FLM films - My Webpage

2003-08-30 10:39:33-07:00 - New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


http://www.slayage.com/ 28Aug03 : New Angel Season 5 Promotional Posters? Yeah right! Hell will freezes over the minute the WB spend their money to promote other characters. They look like a fan made stuff to me. And it's sad to know that some fans have to do this kind of thing all by themselves these days in order to promote their favourite character. Whatever happen to the time when it's the network who has to entice the fans to watch the show?

2003-08-31 18:54:28-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (ksins5@hotmail.com)


> Yeah right! Hell will freezes over the minute the WB spend their > money to promote other characters. They look like a fan made stuff to > me. And it's sad to know that some fans have to do this kind of thing > all by themselves these days in order to promote their favourite > character. Whatever happen to the time when it's the network who has > to entice the fans to watch the show? Don't be so negative. No one has confirmed or deny if the posters are real or fake. I'm not a graphic designer so I can't tell the difference. But they look pretty okay to me. CSinclair

2003-09-01 08:41:57+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (mike7883uk@aol.com)


they dont look fan to me.... little bit too convincing... dont be so :(

2003-09-01 17:05:15-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (reldevik@usa.net)


ksins5@hotmail.com (CSinclair) wrote in message news:<e1a3dcc6.0308311754.56da1f9a@posting.google.com>... > > Yeah right! Hell will freezes over the minute the WB spend their > > money to promote other characters. They look like a fan made stuff to > > me. And it's sad to know that some fans have to do this kind of thing > > all by themselves these days in order to promote their favourite > > character. Whatever happen to the time when it's the network who has > > to entice the fans to watch the show? > > Don't be so negative. No one has confirmed or deny if the posters are > real or fake. --I can't get to a view of the poster from the link provided, but is it the poster with Spike's profile superimposed on Angel's full face, and the words A N G S P I K E L and "What LA needs is a little touch of Sunnydale" (or something like that) on it? If so, its authenticity has been confirmed. People I know who went to the San Diego ComicCon reported that the WB was giving away these posters there. The WB had them made. I don't see why it's anything to get upset about, however. Pretty effective promotional device if you ask me. Clairel

2003-09-01 19:50:03-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On 1 Sep 2003 17:05:15 -0700, reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote: >ksins5@hotmail.com (CSinclair) wrote in message news:<e1a3dcc6.0308311754.56da1f9a@posting.google.com>... >> > Yeah right! Hell will freezes over the minute the WB spend their >> > money to promote other characters. They look like a fan made stuff to >> > me. And it's sad to know that some fans have to do this kind of thing >> > all by themselves these days in order to promote their favourite >> > character. Whatever happen to the time when it's the network who has >> > to entice the fans to watch the show? >> >> Don't be so negative. No one has confirmed or deny if the posters are >> real or fake. > >--I can't get to a view of the poster from the link provided, but is >it the poster with Spike's profile superimposed on Angel's full face, >and the words > A > > N > > G > >S P I K E > > L > >and "What LA needs is a little touch of Sunnydale" (or something like >that) on it? If so, its authenticity has been confirmed. People I >know who went to the San Diego ComicCon reported that the WB was >giving away these posters there. The WB had them made. > >I don't see why it's anything to get upset about, however. Pretty >effective promotional device if you ask me. There are two posters, both of them the same layout as the Angel-Spike poster (both of them are probably photoshopped from that poster. One of them has G U N A N G E L (with guess who replacing Marsters in the picture) and the other has W E S L A N G E L Y with the appropriate replacement photo -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-09-01 19:58:03+02:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Michael Dracon <MichaelDracon@hotmail.com>)


Daniel Garten wrote: > http://www.slayage.com/ > > 28Aug03 : New Angel Season 5 Promotional Posters? > > Yeah right! Hell will freezes over the minute the WB spend their > money to promote other characters. They look like a fan made stuff to > me. And it's sad to know that some fans have to do this kind of thing > all by themselves these days in order to promote their favourite > character. Whatever happen to the time when it's the network who has > to entice the fans to watch the show? Looks pretty good to me, and they can do it with the E in any other character's name as well: spikE (already done!) lornE charlEs frEd

2003-09-01 21:52:19-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (himiko@animail.net)


snds15@cs.com (Snds15) wrote in message news:<20030901224158.14517.00000409@mb-m12.news.cs.com>... > The Spike poster was real; but those with Gunn and Wes and Fred are supposedly > fan-made. There's also one with Angel and Buffy (no overlapping letters) drifting around. Clearly fan made, although quite well done. > > But they are quite well-done, imo. > (And I don't see why it's any worse for a fan to create a poster than to do > wallpaper.) Well, technically, neither is legal, but I honestly don't see that this sort of thing does any harm to anyone. himiko

2003-09-02 02:05:56-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309011605.27a503f4@posting.google.com>... > I don't see why it's anything to get upset about, however. Pretty > effective promotional device if you ask me. It's to get upset about because WB makes it seem like other cast members are unimportant to the point that their picture is as small as a stamp. And there's also fear that this may reflect in the actual show because of the network's pressure. I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong if those new posters featuring Wes and Gunn turned out to be real. But like I said, I doubt it and that's why it's sad that some fans out there have to do this kind of thing to promote their favourite character because the network can't be bother to do so.

2003-09-02 02:41:58+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (snds15@cs.com)


>Subject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! >From: reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) >Date: 9/1/2003 8:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time >Message-id: <1faed770.0309011605.27a503f4@posting.google.com> > > >--I can't get to a view of the poster from the link provided, but is >it the poster with Spike's profile superimposed on Angel's full face, >and the words > > A > > N > > G > >S P I K E > > L > >and "What LA needs is a little touch of Sunnydale" (or something like >that) on it? If so, its authenticity has been confirmed. People I >know who went to the San Diego ComicCon reported that the WB was >giving away these posters there. The WB had them made. > >I don't see why it's anything to get upset about, however. Pretty >effective promotional device if you ask me. > >Clairel > > > > > > The Spike poster was real; but those with Gunn and Wes and Fred are supposedly fan-made. But they are quite well-done, imo. (And I don't see why it's any worse for a fan to create a poster than to do wallpaper.) Sandra

2003-09-04 11:05:10-04:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com>)


"Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message news:49cf8df3.0309020105.49cd6dfa@posting.google.com... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309011605.27a503f4@posting.google.com>... > > > I don't see why it's anything to get upset about, however. Pretty > > effective promotional device if you ask me. > > It's to get upset about because WB makes it seem like other cast > members are unimportant to the point that their picture is as small as > a stamp. And there's also fear that this may reflect in the actual > show because of the network's pressure. I'll gladly admit that I'm > wrong if those new posters featuring Wes and Gunn turned out to be > real. But like I said, I doubt it and that's why it's sad that some > fans out there have to do this kind of thing to promote their > favourite character because the network can't be bother to do so. It's not about promoting a _favorite_ character. It's about promoting a _new_ character to the series that would draw in fans. I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. Arnold Kim

2003-09-04 16:59:48+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! >From: "Arnold Kim" kim5@erols.com >Date: 9/4/2003 8:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net> > > >"Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message >news:49cf8df3.0309020105.49cd6dfa@posting.google.com... >> reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message >news:<1faed770.0309011605.27a503f4@posting.google.com>... >> >> > I don't see why it's anything to get upset about, however. Pretty >> > effective promotional device if you ask me. >> >> It's to get upset about because WB makes it seem like other cast >> members are unimportant to the point that their picture is as small as >> a stamp. And there's also fear that this may reflect in the actual >> show because of the network's pressure. I'll gladly admit that I'm >> wrong if those new posters featuring Wes and Gunn turned out to be >> real. But like I said, I doubt it and that's why it's sad that some >> fans out there have to do this kind of thing to promote their >> favourite character because the network can't be bother to do so. > >It's not about promoting a _favorite_ character. It's about promoting a >_new_ character to the series that would draw in fans. > >I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ >Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. > >Arnold Kim > And letting fans know that Spike isn't permanently dead. Like I said, the fact that McDonalds has ads featuring its new salads, without any photos of its Big Macs, doesn't mean that Big Macs are no longer important. They need to do ads emphasizing the new feature in order to make it plain that the new feature has arrived. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-04 20:32:11-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message news:<bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ > Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. It's hard to believe that will be the case considering the sort of spoilers that has come out thus far. So far episode 2, 4 are Spike-centric episodes while episode 3 carries over Spike's arc from ep.2 in the form of Fred trying to help him.

