I tend to think that it was either
> something that Quinn did, or something to do with on-set tensions. So the
> writers quickly excised him from the show.
>
> And I can understand that. What I *can't* understand is Joss Whedon and
> Co. than lying to the fandom about it. And it's something I am *still*
> angry about...
Ian, consider this. *If* Glenn Quinn was forced to leave the show due to
alcohol or drug problems, Joss Whedon, David Greenwalt, etc. probably made
up the "always planned to get rid of him early on" story in order to protect
the actor. From all accounts, Glenn's a likeable guy. I know David
Boreanaz still mentions him favorably in interviews. Would you have wanted
Joss and Co. to publicly state "Yeah, we dumped him because he's an
alcoholic" or something like that? Instead, to give Glenn Quinn some
dignity, they made up a story. So, yeah, maybe they should have told the
truth. But I bet they were protecting Mr. Quinn in not doing so.
How many other actors, etc. have been let go with similar pronouncements to
cover up for their mistakes? I'd give Joss and the gang some slack on
this. It obviously was not something they had planned for.
Sarah Trombley
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>What I do believe is that it became impossible for Glenn Quinn to remain
>on the show, for whatever reason, and I tend to think that it was either
>something that Quinn did, or something to do with on-set tensions. So the
>writers quickly excised him from the show.
>
>And I can understand that. What I *can't* understand is Joss Whedon and
>Co. than lying to the fandom about it. And it's something I am *still*
>angry about...
No offense, but it isn't really any of our business why Quinn was bounced
from the show if those involved choose to keep the reasons private. If
the producers are decent human beings (hey, it could happen), they're not
going to want to spread such a nasty story publically; even if they're not,
the fear of legal action would probably keep them quiet.
--Sarah T.
LilyRei
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:06:02 GMT, "Ian J. Ball"
<iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>You see, *real* businesses tend to look out for their personnel, and tend
>to help them with their problems. Hollywood would rather sweep everything
>under the rug. And, to quote Faith, "It's wrong."
*What* real businesses are you talking about? I worked for an office
that fired someone when she became sick. When they found out the
person was terminal, they never did anything to get her disability
going. This woman is the sole supporter of her family. She is
*dying*! This is looking out for your personnel? Not. Hollywood
isn't the only place that's ruthless, considers bottom lines more
important than human beings, or sweeps things under the rug.
>Then, for Cripe's sake, be *honest* about it. The way they handled it
>makes me have more problems with Whedon and co. than I do with Quinn
>(assuming he is the problem).
You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
crying out loud.
LilyRei
^ ^ ^
Angel: "You want to be enemies? Try me."
Heart of the Slayer | http://hotslayer.com
Angel ~ Passages | http://pages.prodigy.net/lilyrei/
The Bronze Webring | http://hotslayer.com/webring/bronze.html
John Baker
server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> Now imagine how powerful *this* incarnation of "Shanshu" would be: Cordie
> is nearly crazy, Doyle gets blown up and killed, Angel's a mess, Leslie is
> hoppin' mad, and Darla's been brought back. Great stuff.
...But! The reason for Cordelia going nuts is attached to the reason
Doyle isn't around anymore! The foresight power was handed off in their
parting kiss.
John Baker
server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> What serves Quinn better long-term? Lying to the Press, etc. and making up
> some lame story, or saying, "We had to let Glenn Quinn go. He has some
> personal issues that prevent him working to his full potential, and we
> feel Glenn Quinn needs to solve these problems."
As if every last viewer of "Entertainment Tonight" wouldn't understand
that as a Hollywood euphemism for drug problems.
Don Sample
<iball***death-to-SPAM***-1F49B4.203...@news-server.socal.rr.com>
, Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
> stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
> things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do.
You have invested nothing in the creation of the show. You aren't a
stock holder, you are a consumer. If you don't like the product you
are free to stop consuming it.
> I don't like being lied to. There is *zero* excuse for it. Ever.
What evidence do you have that you have been lied to? You seem to have
decided that the explanation given for Glenn Quin leaving the show is a
lie simply because you don't like it.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Sara Stringfellow
Ian J. Ball wrote in message ...
>In article <8hf4ri$ap9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
>> angry if you're lied to.
>
>So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
>in my book!
Easy for you to say. It isn't your life, after all.
>Anyway, there are ways to not answer a question aside from lying.
>
>> If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to
>> put out a more flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth,
>> that's their concern.
>
>You know what that is, Sarah? That is *bullshit*.
>
>Assuming Quinn has some kind of problem (and that's still a big
>assumption, but I'm making it), these guys came up with a cover story so
>they could dump him on a curb somewhere. They (and everybody else these
>days) is using the "right to privacy" B.S. as a cover, a shield, to allow
>them to do *nothing* for Quinn.
>
>There are several things they *could* have done. They could have insisted
>that Quinn get treatment as a condition of his continued employment. If
>Quinn refused, then they could have put out the non-definitive statement I
>alluded to in my earlier post.
No. It isn't their business, really, what Quinn does. It's Quinn's life.
Speculating on what they "could" have done is fruitless. If they felt
Quinn's alleged (remember this word?) problem was hurting the quality of the
show, they made the right decision. Even if it didn't now, it eventually
would.
And anyway, I like Wes better.
>There was *no* reason to lie about it.
Sure there is.
>> Fans don't have a right to know the story, any
>> more than you or I have the right to know exactly what happened the
>> last time somebody was fired at his own company.
>
>Again, *bullshit*. If you're in a company, I do think you have a right to
>know why someone is fired. In fact, you should *make* that you're
>business, 'cos you could be next!
We're not in a company. This is like knowing why a *stranger* (and remember,
that's what Quin is) was fired. It's not your business, pard.
>As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
>stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
>things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do.
No and no. You don't own the TV show; you're a consumer. And consumers DON'T
have a right to know why, for example, nutrisweet was substituted for sugar
in Coke in the 80's.
>I don't like being lied to. There is *zero* excuse for it. Ever.
There's frequently an excuse for it.
dxgarten
In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-5416B3.20511204062000@news-
server.socal.rr.com>, "Ian J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***
@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>Completely disagree. He didn't have to die. He should't have
been written
>out. The show isn't as good without him.
I disagree. I think the show is way better off without him.
What
could Doyle have done? To which direction can the writers take
him. There wasn't much room for development left for the
character Doyle. His problem with the 'Devil' self was not very
interesting in my opinion. I like Wesley and what he has brought
to the show: a real ally to Angel, someone to fight together with
Angel (something that Doyle refused to be apart of if he could),
someone with knowledge of Demonology (something Doyle may only
know parts of since he is even reluctant to discover his own
demon
self), someone who likes to research (Doyle would rather be at
the
race track or at the pub).
Also once again I must stressed that at the early episodes of
Angel, Cordelia is very disposable character. She does not do
much besides making some smart remarks. She's bad at typing, she
can't file, you have to wonder how long will it be before Angel
fired her. But after Doyle's death, her role suddenly change.
She is closer to Angel teaching him to care about other people
who
are not Buffy, she is more mature (while keeping her tongue in
cheek), she is a direct link to TPTB. She's now indisposable.
She's an important element of the show and her, Angel, and Wesley
creates that sense of togetherness that sorely lacking when Doyle
was around. Angel didn't even care for anyone when Doyle was
around and he kinda considers both Doyle and Cordelia a little of
liability. He was not able to care for other people outside
Buffy. So yes, the death changed it all and it works for the
better I'll say if it makes Angel more attentive towards other
people. And he should be if he wants that redemption from TPTB
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ian J. Ball
<mwah...@corecomm.net> wrote:
> Ian, consider this. *If* Glenn Quinn was forced to leave the show due to
> alcohol or drug problems, Joss Whedon, David Greenwalt, etc. probably made
> up the "always planned to get rid of him early on" story in order to protect
> the actor.
Yes, I have considered that.
> From all accounts, Glenn's a likeable guy. I know David
> Boreanaz still mentions him favorably in interviews. Would you have wanted
> Joss and Co. to publicly state "Yeah, we dumped him because he's an
> alcoholic" or something like that? Instead, to give Glenn Quinn some
> dignity, they made up a story. So, yeah, maybe they should have told the
> truth. But I bet they were protecting Mr. Quinn in not doing so.
But this another problem I have: Hollywood is the ultimate place for
co-dependency.
What serves Quinn better long-term? Lying to the Press, etc. and making up
some lame story, or saying, "We had to let Glenn Quinn go. He has some
personal issues that prevent him working to his full potential, and we
feel Glenn Quinn needs to solve these problems."
The former method is dishonest, obscures the issues, and passes the buck.
The latter acknowledges a problem without stating it specifically, and
puts some pressure on Quinn to get his act together. (This is all assuming
that Quinn has a problem to solve, of course.)
You see, *real* businesses tend to look out for their personnel, and tend
to help them with their problems. Hollywood would rather sweep everything
under the rug. And, to quote Faith, "It's wrong."
> How many other actors, etc. have been let go with similar pronouncements to
> cover up for their mistakes? I'd give Joss and the gang some slack on
> this. It obviously was not something they had planned for.
Then, for Cripe's sake, be *honest* about it. The way they handled it
makes me have more problems with Whedon and co. than I do with Quinn
(assuming he is the problem).
--
Tom Breton
> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-3BC9B3.143...@news-server.socal.rr.com>,
> Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >What I do believe is that it became impossible for Glenn Quinn to remain
> >on the show, for whatever reason, and I tend to think that it was either
> >something that Quinn did, or something to do with on-set tensions. So the
> >writers quickly excised him from the show.
> >
> >And I can understand that. What I *can't* understand is Joss Whedon and
> >Co. than lying to the fandom about it. And it's something I am *still*
> >angry about...
>
> No offense, but it isn't really any of our business why Quinn was bounced
> from the show if those involved choose to keep the reasons private. If
> the producers are decent human beings (hey, it could happen), they're not
> going to want to spread such a nasty story publically; even if they're not,
> the fear of legal action would probably keep them quiet.
But that's not what he said. He said he didn't like hearing a story
about why GQ was fired that he thinks is probably a lie.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" since 1997. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
BTVS geek code, http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- W--- R@ F+ A- Dar++ J+ A&B--- W&Moloch+++ T&O++ X&C+
X&Ay--- XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- JW- SMG+++ ED+ MN- DF- DP- JE+
Sarah Trombley
Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>> No offense, but it isn't really any of our business why Quinn was bounced
>> from the show if those involved choose to keep the reasons private. If
>> the producers are decent human beings (hey, it could happen), they're not
>> going to want to spread such a nasty story publically; even if they're not,
>> the fear of legal action would probably keep them quiet.
>
>
>But that's not what he said. He said he didn't like hearing a story
>about why GQ was fired that he thinks is probably a lie.
If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
angry if you're lied to. If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to
put out a more flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth,
that's their concern. Fans don't have a right to know the story, any
more than you or I have the right to know exactly what happened the
last time somebody was fired at his own company.
--Sarah T.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
LilyRei <tellsomeonewhocares.net> wrote:
:
:On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 00:06:02 GMT, "Ian J. Ball"
:<iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
:
:
:>You see, *real* businesses tend to look out for their personnel, and tend
:>under the rug. And, to quote Faith, "It's wrong."
:*What* real businesses are you talking about? I worked for an office
:that fired someone when she became sick. When they found out the
:person was terminal, they never did anything to get her disability
:going. This woman is the sole supporter of her family. She is
:*dying*! This is looking out for your personnel? Not. Hollywood
:isn't the only place that's ruthless, considers bottom lines more
:important than human beings, or sweeps things under the rug.
:>Then, for Cripe's sake, be *honest* about it. The way they handled it
:>(assuming he is the problem).
:You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
:with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
:offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
:crying out loud.
Completely agree. Doyle's dead. He ain't coming back. He's been
dead for eight months. Don't matter why. It's none of our business
with happened with GQ and it doesn't matter. Doyle's dead. Move on.
Ian J. Ball
trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
> angry if you're lied to.
So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
in my book!
Anyway, there are ways to not answer a question aside from lying.
> If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to
> put out a more flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth,
> that's their concern.
You know what that is, Sarah? That is *bullshit*.
Assuming Quinn has some kind of problem (and that's still a big
assumption, but I'm making it), these guys came up with a cover story so
they could dump him on a curb somewhere. They (and everybody else these
days) is using the "right to privacy" B.S. as a cover, a shield, to allow
them to do *nothing* for Quinn.
There are several things they *could* have done. They could have insisted
that Quinn get treatment as a condition of his continued employment. If
Quinn refused, then they could have put out the non-definitive statement I
alluded to in my earlier post.
There was *no* reason to lie about it.
> Fans don't have a right to know the story, any
> more than you or I have the right to know exactly what happened the
> last time somebody was fired at his own company.
Again, *bullshit*. If you're in a company, I do think you have a right to
know why someone is fired. In fact, you should *make* that you're
business, 'cos you could be next!
As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do.
I don't like being lied to. There is *zero* excuse for it. Ever.
--
Ian J. Ball
<fo...@spammersmustdie.mpinet.net> wrote:
> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-277601.17080304062000@news-
> server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> > What serves Quinn better long-term? Lying to the Press, etc. and making
> > up
> > some lame story, or saying, "We had to let Glenn Quinn go. He has some
> > personal issues that prevent him working to his full potential, and we
> > feel Glenn Quinn needs to solve these problems."
>
> As if every last viewer of "Entertainment Tonight" wouldn't understand
> that as a Hollywood euphemism for drug problems
Can they be sued for putting out a statement like this? No. Problem solved.
And, yeah, if it puts pressure on the guy to clean up his act, then, yeah,
it's worth it. The '88 Democrat Convention fiasco did wonders to turn Rob
Lowe's life around. If more people would drop the dime on Hollywood types,
rather than be co-dependents, a lot more people would get the help they
need.
