From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #11 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, January 16 2000 Volume 02 : Number 011 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/trivia ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/news ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/news ["David S. Bratman" ] b/-the-film ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/-the-film ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/-the-film [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/-the-film [meredith ] Re: b/news [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:28:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/trivia Meredith: Good point about Veruca and Oz. I don't have every detail of the 4th season mapped out in my head the way I do the earlier seasons, but if I remember correctly, it goes: 1) Oz and Veruca pass each other and take notice (was this in "Living Conditions," episode 2? It was when Oz went on patrol with Buffy); then nothing for a couple episodes, then Veruca shows up again in the band (which I believe is "Beer Bad"), and the =very next episode= is "Wild at Heart" when the whole situation comes to pass. The lesson we may take from this (as with Buffy and Parker) is that too quick is no good. But we'll see. It =is= possible that after this seemingly-clear (to some of us) hint they'll take it slow for a while. But trying to outguess this show is a mug's game. Re trivia: correct on Buffy's dessert and Cordelia's license plate. Oz first sees Willow, I think (I'd have to check) when she's the Eskimo in "Inca Mummy Girl." And the put-the-bell-on-Angel quote is Xander (of course, it seems to me); it's from "School Hard," when they're first discussing Spike and Angel shows up briefly to contribute. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:57:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/news You can count on =Entertainment Weekly= oh, every couple of weeks or so to print a (usually gratuitous, since it's often not about her) photo of Sarah Michelle Gellar over an article about =Buffy=. The Jan. 21/28 "Our Guide to 200" issue has a piece on the website crackdown. The article makes the very salient point (which I hadn't considered before) that with the studios, etc. having to pay the actors & creators residuals for every "airing" they're in a legal bind with the grey area of the Net. An interesting discussion; it also mentions that after Joss Whedon's "bootleg the puppy" remark about the postponed episodes last year, Fox asked him to "no comment" in future. A tangled web. Too many fingers in the pie (studio, network, creators, performers, etc.) if you ask me. Whedon, by the way, is trying to work out site guidelines with Fox legal. Seems my instinct about =not= making a website of my too-full synopses was on the prudent side. Also, in the movie previews it notes Seth Green's next project, a "mobster crime caper" called =Knockaround Guys=. He flies a plane in the movie. This is what he left =Buffy= for and broke hearts everywhere? It better be an awfully good movie. And as well a mention of the new project for Kate Beckinsale (probably my favorite actress after Sarah Michelle Gellar right now): starring with Uma Thurman in Henry James' =The Golden Bowl=. Also with Jeremy Northam, who if I remember was in the Gwyneth Paltrow =Emma= rather than Kate Beckinsale's. It's another Merchant-Ivory picture. So I went and bought the Penguin edition of =The Golden Bowl= (introduction by Gore Vidal), figuring that, given that it's Henry James and nearly 600 pages, it may take me until the June release of the film to read it. I'm not a big Henry James fan; I'm no stranger to complicated prose, but there's something about his syntax that makes me bang my head to loosen the cobwebs. I did read =Daisy Miller= years ago (which is at least short; and I rather enjoyed the mixed-review film from the early 70s), but to my shame have never tackled =The Turn of the Screw= (iconic work of the horror genre that it is), and the point where I bogged down reading straight through David Hartwell's monumental horror anthology =The Dark Descent= was partway through James' "The Jolly Corner." I just couldn't make head or tail of it, syntactically. And given that =The Golden Bowl= is James' last novel (1904), it's probably his most sophisticated. We'll see. Oh, the photo of Robert De Niro in his Fearles Leader makeup for =Rocky and Bulwinkle= is really something... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:10:50 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/news I found "The Turn of the Screw" unreadable, and Britten's opera unlistenable (strange, as I normally like Britten). TV actors departing beloved roles, leaving their fans heartbroken, in order to kill their careers making bad movies -- Seth Green will not be the first. (I'm confident the film will be dreadful.) Look at David Caruso. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:25:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/-the-film Greg Cox, author of the definitive book on vampire literature to 1970 (=The Transylvanian Library=) and the definitely =un=definitive (i.e. unauthorized) Xena book =Battle On!= (both highly recommended) asked me a question about the original =Buffy= film, which I couldn't answer from memory. So, owning a copy of the film on tape, I sat down and watched the movie again last night. It had been a little while. There's no question that the film is decidedly inferior to the TV show; one of the latter's most remarkable qualities, its control of tone, is completely absent in the film, which veers alarmingly from the downright stupid to the actually pretty good. The scenes between Buffy and Merrick (her Watcher, played by Donald Sutherland) achieve some of the same qualities as the Buffy/Giles scenes we're used to since: not only the generation-gap verbal sparring, but also the growing sense of mutual respect and even reserved affection. And Kristy Swanson--not in Sarah Michelle Gellar's class as an actor--does a solid job; Buffy begins to grow up even in this brief time. Something that struck me which I should have noticed before is that Pike (played by Luke Perry) is a prototype for Oz: not only the slacker cool, but down to details like the van and the guitar. In addition to what I'd noticed before, his