2003-09-05 09:10:02-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309041932.6878ce33@posting.google.com>... > "Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message news:<bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ > > Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. > > It's hard to believe that will be the case considering the sort of > spoilers that has come out thus far. So far episode 2, 4 are > Spike-centric episodes while episode 3 carries over Spike's arc from > ep.2 in the form of Fred trying to help him. Well, they will need to show people who the hell he is. Also, episode 5 is Lorne-centric and all Spike does is play with a swizzle stick...what?

2003-09-05 17:21:40+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>ubject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 9/4/2003 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309041932.6878ce33@posting.google.com> > >"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message >news:<bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > >> I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ >> Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. > >It's hard to believe that will be the case considering the sort of >spoilers that has come out thus far. So far episode 2, 4 are >Spike-centric episodes while episode 3 carries over Spike's arc from >ep.2 in the form of Fred trying to help him. > Are you aware that James decided to take time off to do a movie? I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the eps shot during his movie shoot will be Spike-light, as his scenes will all be shot ahead of time and really, how much screen time could they cram into advance shoots? It's possible the Spike-heavy nature of the first month of episodes is due to the fact that he won't be a strong presence for several episodes after that. If the show continues to be Spike heavy after James gets back from Italy, then I think you'll have reason to worry. But right now, there is still room for hope. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-06 00:12:24-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (awilliamsaus@netscape.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308300939.189bd6b7@posting.google.com>... > http://www.slayage.com/ > > 28Aug03 : New Angel Season 5 Promotional Posters? Those are some nice poster. But did anyone manage to get the PDF files? If they do, can they please send it to me? It'll be much appreciated. anna

2003-09-06 03:28:15-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030905132140.14300.00000430@mb-m12.aol.com>... > >ubject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! > >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) > >Date: 9/4/2003 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309041932.6878ce33@posting.google.com> > > > >"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message > >news:<bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > >> I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ > >> Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. > > > >It's hard to believe that will be the case considering the sort of > >spoilers that has come out thus far. So far episode 2, 4 are > >Spike-centric episodes while episode 3 carries over Spike's arc from > >ep.2 in the form of Fred trying to help him. > > > > Are you aware that James decided to take time off to do a movie? I could be > wrong, but I have a feeling that the eps shot during his movie shoot will be > Spike-light, as his scenes will all be shot ahead of time and really, how much > screen time could they cram into advance shoots? I'm very aware of that and at first I accept it because of this. Then I heard that James is not going until late October after all and the writers will then upped Spike's appearance on other episodes accordingly. After that, whatever patience I had left was just non-existant anymore. Other characters like Wes, Gunn, and Fred haven't got any stories whatsoever. Fred's story was somehow tied to Spike so therefore it's not really about her. Gunn's story was only mentioned for 5 minutes in the first episode and lightly mentioned in ep.3 only to never be mention again. Wes...well, is he even on the show anymore? Because I honestly can't tell lately. > It's possible the Spike-heavy > nature of the first month of episodes is due to the fact that he won't be a > strong presence for several episodes after that. That's what I thought too. But as I mentioned in the above, that's not the case. Also, I think it's kind of poor way of doing it. At the start of the season, non-Spike fans are going to think that the other characters are shafted. And then if the other characters do finally get their character-centric episode, Spike fans are going to complain that Spike is ignored (even though he got a juicy 2 character centric episode already and a rather good arc of becoming corporeal). > If the show continues to be Spike heavy after James gets back from Italy, then > I think you'll have reason to worry. But right now, there is still room for > hope. After S7, I have all reasons to be worried since the characters who don't get any arc at the start still don't get any at the end. I am also worried because the media and ME keep mentioning the whole A/B/S as if it will be a major feature of the show after the first sweep of the season. Which eliminates any hope that other regulars will get a good story since it'll be Love triangle du jour from then on. If other characters don't get their story at the start of the season and not after the first sweeps (and forget about sweeps since that'll be guest star heavy), the only time they'll get story is the short amount of time (2-3 episode tops) when James is away shooting his film. 2-3 episodes are not enough time to serve 4 characters even a stand alone story. Let alone an arc that goes beyond an episode.

2003-09-06 22:57:04-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (wolviegrl@yahoo.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0308300939.189bd6b7@posting.google.com>... > http://www.slayage.com/ > > 28Aug03 : New Angel Season 5 Promotional Posters? > > Yeah right! Hell will freezes over the minute the WB spend their > money to promote other characters. They look like a fan made stuff to > me. And it's sad to know that some fans have to do this kind of thing > all by themselves these days in order to promote their favourite > character. Whatever happen to the time when it's the network who has > to entice the fans to watch the show? I emailed the WB to ask them about this poster. So far I've received no answer. ------------------------------ wolviegirl

2003-09-07 19:31:52-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


wolviegrl@yahoo.com (wolviegirl) wrote in message news:<c6538ff6.0309062157.5007b19b@posting.google.com>... > I emailed the WB to ask them about this poster. So far I've received no answer. If you don't mind me asking, what's their email address?

2003-09-08 08:34:11-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309060228.6a564529@posting.google.com>... > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030905132140.14300.00000430@mb-m12.aol.com>... > > >ubject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! > > >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) > > >Date: 9/4/2003 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time > > >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309041932.6878ce33@posting.google.com> > > > > > >"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message > > >news:<bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > >> I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ > > >> Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. > > > > > >It's hard to believe that will be the case considering the sort of > > >spoilers that has come out thus far. So far episode 2, 4 are > > >Spike-centric episodes while episode 3 carries over Spike's arc from > > >ep.2 in the form of Fred trying to help him. > > > > > If one thinks about it with reason instead of making all the assumptions, one may realise that many do not know who Spike is (or at least about his soul). It is the beginning of the season only. Also, was it last year or the year before where Wes was hardly in the beginning episodes but played a huge part later? > > Are you aware that James decided to take time off to do a movie? I could be > > wrong, but I have a feeling that the eps shot during his movie shoot will be > > Spike-light, as his scenes will all be shot ahead of time and really, how much > > screen time could they cram into advance shoots? > > I'm very aware of that and at first I accept it because of this. Then > I heard that James is not going until late October after all and the > writers will then upped Spike's appearance on other episodes > accordingly. After that, whatever patience I had left was just > non-existant anymore. Other characters like Wes, Gunn, and Fred > haven't got any stories whatsoever. Lorne. Remeber Lorne? Well, the 5th episode is Lorne centric. > Fred's story was somehow tied to > Spike so therefore it's not really about her. Gunn's story was only > mentioned for 5 minutes in the first episode and lightly mentioned in > ep.3 only to never be mention again. Wes...well, is he even on the > show anymore? Because I honestly can't tell lately. This is only the beginning for ******sakes. > > > It's possible the Spike-heavy > > nature of the first month of episodes is due to the fact that he won't be a > > strong presence for several episodes after that. > > That's what I thought too. But as I mentioned in the above, that's > not the case. Also, I think it's kind of poor way of doing it. At > the start of the season, non-Spike fans are going to think that the > other characters are shafted. And then if the other characters do > finally get their character-centric episode, Spike fans are going to > complain that Spike is ignored (even though he got a juicy 2 character > centric episode already and a rather good arc of becoming corporeal). > > > If the show continues to be Spike heavy after James gets back from Italy, then > > I think you'll have reason to worry. But right now, there is still room for > > hope. James said he might miss one or two episodes completely. > After S7, I have all reasons to be worried since the characters who > don't get any arc at the start still don't get any at the end. If they bring in a bunch of damn S.I.T.s, make one character's arc turn into her relationship with her girlfriend instead of her problem (I'm talking about how they did with Willow) then I'll get worried, too. > I am > also worried because the media and ME keep mentioning the whole A/B/S > as if it will be a major feature of the show after the first sweep of > the season. Which eliminates any hope that other regulars will get a > good story since it'll be Love triangle du jour from then on. PLEASE no triangles!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we should start a letter writting thing about no triangles. I mean, it may be a little inevidable, but I (and many others) don't want to see it draaaaaged ooooooooooon. > If > other characters don't get their story at the start of the season and > not after the first sweeps (and forget about sweeps since that'll be > guest star heavy), the only time they'll get story is the short amount > of time (2-3 episode tops) when James is away shooting his film. 2-3 > episodes are not enough time to serve 4 characters even a stand alone > story. Let alone an arc that goes beyond an episode. We'll have to wait and see. The summerys and spoilers are only up to the 5th episode, anyway, which seems to be a two-parter.