You know what they say: Silence = Death.
Ian J. Ball
<fo...@spammersmustdie.mpinet.net> wrote:
> parting kiss!
Good point.
Damn your *logic*, John Baker! ;)
Ian J. Ball
> In article <4b1mjssebcso7opqa...@4ax.com>,
> LilyRei <tellsomeonewhocares.net> wrote:
> :
> :You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
> :with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
> :offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
> :crying out loud.
>
> Completely agree. Doyle's dead. He ain't coming back. He's been
> dead for eight months. Don't matter why. It's none of our business
> with happened with GQ and it doesn't matter. Doyle's dead. Move on
Completely disagree. He didn't have to die. He should't have been written
out. The show isn't as good without him. It does matter. It *is* our
business when it affects the show and the writing. He shouldn't be dead.
And I'll flog dead horses for as long as I can, especially when I feel
lied to.
Sarah Trombley
>trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
>> angry if you're lied to.
>
>So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
>in my book!
Um, yes.
Tell me, Ian, why did your last girlfriend/boyfriend leave you? What
exactly did she say? How exactly did she feel? Any problems in the sex
department? Maybe you just couldn't satisfy her? No? How do you know?
Hey, any truth to the rumors she was sleeping with your best friend?
[Closed-captioning for the comprehension-challenged: These are not
questions I am seriously asking, or expect Ian to answer.]
>Anyway, there are ways to not answer a question aside from lying.
They don't owe us any truth in a private matter.
>> If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to
>> put out a more flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth,
>> that's their concern.
>
>You know what that is, Sarah? That is *bullshit*.
>
>Assuming Quinn has some kind of problem (and that's still a big
>assumption, but I'm making it), these guys came up with a cover story so
>they could dump him on a curb somewhere. They (and everybody else these
>days) is using the "right to privacy" B.S. as a cover, a shield, to allow
>them to do *nothing* for Quinn.
First of all, it's not their job to save this guy, _if_ he needs saving.
Second, they couldn't do it against his will.
Third, you really think that announcing to the world in recognizable code
that he has some kind of substance abuse problem is going to _help_ his
life? Crummy as his existence _may_ currently be, you think it's going
to be better if he ends up unemployed and broke?
>There are several things they *could* have done. They could have insisted
>that Quinn get treatment as a condition of his continued employment. If
>Quinn refused, then they could have put out the non-definitive statement I
>alluded to in my earlier post.
The fact is, you don't know _what_ they did or didn't do behind the
scenes. And smearing him is not somehow going to magically solve his
problems.
>There was *no* reason to lie about it.
Except that it isn't our business.
If Glenn Quinn was not happy about the statements the producers put out,
he was perfectly capable of circulating his own version. As far as I
know, he hasn't. If he's happy with that version and his treatment at
the hands of the show's administration, and they're happy with it, who
are you to say he's wrong? Glenn Quinn is a competent adult. Do you
want _your_ employer deciding that your life is broken and you ought to
be publically humiliated in order to "save" you?
>> Fans don't have a right to know the story, any
>> more than you or I have the right to know exactly what happened the
>> last time somebody was fired at his own company.
>
>Again, *bullshit*. If you're in a company, I do think you have a right to
>know why someone is fired. In fact, you should *make* that you're
>business, 'cos you could be next!
We're...not...in...their...company.
And if I get fired by your boss, and he and I choose to keep the reasons
quiet, well, you may well _want_ to know. It doesn't mean you have a
right to the information. We're not answerable to you.
>As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
>stockholders in a TV show.
No, they aren't. I haven't invested a dime in the financial success of
"Angel," and I very much doubt you have, either. It's a product put out
by a private company which we do not own. You don't have the right to
know why Coke fired its president, either, even if you buy Coke every
day.
>I don't like being lied to. There is *zero* excuse for it. Ever.
If I'm a coworker of yours, and I've just broken up with my boyfriend,
and I come into work and you ask me how I am, I'm going to tell you I'm
fine. That's a lie? Tough. How I feel is _not your business_. Society
functions on civility, not honesty.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
>
>> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-277601.17080304062000@news-
>> server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
>> > What serves Quinn better long-term? Lying to the Press, etc. and making
>> > up
>> > some lame story, or saying, "We had to let Glenn Quinn go. He has some
>> > personal issues that prevent him working to his full potential, and we
>> > feel Glenn Quinn needs to solve these problems."
>>
>> As if every last viewer of "Entertainment Tonight" wouldn't understand
>> that as a Hollywood euphemism for drug problems
>
>Can they be sued for putting out a statement like this? No. Problem solved.
>
>And, yeah, if it puts pressure on the guy to clean up his act, then, yeah,
>it's worth it.
Yeah! Screw personal autonomy! I don't know this guy, but I know his
life _must_ be screwed up! We must humiliate him and hurt his job
prospects as much as possible, so that he returns to _our_ idea of a
good life!
--Sarah T.
PJ Browning
> You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
> with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
> offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
> crying out loud.
I couldn't agree more. It's like those folks that see a photo of two co-stars together at an awards
show or preview or something and then suddenly the two are dating and have been for months but they
were keeping it a secret, blah blah.
Just cause they are television stars doesn't mean that they have given up their privacy.
So let the dead lie down and drop it. Leave the conspiracy theories to Fox and Dana.
--
PJ
Restricted Access
http://members.xoom.com/ufologists
Crashdown Radio
http://www.mp3.com/stations/crashdown
ICQ: #33705664
"I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on a disk around here somewhere."
Jason Murray
wrote:
>You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
>with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
>offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
>crying out loud.
Yeah, I agree. There's a growing number of fans of TV shows out there
that believe that the Internet empowers them to know all the internal
details about a show and the actors and cast changes etc.
It happened when Michael O'Hare left Babylon 5. Then it happened again
when Claudia Christian left Babylon 5, and now its happening here.
I think all it shows is that some fans just need to build their own
little bridge, and get over it. It's fine to be a fan of a TV show,
but the inner workings of it are none of their business.
Jason
Mnkohrz
>From: t...@login.itd.umich.edu
>
>Completely agree. Doyle's dead. He ain't coming back. He's been dead for
eight months. Don't matter why. It's none of our business with happened with
GQ and it doesn't matter. Doyle's dead. Move on.
>
Hear, hear! Actually, Whedon did us all a huge favor when he axed GQ.
Quinn suffered from the irrepairable flaw of not only being a loser, but
actually looking like one. I got to wonder why - out of all the thousands of
actors in Hollywood - Whedon & Co. settled for Quinn in the first place. It
makes about as much sense as choosing Tony Danza or Bob Saget. Let's just pray
that he stays dead and gone. He is one character who definitely doesn't
deserve to be resurrected.
Mnkohrz
Mnkohrz
>If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get angry if
you're lied to. If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to put out a more
flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth, that's their concern.
Fans don't have a right to know the story, any more than you or I have the
right to know exactly what happened the last time somebody was fired at his own
company.
>
>
>--Sarah T.
None of our business? We the viewers are the reason Whedon & Co. are even
in business! We invested time and emotional response in this character and we
deserve an explanation when he or she is written out or chooses to leave. You
are missing the real point here: We wouldn't really mind if Quinn left because
of drug problems or whatever. Which of us doesn't have a few demons of our own
to grapple with? What we really hate is the lie because it destroys their
credibility. If you can't trust them to tell you the truth on this occasion,
you gotta wonder what else they might be lying about. IMHO, Quinn and/or
Whedon should have realized that trust was far more important than bad press
and told us the truth right at the beginning. I have seen time and again that
people are usually willing to forgive a mistake, but not a lie.
I have no idea whether the rumors of Quinn's alleged drug abuse are true.
(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are correct,
however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
Mnkohrz
editfx
that Doyle had been killed off because
of something weird like this with the actor, however
I've recently spoken at a party to a gossip
columnist and her friend (informant?)
and apparently, well :
Joss & friends *really wanted* to kill
off one the main characters *before the show
even started* just to create a Big Splash of
publicity for the young show. Since it
didn't go all that well, they just can't
brag about it now! The goal was to make
the show stand out, to create a commotion.
You could tell the character what going
to be doomed since the relationship with
Cordelia was evolving. Why is that a hint?
Simple, Charisma Carpenter isn't supposed
to get a relationship for the same reason that
younger sister on Charm can't; to keep the little
boys thinking they 'have a chance'. ;-)
You can see right from the start that Doyle
was going to get together with Cordy, and
that simply cannot be left to happened. The
story *Was* built from the start to him kill off,
Sometime the simplest reason is the hardest
to believe; I'm with you Ian. :^)
Every time you see doyle getting closer
to Cordy, say with me.. "bye bye, quinnnn" ;-)
"Ian J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iball***death-to-SPAM***-1F49B4.203...@news-server.socal.rr.com
...
> In article <8hf4ri$ap9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
> > If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
> > angry if you're lied to.
>
> So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
> in my book!
>
> Anyway, there are ways to not answer a question aside from lying.
>
> > If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to
> > put out a more flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth,
> > that's their concern.
>
> You know what that is, Sarah? That is *bullshit*.
>
> Assuming Quinn has some kind of problem (and that's still a big
> assumption, but I'm making it), these guys came up with a cover story so
> they could dump him on a curb somewhere. They (and everybody else these
> days) is using the "right to privacy" B.S. as a cover, a shield, to allow
> them to do *nothing* for Quinn.
>
> There are several things they *could* have done. They could have insisted
> that Quinn get treatment as a condition of his continued employment. If
> Quinn refused, then they could have put out the non-definitive statement I
> alluded to in my earlier post.
>
> There was *no* reason to lie about it.
>
> > Fans don't have a right to know the story, any
> > more than you or I have the right to know exactly what happened the
> > last time somebody was fired at his own company.
>
> Again, *bullshit*. If you're in a company, I do think you have a right to
> know why someone is fired. In fact, you should *make* that you're
> business, 'cos you could be next!
>
> As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
> stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
> things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do.
>
> I don't like being lied to. There is *zero* excuse for it. Ever.
>
editfx
The actor was told he'd die at the last
minute (for secrecy issue)! He was
told they were 'waiting for the WB'
to renew his contract. He was
quite upset about this, having pretty
much settled into being part of a
TV series! So that's why you can't
expect GQ to make interviews with
a smirky smile saying "ho yeah, it
was setup from the start!". He's
a very upset ex-employee, but he
lived it in private (unlike someone
else...)
In case you're wondering about the
'spoken at a party', you need to
know I work in the special effects
industry and meet people all the time. In
montreal, but I was in Las Vegas for the NAD
convention in april and then a week in LA for
more boring Avid training.
"The Actor Was Drunk on Stage" is
about The Whistler character actor, not GQ
It has more to do with racist Irish prejudice
and how rumours get started easily!
regards,
editfx
"editfx" <edi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D0M_4.2382$da2....@wagner.videotron.net...
Tammy Stephanie Davis
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
:In article <PJE_4.1402$xJ2....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
:
:> In article <4b1mjssebcso7opqa...@4ax.com>,
:> :
:> :You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
:> :with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
:> :offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
:> :crying out loud.
:> Completely agree. Doyle's dead. He ain't coming back. He's been
:> dead for eight months. Don't matter why. It's none of our business
:
:Completely disagree. He didn't have to die. He should't have been written
:out. The show isn't as good without him. It does matter. It *is* our
:business when it affects the show and the writing. He shouldn't be dead.
:And I'll flog dead horses for as long as I can, especially when I feel
:lied to.
Then you have a problem and you're not worth wasting my time.
<PLONK!>
Maxie Maxwell
>>As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do.
>>
You're a stockholder in ANGEL? All right...have much of your own money have you
invested in MUTANT ENEMY? How many shares of stock do you own? Is it common or
preferred? What was it trading at when last you checked?
"In the middle of the journey of my life,
I found myself in a dark wood
Where the straight way was lost.
O, it is hard to describe what I saw
In that desolate forest,
Which even now in recall renews my fear."
Dante Alighieri
Ian J. Ball
trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> Society functions on civility, not honesty.
At least you (and some others do), Sarah.
While we disagree on this issue, I want to thank you for keeping it level.
I appreciate that.
For now, let's just agree to disagree.
Ian (still feeling that "Angel" has suffered without Quinn)
Ian J. Ball
mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) wrote:
> None of our business? We the viewers are the reason Whedon & Co. are
> even in business! We invested time and emotional response in this character
> and we deserve an explanation when he or she is written out or chooses to
> leave.
What is amazing about this thread is that your point is proven by the
emotional responses it has generated, and yet everybody still misses this
point.
Heck, a lot of people prefer Wesley to Doyle, and are pretty vocal about
it! And I don't have any problem with that!
> You are missing the real point here: We wouldn't really mind if Quinn left
> because of drug problems or whatever. Which of us doesn't have a few demons
> of our own to grapple with? What we really hate is the lie because it
> destroys their credibility.
Which is the main point I've been trying to make, which everyone seems to
conveniently ignore.
The *point* is, they can let Quinn go, and still come up with some much
less definitive reason. But the story they put out doesn't make any sense.
Killing a character in episode #9 of a series, before he's even fleshed
out makes *no* sense. It lessens any potential dramatic impact, and it
just serves to waste everybody's time: the viewer's, the actor's, even the
writers'.
> If you can't trust them to tell you the truth on this occasion,
> you gotta wonder what else they might be lying about.
Well, based on Whedon's many previous misdirections, I was already leery.
Now I'm downright skeptical and disbelieving.
> IMHO, Quinn and/or
> Whedon should have realized that trust was far more important than bad press
> and told us the truth right at the beginning. I have seen time and again
> that people are usually willing to forgive a mistake, but not a lie.
