From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #145 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, July 9 2000 Volume 02 : Number 145 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments7/4 [GHighPine@aol.com] Jeff Pruitt [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments7/4 ["Berni Phillips" ] b/ Re: Jeff Pruitt ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/ Re: Jeff Pruitt [meredith ] Re: b/ Re: Jeff Pruitt [GHighPine@aol.com] b/reality of characters (b/comments7/4) ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:53:03 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments7/4 In a message dated 7/7/00 10:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << Gerrold makes it sound as if act length is rigid. Either he oversimplified or things have changed since the 60s. >> Or Star Trek is more rigid than many other shows. Every show has its own conventions and rules for script writing, even its own quirks of formatting. An actor I know on Alien Nation, a very loose, informal show whose filming was like a big party (I know first-hand, I was in it once myself) guested in ST:V and said the difference was enormous. In Alien Nation, actors were free to play with their lines. In Star Trek, he wanted to change the word "a" to "an" and "the" to "their," and had to send a formal request upstairs and wait half an hour for a reply giving permission -- or not. (He got permission.) I don't doubt that this same attitude could be reflected in Star Trek's stance on script writing as well. But, OTOH, a lot about script writing has changed since the 1960s, too. I have a book on TV writing from the 1960s which contains examples of scripts from the time. In the book the act breaks are left out and the formatting changed to stageplay formatting to save space, but still, even without being able to see a clear act structure, it is striking how much scriptwriting conventions have changed over the years. Re Buffy's demon-possession, I agree that it solves more problems than it creates, and that it is important to remember this key point: << Nor is it conflicting for a demon-possessed Slayer to fight demons, for there are types and types of demons, and they're not always allied. >> And as for fictional characters: << There is a very passionate school of criticism that holds that since literary characters do not physically exist, it is a perceptual error to claim that they do, and one that should be strenuously avoided. I find that to be bizarrely reductionist. All I know of most dead people (or even many living ones) is what I've read in books, so I know them on no better authority than literary characters. Is it a perceptual error to talk about _them_ as if they really exist? And if it's not an error, why can't the illusion of knowing them be extended to fictional characters as well? >> But another thing to consider is that an author (or producer) can create characters who seem real only if he or she feels that they are real while creating them. The greater the author's sense and belief in the characters' reality, the greater the sense of reality that is communicated to the audience or readership. So would the people who say that subscribing to the illusion that fictional characters are real is to be avoided extend that prohibition to the creators themselves? By sharing the creators' belief in their characters -- even if it means extrapolating beyond what the creators themselves wrote, which is what I suspect they are really trying to have us avoid -- we are drawn into the creators' worlds. Do the people who say we should avoid treating fictional characters as real feel that that is a bad thing? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:00:47 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Jeff Pruitt Someone forwarded me some fascinating stuff from Jeff Pruitt on Usenet. It is dated last February / March -- and obviously before he was fired -- but even if outdated in a sense, it is pretty interestin regardless. Subject: Re: Bitching contest between Fury and Pruitt From: jeffpruitt@my-deja.com Date: 2/29/00 11:26 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <89igmf$4mk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> In article , "supra" wrote: >> What a load of bullshit! Why do you people suck up so much to the > stunt people?? Sorry I haven't been online for a while. Been fairly busy actually MAKING the show. Otherwise I'd have been happy to reply to supra. I don't think that having people who like BUFFY's fighting say that they like it is "sucking up" to anyone. Anyone who is as concerned about the kind words that people who watch the show have with regards to the action (and the people who perform it) must have some problems with their own sense of self worth. > > Stunt people are like policemen, they have a very distinct personality > that goes with the job. All their pride and life is based on their > physical abilities - for some it's built on steroids which have > messed with their minds - and that combined with a > inferiority complex to the 'brain people' makes them > arrogant pricks to work with. Read Pruitt (or others!!) He'll tell > you he thinks