First Time Buffy Watcher
yelps
ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I think
I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was this
great!
So after watching all the Alias and 24 Box Sets and jonsing for more great
stuff someone said, "haven't you ever seen Buffy?" Now I am hooked and in
the middle of Season three.
I needed to gush to someone how great Buffy is....so there you go. Another
Buffy enthusiast.
Question One:
What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really happening?
Question Two:
Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get into
later seasons and Angel as well?
Question Three:
After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently with
Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she vanishes
from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
dc
Wouter Valentijn
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> schreef in bericht
news:qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com...
> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the TV
not
> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I
think
> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was this
> great!
>
> So after watching all the Alias and 24 Box Sets and jonsing for more great
> stuff someone said, "haven't you ever seen Buffy?" Now I am hooked and
in
> the middle of Season three.
>
> I needed to gush to someone how great Buffy is....so there you go.
Another
> Buffy enthusiast.
>
Welcome! :-)
> Question One:
>
> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really
happening?
>
.
They already did really.
Buffy started out as a movie and later became a television show. With
different actors, characters and a slightly different background story.
The movie was more comedy.
>
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get
into
> later seasons and Angel as well?
Some have been disappointed.
Some have not been disappointed.
I know these statement don't help much but it really depends on your
personal taste.
The later seasons will get darker I'd say, but if you can handle 24 than
this should be a breeze.
>
> Question Three:
>
> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently with
> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she vanishes
> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
There are several cross-overs.
Specially Buffy S4 and Angel S1. Other seasons have moments that cross-over
series borders.
The best thing to do is first watch the Buffy episode, and after that the
Angel episode.
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.zeppodunsel.nl www.scifics.com www.nksf.nl
"That's right. I'm back. And I'm a BLOODY ANIMAL!"
Spike in "Doomed" ("Buffy The Vampire Slayer", 4x11)
Don Sample
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get into
> later seasons and Angel as well?
Maybe, maybe not.
Some people thought that the quality of Buffy declined in later seasons.
Others (myself among them) disagree. I loved it right through to the
end.
Some people loved the last couple of seasons of Angel. I happen to
think that the series derailed in season 3, and we spent the next two
years watching the resultant train wreck.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
yelps
"Wouter Valentijn" <WouterValenti...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:38uverF...@individual.net...
No I know that. I liked the original Buffy Movie alot when it came out and
bought it....but the TV show is much better. Somewhere I read that Wheadon
is trying to get a new Full Length with the regulars.
>
>>
>> Question Two:
>>
>> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get
> into
>> later seasons and Angel as well?
>
> Some have been disappointed.
> Some have not been disappointed.
> I know these statement don't help much but it really depends on your
> personal taste.
> The later seasons will get darker I'd say, but if you can handle 24 than
> this should be a breeze.
>
>>
>> Question Three:
>>
>> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently with
>> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she vanishes
>> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
>
> There are several cross-overs.
> Specially Buffy S4 and Angel S1. Other seasons have moments that
> cross-over
> series borders.
> The best thing to do is first watch the Buffy episode, and after that the
> Angel episode.
>
> --
> Wouter Valentijn
I see.
dc
yelps
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-6FEB95...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com>,
> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>> Question Two:
>>
>> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get
>> into
>> later seasons and Angel as well?
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Some people thought that the quality of Buffy declined in later seasons.
> Others (myself among them) disagree. I loved it right through to the
> end.
I have a feeling a will too.
Is Angel very different in style? From the little I have allowed myself to
read, it is more serious?
dc
jil...@hotmail.com
yelps wrote:
> I have a feeling a will too.
>
> Is Angel very different in style? From the little I have allowed
myself to
> read, it is more serious?
Yes/no. The only difference being that Angel chose to do evil deeds in
his dark hour, and even in her darkest hour, Buffy didn't.
It's not more serious. It is darker. These words do not have the same
meaning, though sometimes people mistake them in that way. Then again,
PUPPETS! THE WRESTLERS! Of course those are in the final season.
Or Angel in Pylea fussing over his hair...
In short, Buffy is the female-heavy hero-fights-monsters show. Angel
is the male-heavy hero-fights-monsters show. Both conceived by the
same person, and as a consequence, both with many wonderful stories and
some majorly controversial ones (at least to the audience).
Roy. Just Roy.
> Of course those are in the final season.
And of course, you forgot to mention the infamous All Naked, All Gay
episode. ;)
/Roy, stirring trouble
BTR1701
If you missed her when she vanished from "Buffy", you'll really miss her
when she vanishes from ANGEL in the final (5th) season.
Cordelia was the heart and soul of ANGEL and when she left, it
fundamentally changed the show-- and not for the better, in my opinion.
The one episode in the 5th season where she returned was like a breath
of fresh air and only served to underscore how much her presence was
missed.
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com>,
> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
> > Question Two:
> >
> > Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get
> > into
> > later seasons and Angel as well?
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Some people thought that the quality of Buffy declined in later seasons.
> Others (myself among them) disagree. I loved it right through to the
> end.
>
> Some people loved the last couple of seasons of Angel. I happen to
> think that the series derailed in season 3, and we spent the next two
> years watching the resultant train wreck.
On the other hand, I thought the third season was the best of them all.
him...@animail.net
yelps wrote:
> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the
TV not
> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I
think
> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was
this
> great!
Let me compliment you on your excellent, if a tad belated, taste.
>
> Question One:
>
> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really
happening?
Not likely. SMG doesn't seem to be interested. Ditto for an Angel
movie and DB. OTOH, James Marsters has shown an interest and there is
a faint possibility of a Spike movie. Explaining how and why this is a
real possibility would involve a lot of spoilers for someone who still
just watching season 3, so I'll leave it at that.
>
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I
get into
> later seasons and Angel as well?
Couldn't tell you. It's a matter of personal taste. Buffy changes a
lot when the gang leaves high school. The metaphors become more
complex and darker. And the moral issues become a whole lot grayer.
Personally, I thought the progression from S4 (college) to S6 (coping
with adult responsibilities) were the best of the show, but others
hated the change. Seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy are quite dark and often
disturbing; also parts of S6 need an R rating. Angel starts dark and
gets darker.
>
> Question Three:
>
> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently
with
> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she
vanishes
> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
>
You should certainly watch two episodes in crossover order. "Fool for
Love" from Buffy S5 should be followed by "Darla" from Angel S2. There
are other crossovers, but none that so utterly rely on and play off
each other.
himiko
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Season three had some good stuff in it, but it also sowed the seeds for
the mess that was seasons four and five.
yelps
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-B68196...@news.giganews.com...
Sounds like I will probably like them all.
dc
yelps
<him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:1110082749....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> yelps wrote:
>> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the
> TV not
>> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
>> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I
> think
>> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was
> this
>> great!
>
> Let me compliment you on your excellent, if a tad belated, taste.
>>
>> Question One:
>>
>> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really
> happening?
>
> Not likely. SMG doesn't seem to be interested. Ditto for an Angel
> movie and DB. OTOH, James Marsters has shown an interest and there is
> a faint possibility of a Spike movie. Explaining how and why this is a
> real possibility would involve a lot of spoilers for someone who still
> just watching season 3, so I'll leave it at that.
I appreciate the NO spoilers....
>>
>> Question Two:
>>
>> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I
> get into
>> later seasons and Angel as well?
>
> Couldn't tell you. It's a matter of personal taste. Buffy changes a
> lot when the gang leaves high school. The metaphors become more
> complex and darker. And the moral issues become a whole lot grayer.
> Personally, I thought the progression from S4 (college) to S6 (coping
> with adult responsibilities) were the best of the show, but others
> hated the change. Seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy are quite dark and often
> disturbing; also parts of S6 need an R rating. Angel starts dark and
> gets darker.
>>
>> Question Three:
>>
>> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently
> with
>> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she
> vanishes
>> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
>>
> You should certainly watch two episodes in crossover order. "Fool for
> Love" from Buffy S5 should be followed by "Darla" from Angel S2. There
> are other crossovers, but none that so utterly rely on and play off
> each other.
>
> himiko
I see....I will remember that.
dc
Roy. Just Roy.
> fundamentally changed the show-- and not for the better, in my
opinion.
If I recall correctly, the decision was Carpenter's - she wanted to
take a year off to be her baby. I for one can't fault her for it.
> The one episode in the 5th season where she returned was like a
breath
> of fresh air and only served to underscore how much her presence was
> missed.
I agree, and wonder how much of that was Whedon learning his lesson
from the backlash that happened when Tara was killed. When Oz came back
for a 1-shot "New Moon Rising", it was IMVSO one of the best episodes
of season 4. Whedon came in, he wrapped up all the loose ends, and Oz
exits, stage left.
In season 5 Angel, Cordy's goodbye was much the same way. She comes in,
gets her heroes back on track, says her goodbyes to the viewers, and
leaves.
And, of course, the death of Fred, that opened the door for Acker's
true talent to shine through.
I was always disappointed that Benson as Tara (not the First) never got
the chance do a 1-shot goodbye episode in season 7. Or even a 1-scene
goodbye after Willow performed her spell in "Chosen".
/Roy
yelps
At the rate I watching box sets---about two weeks each--that means I have a
lot to look forward to.
I want to know why Charisma leaves the show but guess I can wait to find
out. I'll refrain from googling it.
dc
jil...@hotmail.com
Now, wasn't that two Buffy episodes? Both dream sequences muahahah
Xander's dreams....
BTR1701
"Roy. Just Roy." <deld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Cordelia was the heart and soul of ANGEL and when she left, it
> > fundamentally changed the show-- and not for the better, in my
> opinion.
>
> If I recall correctly, the decision was Carpenter's - she wanted to
> take a year off to be her baby. I for one can't fault her for it.
There are many different stories and no one but them really knows the
truth. I personally suspect it was combination of Carpenter being
pregnant, them realizing their mistake of writing themselves into a
corner with the budding Cordelia/Angel romance, and the need to make
room in the cast for Spike, who, as we all know, is now required by
natural law to be a part of every story told in the "Buffy/ANGEL"
universe.
However, the producers' official line was that they decided to drop
Cordelia as a character because they felt she was a dead end, that
they'd gone as far with her as they could.