Which was the upshot of the whole Clinton fiasco: if the guy had just
leveled from the start, there would have been no hearings, no impeachment
and no real fallout.
> I have no idea whether the rumors of Quinn's alleged drug abuse are
> true. (I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.)
Personally, I tend to disbelieve these specific rumors.
> If the rumors are correct,
> however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
> surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
Well, a lot of people have evelated privacy beyond an entitlement to an
idea with almost religious fervor, so I doubt you'll get anyone else here
to agree with you.
Ian J. Ball
skald...@aol.comnojunk (Maxie Maxwell) wrote:
> A madman without a life wrote:
Please tell me that this is a joke, and that you're not serious?
> >>As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like the
> stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
> things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do. >>
>
> You're a stockholder in ANGEL? All right...have much of your own money have
> you invested in MUTANT ENEMY? How many shares of stock do you own? Is it
> common or preferred? What was it trading at when last you checked?
Come on, Maxie! You understand an analogy, don't you? If every single
viewer bails on "Angel", the show folds, in much the same way that a
company would fold if every stockholder dumped his/her stock.
OK, will the anlogy make you happier if I say we're customers? We are at
least that, and I think customers owe it to themselves to keep an eye on
the companies whose products they support.
all41...@my-deja.com
bradley.dialup.earthlink.net>,
Ian,
I always enjoy your posts, and find them some of the more thoughtful on
the ng, and I do believe that a lot of people have crapped on you for
you POV in this thread.
I will disagree, or maybe the word should be differ, in one point. I
don't think killing off Doyle hurt the show that much. A much bigger
factor was the WB's squeamishness and their insistence that a series
which was conceived as dark, adult, and noirish be turned into a more
demo-friendly one. I think the run of slushy episodes at mid-season
are more the result of a ship being turned against the current than any
character decisions.
Just MO
>
> --
> Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
> Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
> & TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
> ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Crone of Elderfen
him as a "loser," what you're seeing is a fine actor who created a "persona"
and did it well. He did a wonderful job of bringing depth and texture to a
character that was hastily written as a substitute for Whistler. The writers
couldn't figure out who Doyle was; they started writing him as Whistler with
an Irish accent, and then kept changing his character around, adding and
subtracting abilities in an inconsistent and confusing fashion until they
boxed themselves into a corner (or at least they thought they had). Then it
looks like they took the easy way out and gave up on the character
completely, indulging Joss Whedon's whim to shake things up by killing off a
major character. (It's like what the soap operas do when they kill off a
character for much the same reasons - it makes for 'good drama' for a little
while, but most times they regret it later and find a way to bring the
character back.) The decision was apparently made in October, within the
first weeks of airing the show, before the fans had the chance to let the
"Angel" team know that despite the inconsistent writing for the character,
Doyle would become (in Joss Whedon's own words) "incredibly popular." Joss
and the writers just didn't know what a great asset they had until they'd
already let him go.
Sarah Trombley
Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
>>From: trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>
>flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth, that's their concern.
>company.
>>
>>
>>--Sarah T.
>
>in business!
Yes, and if you don't like what they've done, you have the perfect right
to choose not to watch the show. If their "high-handed" behavior upsets
enough people, the show will be cancelled.
>We invested time and emotional response in this character and we
>deserve an explanation when he or she is written out or chooses to leave.
No, you don't. Simply caring about something doesn't confer you any
rights to it, as you ought to have learned from your first unrequited
love.
>You
>are missing the real point here: We wouldn't really mind if Quinn left
>because
>of drug problems or whatever. Which of us doesn't have a few demons of our
> own
>to grapple with? What we really hate is the lie because it destroys their
>credibility.
No, I understand perfectly. To be frank, the only credibility with respect
to us that I care about from the producers is artistic credibility.
They're not my business partners, my friends, or my employers. They
aren't obliged to tell me anything at all; I discount anything I hear
from them (or other people in their position).
>If you can't trust them to tell you the truth on this occasion,
>you gotta wonder what else they might be lying about.
Nothing in my life depends on their being truthful. Only on their being
skillful.
> IMHO, Quinn and/or
>Whedon should have realized that trust was far more important than bad press
>and told us the truth right at the beginning.
A group of adults involved in a private business deal chose to keep the
details of that deal private. Too bad. Trust? What do you need to
trust them for?
>(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are correct,
>however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
>surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
That "wise" man was a fool.
--Sarah T.
Ian J. Ball
> I always enjoy your posts, and find them some of the more thoughtful on
> the ng, and I do believe that a lot of people have crapped on you for
> you POV in this thread.
Thanks, I appreciate that. :)
> I will disagree, or maybe the word should be differ, in one point. I
> don't think killing off Doyle hurt the show that much.
As I said, a lot of people actually prefer Wesley. I just honestly feel
that there was more potential in the Doyle character.
But it turned out not to be a fatal change, and I am grateful for that,
> A much bigger
> factor was the WB's squeamishness and their insistence that a series
> which was conceived as dark, adult, and noirish be turned into a more
> demo-friendly one. I think the run of slushy episodes at mid-season
> are more the result of a ship being turned against the current than any
> character decisions.
And this isn't the only show where WBN network goon interference has
probably hurt. Aside from "Angel", and this season of "Buffy", "Savannah",
"Hyperion Bay" and "Roswell" are all shows where The WB obviously ordered
changes, changes that either really weren't necessary, or actually hurt
the show (and this is most true in the case of "Savannah").
Anyway, it is interesting to ponder how "Angel" would have turned out if
the 'darker' tone of "City of..." and "Lonely Hearts" has been maintained
through the rest of the season.
Rose
>>(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are
>correct,
>>however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
>>surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
>
Sarah wrote:
>That "wise" man was a fool.
I have to agree with Sarah on this one. Otherwise we risk having a press
version of McCarthyism.
Like Ian, I think ME shouldn't lie, but I also don't think they are obligated
to tell the truth. All they need to say is "GQ has left the show due to
creative differences" and leave it at that. If GQ had a behavioral problem of
some sort, that could be called a creative difference. Maybe Greenwalt doesn't
think a certain attitude/behavior befits the creative atmosphere on the show,
and maybe GQ thinks it befits the creative atmosphere just fine. Or they could
call it "a parting of the ways" and all parties could refuse to comment
further.
************************************************
ROSE, the Drusilla of alt.tv.btvs (only sane)
Fanfic: penname Rosa Seravo, http://www.fanfiction.net
Gothic movie page, http://www.expage.com/page/roazgothic
Lord Usher
bradley.dialup.earthlink.net>,
iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
> The *point* is, they can let Quinn go, and still come up with some
> much less definitive reason. But the story they put out doesn't make
> any sense. Killing a character in episode #9 of a series, before he's
> even fleshed out makes *no* sense. It lessens any potential dramatic
> impact, and it just serves to waste everybody's time: the viewer's,
> the actor's, even the writers'.
This is the basis of your entire argument, it seems to me. And it's
based on a rather faulty bit of logic--because you, personally, think
that Doyle's exit in episode #9 carried no dramatic impact, the story
of the Powers That Be must be a lie.
IMHO, there are several other explanations that don't assume any
treachery on the part of TPTB:
1. TPTB TRIED TO DO SOMETHING DRAMATIC, AND WEREN'T UP TO THE
CHALLENGE. It wouldn't be the first time that the Mutant Enemy team
failed to deliver on a dramatic long-term story arc--the Initiative and
Adam, anyone? But it doesn't therefore follow that they weren't
*trying* to set one up. It's entirely possible that they just did a
really bad job, despite their best efforts. What's the saying? "Do not
attribute to malice what can easily be explained through incompetence."
2. TPTB RAN OUT OF TIME. It's also possible that the writers
underestimated the amount of time they would need to explore Doyle in-
depth and set up his noble demise. But with contracts signed and
episodes scheduled for production, they were locked in to killing him
after nine episodes. Once again, no malice; just poor planning. (This
is what happened to the writers of DS9 during the fifth season with
the "Odo becomes a Solid" arc. Because of how they'd sketched the arc
out, they were locked into restoring his powers after half a season,
but always regretted that they didn't budget more time to explore his
new situation in more depth.)
3. YOU'RE JUST ON A DIFFERENT PAGE. When it comes down to it, you're
argument is "Because I didn't find this arc dramatically satisfying, it
must not have been a deliberate dramatic choice." Problem is, plenty of
people found Doyle's arc quite satisfying. I know I did. Does that mean
I'm deluding myself into believing a lie? Or does it perhaps mean that
we have different views about what makes something dramatic, and in
this case, the writers and I think one thing and you think another?
Just because you disagree with the writers doesn't mean they're trying
to deceive you.
--
Lord Usher
"You haven't murdered anybody lately? Let's be best pals!"
David Marc Nieporent
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> claimed:
>"Matthew J. Wahoske" <mwah...@corecomm.net> wrote:
>> Ian, consider this. *If* Glenn Quinn was forced to leave the show
>> due to alcohol or drug problems, Joss Whedon, David Greenwalt,
>> etc. probably made up the "always planned to get rid of him early
>> on" story in order to protect the actor.
>Yes, I have considered that.
>> From all accounts, Glenn's a likeable guy. I know David
>> Boreanaz still mentions him favorably in interviews. Would you have
>> wanted Joss and Co. to publicly state "Yeah, we dumped him because he's
>> an alcoholic" or something like that? Instead, to give Glenn Quinn some
>> dignity, they made up a story. So, yeah, maybe they should have told the
>> truth. But I bet they were protecting Mr. Quinn in not doing so.
>But this another problem I have: Hollywood is the ultimate place for
>co-dependency.
>What serves Quinn better long-term? Lying to the Press, etc. and making up
>some lame story, or saying, "We had to let Glenn Quinn go. He has some
>personal issues that prevent him working to his full potential, and we
>feel Glenn Quinn needs to solve these problems."
Oh please. That's complete sophistry. Ruining his reputation to satisfy
the prurient interests of fandom would be bad enough, but to pretend that
they're doing it "for his own good" would be the ultimate insult.
>You see, *real* businesses tend to look out for their personnel, and tend
>to help them with their problems. Hollywood would rather sweep everything
>under the rug. And, to quote Faith, "It's wrong."
No, real businesses don't. Real businesses fire people who do a bad job,
and don't care to hear about excuses. But in either case, whether you're
dealing with the kinder, gentler business or the hard-assed version, real
businesses don't make public announcements about the problems their
employees are having.
>> How many other actors, etc. have been let go with similar
>> pronouncements to cover up for their mistakes? I'd give Joss and the
>> gang some slack on this. It obviously was not something they had
>> planned for.
>Then, for Cripe's sake, be *honest* about it.
They don't owe you personal details of Glenn Quinn's life.
>The way they handled it
>makes me have more problems with Whedon and co. than I do with Quinn
>(assuming he is the problem).
You keep putting that in parenthetically, but it's not a parenthetical.
You're condemning him for lying, without having anything except guesses
that he is lying.
--
David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame
Don Sample
<iball***death-to-SPAM***-0506000...@pool0047.cvx5-bradley.dialup.
earthlink.net>, Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com>
wrote:
> In article <20000605102754...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
> skald...@aol.comnojunk (Maxie Maxwell) wrote:
>
> > A madman without a life wrote:
>
> Please tell me that this is a joke, and that you're not serious?
>
> > >>As for viewers of a TV show, you know what they're like? They are like
> > >>the
> > stockholders in a TV show. So, do they have a right to know when big
> > things happen behind the scenes? Do stockholders? Yeah, I think they do. >>
> >
> > You're a stockholder in ANGEL? All right...have much of your own money have
> > you invested in MUTANT ENEMY? How many shares of stock do you own? Is it
> > common or preferred? What was it trading at when last you checked?
>
> Come on, Maxie! You understand an analogy, don't you? If every single
> viewer bails on "Angel", the show folds, in much the same way that a
> company would fold if every stockholder dumped his/her stock.
The company got their money out of the stock market when they did the
IPO. After that the only reasons they care what the stock is trading
for are:
1) Company executives own stock, and have options to buy more at a
price usually well below what the stock is trading for.
2) Shareholders will sue the board of directors if the stock price
bottoms out.
If everyone in the world who owns Microsoft stock decided to sell it
tomorrow, while at the same time people kept buying Microsoft's
products, Microsoft would continue to operate without much change.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Tom Breton
> In article <m3aeh0u...@world.std.com>,
> Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> No offense, but it isn't really any of our business why Quinn was bounced
> >> from the show if those involved choose to keep the reasons private. If
> >> the producers are decent human beings (hey, it could happen), they're not
> >> going to want to spread such a nasty story publically; even if they're not,
> >> the fear of legal action would probably keep them quiet.
> >
> >
> >But that's not what he said. He said he didn't like hearing a story
> >about why GQ was fired that he thinks is probably a lie.
>
> If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
> angry if you're lied to.
I didn't make ME say anything, and AFAICT Ian didn't either. Nobody
held a gun to their head to make them issue a press release (or
whatever). If they do and their story seems untrue, how did that
become my fault?
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" since 1997. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
BTVS geek code, http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- W--- R@ F+ A- Dar++ J+ A&B--- W&Moloch+++ T&O++ X&C+
X&Ay--- XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- JW- SMG+++ ED+ MN- DF- DP- JE+
Tom Breton
> In article <8hf4ri$ap9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
> > If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to
> > put out a more flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth,
> > that's their concern.
>
> You know what that is, Sarah? That is *bullshit*.
Agreed. "A more flattering version than the truth" seems to mean a
lie.