2003-09-08 16:53:16+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! >From: colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) >Date: 9/8/2003 8:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <d2a3b54c.0309080734.4387ba10@posting.google.com> >> >> I'm very aware of that and at first I accept it because of this. Then >> I heard that James is not going until late >>October after all When and where did you hear this? >>and the >> writers will then upped Spike's appearance on other episodes >> accordingly. If they're upping it from "almost nothing" to "ensemble player" that should be okay. >>After that, whatever patience I had left was just >> non-existant anymore. Other characters like Wes, Gunn, and Fred >> haven't got any stories whatsoever. Who gets stories in the first episode, in which Spike doesn't appear until the last second? > > Lorne. Remeber Lorne? Well, the 5th >episode is Lorne centric. Bleh. Nothing against the character, but he should be salt on the food, not the main course or even a side dish. The 5th episode should be Wes-centric, or even Gunn-Centric, not Lorne-centric. >> Fred's story was somehow tied to >> Spike so therefore it's not really about >her. We'll see. >Gunn's story was only >> mentioned for 5 minutes in the first episode and lightly mentioned in >> ep.3 only to never be mention again. Gunn has always gotten short shrift. I hate to admit this but I think that his role on Angel has always been to provide an ethnic mix to the cast, and they've never really committed themselves to his character. Which is dumb...Principal Wood provides proof that you can have a juicy role for a nonwhite character on an Angelverse show. I have a feeling that Wes, if anyone, is the one whose screen time will suffer due to Spike. That would be a pity. I think Alexis Denisof and James Marsters could do outstanding work together. >Wes...well, is he even on the >> show anymore? Because I honestly can't tell lately. > I think most Angel fans would be sorry to see his screen time cut, and that includes Spike fans. Spike redemptionists, from what I see, tend to love Wesley. I think some Spike fans would love to see a series focusing on Spike and Wesley. IMO, cutting back on Wesley to make room for Spike would be a huge mistake in terms of ratings. Wes is quite a draw, if fanfic sites are any indication. Men think he's cool now that he has James Bond skills and woman faint over him. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-08 20:00:26-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030908125316.22044.00000612@mb-m04.aol.com>... > When and where did you hear this? It's been known by many Spike-related boards. Also, check one of Clairel's post. I remember reading her mentioning it once. > If they're upping it from "almost nothing" to "ensemble player" that should be > okay. What do you mean from "almost nothing"? He already got two episodes all to himself. I want integration not shoving down my throat type of introduction. > Who gets stories in the first episode, in which Spike doesn't appear until the > last second? No one really. Or rather a side character name Fries. The first episode is more about setting up Eve and the situation that Angel and the gang are in after joining W&H (many W&H employees apparently don't like them). Gunn get 5 minutes to kickstart his arc but other than that, it's MOTW all the way. > We'll see. Let's just say it won't focus on her as in "Shiny Happy People" or "The Magic Bullet". > Gunn has always gotten short shrift. I hate to admit this but I think that his > role on Angel has always been to provide an ethnic mix to the cast, and they've > never really committed themselves to his character. Well, I should have known when Joss said that this will be the year of Gunn, that's not a good sign. > I have a feeling that Wes, if anyone, is the one whose screen time will suffer > due to Spike. Like that's not obvious already from the first 5 episodes. He'll be lucky if he gets a one episode story. But an arc that extends beyond an episode? Forget about it. And watch as the writers slowly giving Wes' role as Angel's best friend and confidante to Spike just like they did to Willow when it comes to her being Buffy's best friend.

2003-09-08 20:17:28-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309080734.4387ba10@posting.google.com>... > If one thinks about it with reason instead of making all the > assumptions, one may realise that many do not know who Spike is (or at > least about his soul). And many also don't know about why Angel and the gang decided to join W&H or what they assume they know about what happened prior to them joining the firm (due to the mindwipe), or for that matter, what each individual members of AI think about their involvement in W&H. But do we get any of that so that new viewers can catch up with the show? No. All we get is a series of victim of the weeks and an arc about Spike needing to become corporeal. Because the rest of the gang just don't matter anymore. > It is the beginning of the season only. And it's the best time to laid out all of the season's arc. That's what they did last season. Yes, I know this season is supposed to be more MOTW but that doesn't mean there can't be an underlying arc for each character which gets to be explored as they explored the MOTW. > Also, > was it last year or the year before where Wes was hardly in the > beginning episodes but played a huge part later? Not really. While Wes was hardly in the beginning of the episodes, his arc as well as that of Connor's, Cordy's, Gunn's, Fred's, and Angel's were set up neatly right from the first/second episode. This season? Zilp, zilch for him. > This is only the beginning for ******sakes. Yeah, I've heard that the first time around. Weren't you and other Spike fans were moaning back in S7 BTVS when Spike was in the basement and doing nothing? And now I'm moaning about the fact that other characters haven't got any story and you have the galls of telling me that this is only the beginning? > James said he might miss one or two episodes completely. What's that got to do with anything? Him missing one or two episodes doesn't mean that other characters will get their time because James only play 1 character and there are 5 other characters to service. 2 episodes (and that's assuming it won't be MOTW type of episodes) are not enough to service 5 characters. > If they bring in a bunch of damn S.I.T.s, make one character's arc > turn into her relationship with her girlfriend instead of her problem > (I'm talking about how they did with Willow) then I'll get worried, > too. What do you call those MOTW's victim/villain of the weeks? They are the replacement for SITs. And at the rate Wes and Gunn not having any interesting storyline, they may surpass Willow as far as getting the shaft in character development. > We'll have to wait and see. The summerys and spoilers are only up to > the 5th episode, anyway, which seems to be a two-parter. What seems to be a two-parter? Nothing in the first five episodes suggest that any of them are two parter. Spike's story is overarching for more than one episode. But that's not what I call a two-parter. I call that an arc. He's got an arc, other characters don't.