Which is, of course, ridiculous. If they were keeping Andrew around as a
character (and even temping his worthless ass out to ANGEL to do
crossovers) there were certainly a multitude of stories that could be
told with Cordelia.
Patrick MM
news:qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com...
>
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get
> into later seasons and Angel as well?
>
I consider the high school years merely a prelude to the essence of the
series. Seasons five and six are the best years the show ever did.
As for Angel, it's a bit more uneven than Buffy, but at its best, it's just
as good as its parent series.
> Question Three:
>
> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently with
> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she vanishes
> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
>
That's a tough call. I watched Angel after finishing Buffy, and didn't miss
too much. There's some crossover, but I don't think it's enough to merit
watching the two series simultaneously.
Patrick
Patrick MM
> character (and even temping his worthless ass out to ANGEL to do
> crossovers) there were certainly a multitude of stories that could be
> told with Cordelia.
>
Cordelia, much like most of the Buffy characters in the seventh season, was
at the end of her arc. There were some places she could go, but I don't
think she would have fit in with what they were trying to do on the other
hand. It's curious that you mention Andrew because of all the characters in
Buffy year seven, he was the one who went through the most growth and
change, which continued on Angel. It's the change that's interesting to
watch, the evolution of characters, and for the same reason that Wesley had
to die at the end of Angel, Cordelia had to go at the end of season four.
The whole fifth year was about Angel's loss of direction, and if Cordelia
was around, that sense of loss wouldn't be as profound.
Patrick
BTR1701
"Patrick MM" <patrick...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:btr1702-
> >
> > Which is, of course, ridiculous. If they were keeping Andrew around as a
> > character (and even temping his worthless ass out to ANGEL to do
> > crossovers) there were certainly a multitude of stories that could be
> > told with Cordelia.
> >
>
> Cordelia, much like most of the Buffy characters in the seventh season, was
> at the end of her arc. There were some places she could go, but I don't
> think she would have fit in with what they were trying to do on the other
> hand. It's curious that you mention Andrew because of all the characters in
> Buffy year seven, he was the one who went through the most growth and
> change, which continued on Angel.
It doesn't matter if a character goes through "growth and change" if the
character is fundamentally ridiculous.
Andrew is an annoying buffoon whose only purpose, so far as I can tell,
is to provide comic relief. The only problem is that nothing he does is
actually funny and his mere presence is the dramatic equivalent of
scratching fingernails on a blackboard.
Xander and Anya provided much better comedy for the show than Andrew
ever came close to managing.
yelps
I really have to be careful reading this group....I just learned something
about an important future character (tara) I haven't even met yet, just
know she become's Willows girlfriend--which I had accidentally read on the
web.
Well, back to Buffy Season three, just finished Doppelgangland----- Now
Playing "Enemies"
What a show this is.
So greatful for box sets. Never been able to watch TV shows with
commercials.
dc
"Roy. Just Roy." <deld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110084507.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
A.E. Jabbour
> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the TV not
> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I think
> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was this
> great!
Man, I can't explain how envious I am. I started watching "Buffy" with
the third episode, and I was so hooked. Those years were the best
television experience I have ever had ... by far! I wish I could
re-experience it all for the first time.
You are so lucky.
Oh, and welcome aboard.
> So after watching all the Alias and 24 Box Sets and jonsing for more great
> stuff someone said, "haven't you ever seen Buffy?" Now I am hooked and in
> the middle of Season three.
Heehee ... you have some fun stuff ahead. :)
> I needed to gush to someone how great Buffy is....so there you go. Another
> Buffy enthusiast.
There can never be too many. At its best, BtVS was the best show ever on
television. I don't think anything ever came close to comparing.
> Question One:
>
> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really happening?
I have no idea. I sort of doubt it, but you never know.
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get into
> later seasons and Angel as well?
That all depends. All sorts of people have already said this, and tehre is
no way of answering the question. It just depends on what you feel. I'll
be interested to hear your opinions on the different seasons though. You
see, most (all?) of my experience watching the show is completely shaded
by the concurrent experience of the newsgroup dynamics as they happened.
I'd be interested to hear the opinions of someone who didn't have any
axe to grind, and was coming onto all these episodes/seasons fresh.
> Question Three:
>
> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently with
> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she vanishes
> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
Personally, I would watch them together as much as is possible. OTOH,
it is not necessary by any means, it's just a personal preference (since
that is how I remember doing it).
Also, as an aside, if you are interested, reading some of the old
discussion on particular episodes/themes/etc. could be interesting.
During the middle years especially, the newsgroup had a high signal-
to-noise ratio (so did the a.t.a group). I still enjoy going back
and reading old threads on google groups. This newsgroup (and a.t.a)
always had some of the best, most intelligent, most insightful
contributors.
Anyhow, have fun. Both shows were fantastic. Again, I'm envious.
--
AE Jabbour
"OK, at this point, you're *abusing* sarcasm."
-Buffy Anne Summers, NKaBotFD
BTR1701
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> I really have to be careful reading this group....I just learned something
> about an important future character (tara) I haven't even met yet, just
> know she become's Willows girlfriend--which I had accidentally read on the
> web.
>
> Well, back to Buffy Season three, just finished Doppelgangland----- Now
> Playing "Enemies"
>
>
> What a show this is.
>
> So greatful for box sets. Never been able to watch TV shows with
> commercials.
I've been following "The Shield" and "The Sopranos" on DVD that way. It
is nice to experience them the first time commercial-free. [Not so much
of a problem with Sopranos, I guess.]
yelps
"A.E. Jabbour" <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38voq9F...@individual.net...
> yelps <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the TV
>> not
>> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
>> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I
>> think
>> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was this
>> great!
>
> Man, I can't explain how envious I am. I started watching "Buffy" with
> the third episode, and I was so hooked. Those years were the best
> television experience I have ever had ... by far! I wish I could
> re-experience it all for the first time.
>
> You are so lucky.
I know........
With Stanley Kubrick Dead for quite a few years now----I've been thirsting
for great weirdness. Alias has been great too, but 7 + 5 seasons of Buffy
and Angel. I am set for a while.
>
> Oh, and welcome aboard.
>
>> So after watching all the Alias and 24 Box Sets and jonsing for more
>> great
>> stuff someone said, "haven't you ever seen Buffy?" Now I am hooked and
>> in
>> the middle of Season three.
>
> Heehee ... you have some fun stuff ahead. :)
>
>> I needed to gush to someone how great Buffy is....so there you go.
>> Another
>> Buffy enthusiast.
>
> There can never be too many. At its best, BtVS was the best show ever on
> television. I don't think anything ever came close to comparing.
I am already pretty convinced.....now I realize that Buffy is the prototype
of Alias and 24 they way it weaves bizarre stories with mundane soap opera
and ensemble characters.
I had a back injury 2 years ago and while I was laid up I got into Alias
then 24 boxsets.....so in the process of turning others onto Alias, someone
told me to watch Buffy.
SO eat your heart out I am experiencing it for the first time....in
fact...... right now Angel has just been changed again...so I have to get
back to it.....lol and Cordelia just said to Wesley , "You have the greatest
voice...have to ever considered doing books on tape......"
this is so inspiriing.
dc
A.E. Jabbour
>
> "A.E. Jabbour" <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:38voq9F...@individual.net...
>>
>
> I know........
>
> With Stanley Kubrick Dead for quite a few years now----I've been thirsting
> for great weirdness. Alias has been great too, but 7 + 5 seasons of Buffy
> and Angel. I am set for a while.
Heh. I am an "Alias" fan too.
>> television. I don't think anything ever came close to comparing.
>
> SO eat your heart out I am experiencing it for the first time....in
> fact...... right now Angel has just been changed again...so I have to get
> back to it.....lol and Cordelia just said to Wesley , "You have the greatest
> voice...have to ever considered doing books on tape......"
>
> this is so inspiriing.
You bet. It's like when I walked around Rome for the first time: I
simply couldn't believe what I saw. :)
Anna
Jonathan should have been in Andrew's role instead- after all he was
with them off & on from season 1
yelps
Then I am going to have to go to Rome.
Well.... I am emmeresed in this Buffy Architecture.......Only One disc left
in season 3......taking a short break.
I am afraid to look to see how many episodes are on this last disc
Preaching to the choir is fun. What great writing. Now I understand why so
many people were excited when Whedon did the Screeplay to Alien
Resurrection---and then disappointed (what happend there?)
While watching, tonight, I realize that I had wanted to watch Buffy on TV
when it began, cause I had liked the film, but at that time I was working
evenings as a therapist, at an acute Psych ward (sort of like the
Buffyverse Hellmouth), as I did for many years, and I was never organized
enough to tape TV shows. I think the mental patients were watrching Buffy
while I was restraining them---the Buffy theme was always playing in the
background---------no wonder they were so whacked out and needed all those
injections....lol
And now I learn it never won any of the really big EMMYS?? Sheesh. I have
to stop looking on google...just too many spoilers. Her Mother...dies?
Okay time to make some popcorn and then finish Season Three....it's 2:25 AM
and I am raring to go.
dc
Apteryx
>
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I
get into
> later seasons and Angel as well?
Not necessarily, some people prefer the later seasons of Buffy, but most
rate seasons 2 and 3 the best.
To me, Season 1 is the best, and the series declined over time, but
almost imperceptbly at first. However this decline (as far as I am
concerned) is reflected in the increasing number of weak episodes in the
later seasons, rather than an absence of great episodes. By my
reckoning, at the point you are at now (just having seen Dopplegangland)
you have seen only 4 of the 10 best Buffy episodes, and 11 of the best
20. But you haven't yet seen any of the 20 worst episodes, as I rate
them.
At the point you are at now, watching the 17th episode of season 3 the
last episode you saw remotely resembling a dud will be a distant memory
(maybe Dead Man's Party, episode 2 of season 3). But duds become more
common in the last 4 seasons. Just don't be too put off when you start
running into them. There are still gems to be found, even in seasons 6
and 7 (in fact to me and to many others who don't necessarily like the
later seasons, the best episode of all is in season 6).
--
Apteryx
"We trained hard -- but it seemed that every time we were beginning to
form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life
that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. And what a
wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while
producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization." - Gaius
Petronius, Arbiter [1st Century, A.D.]
yelps
"Apteryx" <a.m...@deletethistoreply.xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:U6BWd.7170$1S4.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com...