> Assuming Quinn has some kind of problem (and that's still a big
> assumption, but I'm making it), these guys came up with a cover story so
> they could dump him on a curb somewhere. They (and everybody else these
> days) is using the "right to privacy" B.S. as a cover, a shield, to allow
> them to do *nothing* for Quinn.
>
> There are several things they *could* have done. They could have insisted
> that Quinn get treatment as a condition of his continued employment. If
> Quinn refused, then they could have put out the non-definitive statement I
> alluded to in my earlier post.
Now here I don't agree. ME doesn't have an obligation to help GQ,
altho of course it's the decent thing to do. And that would hardly be
the way to go about it if they did. And we don't really know what
they did or didn't do for him.
Sarah Trombley
Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) writes:
>
>> >But that's not what he said. He said he didn't like hearing a story
>> >about why GQ was fired that he thinks is probably a lie.
>>
>> If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
>> angry if you're lied to.
>
>I didn't make ME say anything, and AFAICT Ian didn't either. Nobody
>held a gun to their head to make them issue a press release (or
>whatever). If they do and their story seems untrue, how did that
>become my fault?
It's not your fault, but neither is it your concern.
--Sarah T.
LilyRei
On 05 Jun 2000 10:43:27 GMT, mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
>>From: trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>
>>If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get angry if
>you're lied to. If the people in charge of "Angel" choose to put out a more
>flattering version of why Quinn left than the truth, that's their concern.
>Fans don't have a right to know the story, any more than you or I have the
>right to know exactly what happened the last time somebody was fired at his own
>company.
>>
>>
>>--Sarah T.
>
> None of our business? We the viewers are the reason Whedon & Co. are even
>What we really hate is the lie because it destroys their
>credibility. If you can't trust them to tell you the truth on this occasion,
>you gotta wonder what else they might be lying about.
Who *cares*? Does your personal well-being and/or happiness depend on
this? Are they taking food out of your mouth or money out of your
pocket? Is it a matter of state? Will the free world as we know it
crash and burn if they tell us lies? People have a right to privacy
in personal matters. We don't have a right to ALL information ABOUT
everyone else's life or decisions. This isn't a committee run (read
bow to the fans) enterprise. Doesn't matter if you like the reason
given or believe it. Bottom line is that's apparently all you're
going to get, and it's a done deal.
LilyRei
^ ^ ^
Angel: "You want to be enemies? Try me."
Heart of the Slayer | http://hotslayer.com
Angel ~ Passages | http://pages.prodigy.net/lilyrei/
The Bronze Webring | http://hotslayer.com/webring/bronze.html
z
trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
Tom Breton posted:
>>I didn't make ME say anything, and AFAICT Ian didn't either.
>>Nobody held a gun to their head to make them issue a press
>>release (or whatever). If they do and their story seems
>>untrue, how did that become my fault?
Sarah T. replied:
>
>It's not your fault, but neither is it your concern.
>
Tom has a good point here. ME is a public entity, no matter how
you put it. Therefore, they have given up some of their right to
privacy, as a matter of law. Furthermore, they were the ones who
issued a press release regarding this situation. You do have the
right to question what they put out as a matter of public
statement. Whether you choose to believe them or not, that is
another question, but to say it is not your concern when in fact
the production company is inviting your concern by making their
explanation public is not correct, IMO.
Furthermore, as a fan, Ian and others, including myself, can be
concerned about being lied to if a) it effects the quality of the
show or b)it materially damages the chances of the show's
survival because fans feel lied to. Your argument seems to be,
well, if it bothers you to feel lied to, then don't watch, you
have that power and ME should not feel at all responsible. But
it seems to me that is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You cannot say that is what you want, for people to stop
watching "Angel" because they feel as if they have been deceived,
can you? As Ian pointed out, there would be none of this
consternation if ME had put out even a vaguely plausible, or just
merely vague "creative differences" explanation in the first
place.
It seems strange to me to hear people say that viewers have no
right to question the producers of the programs they watch.
Certainly they have the right, as consumers, if they are
concerned enough about the product. Someone brought up the
Coca-Cola analogy, and I am sure many people remember the "New
Coke" incident from the 1980's. Consumers do have some right and
responsibility to question if they feel it is affecting their
enjoyment of the product. Furthermore, consumers have a right to
worry if they feel the producers of a product are lying to them,
particularly if the deception can lead to harm. Now, I am
certainly not saying that Glenn Quinn's reasons for leaving
Angel, and ME's lack of revelation regarding them, could be
harmful to anyone, but I am merely saying that these issues are
not as black and white as you would have them.
-- Suzanne
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Baker
server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
> in my book!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
John Baker
server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
> in my book!
One, IBall, it really is none of your (&%*&!! business ***if anyone says
it's none of your _()&)^!! business.*** Dig it? Take it from a former
journalist, ///you don't have a right to know.///
And two, WHO REALLY CARES??????
John Baker
trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu says...
> Yeah! Screw personal autonomy! I don't know this guy, but I know his
> life _must_ be screwed up! We must humiliate him and hurt his job
> prospects as much as possible, so that he returns to _our_ idea of a
> good life!
Hear hear Sarah, it really sounds like someone here MUST know that
someone else's life is more f'ed up than theirs.
John Baker
server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> > ...But! The reason for Cordelia going nuts is attached to the reason
> > Doyle isn't around anymore! The foresight power was handed off in their
> > parting kiss!
>
> Good point.
>
> Damn your *logic*, John Baker! ;)
Gee, now I feel sorry I got all pissed off at ya.
As Hirohito once said to Roosevelt: "Oh, uh, sorry."
John Baker
trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu says...
> Tell me, Ian, why did your last girlfriend/boyfriend leave you? What
> exactly did she say? How exactly did she feel? Any problems in the sex
> department? Maybe you just couldn't satisfy her? No? How do you know?
> Hey, any truth to the rumors she was sleeping with your best friend?
HAAAH! Way to make a point Sarah.
Just Another Buffy Fan
You assume that Glenn was not REPEATEDLY warned about his poor
job performance. An actor has a contract with a show. In
exchange for monetary compensation, he agrees to show up on time,
know his lines and hit his marks. If he doesn't do one of those
things, or all of those things, it costs his employer MONEY and
TIME.
Spare me the warm fuzzies. This is the Entertainment INDUSTRY
not a charity ward. The fact that ME was willing to take the
flak for his departure is magnanimous enough.
And as for feeling that you are entitled to the "truth," spare
me. No one owes you a thing. You can choose to tune in or not.
It's your choice. There's no debt there to be repaid.
>But this another problem I have: Hollywood is the ultimate place
for
>co-dependency.
>
>What serves Quinn better long-term? Lying to the Press, etc. and
making up
>some lame story, or saying, "We had to let Glenn Quinn go. He
has some
>personal issues that prevent him working to his full potential,
and we
>feel Glenn Quinn needs to solve these problems."
>
>The former method is dishonest, obscures the issues, and passes
the buck.
>The latter acknowledges a problem without stating it
specifically, and
>puts some pressure on Quinn to get his act together. (This is
all assuming
>that Quinn has a problem to solve, of course.)
>
>You see, *real* businesses tend to look out for their personnel,
and tend
>to help them with their problems. Hollywood would rather sweep
everything
>under the rug. And, to quote Faith, "It's wrong."
>
>> How many other actors, etc. have been let go with similar
pronouncements to
>> cover up for their mistakes? I'd give Joss and the gang some
slack on
>> this. It obviously was not something they had planned for.
>
>Then, for Cripe's sake, be *honest* about it. The way they
handled it
>makes me have more problems with Whedon and co. than I do with
Quinn
>(assuming he is the problem).
>
>--
>Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my
mind,
>Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
>& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
>ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
>
>
Servaas
Who can forget about: "The good fight yeah?"
-------------------------
Buffy:
Angel, there must be some part of you inside that still remembers who you
are.
Angelus: Dream on, schoolgirl.
Elaine McCue
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iball***death-to-SPAM***-0506001...@pool0409.cvx11-bradley.dialup
.earthlink.net...
> In article <8hgmci$9dr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, all41...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I always enjoy your posts, and find them some of the more thoughtful on
> > the ng, and I do believe that a lot of people have crapped on you for
> > you POV in this thread.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate that. :)
>
> > I will disagree, or maybe the word should be differ, in one point. I
> > don't think killing off Doyle hurt the show that much.
>
> As I said, a lot of people actually prefer Wesley. I just honestly feel
> that there was more potential in the Doyle character.
>
> But it turned out not to be a fatal change, and I am grateful for that,
>
> > A much bigger
> > factor was the WB's squeamishness and their insistence that a series
> > which was conceived as dark, adult, and noirish be turned into a more
> > demo-friendly one. I think the run of slushy episodes at mid-season
> > are more the result of a ship being turned against the current than any
> > character decisions.
>
> And this isn't the only show where WBN network goon interference has
> probably hurt. Aside from "Angel", and this season of "Buffy", "Savannah",
> "Hyperion Bay" and "Roswell" are all shows where The WB obviously ordered
> changes, changes that either really weren't necessary, or actually hurt
> the show (and this is most true in the case of "Savannah").
>
> Anyway, it is interesting to ponder how "Angel" would have turned out if
> the 'darker' tone of "City of..." and "Lonely Hearts" has been maintained
> through the rest of the season.
>
half has been pretty dark. Of the final six only Eternity was pretty funny
and that was in a dark kind of way. I think Glenn was dropped so that
Cordelia had more to do. I also think that it was planned from pretty early
on. I can understand Glenn's disappointment but that's acting I'm afraid.
What would they have done with Cordelia if she wasn't the seer. They fooled
us into thinking we were going to have a relationship with her and Doyle.
What makes this different from Buffy is there is no sappy relationships.
That's a plus in my opinion. I don't think anyone will ever make you think
differently Ian, but in my opinion the show is much better without Doyle.
That's a view held by all but one of my friends. As the ratings haven't
dropped. I don't think Doyle death caused much of a problem. I look forward
to the 2nd season.
Elaine> --
H.G.Hettinger
<iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <PJE_4.1402$xJ2....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
>t...@login.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie Davis) wrote:
>
>> In article <4b1mjssebcso7opqa...@4ax.com>,
>> LilyRei <tellsomeonewhocares.net> wrote:
>> :
>> :You know, maybe it's me. But it's not fandom's business what happened
>> :with GQ. No one in JW's camp is obligated to tell us anything. No
>> :offense, but this is becoming an obsession with you. Let it go for
>> :crying out loud.
>>
>> Completely agree. Doyle's dead. He ain't coming back. He's been
>> dead for eight months. Don't matter why. It's none of our business
>> with happened with GQ and it doesn't matter. Doyle's dead. Move on
>
>Completely disagree. He didn't have to die. He should't have been written
>out. The show isn't as good without him. It does matter. It *is* our
>business when it affects the show and the writing. He shouldn't be dead.
>And I'll flog dead horses for as long as I can, especially when I feel
>lied to.
Well, if you think that Doyle shouldn't be dead and that there are a
lot of stories that were just begging to be told about Angel, Doyle
and Cordelia why don't you tell them?
Post them in the creative group. I'm sure (judging from the the
number of people that have said that they really miss Doyle) that you
would have a lot of people more than willing to read them.
If you don't like the way the writers are treating the characters or
want to explore different possibilities than those the wirters are
exploring, you go and write fanfic. And if you do it well, you may
actually convince people that you are right, that the writers missed
out on telling some great stories.
For me at least, that would be much more fun to read than this thread
and similar ones have been.
As far as Whedon and Co. lying about why they killed Doyle off: you
don't have any proof that they are lying from all I can see, so I
don't see how you can go and state it as a fact without opening
yourself to the same accusations you are leveling against the
producers of 'lying to make other people believe what you want them
to.'
You demand that others tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, but you don't hold yourself to the same standard here.
hgh
Sarah Trombley
z <zan16N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <8hh7vn$hs9$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>Tom Breton posted:
>
>>>I didn't make ME say anything, and AFAICT Ian didn't either.
>>>Nobody held a gun to their head to make them issue a press
>>>release (or whatever). If they do and their story seems
>>>untrue, how did that become my fault?
>
>Sarah T. replied:
>>
>>It's not your fault, but neither is it your concern.
>>
>
>Tom has a good point here. ME is a public entity, no matter how
>you put it. Therefore, they have given up some of their right to
>privacy, as a matter of law.
Er, what _are_ you talking about? ME is, as far as I know, a private
company. We have no more right to meddle in their affairs than they
have to meddle in ours.
>Furthermore, as a fan, Ian and others, including myself, can be
>concerned about being lied to if a) it effects the quality of the
>show
As the explanation given for Glenn Quinn's departure obviously came
_after_ the decision, the explanation can hardly have affected the
quality of the show, whatever the decision may have done.
>or b)it materially damages the chances of the show's
>survival because fans feel lied to.
Even the few people here who are, er, most fervent about this issue
don't seem to have stopped watching the show. In general, there are
_very_ few people who are going to stop watching a show because they
think the producers lack credibility in discussing personnel matters.
(Most people don't pay that much attention to what such people say in
the first place.)
>Your argument seems to be,
>well, if it bothers you to feel lied to, then don't watch, you
>have that power and ME should not feel at all responsible. But
>it seems to me that is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
> You cannot say that is what you want, for people to stop
>watching "Angel" because they feel as if they have been deceived,
>can you?
That's not what I want, but if people feel that strongly about it,
I certainly recognize their right to do so. That is their final recourse
if they don't care for the show, or the people who run the show.
>As Ian pointed out, there would be none of this
>consternation if ME had put out even a vaguely plausible, or just
>merely vague "creative differences" explanation in the first
>place.
If I've understood Ian correctly, he wants Glenn Quinn to be exposed
as the substance abuser he is alleged to be, so that he will be forced
to go into treatment. That's a lot more than a vague statement about
creative differences.
