Jeff Pruitt's Parable
Ayla Olson
***************************************************88
" The Parable of the Knight
by J.P.
Once there was a young man who trained himself to be a Knight...
Others around him said, "You cannot become a Knight. There are no Knights
here in this God-forsaken village. Knights live in a far away land into
which you must be born. It is a fantasy. You are a young fool."
And they laughed at him. But his Mother said to him, "Try son. This village
is worthless and nothing good will come of you should you stay here." So he
did try. He had no other choice. For around him was nothingness.
After countless battles across many lands the young man did indeed become a
real Knight - just as he had dreamed. Yet he wandered and had no home of his
own. He merely fought each battle as they came and lived from day to day.
And he was alone.
One day a brilliant young King (that until recently had only been a Prince
in a Royal Family) called upon him. Many glorious plans had the King and he
needed a Knight to fulfill them. The overjoyed Knight went forth and battled
with all his heart. And the King, seeing this, looked around and said to his
other servants, "Why didn't I have this guy from the start?"
The Knight had never fought for a King so young before. He seemed to know
the things the Knight knew. The Knight saw that this King could be one worth
serving and he made a vow that he would never take off his helmet until
every battle had been won for this King. And it was good.
Yet there was trouble brewing beneath the surface in the Kingdom. The
Generals felt that only they should give commands on the battlefield and
seethed with jealousy inside themselves at every commandment put forth by
the Knight. The young Knight continued to win every battle. What could they
say to the King against him? So they plotted and waited.
The King's Blacksmith had always made swords for the battle. But the Knight
saw that they were unwieldy and unreliable. The King's friend, Sir David,
called upon the Knight himself to make swords that he felt were good for his
battles. For after all, was not the Knight the one who made the battle
plans? Who should know better, he thought, the Knight who fights with the
sword or the Blacksmith who merely watched battles from the sidelines?
Besides, did the Blacksmith not have much better skills at building the
King's devices and such? And was the Blacksmith not overburdened with tasks?
"Then let the young Knight build the swords for his own battles," he said.
The Blacksmith did seethe with rage at this and quietly plotted. Sword
making was his domain, he felt. The Carpenter also was upset. For every time
he built a beautiful house, the Knight and his fellow Knights would battle
and destroy it. Often the Knights would move aside the works of the
Carpenter so that they could make a great battle for the King. The Carpenter
was indignant. For he was a Master Carpenter. "Who does this young Knight
think he is?" they grumbled among themselves. But the King was pleased. For
all of the people in the Land of Bronze saw the battles and appreciated the
work of the Knight. And it was good.
Even the spoiled Princess saw that it was good. And she was known for hating
all things. The young Knight had her twin, the Handmaiden, performing all
the Royal duties in her place. The people of lands far away who saw this
were amazed, thinking the Princess truly skilled at performing the Royal
duties when in fact it was her Handmaiden all along. Though the Princess
despised all other women in the Kingdom, she could not fault the Knight, for
his use of the Handmaiden proved good for her and she was made to seem great
in the eyes of the people. And so she tolerated the Handmaiden.
Then the Blacksmith did build a new device for the Royal duty of the
Handmaiden. Seeing that it was not good, the Knight requested that it be
changed. The Blacksmith replied with anger that this was his device and he
knew best. Then while performing the Royal duty, the Handmaiden was nearly
slain by the faulty device. The Knight had been right all along.
Seeing the near-death of this wonderful Handmaiden, the Knight realized that
he could one day lose her to such faulty devices. Royal duties as these are
dangerous indeed. So the Knight asked the Handmaiden for her hand in
marriage. And it was good. And all rejoiced. And in the background, the
Blacksmith did quietly burn with anger again.
Then came the time for the horses to be brought into battle. And the young
Knight found that the saddles were not good and he wondered at this. And
word came to him from a kindhearted old Messenger. "Take heed," warned the
Messenger, "for the Horseman is with the Blacksmith and the Generals and
they plot to see you fail." "How could this be?" thought the Knight, "For
they all declare their friendship to me." The Messenger shook his head and
told the young Knight, "Trust not in what is said. Only what is real. For
this is the Kingdom of lies that you now live in." The young Knight was
heartbroken, but hoped that the kindly old Messenger was wrong. "I will try
harder in my battles," the Knight said to himself, "then everyone will
forget to hate when the Kingdom flourishes beyond all expectations."
And the Knight did try with all his might. And he placed his beloved
Handmaiden in great peril and pain to secure for the Princess a high place
among the other Royals of the land. He made certain that all battles were
won and that the Princess was kept safe. And the King saw that it was good.
And the people of Bronze did rejoice. And the Town Criers called out the
name of the Knight and said, "This is an Artiste." And they placed his name
in a book. And all in the Kingdom saw it.
The young Knight marveled at all this. Sir David said to him, "The King and
I feel that you are more than a mere Knight. We think of you as our Artist."
And the young Knight went to his new home that he purchased with the money
won from his many battles and stared out at the lights of the Land of
Bronze. And he swelled with pride.
He triumphantly returned to his Mother's side after being gone for so many
years and showed her these things. His Mother rejoiced. The other villagers
looked on in amazement. "Could this be the same young man who played at
being a Knight as a boy?" they thought. "These things cannot happen." But,
in fact, it had all happened. He was a real Knight after all.
As time moved forward the Knight continued to battle everyday. While his
fellow Knights went away to another land and were given many provisions and
time to plan carefully laid out battles with many new weapons, he found
himself being summoned to battles in small places with no provisions and
only a moment's notice, all alone but for his Handmaiden. And yet he
continued to win every single battle without fail. And the Kingdom continued
to prosper.
But as time went on the battles became more intense and the other servants
resented having to deal with them. They all wanted to give up the fight and
no longer cared about the battles. They began to lash out at one another and
made it difficult when the Knight showed up for his duties. By then they
wanted only to have their pay and forget the battle. The will of the King
meant nothing to them and they could not understand the Knight's determined
ways.
The Princess herself had become full of jealousy at the way the Knight
proclaimed to all the people of the Bronze that his own much-loved
Handmaiden performed the Royal duties. The Knight's constant boasting of the
wonderful Handmaiden's exploits caused the Princess to desire a way to kill
the Handmaiden. But the King would not have it. The Handmaiden was important
to the success of the Kingdom. Though he would never dare utter this in
front of the jealous Princess. Nor did he want the Handmaiden to know this.
The number one General, the one who always sits beside the other Generals
and actually controls the comings and goings within the Kingdom, became
drunk on his wine one night. He blatantly proclaimed that he would have this
Knight who dared to make commands on the battlefield killed, but in a way
that was very sneaky indeed. For he was known for being able to carefully
manipulate the fatherless Princess and he made sure that any who seemed a
threat to him should die at her order or by the order of his old friend the
Sheriff. He drew near the angry Blacksmith and his cohorts and made secret
plans. The number one General secretly felt that he was wiser than the King
and the other Generals in all ways and was determined that no one would
control the Kingdom but he. And he would not dare allow a lowly Knight to
determine the course of the battles. For that was more than he would allow
in HIS Kingdom. The General had to play his hand carefully, but this was
what he reveled in most. He would get his way in time, he thought. After
all, he was much wiser than the youthful King. And the cohorts grinned. And
the Princess and the General did whisper together out of sight of the King.
Yet the King seemingly stood by the Knight and would not hear of it.
Especially when the valuable Handmaiden proclaimed to the Sheriff that she
would leave the Kingdom should anything happen to her Knight. All seemed
stable in the Kingdom, despite the whispered plots.
So the cohorts of the court schemed and lied and met with the Sheriff of the
Kingdom. The Sheriff, being the one who gave the General his position,
always followed his plans without question, so the General knew that he
could easily manipulate him through careful use of the others in the court.
And by carefully steering the will of the vengeful Princess. But how could
they kill the Knight as long as the King was with him? Then they realized
something. As in previous Kingdoms before, the Princess had now become even
more important to the Kingdom than the King who founded it. If the Princess
realized that by killing the Knight she could be rid of the despised
Handmaiden, then she would truly show her power to all and rule the Kingdom.
The cohorts began their work and with constant bickering and careful
manipulation continually sought to cause the Knight grief. Many foul tricks
ensued and the Knight was perplexed and slowly began to feel the enormous
burden of his position as never before. Yet he held firm. Then, when nearly
unable to stand it another moment, the message came that his Mother was
dead.
Instead of leaving his duties the Knight held fast. The people of his old
village were aghast. How could he stay there in that Kingdom of snakes and
help them to prosper when his own Mother lay dead? The Knight still refused
to leave his post. He wept over his Mother outside the battlefield and
continued his fight for the King. He would not leave until the battles were
won. Only then would he leave to visit his Mother's last resting-place. He
felt no need to explain to her why he had done what he had. It was his
Mother that had taught him about strength and loyalty.
Upon his return to the Kingdom he felt overcome with grief and anguish. The
cohorts in the court kept up their plot. And he began to feel that all his
efforts were unappreciated but for the people of the Land of Bronze. So he
spoke out to them, as they seemed to be his only friends. His honesty only
caused the Princess and others to grow angrier.
And one night while showing the battle plan to one of the Generals, the
Princess made the kind of condescending remark that she had become known for
around the Kingdom among the servants. This time she aimed her venom at the
over-worked and beleaguered Knight. And for the first time someone in the
Kingdom dared to answer back to her. And the Knight said, "If you've got a
better idea then why not show me?" And with that the Princess stormed off.
Armed with the claim that the Knight had abused her and dared to speak in
such a tone to the Princess, she had the ammunition she needed to carry out
the plan. The cohorts were gleeful.
Therefore it was by order of the Princess that the Knight should no longer
plan the battles. She boasted that he would not live to see the sunrise in
the Kingdom. The Sheriff was sent down to calm her and he agreed with her
that the Knight would die, but secretly and in due time.
The King himself was soon due to take the battlefield. He didn't want to
risk losing his Knight or his Handmaiden at this crucial time. He tried to
continue the battles, but when the Princess saw that the Knight was still
there she refused to come out to join the King. He needed the Princess to
fulfill his plans and she made it clear that only the head of the Knight was
going to satisfy her. This weighed heavily on the King for there was still
much to be done.
The cohorts and the evil number one General rejoiced. Often he and the
others had mocked the King and the Knight by calling them "The Artists"
behind their backs. He felt that soon the Kingdom would be fully controlled
by his deceptive hand. For he knew very well the hold that the Princess had
on the King and he knew he was the one who could manipulate both the
Princess and the Sheriff. He had carefully maneuvered to make it so for a
long, long time. He would eliminate any he felt threatened his rise to
power. All the while playing the innocent advisor to the Sheriff.
While the cohorts smirked among themselves, many of the servants spoke
secretly to the Knight to warn him of the evil around him. Listening to
their many sorry tales, the Knight even began to doubt the King himself and
wondered if the King realized at all that he was being laughed at and used
by the Princess and the General in secret. The other servants worried too
and were filled with dread. Most of them had to greet the Princess and the
General with false smiles, though in their hearts they hated the kind of
evil dealt to their fellows. They could only watch the fate of the Knight
and worry that they could be next.