> <clip>
>>
>> Question Two:
>>
>> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I
> get into
>> later seasons and Angel as well?
>
> Not necessarily, some people prefer the later seasons of Buffy, but most
> rate seasons 2 and 3 the best.
>
> To me, Season 1 is the best, and the series declined over time, but
> almost imperceptbly at first. However this decline (as far as I am
> concerned) is reflected in the increasing number of weak episodes in the
> later seasons, rather than an absence of great episodes. By my
> reckoning, at the point you are at now (just having seen Dopplegangland)
> you have seen only 4 of the 10 best Buffy episodes, and 11 of the best
> 20. But you haven't yet seen any of the 20 worst episodes, as I rate
> them.
>
> At the point you are at now, watching the 17th episode of season 3 the
> last episode you saw remotely resembling a dud will be a distant memory
> (maybe Dead Man's Party, episode 2 of season 3). But duds become more
> common in the last 4 seasons. Just don't be too put off when you start
> running into them. There are still gems to be found, even in seasons 6
> and 7 (in fact to me and to many others who don't necessarily like the
> later seasons, the best episode of all is in season 6).
Thats encouraging....(as I eat my Popcorn and reach for the remote control
to begin the last disc on Season 3)
dc
alphakitten
Apteryx wrote:
> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com...
> <clip>
>
>>Question Two:
>>
>>Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I
>
> get into
>
>>later seasons and Angel as well?
>
>
> Not necessarily, some people prefer the later seasons of Buffy, but most
> rate seasons 2 and 3 the best.
In my experience, that's not true at all. At least not outside this ng.
~Angel
alphakitten
yelps wrote:
> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the TV not
> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I think
> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was this
> great!
>
> So after watching all the Alias and 24 Box Sets and jonsing for more great
> stuff someone said, "haven't you ever seen Buffy?" Now I am hooked and in
> the middle of Season three.
>
> I needed to gush to someone how great Buffy is....so there you go. Another
> Buffy enthusiast.
>
> Question One:
>
> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really happening?
>
>
> Question Two:
>
> Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get into
> later seasons and Angel as well?
As others have said, there's no way to know beforehand. With some shows
(X-Files, ER etc) there exists a general consensus among fans that they
started going downhill at a more or less agreed upon point.
That's not the case w/ this show (or Angel). A large group of people
prefer the S1-3, a large favor S4 and/or S5 and a lot of people adore S6
(which is probably the most controversial season amongst fans). IMO, S7
is the most underrated and under appreciated season, but it still has
many enthusiastic supporters.
Please keep checking in with your impressions (but beware of spoilers!)
~Angel
Diane Wilson
>
> "Wouter Valentijn" <WouterValenti...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:38uverF...@individual.net...
> >
> > "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com...
> >> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really
> > happening?
> >>
> >
> > .
> > They already did really.
> > Buffy started out as a movie and later became a television show. With
> > different actors, characters and a slightly different background story.
> > The movie was more comedy.
>
>
> No I know that. I liked the original Buffy Movie alot when it came out and
> bought it....but the TV show is much better. Somewhere I read that Wheadon
> is trying to get a new Full Length with the regulars.
It continues to get lip service, but the best guess is that there
won't be a full-length Buffyverse movie, at least not with the
same characters. Most of the major actors have already moved on
to new projects.
Joss has recently been occupied with his movie "Serenity" which is
based on his third television series, "Firefly." Since you're
hooked in Buffy, you might as well get hooked on Firefly as well;
it was short, cancelled after half a season, but it had the potential
to be the best series of them all. Firefly is on DVD; the Serenity
movie is due to be released in September.
Welcome to the Hellmouth!
Diane
yelps
news:422AE67D...@netscape.net...
Well it's 5:48 AM, time to go to sleep....but I have Graduated.
Tomorrow I find Season 4 and go to University.
Great Show.
Whats with the Dagger? At the beginning of Grad 2 Buffy leaves it on the
building ledge---and thern climbs down the ladder as the Mayor arrives...did
i miss her getting it again or is that some oft-discussed blooper?
dc
>
>
Diane Wilson
says...
> yelps <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> > Question Two:
> >
> > Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get into
> > later seasons and Angel as well?
>
> That all depends. All sorts of people have already said this, and tehre is
> no way of answering the question. It just depends on what you feel. I'll
> be interested to hear your opinions on the different seasons though. You
> see, most (all?) of my experience watching the show is completely shaded
> by the concurrent experience of the newsgroup dynamics as they happened.
>
> I'd be interested to hear the opinions of someone who didn't have any
> axe to grind, and was coming onto all these episodes/seasons fresh.
I also discovered the shows on DVD, after Buffy was off the air and just
as Angel was ending. No axes here.
I'm another one who thinks that S5 through S7 of Buffy was outstanding,
although there really isn't a weak season anywhere in either series.
Angel takes about half a season to get its footing, but that doesn't make
it bad; it just means that it gets better.
The later seasons of Buffy, and Angel S3 and S4, are dominated by
season-long (and longer) story arcs. Some people (including network
execs) weren't happy about this. Since you're a fan of 24,
you should have no problem with these seasons, though.
Another thing to take note of is that, unlike most series, the writers
become minor stars as well. Buffy & Angel writers have moved on to
many other top series, including Lost, Alias, Gilmore Girls, The O.C.
and others.
Diane
Stephen Tempest
>Is Angel very different in style? From the little I have allowed myself to
>read, it is more serious?
The original idea was: Buffy deals with teenagers and their problems;
Angel deals with adults and their problems. That includes things like
apartment-hunting, getting a job, the singles scene, date rape,
stalking, becoming a parent - there's certainly plenty of room there
for darker and more adult storylines.
As things turned out, the later seasons of Buffy (especially 5-7)
followed the characters into adulthood and started getting into the
same territory as Angel covered. Perhaps to balance this, Angel
itself became, IMO, a little lighter in tone. Also, both series
started to become more about the character interaction and storyline
arcs rather than metaphor-of-the-week.
As for the style, it seems to me that Angel has fewer stand-alone
episodes and more continuous plot; it sometimes even ends on a
cliffhanger and picks up next week exactly where the last episode left
off, which Buffy rarely did except when it was specifically advertised
as a two-part episode.
Buffy tends to be more funny in the sense that the characters are
often wisecracking and acting daft; but Angel definitely has its
laugh-out-loud moments hidden amongst the broodiness and gloom...
Stephen
Diane Wilson
>
> "A.E. Jabbour" <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:38vrgcF...@individual.net...
> > yelps <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "A.E. Jabbour" <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:38voq9F...@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>> You are so lucky.
> >>
> >> I know........
> >>
> >> With Stanley Kubrick Dead for quite a few years now----I've been
> >> thirsting
> >> for great weirdness. Alias has been great too, but 7 + 5 seasons of Buffy
> >> and Angel. I am set for a while.
> >
> > Heh. I am an "Alias" fan too.
I gave up on Alias after S2. It fails in a major way with
character emotions (not) being grounded in real human behavior,
where Buffy and Angel very rarely mis-step.
Also, I worked in the intelligence community for a while.
Sydney is a loose cannon who wouldn't have survived, either
in training, or in bureaucracy, or in the field.
> >>> television. I don't think anything ever came close to comparing.
> >>
> >> SO eat your heart out I am experiencing it for the first time....in
> >> fact...... right now Angel has just been changed again...so I have to get
> >> back to it.....lol and Cordelia just said to Wesley , "You have the
> >> greatest
> >> voice...have to ever considered doing books on tape......"
> >>
> >> this is so inspiriing.
> >
> > You bet. It's like when I walked around Rome for the first time: I
> > simply couldn't believe what I saw. :)
>
>
> Then I am going to have to go to Rome.
Personally, I'm holding out for a trip to St. Petersburg. Absolutely
gorgeous city, and every bit as much of an imperial city.
> Well.... I am emmeresed in this Buffy Architecture.......Only One disc left
> in season 3......taking a short break.
>
> I am afraid to look to see how many episodes are on this last disc
>
> Preaching to the choir is fun. What great writing. Now I understand why so
> many people were excited when Whedon did the Screeplay to Alien
> Resurrection---and then disappointed (what happend there?)
>
> While watching, tonight, I realize that I had wanted to watch Buffy on TV
> when it began, cause I had liked the film, but at that time I was working
> evenings as a therapist, at an acute Psych ward (sort of like the
> Buffyverse Hellmouth), as I did for many years, and I was never organized
> enough to tape TV shows. I think the mental patients were watrching Buffy
> while I was restraining them---the Buffy theme was always playing in the
> background---------no wonder they were so whacked out and needed all those
> injections....lol
They probably think it's reality TV.
> And now I learn it never won any of the really big EMMYS?? Sheesh. I have
> to stop looking on google...just too many spoilers. Her Mother...dies?
STOP...... READING...... SPOILERS.......
Keep in mind that you've already seen continuing characters die. And
come back from the grave, in one way or another. Welcome to the
Buffyverse. Anthony Stewart Head said that he loved it when Principle
Flutie got eaten in S1, because it meant that no one was safe. He was
right.
Diane
Diane Wilson
him...@animail.net says...
>
> yelps wrote:
> > Question Three:
> >
> > After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently
> with
> > Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she
> vanishes
> > from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
> >
> You should certainly watch two episodes in crossover order. "Fool for
> Love" from Buffy S5 should be followed by "Darla" from Angel S2. There
> are other crossovers, but none that so utterly rely on and play off
> each other.
Other than that pair, I would also suggest that the Angel S4 episodes
with Faith should be watched before the Buffy S7 episodes with Faith.
Again, watching them in "crossover" order or by air dates will be
sufficient. Air dates are better for mapping crossovers than episode
numbers.
FYI, Buffy and Angel aired back-to-back for most of their parallel
time in broadcast, and the writers did take advantage of that from
time to time.
Diane
BTR1701
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> Whats with the Dagger? At the beginning of Grad 2 Buffy leaves it on the
> building ledge---and thern climbs down the ladder as the Mayor arrives...did
> i miss her getting it again or is that some oft-discussed blooper?
No, that was Faith's knife and Buffy never used it again.
EGK
>Well it's 5:48 AM, time to go to sleep....but I have Graduated.
>
>Tomorrow I find Season 4 and go to University.