>It seems strange to me to hear people say that viewers have no
>right to question the producers of the programs they watch.
>Certainly they have the right, as consumers, if they are
>concerned enough about the product.
Oh, you can complain all you want about almost anything you want. It's
America. That doesn't mean your complaints are valid. You can complain
endlessly that someone chooses not to date you; it's your right. That
doesn't mean that the person has done you wrong by not dating you.
>Coke" incident from the 1980's. Consumers do have some right and
>responsibility to question if they feel it is affecting their
>enjoyment of the product.
Any twit can question anything without having to prove that he has the
standing to do so. That doesn't mean he _has_ the standing to do so.
(And responsibility? Pfui! If I don't like a product, I switch to
the competitor. I have no responsibility to "question" Coke or anybody
else about their decisions.)
>Furthermore, consumers have a right to
>worry if they feel the producers of a product are lying to them,
>particularly if the deception can lead to harm.
Your emotions are your own. I can worry that my next-door neighbor
is dressing in such a way that will ensure he never gets a date again.
That doesn't mean that the way he dresses is any of my business or that
I have any right to demand to know why he dresses that way or to recommend
that he dress differently.
>Angel, and ME's lack of revelation regarding them, could be
>harmful to anyone, but I am merely saying that these issues are
>not as black and white as you would have them.
It's not black-and-whiteness (or absoluteness) you're objecting to. It's
the attempt at clear definition and consistent reasoning. Such things
obviously trouble you; you might want to consider killfilling me.
--Sarah t.
Ian J. Ball
<lord_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-0506000...@pool0047.cvx5-
> bradley.dialup.earthlink.net>,
> iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
> > The *point* is, they can let Quinn go, and still come up with some
> > much less definitive reason. But the story they put out doesn't make
> > any sense. Killing a character in episode #9 of a series, before he's
> > even fleshed out makes *no* sense. It lessens any potential dramatic
> > impact, and it just serves to waste everybody's time: the viewer's,
> > the actor's, even the writers'.
>
> This is the basis of your entire argument, it seems to me. And it's
> based on a rather faulty bit of logic--because you, personally, think
> that Doyle's exit in episode #9 carried no dramatic impact, the story
> of the Powers That Be must be a lie.
Well, it is definitely an assumption on my part, based on A) as bad as
Whedon and co. have handled things this past season, I honestly can't
fathom them doing something *this* boneheaded, and B) there are wildly
inconsistent explainations as to what happened with Quinn's ouster.
Based on A, B, and Occam's Razor, I tend to smell a rat.
> IMHO, there are several other explanations that don't assume any
> treachery on the part of TPTB:
>
> 1. TPTB TRIED TO DO SOMETHING DRAMATIC, AND WEREN'T UP TO THE
> CHALLENGE.
This is plausible. But, like I said, I can't believe that they would
have bought their own propaganda that this idea would work. And I can't
believe that they'd use something as ham-fisted as "Hero" to do it.
OTOH, if this is, in fact, true, then I hope Whedon, and everyone else
in TV, learned a lesson from this (e.g. like fine wines, don't kill
characters before their time).
> 2. TPTB RAN OUT OF TIME. It's also possible that the writers
> underestimated the amount of time they would need to explore Doyle in-
> depth and set up his noble demise. But with contracts signed and
> episodes scheduled for production, they were locked in to killing him
> after nine episodes.
If Whedon's story actually is true, this is definitely true IMHO.
As I've said elsewhere, the events of "Shanshu" actually lead me to
believe that *this* would have been the proper place to kill the Doyle
character.
> 3. YOU'RE JUST ON A DIFFERENT PAGE. When it comes down to it, you're
> argument is "Because I didn't find this arc dramatically satisfying, it
> must not have been a deliberate dramatic choice." Problem is, plenty of
> people found Doyle's arc quite satisfying. I know I did.
And there are plenty of people who didn't.
> Just because you disagree with the writers doesn't mean they're trying
> to deceive you.
See the top of my response. It's the nonsensicalness of this development
*plus* the inconsistencies with the explanatory story that have me more
than a little suspicious.
If Whedon's story is, in fact, the truth, then I'll just write it off as
a piss-pour, boneheaded move.
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Trisha Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Ian J. Ball
<fo...@spammersmustdie.mpinet.net> wrote:
> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-6329F4.20362404062000@news-
> server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> > > ...But! The reason for Cordelia going nuts is attached to the reason
> > > Doyle isn't around anymore! The foresight power was handed off in
> > > their parting kiss!
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > Damn your *logic*, John Baker! ;)
>
> Gee, now I feel sorry I got all pissed off at ya.
Clearly, this whole privacy "thing", and the "Doyle situation", are
something people feel strongly about. I don't mind heated exchanges.
I *do* mind personal attacks, which (as far as I can see) you (and
Sarah) didn't resort to. But there were others in this thread who did,
and I'll be keeping a close eye on 'em... ;)
Ian J. Ball
trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
> In article <016bb610...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> z <zan16N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Tom has a good point here. ME is a public entity, no matter how
> >you put it. Therefore, they have given up some of their right to
> >privacy, as a matter of law.
>
> Er, what _are_ you talking about? ME is, as far as I know, a private
> company. We have no more right to meddle in their affairs than they
> have to meddle in ours.
You're trying to make it black and white. It's not. It's a *private
company* (meaning owned privately) in a *public* industry (i.e. show
biz). It would be (as always, IMHO) ludicrous to say that ME can expect
as much "privacy" as po-dunk, dot.com start-up #2112 that nobody's ever
heard of and that has 30 employees.
> >Furthermore, as a fan, Ian and others, including myself, can be
> >concerned about being lied to if a) it effects the quality of the
> >show
>
> As the explanation given for Glenn Quinn's departure obviously came
> _after_ the decision, the explanation can hardly have affected the
> quality of the show, whatever the decision may have done.
I don't get what you mean here.
But Z's point ends up getting to specualtion, i.e. would "Angel" be
better had Doyle stuck around, or has it been better with Wesley?
That's just something every fan has to decide for himself.
> >or b)it materially damages the chances of the show's
> >survival because fans feel lied to.
>
> Even the few people here who are, er, most fervent about this issue
> don't seem to have stopped watching the show. In general, there are
> _very_ few people who are going to stop watching a show because they
> think the producers lack credibility in discussing personnel matters.
But it's "straws on the camel's back".
Have I stopped watching "Angel"? No. Because, after "Parting Gifts" and
the next couple of episodes, the writers dumped "bumbling Wesley" for
"vaguely confident and wounded Wesley". (I can promise you that, had
they stuck with "bumbling Wesley, 'Angel's' very own Joxer!", I *would*
have stopped watching.) So that helped me get over the Doyle fiasco.
And "Angel" still has more 'chits' with me because it's a newer show.
But there are only so many straws I can take (and I'm sure others feel
the same). If I feel Whedon is d*cking the fandom around, or putting out
substandard product, I *will* walk.
As it is, I'm not very far from flushing "Buffy", and I consider it to
be "on probation" for early season #5.
> >As Ian pointed out, there would be none of this
> >consternation if ME had put out even a vaguely plausible, or just
> >merely vague "creative differences" explanation in the first
> >place.
>
> If I've understood Ian correctly, he wants Glenn Quinn to be exposed
> as the substance abuser he is alleged to be, so that he will be forced
> to go into treatment. That's a lot more than a vague statement about
> creative differences.
And your point seems to be "Quinn's life is his own to do with as he
pleases, and if nobody lifts a finger to help the guy, they don't have
to because nobody owes anybody anything, and we're all only responsible
for our own narrow, selfish interests. And the most important thing is
our sacred 'Right to Privacy'!"
It's not fun to have somebody putting words in your mouth, is it?
Look, I'm not going to belabor this point any further becayse we do
*not* know that Quinn has any kind of problem, so it's all specualtion.
My point was that, *if* Quinn was fired for cause (specifically drug or
alcohol abuse), then I think it helps *him* more to make that cause
public than it does to sweep things under the rug. It probably appalls
you, Sarah, but shame is a very powerful force to turn people's lives
around. It's worked time and again. Naybe you think that's
mean-spirited. I think it's mean-spirited IN THE SHORT TERM, but more
likely to be benefical long-term.
Nobody ever does anybody any favors to sweep problems under a rug, pass
the buck, and pretend that they don't exist.
> Any twit can question anything without having to prove that he has the
> standing to do so. That doesn't mean he _has_ the standing to do so.
And anybody can claim that *nobody* has the "standing" to do so, but
that doesn't make them right either.
> >Coke" incident from the 1980's. Consumers do have some right and
> >responsibility to question if they feel it is affecting their
> >enjoyment of the product.
>
> (And responsibility? Pfui! If I don't like a product, I switch to
> the competitor. I have no responsibility to "question" Coke or anybody
> else about their decisions.)
You're missing Z's point. Z's point is that _Coke_ *does* have a
responsibility to its customers.
By extension, so does ME. (And so does The WB. And so does FOX. Yada
yada yada...)
> Your emotions are your own. I can worry that my next-door neighbor
> is dressing in such a way that will ensure he never gets a date again.
> That doesn't mean that the way he dresses is any of my business or that
> I have any right to demand to know why he dresses that way or to recommend
> that he dress differently.
That is an extremely narrow (and I'd say selfish) view of the world. I
don't think everybody sees the world that way.
> It's not black-and-whiteness (or absoluteness) you're objecting to. It's
> the attempt at clear definition and consistent reasoning. Such things
> obviously trouble you; you might want to consider killfilling me.
Not a chance. You don't resort to personal attacks. As long as you stick
to the debate, you're all right by me.
Cajo
>If I've understood Ian correctly, he wants Glenn Quinn to be exposed
>as the substance abuser he is alleged to be, so that he will be forced
>to go into treatment. That's a lot more than a vague statement about
>creative differences.
I was left with this impression as well.
--
Cajo (ca...@thebootyque.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I've ever known." -- Walt
Disney
Mnkohrz
>
>>(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are correct,
however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
>
>That "wise" man was a fool.
>
>
>--Sarah T.
Excuse me, Sarah, but what alternate universe do you inhabit and how can I
get there?
Other fans have already answered your insipid statements far better than I
could - and let me express my gratitude now :) - so I'll confine my reply to
the above passage.
It is generally conceded in criminal law that you have surrendered the right
to privacy when you commit a crime because you have just demonstrated that you
are a threat to the community - even if that crime was merely the possession of
illegal drugs. (It may not be written down, but that is certainly the spirit.)
The private details of your life thus become revelant to the public because we
have the right to protect ourselves if you are a threat.
The problem is, of course, that privacy is a slippery slope: Once you start
down, it's almost impossible to stop. Everyone seems to have their own opinion
of what is or is not revelant and by the time it all gets sorted out all of the
ugly details have been dredged up anyway - particularly if you are a celebrity.
If you doubt this, then I would like to introduce you to Bill Clinton, Gary
Hart, Christian Slater, Heidi Fleiss, O.J. Simpson or, for that matter, any of
the thousands of people who have their name published in the local newspaper in
connection with some wrongdoing.
I am aware of the flaws in this system, but I didn't invent it and frankly I
don't have any idea how to fix it. I guess from an actor's perspective it just
falls in the category of "occupational hazard."
Mnkohrz
Sarah Trombley
>trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>> In article <016bb610...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
>> z <zan16N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >Tom has a good point here. ME is a public entity, no matter how
>> >you put it. Therefore, they have given up some of their right to
>> >privacy, as a matter of law.
>>
>> Er, what _are_ you talking about? ME is, as far as I know, a private
>> company. We have no more right to meddle in their affairs than they
>> have to meddle in ours.
>
>You're trying to make it black and white. It's not. It's a *private
>company* (meaning owned privately) in a *public* industry (i.e. show
>biz).
It's no more public than any other industry. I assure you that if you
try to walk into ME's archives, saying that TV is a "public industry"
won't get you past the security guard.
> It would be (as always, IMHO) ludicrous to say that ME can expect
>as much "privacy" as po-dunk, dot.com start-up #2112 that nobody's ever
>heard of and that has 30 employees.
Why? Just because some people or companies within the industry choose
to publicize their internal affairs, or even because publicizing one's
internal affairs tends to lead to success, doesn't mean that others have
no right to privacy.
>> >Furthermore, as a fan, Ian and others, including myself, can be
>> >concerned about being lied to if a) it effects the quality of the
>> >show
>>
>> As the explanation given for Glenn Quinn's departure obviously came
>> _after_ the decision, the explanation can hardly have affected the
>> quality of the show, whatever the decision may have done.
>
>I don't get what you mean here.
I know it's convoluted, but I was trying to deal with some broken logic.
The original poster above said that the lie itself might affect the
quality of the show. But what she was referring to was the effects of
the decision to get rid of Doyle, not the decision to lie. The choice
to lie, in and of itself, is very unlikely to have any effect on the
quality of the show. It came _after_ the choice that _would_ have
impact, the choice to fire Quinn.
>> Even the few people here who are, er, most fervent about this issue
>> don't seem to have stopped watching the show. In general, there are
>> _very_ few people who are going to stop watching a show because they
>> think the producers lack credibility in discussing personnel matters.
>
>But it's "straws on the camel's back".
[*snip*]
>But there are only so many straws I can take (and I'm sure others feel
>the same). If I feel Whedon is d*cking the fandom around, or putting out
>substandard product, I *will* walk.
That's absolutely fine. I wasn't trying to imply you weren't sincere
in your views. I was merely trying to argue that such decisions are
unlikely to have much impact on the viewership of the show, since even
the person who's complained the most is still watching. Most people
really are _at best_ vaguely aware of a show's internal politics. The
number of people who both know and care enough to stop watching over
such a matter are really quite small.