Promises were made secretly. The Kingdom must continue to generate its great
riches. So the Sheriff was determined to speak any lie needed to secure the
services of the Knight for the King until the end of the last great battle
of the year. Therefore the Princess then determined to fool the Knight. Just
as she had her own dear friend before cutting off her head years before. And
just as the friend had trusted in her and the words spoken by the Sheriff
that "all was well" so too did the Knight and his Handmaiden.
After the LAST GREAT BATTLE the King was again pleased. The Knight had once
again created victory with the King's army under impossible circumstances
and all seemed well. The Princess now thanked the Knight for having stood by
her in the battles and making her appear so heroic to her people. And that
was something she had never done before. Even the General himself exclaimed
that the Knight had performed in a magnificent way in the LAST GREAT BATTLE.
Thus at last with the praise of the Princess, the General, and the Sheriff
still with him, the Knight finally could feel that all was well. Even many
of the cohorts sought to shake the hand of the Knight. How could he doubt
that things were not good once again?
And now after three years of battles, the name of the Princess and the King
had become known around the world. All the Royals knew them and wanted their
company. After all, were they not the famous ones who always won the
battles? Things seemed right again in the Kingdom. And so after considering
the offer of a Foreign King, the Knight felt that his place was truly secure
in the Kingdom and decided to stay to fight for his one true King - no
matter what.
So the Knight and the Handmaiden retired to their new home. Tired and
bloodied from the battles on and off the field. Then the message came. The
Sheriff has sent word that the Knight is no longer needed and will not be
welcomed into the Kingdom again. The evil plan had worked after all and the
comfort the Knight had taken in finally trusting the Princess and the
Sheriff proved as vacuous as the servants had claimed they were. The Knight
had simply been used to attain a final battle.
Yet he still had the support of the King, didn't he? The King's Right Hand
Man informed the Knight that the King would send him a message soon and they
could talk of the matter. The Knight waited. And then he remembered that the
King was famous for his brilliance with the pen, but also just as famous for
his fleeing from any form of confrontation or discomfort.
Upon remembering this, the loyal Knight decided to go to the Land of the
Bronze. And there he saw his King. He heard his King remark to the people,
"It's over. It's all over. Well. Some of it is." And the Knight knew in his
heart that this was no longer his King. Regardless of what was deemed wise
to speak in front of the people by the King and his Scribes, the workings
within the Kingdom would for the most part be secretly controlled by the
spoiled Princess and her false father figure. The King simply didn't want to
believe this. He will tell himself that he still runs the Kingdom alone and
proclaim that everything is up to him and no one else. He might even claim
that the Princess is an innocent in front of the people. But he would know
within his heart that this is not true. Yet the Princess is truly convincing
indeed. She will decide who travels through the gates.
He wished that the King would even start a new Kingdom away from this one
with another much kinder Princess. But that was only wishful thinking. It
would be five hundred years into the future before the Knight would be of
use to the King again and be able step into the Fray of the battle. He had a
long wait ahead. Perhaps even forever.
Now, needing the money for his first and only home, he asked his Handmaiden
to hold her tongue and to return to the Kingdom and see to the Princess for
him. Knowing full well that this would heap coals of fire on the head of the
Princess upon seeing her again, while still aiding his King in spite of
everything done to him. A tough road was ahead for the Handmaiden and it
would take all her inner strength not to turn and smite the Princess
herself. But she loved the Knight and the only home they've ever known. And
so she agreed.
And the young Knight went to the mirror and took off his helmet for the
first time ever. And the man looking back at him was not that young anymore.
"
*END*
--
Ayla
Visit Kleysa's Bad Girls, BtVS Adult FanFic Archive
http://www.geocities.com/kleysa/buffyenter.html
Rose
Ayla Olson
news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
Obviously no one but Jeff really knows how he feels, but, damn, I wound up
wanting to paddle that Princess myself. I sure hope the Handmaiden keeps
herself SAFE during her battles.
pjmc...@gate.net
Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
And if we read between the lines, it seems that there might not be a stunt
double for Buffy next season. Or worse
= half way thru the the season Sophia quits.
Nirtom
Ayla Olson wrote in message ...
>Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
>news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>> Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>
>wanting to paddle that Princess myself.
Look at the reason of her departure from AMC and maybe we have a pattern
here. Or maybe Susan Lucci was a great teacher. :)
Any kidding apart, we only know one side of the story.
Nirtom
Nirtom
pjmc...@gate.net wrote in message <8fv7vi$1tp8$1...@news.gate.net>...
>
>
>Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
>news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>> Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>
>double for Buffy next season. Or worse
>
>= half way thru the the season Sophia quits.
What's the problem? SMG knows Tai Kwen Do or something. <vbg>
Nirtom
Ayla Olson
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8F37C4323aw...@166.84.0.240...
> Thank you for posting that, Ayla. Obviously what I'm about to say is
> not addressed to you.
>
> Um, in my opinion, this sort of thing is totally weenie. I have no
> idea about what happened, who did what, who behaved decently and who
> behaved in a reprehensible manner. I have no opinion about any of
> that because I haven't the slightest notion of what went on. But I do
> know this "parable" baloney is just embarrassing.
>
No worries, Michael. I am thinking he did it this way because of potential
legal problems?
Ayla
Ayla Olson
Nirtom <nir...@reyab.com> wrote in message
news:si690o...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> Look at the reason of her departure from AMC and maybe we have a pattern
> here. Or maybe Susan Lucci was a great teacher. :)
Why did she leave AMC? I thought she just wanted to move on and get away
from Lucci.
> Any kidding apart, we only know one side of the story.
True. I wonder if Joss will put any official statements out.
Steve Warrick
> <xbEU4.396$1T.3...@news.uswest.net>:
>
> >For people unable to get to the page.
> >
> >***************************************************88
> >
> >" The Parable of the Knight
> >by J.P.
>
> not addressed to you.
>
> Um, in my opinion, this sort of thing is totally weenie. I have no
> idea about what happened, who did what, who behaved decently and who
> behaved in a reprehensible manner. I have no opinion about any of
> that because I haven't the slightest notion of what went on. But I do
> know this "parable" baloney is just embarrassing.
>
> treated, then either address the issues in a forthright manner, or
> move on.
>
I totally agree. If Pruitt feels he's been mistreated or even endangered on
the set that's one thing, and he has every right to air his greivances, but
presenting himself as an eternally noble, long-suffering, artistic,
gracious, selfless knight in a fairy tale is pretty immature, and (to my
mind) brings into question his professionalism and judgment.
> Am I convinced of the goodness of the Knight and the evilness of the
> various villains? No, not particularly. Why should I be? But then
> it seems fairly obvious to me that we're not really supposed to be
> convinced of anything by this. It seems to me the only real purpose
> is to somehow poison the air in some indeterminate way and, as I say,
> it strikes me as an extremely weenie thing to do.
>
> For heaven's sake, if this guy has a tale to tell of being treated
> outrageously, then let him tell it. Let him air the whole thing out,
> if he's a mind to. I'd read it with interest. At the very least, it
> would give the other side the opportunity to reasonably state its side
> of the case.
>
> I mean, frankly, I don't really feel like being drawn into any of this
> sort of thing, but if it's going to be bandied about (as it apparently
> is, on the website), hearing people's genuine responses to the
> situation beats the hell out of this "parable" hooey.
>
> --
> mrw
>
>
Mike Zeares
>
> Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>
> herself SAFE during her battles.
Just a drive-by comment as I wade through the Bronze postings on the
issue:
Anyone who thinks that Jeff's "parable" is the unvarnished truth is
fooling themselves.
We don't KNOW how it all went down. We likely never will. It's
Hollywood. Shit happens.
-- Mike Zeares
"From day one, Buffy only resorts to thought after she has established
that violence won't work." -- William George Ferguson
Ayla Olson
badly injured last night and it's been a bad day.
EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:veb6iskr92ehpn91m...@4ax.com...
> Joss will probably put out a statement saying Pruitt's leaving was planned
> all along. Him and Doyle both. <G>
WeirdArchives
She does, but she doesn't know thing one about proper falling and such. Not
everyone can be like Burt Reynolds or Patricia Tallman who started out as
stunt people.
Nirtom <nir...@reyab.com> wrote in message
news:si694p...@news.supernews.com...
>
> pjmc...@gate.net wrote in message <8fv7vi$1tp8$1...@news.gate.net>...
> >
> >
> >Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> >news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> >> Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
> >
WeirdArchives
Something tells me those legal problems just became actual.
Ayla Olson <evilwill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NTFU4.452$1T.4...@news.uswest.net...
>
>
> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:8F37C4323aw...@166.84.0.240...
> > Thank you for posting that, Ayla. Obviously what I'm about to say is
> > not addressed to you.
> >
> > Um, in my opinion, this sort of thing is totally weenie. I have no
> > idea about what happened, who did what, who behaved decently and who
> > behaved in a reprehensible manner. I have no opinion about any of
> > that because I haven't the slightest notion of what went on. But I do
> > know this "parable" baloney is just embarrassing.
> >
>
Shadowy Moon
> treated, then either address the issues in a forthright manner, or
> move on.
>
Agreed. After reading this parable and the postings from both Jeff and Joss,
I feel a strong urge to smack both of them and holler, "You're both adults!
Act like it!"
Sheesh.
Kudos to David Fury for staying out of the fray for the most part.
--
QUACK!! QUACK!!
The Campaign to Save Baby Duck Malucci
ER won't be the same without Dr. Dave
Nirtom
Ayla Olson wrote in message ...
>
>
>>
>>
>> Look at the reason of her departure from AMC and maybe we have a pattern
>> here. Or maybe Susan Lucci was a great teacher. :)
>
>Why did she leave AMC? I thought she just wanted to move on and get away
>from Lucci.
My point was: Did SMG try to have things her way enough to make life on the
set so unbearable someone has to leave? If I recall the fight for screen
time and quality of lines was getting ugly. Also, ultimate finger: she left
the show the night she won her Emmy. But again, maybe it was all Lucci
induced.
Nirtom
N.B.: Avoid any unnecessary flames by reading previous message about the
kidding part and the other side of the story.
Eric Nehrlich
> And, if not, and the show begins to have sucky stunts again, I don't care.
>
> I will not miss this season, good stunts do not a show make.
Yeah, but at least the good stunts give you _something_ to look forward to
when wallowing in a morass of over-done "romantic"ism, lame plots, and
characters whose writers appear to have forgotten their entire history and
personality prior to this season.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
It's true that stunts don't make the show. I really like many of the
episodes from the first season despite the completely lame fight scenes.
But I also think that adding good stunts on top of good writing, good
characterization, and good acting, really made the show special in my
eyes. Involuntary "Whoa!"s often came from my mouth as I watched some of
the fights and stunts that Jeff choreographed. And I really think they
added something to the story as well.