2003-09-08 22:36:52-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309081900.17913642@posting.google.com>... > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030908125316.22044.00000612@mb-m04.aol.com>... > > > When and where did you hear this? > > It's been known by many Spike-related boards. Also, check one of > Clairel's post. I remember reading her mentioning it once. You go to Spike Boards? > > If they're upping it from "almost nothing" to "ensemble player" that should be > > okay. > > What do you mean from "almost nothing"? He already got two episodes > all to himself. I want integration not shoving down my throat type of > introduction. People in Hell want ice water. The thing is, there are people who have no idea what the hell is going on with Spike and they have to show what the hell is going on with him otherwise those people will be going "what the hell?", aaaiiight? > > Who gets stories in the first episode, in which Spike doesn't appear until the > > last second? > > No one really. Or rather a side character name Fries. The first > episode is more about setting up Eve and the situation that Angel and > the gang are in after joining W&H (many W&H employees apparently don't > like them). Gunn get 5 minutes to kickstart his arc but other than > that, it's MOTW all the way. > > > We'll see. > > Let's just say it won't focus on her as in "Shiny Happy People" or > "The Magic Bullet". > > > Gunn has always gotten short shrift. I hate to admit this but I think that his > > role on Angel has always been to provide an ethnic mix to the cast, and they've > > never really committed themselves to his character. > > Well, I should have known when Joss said that this will be the year of > Gunn, that's not a good sign. I have heard stuff about alot of Gunn story lines, too. > > I have a feeling that Wes, if anyone, is the one whose screen time will suffer > > due to Spike. > > Like that's not obvious already from the first 5 episodes. He'll be > lucky if he gets a one episode story. But an arc that extends beyond > an episode? Forget about it. And watch as the writers slowly giving > Wes' role as Angel's best friend and confidante to Spike just like > they did to Willow when it comes to her being Buffy's best friend. Wes harldy had anything in the first episodes in past season(s), either. Also, his story was really about Lilah (who seems to be gone) or kidnapping Conner (who got killed and given a new life by Angel) or taking over during the whole Angelus thing (and he is gone...sort of). They may have to think of something new for him. As I don't see Angel and Spike becomming total buddies, they do have quite a history and that is important and cannot be negated. Oh, and Willow, soul and all, really messed up during season 6 with the trying to kill everybody, end the world, and putting Dawn in danger and all. I am not suprised that the writers didn't just totaly throw them back into being tight again. Especialy since Willow was so focused on her girlfriend.

2003-09-09 01:33:18-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (ksins5@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309081900.17913642@posting.google.com>... > Like that's not obvious already from the first 5 episodes. He'll be > lucky if he gets a one episode story. But an arc that extends beyond > an episode? Forget about it. And watch as the writers slowly giving > Wes' role as Angel's best friend and confidante to Spike just like > they did to Willow when it comes to her being Buffy's best friend. Well, I hope that's not going to happen. I didn't like it when they did it to Willow (even though I can understand why). I feel that Angel needs a close human friend and since Cordelia can't provide that now, I feel that Wes is the closest human available to Angel. I do have to admit that the lack of Wes in these early spoilers are rather upsetting. I hope it'll change as the season progresses.

2003-09-09 01:46:08-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (ksins5@hotmail.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309082136.3ad413b2@posting.google.com>... > Wes harldy had anything in the first episodes in past season(s), > either. Wes played a major role in "Deep Down" getting Angel away from the box under the sea and as the informant who keeps helping them from time to time in early S4 episodes. In season 3, his arc was strongly hinted at in "Heartthrob" (with his obsession for Fred). > Also, his story was really about Lilah (who seems to be gone) > or kidnapping Conner (who got killed and given a new life by Angel) or > taking over during the whole Angelus thing (and he is gone...sort of). > They may have to think of something new for him. Eh? Have you been watching the same show as I have? I disagree that Wes' story was really about Lilah or Connor. It focused mainly on Wes and his willingness to descent to darkness, his depression at losing his friends, his reluctant alliance with them, etc. I know that you like Spike but that's not a reason to trash other character by saying that Wes story was really not about him all of these times. CSinclair

2003-09-09 09:00:05-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


ksins5@hotmail.com (CSinclair) wrote in message news:<e1a3dcc6.0309090046.598abb11@posting.google.com>... > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309082136.3ad413b2@posting.google.com>... > > > Wes harldy had anything in the first episodes in past season(s), > > either. > > Wes played a major role in "Deep Down" getting Angel away from the box > under the sea and as the informant who keeps helping them from time to > time in early S4 episodes. In season 3, his arc was strongly hinted > at in "Heartthrob" (with his obsession for Fred). Maybe we will get a hint here when we see it. Although it has been implied by Joss and JAR that he will be very focused on this upcomming season. Maybe they focus on him more since they never realy did. > > Also, his story was really about Lilah (who seems to be gone) > > or kidnapping Conner (who got killed and given a new life by Angel) or > > taking over during the whole Angelus thing (and he is gone...sort of). > > They may have to think of something new for him. > > Eh? Have you been watching the same show as I have? I disagree that > Wes' story was really about Lilah or Connor. It focused mainly on Wes > and his willingness to descent to darkness, his depression at losing > his friends, his reluctant alliance with them, etc. I know that you > like Spike but that's not a reason to trash other character by saying > that Wes story was really not about him all of these times. All I meant was that when it comes to other characters, that is who he realy was dealing with and seemed to be a thing in his willingness to descent into darkness. I am not "trashing" him, nor does anything I say about him have to do with me liking Spike. Damn. I am just saying they will have to associate his darkness with something else now that Lilah and Conner are gone. > CSinclair

2003-09-09 09:33:31-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309081917.5c1efa78@posting.google.com>... > colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309080734.4387ba10@posting.google.com>... > > > If one thinks about it with reason instead of making all the > > assumptions, one may realise that many do not know who Spike is (or at > > least about his soul). > > And many also don't know about why Angel and the gang decided to join > W&H or what they assume they know about what happened prior to them > joining the firm (due to the mindwipe), or for that matter, what each > individual members of AI think about their involvement in W&H. Well, it is alot easier to tell the audience who a character is within the first episodes than to go over what each and every character thinks about joining W&H. It has to be established who the hell the character is otherwise people will be very lost when it comes to him. > But do > we get any of that so that new viewers can catch up with the show? > No. Wow. I only saw summerys for 5 episodes. > All we get is a series of victim of the weeks Glad to see you are not blaiming Spike for that one...but I may have spoken too soon. > and an arc about > Spike needing to become corporeal. ...so far. It needs to be established why the hell Spike is there. New audience members nee to know that he was not always there. > Because the rest of the gang just > don't matter anymore. *plays a violin* Right. I guess you saw the whole season then. > > It is the beginning of the season only. > > And it's the best time to laid out all of the season's arc. That's > what they did last season. Yes, I know this season is supposed to be > more MOTW but that doesn't mean there can't be an underlying arc for > each character which gets to be explored as they explored the MOTW. Well, if you look deeper than just "hey, Spike is here" then maybe you will see that Gunn has something going on with that law thing and that cat. They all seem to have protective issues with Fred. > > Also, > > was it last year or the year before where Wes was hardly in the > > beginning episodes but played a huge part later? > > Not really. While Wes was hardly in the beginning of the episodes, > his arc as well as that of Connor's, Cordy's, Gunn's, Fred's, and > Angel's were set up neatly right from the first/second episode. This > season? Zilp, zilch for him. ...but there is something for Gunn and Lorne so far. Maybe it is there turn. The previous season(s) focused on Wes alot, maybe Gunn and Lorne will get some now. > > This is only the beginning for ******sakes. > > Yeah, I've heard that the first time around. Weren't you and other > Spike fans were moaning back in S7 BTVS when Spike was in the basement > and doing nothing? And now I'm moaning about the fact that other > characters haven't got any story and you have the galls of telling me > that this is only the beginning? Great. More stereotyping. Well, at least I didn't get called a name. Anyway, I wasn't even posting on the damn computer when all that was happening. I didn't realy go on it that much till right beofre the middle of the season and I never became active on it till after the whole show was over and the computer was finaly fixed so lay the hell off. > > James said he might miss one or two episodes completely. > > What's that got to do with anything? Gee. Just thought I'd throw that in. All apologies. > Him missing one or two episodes > doesn't mean that other characters will get their time because James > only play 1 character and there are 5 other characters to service. 2 > episodes (and that's assuming it won't be MOTW type of episodes) are > not enough to service 5 characters. ...because it is all up to James if the writer make it MOTW? > > If they bring in a bunch of damn S.I.T.s, make one character's arc > > turn into her relationship with her girlfriend instead of her problem > > (I'm talking about how they did with Willow) then I'll get worried, > > too. > > What do you call those MOTW's victim/villain of the weeks? They are > the replacement for SITs. I'll judge that for myself, thanx. > And at the rate Wes and Gunn not having any > interesting storyline, they may surpass Willow as far as getting the > shaft in character development. Hopfuly they won't do to Wes and Gunn what they did to Willow in season 6. > > We'll have to wait and see. The summerys and spoilers are only up to > > the 5th episode, anyway, which seems to be a two-parter. > > What seems to be a two-parter? Episode 5, the Lorne centric one, seems to be the beginning of a 2 parter or at least one of those that have the next episode picking up where the last one left off. Hey, I may be wrong. > Nothing in the first five episodes > suggest that any of them are two parter. I 'll go pver it again, but the ending of episode 5 seems to be sort of like that. > Spike's story is overarching > for more than one episode. He was just added. People need to know about why he is there. > But that's not what I call a two-parter. > I call that an arc. He's got an arc, other characters don't. The season has just begun (well, actualy, we just read summerys for 5 of the episodes). Little things can be very important to characters as the season moves on.