he's the one making the show and that the story > is just there to fill air time until the next stunt. The more > famous stunt people are usually a older and more professional > and do not engage in bitching matches like these - because > they and everyone else understand where their place is. Check out the phrases above. "Understand where their place is." This is the kind of ignorant mouthing off I'm talking about that hurts our profession. Not to mention the strange comments regarding "brain people" and steroids. Really odd. Supra must be a guy who's been picked on by some jocks in his time and I'm sorry about that. Stunt coordinators like me are not jocks, nor do we make a living off of our physical attributes. Joss, or anyone who works with me will tell you right off the bat that I am a filmmaker who creates action scenes for the show. The visiting directors have very, very little to do with that most of the time. It is not their job and they understand that. Yes, I did have to talk with the one director who was rude to us that day, but he apologized later and that was the end of it. They listen to us because they know that this is what we are paid to do. Everyone involved with the show contributes something unique to BUFFY. We contribute the action scenes. Without the work of stunt people it would be called, "Buffy: the girl who gets upset and talks it out." Not the same show at all. So our part is just as important as the rest of it. > > Directors must take decisions and stand by them, > battling between what the actors want, what the > writers want, and what they want. The last thing they > need is Mister Testosterone jacky-chan-wannabe who wants to > be seen flexing his muscle on screen. I don't go on-screen that much. That's Sophia's job. I wouldn't look as good in a dress. I choreograph, storyboard and set cameras for the fights. Actors play no role in this and usually only know what the whole fight looks like when they see it put together later. The director has no idea what the fights are until I show them to him. You sound like someone who has very little experience with what he is talking about here. But you are right about one thing; I do have plenty of testosterone. Sorry if that upsets you. (Did I mention that my penis is erect 24-7? Well it's true. Just an off-shoot of stuntiness I suppose.) > > Except that you see, no one is more replaceable than > stunt people. They are tons of them around, and > if it were someone else doing it, it wouldn't notice. > This isn't the sport channel. Check season 1. Can't see a difference? Then you shouldn't watch violent programs. You are not ready, Poindexter. > > And someone needs to tell someone that you don't > become a star by being a double for an actor > and over-stepping your bounds to 'show-through'. The last time I saw a post like that it was from someone who wished he was an actor. Most stunt people don't want to act. Some are good at it though and I have to give them credit for that. Some have even starred on televison and in feature films. You just haven't known that they were stunt people. Once I had to get a stunt double for a stuntman who was guest-starring on BUFFY. I didn't want him to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous snobbiness (such as you have demonstrated by your posts, supra) so I let the producer think that he was "a legitimate actor." Lastly, there are no "bounds" for me to overstep. If you check the DGA you may be surprised to find that a huge number of the directors are actually stunt coordinators (myself being one of them.) We are the ones who bring you the action that you see in those action films and television shows. It is nothing to do with wanting to be "a famous actor" that prompts me to speak out as I do. It is this: Have you heard of LETHAL WEAPON or DIE HARD? Famous for it's action right? Have you heard of Charlie Picerni? He's the guy responsible for it. Though he dosen't get the credit. The director of that film did direct the action for GILLIGAN'S ISLAND though. I guess he must know his action. When you saw Nick Cage on the "Tonight Show" showing that clip from THE ROCK, you heard Nick talk about the greatness of Michael Bay's action direction. You saw a trailer made up of close-ups of the actor and lots of STUNTS. Guess what? Ken Bates planned, rigged, and directed most of those scenes. Kenny is ... the stunt coordinator. That's what he brought to the show. When I did a big budget movie I rigged wire stunts and planned out all of the action very carefully. The director stopped by and asked me how it was going a couple of times. That was it. I shot for over a month on the scene. When he was interviewed about the show afterwards he told the interviewer, "Yes. That action scene was particularly tough on me. I studied a lot of Hong Kong action films before I did it. It was my first martial arts thing." Hmmm. Perhaps he meant it was the first one he ever WATCHED. If you check out the storyboards for the last ZORRO movie you'll see that the scenes are carefully planned by the director. Until Zorro fights. Then it simply says TO BE CHOREOGRAPHED. This is done by the stunt choreographer, not the director. How