Would Becoming 2 be nearly as powerful without the sword fight at the end?
I certainly don't think so. The entire Faith storyline would not work as
well if they hadn't been able to graphically show the delight she took in
violence. How many times have we been able to determine Buffy's mood by
how well she's fighting? Sure, a lot of that is direction and camera-work,
but I think a lot more of it than people think is from the choreography.
I dunno. I guess I just wish things had been able to be worked out long
before they got to this sort of public display. Ironic that it comes just
a week after The Yoko Factor when issues that had been repressed for months
come bubbling to the surface in an unpleasant argument.
And, while Jeff's parable is undoubtedly biased, if even 10% of the things
he talks about were actually happening, I worry about the health of the
show. It may be an unavoidable companion to success, but it's unpleasant
to hear about people scheming to gain more influence instead of simply
trying to make the show as good as possible.
Blech. Now I'm depressed.
--
Eric Nehrlich
http://www.nehrlich.com
Mike Zeares
>
> And, while Jeff's parable is undoubtedly biased, if even 10% of the things
> he talks about were actually happening, I worry about the health of the
> show. It may be an unavoidable companion to success, but it's unpleasant
> to hear about people scheming to gain more influence instead of simply
> trying to make the show as good as possible.
Scheming to gain more influence? Backstabbing and behind-the-scenes
intrigues? In *Hollywood*? I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED at the very concept.
-- Mike Zeares
"From day one, Mike only resorts to sarcasm after he has established
that irony won't work."
Don Sample
<evilwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>
> Obviously no one but Jeff really knows how he feels, but, damn, I wound up
> wanting to paddle that Princess myself. I sure hope the Handmaiden keeps
> herself SAFE during her battles.
>
> --
> Ayla
It has been pretty obvious for quite a while that Jeff wasn't entirely
happy with the way things were going on BtVS.
I would like to say that you shouldn't read too much into that parabel.
It's Jeff's side of the story, and it may be the way he feels about
what happened, but there are probably three or four other sides to it
that we haven't heard. Jeff is the one who tends to post here, so a
lot of people are taking his word for what happened without question.
It sounds to me like a clash of egos, with lots of blame to spread
around on all sides.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Mike Zeares
>
> In article <39232F5B...@texas.net>, Mike Zeares <mze...@texas.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > We don't KNOW how it all went down. We likely never will. It's
> > Hollywood. Shit happens.
>
>
> What you, and everyone else misses, what IS THE POINT, is not who is
> "right" and who is "wrong".
>
> What disturbs me about this is that it paints the "Buffy" set as a place
> of mindless politics and court intrigue and petty jealousies and
> rivalries.
Well, of course it is. It's populated by humans. Mindless politics and
petty jealousies pretty much sum up any work enviroment. Pretty much
any primate enviroment, for that matter. What, you thought the BUFFY
set was somehow above all that?
-- Mike Zeares
Elianne
> When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
> unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4, I pretty much want to throw
> up my hands and give up on the show. Because it doesn't look like anyone
> is minding the store, or has the show's best interest at heart.
I think Joss still does, but it sounds like even he is being undermined
and *that* is really scary. I wonder if this is why he's been making
comments lately about putting a great writing staff in place (sorry
Joss, you're not there yet) so that when he leaves, the show can
carry on. Yikes! I hope not. Because the show will flounder without
his guiding hand. God, it already has this season - IMO, because
he's been spreading himself too thin.
Ayla Olson
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message > I would like to say that
you shouldn't read too much into that parabel.
> It's Jeff's side of the story, and it may be the way he feels about
> what happened, but there are probably three or four other sides to it
> that we haven't heard. Jeff is the one who tends to post here, so a
> lot of people are taking his word for what happened without question.
> It sounds to me like a clash of egos, with lots of blame to spread
> around on all sides.
This prompts me to clarify a couple of things on my behalf...
My main disappointment with this situation is Jeff's *departure*. I don't
and cannot blame anyone for anything since I have no knowledge of
everything. That's a mouthful, whoo! Stunts do define a large part of the
spirit of a show to me. When I watch a show and I see a badly done fight or
stunt sequence, that indicates to me lack of pride on the show's behalf or
cost cutting which means the network expects a show to go downhill.
Jeff is a good writer. His parable is easy to figure out and it paints a
sad picture of one of my favourite shows. However, I like Joss and I like
most of the stars on Buffy. I feel like a winning team has been broken up,
but who's fault is it Who knows.
Ayla
harry_hellmouth
Krissy
>Pruitt did good work, but this parable just strikes me as a childish rant.
Agreed. If he has a grievance against Joss, Sarah, etc., he should've used
proper channels to resolve it. Pandering to the fans in the hopes of garnering
their support is beyond childish and immature. He presents his case as if he
(and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't. As painful
as that thought might be, he and Sophia are members of the crew at the
suffering of the producers. Apparently something happened which may or may not
have to do with the last battle scenes that jeopardized the relationship
between the stunt crew and the producers. I had respect for him up until now;
after reading his little fanfiction, I say good riddance. Not that their
particular brand of stuntwork won't be missed, but there are plenty of
stuntpeople in Hollywood. I have no doubts that good ones will be found to
replace them.
Krissy
tommyk
And, if not, and the show begins to have sucky stunts again, I don't care.
I will not miss this season, good stunts do not a show make.
--
"Actually, in my killfile, you tend to
know a lot of the people."
Krissy
>Ayla Olson wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>Nirtom <nir...@reyab.com> wrote in message
>>news:si690o...@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Look at the reason of her departure from AMC and maybe we have a pattern
>>> here. Or maybe Susan Lucci was a great teacher. :)
>>
>>Why did she leave AMC? I thought she just wanted to move on and get away
>>from Lucci.
>
>
>My point was: Did SMG try to have things her way enough to make life on the
>set so unbearable someone has to leave? If I recall the fight for screen
>time and quality of lines was getting ugly. Also, ultimate finger: she left
>the show the night she won her Emmy. But again, maybe it was all Lucci
>induced.
The way I understood it, La Lucci made Sarah's life a living hell because she
felt she was too young to have a child Kendall's age. And, the network
*announced* Sarah's departure the day after the Emmy's; SMG had already
expressed her intention to leave months in advance of that night. They (the
network) did it to make her look bad.
Krissy
Ian J. Ball
> Ayla Olson wrote:
> > Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> > news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
> >
> > Obviously no one but Jeff really knows how he feels, but, damn, I wound up
> > wanting to paddle that Princess myself. I sure hope the Handmaiden keeps
> > herself SAFE during her battles.
>
> Just a drive-by comment as I wade through the Bronze postings on the
> issue:
>
> Anyone who thinks that Jeff's "parable" is the unvarnished truth is
> fooling themselves.
>
> We don't KNOW how it all went down. We likely never will. It's
> Hollywood. Shit happens.
Mike, I'm disappointed!
What you, and everyone else misses, what IS THE POINT, is not who is
"right" and who is "wrong".
What disturbs me about this is that it paints the "Buffy" set as a place
of mindless politics and court intrigue and petty jealousies and
rivalries.
I have no idea if Pruitt is "mostly right" in his depiction, and I'm not
sure I care.
What I *do* care about is that leads one to conclude that they are doing
everything on the "Buffy" set EXCEPT WORKING TOWARD THE BEST SHOW POSSIBLE.
When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4, I pretty much want to throw
up my hands and give up on the show. Because it doesn't look like anyone
is minding the store, or has the show's best interest at heart.
My only conclusion from this is that the "Buffy" set needs a *major*
reworking, not just in paring down the cast, but also in downsizing the
crew. And Jeff Pruitt is the tip of the iceberg.
Which brings to mind a certain movie I saw once: "ICEBERG! DEAD AHEAD!...
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
harry_hellmouth
> And, while Jeff's parable is undoubtedly biased, if even 10% of the things
> he talks about were actually happening, I worry about the health of the
> show. It may be an unavoidable companion to success, but it's unpleasant
> to hear about people scheming to gain more influence instead of simply
> trying to make the show as good as possible.
>
Don't be blue. Judging by the "parable," I'd say the real cancer in the
Buffy crew has just been surgically removed.
Ian J. Ball
pinkb...@aol.com (Krissy) wrote:
> Harry wrote:
>
> >Pruitt did good work, but this parable just strikes me as a childish rant.
>
> Agreed. If he has a grievance against Joss, Sarah, etc., he should've used
> proper channels to resolve it.
And, in Hollywood, those are?...
If the Parable is to be believed, when Pruitt had problems, he went to
Joss (as he should). Then, at the end, he tried to go to Joss, but got
nowhere, because the die had already been cast against him.
> Pandering to the fans in the hopes of garnering
> their support is beyond childish and immature.
I don't read it that way.
Personally, I'm *very* anti-"Cult of Personality", and anything that
accurately depicts Joss or SMG as less than the "Deities" they are
perceived to be by some around here is a good thing.
Sure, Joss and SMG have a case to hear. But that doesn't mean that Pruitt
doesn't have a case too...
> He presents his case as if he
> (and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't.
One, I didn't read it that way. And, two, on a show like "Buffy" or
"Xena", which are action shows, THE STUNTS MAKE THE SHOW. Indeed, there
are a lot of people here who credit "Buffy's" success in substantial part
to the efforts of Crawford and (specifically Pruitt). And many think there
is a noticeable improvement in "Buffy's" action sequences after Pruitt
came on board after season #1.
But, as I've said elsewhere, what disturbs me far more than the accuracy
of Pruitt's specific claims are the picture this dust-up paints of the
people working on "Buffy". And it's not a pretty picture, no matter who's
side you line up on...
bhaye...@my-deja.com
Buddy Hayes
BHaye...@aol.com
BHaye...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Krissy
>In article <20000517215431...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
>pinkb...@aol.com (Krissy) wrote:
>
>> Harry wrote:
>>
>> >Pruitt did good work, but this parable just strikes me as a childish rant.
>>
>> Agreed. If he has a grievance against Joss, Sarah, etc., he should've used
>> proper channels to resolve it.
>
>And, in Hollywood, those are?...
I don't know how it works, but aren't they union? Don't they have the same
grievance channels every other union employee has?
Set by law, I presume.
>If the Parable is to be believed, when Pruitt had problems, he went to
>Joss (as he should). Then, at the end, he tried to go to Joss, but got
>nowhere, because the die had already been cast against him.
Assuming he was right in his grievance. Besides, it sounds like he let sarcasm
rule the day.
>> Pandering to the fans in the hopes of garnering
>> their support is beyond childish and immature.
>
>I don't read it that way.
I do. Why else would he post what amounts to fanfic on a public forum for all
of the show's online fans to read? When Joss, Sarah and whoever else does the
same, then I'll conced that point.
>Personally, I'm *very* anti-"Cult of Personality", and anything that
>accurately depicts Joss or SMG as less than the "Deities" they are
>perceived to be by some around here is a good thing.
And, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing either, but a sarcastic
representation by someone who just lost their job is not an "accurate
depiction".
>Sure, Joss and SMG have a case to hear. But that doesn't mean that Pruitt
>doesn't have a case too...
Of course he does, and we've heard his version of the story. Now, I want to
hear Joss and Sarah's.
>> He presents his case as if he
>> (and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't.
>
>One, I didn't read it that way. And, two, on a show like "Buffy" or
>"Xena", which are action shows, THE STUNTS MAKE THE SHOW. Indeed, there
>are a lot of people here who credit "Buffy's" success in substantial part
>to the efforts of Crawford and (specifically Pruitt). And many think there
>is a noticeable improvement in "Buffy's" action sequences after Pruitt
>came on board after season #1.
Stunts certainly enhance the show, but once again, they are *not* the only
stuntpeople in Hollywood. I'm taking a wait and see attitude.
And, stunts do not replace the true stars of the show.
>But, as I've said elsewhere, what disturbs me far more than the accuracy
>of Pruitt's specific claims are the picture this dust-up paints of the
>people working on "Buffy". And it's not a pretty picture, no matter who's
>side you line up on...
I tend to agree. But, this isn't the only show that has had problems in the
past and risen above them. Besides, maybe true problem just got let go.
Krissy
EBailey140
>Date: 5/17/00 8:54 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000517215431...@ng-fy1.aol.com>
>
>Harry wrote:
>
>>Pruitt did good work, but this parable just strikes me as a childish rant.
>
>
>Agreed. If he has a grievance against Joss, Sarah, etc., he should've used
>garnering
>their support is beyond childish and immature. He presents his case as if he
>(and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't. As
>painful
>as that thought might be, he and Sophia are members of the crew at the
>suffering of the producers. Apparently something happened which may or may
>not
>have to do with the last battle scenes that jeopardized the relationship
>between the stunt crew and the producers. I had respect for him up until
>now;
>after reading his little fanfiction, I say good riddance. Not that their
>particular brand of stuntwork won't be missed, but there are plenty of
>stuntpeople in Hollywood. I have no doubts that good ones will be found to
>replace them.
Yeah, he did seem to think he, personally, was more responsible for the show's
success than the writing. It's not a good idea for the stunt coordinator to
demand the writing staff and cast be fired, essentially.
E
Sarah Trombley
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <39232F5B...@texas.net>, Mike Zeares <mze...@texas.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Ayla Olson wrote:
>> > Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
>> > news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>> > > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>> >
>> > Obviously no one but Jeff really knows how he feels, but, damn, I wound up
>> > wanting to paddle that Princess myself. I sure hope the Handmaiden keeps
>> > herself SAFE during her battles.
>>
>> Just a drive-by comment as I wade through the Bronze postings on the
>> issue:
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that Jeff's "parable" is the unvarnished truth is
>> fooling themselves.
>>
>> We don't KNOW how it all went down. We likely never will. It's
>> Hollywood. Shit happens.
>
>Mike, I'm disappointed!
>
>What you, and everyone else misses, what IS THE POINT, is not who is
>"right" and who is "wrong".
>
>What disturbs me about this is that it paints the "Buffy" set as a place
>of mindless politics and court intrigue and petty jealousies and
>rivalries.
Well, _Pruitt's parable_ paints the set as such a place. From his point
of view, it doubtless is. Is it in reality? I don't know. I doubt
that, say, JW thinks it's such a place. Again, we're back to differing
points of view.
Furthermore, you'd have to look pretty hard to find a group working on
a difficult task that _doesn't_ have the mindless politics, etc. It sure
isn't pretty to look at, but it's not unusual and it doesn't mean the
show is doomed.
>When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
>unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4, I pretty much want to throw
>up my hands and give up on the show. Because it doesn't look like anyone
>is minding the store, or has the show's best interest at heart.
The two aren't necessarily related, though they could be. Again, we're
lacking reliable information.
>My only conclusion from this is that the "Buffy" set needs a *major*
>reworking, not just in paring down the cast, but also in downsizing the
>crew. And Jeff Pruitt is the tip of the iceberg.
What? You're not blaming it all on Willow? I'm shocked, shocked! ;)
--Sarah T.
Ian J. Ball
wrote:
> "Ian J. Ball" wrote:
> >
> > In article <39232F5B...@texas.net>, Mike Zeares <mze...@texas.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We don't KNOW how it all went down. We likely never will. It's
> > > Hollywood. Shit happens.
> >
> > Mike, I'm disappointed!
> >
> > What you, and everyone else misses, what IS THE POINT, is not who is
> > "right" and who is "wrong".
> >
> > What disturbs me about this is that it paints the "Buffy" set as a place
> > of mindless politics and court intrigue and petty jealousies and
> > rivalries.
>
> Well, of course it is. It's populated by humans. Mindless politics and
> petty jealousies pretty much sum up any work enviroment. Pretty much
> any primate enviroment, for that matter. What, you thought the BUFFY
> set was somehow above all that?
Some work environments are more above this than others.
I fear that, on the "Buffy" set, they may be more "below" it than others!
Rose
>
>When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
>unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4,
Jiminy! And people say *I'm* critical! >:O
How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable? Am I
in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the way of
all feces?
************************************************
ROSE: World's First Spike/Tara Shipper
GoodAngel +++ BadAngel ++ Bad-GoodAngel ++++
Fanfic: penname Rosa Seravo, http://www.fanfiction.net
Gothic movie page, http://www.expage.com/page/roazgothic
B. Richardson
> "Ian J. Ball" wrote:
> >
> > In article <39232F5B...@texas.net>, Mike Zeares <mze...@texas.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We don't KNOW how it all went down. We likely never will. It's
> > > Hollywood. Shit happens.
> >
> > Mike, I'm disappointed!
> >
> > What you, and everyone else misses, what IS THE POINT, is not who is
> > "right" and who is "wrong".
> >
> > What disturbs me about this is that it paints the "Buffy" set as a place
> > of mindless politics and court intrigue and petty jealousies and
> > rivalries.
>
> Well, of course it is. It's populated by humans. Mindless politics and
> petty jealousies pretty much sum up any work enviroment. Pretty much
> any primate enviroment, for that matter. What, you thought the BUFFY
> set was somehow above all that?
Very well said. My sentiments exactly. This sort of thing happens in EVERY
work environment. There's no reason to expect a Hollywood set in general or
Buffy in particular to be immune from it. So long as human beings are
involved, this kind of thing will happen.
B. Richardson
> Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>
> And if we read between the lines, it seems that there might not be a stunt
> double for Buffy next season. Or worse
>
> = half way thru the the season Sophia quits.
I think in all of Hollywood they'll be able to find someone else to double
Sarah Gellar should Sophia leave the show.
Ian J. Ball
wrote:
> Eric Nehrlich wrote:
>
> > And, while Jeff's parable is undoubtedly biased, if even 10% of the things
> > he talks about were actually happening, I worry about the health of the
> > show. It may be an unavoidable companion to success, but it's unpleasant
> > to hear about people scheming to gain more influence instead of simply
> > trying to make the show as good as possible.
>
> Scheming to gain more influence? Backstabbing and behind-the-scenes
> intrigues? In *Hollywood*? I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED at the very concept.
You can joke about it, and there's some level of this in every work place.
But these kinds of intrigues can easily reach a critical mass where they
can hurt the show.
Heck, I won't beat around the bush: I think we are already *beyond* that
point. Pruitt's manifesto/rant just tends to confirm my preconceptions
about that.
Ian J. Ball
ebail...@aol.com (EBailey140) wrote:
> Yeah, [Pruitt[ did seem to think he, personally, was more responsible for
> the show's success than the writing.
Writing? There's been "writing" in season #4?! Where?! Where?!!!
> It's not a good idea for the stunt
> coordinator to demand the writing staff and cast be fired, essentially.
Well, there is that... ;)
B. Richardson
> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:8F37C4323aw...@166.84.0.240...
> > Thank you for posting that, Ayla. Obviously what I'm about to say is
> > not addressed to you.
> >
> > Um, in my opinion, this sort of thing is totally weenie. I have no
> > idea about what happened, who did what, who behaved decently and who
> > behaved in a reprehensible manner. I have no opinion about any of
> > that because I haven't the slightest notion of what went on. But I do
> > know this "parable" baloney is just embarrassing.
> >
>
> No worries, Michael. I am thinking he did it this way because of potential
> legal problems?
His "parable" is so completely transparent that if anyone chose to file a
legal challenge, his choice of format would not be viable defense. If what he
says is true, then THAT's the proper defense to a legal challenge. If it's not
true, then he's a liar and writing the story as a "parable" does nothing for
him.
Rex
> LOL....Go Jeff! Looks like SMG has become just another showbiz bitch.
Based on what, the parable?? A strongly-biased display like this seems
kind of fickle on your part -- aren't you the guy who took on "Sarah's
First Husband" as a title for yourself for so long?
Looks to me like Jeff's juvenile mind set out to turn fans against the
creative core of the show and it's starting to work. What other purpose
did his little tirade serve?
I'm sorry that things did not work out with Jeff. I liked his work. But
the show will go on. Period.
--
REX -- rich...@xsite.net
C. Barrans
>
> His "parable" is so completely transparent that if anyone chose to file a
> legal challenge, his choice of format would not be viable defense. If what he
> says is true, then THAT's the proper defense to a legal challenge. If it's not
> true, then he's a liar and writing the story as a "parable" does nothing for
> him.
If what he says on the Posting Board about the guy who endangered his
life is true, then Jeff's the one who should be thinking about going to
court--a criminal case, not a civil one. And if his wife is staying on
as SMG's double, she needs to be on her guard at all times that the same
sort of thing doesn't happen to her. *IF* it's all true.
You know, we haven't reached the time of the season's final episode yet,
and we already seem to have this summer's "Xander lied."
-- CB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Science is not the way to find answers to all our questions.
Science is a way to find better questions.
Rose
>From: Mike Zeares mze...@texas.net
>Date: 5/17/00 4:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39232F5B...@texas.net>
>
>Ayla Olson wrote:
>>
>> Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
>> news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>> > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>>
>> wanting to paddle that Princess myself. I sure hope the Handmaiden keeps
>> herself SAFE during her battles.
>
>Just a drive-by comment as I wade through the Bronze postings on the
>issue:
>
>Anyone who thinks that Jeff's "parable" is the unvarnished truth is
>fooling themselves.
>
>Hollywood. Shit happens.
>
You're right of course. In every office stuff like this goes on, everyone
thinks they are right and the other guy is wrong, and every person you talk to
will have a different version of the story.
I don't think Jeff was right to post this on the Posting Board. I'll always
appreciate his efforts to communicate with us, but that doesn't make it all
right for him to make veiled, grave accusations in a fan forum.
Thomas
pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
>
> Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
>
> And if we read between the lines, it seems that there might not be a stunt
> double for Buffy next season. Or worse
>
> = half way thru the the season Sophia quits.