2003-09-09 14:29:22-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


CSinclair wrote: > Eh? Have you been watching the same show as I have? I disagree that > Wes' story was really about Lilah or Connor. It focused mainly on Wes > and his willingness to descent to darkness, his depression at losing > his friends, his reluctant alliance with them, etc. I know that you > like Spike but that's not a reason to trash other character by saying > that Wes story was really not about him all of these times. > I really hate to break it to you but none of the characters have real stories. Not a one. Every character whether it's on Ats or BtVS is there for one reason and one reason only to further the stories of either Angel or Buffy. Look at Connor, the only reason he was on the show was to show Angel dealing with his birth, kidnapping, return, etc. Connor was not a "real" character he was a plot device. The same is true with Wes who's story was to kidnap Connor to show Angel deal with the kidnapping, and to further the Angelus story. It's the same for Gunn, Fred, Cordy, and now Spike. And before everyone gets all pissy because I mentioned Spike's name look at the spoilers for the first 5 eps. Everything in it, I mean everything just furthers Angel's story. The theme of the season is corruption, and instead of looking at it as "OMG Spike has an arc" look it as Spike is there to show how far Angel along with Gunn and Wes are slidding into the abyss. In the end that's all Spike or any of the other characters are there for to show how far Angel will go and what happens when he gets there. Jul

2003-09-09 17:08:44+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


DX wrote: > >What do you mean from "almost nothing"? He already got two episodes >all to himself. I'm talking about those episodes for which they at first thought he would not be present due to his filming schedule. If his presence IN THOSE goes from almost nothing to supporting role, that's not unreasonable, imo. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-09 19:20:28-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjl9mm$k11no$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > I really hate to break it to you but none of the characters have real > stories. Not a one. No, that's your opinion and it doesn't make it more truer than mine or the poster above you. > Every character whether it's on Ats or BtVS is there > for one reason and one reason only to further the stories of either > Angel or Buffy. Look at Connor, the only reason he was on the show was to show Angel dealing with his birth, kidnapping, return, etc. I disagree. Connor's story also shows what happened when a person never gets to really understand the concept of right and wrong of this world. How easy it is for that person to be manipulated by others. Just because you don't find it to be important doesn't make it true. > Connor > was not a "real" character he was a plot device. Well, isn't that nice of you to say that other characters (apart from Spike obviously because he's special) are just plot device. > The same is true with > Wes who's story was to kidnap Connor to show Angel deal with the > kidnapping, and to further the Angelus story Bull. Shit. Wes' character development and growth was also accounted for when they developed the story of his seperation from AI. It was never all about Angel. Wes' descent to darkness was also explored even when Angel wasn't around (ie. his scenes with Faith in the 3 parter from S4). > It's the same for Gunn, > Fred, Cordy, You got to be kidding me. Cordy was never a plot device until they decide to do the Jasmine story. She has her own arcs, her own motivation for staying with the gang, her own ambition that has nothing to do with Angel (wanting to be an actress). And tell me how the hell does Gunn and Fred's romance got anything to do or further Angel's characterisation or story? And for that matter, how does Spike's mission of becoming corporeal got anything to do with Angel? Spike got special treatment with his own special arc this season while others haven't. If he got his own arc, then other should also get theirs. Why the double standard. Oh right, because other characters don't matter to you as long as Spike gets his big screen time.

2003-09-09 19:24:35-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030909130844.23672.00000771@mb-m22.aol.com>... > I'm talking about those episodes for which they at first thought he would not > be present due to his filming schedule. If his presence IN THOSE goes from > almost nothing to supporting role, that's not unreasonable, imo. It's not unreasonable except for the part that he already got a huge part of the early episodes all to himself while other characters are shafted to the background to necessitate JM's leaving. So how is it fair that now other characters don't get their time in the limelight and has to share what originally meant to be more focus on them with Spike. This is like S7 of BTVS all over again where other characters' stories are annexed by Spike's story. Where their stories somehow also involves Spike's story. This is what Earl meant when he used that Poochie analogy.

2003-09-09 20:15:53-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


colette_wedding@hotmail.com (Nirvana 1) wrote in message news:<d2a3b54c.0309090833.77cccd6d@posting.google.com>... > Well, it is alot easier to tell the audience who a > character is within the first episodes than to go over what each and > every character thinks about joining W&H. It has to be established who > the hell the character is otherwise people will be very lost when it > comes to him. Well then they should do this for every other character and not just Spike. > Glad to see you are not blaiming Spike for that one...but I > may have spoken too soon. Who's blaming Spike? I just don't like the fact that he's got 2 character-centric episode while others haven't got any. If he got 2, then other should also get 2 before Spike gets another one. > *plays a violin* > Right. I guess you saw the whole season then. Yes, because that's exactly what Spike fans said about Xander not getting storyline last season of BTVS. "You haven't seen the whole season". > Well, if you look deeper than just "hey, Spike is here" > then maybe you will see that Gunn has something going on with that law > thing and that cat. Yes, a 5 minute being wired to a machine is equal to 2 character-centric episodes. > They all seem to have protective issues with Fred. And how does this got anything to do with individual character stories? This is not a story. It's a plot point. > ...but there is something for Gunn > and Lorne so far. Maybe it is there turn. The previous season(s) > focused on Wes alot, maybe Gunn and Lorne will get some now. The problem is even Gunn hasn't got his own Gunn-centric episode. I was hoping episode 4 will be his but it wasn't because Spike got that one for him again. > Great. More stereotyping. Well, > at least I didn't get called a name. Yeah, that's original. When no good argument can be made, scream 'stereotyping'. And the last time I checked you're the one who's been name-calling other posters here. > Anyway, I wasn't even posting on the damn computer when all that was > happening. It doesn't matter. I was just pointing out that Spike fans did complain about the fact that Spike wasn't given anything to do in early S7. So I think I have as much right to complain that Wes and Gunn haven't got anything important storywise. > > Him missing one or two episodes > > doesn't mean that other characters will get their time because James > > only play 1 character and there are 5 other characters to service. 2 > > episodes (and that's assuming it won't be MOTW type of episodes) are > > not enough to service 5 characters. > ...because it is all up to James > if the writer make it MOTW? Read my sentence again and you'll see that your reply doesn't make any sense. I was saying that a character missing for one or two episodes are not enough to compensate for what other characters are missing screen-time and storyline wise. Spike has got 2 character-centric episode and I want Wes, Gunn, and Fred to also get similar treatment. > > What seems to be a two-parter? > Episode 5, the Lorne centric one, seems to be the beginning of a 2 > parter or at least one of those that have the next episode picking up > where the last one left off. I've read the latest summary for episode 5 and there's nothing that suggests that it'll be a two parter. It's all in your imagination. > He was just added. People need to know about why he is there. And like I said, I have never seen neither Connor nor Wes nor Gunn nor Fred and especially Lorne are given this sort of treatment. If anything, the producer took cautionary steps in ensuring that the existing fans don't feel like these characters are shafted down their throat. > The season has just begun (well, actualy, we just read summerys for > 5 of the episodes). Little things can be very important to characters > as the season moves on. Yeah, that's what they all said about Xander and Willow on BTVS S7.