>As it is, I'm not very far from flushing "Buffy", and I consider it to
>be "on probation" for early season #5.
Me too.
>> If I've understood Ian correctly, he wants Glenn Quinn to be exposed
>> as the substance abuser he is alleged to be, so that he will be forced
>> to go into treatment. That's a lot more than a vague statement about
>> creative differences.
>
>And your point seems to be "Quinn's life is his own to do with as he
>pleases, and if nobody lifts a finger to help the guy, they don't have
>to because nobody owes anybody anything, and we're all only responsible
>for our own narrow, selfish interests. And the most important thing is
>our sacred 'Right to Privacy'!"
>
>It's not fun to have somebody putting words in your mouth, is it?
*shrugs* Note the "if I've understood Ian correctly." If I haven't
understood you, plese feel free to correct me.
>My point was that, *if* Quinn was fired for cause (specifically drug or
>alcohol abuse), then I think it helps *him* more to make that cause
>public than it does to sweep things under the rug. It probably appalls
>you, Sarah, but shame is a very powerful force to turn people's lives
>around. It's worked time and again. Naybe you think that's
>mean-spirited. I think it's mean-spirited IN THE SHORT TERM, but more
>likely to be benefical long-term.
I'm fully aware of the power of shame. That's why I don't want strangers,
or my employers, trying to employ it haphazardly to fix whatever it is
in my life they don't approve of. Shame can ruin a person's career and
make his life miserable. What it _cannot_ do is force an addict to
enter recovery before he's ready to do it on his own.
I'm amazed that you feel that you know well enough what's best for a
competent adult whom you don't even know that you can advocate wrecking
his career and humiliating him publically in order to make him conform
to _your_ idea of what a good life is. How bad does a person have to be
to qualify to have his life ruined? Is it only drugs? What if he doesn't
visit his grandma in the home? Would you approve of a fundamentalist
Christian boss outing a closeted homosexual in the hopes of shaming him into
therapy to get his "sick, unnatural, sinful" urges taken care of? If
not, why not? Heck, all you're worried about Quinn's health. That boss
is worried about his eternal soul!
>Nobody ever does anybody any favors to sweep problems under a rug, pass
>the buck, and pretend that they don't exist.
Actually, this isn't true. There are times when you have to let people
deal with their own problems in their own way, and interference can
only be harmful.
>> >Coke" incident from the 1980's. Consumers do have some right and
>> >responsibility to question if they feel it is affecting their
>> >enjoyment of the product.
>>
>> (And responsibility? Pfui! If I don't like a product, I switch to
>> the competitor. I have no responsibility to "question" Coke or anybody
>> else about their decisions.)
>
>You're missing Z's point. Z's point is that _Coke_ *does* have a
>responsibility to its customers.
Nope. Look back up there. "Consumers do have some...responsibility to
question..." "Consumers" isn't "Coke."
>By extension, so does ME. (And so does The WB. And so does FOX. Yada
>yada yada...)
No. They're trying to sell me a product. The only responsibility they
have to me is rather narrowly defined in the civil code. They don't
owe me anything; they especially don't owe me information on their private
affairs. Conversely, I owe them nothing. I can turn off their shows
at any time.
>> Your emotions are your own. I can worry that my next-door neighbor
>> is dressing in such a way that will ensure he never gets a date again.
>> That doesn't mean that the way he dresses is any of my business or that
>> I have any right to demand to know why he dresses that way or to recommend
>> that he dress differently.
>
>That is an extremely narrow (and I'd say selfish) view of the world. I
>don't think everybody sees the world that way.
You honestly think I can reasonably go over to my neighbor and say,
"Hey, Pete, why the heck do you dress like that? Don't you know women
are laughing at you behind your back? Why don't you wear x instead?"
Do you go over to fat women and say, "Hey, why don't you lose some
weight? It would really help you attract more men. Why do you eat so
much? Why don't you exercise more?"
Let me tell you something. You aren't helping such people. You're
embarrassing them and invading their privacy. I seriously doubt you
would like it if someone fired that set of questions I gave in my original
post at you. ("Hey, why did your last girlfriend/boyfriend leave you?
What did she say? How did you feel? Like a loser, I bet, huh? How
was the sex? You weren't satisfying her, eh? How do you know? Say,
any truth to the rumor she was sleeping with your best friend? --Hey,
don't get mad at _me_. This is about the TRUTH, not some phantom
'right to privacy'! If you tell me what went wrong, maybe I can tell
you how to act so you don't keep on losing your girlfriends the way you
do now. I'm _helping_ you!")
>> It's not black-and-whiteness (or absoluteness) you're objecting to. It's
>> the attempt at clear definition and consistent reasoning. Such things
>> obviously trouble you; you might want to consider killfilling me.
>
>Not a chance. You don't resort to personal attacks. As long as you stick
>to the debate, you're all right by me.
Well, this particular person is perpetually complaining of my tendency
to see things in absolutes, black-and-whites, etc. Nothing to do with
you.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
>>From: trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>
>
>
>>
>>>(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are correct,
>however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
>surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
>>
>>That "wise" man was a fool.
>>
>>
>>--Sarah T.
>
> Excuse me, Sarah, but what alternate universe do you inhabit and how can I
>get there?
It's all a question of perspective.
> Other fans have already answered your insipid statements far better than I
>could
They certainly have, if that's the best you can do.
>- and let me express my gratitude now :) - so I'll confine my reply to
>the above passage.
> It is generally conceded in criminal law that you have surrendered the
>right
>to privacy when you commit a crime because you have just demonstrated that you
>are a threat to the community
Sorry, try again. When you are _convicted_ of a crime, you lose _some_
of your rights.
> - even if that crime was merely the possession of
>illegal drugs. (It may not be written down, but that is certainly the
>spirit.)
I take it you're _not_ a lawyer. Here's a suggested exercise for you:
Rob Lowe has been convicted of several crimes. Why don't you go demand
his tax returns, on the grounds that he's a danger to the public? I'll
be interested to see how far that "spirit" gets you.
>ugly details have been dredged up anyway - particularly if you are a
>celebrity.
> If you doubt this, then I would like to introduce you to Bill Clinton, Gary
>Hart, Christian Slater, Heidi Fleiss, O.J. Simpson or, for that matter, any of
>the thousands of people who have their name published in the local newspaper
> in
>connection with some wrongdoing.
Of course various sources attempt to dig up as much muck on a celebrity
accused (or convicted) of a crime as possible. That does not mean that
you can request O.J. Simpson's medical records to satisfy your curiosity
on him.
And the one key point you seem to be overlooking here--as far as I know,
Quinn has not been convicted of _any_ crime. The mere accusation means
_nothing_. Even when it's *gasp* drug-related.
--Sarah T.
Rose
>Date: 6/5/00 10:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000606010345...@ng-da1.news.gateway.net>
>
>>Subject: Re: The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
>>From: trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>
>
>
>>
>>>(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are
>correct,
>however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
>surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
>>
>>That "wise" man was a fool.
>>
>>
>>--Sarah T.
>
> Excuse me, Sarah, but what alternate universe do you inhabit and how can I
>get there?
>I
>could
Ohhhh! Flame War!!!!
Sarah, did you desensitize yourself by participating in my Flame Yourself
thread? The next time I flame myself, I will remember to use the word
"insipid." It's a good one.
Rose, who hopes people read that website about different types of Flame
Warriors. It's hilarious.
David Marc Nieporent
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> claimed:
>Clearly, this whole privacy "thing", and the "Doyle situation", are
>something people feel strongly about. I don't mind heated exchanges.
>I *do* mind personal attacks,
Unless, of course, those personal attacks are by Joss against GQ, in which
case not only don't you mind them, but you actually demand that Joss
engage in them, for your own view of GQ's own good.
>which (as far as I can see) you (and
>Sarah) didn't resort to. But there were others in this thread who did,
>and I'll be keeping a close eye on 'em... ;)
So just pretend that those "personal attacks" you see are for your own
good. It doesn't do any good, according to you, to sweep problems under
the rug. If we see something wrong with you, we're supposed to announce
it publicly, in the hopes it will shame you into acting the way we want
you to.
Sarah Trombley
Rose <fyl...@aol.comfortador> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
>>From: mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz)
>>Date: 6/5/00 10:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20000606010345...@ng-da1.news.gateway.net>
>>
>>>Subject: Re: The real reason Glenn Quinn left..
>>>From: trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>(I'll be kind and give him the benefit of doubt.) If the rumors are
>>correct,
>>however, then, as a wise man once told me, one of the first things you
>>surrunder when you commit a crime is your right to privacy.
>>>
>>>That "wise" man was a fool.
>>>
>>>
>>>--Sarah T.
>>
>> Excuse me, Sarah, but what alternate universe do you inhabit and how can I
>>get there?
>> Other fans have already answered your insipid statements far better than
>>I
>>could
>
>Ohhhh! Flame War!!!!
>
>Sarah, did you desensitize yourself by participating in my Flame Yourself
>thread?
I tried, but my self-esteem was too high for me to get properly in the
spirit. ;)
>The next time I flame myself, I will remember to use the word
>"insipid." It's a good one.
Nah. It's not a sufficiently repulsive quality. Now, if he'd said that
intestinal parasites had to draw straws to see which of them was stuck
with infesting me...
--Sarah T.
Laura and Julian
Perhaps they realised that the Doyle character was becoming too beloved too
quickly and that if they waited a whole season to kill him off they would
alienate too many viewers. There was quite a storm after 8? er uh 9? eps. Maybe
they thought they would never hear the end of it if they waited too long
especially if they were not going to bring him back. I STILL think a villain
with Doyle's face would be a fabu idea...bring up Angel and Cordy's feelings,
Wes's insecurities...huh?...huh?...anyone?...anyone?...Bueller?...Bueller?
Dragyn
"Ian J. Ball" wrote:
> [Remeber folks: this is actually an *alt.tv.angel* topic, not a a.tv.b-v-s
> topic. I'm adding alt.tv.angel, but will leave a.tv.b-v-s in, for now...]
>
> In article <20000604164446...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
> lor...@aol.com1ic18789 (Lorelai) wrote:
>
> > Here is my take on the GQ situation. I don't believe the official story.
> > Killing off Doyle at that early date in the season really didn't make
> > dramatic sense.
>
> Bingo! Killing him off in episode #9 made basically no dramatic sense, but
> *did* piss off those of us who saw a lot of (unrealized) *potential* in
> the Doyle character.
>
> > Doyle's backstory hadn't been developed enough for his
> > to be death nearly as meaningful as it could have been, say, at the end of
> > the season, if this was something planned from the beginning.
>
> Also, think about it this way. I don't know how likely it is, but let's
> say that the events in "Shanshu" were already bouncing around in either
> Joss Whedon's or David Greenwalt's head before they even started filming
> the first episodes of "Angel".
>
> What happens in "Shanshu"? Well, Angel's office gets blown up. Except
> that, in this final, aired version, Wesley survives.
>
> Now imagine that Doyle had been around for all of season #1. What happens
> in "Shanshu" when the building blows up?
>
> Doyle dies. (And, then, at the end of the episode, we see the restored
> Darla.)
>
> Now imagine how powerful *this* incarnation of "Shanshu" would be: Cordie
> is nearly crazy, Doyle gets blown up and killed, Angel's a mess, Leslie is
> hoppin' mad, and Darla's been brought back. Great stuff.
>
> When you think about it *this* way, then I can easily believe that the
> plan *was* to kill off Doyle, BUT IN THE "ANGEL" SEASON #1 FINALE! *not*
> in "Hero".
>
> So, will I ever believe that the plan was to kill Doyle off in episode #9?
> Not a chance! I will *never* believe that.
>
> > Furthermore, I just don't believe that the WB would spend all that money
> > during the winter, spring and summer of 1999 promoting a series about
> > three specific characters, and then dump one of them 9 weeks into the show.
>
> And that really is something else to consider: The WB made an *investment*
> in the original incarnation of "Angel". Does anyone believe that they
> would have promoted the show the way they did, had they known that Doyle
> would be gone in episode #9? And does anyone really believe that Joss
> Whedon would have deliberately hidden that fact from The WB, his network
> sponsors?!
>
> > And finally, it is quite apparent from what I've seen on shooting scripts
> > for episodes 10, 11 and 12, that it was intended for Doyle to be in those
> > eps when the eps were written.
>
> And Wesley's very awkward insertion into those episodes, especially
> "Parting Gifts" (and also "Expecting") would tend to bare that out.
>
> > On the other hand, the Internet world being what it is, and every rumor
> > eventually reappearing as incontrovertible Truth, I'm going to be taking
> > all the "what-really-happened" stories with a grain of salt too ;-)
>
> The specifics are unimportant to me now, and probably will never be known
> anyway.
>
> What I do believe is that it became impossible for Glenn Quinn to remain
> on the show, for whatever reason, and I tend to think that it was either
> something that Quinn did, or something to do with on-set tensions. So the
> writers quickly excised him from the show.
>
> And I can understand that. What I *can't* understand is Joss Whedon and
> Co. than lying to the fandom about it. And it's something I am *still*
> angry about...
>
> --
> Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
> Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
> & TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
> ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Laura and Julian
dxgarten wrote:
> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-5416B3.20511204062000@news-
> server.socal.rr.com>, "Ian J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***
> @socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Completely disagree. He didn't have to die. He should't have
> been written
> >out. The show isn't as good without him.
>
> I disagree. I think the show is way better off without him.
>
No. It is different. But I don't agree that it is better. I like Wes, but I
also liked Doyle and felt he added a lot and also had much room to grow.
> What
> could Doyle have done? To which direction can the writers take
> him. There wasn't much room for development left for the
> character Doyle.