In which case Joss will probably have to kill off Buffy.
The show could survive Sophia quitting but the character of Buffy
couldn't. Sophia is *essential* to the character. SMG is built so very
small and frail that they were dammed lucky to find *one* stuntdouble
who can pass as her and do the stuff Sophia does.
(actually I almost suspect Joss hired the actress to match the
stunt-woman.... I would.) If they *could* find a second double of
Sophias caliber they almost certainly would have hired her already as
shooting would probably go a lot smoother with two doubles to share the
punishment taken during filming.
The Senator
ended when you left Jr. High.
Teresa
"I guess this is the part where you tell me your emotional anguish justifies
your behavior and all that other bad-guy crap." - Henry.
"Two agents died for a secretary? Is her coffee _that_ good?" - Chandler.
yasm...@my-deja.com
>
> Jesus. And I thought this kind of whispering, backstabbing and game playing
> ended when you left Jr. High.
>
BWAH HA HA.
Now that is funny.
Especially since I have been and still am the pawn in a
similar situation (no knighthood for me Magee!).
Jennifer
MeghanNYC
>felt she was too young to have a child Kendall's age. And, the network
>*announced* Sarah's departure the day after the Emmy's; SMG had already
>expressed her intention to leave months in advance of that night. They (the
>network) did it to make her look bad.
>
Could be, but my sister and brother-in-law have both worked on AMC, and insist
that Susan Lucci is notoriously nice, friendly, and easy to be around.
Keith
>What disturbs me about this is that it paints the "Buffy" set as a place
>of mindless politics and court intrigue and petty jealousies and
>rivalries.
"Paints" being the operative word.
Can we just get this into perspective here - this guy is the STUNT CO-
ORDINATOR. Not that I wish to denigrate the job or those who perform it,
but what we seem to have here is somebody whose doing a relatively minor
job on a show starting to get ideas above his ego...
I'm sorry he's gone to, and I'm even more sorry that he feels so pissed-
off by his leaving that he feels it necessary to write this rambling
'parable'. But I suspect the reason he did that this way is that if he'd
actually put real names in place of his 'fairy tale' he'd have had his
ass sued. And he knew that.
Wake me up if somebody *important* says they're leaving...
Keith
Ian Galbraith
:In article <20000517215431...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
:pinkb...@aol.com (Krissy) wrote:
[snip]
:> He presents his case as if he
:> (and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't.
:One, I didn't read it that way.
I did, he practically came out and stated that he and Sophia were the
reasons for the shows success.
[snip]
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"Mm, I wouldn't dream of interfering." Mark made for
the door. "Though I'm not at all sure I'd choose to
structure my most intimate relationship as a war.
Is she the enemy, then?"
- A Civil Campaign - Lois McMaster Bujold
B. Richardson
> His and anyone's comments are all protected
> under first amendment/freedom of speech. There
> are no potential 'legal problems'. There
> are many, many precedent on this matter.
>
> You can get a second opinion here : ;-)
You're kidding me, right? The First Amendment does not apply to private
individuals speaking about each other. The First Amendment only prohibits the
GOVERNMENT from suppressing speech.
The possible legal challenges here involve libel, possibly slander, and injury
to business reputation.
Remember the Oprah cow case where she was sued by the beef industry for
disparaging their product and causing sales to drop? She won the suit, but only
because the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden, not because of "freedom of
speech".
I'm not saying Whedon or Gellar or anyone who might sue Pruitt based on the
parable would win, but I'm quite certain they would have a legally recognizable
cause of action, notwithstanding the First Amendment.
> http://freeadvice.com/law/576us.htm
>
> Also, the only cases that as an employee you can
> get into trouble is if you're revealing
> trade secrets, and these legal cases
> are very complex, so let's not get into that. ;-)
> But they can't apply here anyway.
I think you should really get some formal legal training before dispensing
legal advice and stop relying on a questionable website as your sole source for
the law.
Employees can get into trouble in any number of ways for things they might say.
In addition to the above-mentioned libel, slander and injury to business
reputation, there's defamation of character as well.
> "B. Richardson" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:39237DC2...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Ayla Olson wrote:
> >
> > > Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8F37C4323aw...@166.84.0.240...
> > > > Thank you for posting that, Ayla. Obviously what I'm about to say is
> > > > not addressed to you.
> > > >
> > > > Um, in my opinion, this sort of thing is totally weenie. I have no
> > > > idea about what happened, who did what, who behaved decently and who
> > > > behaved in a reprehensible manner. I have no opinion about any of
> > > > that because I haven't the slightest notion of what went on. But I do
> > > > know this "parable" baloney is just embarrassing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No worries, Michael. I am thinking he did it this way because of
> potential
> > > legal problems?
> >
ebail...@my-deja.com
It does look like a disgruntled former employee looking for payback,
doesn't it? If this is how he responds to not getting his way, though,
he really doesn't have room to talk about other people being spoiled
and immature.
E
Eric F.
> You're kidding me, right? The First Amendment does not apply to private individuals speaking about each > other. The First Amendment only prohibits the GOVERNMENT from suppressing speech.
> The possible legal challenges here involve libel, possibly slander, and injury to business reputation.
Which pretty much proves again that if enough lawyers decide to, you can
sue anyone for anything (thank God for appeals courts... ;)
Later,
Eric F., Buffy Fan
----
"I think I speak for us all when I say, "huh"?" - Buffy
Angel
bringing it up...Is this seriously the first indication some of
you people have gotten that SMG is on the bitchy princess side???
Because it's kind of her rep. Didn't you ever notice how in
interviews that whenever anyone on the show was asked about the
rest of the cast they'd gush adoringly then when Sarah's name
came up you'd get the "she's very professional" answers?? Haven't
you noticed that whenever a VIP posts on the Bronze, they'll talk
and crack jokes about every other person on the show *except*
Sarah?
-Angel
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris Jordan
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> writes
Yes, Keith.
Then, without a stunt co-ordinator, we can have another full season of
"Sunnydale 90210" next year.
After most of the crap I've sat through this series, I'd have to say
that the constantly excellent action/fight scenes are a the dominant
feature of a regrettably short list of 'season highlights'.
Believe it or not, I'd rather see good fight action than the "Buffy And
Riley Old Time Porno And Angst Hour" we've been having recently.
I think Mr. Pruitt was excellent at his job and I would imagine this
rather nasty affair may precipitate a deterioration of stunt work in S5.
But we can't possibly have people questioning SMG or *gasp* Joss
himself, so let's all shout at the 'little people' instead. Whatever
aids your fantasies. The fairy tale must be protected at all costs.
As usual, the "talent" will survive and prosper by abusing a number of
colleagues and lying to (or at least presenting a false impression)
millions of overly-loyal fans and someone "unimportant" can be used,
lied to, cheated, bullied and sacked for being proud of his job and
standing up to unfair and DANGEROUS working conditions.
Screw any notion of a Trades Union, screw the worker (someone who works
hard to actually make the damn show exist at all) and all hail the
"talent" - never mind that when it comes down to it "the talent" are
basically prettified MEAT paid very well to parrot a story that had NO
PART in creating.
Screw the 'little guy' and G*d save the 'Queen'. Meanwhile BtVS is
flushed down the toilet as the leeches, no-marks and yes-men lackeys
poison the atmosphere even more, and a member of the (apparently
"Unimportant" stunt crew is possibly/probably KILLED next time a badly
planned, badly executed scene goes wrong).
As long as no-one rocks the boat.
Mr. Topping: Tap your heels three times and repeat after me: "There's no
place like home... there's no place like home..."
Though why am I posting this reply at all?
Someone wake me when someone "important" has something to say.
--
Chris Jordan
Pissing against the wind again, it would seem.
Chris Jordan
>LOL....Go Jeff! Looks like SMG has become just another showbiz bitch.
>
Is this the same Buddy Hayes that advertised himself for ages as "SMG's
first husband" (or such like)?
So tell us, when did the rot set in? What was that one bitter moment
when you realised you'd been 'had'?
--
Chris Jordan
Vote Lucci.
Chris Jordan
<pinkb...@aol.com> writes
>>Sure, Joss and SMG have a case to hear. But that doesn't mean that Pruitt
>>doesn't have a case too...
>
>Of course he does, and we've heard his version of the story. Now, I want to
>hear Joss and Sarah's.
You don't need to hear anymore, Krissy. It would seemn you've already
decided SMG is right.
>>> He presents his case as if he
>>> (and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Buffy/SMG would be NOTHING without
Ms. Crawford, but I would imagine the show would have been very
significantly LESS popular than it has been.
I think Mr. Pruitt's departure is the start of the end. Things are going
to be very different regarding BtVS this time next year.
>And, stunts do not replace the true stars of the show.
>
>>But, as I've said elsewhere, what disturbs me far more than the accuracy
>>of Pruitt's specific claims are the picture this dust-up paints of the
>>people working on "Buffy". And it's not a pretty picture, no matter who's
>>side you line up on...
>
>I tend to agree. But, this isn't the only show that has had problems in the
>past and risen above them. Besides, maybe true problem just got let go.
>Krissy
Ooooh... balance. Justice. Nice.
How much evidence do you need (and there has been a lot from many
different sources) that SMG might just possibly be an insecure
backstabbing bitch to all those around her?
Being a fan is fine, Krissy. Letting said fan-dom cloud your sense of
impartiality is unfortunate to say the least.
(Repeat to fade) "There's no place like home..."
--
Chris Jordan
Of the newly-formed "Hey, perhaps Susan Lucci was right!" party.
Chris Jordan
<rich...@xsite.net> writes
>Looks to me like Jeff's juvenile mind set out to turn fans against the
>creative core of the show and it's starting to work. What other purpose
>did his little tirade serve?
How about telling the truth?
How about listing publicly the dangers faced by him and his staff when
dealing with incompetence (and worse) from politically-motivated
charlatans?
>I'm sorry that things did not work out with Jeff. I liked his work. But
>the show will go on. Period.
And this is debatable.
Come back and say that for sure this time next year.
--
Chris Jordan
"Can I get you anything?"
"Yesterday...most of today".
Ron Jarrell
> Then, without a stunt co-ordinator, we can have another full season of
> "Sunnydale 90210" next year.
While Jeff was good, really, good, and had an impressive resume,
there *are* other people in the world capable of doing exactly
that kind of stunt work. Obviously they won't go into next year
without a stunt coordinator, and they have plenty of time to shop
around, showing tapes to people saying "This is the type of stuff
we want. Show us stuff in your portfolio that comes up to this level."
Hell, if they want Hong Kong movie action, and are willing to pay for it,
there's plenty of heavy duty stunt men in hong kong...
Unfortunately, from stuff Jeff has said before, and in interviews
over the last year, it sounds like "Pay for it" is potentially out
of the question. One of his complaints was that the stunt team on
Angel was getting rehersal time, second unit coverage, dedicated time,
etc, while on Buffy it was "Come on man, we've got to rearrange the set
for the next scene, get the damn fight started already."
