From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #143 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, September 26 2001 Volume 03 : Number 143 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Grumble grumble vcr grumble grumble [Hilary Hertzoff ] Re: a/heartthrob [allenw ] Re: a/heartthrob [GHighPine@aol.com] a/heartthrob ["Donald G. Keller" ] t/trailer ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/again, the gift ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: t/trailer ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: t/trailer ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:10:30 -0400 From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: Grumble grumble vcr grumble grumble On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, you wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Hilary Hertzoff wrote: > > I just got home to discover that I screwed up the settings on my vcr and was > > not taping Angel as I had believed. I don't suppose anyone could provide me > > with a copy.... > > I'm begging here. > > Hilary > > > Hilary, > I could send you a copy. What's your mailing address? > (And for the love of Joss, don't expose yourself to any discussion of > tonight's final scene...) Thanks, Some one else already offered, but I appreciate this. I flipped on the tv in the middle of the Lord of the Rings trailer, so I had the tv on for the final scene, but by that time I was completely confused and wasn't really paying attention. This was not an episode to come in in the middle of... Hilary - -- Hilary Hertzoff hhertzof@panix.com Mamaroneck, NY hilaryh@dm.net Miss Bettany had told them to read the classics and see how little slang was used there,and to try to model their own speech rather more on them than on that of cheap magazines filled with Americanese and language which might be suitable for boys, but was not allowable for girls. - Jo of the Chalet School ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:07:27 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: a/heartthrob - ----- Original Message ----- From: meredith To: Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:04 PM Subject: Re: a/heartthrob > Okay, spoiler space for real this time .... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:17 PM 9/24/2001 -0700, you wrote: > >Hmm. I wasn't so thrilled. What's with Wesley's hair?? Lots of maid & > >butler dialogue and everyone seemed to be trying hard but it didn't really > >come together for me. And how is that final scene even possible? > > Well, Darla was human at the time that she and Angel, erm, got together > last season. I would assume that a vampire would fire blanks, but who knows? > > This is, of course, assuming that Angel is the daddy. It could also be > Lindsey. But was she human? Hadn't she already been vamped by the time she and Angel got together? Because Drusilla vamped her early on, while Angel was still trying to defend her. Maybe I have my chronology all messed up. I'll have to admit that part of my unhappiness with the final scene is that it means much more of Darla in the show and I'm not at all fond of Darla. Give me Faith any day! Sue ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:15:21 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: a/heartthrob On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, meredith wrote: > Okay, spoiler space for real this time .... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:17 PM 9/24/2001 -0700, you wrote: > >Hmm. I wasn't so thrilled. What's with Wesley's hair?? Lots of maid & > >butler dialogue and everyone seemed to be trying hard but it didn't really > >come together for me. And how is that final scene even possible? > Well, Darla was human at the time that she and Angel, erm, got together > last season. I would assume that a vampire would fire blanks, but who knows? Actually, Darla was a vampire when Angel had his "moment of perfect despair." However, she was human back when she was his dream-lover, so who knows? Angel, who should know, says that vampires can't have children. I think we can assume that this pregnancy was planned and assisted, though probably not by Darla. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:24:15 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: a/heartthrob In a message dated 9/25/01 7:17:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, allenw@io.com writes: SPOILER SPACE << Angel, who should know, says that vampires can't have children. I think we can assume that this pregnancy was planned and assisted, though probably not by Darla. >> I'm sure, and I'm sure the writers are quite capable of coming up with magical explanations for anything they want to do. I think a baby vampire has interesting story potential. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:09:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: a/heartthrob I'm assuming that's the title of the episode? Spoiler discussion to follow, so non-viewers (to date) beware. (This means you, Hilary.) BUFFY: ...like I'm really planning to have kids anytime soon. Maybe someday, in the future, when I'm done having a life, but...I think kids would be just a little too much to deal with. ANGEL: I wouldn't know. I don't...well, you know, I can't. BUFFY: [reacts] Oh. [recovers] That's OK, I figured there were all sorts of things vampires can't do, you know, like work for the telephone company, or volunteer for the Red Cross, or ... have little vampires. I suspect some of us have been trying to remember this conversation (Deirdre had remembered it instantly, she said when I talked to her tonight); it's from "Bad Eggs," one of the weakest 2nd season episodes, in which this is probably the only memorable scene; it's the one that culminates in Buffy's poignant declaration: "Angel, when I look into the future...all I see is you. All I want is you." Which becomes heartbreaking in retrospect, because this is the episode immediately preceding "Surprise"/"Innocence." So Joss, as usual, has some explaining to do. Vampires, remember, are =dead bodies=, animated by demons, and one wouldn't expect all the systems to be operational. The only thing I can think is that 1) Darla had only been a vampire a short time when she and Angel were together 2) Angel was made human for a short time in "I Will Remember You" (but that day was "called back," as they say in football). Incidentally, I spent some time today figuring out that Darla was in fact already a vampire when she and Angel got together: she was vamped in Episode 9, and she and Angel spent the night together at the end of Epsode 15. I suppose the father =could= be Lindsay, but I kind of doubt it; and that wouldn't be =interesting=. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:19:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: t/trailer David: I would be =most= interested in what you posted about the trailer. Myself, maybe I'm not a Tolkien scholar any more (if I ever was; though I did get quoted in a chapbook on Tolkien once), and maybe not a purist either, but I haven't seen or heard anything ("reading the tea leaves," as you so aptly put it) to put me off yet. For me, there were at least two things in the trailer that made me go "whoa!"--the first being the fiery letters on the ring (though I'm enough of a purist to remember that in the book they're on the =inside= of the ring), and the other being the audible "doom, doom in the deep." I think the casting--and what little acting we see--was quite good, and the visuals excellent. I thoroughly understand both sides of the "Arwen, Warrior Princess" question. Yes, it's a really big change; but at the same time it makes a certain amount of sense. When you get down to it, Eowyn and Faramir are (speaking Jungian symbology here) doubles of Arwen and Aragorn, and since some condensing (even at six hours running time) has to happen, and since Arwen has nothing much to do in the book, I see why they did it. I don't necessarily =agree= with it, but I'm willing to see how they make their case. Are there Baum scholars who complain about the (many major) changes in the movie =The Wizard of Oz=? Still a great movie. Basically, so far I feel about the =LOTR= movie the way I felt about the =Gormenghast= TV dramatization, and will judge it "innocent" until proven "guilty." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:34:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/again, the gift So I finally watched "The Gift" again tonight. And I haven't changed my mind about it. Knowing what was going to happen this time through, I felt like Joss Whedon was leaning on me =really hard= to get me to buy his bait&switch, but I'm still not buying. I reserve the right to interpret Buffy's "Dawn was made of a part of me" (not an exact quote) as semi-metaphorical, and the "Summers blood" part too. (Dawn presumably was made from their mother's body, virtually or potentially or whatever word I'm looking for here, not from Buffy's). But even taken literally it still doesn't wash. Buffy is not the Key, just as Dawn is not the Slayer. I =still= said to myself after Dawn was bled, that Dawn really needed to die. =And Dawn knew it, too=: that's the other reason I don't buy it. I have to say the writing was very good, and Buffy's final speech got to me a little--it's very moving--but I was gritting my teeth at the same time. But I'm not going to let this one glitch ruin the show for me; I'm looking forward to next Tuesday. (Just a week away, now.) P.S. One other trifle: knowing in advance what was happening, I felt the Buffybot didn't sound =quite= enough like it did in "Intervention"--unless Willow reprogrammed it for sarcasm. ("Intervention," by the way, is one of the few 5th season episodes I've watched quite a few times, because the robot is so hilarious.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:18:41 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: t/trailer And here's what I wrote. Comments afterwards: >I wasn't expecting to find a new LOTR trailer tucked into a commercial >break in the Monday episode of "Angel", but there it is. The third or >fourth trailer (depending on how you're counting), this one crams the >entire story of volume 1 into about two minutes time. Now you don't even >have to see the film! > >Any multiple-times reader of the book will be able to identify every scene >shown. We're getting a much, much better idea of exactly what changes have >been wrought in Tolkien's creation than we ever had before. If you don't >want to know, then avert your eyes now, because I'm going to lay it >out. (Spoiler, you say? Just who is spoiling what?) > >1) We are told that if the Ring is captured, its bearer will be killed. Oh >no. In the book, there is much worse than that in store for him. How >trivial, to be killed. > >2) Gotta beef up those danger scenes. Nothing softly creepy in this >interpretation, nope. Frodo can't just be steathily followed by a Black >Rider on his way to the Buckleberry Ferry: no, he has to leap desperately >onto the boat just out of the Rider's clutches. Pippin doesn't just drop a >stone into the well in Moria: no, an entire skeleton, complete with >outsized cobwebs, has to fall in, in two stages. Sheesh. The real battle >scenes (the one in Moria seemed pretty accurately rendered) will be >flattened out without the proper contrast. Do the filmmakers want to make >the book seem boring in comparison? > >3) It's true, it's true! Arwen, Warrior Princess, is upon us! It is at >last very clear that the rumors are correct and that Glorfindel's role has >been rolled into Arwen's; and not only that, she gets to make a big heroic >stand at the Ford in a way that will undercut whatever Frodo may do. The >biggest problem is, just what will become of the uniquely desperate quality >of Eowyn's heroism when the woods are crawling with Warrior Princesses? > >4) Galadriel. This is more interesting, and subtle. In the previous >trailer, she said to Frodo, "Even the smallest person can change the course >of the future." The sentiment was awfully close to something Elrond says >at the close of the Council