important is sword fighting to Zorro? What would it be without it? I had dinner with Yuen Woo Ping before he left to do MATRIX. I showed him a video of some wire gags I did. He liked it so much that he used one of them. It's the scene where Neo and the baddie leap in the air with guns drawn. If you check the script you'll see that they originally just run at each other and run out of bullets (ala' John Woo) Surely no one thinks that the Wachowski's had any idea about how to make a kung fu fight like those seen in MATRIX? Beautiful filmmaking by them and then by Woo Ping in the action scenes. Those scenes are his. That's how it's done. In BUFFY when the script calls for BIG FIGHT ENSUES or MUCH FIGHTY HERE, where does what you see on screen come from? The director and the actors? The writers? No. It comes from within my head. Should I quietly hide and deny what we do for a living and continue to foster the misguided notions of people like supra? No. I don't think I will do that today on this show or tomorrow on the next project I do. Please understand where we are coming from. Nothing to do with putting anyone down. Everything to do with our ability to make a living off of what we are contributing to the industry. As long as people like you have no idea who we are or what we do, things will not get better. We've tried the humble 'hiding our light' thing for years. That's what's gotten us into the current bad situation with our contracts. And that's why people like supra can spout off with such all-knowing authority that we are nothing but jocks who should know our "place." Thanks supra for helping to prove what I've been talking about. Now enjoy the show. Better yet, try taping the show and then cutting out all the action scenes. If you think it still has the same impact with Faith and Buffy (i.e. Karen & Sophia) NOT going at it toe-to-toe in a carefully choreographed battle, then maybe you can start a whole new genre'. You can call it "boring vision." And btw - those older stunt coordinators are the ones less inclined to be mild-mannered. Not me. That's putting it gently. Too bad you don't really know them as I do. I can see how I could get to be as grouchy as they are though. And I have a lot of respect for them. They've put up with a great deal over the years and have fought a lot of battles for us. It's only fair that I should stick my neck out from time to time. Thanks for putting up with the response Mr.Brain Power, Jeff Pruitt Fully erect and ready to pummel like a true mindless jock - but one who also carries a pocket calculator like the semi-nerd he is. Subject: Re: Bitching contest between Fury and Pruitt From: jeffpruitt@my-deja.com Date: 3/2/00 8:02 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <89ndgh$mrc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> In article <3a4v4.29651$t8.591337@newscene.newscene.com>, "Oren Ronen" wrote: > wrote in message > news:89igmf$4mk$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > (lots of excellent points about stunt coordination) > > Jeff, I just really want to say how much I appreciate the job you do on > Buffy. Most of us *do* know what a hard an unappreciated work stunt > coordinating is. > Just a question - unless I didn't look closely enough, I noticed none of the > stunt persons, with the exception of Sophia, are mentioned in the credits. > Shouldn't everyone involved in an episode get a credit for his or her work? > > > Fully erect and ready to pummel like a true mindless jock - but one who > > also carries a pocket calculator like the semi-nerd he is. > > Now that's a little more information than I wanted... > > Oren Ronen > oren3@isdn.net.il > > Thanks Oren. And yeah. They think that would take up too much space to make sure they all get credit. It's all up to the producers as to who gets credit for stunts on film and television. Example: I worked on BATMAN RETURNS and didn't get a credit. Neither did most of the other guys. They only gave screen credit to a few of the stunt doubles. Sophia worked on MOD SQUAD and it was the same type to thing. Her names not on it. Often there are too many to list. Other times the stunt coordinator tries to insist on it when he can. Sophia didn't get a credit for the first two seasons of BUFFY until I asked them to put it on the end credits. I was one of the first stunt coordinators to actually have his name in the front credits and on the poster/video box for a film too. A few others have since followed my lead on this. These kind of little things are important for our future work. Until the mid 70's you'll see that most films gave no stunt coordinator or stunt performer any screen credit at all. We still have to insist on it and they still try not to list us in the trade papers. Check out the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER on Tuesdays. You'll see all films shooting listed and the various department heads are listed who are doing the projects. Only rarely will you learn who the actual stunt coordinator is from this. Unless he insists on being listed too. I've been told that it's something like it used to be for writers. They don't want us to get what they perceive as too much credit