>
>Great Show.
I've been watching since season 2 and posting here since season 3. I was
someone who didn't like the later seasons very much. The tone definitely
changes after the High School years. I never felt the metaphors worked as
well. A lot of it has to do with the characters though. Those of us who
became disenchanted with later seasons tended to make the same remarks about
the characters becoming less and less likeable.
That said, I envy you watching them the way you are right now. Even when
complaining, I always said the later seasons would probably play much better
when you can watch them in a shorter amount of time or straight through as
with the DVD's. If you don't like an episode or even a string of episodes,
or feel characters are suddenly unlikable, you're through them quick so it's
only a momentary downer. You'll get good episodes sprinkled throughout to
make you forget them. When watching them the way they were broadcast, we
had weeks to dwell on the bad stuff and pick at the plot holes and what many
of us felt were character assassinations.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
me
You need to rewattch the end of Grad 2.
Patrick MM
> character is fundamentally ridiculous.
>
I think the point of his arc was to be a comic contrast to the similar
journey Spike is taking. As he mockingly says in Storyteller, he's a hero
with a dark past, but by the end of that episode, he realizes just how awful
the things he's done are, and finally comes to terms with it.
>
> Andrew is an annoying buffoon whose only purpose, so far as I can tell,
> is to provide comic relief. The only problem is that nothing he does is
> actually funny and his mere presence is the dramatic equivalent of
> scratching fingernails on a blackboard.
>
> Xander and Anya provided much better comedy for the show than Andrew
> ever came close to managing.
I think Andrew is hilarious, and during the Bring on the Night mid season
seven era, he's the only thing worth watching on the show. I can see why
he's grating, but I think he works both as comic relief, and occasionally,
as in Storyteller or Conversations as a great dramatic character.
Patrick
William George Ferguson
>>> Question Three:
>>>
>>> After Angel spins off---should I start watching those concurrently
>> with
>>> Buffy or what? I will totally miss Charisma Carpenter when she
>> vanishes
>>> from Buffy (or does she really vanish).....
><him...@animail.net> wrote
>> You should certainly watch two episodes in crossover order. "Fool for
>> Love" from Buffy S5 should be followed by "Darla" from Angel S2. There
>> are other crossovers, but none that so utterly rely on and play off
>> each other.
>>
>> himiko
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>I see....I will remember that.
While what Himiko says is true, the most 'crossover' episodes occur in
season 4 of Buffy and season 1 of Angel, when the Angel series was getting
started. It's probably a good idea to watch the matching episode number
episodes of Buffy and Angel back to back, Buffy first, for that season.
That's how they aired on the WB on Tuesday nights, and that keeps all the
crossover references in proper order.
Season 2 Angel and Season 5 Buffy don't really have any plot crossovers,
other than Fool For Love/Darla (and that's not really a present-day plot
crossover, rather closely linked flashbacks).
After that, they were on different networks, so crossover storylines did
not occur, although some characters did appear on both shows at different
times.
In Buffy/S4 and Angel/S1, the key crossovers are
Buffy: The Harsh Light Of Day
Angel: Into the Dark
The Macguffin (the thing that gets the plot going) crosses over, as well
as two supporting characters
Angel: Bachelor Party
Buffy: Pangs
Angel: I Will Remember You
(Crossover set up at the end of BP, Angel crosses to Buffy, Buffy then
crosses to Angel)
Buffy: This Year's Girl
Buffy: Who Are You
Angel: Five By Five
Angel: Sanctuary
(you're watching season 3, guess who these are about)
When you're getting ready to watch season 7 of Buffy and season 4 of
Angel, ask again.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me! Hints are fine."
-Joan Girardi
(after God showed her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
William George Ferguson
What he's referring to is her use of it to taunt the Mayor in the final
battle.
For 'yelps', after discarding the hummus attack (still cooler than the
empty box labeled 'Ebola'), they settle on using the Mayor's relationship
with Faith as a weak point, and Buffy says she knows just what to use. We
see her in a following scene returning with a cloth wrapped around
something, so presumably she returned to Faith's apartment and retrieved
the dagger.
BTR1701
"Patrick MM" <patrick...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:btr1702-
> >
> > It doesn't matter if a character goes through "growth and change" if the
> > character is fundamentally ridiculous.
> >
>
> I think the point of his arc was to be a comic contrast to the similar
> journey Spike is taking. As he mockingly says in Storyteller, he's a hero
> with a dark past, but by the end of that episode, he realizes just how awful
> the things he's done are, and finally comes to terms with it.
>
> >
> > Andrew is an annoying buffoon whose only purpose, so far as I can tell,
> > is to provide comic relief. The only problem is that nothing he does is
> > actually funny and his mere presence is the dramatic equivalent of
> > scratching fingernails on a blackboard.
> >
> > Xander and Anya provided much better comedy for the show than Andrew
> > ever came close to managing.
>
> I think Andrew is hilarious, and during the Bring on the Night mid season
> seven era, he's the only thing worth watching on the show.
Well, for me he was the major thing dragging down both season 6 and 7.
> I can see why
> he's grating, but I think he works both as comic relief, and occasionally,
> as in Storyteller or Conversations as a great dramatic character.
It doesn't help that the guy who plays him is just a horrible actor.
When I was at the last Buffy PBP out in Los Angeles, I was back in the
VIP room enjoying a refreshing beverage at the bar and I suddenly
realized Tom Lenk was sitting right next to me. You'll never know how
much self-restraint it took to do the politic thing and keep my opinions
to myself. ;-)
Diane Wilson
wmgf...@newsguy.com says...
> When you're getting ready to watch season 7 of Buffy and season 4 of
> Angel, ask again.
Actually, the simple solution there is to watch all of Angel S4
before watching Buffy S7. All the cross-overs run in that
direction, and Angel S4 is so tightly linked over the whole
season (almost like "24") that it's better to watch the whole
season in as short a time as possible.
Diane
yelps
"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c94dac2f36500b5989a45@news-server...
> In article <38voq9F...@individual.net>, aej17D...@comcast.net
> says...
>> yelps <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>> > Question Two:
>> >
>> > Since I am buying Box sets as I go....will I be disappointed when I get
>> > into
>> > later seasons and Angel as well?
>>
>> That all depends. All sorts of people have already said this, and tehre
>> is
>> no way of answering the question. It just depends on what you feel.
>> I'll
>> be interested to hear your opinions on the different seasons though. You
>> see, most (all?) of my experience watching the show is completely shaded
>> by the concurrent experience of the newsgroup dynamics as they happened.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear the opinions of someone who didn't have any
>> axe to grind, and was coming onto all these episodes/seasons fresh.
>
These two paragraphs above about "axes to grind" above, almost looks like me
talking....were it not for the >>
> I also discovered the shows on DVD, after Buffy was off the air and just
> as Angel was ending. No axes here.
>
> I'm another one who thinks that S5 through S7 of Buffy was outstanding,
> although there really isn't a weak season anywhere in either series.
I will have to print out a episode airing date and just take that
approach----good idea.
>
> Angel takes about half a season to get its footing, but that doesn't make
> it bad; it just means that it gets better.
>
> The later seasons of Buffy, and Angel S3 and S4, are dominated by
> season-long (and longer) story arcs. Some people (including network
> execs) weren't happy about this. Since you're a fan of 24,
> you should have no problem with these seasons, though.<<<<<<<<<<<<
I see, also at the rate I am watching these box sets it should be no problem
at all I love whole season story arcs like 24.
>
> Another thing to take note of is that, unlike most series, the writers
> become minor stars as well. Buffy & Angel writers have moved on to
> many other top series, including Lost, Alias, Gilmore Girls, The O.C.
> and others.
>
> Diane<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ah So there is that too. I didn't realize Lost (which I haven't seen much
of) shares some of the writers...and don;t they also share some Alias
writers too. I have missed too much of Lost already, so I stopped trying to
watch it, I am still usually not home from working in time to see Lost....I
just make sure I don't miss Alias.
I was out of the loop of prime time TV shows for so long, I usually cannot
get in front of a TV till 9 pm.
dc
yelps
"Stephen Tempest" <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uf3m21t2r05g9olln...@4ax.com...
The humor in Buffy is just great. I love it. But I like broodiness too. I
like the way these writers seem to be in charge of their own character, so
their are all these distinct voices going on.
dc
yelps
But the dagger is bloody on the ledge is bloody ......I watrched it
twice...I'll look again.
dc
yelps
lol
They probably did....I have some vague memory of them all talking about
Buffy....."I don't want to take my meds now, I want to see Buffy!" lol
>
>> And now I learn it never won any of the really big EMMYS?? Sheesh. I
>> have
>> to stop looking on google...just too many spoilers. Her Mother...dies?
>
> STOP...... READING...... SPOILERS.......
>
> Keep in mind that you've already seen continuing characters die. And
> come back from the grave, in one way or another. Welcome to the
> Buffyverse. Anthony Stewart Head said that he loved it when Principle
> Flutie got eaten in S1, because it meant that no one was safe. He was
> right.
>
> Diane<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I try not to read any spoilers, and am usually good at that. There is so
much Buffy on the web...just lookiug at a season guide is dangerous.
dc
yelps
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pg4m215dhfm787ger...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:55:51 -0800, "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Well it's 5:48 AM, time to go to sleep....but I have Graduated.
>>
>>Tomorrow I find Season 4 and go to University.
>>
>>Great Show.
>
>
> I've been watching since season 2 and posting here since season 3. I was
> someone who didn't like the later seasons very much. The tone definitely
> changes after the High School years. I never felt the metaphors worked as
> well. A lot of it has to do with the characters though. Those of us who
> became disenchanted with later seasons tended to make the same remarks
> about
> the characters becoming less and less likeable.
>
> That said, I envy you watching them the way you are right now. Even when
> complaining, I always said the later seasons would probably play much
> better
> when you can watch them in a shorter amount of time or straight through as
> with the DVD's. If you don't like an episode or even a string of
> episodes,
> or feel characters are suddenly unlikable, you're through them quick so
> it's
> only a momentary downer. You'll get good episodes sprinkled throughout to
> make you forget them. When watching them the way they were broadcast, we
> had weeks to dwell on the bad stuff and pick at the plot holes and what
> many
> of us felt were character assassinations.