2003-09-09 21:48:01-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Daniel Garten wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<bjl9mm$k11no$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> I really hate to break it to you but none of the characters have real >> stories. Not a one. > > No, that's your opinion and it doesn't make it more truer than mine or > the poster above you. > >> Every character whether it's on Ats or BtVS is there >> for one reason and one reason only to further the stories of either >> Angel or Buffy. Look at Connor, the only reason he was on the show >> was to show Angel dealing with his birth, kidnapping, return, etc. > > I disagree. Connor's story also shows what happened when a person > never gets to really understand the concept of right and wrong of this > world. How easy it is for that person to be manipulated by others. > Just because you don't find it to be important doesn't make it true. > >> Connor >> was not a "real" character he was a plot device. > > Well, isn't that nice of you to say that other characters (apart from > Spike obviously because he's special) are just plot device. Glad to see that you snipped the part where I said "and now Spike" Open your eyes and look at the story of each character, the only reason they are there is to move Angel in the direction that Joss and Co. want him to go. Their stories have nothing to do with getting them to a certain point, it's only to get Angel to a certain point. > >> The same is true with >> Wes who's story was to kidnap Connor to show Angel deal with the >> kidnapping, and to further the Angelus story > > Bull. Shit. Wes' character development and growth was also accounted > for when they developed the story of his seperation from AI. It was > never all about Angel. Wes' descent to darkness was also explored > even when Angel wasn't around (ie. his scenes with Faith in the 3 > parter from S4). IT was to take away someone that Angel had trusted and relied on. The story had very little to do with Wes it had everything to do with how Angel dealt with it. > >> It's the same for Gunn, >> Fred, Cordy, > > You got to be kidding me. Cordy was never a plot device until they > decide to do the Jasmine story. She has her own arcs, her own > motivation for staying with the gang, her own ambition that has > nothing to do with Angel (wanting to be an actress). And tell me how > the hell does Gunn and Fred's romance got anything to do or further > Angel's characterisation or story? It had everything to do with Angels story. He had to deal with someone getting love when he can't. He had to deal with the friction between Gunn and Wes and between Wes and Fred which put a bump his band of merry men. Cordelia was there at first to have someone from BtVS to help hook the fans, than she was there because of the visions to move Angel along in his story. Yes the characters have arcs but their true story is only to move Angel in the direction he needs to go. > > And for that matter, how does Spike's mission of becoming corporeal > got anything to do with Angel? Spike got special treatment with his > own special arc this season while others haven't. If he got his own > arc, then other should also get theirs. Why the double standard. Oh > right, because other characters don't matter to you as long as Spike > gets his big screen time. One thing I do not like is someone snipping something I said so they can make it look like something else. I explicitly said " It's the same for Gunn, Fred, Cordy, and now Spike" and you snipped the "Spike" part of my post. Spike is nothing but a plot device, always was and always will be. He was on BtVS for one reason to show a part of Buffy's story. That is the only thing he is on Ats, a plot device to show Angel's story, as are ALL the characters. The sooner you realize that the happier you will be and the better to enjoy the show. Jul -- "Beating dead horses is one of the most popular uses for Usenet. Porn and spam being the others." (Pete, Alt-tv-BtVS Poster)

2003-09-09 22:56:23-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjm3d6$jum1f$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Glad to see that you snipped the part where I said "and now Spike" Open > your eyes and look at the story of each character, the only reason they > are there is to move Angel in the direction that Joss and Co. want him > to go. Their stories have nothing to do with getting them to a certain > point, it's only to get Angel to a certain point. I have my eyes open. And if you want to see it that way fine. But I disagree and my opinion is as valid as yours. > IT was to take away someone that Angel had trusted and relied on. The > story had very little to do with Wes it had everything to do with how > Angel dealt with it. It has everything to do with Wes as it was for Angel. For years Wes always thought that he family has a 'family' and someone he can look up to. And now all of a sudden, that came crushing into a halt. They wouldn't have shown the viewers his POV, him working outside the gang that mostly doesn't have anything to do with the gang or Angel if it wasn't for telling his story. > It had everything to do with Angels story. He had to deal with someone > getting love when he can't. That's not what Cordelia's story is about. It's about a growth of a character who used to be shallow and uncaring. > He had to deal with the friction between > Gunn and Wes and between Wes and Fred which put a bump his band of merry > men. Is this the same show we're watching? 90% of the time Angel don't have any input on Gunn and Fred relationship. Except for that time when they killed the professor. How about when Angel was at the bottom of the ocean? Gunn and Fred's relationship keep going on with or without Angel. And it end without Angel's interference. > Cordelia was there at first to have someone from BtVS to help hook > the fans, than she was there because of the visions to move Angel along > in his story. See my post above about Cordelia. So much for to move Angel along in his story. Angel doesn't have anything to do with Cordelia's story until S3 forward. > One thing I do not like is someone snipping something I said so they can > make it look like something else. Blah, blah, blah. Get over it. If you don't like it, you shouldn't post at usenet. Sniping is something of a common thing in this newsgroup. There's no need to waste other people's bandwidth with parts of a post that I don't feel is necessary in the argument. > Spike is nothing but a plot device, always was and always will be. He > was on BtVS for one reason to show a part of Buffy's story. I don't think non-Angel characters are plot-device. But hey, I hope you get your wish of Spike becoming nothing but plot-device. But I sure don't want it to happen to other characters.

2003-09-10 06:05:35-04:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - ("Jason E. Vines" <jayvines@gwu.edu>)