There was also the visions which made him interesting, as they now do Cordy.
> His problem with the 'Devil' self was not very
> interesting in my opinion. I like Wesley and what he has brought
> to the show: a real ally to Angel, someone to fight together with
> Angel (something that Doyle refused to be apart of if he could),
Never seemed to be able to though, did he. And his connection to Cordy was
making him leave that stance.
>
> someone with knowledge of Demonology (something Doyle may only
> know parts of since he is even reluctant to discover his own
> demon
> self), someone who likes to research (Doyle would rather be at
> the
> race track or at the pub).
>
> Also once again I must stressed that at the early episodes of
> Angel, Cordelia is very disposable character. She does not do
> much besides making some smart remarks. She's bad at typing, she
> can't file, you have to wonder how long will it be before Angel
> fired her. But after Doyle's death, her role suddenly change.
> She is closer to Angel teaching him to care about other people
> who
> are not Buffy, she is more mature (while keeping her tongue in
> cheek),
These subjects could have been explored without "the sight"
> she is a direct link to TPTB. She's now indisposable.
Indispensable. She always was to me.
>
> She's an important element of the show and her, Angel, and Wesley
> creates that sense of togetherness that sorely lacking when Doyle
> was around. Angel didn't even care for anyone when Doyle was
> around and he kinda considers both Doyle and Cordelia a little of
> liability.
Completely disagree. He was very close to Doyle and becoming closer. And their
relationship was changing from Doyle mentoring Angel to Angel mentoring Doyle
which could have been interesting. Also, since vampirism has been described as
alcoholism then Doyle's problem could have been an interesting link to recovery
from that and add another thing to the things they shared. Doyle was a
sidekick. So is Wes. They are both good but different IMHO. Dragyn
> He was not able to care for other people outside
> Buffy. So yes, the death changed it all and it works for the
> better I'll say if it makes Angel more attentive towards other
> people. And he should be if he wants that redemption from TPTB
Laura and Julian
The Crone of Elderfen wrote:
> Glenn Quinn did a superb job in the nine episodes he had. If you perceive
> him as a "loser," what you're seeing is a fine actor who created a "persona"
> and did it well. He did a wonderful job of bringing depth and texture to a
> character that was hastily written as a substitute for Whistler. The writers
> couldn't figure out who Doyle was; they started writing him as Whistler with
> an Irish accent, and then kept changing his character around, adding and
> subtracting abilities in an inconsistent and confusing fashion until they
> boxed themselves into a corner (or at least they thought they had). Then it
> looks like they took the easy way out and gave up on the character
> completely, indulging Joss Whedon's whim to shake things up by killing off a
> major character. (It's like what the soap operas do when they kill off a
> character for much the same reasons - it makes for 'good drama' for a little
> while, but most times they regret it later and find a way to bring the
> character back.) The decision was apparently made in October, within the
> first weeks of airing the show, before the fans had the chance to let the
> "Angel" team know that despite the inconsistent writing for the character,
> Doyle would become (in Joss Whedon's own words) "incredibly popular." Joss
> and the writers just didn't know what a great asset they had until they'd
> already let him go.
Jim Roberts-Miller
SPAM***-A135D2.201...@news-server.socal.rr.com>:
>
>My point was that, *if* Quinn was fired for cause (specifically drug or
>alcohol abuse), then I think it helps *him* more to make that cause
>public than it does to sweep things under the rug. It probably appalls
>you, Sarah, but shame is a very powerful force to turn people's lives
>around. It's worked time and again. Naybe you think that's
>mean-spirited. I think it's mean-spirited IN THE SHORT TERM, but more
>likely to be benefical long-term.
The Scarlet Letter approach? <shudder>
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller
--
Texas A&M '89, '91 "Is there in Truth no Beauty?"
"Of course, you do not have to go to the moon to find cold, dark, and
inhospitable...conditions. Much of Canada will do." -- the Economist
http://www.mindspring.com/~jammerjim/jimpg01.html
Sara Stringfellow
Tom Breton wrote in message ...
>trom...@is07.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) writes:
>
>> In article <m3aeh0u...@world.std.com>,
>> Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No offense, but it isn't really any of our business why Quinn was
bounced
>> >> from the show if those involved choose to keep the reasons private.
If
>> >> the producers are decent human beings (hey, it could happen), they're
not
>> >> going to want to spread such a nasty story publically; even if they're
not,
>> >> the fear of legal action would probably keep them quiet.
>> >
>> >
>> >But that's not what he said. He said he didn't like hearing a story
>> >about why GQ was fired that he thinks is probably a lie.
>>
>> If you ask a question that's not any of your business, you can't get
>> angry if you're lied to.
>
>I didn't make ME say anything, and AFAICT Ian didn't either. Nobody
>held a gun to their head to make them issue a press release (or
>whatever). If they do and their story seems untrue, how did that
>become my fault?
>
>Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
We have no evidence that it isn't true; only speculation.
Ian J. Ball
<fo...@spammersmustdie.mpinet.net> wrote:
> In article <iball***death-to-SPAM***-1F49B4.20331504062000@news-
> server.socal.rr.com>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com says...
> > So, this phantom "right to privacy" is more important than the truth?! Not
> > in my book!
>
> YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
When do I get to threaten Tom Cruise with "gouging out his eyes, and
pissing in his skull"?! :)
Ian J. Ball
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
> In <iball***death-to-SPAM***-AD8D69.195...@news-server.socal.rr.com>,
> Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> claimed:
>
> >Clearly, this whole privacy "thing", and the "Doyle situation", are
> >something people feel strongly about. I don't mind heated exchanges.
>
> >I *do* mind personal attacks,
>
> Unless, of course, those personal attacks are by Joss against GQ, in which
> case not only don't you mind them, but you actually demand that Joss
> engage in them, for your own view of GQ's own good.
You're being ridiculous, David. I never said anything about a personal
attack on Quinn. Those are your words not mine.
> >which (as far as I can see) you (and
> >Sarah) didn't resort to. But there were others in this thread who did,
> >and I'll be keeping a close eye on 'em... ;)
>
> So just pretend that those "personal attacks" you see are for your own
> good. It doesn't do any good, according to you, to sweep problems under
> the rug. If we see something wrong with you, we're supposed to announce
> it publicly, in the hopes it will shame you into acting the way we want
> you to.
You're dangerously close to my killfile.
z
trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
> I know it's convoluted, but I was trying to deal with some
> broken logic. The original poster above said that the lie
> itself might affect the quality of the show. But what she was
> referring to was the effects of the decision to get rid of
> Doyle, not the decision to lie. The choice to lie, in and of
> itself, is very unlikely to have any effect on the quality of
> the show. It came _after_ the choice that _would_ have impact,
> the choice to fire Quinn.
No, that is not at all what I was trying to say, and I am sorry
if it was unclear. Allow me to explain. You were arguing that
the viewer has no right to be concerned about the decisions that
ME makes regarding the show. I was arguing that that is not
true, particularly in 2 circumstances. One of those
circumstances is if the decision that the producer makes harms
the show, then the viewer has a right to express their
displeasure and act accordingly. I did not argue that any
alleged lie harmed the quality of the show. In fact, I have not
argued whether Glenn Quinn's removal has hurt or helped the show
at all.
-- Suzanne
z
trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
I wrote:
>>> >Coke" incident from the 1980's. Consumers do have some
>>> >right and responsibility to question if they feel it is
>>> >affecting their enjoyment of the product.
Sarah T posted:
>>> (And responsibility? Pfui! If I don't like a product, I
>>> switch to the competitor. I have no responsibility to
>>> "question" Coke or anybody else about their decisions.)
Ian J. Ball responded:
>> You're missing Z's point. Z's point is that _Coke_ *does* have
>> a responsibility to its customers.
Sarah T. replied:
> Nope. Look back up there. "Consumers do have
> some...responsibility to question..." "Consumers" isn't
> "Coke."
Actually, my belief if that each of these entities (companies and
consumers) have some responsibility to each other. It is not
good business sense for companies to ignore the complaints of
their customers. But to see the changes they want, or to let
companies know that they are dissatisfied with a product,
consumers have the responsibility to communicate their
dissatisfaction, if they feel that strongly about product. Many
people don't, and so feel no obligation to express their
displeasure. They should not be forced to. But there is nothing
wrong with those who do feel strongly about a product exercising
their obligation as a consumer to let the producers know their
dissatisfaction. That many people choose not to do this does not
mean it doesn't exist.
[snip]
>
> Well, this particular person is perpetually complaining of my
> tendency to see things in absolutes, black-and-whites, etc.
> Nothing to do with you.
Sarah, you were the person who told me that if I couldn't stand
disagreement, then I shouldn't participate in the ng. But I can
stand disagreement and I have no problem discussing and
defending my opinion. I do tend to see a lot of black-and-white
in your arguments, and I am sorry that it offends you. But I
have no intention of killfiling you because I disagree with you.
You may, of course, feel free to do that with me.
Swendson
>From: "Ian J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com>
>As I've said elsewhere, the events of "Shanshu" actually lead me to
>believe that *this* would have been the proper place to kill the Doyle
>character.
But I'm not sure they could have done the story in the first place without
Wesley. He's the one with the skills and knowledge to translate the scroll.
Angel wouldn't have known what it was without Wesley. Doyle seemed to have a
rather conventional education (he was a teacher, after all). He didn't have the
background in ancient languages (human and non-human) that Wesley has. That was
central to the plot of the whole episode. If this was to be the episode where
Doyle died, then he would have just been killed when the bad guys stole the
scroll and blew up the building, then Wes would have had to come along next
season to tell them why the scroll was important. (Not to mention the Cordelia
and the visions thing that's already been brought up.)
Maybe I'm weird, but I was a huge Doyle fan who was very upset that he had to
go, but I also think in the long run that it was a good decision. I'm not
wildly crazy about the specific way it happened, but it shook things up and had
an impact on the other characters. Plus, Wesley is more of a utility character.
He's useful for a lot of things -- translating, demon expertise (as in "Blind
Date"), exposition (since the character tends to lecture, the writers can get
away with using him for exposition). On top of it all, Wesley fits in
thematically. After all, he, himself, is one of Angel's "projects." They "help
the hopeless" (or is that helpless?) and no one could be more hopeless or
helpless than Wes was when he showed up.
At the same time, they couldn't have started the series with Wesley because
they needed an outsider to goad Angel into taking action. He had to go through
becoming friends with, then losing Doyle before he would be ready to accept and
help Wesley. Wes and Angel weren't exactly bestest buds on S3 Buffy. Angel has
zero respect for Wesley then.
I kind of hope that this was the thinking and that it had nothing to do with
the actors in question.
Besides, even if "Hero" wasn't the way I would have written Doyle's death, it
still made me cry. And I used to hate Wesley. I cringed when I found out who
Doyle's "replacement" was going to be and swore it would ruin the series, but
I love him now. I don't see that they've screwed up all that badly. I'm
anxiously awaiting season 2.
John Baker
bradley.dialup.earthlink.net>, iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com
says...
> When do I get to threaten Tom Cruise with "gouging out his eyes, and
> pissing in his skull"?! :)
You do that, I'll go kiss his ol' lady all over, in the dark
dxgarten
In article <393CF431...@bellsouth.net>, Laura and Julian <
jms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>There was also the visions which made him interesting, as they
now do Cordy.
I think the vision did not made him interesting as they are
important in making a character a seer for Angel. There was no
background story why Doyle and Cordelia can do what they can do.
It turned out that they were just selected by TPTB. How far can
the writers stretch a story where Doyle finds out why he got the
gift?
>Never seemed to be able to though, did he. And his connection
to Cordy was
>making him leave that stance.
I don't agree with that. He had many chance to become a real
sidekick (City of, Lonely Hearts, I fall to pieces, and
especially, In the Dark - they actually had to use Oz to take
Angel away from Spike) but he has always been a reluctant one.
Also as someone else pointed out here, Doyle could in no way do
the scroll translation in "To Shanshu in LA". It would be out of
character for him to do that. How about the time when Angel was
chained with the ring that made him unable to escape from the
gladiator type of arena? Creating a key like that would require
someone who has a background in chemistry and knowledge of
demonology, something that Doyle is lacking. So where would that
leave Doyle? As a character with jokes and dry wit like
Cordelia?
We already have Cordelia for that.
>Completely disagree. He was very close to Doyle and becoming
closer.
That's the problem isn't it? Angel has always been a one-friend
man. Somehow he got this dependency on one person and one person
only before Cordelia and Wesley become his friends. In "Buffy",
it was only Buffy that he was opening up with. In "Angel" early
season, it was only Doyle that he was close with. He even
considered Cordelia a liability (Room w/ a Vu) then. And that
was
not good since Angel is supposed to be opening up to people not
just one person. Doyle's death makes him closer to not only
Cordelia but also to Wesley and he also wants to reach out to
Kate, Gunn, and Lindsey. This is what I call a progress. He
wasn't making progress when Buffy was around and he wasn't making
a progress while Doyle was around. But look at Angel now, he
socialise (or at least try to), he hangs out and goes out with
his
friends (Expecting, I've Got You Under My Skin, She, Eternity).
OTOH, he chose to close himself under his 'batcave' in the
earlier
episode of "Angel", no matter how often Doyle and Cordelia
attempts to bring him out. So I'll say that the death was
important in making Angel realises the importance of his friends
while they are still alive.
Sarah Trombley
z <zan16N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <8hi0sp$kod$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
>I wrote:
>
>>>> >Coke" incident from the 1980's. Consumers do have some
>>>> >right and responsibility to question if they feel it is
>>>> >affecting their enjoyment of the product.
