From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #76 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, May 23 2002 Volume 04 : Number 076 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/two hours of [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/two hours of ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/two hours of ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/finale [Hilary Hertzoff ] Re: b/two hours of ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/two hours of ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/two hours of [Robert Stacy ] Re: b/two hours of [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/finale ["Berni Phillips" ] A/Tomorrow ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: A/Tomorrow ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/two hours of [Joseph Zitt ] Re: b/two hours of ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:47:20 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/two hours of David, you really thought it was so much worse than the finales (action finales) of the last two seasons? Personally, I thought it was on a par with them -- nothing to get that enthusiastic about, but not awful either. And I thought it worked thematically as a bridge between the dark tone of this season and the presumably lighter tone of next season. Also, I believed the feelings between Xander and Willow at the end, because they surely were expressing the genuine close feelings of the cast members; that scene could have been contrived, saccharine, and unbelievable, but instead it worked for me. BTW, Spike must be human now, not a vampire with a soul, as only one of those two alternatives represents his "former self." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:53:32 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: b/two hours of > BTW, Spike > > > > > > > > > > > must be human now, not a vampire with a soul, as only one of those two > alternatives represents his "former self." I keep wondering if his hair will turn brown now. (snicker) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:09:56 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/two hours of At 08:47 AM 5/22/2002 , Gayle wrote: > David, you really thought it was so much worse than the finales (action >finales) of the last two seasons? Personally, I thought it was on a par with >them -- nothing to get that enthusiastic about, but not awful either. What made it specifically worse was three things: One, it was mostly (not entirely - see below - but mostly) emotionally untrue to the characters. This wasn't a problem with "The Gift", which didn't make sense in terms of plot, but which had some very strong emotional truths in it. Nor was it a problem with "Primeval", whose only really bad parts were the football open-field running scene, and the more basic problem that Adam was a lousy villain. Two, the longeurs, what I referred to as "Big flashy boring battle after big flashy boring battle". This I think was the fault of it being two hours long, and it was exactly the same problem with the season premiere, which was also two hours long. I believe the problem is that, if you spend enough time writing one-hour TV drama episodes, you tend to think in terms of one-hour TV drama episodes, and if you try to write a two-hour episode, you tend to write a one-hour episode spun out to two hours, with the extra time filled with tedious extraneous and repetitive scenes. Which leads to Three, what they filled the scenes with. What I've referred to before as the Auctorial Thumb came down very heavily this time. So heavily, in fact, that parts of this episode must have been written by the Nemesises. I can imagine the story conference now: Warren: "Let's make Willow fight Buffy!" Andrew: "Yeah! That'll be cool! Then let's make her fight Anya too!" Jonathan: "I know! I know! Let's make Willow fight _Giles_!" Andrew: "Oh, cool!" Warren: "Wait a minute, how can Giles fight a powerful witch? And how does he get in this anyway?" Jonathan: "Oh, we'll make up some lame explanation and stick it in the script after the fight. Nobody will care." Warren: "OK, OK; if we can do that, let's finish off by making her fight Xander." The problem with this is that it's fight for fight's sake. No real attempt is made to explain why Willow is picking all these fights; what explanation is given is lame and stuck in like an afterthought, like the explanation of Giles's superpowers (sheesh, talk about ruining the character). There's another problem, too, that the realization becomes retroactive. Now I'm imagining story conferences going like this: "Let's make Spike and Buffy have sex." "OK, and after that, let's make Spike and Anya have sex." This kind of thing was funny in the "Joan the Vampire Slayer" episode, but hey, guys, learn to restrain yourselves. >And I >thought it worked thematically as a bridge between the dark tone of this >season and the presumably lighter tone of next season. If you're talking about the humorous parts ... the quality of BTVS has always lain in the elegant mixture of horror and humor. Not this time. Mixed like oil and water. Stuck out like sore thumbs. Lay there like lead balloons. Pick your metaphor. > Also, I believed the feelings between Xander and Willow at the end, because >they surely were expressing the genuine close feelings of the cast members; >that scene could have been contrived, saccharine, and unbelievable, but >instead it worked for me. I wrote, "It had a couple good moments, mostly near the end," and that's mostly what I was referring to. Despite all the Nemesises could do in the script-writing, I thought the emotional climax between Xander and Willow was fairly affecting. But its working had nothing to do, or should have nothing to do, with the cast members' personal feelings. They're actors. They should be able to make us feel the characters' love even if they, the actors, hate each other; and similarly they should communicate hate even if they're the best of buddies. SMG has done a fine job of conveying Buffy's disgust at Spike, when the script will let her, although we know she's called herself Marsters' biggest fan. And Michelle Trachtenberg has never come across as a Mary Jane, even though to an extent she is a real-life Mary Jane. > BTW, Spike ... which is exactly what was suggested here. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:48:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: b/finale On Tue, 21 May 2002, Todd Huff wrote: > Spoiler space > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I lost count of the cultural references tonight. > X-Men, Nirvana, Star Wars, somebody even mentioned a > Moulin Rouge but I can't think of what it might have > been. The Moulin Rouge reference was the Nirvana quote - I think - the line "here we are now, entertain us" was used in the movie and someone on one of my other lists said it was from a Nirvana song. > > Big question for me: Is Spike human again or yet > another vampire with a soul? The later has been done, > but how would Spike prove it to Buffy et al? Even Dawn > hates him now. But does Dawn hate him...she just seemed upset that Buffy hadn't told her about the attempted rape. I vote for Spike being human...they've done the vampire with a soul bit already (and mocked it quite well in Tabula Rasa) On to some comments about the finale and the season in general. THE FINALE: I liked it, I spent last night glued to the edge of my seat, but on reflection I didn't love it. The elements were all there but they didn't come together as well as I would have liked. The Giles/Xander deus ex machina worked for me last night, but the more I think about it, the more contrived it seems. And why on earth did Giles and Buffy leave Anya alone with evilWillow? However, it occurs to me that the season finale is not just the end of the season, it's also essentially the prologue to the next season, the menace is over but we won't be dealing with the repercussions until September or October. So here we are again left with plenty of loose ends to play with until next fall. THE SEASON AS A WHOLE: I enjoyed it, but then I enjoy character torture, and there was plenty of that. The only episode I disliked this year was DoubleMeat Palace, and that could be because I made the mistake of trying to eat dinner the first time I watched it. I even liked As You Were, mainly because Sam's perfection was enough to make me hate her. This season had me doing something I'd given up the last few years...watching episodes again the same week they first aired. I won't say everything worked all the time; I never expect it to, but for the most part it resonated with me in a way that most of season 4 never did. I'm looking forward to next year. To put it in mythic terms, our heroes (and I'm including Spike) have emerged from their journey through the dark places into the light, but they've come back changed and I want to see what happens next. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY - Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:28:41 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: b/two hours of This I think was the fault of it being two > hours long, and it was exactly the same problem with the season premiere, > which was also two hours long. I believe the problem is that, if you spend > enough time writing one-hour TV drama episodes, you tend to think in terms > of one-hour TV drama episodes, and if you try to write a two-hour episode, > you tend to write a one-hour episode spun out to two hours, Just to clarify things here. Each hour was written by a different person, and directed by different people. Different titles too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:38:10 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/two hours of At 02:28 PM 5/22/2002 , Marty wrote: >Just to clarify things here. Each hour was written by a different person, >and directed by different people. Different titles too. Whatever. It functioned as a two-hour episode, not as a two-parter with both parts in a row. Not that actual two-parters don't sometimes suffer from the problems I've described too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:51:55 -0400 From: Robert Stacy Subject: Re: b/two hours of GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > > BTW, Spike > > Some-one was found wor-thy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:26:20 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/two hours of In a message dated 5/22/02 11:09:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes: << what I referred to as "Big flashy boring battle after big flashy boring battle". This I think was the fault of it being two hours long, it's fight for fight's sake. >> Definitely agree with that. Excessive fight scenes get boring and repetitious to me (I had the same prob with Lord of the Rings movie) but I figure I must be in the minority -- after all, video games that are pretty much nothing =but= fight scenes, and scarcely more plot than a porno movie, seem to be pretty popular. >And I >thought it worked thematically as a bridge between the dark tone of this >season and the presumably lighter tone of next season. If you're talking about the humorous parts ... the quality of BTVS has always lain in the elegant mixture of horror and humor. Not this time. Mixed like oil and water. Stuck out like sore thumbs. Lay there like lead balloons. Pick your metaphor. >> No, I'm not talking about the humorous parts (don't really remember any, actually). I'm talking about the ep as a thematic bridge between the dark tone of this season and the lighter tone of next season -- exactly what I said. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:30:45 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/finale From: "Marta Grabien" > > Spoiler space > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big question for me: Is Spike human again or yet > > another vampire with a soul? > > "I want to give Buffy what she wants"....Stay tuned. (g) And from "Tabula Rasa," "A vampire with a soul -- how lame is that?" said Randy/Spike. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:52:29 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: A/Tomorrow Nobody's said anything much about the Angel season finale so S P O I L E R S P A C E Is Charisma Carpenter planning on leaving the show? I did an online search yesterday and couldn't find any real information. She evidently did just do a (bad) movie, which could explain her several-weeks' absence while her character was vacationing with Groo. I don't know how they can continue her character as a regular now that she's a higher being. Of course, a sappy romance with Angel is out, too. Best moment of the show: Fred jabbing Angel with a pokey object, saying "Not too happy? Not too happy!" I had problems with this episode like David did with Buffy. Cordy calls Angel and asks him to meet her at this place in an hour. It can't be more than an hour's drive, but it's far enough away that she gets caught in traffic and worries about being late. Conner manages to show up minutes after Angel. He got there how? Okay, let's say he got Justine on the horn immediately (although we haven't seen him use a phone) and had her pick him up and drive him, drop him off and meet him. Okay, I can go along with that. What I can't go along with is her doing that and also having that coffin-thing all set up with welding torch and everything ready to go. Wasn't this the same night that Holtz had died? When would they have had it prepared? It wasn't in the back of her truck when they disposed of Holtz's body. And it looked rather heavy for one person to hoist around, either to load it into the truck or unload it while Conner was fighting with Angel. The whole set up didn't make sense to me. They couldn't know that Cordy was going to ask Angel to meet her or that she was going to be delayed/waylaid. (And if she'd shown up on time, would they have killed her? Could they have?) Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:20:16 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: A/Tomorrow At the Buffy dinner last night we were saying the same thing. Fred and Gunn show, I don't think so. Someone said Carpenter just got married and may be pregnant. That was a pretty loose (and oh so convenient) white dress. > Nobody's said anything much about the Angel season finale so > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > > Is Charisma Carpenter planning on leaving the show? I did an online search > yesterday and couldn't find any real information. She evidently did just do a > (bad) movie, which could explain her several-weeks' absence while her > character was vacationing with Groo. > > I don't know how they can continue her character as a regular now that she's a > higher being. Of course, a sappy romance with Angel is out, too. > > Best moment of the show: Fred jabbing Angel with a pokey object, saying "Not > too happy? Not too happy!" > > I had problems with this episode like David did with Buffy. Cordy calls Angel > and asks him to meet her at this place in an hour. It can't be more than an > hour's drive, but it's far enough away that she gets caught in traffic and > worries about being late. Conner manages to show up minutes after Angel. He > got there how? Okay, let's say he got Justine on the horn immediately > (although we haven't seen him use a phone) and had her pick him up and drive > him, drop him off and meet him. Okay, I can go along with that. What I can't > go along with is her doing that and also having that coffin-thing all set up > with welding torch and everything ready to go. Wasn't this the same night > that Holtz had died? When would they have had it prepared? > It wasn't in the back of her truck when they disposed of Holtz's body. And it > looked rather heavy for one person to hoist around, either to load it into the > truck or unload it while Conner was fighting with Angel. > > The whole set up didn't make sense to me. They couldn't know that Cordy was > going to ask Angel to meet her or that she was going to be delayed/waylaid. > (And if she'd shown up on time, would they have killed her? Could they > have?) > > Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:03:28 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: b/two hours of On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:09:56AM -0700, David S. Bratman wrote: > Two, the longeurs, what I referred to as "Big flashy boring battle after > big flashy boring battle". This I think was the fault of it being two > hours long, and it was exactly the same problem with the season premiere, > which was also two hours long. I believe the problem is that, if you spend > enough time writing one-hour TV drama episodes, you tend to think in terms > of one-hour TV drama episodes, and if you try to write a two-hour episode, > you tend to write a one-hour episode spun out to two hours, with the extra > time filled with tedious extraneous and repetitive scenes. On the contrary, it seemed pretty obvoius to me, and is, in looking back, in line with what I'd heard about the planning, that what we had was indeed two distinct hours, planned as such and joined into a single presentation fairly late in the game. The first episode ended with the hard cut after Giles appeared. I'm confident that they will be shown this way in syndication. - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt/ http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:29:28 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/two hours of At 09:03 PM 5/22/2002 , Joseph wrote: >On the contrary, it seemed pretty obvoius to me, and is, in looking >back, in line with what I'd heard about the planning, that what we had >was indeed two distinct hours, planned as such and joined into a >single presentation fairly late in the game. I doubt that, for the simple reason that there's never been a single one-hour episode of BTVS as empty as either half of Tuesday's monstrosity. Not one. So why did they join it up, then? Perhaps that's why - not consciously realizing it was thin, of course, but more generally finding that it only worked put together. Or perhaps they originally constructed it together, separated it, put it back together. Or rewrote the script after putting it together. Whatever. The two-hour premiere had the same problem, and when one sees exactly the same problem in a two-hour finale, a kind of problem that doesn't occur in long stories split over separate nights, you've got to know that, however the two-hour show came to be, that's the nature of the problem - that they don't know how to write a two-hour show. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #76 ****************************