What I find amazing is that you people are debating the merits of episodes that haven't even been aired yet. And, furthermore, you're not even providing spoiler warnings when you do so. How fucking presumptuous. "Daniel Garten" <dxgarten@ignmail.com> wrote in message news:49cf8df3.0309060228.6a564529@posting.google.com... > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030905132140.14300.00000430@mb-m12.aol.com>... > > >ubject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! > > >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) > > >Date: 9/4/2003 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time > > >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309041932.6878ce33@posting.google.com> > > > > > >"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message > > >news:<bj7kb0$91s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > >> I don't think the posters are necessarily saying the series will be _about_ > > >> Spike, I think they're just showing off the show's snazzy new feature. > > > > > >It's hard to believe that will be the case considering the sort of > > >spoilers that has come out thus far. So far episode 2, 4 are > > >Spike-centric episodes while episode 3 carries over Spike's arc from > > >ep.2 in the form of Fred trying to help him. > > > > > > > Are you aware that James decided to take time off to do a movie? I could be > > wrong, but I have a feeling that the eps shot during his movie shoot will be > > Spike-light, as his scenes will all be shot ahead of time and really, how much > > screen time could they cram into advance shoots? > > I'm very aware of that and at first I accept it because of this. Then > I heard that James is not going until late October after all and the > writers will then upped Spike's appearance on other episodes > accordingly. After that, whatever patience I had left was just > non-existant anymore. Other characters like Wes, Gunn, and Fred > haven't got any stories whatsoever. Fred's story was somehow tied to > Spike so therefore it's not really about her. Gunn's story was only > mentioned for 5 minutes in the first episode and lightly mentioned in > ep.3 only to never be mention again. Wes...well, is he even on the > show anymore? Because I honestly can't tell lately. > > > It's possible the Spike-heavy > > nature of the first month of episodes is due to the fact that he won't be a > > strong presence for several episodes after that. > > That's what I thought too. But as I mentioned in the above, that's > not the case. Also, I think it's kind of poor way of doing it. At > the start of the season, non-Spike fans are going to think that the > other characters are shafted. And then if the other characters do > finally get their character-centric episode, Spike fans are going to > complain that Spike is ignored (even though he got a juicy 2 character > centric episode already and a rather good arc of becoming corporeal). > > > If the show continues to be Spike heavy after James gets back from Italy, then > > I think you'll have reason to worry. But right now, there is still room for > > hope. > > After S7, I have all reasons to be worried since the characters who > don't get any arc at the start still don't get any at the end. I am > also worried because the media and ME keep mentioning the whole A/B/S > as if it will be a major feature of the show after the first sweep of > the season. Which eliminates any hope that other regulars will get a > good story since it'll be Love triangle du jour from then on. If > other characters don't get their story at the start of the season and > not after the first sweeps (and forget about sweeps since that'll be > guest star heavy), the only time they'll get story is the short amount > of time (2-3 episode tops) when James is away shooting his film. 2-3 > episodes are not enough time to serve 4 characters even a stand alone > story. Let alone an arc that goes beyond an episode.

2003-09-10 06:17:34-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (wolviegrl@yahoo.com)


ksins5@hotmail.com (CSinclair) wrote in message news:<e1a3dcc6.0309090046.598abb11@posting.google.com>... > Eh? Have you been watching the same show as I have? I disagree that > Wes' story was really about Lilah or Connor. It focused mainly on Wes > and his willingness to descent to darkness, his depression at losing > his friends, his reluctant alliance with them, etc. I know that you > like Spike but that's not a reason to trash other character by saying > that Wes story was really not about him all of these times. I agree with you. And don't mind what the other poster said. It is obvious that for him/her every other character whose name is not Spike are not important. That's why he/she tries to undermine Wes and other characters' importance. ---------------------------- wolviegirl

2003-09-10 08:54:23+00:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! >From: dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) >Date: 9/9/2003 7:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <49cf8df3.0309091824.6d90ecf0@posting.google.com> > >fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message >news:<20030909130844.23672.00000771@mb-m22.aol.com>... > >> I'm talking about those episodes for which they at first thought he would >not >> be present due to his filming schedule. If his presence IN THOSE goes from >> almost nothing to supporting role, that's not unreasonable, imo. > >It's not unreasonable except for the part that he already got a huge >part of the early episodes all to himself while other characters are >shafted to the background to necessitate >JM's leaving. So how is it >fair that now other characters don't get their time in the limelight >and has to share what originally meant to be more focus on them with >Spike. One assumes that once James DOES leave, there will be very little of him. It's just that the Spike-lite eps will be a little later in the season. >This is like S7 of BTVS all over again where other characters' >stories are annexed by Spike's story. Every character's story was annexed by The First Evil. Every character's story related somehow to Xander, somehow to Willow, somehow to Giles, etc. Everything was interrelated. The center of S7 was not Spike. It was The First vs. Buffy and the SITs. Everything else was subplot. That said, if S5 Angel totally revolves around Spike, that'll be a mistake. Rose "So we're spawning -- and it's not a pretty story." -- Gary Shandling.

2003-09-10 09:42:33-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Daniel Garten wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<bjm3d6$jum1f$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> Glad to see that you snipped the part where I said "and now Spike" >> Open your eyes and look at the story of each character, the only >> reason they are there is to move Angel in the direction that Joss >> and Co. want him to go. Their stories have nothing to do with >> getting them to a certain point, it's only to get Angel to a certain >> point. > > I have my eyes open. And if you want to see it that way fine. But I > disagree and my opinion is as valid as yours. Yes your opinion is as valid as mine, but it's wrong. Read any interview by Joss or the writers. Jane E. mentioned right around the time of Dirty Girls as they were breaking the story and how cool it was, and stuff happened, and than Joss came into the room looked at what the writers had, and changed it to show Buffy's reaction to Faith being there with the basement scene, and the graveyard scene. In a number of interviews Joss has stated that when something happens it's just to further Buffy's or Angel's story. Look at the characters. Tara wasn't there to be a character in her own right, she was there to be cannon fodder to turn Willow dark, so Buffy would have to deal with her best friend doing terrible things . Look at Spike, he's only there to show different sides of buffy . As much as people scream about him taking over the show he was there for one reason only to show Buffy's self destruction in S6, and her compassion in S7. Dawn was only there for one reason to show Buffy dealing with a younger sister and once S5 was done there really was't anything there for Dawn. Look at Angel, every character whether you want to believe it or not is there for one reason to lead Angel to whatever the conclusion of his story is. Sure they have stuff to do, and arcs but it's to pass the time as they lead Angel to his conclusion. Take Wes, look at everything he has done for say the last 3 years, it only feeds Angel's story. Yes along the way he became a great character but his only reason for being is to feed Angel's story. Look at any character on the show, what is their function? To lead Angel down the good path, bad path, show his humanity or his darkside. It's Angel's story just as BtVS was Buffy's story. It's. All. About. Them! > >> IT was to take away someone that Angel had trusted and relied on. The >> story had very little to do with Wes it had everything to do with how >> Angel dealt with it. > > It has everything to do with Wes as it was for Angel. For years Wes > always thought that he family has a 'family' and someone he can look > up to. And now all of a sudden, that came crushing into a halt. They > wouldn't have shown the viewers his POV, him working outside the gang > that mostly doesn't have anything to do with the gang or Angel if it > wasn't for telling his story. > >> It had everything to do with Angels story. He had to deal with >> someone getting love when he can't. > > That's not what Cordelia's story is about. It's about a growth of a > character who used to be shallow and uncaring. Cordy's whole story has been about Angel. She's the one that has visions so that Angel can save people so he can be a hero. Who slept with Angel's son. Who had Angel'e evil grandchild that had to be stopped. Everything that Cordy was, was only there to feed Angel's story. > >> He had to deal with the friction between >> Gunn and Wes and between Wes and Fred which put a bump his band of >> merry men. > > Is this the same show we're watching? 90% of the time Angel don't > have any input on Gunn and Fred relationship. Except for that time > when they killed the professor. How about when Angel was at the > bottom of the ocean? Gunn and Fred's relationship keep going on with > or without Angel. And it end without Angel's interference. Fred and Gunn are a little harder to define. I consider them just window dressing. They don't do much of anything but pad the story. Gunn is to show mistrust of Angel because he's a vampire and Gunn has vamp issues. Fred is there to move the story along as in she's the one that realized first what Jasmine was so that Angel could be made to see it. The characters still have stuff to do and stories, because the actors that play them have to do stuff to get paid, but the outcome for every story that any character has is only because of Angel and how it relates to them. > >> Cordelia was there at first to have someone from BtVS to help hook >> the fans, than she was there because of the visions to move Angel >> along in his story. > > See my post above about Cordelia. So much for to move Angel along in > his story. Angel doesn't have anything to do with Cordelia's story > until S3 forward. > >> One thing I do not like is someone snipping something I said so they >> can make it look like something else. > > Blah, blah, blah. Get over it. If you don't like it, you shouldn't > post at usenet. Sniping is something of a common thing in this > newsgroup. There's no need to waste other people's bandwidth with > parts of a post that I don't feel is necessary in the argument. You don't think the part where I say Spike is a plot device is necessary to the argument and than you blast me and say I didn't say Spike was a plot device. I don't know what usenet you're posting on but on this one that's the sign of a jerk that tries to twist peoples words so they can look right. It now shows me what kind of a poster you are and it's not one that I want to debate with. And it you keep doing it I highly doubt anyone else will either and you'll find yourself lounging on a whole lot of killfile lists. > >> Spike is nothing but a plot device, always was and always will be. He >> was on BtVS for one reason to show a part of Buffy's story. > > I don't think non-Angel characters are plot-device. But hey, I hope > you get your wish of Spike becoming nothing but plot-device. But I > sure don't want it to happen to other characters. To late it happened about seven years ago and the sooner you realize it the better you'll enjoy the show. Jul