proto-Angel motifs: giving Buffy his leather jacket ("Teacher's Pet") =and= the leather jacket/white prom dress combination (a separate reference to "Prophecy Girl"). Also note his "crashing" the dance, a la Angel in "The Prom." But the single line that completely startled me was during the fight in the warehouse yard, where Buffy lands on top of Pike and utters the line: "You shouldn't have come back, Pike." Ring a bell with anyone else?? As in: "You shouldn't have come back, Spike." Spoken at least twice by Buffy in TV episodes. I swear, does Joss Whedon stay up nights thinking up this stuff??? Also notable in the movie is Hilary Swank, now receiving kudos for her role in =Boys Don't Cry=; she plays the most smart-mouthed of Buffy's pals, and is very funny; it's an indication of the movie's missteps that at the end she has to play a slapstick screaming victim and is distinctly less funny. Natasha Gregson Wagner, now well-established (in =Two Girls and a Guy= for one), has a small Willowish role in the film; she dies early on. And I did take note of the dream sequences, which I want to go back to again. So the movie is =just= good enough, with just enough points of interest, to remain in the =oeuvre= as a faltering first step. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:54:33 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/-the-film I have, as I've mentioned before, a long-standing grudge against the film, which struck me as so bad that it kept me from watching the tv show for over two years. I recall the prom scene as being particularly awful: it looked like the actors were standing around waiting for some direction. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:17:50 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/-the-film In a message dated 1/15/00 2:56:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << have, as I've mentioned before, a long-standing grudge against the film, which struck me as so bad that it kept me from watching the tv show for over two years. >> Unfortunately, I have discovered, a lot of people have the same prejudice against the series from having seen the BUFFY movie first. The exact same situation prevailed with ALIEN NATION, a mediocre movie that was transformed into a superb television series. As with BUFFY, I hadn't seen the movie first so =I= wasn't prejudiced by it, but over and over again, when I'd recommend the AN series to people, they'd say, nah, they'd already seen the movie and it wasn't that great, so they weren't interested in looking at the series. Since, in both cases, the movies have had the effect of actually keeping people away from the series, I kind of have a grudge against both of those movies too. It is, of course, most unusual for a TV series based on a movie to be superior to the original movie. Probably there would be general agreement that MASH and THE ODD COUPLE series were better than the movies that inspired them but IMO it took several seasons worth of development to get to that point. Arguably the STARMAN TV series surpassed the original movie -- you can find people on both sides of that opinion. In each of these cases, though, the original movie was very good and would not prejudice anyone against looking at the series. But, besides BUFFY and ALIEN NATION, can any other examples be found of TV series that from the beginning were without question vastly superior to mediocre big-screen movies that inspired them? Oh, wait! I just thought of another one: DANGEROUS MINDS. (Like AN and STARMAN, it died after a single season, but I am glad to discover that my favorite actor from that series, Vicellous Reon Shannon, has the second lead in a major picture that just opened, THE HURRICANE. His character in DM truly touched my heart, and I'm so glad that he seems to be going on to a major big-screen career.) Anybody think of any others? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:02:16 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/-the-film Hi! Gayle responded: > Unfortunately, I have discovered, a lot of people have the same prejudice >against the series from having seen the BUFFY movie first. I certainly did. I was dragged to see the movie when it was in the theater, and I thought it was a major waste of $5 (mercifully, it was a matinee). As a result, I didn't watch the series until it started the 1st season summer reruns. I'd heard it blew the movie out of the water, and about 15 minutes into "Welcome To The Hellmouth" I was happy to note that I'd heard correctly. > But, besides BUFFY and ALIEN NATION, can any other examples be found of TV >series that from the beginning were without question vastly superior to >mediocre big-screen movies that inspired them? This might be stretching it, but: _Friday The 13th: The Series_. Though why they *ever* gave it that title, I have no idea. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the movies (thank god). I was seriously addicted to that show for several years. There are those who would argue _La Femme Nikita_, though I would strenuously disagree. The movie was, IMHO, the best thriller ever made (and I'm talking about the original French version, mind you -- not the godawful American remake), but even after repeated attempts I can't suffer through the show. Ugh. I'd agree that it *is* better than _Point Of No Return_, though! +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:08:08 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/news Hi! David noted: >TV actors departing beloved roles, leaving their fans heartbroken, in >order to kill their careers making bad movies -- Seth Green will not be >the first. (I'm confident the film will be dreadful.) Look at David Caruso. Ah, but Seth Green already has built a pretty good career in film -- unlike David Caruso, who only had TV cred when he made the jump to film. I don't think that he's in danger of tanking his entire career with one bad movie (if that were the case, he'd have been a goner *long* ago). Besides, if he's ever in trouble, there's always the next Austin Powers movie to look forward to. :) Interesting ... I just did an IMDB search on Seth Green, and according to that he was in the _Buffy_ movie, but his scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. Anyone know more about that? +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #11 ****************************