MysticXF
It amazes me slightly that (according to my browser here) there are 49
responses to Jeff's little rant. Yes, it was an angry rant, and allowed --
he's aparantly lost a job he loved and felt compelled to tell everyone how he
feels, and tell it in a place where he hoped to hurt the Buffy cast and crew,
those he felt hurt him. What amazes me more is that, as someone pointed out,
is there's only one side of the story, an angry side, and it seems everyone
here is gung-ho to immediately pick a side of a fence based on media
speculation.
Sure, Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a bitch, hell, if you believe the media,
every female star in hollywood (or every woman in American) is an evil back
stabbing bitch. Just like every man is an egotistical (sp?) asshole. It's the
price you pay for working in Hollywood. Does that mean it's right? Maybe, but
the media can be very decieving when portraying a star in interviews. Does
this mean I think Sarah is an angel? I'm not sure. But that doesn't really
matter. What matters is that until Sarah, or Joss, comes out and says that
Pruitt was right, or just tells their story, which may prove some things right
and some things just blown way out of proportion (which happens when you're
angry) and some things maybe wrong.
Do I feel bad for Pruitt? Sure, he lost his job. Did this parable help? No.
What is he accomplishing by setting the posters on the Bronze posting board and
here (and everywhere else a Buffy fan sits) on edge and ready to pounce at each
other for differing opinions on the subject. Maybe that's what he wants.
Maybe he just needed to blow off steam and we should all just shrug and move
on. (Though I see FOX's legal team slamming down Pruitt's door INS style...)
As for the show and how it's doing creatively. You all missed the point of
last week's episode, didn't you. It's not the stunts that make it great.
Sure, they're nice and sometimes they make your eyes bulge and your jaw drop.
It's not the writing that makes it great (heaven knows you're all wanting to
behead the writing staff) even though it's those lines you're uttering months
after the episode has aired and those discussions that cause the most heated
debates. It's not even the acting that makes it great. Let's not even discuss
the music, editing, directing, camera people, lighting people, wardrobe,
makeup, etc., and the people who keep those people fed. It's the combination
of all those working together that make this show and the loss of Jeff, while
breaking that team apart, isn't going to destroy the show. There are other
stunt coordinators who can do the job and who knows, maybe after the summer,
and this fairy tale Joss and Jeff can work out their differences. (Sometimes
it takes being childish to get what you really want, most of the time it takes
a little distance for a little while.)
As for stunt deterioration, I've been mostly lurking for the past two years and
in just this last season I've seen near a million posts that show your anger at
a show that you love. You've all expressed your hatred towards the downward
track you think the show is taking, so what do you care if there's no stunts
and people on the show are forced to talk, and yeah, have romantic
conversations. Maybe the problem with this year is there were too many stunts
and not enough talking? (Might explain how the Scoobies got so out of whack)
And I've seen more than a few of you blast Sarah for getting skinny (trust me
people, sometimes you can't control what your body does) and that Sophia
doesn't even match anymore... I don't know, I've enjoyed the hell out of it
all, just as I did the first, second and third season and just like I'll
continue, Pruitt or not.
Maybe if I read the above I'll figure out that I lean towards the Joss & Sarah
camp, or maybe I just lean towards a show that I believe will get past their
differences and continue to work to be the best they can be in the coming
years.
I do wish Jeff Pruitt the best, for himself personally and professionally. He
does his job well and has been the sole reason for my father watching the show
<eg>. But do we really want to spend the summer fighting over this?
back to the shadows,
Mystic
"Does anyone else here miss the Mayor?" -- Xander
Laura and Julian
of the monitor...) Dragyn
Rose wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
> >
> >When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
> >unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4,
>
> Jiminy! And people say *I'm* critical! >:O
>
> How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable? Am I
> in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the way of
> all feces?
>
Sarah Trombley
Chris Jordan <c...@maximan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I wouldn't go so far as to say that Buffy/SMG would be NOTHING without
>Ms. Crawford, but I would imagine the show would have been very
>significantly LESS popular than it has been.
>
>I think Mr. Pruitt's departure is the start of the end. Things are going
>to be very different regarding BtVS this time next year.
Good Lord, he does _stunts_. Stunts are nice, stunts are good, but
stunts are hardly the essence of the show. The stunts have been
fine this year; it hasn't helped.
>>I tend to agree. But, this isn't the only show that has had problems in the
>>past and risen above them. Besides, maybe true problem just got let go.
>
>>Krissy
>
>Ooooh... balance. Justice. Nice.
>
>How much evidence do you need (and there has been a lot from many
>different sources) that SMG might just possibly be an insecure
>backstabbing bitch to all those around her?
>
>Being a fan is fine, Krissy. Letting said fan-dom cloud your sense of
>impartiality is unfortunate to say the least.
I'm no fan of SMG--nor of any actor on the show, nor even of JW. I'm
not really the fanly type. And I think it's safe to say that I'm
cynical and critical.
However, I'll be damned if I'll go around deciding that a complete
stranger is "an insecure backstabbing bitch" based on third-hand
Hollywood gossip from sources whose veracity, intentions, and competence
I can't verify.
That isn't letting fandom cloud my judgment. That's just source
criticism, coupled with a sense of decency. The same sense of decency
that allows me to think that Krissy really has thought about the issue
like an intelligent human being rather than to assume that she's
just some blindly adoring fan. I expect you'd want her to assume that
_your_ position was a rational one, not based on some irrational bias
against SMG; why not extend her the same courtesy?
--Sarah T.
Ron Jarrell
> I know I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help
> bringing it up...Is this seriously the first indication some of
> you people have gotten that SMG is on the bitchy princess side???
> Because it's kind of her rep. Didn't you ever notice how in
> interviews that whenever anyone on the show was asked about the
> rest of the cast they'd gush adoringly then when Sarah's name
> came up you'd get the "she's very professional" answers?? Haven't
> you noticed that whenever a VIP posts on the Bronze, they'll talk
> and crack jokes about every other person on the show *except*
> Sarah?
From what I've read it's not that she's a bitch, it's just that it's
a job for her. A lot of the cast and crew on a show treat the show
like family, hang with each other, become best buds, etc. Everything
I've read makes it seem like Sarah feels she *has* a life, family, etc,
comes in, does her 13 hour day, then goes home, and doesn't particularly
socialize or hang with her coworkers anymore than you would in a typical
job.
Ron Jarrell
Joss had a good response: (reformatted to fit the posting better, but
otherwise unedited)
joss says:
(Wed May 17 12:11:11 2000 205.188.200.36)
I had meant to do a quick lurk, but I see the board has heated up. (Hi,
Fury. Isn't not breaking story FUN?)
I read the Parable of the Knight. Felt I aught to comment on the
situation. Yes, Jeff is leaving. It's sad. Jeff was a huge asset to
Buffy -- he took it to a new level of action and grace with Sophia, and
his style will always be a part of the show. But this isn't a fairy
tale. Or a thinly veiled 'parable'. It's a hard, gruelingly hard job,
ten months a year, thirteen hours a day, with fifty or more people
straining, working, getting in each other's face, stepping on each
other's toes, driving each other crazy. It happens. And the only thing
that keeps it together is the effort people make to work together.
Doesn't always happen. There are conflicts, raging egos -- and even
occasional backstabbing, I'm sorry to say. There are very few 'plots',
and as far as I can tell, no jousting of any kind. People just wear on
each other and eventually sometimes you have to make a change. No one's
to blame -- or everyone is. But either people get into a groove of
working as part of the whole or they don't. And seeing yourself as a
noble knight being plotted against by evil courtiers really doesn't
help. Remember that.
Sandra S
Pruitt's parable has a certain inconsistency to it as well:
at one point he says that the princess wanted the knight's head in
order to be rid of the hated handmaiden.
BUT- the handmaiden is actually returning to the show next season.
So, the princess didn't succeed in her plot, did she?
Btw, does anyone know who the "General" is?
Sandra
Sandra S
I'm sure that in all of California there must be one stunt double
who could replace Sophia Crawford.
Sandra
Ron Jarrell
From what Pruitt said on the posting board, I believe it's the
head of FX. That's the one he says was trying to get rid of him
for a couple of seasons now, and the one he's obliquely accusing of
trying to get him killed by rigging the safety bolts on his side
of the car in the car/armored truck crash to fail.
Rose
own credibitility in my eyes when he said "someone", and wouldn't say "who",
said bad things about people on the posting board. It's so manipulative to say
"So and so was talking about you" to get the person you're talking to on your
side. It seems to me he is taking advantage of the youth and enthusiasm of
these fans. It's not cool, no matter how wronged he is, may be, or thinks he
is.
Rose
>Date: 5/18/00 3:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2yD40OAD...@maximan.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <20000517231043...@ng-fy1.aol.com>, Krissy
><pinkb...@aol.com> writes
>
>>>Sure, Joss and SMG have a case to hear. But that doesn't mean that Pruitt
>>>doesn't have a case too...
>>
>>Of course he does, and we've heard his version of the story. Now, I want to
>>hear Joss and Sarah's.
>
>You don't need to hear anymore, Krissy. It would seemn you've already
>decided SMG is right.
>
>>>> He presents his case as if he
>>>> (and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't.
>
>Ms. Crawford, but I would imagine the show would have been very
>significantly LESS popular than it has been.
>
>I think Mr. Pruitt's departure is the start of the end. Things are going
>to be very different regarding BtVS this time next year.
>
Is that a PROMISE? You've made my day!
Nothing against Pruitt, but the more different BtVS is this time next year, the
better, IMO.
>>And, stunts do not replace the true stars of the show.
>>
>>>But, as I've said elsewhere, what disturbs me far more than the accuracy
>>>of Pruitt's specific claims are the picture this dust-up paints of the
>>>people working on "Buffy". And it's not a pretty picture, no matter who's
>>>side you line up on...
>>
>>I tend to agree. But, this isn't the only show that has had problems in the
>>past and risen above them. Besides, maybe true problem just got let go.
>
>>Krissy
>
>Ooooh... balance. Justice. Nice.
>
>How much evidence do you need (and there has been a lot from many
>different sources) that SMG might just possibly be an insecure
>backstabbing bitch to all those around her?
>
What evidence do you have, Chris? I'd be interested to see it and fairly
evaluate it. I'm not a "fan" of Sarah Michelle Gellar. However, I'm not going
to believe she's a tiny terror because one man said so. Heck, there is someone
on my job who thinks the same thing about me because I talked back to him when
he tried to walk all over me and treat me like crap. There are two sides to
everything.
Again, I'd like to know what other stories you've heard about her, and from
whom.
Reg Shoe
makes it seem that the entire "kingdom" thrives on his staged battles.
Everyone loves the king and princess because the battles make them look
good. Uh, no? People love SMG because of her acting (or because she's
hot, if you ask most guys <eg>). I've never heard a single fan
say, "WHOA! Did you see that roundhouse kick on Buffy last night? SMG
is the best actress I know!"