>
>
>>>> (And responsibility? Pfui! If I don't like a product, I
>>>> switch to the competitor. I have no responsibility to
>>>> "question" Coke or anybody else about their decisions.)
>
>
>>> You're missing Z's point. Z's point is that _Coke_ *does* have
>>> a responsibility to its customers.
>
>
>> Nope. Look back up there. "Consumers do have
>> some...responsibility to question..." "Consumers" isn't
>> "Coke."
>
>consumers) have some responsibility to each other. It is not
>good business sense for companies to ignore the complaints of
>their customers.
That is self-interest, not responsibility. Coke is responsible for not
poisoning me, not showing me misleading advertising, and a few other
legal matters. Heck, as a paleoliberal I'll even make the argument that
as a citizen of the world they have a responsibility not to ruin it for
their profit. But I cannot see that they have a responsibility to make
a beverage that I like.
> But to see the changes they want, or to let
>companies know that they are dissatisfied with a product,
>consumers have the responsibility to communicate their
>dissatisfaction, if they feel that strongly about product.
Again, this is an issue of self-interest, not responsibility.
> Many
>people don't, and so feel no obligation to express their
>displeasure. They should not be forced to. But there is nothing
>wrong with those who do feel strongly about a product exercising
>their obligation as a consumer to let the producers know their
>dissatisfaction. That many people choose not to do this does not
>mean it doesn't exist.
A responsibility _is_ an obligation. What you are talking about is
an option, a privilege, not a responsibility.
As there is no obligation, as you say, for consumers to communicate
with the company, there is no obligation for companies to communicate with
consumers. That includes ME.
--Sarah t.
Sarah Trombley
dxgarten <alexander...@address.com.invalid> wrote:
>I don't agree with that. He had many chance to become a real
>sidekick (City of, Lonely Hearts, I fall to pieces, and
>especially, In the Dark - they actually had to use Oz to take
>Angel away from Spike) but he has always been a reluctant one.
>Also as someone else pointed out here, Doyle could in no way do
>the scroll translation in "To Shanshu in LA". It would be out of
>character for him to do that. How about the time when Angel was
>chained with the ring that made him unable to escape from the
>gladiator type of arena? Creating a key like that would require
>someone who has a background in chemistry and knowledge of
>demonology, something that Doyle is lacking. So where would that
>leave Doyle? As a character with jokes and dry wit like
>Cordelia?
I have to say: I liked Doyle, but I agree with this. Watching IFTP
tonight, I was struck by how much Wesley brings to the group that
Doyle just couldn't. (Although I doubt Wesley would have confessed
that Angel's billowing-coatliness turned him on. ;) They're altogether
a more dangerous group with a better backup demon fighter and lead
researcher like Wesley.
--Sarah T.
Swendson
It's funny, but a friend and I were having the same conversation about this
last night (yes, we have no life). He'd found some old e-mails we'd exchanged
early in the show's run, and he'd commented he was concerned about the sidekick
factor, that while Doyle and Cordelia were amusing, he was worried that having
the two funny sidekicks who didn't have much more of a role to play would get
old fast. The standard course of the episodes was Doyle and Cordelia would have
some funny banter, Doyle would have a vision, then Angel would go save the day
while the other two would have more funny banter.
Now, not every episode was like this, but they were in danger of a pattern.
My friend and I were talking last night about how much tighter the new group
seems to be. Each person has a specific role. There's no Zeppo. Angel's the
leader and the vampire with the super strength. Cordelia is the business sense
and the link to the PTB. Wesley is the "brains" with the research and obscure
language abilities, plus pretty good aim with gun, crossbow or hypodermic
needle, when needed.
Something else I noticed during last night's rerun: Doyle's come ons to
Cordelia could have bordered on offensive. Not to come across like a raging
feminist, but the way he talked to her came dangerously close to making her a
sex object. A little bit was kind of funny, and her reactions were amusing, but
I could live without it (you can express an interest in a person and an
attraction without talking about you preferring that they not wear much
clothing). At least that's one thing we probably won't see from Wesley. For one
thing, there's his British reserve (after all, back in Sunnydale, he referred
to Cordelia as "Miss Chase," not even being so forward as to use her first
name). For another, on some level they're both probably well aware that there
was a time when all he would have had to do to have her was say the word, since
she was the one throwing herself at him left and right. Any outright come-ons
would create a potentially awkward situation.
vicpusateri
dxgarten <alexander...@address.com.invalid> wrote:
>
I think this is a good, and little-discussed point. And in
addition to it, Wesley is just a much better personality fit for
Angel, as a friend.
Doyle was a sociable guy - he was going to go out and have a pint
at the pub regardless of whether or not Angel joined him. And, in
fact, if Angel is trying to be as little like Liam as possible,
Doyle's barfly tendencies would probably be more of a barrier to
their hanging out together.
Cordelia also, has her own social life outside of the job [though
the demon-pregnancy may make her think twice about too much
socializing ;)], but Angel doesn't. He wanted to sit at home
alone in the dark early on, and Doyle really didn't do much to
get him out and Cordy wasn't that interested in being friends
with him - early on, she was trying to keep in on the "it's just
a job" level, being naturally afraid, of course, that Angel
would go evol again.
Wesley, otoh, seems to have interests that are more in line with
Angel's. I can see them going to the museum of an evening, and
discussing modern art, or going to the symphony etc., which I
could *never* see Doyle going in for, even if Angel ever actually
approached him and asked nicely.
So not only does Doyle's death give Angel an appreciation for
spending time with the people he cares about before they're gone,
it also opened up a place for someone who is more naturally
compatible as a friend, in addition to being a strong asset to
the professional side of Angel's life.
Just my 11 cents.
victoria p.
Miss July
--
"Everybody lies. Murderers lie 'cause they got to; witnesses lie
'cause they think they got to; and everybody else lies for the
sheer joy of it." Meldrick Lewis, _Homicide: Life on the Street_
David Marc Nieporent
>> Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> claimed:
>> >Clearly, this whole privacy "thing", and the "Doyle situation", are
>> >something people feel strongly about. I don't mind heated exchanges.
>> >I *do* mind personal attacks,
>> Unless, of course, those personal attacks are by Joss against GQ, in which
>> case not only don't you mind them, but you actually demand that Joss
>> engage in them, for your own view of GQ's own good.
>You're being ridiculous, David. I never said anything about a personal
>attack on Quinn. Those are your words not mine.
You don't believe that Doyle was supposed to be written off the show, at
least not so early in the season. You have concluded, therefore, that he
must have been written off the show because Quinn had to be fired because
of his drug/alcohol habit. You have expressed anger that Joss chose to
use an "always planned to do it" excuse, instead of announcing the real
reason, as you have deduced it.
IOW, you're outraged that Whedon didn't say "We fired Quinn because he
kept showing up to work late, drunk and/or high on crack, when he bothered
to show up at all." Or words to that effect.
If that's not a personal attack, then I'm not sure what is.
Marie Braden
>to Cordelia as "Miss Chase," not even being so forward as to use her first
>name). For another, on some level they're both probably well aware that there
>was a time when all he would have had to do to have her was say the word, since
>she was the one throwing herself at him left and right. Any outright come-ons
>would create a potentially awkward situation.
Have they ever addressed this? The fact that Cordelia and Wesley had
the one kissfest....and then, NOTHING?
-------------------------------------
GH Fan since 1979
MHGC Hannah (Keeper of her definition of "undercover" work)
PAGGS, Keeper of badges that DON'T come out of Cracker Jack boxes
CEO, FGCO Sonny & Carly (Keeper of the post-coital recriminations)
"OH, I so enjoy being threatened by a powerful man..." Helena Cassidine
Frisco & Felicia forever!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Don Sample
<maw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >to Cordelia as "Miss Chase," not even being so forward as to use her first
> >name). For another, on some level they're both probably well aware that there
> >was a time when all he would have had to do to have her was say the word,
> >since
> >she was the one throwing herself at him left and right. Any outright come-ons
> >would create a potentially awkward situation.
>
> Have they ever addressed this? The fact that Cordelia and Wesley had
> the one kissfest....and then, NOTHING?
I wouldn't call what happened in GD-2 a "kissfest" They kissed and
*nothing* happened then. They both knew it.
When Wes first showed up on Angel, Cordy was kissing everything in
sight to try and get rid of her visions. She kissed him, complained
that it didn't work, and he said that he thought it went much better
than last time.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Swendson
>Have they ever addressed this? The fact that Cordelia and Wesley had
>the one kissfest....and then, NOTHING?
The closest they've come to addressing it at all was when she greeted him with
a kiss during her "kiss everything that moves" phase as she was trying to get
rid of the visions. She didn't even know who it was and backed away, saying,
"It didn't work." He said, "I thought it went considerably better than the last
time," and that's when she realized who she'd just kissed.
I suspect that it's become one of those, "Let's just pretend it never happened"
things between Wes and Cordy. I'd like to see it addressed at some point, but
up to now, I can buy that they're both in denial.
Now that I think of it, does Angel even have the slightest idea that it was
going on back in Sunnydale? He wasn't exactly hanging around, so he didn't get
to see all the flirting. He was at the prom and may have seen them dancing
together, but it seemed all Angel's attention was on Buffy at that time.
SS
H.G.Hettinger
wrote:
>
>>to Cordelia as "Miss Chase," not even being so forward as to use her first
>>name). For another, on some level they're both probably well aware that there
>>was a time when all he would have had to do to have her was say the word, since
>>she was the one throwing herself at him left and right. Any outright come-ons
>>would create a potentially awkward situation.
>
>Have they ever addressed this? The fact that Cordelia and Wesley had
>the one kissfest....and then, NOTHING?
Well, they had a follow-up of sorts in "Parting Gifts" when Wesely
first showed up... and a pretty funy one at that. But the whole crush
dies a rather ignominous death in G2, so there really wasn't any need
to say much more about it.
hgh
Judith Cornish
>I wouldn't call what happened in GD-2 a
> "kissfest" They kissed and *nothing*
> happened then. They both knew it.
Yep, that was about the most ackward kiss in TV history <g>.
>When Wes first showed up on Angel, Cordy
> was kissing everything in sight to try and get
> rid of her visions. She kissed him, complained
> that it didn't work, and he said that he thought
> it went much better than last time.
Yes, but there were a few moments between the kiss and the "It didn't
work" comment. She was affected by that kiss and had to shake it off
before she could even speak. When Wesley grabbed her, I think 'tone' of
that kiss changed real quickly. <g>
Judy
Marie Braden
>>From: Marie Braden <maw...@yahoo.com>
>
>>Have they ever addressed this? The fact that Cordelia and Wesley had
>>the one kissfest....and then, NOTHING?
>
>The closest they've come to addressing it at all was when she greeted him with
>a kiss during her "kiss everything that moves" phase as she was trying to get
>rid of the visions. She didn't even know who it was and backed away, saying,
>"It didn't work." He said, "I thought it went considerably better than the last
>time," and that's when she realized who she'd just kissed.
>
>I suspect that it's become one of those, "Let's just pretend it never happened"
>things between Wes and Cordy. I'd like to see it addressed at some point, but
>up to now, I can buy that they're both in denial.
This is probably most likely, but I took the line about "better than
last time" to mean that it wasn't as fraught with fear of
dying...silly me. As attracted as she had been to Wesley, and he to
her, I would like to see more of that....sue me
>
>Now that I think of it, does Angel even have the slightest idea that it was
>going on back in Sunnydale? He wasn't exactly hanging around, so he didn't get
>to see all the flirting. He was at the prom and may have seen them dancing
>together, but it seemed all Angel's attention was on Buffy at that time.
I don't think Angel was aware. Remember, at that point, Cordy wasn't
really hanging iwth the Scoobies ona regular basis, even if he had
been
all41...@my-deja.com
"Elaine McCue" <eil...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > > A much bigger
> > > factor was the WB's squeamishness and their insistence that a
series
> > > which was conceived as dark, adult, and noirish be turned into a
more
> > > demo-friendly one. I think the run of slushy episodes at mid-
season
> > > are more the result of a ship being turned against the current
than any
> > > character decisions.
> >
> > And this isn't the only show where WBN network goon interference has
> > probably hurt. Aside from "Angel", and this season
of "Buffy", "Savannah",
> > "Hyperion Bay" and "Roswell" are all shows where The WB obviously
ordered
> > changes, changes that either really weren't necessary, or actually
hurt
> > the show (and this is most true in the case of "Savannah").
> >
> > Anyway, it is interesting to ponder how "Angel" would have turned
out if
> > the 'darker' tone of "City of..." and "Lonely Hearts" has been
maintained
> > through the rest of the season.
> >
> In my opinion the first half of the season was lighter. Most of the
second
> half has been pretty dark. Of the final six only Eternity was pretty
funny
> and that was in a dark kind of way.
And that's the point. Once ME/GW were able to find a way to darken the
tone *and* stay w/in the WB's chicken-hearted guidelines, they were
able to do so nicely. I think it just cost us a few good eps while
they figured out how to do that.
> I think Glenn was dropped so that
> Cordelia had more to do. I also think that it was planned from pretty
early
> on. I can understand Glenn's disappointment but that's acting I'm
afraid.
> What would they have done with Cordelia if she wasn't the seer. They
fooled
> us into thinking we were going to have a relationship with her and
Doyle.
> What makes this different from Buffy is there is no sappy
relationships.
> That's a plus in my opinion. I don't think anyone will ever make you
think
> differently Ian, but in my opinion the show is much better without
Doyle.
> That's a view held by all but one of my friends. As the ratings
haven't
> dropped. I don't think Doyle death caused much of a problem. I look
forward
> to the 2nd season.
> Elaine> --
> > Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my
mind,
> > Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
> > & TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
> > ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr. Monsoon
that "no one is safe" on the series.
>