With Alias and 24 I watched 3 seasons each on box sets and now I am watching
it on TV----and I really hate watching it that way. It has much less
impact.
dc
yelps
"me" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
news:q0dm21hfd7imei3ti...@4ax.com...
Well I know she has it at the end of Graduation. I'll watch again. From
what I saw at the beginning of Grad 2 Buffy has the bloody dagger in her
hand and leaves it on the ledge and then goes down the ladder.. That part I
watched twice...but it was early this morning.
dc
yelps
"William George Ferguson" <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2kem211rkmlb5nat0...@4ax.com...
Well I will be buying Season Buffy 4 and Angel at the same time (today or
tomorrow) and do the episoide air dates idea.
Have a bad work day tomoorow and have to watch 24 monday ...so I could wait
till tuesday to spend my hundred dollars.
I have a little rewatching to do anyway.
I am curious, do many of you see these episodes many times? and do they
reveal much more with repeated viewings? So much of Buffy has that
spontaneity of the one liners.
For me I think I would have to let a lot of time go by before rewatching it
all.
dc
yelps
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:39:21 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <S4mdnZldFvJ...@adelphia.com>,
>> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Whats with the Dagger? At the beginning of Grad 2 Buffy leaves it on
>>> the
>>> building ledge---and thern climbs down the ladder as the Mayor
>>> arrives...did
>>> i miss her getting it again or is that some oft-discussed blooper?
>>
>>No, that was Faith's knife and Buffy never used it again.
>
> What he's referring to is her use of it to taunt the Mayor in the final
> battle.
>
> For 'yelps', after discarding the hummus attack (still cooler than the
> empty box labeled 'Ebola'), they settle on using the Mayor's relationship
> with Faith as a weak point, and Buffy says she knows just what to use. We
> see her in a following scene returning with a cloth wrapped around
> something, so presumably she returned to Faith's apartment and retrieved
> the dagger.
>
I see, so I wasn't wrong---she does leave it on the ledge---buy the Mayor
showed up and walked out on the ledge, he would have seen the dagger and
taken it then.
dc
yelps
Okay I will remember that.
dc
me
She goes back for it after her shared dream with Faith. She then uses
it to goad the Mayor into following her back into the Library.
yelps
"me" <m...@home.now> wrote in message
I had though of that but figured the Mayor would have seen it lying onthe
ledge when he shows up at the apt.
dc
KenM47
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:55:51 -0800, "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Well it's 5:48 AM, time to go to sleep....but I have Graduated.
>>
>>Tomorrow I find Season 4 and go to University.
>>
>>Great Show.
>
>
>I've been watching since season 2 and posting here since season 3. I was
>someone who didn't like the later seasons very much. The tone definitely
>changes after the High School years. I never felt the metaphors worked as
>well. A lot of it has to do with the characters though. Those of us who
>became disenchanted with later seasons tended to make the same remarks about
>the characters becoming less and less likeable.
>
>That said, I envy you watching them the way you are right now. Even when
>complaining, I always said the later seasons would probably play much better
>when you can watch them in a shorter amount of time or straight through as
>with the DVD's. If you don't like an episode or even a string of episodes,
>or feel characters are suddenly unlikable, you're through them quick so it's
>only a momentary downer. You'll get good episodes sprinkled throughout to
>make you forget them. When watching them the way they were broadcast, we
>had weeks to dwell on the bad stuff and pick at the plot holes and what many
>of us felt were character assassinations.
>.
>
>
>
>
What he said.
For season 4 Buffy (maybe 5 too) you might want to coordinate with
your Angel viewing. There were some crossovers which probably lose
impact if not viewed in "correct" order.
Ken (Brooklyn)
yelps
the dagger reppears in her hand during the Dream...so it actually comes out
of the dream into reality So she never had to go back to get it. Thats
pretty cosmic.
dc
Diane Wilson
Most of the episodes do bear up under rewatching very well. You do
pick up subtle things, especially after you've seen a whole season
or more, then go back and watch episodes where there's some foreshadowing
or where something is just starting to develop.
A lot of the re-watchability is in the characters, too. These
are very real characters, well written and superbly acted. The
emotional integrity of the series is one of its strong points.
Diane
Diane Wilson
No, she really does go back to get it; you just don't see her in
Faith's apartment doing it. It's right after the scene in the
library where the agree to use the Mayor's affection for Faith
as a way to get to him. (And yeah, right after they discuss the
hummus attack, too.) At the end of the scene, after assigning
work to everyone, she leaves saying, "There is something I have
to get."
Diane
Stephen Tempest
>Keep in mind that you've already seen continuing characters die. And
>come back from the grave, in one way or another. Welcome to the
>Buffyverse. Anthony Stewart Head said that he loved it when Principle
>Flutie got eaten in S1, because it meant that no one was safe. He was
>right.
Of all the characters who ever appeared in the main opening credits
sequence of the show, I think I'm right in saying that only two of
them never died in the course of the series...
(Including dream sequences, flashbacks and parallel universes).
Stephen
ChrisCrosskey
"Stephen Tempest" <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uf3m21t2r05g9olln...@4ax.com...
> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> writes:
*SNIP*
> Buffy tends to be more funny in the sense that the characters are
> often wisecracking and acting daft; but Angel definitely has its
> laugh-out-loud moments hidden amongst the broodiness and gloom...
>
In fact, in one of the last eps, in one of its darkest and broodiest moments
it had one of the Whedonverse's funniest oneliners...
".... and you called me a Smurf".....
chrisc
yelps
Oh.....but why didn't the mayor take it when he showed up and went out on
the balcony?
dc
KenM47
If you have to fanwank, despite his invincibility he might still be a
germophobe, or he just did not want the reminder.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.1c9566376cf880a0989a49@news-server...
> >> In article <xJOdnVIzF-j...@adelphia.com>, ye...@xemaps.com says...
> >>> I get it now---She has that flash in her dream of the Dagger in her hand,
> >>> the dagger reppears in her hand during the Dream...so it actually comes
> >>> out
> >>> of the dream into reality So she never had to go back to get it. Thats
> >>> pretty cosmic.
> >>
> >> No, she really does go back to get it; you just don't see her in
> >> Faith's apartment doing it. It's right after the scene in the
> >> library where the agree to use the Mayor's affection for Faith
> >> as a way to get to him. (And yeah, right after they discuss the
> >> hummus attack, too.) At the end of the scene, after assigning
> >> work to everyone, she leaves saying, "There is something I have
> >> to get."
And then there are several scenes showing everyone but Buffy making
their preparations for the fight, indicating that some time is passing.
When Buffy shows up again, she has Faith's bloody knife, wrapped in a
towel.
> >
> >Oh.....but why didn't the mayor take it when he showed up and went out on
> >the balcony?
> >
>
> If you have to fanwank, despite his invincibility he might still be a
> germophobe, or he just did not want the reminder.
>
>
And it wasn't a balcony: it was a rooftop, and the Mayor never went out
onto it. The only way onto it from the apartment would have been to
climb through the broken window, and then jump down about six feet. He
probably never even saw that the knife had been left behind on the
parapet.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
yelps
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-CDE497...@news.giganews.com...
I see. I'll watch it again.
Starting Season Four right now. Couldn't wait.
dc
BTR1701
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
Maybe he didn't want it anymore.
Diane Wilson
steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk says...
we probably shouldn't post names.....
Diane
Diane Wilson
says...
Now that I think a bit more, probably four who never died.
Diane
William George Ferguson
wrote:
To be helpful, we should at least list the candidates (i.e. all the
actors who were listed at point or another in the opening credit montage)
Sarah Michelle Gellar (all seasons)
Nicholas Brendon (all seasons)
Charisma Carpenter (seasons 1-3)
Alyson Hannigan (all seasons)
Anthony Stewart Head (seasons 1-5)
David Boreanaz (seasons 2-3)
Seth Green (seasons 3-4)
Marc Blucas (seasons 4-5)
James Marsters (seasons 4-7)
Emma Caulfield (seasons 5-7)
Michelle Trachtenberg (seasons 5-7)
Amber Benson (season 6 episode 19)
Any I missed (I get 4 'never died' also)?
Note: Danny Strong did not actually have a credit in the Superstar
opening montage, although Jonathan images were all over it.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
Wouter Valentijn
"William George Ferguson" <wmgf...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
news:7t2p21hfs18qq8kn0...@4ax.com...
I don't think you missed any.
I too can think of four.
> Note: Danny Strong did not actually have a credit in the Superstar
> opening montage, although Jonathan images were all over it.
>
--
www.Wouter.Valentijn.name www.nksf.nl
liam=mail
"That's right. I'm back. And I'm a BLOODY ANIMAL!"
Spike in "Doomed" ("Buffy The Vampire Slayer", 4x11)
-Andy-
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Okay, let's stop dancing around. For those who don't care about spoilers
> cause we've seen them all (i.e. most of us other than 'yelp') down below
> the space it gets explicit.
>
> t
>
> h
>
> e
>
>
> s
>
> p
>
> a
>
> c
>
> e
>
> OK, I get Giles, Oz, Riley, and Dawn as never having died on-screen
> (including dreams, alternate realities, Angel the Series, etc).
Didn't Giles die in the dream in 'Restless' or is it just implied?
Don Sample
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:00:32 GMT, Diane Wilson <di...@firelily.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1110231631....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >salmo...@aol.com says...
> >> And of the 4 - assuming I have the right 4 - two were turned into
> >> demons, one was bit by a vamp and we don't even know if the 4th can die
> >> (thought they did cease to exist).
> >>
> >> Sunnydale just isn't a safe place.
> >>
> >>
> >Actually, three of the four have been bitten by vamps.
> >
> >Like mosquitos, you know?
> >
> >Diane
>
> Okay, let's stop dancing around. For those who don't care about spoilers
> cause we've seen them all (i.e. most of us other than 'yelp') down below
> the space it gets explicit.
>
> t
>
> h
>
> e
>
>
> s
>
> p
>
> a
>
> c
>
> e
>
> OK, I get Giles, Oz, Riley, and Dawn as never having died on-screen
> (including dreams, alternate realities, Angel the Series, etc).
>
> Giles was bit by Drac's harem in BvD, Riley by the Suckwhores, and Dawn
> by her Halloween date, so that's the three out of four that were bit.