--
I can make a bomb out of a match,
a banana peel, and a stick of dynamite!!
Hsiao Leads to Anger
Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote:
> Regarding James Hsaio's transcript (and thank you for that) --
No problem. Part of me wants the entire posting board for the past two
days expunged from the record, though...
> Jeff harmed his own credibitility in my eyes when he said "someone",
> and wouldn't say "who", said bad things about people on the posting
> board. It's so manipulative to say "So and so was talking about you"
> to get the person you're talking to on your side. It seems to me he
> is taking advantage of the youth and enthusiasm of these fans. It's
> not cool, no matter how wronged he is, may be, or thinks he is.
This is pretty much all I'm going to say about the subject--it's really
not something that we as fans should be privy to:
I get the impression that Jeff posted in the throes of
anger/sadness--you can tell by the way that a) he posted the parable to
the public board, and b) he needs to respond to everything the posters
throw at him. It doesn't really help that fans in any venue tend to be
a rabid mob (i.e. Joss is God/SMG can do no evil). When he posted his
passionate plea to Joss for some form of contact/reconciliation, the
fans jumped on him (some for and some against); and he felt he needed to
defend himself from that mob.
It's regrettable that Jeff won't be coming back to Buffy next year,
because he's pretty kickass as a stunt coordinator. But that's the way
business works. The right people aren't always rewarded for their work,
and personality and ego (on all sides) tend to become obstacles in
getting things to run smoothly. There's no absolute right and wrong
here.
--
James T. Hsiao http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/
"You could ask him for coffee some night. It's the non-relationship drink
of choice. It's not a date, it's a caffeinated beverage. Okay, sure, it's
hot and bitter, like a relationship . . . " -- Willow Rosenberg, _Buffy_
Ian J. Ball
fyl...@aol.compliant (Rose) wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
> >When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
> >unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4,
>
> Jiminy! And people say *I'm* critical! >:O
>
> How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable? Am I
> in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the way of
> all feces?
What can I say? We've "switched sides". You were very hard (I think too
hard) on early season #4, while I was somewhat of a defender. Now, in the
latter half of the season, I'm the rabid attack dog, and you're more
complimentary.
People needn't worry about me becoming a crank, however. "Buffy" is on a
very short leash with me, and if I'm the least put off by early season #5,
I will likely drop "Buffy" from my rotation...
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Dedalus
Dedalus
Mike Zeares
>
> Sandra S <7521...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > Btw, does anyone know who the "General" is?
>
> From what Pruitt said on the posting board, I believe it's the
> head of FX. That's the one he says was trying to get rid of him
> for a couple of seasons now, and the one he's obliquely accusing of
> trying to get him killed by rigging the safety bolts on his side
> of the car in the car/armored truck crash to fail.
I think that would be the Blacksmith. From other comments Jeff made,
particularly concerning a drunken episode, I'm pretty sure the General
is the Director of Photography. The Sheriff is most likely the Line
Producer. Sir David is Greenwalt, I'm pretty sure. I think we know who
the Princess is. Funny how the parable didn't mention any of the lesser
Princes and Princesses. You know, the ones the Royal Princess suposedly
hates (since she hates "everyone")? No mention of a Queen either. Hm,
lets see...
Queen = Marti Noxon. (No, not Kai. Has to be involved with the show.)
Head Lady-in-Waiting = Lady Jane Espenson.
Court Composer = Christophe Beck.
Prime Minister = Regis Kimball? (head editor) I would have said
Greenwalt, but he got his own little realm.
Dukes = Fury and Petrie. Or would they be the jesters?
-- Mike Zeares
"From day one, Buffy only resorts to thought after she has established
that violence won't work." -- William George Ferguson
fading_fog
----Begin Geek Code Block----
GO d+ s+:++ a? c++++ UL+ P+ L+>++ E w+ N+++ o k--- w+++ O-
M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ !t 5? x-(+) R tv b++++ RS++ G+ e++ h- r+ z+
----End Geek Code Block----
Mike Zeares
>
> Really, the biggest problem I can see with Jeff's "parable" is that he
> makes it seem that the entire "kingdom" thrives on his staged battles.
> Everyone loves the king and princess because the battles make them look
> good. Uh, no? People love SMG because of her acting (or because she's
> hot, if you ask most guys <eg>). I've never heard a single fan
> say, "WHOA! Did you see that roundhouse kick on Buffy last night? SMG
> is the best actress I know!"
because of the Princess. It appears brave Sir Knight forgot some of the
fundamental rules of long-term court survival:
1. The Princess Royal is always right.
2. If the Princess Royal is ever wrong, refer to #1.
3. Never, ever, ever, EVER piss off the Princess Royal.
Not fair? Who ever promised that life at court would be fair?
-- Mike Zeares, who is going to beat this parable into the ground, you
just wait and see. ;)
Daryl McCullough
>
>Ian wrote:
>
>>
>>When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
>>unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4,
>
>Jiminy! And people say *I'm* critical! >:O
>
>How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable? Am I
>in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the way of
>all feces?
Not varnish. You need polyurethane. After it dries, the crap
no longer smells, is nice and shiny, and can be used for a paper-weight
or a doorstop.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
pjmc...@gate.net
Chris Jordan <c...@maximan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vSQ+MSAN...@maximan.demon.co.uk...
I'd guess it probably started with divorce preceedings, unless Miss Gellar
is some sort of Mormon...
But really you should wait for Buddy's answer.
pjmc...@gate.net
Sandra S <7521...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:8g0p6a$due$4...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> I'm sure that in all of California there must be one stunt double
> who could replace Sophia Crawford.
Then why hasn't that person been retained already ?
And additional stunt double is an additional cost, but it could probably
save
time which reduces costs.
And notice I said if she quit half way through the season. Then they'd have
to scrambe to find a replacement, though I wouldn't be at all surprised if
they are alreayd looking.
Timothy A. McDaniel
B. Richardson <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Mike Zeares wrote:
>> Well, of course it is. It's populated by humans. Mindless
>> politics and petty jealousies pretty much sum up any work
>> enviroment. Pretty much any primate enviroment, for that
>> matter. What, you thought the BUFFY set was somehow above all
>> that?
>
>Very well said. My sentiments exactly. This sort of thing
>happens in EVERY work environment.
Funny; I haven't noticed that in my work group (me, cow-orkers,
boss). Or much in the SCA heraldry I do.
There's good politics -- the art of people getting along -- and
bad -- the art of tromping on people -- and I've seen more of the
former, and I think you're being far too cynical.
--
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Timothy A. McDaniel
Keith <ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Can we just get this into perspective here - this guy is the
>STUNT CO-ORDINATOR. Not that I wish to denigrate the job or
>those who perform it, but what we seem to have here is somebody
>whose doing a relatively minor job on a show starting to get
>ideas above his ego...
There are all sorts of *parts* that go into the whole: stunts,
wardrobe, lighting, special effects, sounds, ... The fact that
there are so many parts, however, does not make all of them
"minor". Screw up one and you'll notice to some extent.
Example: the special effects in the season ender of _Roswell_
were particularly cheesy. Example: characters' clothing on
_Buffy_ has been criticized, and I think justly; is it a wardrobe
problem or the director?
Buffy has a lot of action/adventure. While by no means the
"jesus bolt" on the helicopter, the stunt coordinator is not a
"minor" role.
Timothy A. McDaniel
B. Richardson <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I think in all of Hollywood they'll be able to find someone else
>to double Sarah Gellar should Sophia leave the show.
Mebbe, mebbe not. They couldn't get a good stunt double for
Kendra in "Becoming I"; the one they had hurt Drucilla, so that's
why they had to switch to the slightly cheesy hypnotism business.
The stunt double for Angel in "Becoming II" was missing the
Angel-wig, so they had to go to distance shots and even I
(Mr. Unobservant) noticed it.
SWeick
<mistNO...@msgto.com.invalid> writes:
><booming voice> I am Jeff Pruitt </booming>
>
No, I'm Jeff Pruitt. And so's my wife.
Stephen Weick | Want to become a Wesley/Kate 'shipper? Ask me how!
swe...@aol.com | Philosophy : Any systematic scheme of thought which
swe...@mcs.kent.edu| allows you to be unhappy intelligently
Kate & Wesley in 00! Like their chances.
Don Sample
> pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
>
> > Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> > news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
> >
> > And if we read between the lines, it seems that there might not be a stunt
> > double for Buffy next season. Or worse
> >
> > = half way thru the the season Sophia quits.
>
> I think in all of Hollywood they'll be able to find someone else to double
> Sarah Gellar should Sophia leave the show.
1) Jeff Pruit isn't the only stunt coordinator in Hollywood. The town
is full of them.
2) Sophia Crawford isn't the only stunt woman capable of doubling
Sarah. (Karen Sheperd, who usually doubles for Faith could probably do
a pretty good job of it. She's about the right size and build, and hair
die is cheap.)
3) I have been thinking for a while that there has been too much
emphasis put on the fights anyway. Some of the best episodes are the
ones with the least fighting.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Keith
>Then, without a stunt co-ordinator, we can have another full season of
>"Sunnydale 90210" next year.
So what you're basically saying here Chris, if I understand you right,
is that Jeff Pruitt (for you) *was* "Buffy" (or a very large part of its
appeal), is that a fair summation?
Fine, it's one opinion - but it's not one I share. *I* watch Buffy
because of the writing - funny, inventive, at time cutting-edge - and
because of the characters and their interaction, and because it's
normally well directed, etc, etc, etc.
The fights come about ninth in the list.
>After most of the crap I've sat through this series, I'd have to say
>that the constantly excellent action/fight scenes are a the dominant
>feature of a regrettably short list of 'season highlights'.
Well you don't have to, you know, you could always switch over and watch
something else instead if you dislike it that much.
>I think Mr. Pruitt was excellent at his job
I agree, he was. So are many, many, many other on Buffy.
>But we can't possibly have people questioning SMG or *gasp* Joss
>himself, so let's all shout at the 'little people' instead. Whatever
>aids your fantasies. The fairy tale must be protected at all costs.
But what makes you think the what Jeff Pruitt wrote is anything other
than the frustrated rantings of a former employee? I used to work of the
Employment Service and I often used to see rants of exactly that kind
(only without the fairy-tale metaphor) from people who'd just lost their
job, it's a natural human reaction.
Keith
Keith
>>Can we just get this into perspective here - this guy is the
>>STUNT CO-ORDINATOR. Not that I wish to denigrate the job or
>>those who perform it, but what we seem to have here is somebody
>>whose doing a relatively minor job on a show starting to get
>>ideas above his ego...
>
>There are all sorts of *parts* that go into the whole: stunts,
>wardrobe, lighting, special effects, sounds, ... The fact that
>there are so many parts, however, does not make all of them
>"minor". Screw up one and you'll notice to some extent.