chapter, but the wording struck most people as >highly un-Tolkienian ... at least, nobody here demurred when it was so >called on this list. This time, she says "This task was appointed to you, >Frodo, and if you do not find a way, no one will." This is almost a dead >copy of something else Elrond says in the same scene. I don't mind the >transfer of Elrond's whole speech to Galadriel: there are probably good >dramatic structural reasons for that. But the difference in the exact >wording is telling. What Elrond says is "I think that this task is >appointed for you ..." A guess, not an order; present tense, not past; a >better choice of preposition. > >5) Aragorn speaks so quietly. I'm not sure what I think of that. It would >stand out less if everybody else weren't so loud and stiffly over-acting. > >6) Why, oh why, after all the technical advances in special effects in >recent years, do the big set-piece scenes (the fall of the Bridge, the >Argonath) have to look so totally fake? I must emphasize that I am not a purist in the sense that it's usually defined: I don't object to sensible changes. I don't mind the elimination of Tom Bombadil (even though I like Bombadil), I approve the expected intercutting of stories in part 2 (a method of storytelling much more appropriate for films than books), I approve the adding of some backstory from the appendices to the too-repressed account of Aragorn and Arwen; I don't mind the elimination of Glorfindel (a too-nebulous character for those who don't really know their Tolkien) or even his folding into Arwen so long as she doesn't become more of a warrior-hero than Glorfindel was. I didn't notice, at the time I wrote this, that Arwen is carrying Frodo on her horse. That makes Frodo into no more than baggage at this point. This is a condition hobbits elsewhere bitterly complain of; and in fact there's more to it than that. In the published drafts of the story, it turns out that, faced with the problem of getting hobbits on foot away from mounted Nazgul, Tolkien tried having Gandalf (not yet then vanished) schlep them around on his horse. This quickly became ludicrous, and Tolkien dropped the idea and went to some lengths to find plausible ways to solve his plot problems without it. The screenwriters may think they're better storytellers than Tolkien, but I'm permitted to doubt it, especially when they (surely unintentionally) reinvent ideas he threw out. I strongly disagree about the acting. Both this and the previous trailer teem with dialogue that sounds insincere, as if the actors were self-consciously reciting poetry. There are a few things I find cool and neat, though, mostly in the visuals: the Ring _is_ stunning, despite the inscription error (hey, at least it's not upside down, which several publishers of the book have managed); the Flight to the Ford is a great tracking visual; the Westgate of Moria opening is seriously impressive. One Tolkien-scholar friend of mine, when I asked if he'd seen the trailer (without asking whether he'd seen it on TV or on the film website) replied that he'd seen it on TV, "during a show I will never willingly watch again." So much for one possible new "Angel" recruit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:38:37 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: t/trailer >At 09:19 PM 9/25/2001 , DGK wrote: >I thoroughly understand both sides of the "Arwen, Warrior Princess" >question. Yes, it's a really big change; but at the same time it makes a >certain amount of sense. When you get down to it, Eowyn and Faramir are >(speaking Jungian symbology here) doubles of Arwen and Aragorn, and since >some condensing (even at six hours running time) has to happen, and since >Arwen has nothing much to do in the book, I see why they did it. I don't >necessarily =agree= with it, but I'm willing to see how they make their >case. You're onto more than you may know here, since Tolkien actually called Arwen into existence to serve as a more appropriate mate to Aragorn than Eowyn. But why should her role be beefed up, except at the bidding of a well-meaning but misguided feminism? Condensation is tough enough as it is: the more they add, the less time there is for anything else. And if she must be beefed up, the best way to do it is to flesh out her romance with Aragorn, which is repressed in the main story to the point of invisibility. And most importantly of all, there are other ways to depict strong women than making them warriors! Le Guin's got a million of 'em. A warrior Arwen does not reinforce Eowyn: she diminishes her by anticipating the event and lowering its impact. It's like "What, Buffy died _again_? GMAFB!" >Are there Baum scholars who complain about the (many major) changes in the >movie =The Wizard of Oz=? Still a great movie. A great movie, sure, but it's buried the book -- all the more effectively for being great; if it had been lousy, the book might have re-emerged by now. I've seen a few articles plaintively trying to convey that Baum's Oz is different from MGM's. And if that example doesn't convince you, what about Frankenstein? That Shelley's monster neither looks nor acts like Boris Karloff is a fact reduced to the status of an advanced trivia question. >Basically, so far I feel about the =LOTR= movie the way I felt about the >=Gormenghast= TV dramatization, and will judge it "innocent" until proven >"guilty." I will keep an open mind insofar as I am willing to judge the movie itself afresh. I know that films often disresemble their trailers. But I will not suspend judgment on the trailers themselves. Remember, film studios release trailers as propaganda, intended to make viewers feel positively about the film to come. So a negative reaction is just as legitimate. To refuse to have any opinion about trailers of interest is to deny that they have any power to emotionally affect you, which is absurd; and to allow yourself only a positive, not a negative, reaction to trailers is to abdicate critical judgment. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #143 *****************************