Dawn wasn't bit by her Halloween date. She did get a bit of a scratch
from the vamp that Buffy had her try to stake in _Lessons_.
Hope Munro Smith
"yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> wrote:
> "Wouter Valentijn" <WouterValenti...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:38uverF...@individual.net...
> >
> > "yelps" <ye...@xemaps.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:qbidnZoMnIU...@adelphia.com...
> >> Buffy is my new obsession. After all those years of having it on the TV
> > not
> >> ever watching it--often even having it on my TV as random background
> >> noise--I only had seen maybe 2-3 disconnected epsiodes years back---I
> > think
> >> I saw the first epside of angel as well........I had no idea it was this
> >> great!
> >>
> >> So after watching all the Alias and 24 Box Sets and jonsing for more
> >> great
> >> stuff someone said, "haven't you ever seen Buffy?" Now I am hooked and
> > in
> >> the middle of Season three.
> >>
> >> I needed to gush to someone how great Buffy is....so there you go.
> > Another
> >> Buffy enthusiast.
> >>
> >
> > Welcome! :-)
> >
> >> Question One:
> >>
> >> What's this rumor about a Full length Buffy movie? Is that really
> > happening?
> >>
> >
> > .
> > They already did really.
> > Buffy started out as a movie and later became a television show. With
> > different actors, characters and a slightly different background story.
> > The movie was more comedy.
>
>
> No I know that. I liked the original Buffy Movie alot when it came out and
> bought it....but the TV show is much better. Somewhere I read that Wheadon
> is trying to get a new Full Length with the regulars.
>
I'm doing the same as you, watching the show from the beginning -- I was
in graduate school when it first started and missed the first 3 or 4
seasons and didn't want to start in the middle. Just about to start
season 5 of Buffy adn season 2 of Angel. If a full-length movie is in
the works I need to get through all the DVDs before it's released, lol!
yelps
on the other threads.....
I saw first 8 shows from Season 4 and love them.....I love it all...and I am
really hard to please.
I am searching for a good Buffy ring tone for my Palm Treo...lol I am
obsessed..and have no guilt.
dc
"-Andy-" <see2...@spamworm.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:see2go4me-50125...@news.giganews.com...
yelps
"Hope Munro Smith" <pan...@yahoo.comedy> wrote in message
news:pangrrl-F594C2...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
Excellent I am not the only one....seeing it for the first time.
Now I just finished Hush and Doomed ---season 4 disc three....It just keeps
getting better. These characters are incredible. Spike just gave his
speech--to Xander and Willow--he wants to go hunt Demons now! And that
Marriage Spell.with Buffy and Spike...it's just so excellent and hilarious I
am besides myself.
Thing about watching it on DVD like this is---I can't stop. I am losing
sleep. I can't stop talking about it to my clients during the day. It is
rapidly possessing me. I find myself wanting to live in that world----are
thery going to have to carry me away in a few weeks, babbling about Mr.
Pointy? lol
Hard to imagine watching it all over a 8 year period one night a week. Now I
have to get Angel one.....and start the alternate viewing.
I see Hush won an Emmy,,,,I guess the sole important Emmy? Well it was a
great one. But so far they are all great.....none of them feel like "duds"
when you can immediatly flip to the next and carry on, it all blends
together.
But now I look at the clock and it is 1:55 AM and disc four is going into
the player. I tell myself I will watch one more episode and go to sleep.
and then at 4:30 AM I am finally nodding off watching Special Features.
I also had no idea how popular this show was. And subversive.
dc
him...@animail.net
yelps wrote:
>
> Excellent I am not the only one....seeing it for the first time.
>
> Now I just finished Hush and Doomed ---season 4 disc three....It just
keeps
> getting better. These characters are incredible. Spike just gave
his
> speech--to Xander and Willow--he wants to go hunt Demons now! And
that
> Marriage Spell.with Buffy and Spike...it's just so excellent and
hilarious I
> am besides myself.
Spike's "let's kill something" speech has got to be one of the
classics, as is Willow's explanation about why they shouldn't kill
Spike or at least let him kill himself: "We know him. It would be
ooky."
What did you think of Pangs? I actually showed that to one of my
classes once when the students got into a heated battle about
celebrating Thanksgiving. It simmered things back down to the level of
rational discussion since it poked fun at both extremes.
>
> Thing about watching it on DVD like this is---I can't stop. I am
losing
> sleep. I can't stop talking about it to my clients during the day.
It is
> rapidly possessing me. I find myself wanting to live in that
world----are
> thery going to have to carry me away in a few weeks, babbling about
Mr.
> Pointy? lol
>
> Hard to imagine watching it all over a 8 year period one night a
week. Now I
> have to get Angel one.....and start the alternate viewing.
I am deeply envious. And may I take this opportunity to suggest that
you might also want to invest in Firefly and view same before Serenity
hits the theaters in Sept. Firefly is very different from the
Buffyverse shows, but extremely well written and the cast is fantastic.
Also, there are only 13 episodes (sniff), so getting up to speed is
easy.
>
> I see Hush won an Emmy,,,,I guess the sole important Emmy?
I think it was Giles's overheads that finally got Buffy an award. ;)
> Well it was a
> great one. But so far they are all great.....none of them feel like
"duds"
> when you can immediatly flip to the next and carry on, it all blends
> together.
I know what you mean. TV scheduling with its long waits and reruns is
not kind to shows with solid story arcs. Yet those are the shows that
create real fan bases. If I ruled the world, TV would restructure and
show such series sequentially (one new episode per week or even per
night) even if that meant they didn't last the whole year. Then rerun
the whole thing (in order) for those who came in midway and are
grousing. Of course, there would be a real problem with spoilers since
the entire series would have to be shot in advance...and no chance for
changes if/when something bombs.
TV isn't going to do that, of course. I don't rule the world. And I
think the problem will get worse, because if such shows can't make it
on TV, they won't make it to DVD at all. They won't exist. Unless
someone with money gets smart and starts producing shows straight to
DVD; I'd buy anything Whedon is associated with on faith, but a few
trailers and maybe an online sample episode would also help. Another
possibility is pay as you go series; it works with movies. Series
could actually sell seasonal subscriptions.
Something has to give though. I'm increasingly resenting the long
waits as I buy up series I missed the first time around and enjoy them
the way you describe. I watched Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls, and Six
Feet Under this way, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I'm now waiting for
Deadwood which nimue assures me I will also enjoy. :)
>
> But now I look at the clock and it is 1:55 AM and disc four is going
into
> the player. I tell myself I will watch one more episode and go to
sleep.
> and then at 4:30 AM I am finally nodding off watching Special
Features.
>
> I also had no idea how popular this show was. And subversive.
>
Very. I don't know if you enjoy such things, but there's a lot of
academic work on Buffy, including an on-line journal:
http://www.slayage.tv
himiko
Diane Wilson
>
> Thing about watching it on DVD like this is---I can't stop. I am losing
> sleep. I can't stop talking about it to my clients during the day. It is
> rapidly possessing me. I find myself wanting to live in that world----are
> thery going to have to carry me away in a few weeks, babbling about Mr.
> Pointy? lol
All your base belong to us.
> Hard to imagine watching it all over a 8 year period one night a week. Now I
> have to get Angel one.....and start the alternate viewing.
I found Buffy a little over a year ago, and watched them all on DVD.
You're definitely not alone on this. And it's so much better on DVD
so you don't have commercials and you don't have to wait. Most of the
later seasons go better if you can watch them in as short a time as
possible. I was sick and on vacation when I got Buffy S7; I watched
it all in about 36 hours.
> I see Hush won an Emmy,,,,I guess the sole important Emmy? Well it was a
> great one. But so far they are all great.....none of them feel like "duds"
> when you can immediatly flip to the next and carry on, it all blends
> together.
I believe that the only other Emmy was for Buffy's hair in "Beer Bad."
Yes, Hush is remarkable. There are a few other episodes from Joss that
are its equal in terms of really pushing the capabilities of the cast
and crew, and of television itself. The next one is Restless, at the
end of season 4. Also "The Body" in S5, "Once More With Feeling" in
S6, and "Conversations With Dead People" in S7. Angel has some
equally remarkable episodes, such as "Orpheus" in S4 and "Smile Time"
in S5.
> But now I look at the clock and it is 1:55 AM and disc four is going into
> the player. I tell myself I will watch one more episode and go to sleep.
> and then at 4:30 AM I am finally nodding off watching Special Features.
>
> I also had no idea how popular this show was. And subversive.
Addictive, compulsive, and yes, completely subversive.
Diane
Stacie Hanes
Here's a page full of links/resources I put together for the course I'm
teaching:
http://home.earthlink.net/~lt._dahlquist/10002.htm
And a plug for me and my buddy Elizabeth:
At the Science Fiction Research Association's 2005 conference in Las Vegas
this June, Elizabeth is giving a paper called "The Female Superhero and
Fatalistic Choices," and I'm doing one called "If It Isn't a Story, How Do
You Explain the Soundtrack?: the Ethical Dangers of the Epic Narrative in
Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Actually, I think Elizabeth's title is better than that, but I can't find it
right now.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons
Bondage-happy predator & AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
William George Ferguson
>I see Hush won an Emmy,,,,I guess the sole important Emmy? Well it was a
>great one. But so far they are all great.....none of them feel like "duds"
>when you can immediatly flip to the next and carry on, it all blends
>together.
Hush didn't win an Emmy, although it was nominated twice. Buffy only won
2 Emmys, although it was nominated more than any other WB series (before
or since).
The Emmys are done in two presentations, the main one (with the acting,
directing, writing, and so on awards) that is telecast and a 'technical'
awards show the week before that just gets a summing up on the main show.
The only nomination in a category that gets presented on the main show
was Whedon's Best Writer nomination for Hush (there have only been a
couple of other nominations on either the WB or UPN that have been in a
category that's presented on the main show, and no wins).