>Example: the special effects in the season ender of _Roswell_
>were particularly cheesy. Example: characters' clothing on
>_Buffy_ has been criticized, and I think justly; is it a wardrobe
>problem or the director?
>
>Buffy has a lot of action/adventure. While by no means the
>"jesus bolt" on the helicopter, the stunt coordinator is not a
>"minor" role.
What I meant by that was that it is more 'minor' (at least in public
perceptions) than, for instance, a producer or an actor or on the show.
What stuns me about some of the replies to this debacle is this
assumption that in some way Jeff Pruitt's contribution was what made
Buffy a programme that we're all spending our spare time talking about
in a newsgroup. That Jeff Pruitt *IS* Buffy. That *might* be true for
some people, but for a lot of us it's a *very* minor concern roughly
equivalent to if the costume designer, or the film editor left. All do a
damn good job, but it's nothing that *nobody* else could do.
If I'd heard, for instance, that Joss, or Jane Espenson, or Nick
Brendon, or Alyson Hannigan, or Tony Head were leaving Buffy, I'd have
been sad and not a little worried for the series future. Jeff Pruitt,
regardless of how nice a person he is (and he's always conducted himself
very well when he's popped into this group), or how good he is at his
(very difficult) job (and he seems to be *excellent* at it) simply isn't
in the same league.
I'm not taking sides here - it's perfectly possibly that Jeff *was*
treated abominably by Sarah and the unnamed General (David Fury I
presume) - that kind of thing does happen in lots of walks of life and
particularly in the film industry. But if it's a choice between having a
show next year with Pruitt but without Sarah Michelle Gellar, or the
other way around, sorry Jeff, but you ain't gonna win *that* one with
anybody!
Keith
Mike Zeares
> Funny; I haven't noticed that in my work group (me, cow-orkers,
> boss). Or much in the SCA heraldry I do.
>
> There's good politics -- the art of people getting along -- and
> bad -- the art of tromping on people -- and I've seen more of the
> former, and I think you're being far too cynical.
>
I guess it depends on what you're used to. I've seen more of the
backstabbing kind myself. And I don't think I'm being too cynical if I
say that the bad kind of politics is probably vastly more common in
Hollywood. But point taken.
Rose
>Date: 5/18/2000 8:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><iball***death-to-SPAM***-1805000...@pool0617.cvx5-bradley.dialup.e
arthlink.net>
>>
>> >When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
>> >unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4,
>>
>> Jiminy! And people say *I'm* critical! >:O
>>
>> How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable? Am
>I
>> in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the way
>of
>> all feces?
>
>hard) on early season #4, while I was somewhat of a defender. Now, in the
>latter half of the season, I'm the rabid attack dog, and you're more
>complimentary.
>
Whaaaaa? Dedalus just said he wants me to stop being so critical of the show
so he can enjoy reading my posts. Now you say I am Soft on Buffy?
I can't please ANYONE! soooobbbb
Rose
>Date: 5/18/2000 9:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8g178m$7cu$1...@news.jump.net>
>
>In article <39237CC6...@ix.netcom.com>,
>B. Richardson <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Mike Zeares wrote:
>>> Well, of course it is. It's populated by humans. Mindless
>>> politics and petty jealousies pretty much sum up any work
>>> enviroment. Pretty much any primate enviroment, for that
>>> matter. What, you thought the BUFFY set was somehow above all
>>> that?
>>
>>Very well said. My sentiments exactly. This sort of thing
>>happens in EVERY work environment.
>
>boss). Or much in the SCA heraldry I do.
>
>There's good politics -- the art of people getting along -- and
>bad -- the art of tromping on people -- and I've seen more of the
>former, and I think you're being far too cynical.
>
If you're right, then I've had some really bad karma follow me from workplace
to workplace. Maybe I need to get that checked. ;)
Darrell Braswell
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:180520001323470606%dsa...@synapse.net...
> In article <39237D13...@ix.netcom.com>, B. Richardson
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
> >
> > > Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote in message
> > > news:20000517182622...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > > > Wow. Jeff doesn't like Sarah very much, does he?
> > >
> > > And if we read between the lines, it seems that there might not be a
stunt
> > > double for Buffy next season. Or worse
> > >
> > > = half way thru the the season Sophia quits.
> >
> > I think in all of Hollywood they'll be able to find someone else to
double
> > Sarah Gellar should Sophia leave the show.
>
> 1) Jeff Pruit isn't the only stunt coordinator in Hollywood. The town
> is full of them.
The town may be full of them but are they full of good ones. If you look at
all of the shows that have fighting in them I would have to think that Buffy
is the best.
>
> 2) Sophia Crawford isn't the only stunt woman capable of doubling
> Sarah. (Karen Sheperd, who usually doubles for Faith could probably do
> a pretty good job of it. She's about the right size and build, and hair
> die is cheap.)
Hair die is very cheap but the one good thing about Sophia is that she is an
all around stunt person. She doesn't just do fights she can do all of the
stunts. From what I understood that's what made Sophia unique. Karen
Sheperd is very good at fighting but they had to get Cordelia's stunt double
to fall off the building in G-1
>
> 3) I have been thinking for a while that there has been too much
> emphasis put on the fights anyway. Some of the best episodes are the
> ones with the least fighting.
>
IMHO the fighting is one of the things that makes this show different from
Dawson Creek or Felicity. The show wouldn't be the same if Buffy spent her
whole time venting about boys or college.
Nirtom
>Funny how the parable didn't mention any of the lesser
>Princes and Princesses. You know, the ones the Royal Princess suposedly
>hates (since she hates "everyone")? No mention of a Queen either. Hm,
>lets see...
I think it's "she hates all the women on the show".
Oh my God! Now that I think of it: she's responsible for Jenny's death, Dru
that never came back, Cordelia's departure, etc...
What an evil bitch!
Nirtom
Nirtom
Daryl McCullough wrote in message <8g13i5$k...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>>How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable?
Am I
>>in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the
way of
>>all feces?
>
>Not varnish. You need polyurethane. After it dries, the crap
>no longer smells, is nice and shiny, and can be used for a paper-weight
>or a doorstop.
Nah! Crap is pretty much weightless once dry. So it's pretty much crap (in
the useless sense).
Nirtom
Don Sample
1) Quitting half way through a season is not a smart career move. One
is likely to find that no one will sign you to a long term contract
after you pull a stunt like that.
2) They probably have a couple of backup Buffy stunt doubles in the
wings already. What Sophia does is dangerous, they couldn't risk
having to shut down production for a couple of months while she
recovers from a broken leg or something. They are probably women they
are already keeping on the payroll doing stunts for Allyson and other
female characters. (Among others, Karen Shepperd, how doubles Eliza
could probably step in and do a very good job doubling for Sarah.)
Ian J. Ball
fyl...@aol.compliant (Rose) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeff Pruitt's Parable
> >From: tm...@jump.net (Timothy A. McDaniel)
> >Date: 5/18/2000 9:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8g178m$7cu$1...@news.jump.net>
> >
> >There's good politics -- the art of people getting along -- and
> >bad -- the art of tromping on people -- and I've seen more of the
> >former, and I think you're being far too cynical.
>
> If you're right, then I've had some really bad karma follow me from workplace
> to workplace. Maybe I need to get that checked. ;)
It's the Gremlins! They're following you everywhere! ;)
Ian J. Ball
McCullough) wrote:
> fyl...@aol.compliant (Rose) says...
> >Ian wrote:
> >
> >>When I see stuff like this Pruitt mess, and then I add in the almost
> >>unvarished crap "Buffy" has been in season #4,
> >
> >Jiminy! And people say *I'm* critical! >:O
> >
> >How does one varnish crap, anyway? Is varnishing one's crap desirable? Am
> >I in some way remiss for leaving my crap unvarnished before I send it the
> >way of all feces?
>
> Not varnish. You need polyurethane. After it dries, the crap
> no longer smells, is nice and shiny, and can be used for a paper-weight
> or a doorstop.
Daryl, are you a Polymer Chemist too?! :)
Rose
>Date: 5/18/2000 11:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <si8cp8...@news.supernews.com>
She's the one who made me do all those Zeppo posts. It's called the Sarah
Whammy. Frightening little thing.
>Nirtom
Mike Zeares
[re: the Evol Princess Royal]
> >
> >>
> She's the one who made me do all those Zeppo posts. It's called the Sarah
> Whammy. Frightening little thing.
>
<shudder>
Wait a minute, if she's making all these bad things happen when she's
not actually physically present, she must be...
A WITCH!!!
-- Mike Zeares aka she turned me into a newt!
Keith
>Screw any notion of a Trades Union, screw the worker (someone who works
>hard to actually make the damn show exist at all) and all hail the
>"talent" - never mind that when it comes down to it "the talent" are
>basically prettified MEAT paid very well to parrot a story that had NO
>PART in creating.
Oh for Christ's sake, Chris, you make it sound like he's a nineteenth
century minor in Yorkshire, earning tuppence every four years!
He's not.
So, I repeat, your basic stance is that all (or most anyway) of the
actors on Buffy the Vampire Slayer are, what was your term, "prettified
meat"? That those who actually create the show are talentless, and the
Jeff Pruitt has been the only person making a worthwhile contribution to
the show for the last year. Yes?
Hmm... Interesting theory.
Keith
EBailey140
>evaluate it. I'm not a "fan" of Sarah Michelle Gellar. However, I'm not
>going
>to believe she's a tiny terror because one man said so. Heck, there is
>someone
>on my job who thinks the same thing about me because I talked back to him
>when
>he tried to walk all over me and treat me like crap. There are two sides to
>everything.
>
>Again, I'd like to know what other stories you've heard about her, and from
>whom.
Especially considering that the rest of the cast has always spoken highly of
her, including those who have no job related reason to do so, like Seth.
Joss, judging from his comments, seems to think the main problem was one person
unable to play well with others.
E
Angel
terms while they speak of everyone else in the cast in
affectionate terms. Granted, I may make something different of
that than you. Anyway, the ruler with which I would choose to
measure her level of Spoiled Bitca Princesness by is by what the
crew (ie, the people she has no reason to treat decently) think
of her.
-Angel
EBailey140
>Date: 5/18/00 2:51 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3934964f...@news.latrobe.edu.au>
>
>On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:40:59 GMT, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>
>:In article <20000517215431...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
>:pinkb...@aol.com (Krissy) wrote:
>[snip]
>
>:> He presents his case as if he
>:> (and his wife) are the stars of the show. Newsflash: They aren't.
>
>:One, I didn't read it that way.
>
>I did, he practically came out and stated that he and Sophia were the
>reasons for the shows success.
And if that's the attitude he was taking to the set every day, then I'm pretty
sure people WERE talking about him, though not in the way he likes to
imagine...
E
LAWigley
not actually physically present, she must be...
A WITCH!!! >>
This also means that the jealous Princess is the reason that the Castle Rat has
not been restored to her former glory!!!!!!!
Treachery to the foul Princess.
missy