or influence. That might upset the feelings of certain actors and directors. Egos are fragile around here. So we plan, stage and perform the action that turns them into "stars" and keep on working hard. Hopefully we'll get a decent paycheck later to pay for a jacuzzi to soak in. You know, just like the one the "Fall Guy" used to soak in. That's how it is. - - Jeff Pruitt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:46:40 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/comments7/4 >From: GHighPine@aol.com >In a message dated 7/7/00 10:55:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: > Re Buffy's demon-possession, I agree that it solves more problems than it >creates, and that it is important to remember this key point: > ><< >Nor is it conflicting for a demon-possessed >Slayer to fight demons, for there are types and types of demons, and >they're not always allied. > Gayle David and I had discussed this point at home before either of us posted (so we were posting part of a discussion). I had thought about that, the different types of demons that may fight, and I still reject it. The only way I think it would be interesting for Buffy to be demon-possessed would be if she one time had to fight a similar demon and couldn't. But I would hate to see Joss go this route. I think it would totally color our perception of Buffy and other slayers from that point on. On the other hand, I now have to reject the "touched by an angel" theory, too. A creature of light, by sheer definition, would not possess someone without their knowledge and consent. Do you suppose there is a third possibility, sort of a demon with a soul, that inhabits the slayer? Overall, though, I reject the possibility of possession. On slayers, I guess I'm a creationist: they were made that way. Perhaps their activation is a form of grace which comes to them, bringing forth their powers. (There could be a paper in here: "The Pentecost of the Slayer.") Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:00:41 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: b/ Re: Jeff Pruitt Gayle, that reminds me. Do you know if they changed Buffy's stunt double after the second season? As David mentioned, I've been watching tapes of the older shows. All third and especially fourth season, it was so obvious when SMG's stunt double took over that I found it irritating. It took me out of the story because it was so obviously a different (larger, different body language) person. I don't get that watching the tapes from the first and second season. Do you or anyone else here know why this is? Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 18:56:59 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/ Re: Jeff Pruitt Hi! Berni commented: >Gayle, that reminds me. Do you know if they changed Buffy's stunt >double after the second season? As David mentioned, I've been >watching tapes of the older shows. All third and especially fourth >season, it was so obvious when SMG's stunt double took over that I >found it irritating. It took me out of the story because it was >so obviously a different (larger, different body language) person. I don't know if the double has changed, but I know exactly what you're talking about. The show's (perhaps only) major flaw is that it's *completely* obvious when you're seeing Sophia instead of SMG. It is jarring, and IMO completely unnecessary. It's the shared fault of the DP and the editor, and shouldn't be that hard to fix. The first step should be to get a double who is at least the same height and build as SMG. Just because she's got blonde hair doesn't mean we're not going to notice the difference. I know we're an American television audience, but crikey, we're not *that* obtuse. I can count on one hand the number of times in the five full seasons of _Xena_ when it's obviously been the double and not Lucy Lawless in the shot. Even though I know when it's the double, it's very hard to tell. (More often than not, the clue that you're seeing the second unit is the weather, not the actors in the shot. :) _Xena_ has plenty of other problems, so if they can get that little bit of the show consistently right, why can't the crew of _Buffy_? Sorry, but Berni reminded me of my biggest pet peeve about the show we all know and love... +==========================================================================+ | 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, 8 Jul 2000 19:53:58 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ Re: Jeff Pruitt As a matter of fact, what I heard was that at a certain point Joss said that they didn't have to bother hiding the stunt double's face, because apparently it was someone's opinion (Jeff Pruitt's, I would guess) that they could do better action sequences without that restriction. AFAIK, SMG's double has always been Sophie Crawford and still is. I don't know why she would seem larger or seem to have a different body language now, though. Sophie Crawford has her own web page somewhere. She is quite beautiful in her own right and has a vague resemblance to SMG (and a photo of them side by side shows them to be very close to the same size and shape). IIRC she was a champion gymnast who has also had some martial arts training. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:41:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: b/reality of characters (b/comments7/4) On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > But another thing to consider is that an author (or producer) can create > characters who seem real only if he or she feels that they are real while > creating them. The greater the author's sense and belief in the characters' > reality, the greater the sense of reality that is communicated to the > audience or readership. As a rule I expect that "secondary belief" is indeed necessary, though there can be exceptions. I rather doubt, considering the sloppiness with which he wrote the stories and his appalled reaction to the type of "he's so real" popularity the character received, that Conan Doyle had that kind of belief in Sherlock Holmes. What seems to have happened is that he created a new archetype (a very rare event) without realizing it, and readers strongly responded to that. But this is, I repeat, rare. > So would the people who say that subscribing to the > illusion that fictional characters are real is to be avoided extend that > prohibition to the creators themselves? By sharing the creators' belief in > their characters -- even if it means extrapolating beyond what the creators > themselves wrote, which is what I suspect they are really trying to have us > avoid -- we are drawn into the creators' worlds. Do the people who say we > should avoid treating fictional characters as real feel that that is a bad > thing? I can't speak for them, but I'm guessing they would. This opinion is probably held by the sorts of people who write the kind of ruthlessly pomo fiction that constantly calls attention to its status as a text, thus forcing the reader not to develop a belief in the characters and to remain at an emotional distance. Emotional involvement can sometimes short-circuit critical judgment (we talked about this before), and in reaction to this some people denigrate emotional involvement of any kind. This strikes me as an over-reaction. But I don't know any of this for sure, and prejudice may be speaking here. The stuff from Jeff Pruitt elicits this response: 1) Reaffirms the impression I got from his fable on why he was fired, that he's dedicated and efficient at his job, but overestimates how good he is at it. I suspect a combination of sloppiness and arrogance has led to the stunt-double-is-obvious problem that Berni and Meredith were talking about. (Talking about spooky: how about when Darren changed between seasons and nobody noticed? Now that was spooky.) 2) He also overestimates the importance of action scenes to a work of this kind. What he denigrates as "Buffy talking things out" [instead of fighting] is a large part of its appeal. How much action was necessary to coax the armed Jonathan out of the tower? (And that, remember, was the episode temporarily censored for being too disturbing.) 3) Something else I already knew: Nobody with the slightest temper should ever post on Usenet. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:55:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: b/Becoming I've just seen "Becoming" (the 2nd season finale). A much talked about pair of episodes, but my first viewing. Thoughts: 1. As I also observed in the previous episodes, 2nd season Bad Angel is a superior and better-acted product than any of the increasingly numerous cameo reappearances of Bad Angel. 2. However, the Angel-history flashbacks were wretched from the start. And not just Boreanaz pretending to be Irish. (Berni started quoting Irish Spring deodorant commercials when he opened his mouth in this.) In the post-show interview, Joss says how proud he was of the sets for these. He shouldn't be. The one for Galway screamed "1940s-style movie studio fake." 3. Angel and Dru torturing Giles. Compare with Faith torturing Wesley. Much more effective - Bad Angel is a steely thing, and Dru's illusion of Jenny is emotionally wrenching - but totally without what I called the gratuitous hurt/comfort of the Wesley scene. Even though Giles literally is being hurt and comforted, it didn't read gratuitously. I think my point is verified. (Remember, I've never seen the Giles scene before.) We do not see Angel physically harming Giles, but nor do I get the sense, as I often do with later incarnations of Bad Angel, that he's all talk and no action. 4. The impression I'd had from descriptions of this episode was that Buffy sends Angel to hell before she realizes that his soul has been restored. (And of course she did not know the spell was being cast.) But I do not read the scene that way. If Buffy thought Angel was faking it, she wouldn't have let him get so close: they even kissed! I think she felt he deserved to be punished even if he's reformed. The whole discussion of what to do with Angel has interesting overtones on the whole theory of punishment in the real world, but I don't know if this matter has been much discussed. 5. Whistler is an early sketch for Doyle, isn't he? ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #145 *****************************