Emmy Nominations
1997 Outstanding Makeup for a Series
(Welcome to the Hellmouth)
1998 Outstanding Hairstyling for a Series
(Becoming Pts 1 & 2)
WON Outstanding Makeup for a Series
(Surprise/Innocence)
WON Outstanding Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore)
(Becoming Pt 1)
1999 Outstanding Makeup for a Series
(The Zeppo)
Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series
(Lovers Walk)
2000 Outstanding Cinematography for a Single Camera Series
(Hush)
Outstanding Hairstyling for a Series
(Beer Bad)
Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series
(Hush)
2001 no nominations
2002 Outstanding Hairstyling for a Series
(Hell's Belles)
Outstanding Makeup for a Series (Non-Prosthetic)
(Hell's Belles)
Outstanding Makeup for a Series (Prosthetic)
(Hell's Belles)
Outstanding Music Direction
(Once More With Feeling)
[This was for the directing & arranging by Beck and Tobias,
not the composing by Whedon]
2003 Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Series
(Chosen)
Stephen Tempest
>Didn't Giles die in the dream in 'Restless' or is it just implied?
Good catch - I think he did, which brings us back down to three.
Stephen
(...Who had completely forgotten about Dawn in his earlier post.
Sorry, Michelle.)
George W. Harris
:I know what you mean. TV scheduling with its long waits and reruns is
:not kind to shows with solid story arcs. Yet those are the shows that
:create real fan bases. If I ruled the world, TV would restructure and
:show such series sequentially (one new episode per week or even per
:night) even if that meant they didn't last the whole year. Then rerun
:the whole thing (in order) for those who came in midway and are
:grousing. Of course, there would be a real problem with spoilers since
:the entire series would have to be shot in advance...and no chance for
:changes if/when something bombs.
Actually, Fox is doing that this year with "24".
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Dale Ratner
> In article <A6udnakz8Pr...@adelphia.com>, ye...@xemaps.com says...
>
>
>>Thing about watching it on DVD like this is---I can't stop. I am losing
>>sleep. I can't stop talking about it to my clients during the day. It is
>>rapidly possessing me. I find myself wanting to live in that world----are
>>thery going to have to carry me away in a few weeks, babbling about Mr.
>>Pointy? lol
>
>
> All your base belong to us.
>
>
>>Hard to imagine watching it all over a 8 year period one night a week. Now I
>>have to get Angel one.....and start the alternate viewing.
>
>
> I found Buffy a little over a year ago, and watched them all on DVD.
> You're definitely not alone on this. And it's so much better on DVD
> so you don't have commercials and you don't have to wait. Most of the
> later seasons go better if you can watch them in as short a time as
> possible. I was sick and on vacation when I got Buffy S7; I watched
> it all in about 36 hours.
>
friends watched Buffy religiously. I did not get it at the time. I was
frequently in rehearsal and would only catch the first or last few
minutes of random episodes. When I went to Japan I started watching
Buffy because it was one of the few things on TV in English.
Interestingly enough I started with seasons 5 and 6. I largely forgot
about it when I returned stateside in October 2003 and picked it up
again in 2004 via reruns on FX. Now I own the boxsets for seasons 1-4
and 7. I need to pick up five and six but not too quickly because I have
seen those seasons.
David Brewer
> On 8 Mar 2005 05:44:53 -0800, "him...@animail.net"
> <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
[...]
>>I know what you mean. TV scheduling with its long waits and reruns is
>>not kind to shows with solid story arcs. Yet those are the shows that
>>create real fan bases. If I ruled the world, TV would restructure and
>>show such series sequentially (one new episode per week or even per
>>night) even if that meant they didn't last the whole year. Then rerun
>>the whole thing (in order) for those who came in midway and are
>>grousing. Of course, there would be a real problem with spoilers since
>>the entire series would have to be shot in advance...and no chance for
>>changes if/when something bombs.
>
>
> exception of the interminable soaps) are done - a limited series of 6
> or 12 weeks, with the entire storyline finished up at the end?
> Works for me.
Yes.
Not only is this how UK TV treats dramas, but almost everything
else. Not the soaps, or the news, but documentaries, situation
comedy, comic panel shows, political satire, arts and science
programming... the lot. Scheduling is established around which
format owns which slot and then different shows of that format dip
in and out of it, while less regular programming, like major
sporting events, crash into the schedule as and when. (This week
the BBC will be covering the national dog show, and a major
national charity event called "Red Nose Day".)
Sometimes drama shows are shot as short series (US: seasons) of
two-part serials and each two-parter runs over two successive
nights. Second series of shows are often commissioned before the
first has aired, which can be embarrassing if the first series
proceeds to die on its arse. Shows sometimes run more than one
short series per year, other vanish for years and then return.
Whole series are reiterated as part of normal programming in
order, sometimes as the lead in to a new series of that show. Some
shows are broadcast twice in each week, on different nights and
timeslots to reach a broader audience, and so people can catch up
with what they missed.
If anybody enjoyed the film "Shaun of the Dead" I recommend the
DVDs of the same team's sitcom "Spaced". It's clear from the
commentary tracks that the seven-show series was shot something
like a movie, with all the scripts worked out at the start of
filming, the one director for the whole series and scenes at each
specific location from throughout the series shot in blocks before
moving into the studio for all the indoors scenes. Scenes with
only the two principle actors were shot last when the rest of the
cast had moved on to other work (or not).
--
David Brewer
BTR1701
George W. Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
> :I know what you mean. TV scheduling with its long waits and reruns is
> :not kind to shows with solid story arcs. Yet those are the shows that
> :create real fan bases. If I ruled the world, TV would restructure and
> :show such series sequentially (one new episode per week or even per
> :night) even if that meant they didn't last the whole year. Then rerun
> :the whole thing (in order) for those who came in midway and are
> :grousing. Of course, there would be a real problem with spoilers since
> :the entire series would have to be shot in advance...and no chance for
> :changes if/when something bombs.
>
> Actually, Fox is doing that this year with "24".
As is ABC with "Alias".
him...@animail.net
Very cool. I don't care for either of these shows, but I'm glad to
hear they're at least trying out this option. If it's successful,
maybe the next time they'll apply it to a show I do like.
Anyway, thanks for letting me know.
himiko
him...@animail.net
himiko
him...@animail.net
Alicat wrote:
> >
> >I know what you mean. TV scheduling with its long waits and reruns
is
> >not kind to shows with solid story arcs. Yet those are the shows
that
> >create real fan bases. If I ruled the world, TV would restructure
and
> >show such series sequentially (one new episode per week or even per
> >night) even if that meant they didn't last the whole year. Then
rerun
> >the whole thing (in order) for those who came in midway and are
> >grousing. Of course, there would be a real problem with spoilers
since
> >the entire series would have to be shot in advance...and no chance
for
> >changes if/when something bombs.
>
> exception of the interminable soaps) are done - a limited series of 6
> or 12 weeks, with the entire storyline finished up at the end?
> Works for me.
I prefer longer series, but yeah, this works for me too. One thing I
really like about BTVS and AtS is the use of the overall story arc,
seasonal arc and mini-arc. Joss was very good at rolling with the
inevitable punches of TV reality in this way. Things usually stopped
at a reasonably satisfying ending...or what could be a satisfying
ending if the show ended.
> Kinda like HBO? Why not just subscribe in advance when you think
> something good is coming up (like Carnivale or Deadwood) so that more
> great series can be produced. I think we already have the vehicle,
> more people just need to indicate that they are *specifically*
> subscribing for good, limited run dramatic series like the two above
> and HBO will keep making them, no?
Yes, but I resent paying $75 a month for one show. Especially when I
know the station doesn't realize that that's what I'm doing. I might
do it if I thought they really paid attention to my stated logic. But
I'm pretty sure they don't.
> Subversive? Please. Lets not elevate Buffy to something more than it
> was. Good entertainment, but certainly not world or culture changing.
I tend to think popular culture reflects changes more than causing
them, but BTVS was subversive in its own quiet way. It did affect the
way many people thought about various gender issues, same sex
relationships, non-Christian religions and ethics, etc. A lot of this
was the result of the show plus the Internet. And, of course, Buffy
was the first kickass female hero that wasn't high fantasy or comic
book genre to become a household name. She has since been followed by
many more.
> >>
> >Very. I don't know if you enjoy such things, but there's a lot of
> >academic work on Buffy, including an on-line journal:
> >http://www.slayage.tv
>
> There's a lot of "academic work" on lots of things. So?
So, this is where there's a lot of academic work on the Buffyverse, and
since yelps is a Buffy fan, she might like to look at it. But Stacie
Hanes's site actually lists not only this site but a whole lot of
others, so if you are interested, yelps, check that out.
himiko
him...@animail.net
Alicat wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2005 15:19:32 -0800, "him...@animail.net"
> <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, but I resent paying $75 a month for one show. Especially when
I
> >know the station doesn't realize that that's what I'm doing. I
might
> >do it if I thought they really paid attention to my stated logic.
But
> >I'm pretty sure they don't.
>
> You do realize that HBO is $13.99 for 8 channels (which means you
have
> a pretty much infinite selection of all the shows they are airing and
> the endless repeats/reshowing) - and if you subscribe for a year, the
> 12th month is free. I assume you mean that you would have to get
> cable/satellite TV and add on HBO - so you must have no TV at all.
I have a TV and a rooftop antenna. No cable. Reception is pretty good
where I live, but limited to the networks.
> If
> you add up the cost of DVD purchases or rentals then I think its a
> fair trade off to get a Dish satellite receiver and enjoy all that
> great, non commercial music as well as whatever programming you like
> rather than have to wait for DVDs to be released....especially given
> the cost of a lot of DVD TV show sets.
There is no "all that" as far as I'm concerned. I don't like most of
what TV, cable or network, provides. I don't watch it. This is what I
mean when I say I was frequently paying $75 dollars a month for one
show, back when I did have cable...and no reason to think that the
company involved understood this, or cared if they did understand,
since I suspect I'm not in the majority in this view. Music? I have
stockpiles of CDs and mostly listen in the car, so that's not really an
incentive.
> Frankly, I wouldn't like to be without TV because here in ruritania
it
> is my only source of news and entertainment outside the Internet, and
> I'm not interested in waiting for other people to tell me on line
what
> to buy/rent after the show(s) are long over...
To each their own. I increasingly prefer to buy or rent the DVDs and
get the show at my own speed in my own time. I do realize this is, or
at least may be, self-defeating in the long run, but the television
industry's own butt dragging has caused this change in my viewing
habits and I suspect that when/if they catch on, it will be too late.
I don't feel responsible for their decisions in any case.
> >> Subversive? Please. Lets not elevate Buffy to something more than
it
> >> was. Good entertainment, but certainly not world or culture
changing.
> >
> >I tend to think popular culture reflects changes more than causing
> >them, but BTVS was subversive in its own quiet way. It did affect
the
> >way many people thought about various gender issues, same sex
> >relationships, non-Christian religions and ethics, etc. A lot of
this
> >was the result of the show plus the Internet. And, of course, Buffy
> >was the first kickass female hero that wasn't high fantasy or comic
> >book genre to become a household name. She has since been followed
by
> >many more.
>
> That wasn't "high fantasy or comic book genre"? Uh, Buffy was "the
> Vampire Slayer" - that already catapults her into that genre.
Yes, but she was presented as an ordinary girl in an ordinary
school...or what passes for same in TV teener dramas. She was not a
warrior princess or costumed superhero or cyborg like Xena or Wonder
Woman or even the bionic woman. Her ordinary life consumed as much air
time as the fighting. And even the fantastic stuff was metaphor and
grounded in everyday life.
Also, she was written for a female audience, and portrayed (even in the
early days of miniskirts and the bouncing boobs of determination) in a
very different way from soft porny action heroines like Charley's
Angels and the Bond girls.
> The same
> one that spawned the Wonder Woman series on TV back in the day. And
> Charlie's Angels were "kickass female hero(s)" (just as one example)
> long before Buffy, no?
See above on Charlie's Angels. They never seemed to have lives of any
sort and weren't interesting to me; they always seemed like soft porn
for the guys, but a lot of girls fanwanked and fanficced them into
more, so I guess they could qualify. Even earlier would be Emma Peel
of the Avengers. She did have a life of her own and also kicked butt.
Of course, she was British, and I think much of the interpretation was
due to Diana Rigg. The other women on this show were much more in the
Bond girl format.
> I would agree with you that BTVS influenced "the way many people
> thought" if "many people" had actually watched the show, but
remember,
> this wasn't a huge mainstream hit, and it certainly seems like BTVS
> and ATS for the most part were preaching to the choir.
Not judging by the discussions the show spawned over the years. I
don't want to go into details since this thread needs to be kept
spoiler free. Many of my students who grew up on BTVS have also
commented on how the Buffyverse first made them think about religious
alternatives, gender issues and same sex relationships in particular.
Especially for those who came from conservative small towns, Larry's
coming out (it's OK to mention this I think since yelps is on S4) was a
revelation. And one student recently remarked to me that Willow's
comments about not everyone believing in Santa, marked the first time
that she began to wonder if people from other religions resented the
calendar and holiday times being geared towards Christians. Small
things, but for those concerned, meaningful events.
The fact that BTVS wasn't a mainstream hit is relevant in that I think
to be a mainstream hit requires a show to be so shallow that it has no
impact at all. It may well reflect the society at large (and so be a
worthy subject of study in other ways), but since it caters to them
quite shamelessly, it can't do anything but preach to the choir. It
still has an impact, however, in that it reinforces (often already
negative) beliefs and assumptions. The Swan, for example, would be a
very interesting topic to study if anyone can stand to watch it.
BTVS impacted the millions who watched. And it didn't preach to the
choir. It remained within the bounds of what the choir would accept
(or in some cases, the choir's parents), or it wouldn't have stayed on
the air at all, but it pushed the boundaries as far as it could.
That's more than I really expected from a network show...a whole lot
more. And a far more cheerful topic of study than The Swan.
> >> >Very. I don't know if you enjoy such things, but there's a lot
of
> >> >academic work on Buffy, including an on-line journal:
> >> >http://www.slayage.tv
> >>
> >> There's a lot of "academic work" on lots of things. So?
> >
> >So, this is where there's a lot of academic work on the Buffyverse,
and
> >since yelps is a Buffy fan, she might like to look at it. But
Stacie
> >Hanes's site actually lists not only this site but a whole lot of
> >others, so if you are interested, yelps, check that out.
>
> I just meant that you can find academic studies on most everything,
> most especially the snail darters from Mars and other
> non-consequential things. Because there are academic studies on BTVS
> doesn't make the TV show some sort of watershed in the history of
> popular culture, or anything.
Not the point. Academic studies don't make anything important or
unimportant. And certainly the topic isn't what decides the value of
an academic work. It's what you do with it. A good study on Buffy
that provides valuable insight into something is of greater consequence
than a shallow, derivative work about Shakespeare. What academics do,
especially those who work with pop culture, is to try to decipher the
meanings inherent in our lives by asking questions of the artifacts
that surround us, by approaching them from different angles to see what
that reveals.
BTVS is one such artifact, and because it pushed the boundaries, it's
of particular interest. Like all popular culture, it's a negotiated
form of entertainment that reveals as much about the audience as it
does about the creators. It's certainly not the only TV show on the
academic chopping block. TV reflects who we are or rather, who we want
to think we are. What on earth is so inconsequential about studying
that?
And sometimes the real value of pop culture studies aren't apparent
until later. Janice Radway's "Reading the Romance" about Harlequin
romance novels and their readers, for example, was originally regarded
as simply as a good demographic study of a particular audience; today,
with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that she was also painting a
picture of the early (1980s) impact of the women's movement on working
class women in a conservative small town. It still doesn't make
Harlequin novels great literature, but that was never what Radway or
anyone else set out to do.
>However! If academic studies float one's
> boat, then by all means, pull up anchor!
Oh thank you. I was waiting for permission.
himiko
Stacie Hanes
> exception of the interminable soaps) are done - a limited series of 6
> or 12 weeks, with the entire storyline finished up at the end?
> Works for me.
>>
>> think the problem will get worse, because if such shows can't make it
>> on TV, they won't make it to DVD at all. They won't exist. Unless
>> someone with money gets smart and starts producing shows straight to
>> DVD; I'd buy anything Whedon is associated with on faith, but a few
>> trailers and maybe an online sample episode would also help. Another
>> possibility is pay as you go series; it works with movies. Series
>> could actually sell seasonal subscriptions.
>
> something good is coming up (like Carnivale or Deadwood) so that more
> great series can be produced. I think we already have the vehicle,
> more people just need to indicate that they are *specifically*
> subscribing for good, limited run dramatic series like the two above
> and HBO will keep making them, no?
>>
>> waits as I buy up series I missed the first time around and enjoy
>> them the way you describe. I watched Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls, and
>> Six Feet Under this way, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I'm now
>> waiting for Deadwood which nimue assures me I will also enjoy. :)
>
> DVDs? (Not that I have anything against buying the DVDs, which also
> encourage the making of more shows like these.)
>>>
>>> But now I look at the clock and it is 1:55 AM and disc four is
>>> going into the player. I tell myself I will watch one more episode
>>> and go to sleep. and then at 4:30 AM I am finally nodding off
>>> watching Special Features.
>>>
>>> I also had no idea how popular this show was. And subversive.
>
> was. Good entertainment, but certainly not world or culture changing.
>>>
>> academic work on Buffy, including an on-line journal:
>> http://www.slayage.tv
>
>
> adios,
> alicat
Actually there's convincing evidence that BtVS had a definite effect on
American slang. It may not be what you call "culture changing" but it's
notable.
Subversive doesn't necessarily mean something changes the world. It just
means it works to undermine some conention or another, which BtVS did do,
IMO. Subversion works in the minds of viewers; Buffy had a long run and a
strong effect on an impressive number of people.
Stacie Hanes
Because there are academic studies on BTVS
> doesn't make the TV show some sort of watershed in the history of
> boat, then by all means, pull up anchor!
>
> alicat
Your validation means *so* much.
him...@animail.net
Spaced is not available in region 1. I may just go ahead and buy it
and play it on my little laptop though. It sounds like a kick.
What did you think of Hex? Is it worth getting?
himiko
David Brewer
[...]
> What did you think of Hex? Is it worth getting?
I didn't watch it, so I have no opinion. Nobody has ever mentioned
it to me before you. I had to look up what it was.
--
David Brewer
Stacie Hanes
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:31:43 GMT, "Stacie Hanes"
> <house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Alicat wrote:
>> Because there are academic studies on BTVS
>>> doesn't make the TV show some sort of watershed in the history of
>>> popular culture, or anything. However! If academic studies float
>>> one's boat, then by all means, pull up anchor!
>>>
>>> adios,
>>> alicat
>>
>> Your validation means *so* much.
>
> Sorry that a sense of humor has fled this newsgroup, but then that was
> one of the reasons I *left* academia.....no appreciation for the
> snark.
>
> adios,
> alicat
Oh, *love* snark. We can have a snark-off any time.
But occasionally I get tired of the "oh, lit crit, not a serious study,
blah, blah" attitude that a lot of people have for real. It's more common
that the :-) kind.
I'm pretty sure I was snarking back in approximately the same tone. See my
point? The only way it wouldn't have been snark is if you took your own
approval or condemnation to actually *be* validation for someone. It was
designed to reflect the original tone of the comment--if you meant it
seriously and read it in a serious mindframe, fine. If you were kidding, and
read it in a light frame of mind, also fine. I propose that a reader would
take it pretty much in exactly the mood he/she was in when the original
comment was made.
him...@animail.net
I'm mostly curious about what field of endeavor Alicat has found where
snarky blanket condemnations of other people's work ARE appreciated,
especially when those condemnations are based on completely erroneous
assumptions about what the work entails and/or what the goal is.
And while I agree with you about lit crit, I'd like to point out that
pop culture studies is not confined to lit crit. It pulls theory from
pretty much all the humanities and social sciences, not to mention
business and law schools and occasionally the hard sciences. This
sometimes leads to pop culture types being housed with classics simply
because both fields use such interdisciplinary methods. The result is
usually called simply "culture studies." Talk about strange bedfellows
though!
himiko
Stacie Hanes
True. I am working on Buffy projects, but I tend to think of it as lit crit.
This isn't necessarily the most accurate way of describing it. I do lit
crit, therefore what I do is lit crit. Welcome to the inside of my head.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
Hex probably isn't available in Region 1 either. It's slower paced than
Buffy, and doesn't feature a lot of 'fight' scenes. I did like the
lesbian sidekick (the crush on the heroine was overt and explicit here,
even though she doesn't reciprocate).