2003-09-10 10:14:37-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309091820.4875a398@posting.google.com>... > And for that matter, how does Spike's mission of becoming corporeal > got anything to do with Angel? --Is that a serious question? I can't believe you don't see how Spike becoming corporeal would impact on Angel. As long as Spike is ghost-like, he's a different sort of being from Angel, a being who can't really rival Angel in any way. But Spike with a solid physical existence, Spike as yet another vampire with a soul, and yet another vampire Buffy has been involved with--also, Spike as a vampire with a soul who isn't under a gypsy curse and can't lose his soul through a moment of perfect happiness--is someone who can have the things that Angel wants and cannot have. He's someone who can make Angel feel resentful and bitter about his lot in life. And that resentment and bitterness can sway Angel from his mission of doing good--it can send Angel off the rails. The theme of the season is "corruption," and it seems as if Eve and W&H as a whole are already doing their best to corrupt Angel. Add in envy of Spike, rivalry with Spike, and there's the potential for some really crackling drama in Angel's life season. Spike may have been added to the regular cast at the insistence of the WB execs, but you can bet that once he's there Joss is going to insist on the same thing for Spike that he insists on for any other character or element in the series--namely, that its presence should make some contribution to the title character's story. This is how Joss operates. It's well documented. On BtVS, he would look over a script and with regard to everything in the script he would ask "Where's the Buffy in this?" Ditto for AtS: "Where's the Angel in this?" In other words, how does such-and-such impact on the title character? It doesn't always have to be simple and direct. In the case of Gunn and Fred's romance, for example, the "Angel of it" might simply have been that Gunn and Fred's ability to enjoy romantic fulfillment with one another contrasts poignantly with Angel's loneliness. Remember when Angelus said that with his keen hearing he could lie in his own bedroom and listen in on the noises of Gunn and Fred's lovemaking in their bedroom? Of course Angelus gave the whole thing a nasty twist with the implication that he would get turned on by the noises and masturbate. But subtract the Angelus nastiness and focus on the poignancy of lonely Angel hearing the sounds of other people's lovemaking when he can't have the same kind of fulfillment himself. For maximum dramatic effectiveness, all the character surrounding Angel have to be foils to him in some way--contrasts that point up his uniqueness. For a long time, a big part of his uniqueness lay in the fact that he was the world's only vampire with a soul. Now Angel isn't the only one, but he is still very different from Spike. And that can make for some very interesting drama this year. It's not as if it'll be all Spike and no Angel. It'll be Spike + Angel, and that'll be dynamite! Clairel

2003-09-10 19:41:03-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjndgi$l4q3g$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Yes your opinion is as valid as mine, but it's wrong. Of course it is. > Read any interview > by Joss or the writers. Jane E. mentioned right around the time of Dirty > Girls as they were breaking the story and how cool it was, and stuff > happened, and than Joss came into the room looked at what the writers > had, and changed it to show Buffy's reaction to Faith being there with > the basement scene, and the graveyard scene. In a number of interviews > Joss has stated that when something happens it's just to further Buffy's > or Angel's story. That doesn't mean that individual characters are just plot device. They have their own stories that often has no correlations to the title character. > Cordy's whole story has been about Angel. She's the one that has visions > so that Angel can save people so he can be a hero. Who slept with > Angel's son. Who had Angel'e evil grandchild that had to be stopped. > Everything that Cordy was, was only there to feed Angel's story. Yes, but that doesn't mean she's not a character in her own right. With the vision, her own story about a girl who change from selfish uncaring person to someone who's caring about the people around her hasn't got anything to do with Angel. It has everything to do with her character development. > Fred and Gunn are a little harder to define. I consider them just window > dressing. They don't do much of anything but pad the story. *rolls eyes* Of course. It doesn't have anything to do with the development of Fred nor Gunn as character because it's just a padding for the story. > I don't know what usenet you're posting on but on this one > that's the sign of a jerk that tries to twist peoples words so they can > look right. It takes one to know one. Do you really think you're that attractive of a poster yourself? Your posts always have condascending attitude to it. Acting as if you are the one whose opinion is always the truth. > It now shows me what kind of a poster you are and it's not > one that I want to debate with. Well, you are not the sort of person I'll like to debate with either. At least we're on the same page on that one. You're the one who was being rude to another poster, the one who intrude on his/her argument with someone else by changing the argument to something entirely different. > And it you keep doing it I highly doubt > anyone else will either and you'll find yourself lounging on a whole lot > of killfile lists. Yes, because you are the representation of everyone's voices here. And FYI, it goes both ways. I know a lot of lurkers here who dislike you (and other arrogant Spike fans). But in any case, you or other people who have the need for it, should killfile me.

2003-09-10 19:51:22-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309100914.945e2@posting.google.com>... > The theme of the season is "corruption," and it > seems as if Eve and W&H as a whole are already doing their best to > corrupt Angel. Add in envy of Spike, rivalry with Spike, and there's > the potential for some really crackling drama in Angel's life season. Just because Spike's corporeality can cause havoc of Angel's life doesn't mean that he's not benefited from it from story-wise POV. > It doesn't always have to be simple and direct. My problem is when some people try too hard to link the development of a character to that of the title character, it can be stretching it a little bit. > But subtract the Angelus nastiness and focus on the > poignancy of lonely Angel hearing the sounds of other people's > lovemaking when he can't have the same kind of fulfillment himself. Yes, in that particular area yes. But how their break up has anything to do with Angel? Or that Fred is attracted to Wes? > It's not as > if it'll be all Spike and no Angel. It'll be Spike + Angel, and > that'll be dynamite! No, that'll suck to no end. The show should be about Angel and the rest of the supporting characters. It's not exclusively about Angel and Spike. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. And it mind-boggles me that you put Spike first before Angel as if he's the lead character of the show. Spike is not the lead character. He's just a supporting characters like the others.

2003-09-11 05:23:44-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Daniel Garten wrote: > That doesn't mean that individual characters are just plot device. > They have their own stories that often has no correlations to the > title character. > Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other characters are working towards...? At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, how about Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the series goals except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot devices only there to further Angel's story. Jul

2003-09-11 13:17:56-07:00 - Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (himiko@animail.net)


Some mild spoilers in speculation. You're safe for the first few paragraphs and then there's a small spoiler space and warning. "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjpifn$levru$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Daniel Garten wrote: > > That doesn't mean that individual characters are just plot device. > > They have their own stories that often has no correlations to the > > title character. I think you mean the lead. The title character isn't always the lead or even the person the drama is about. This matters with AtS because although Angel is listed as the lead as well as the title character, he doesn't fill that role even as fully as Buffy did...and she wasn't as strong a lead as you find in most TV shows. These are both ensemble shows that break various "rules" of TV writing, so it's important to be clear about terms. TV writing is still in its infancy, and has only started to experiment with story arcs and ensemble casts. Earlier shows tended to follow play or movie formats with a strong focus on the lead; OK for movies or plays which are only 2-3 hours long, but gets dull and predictable in a series. ME and a few other shows are following a more recent literary model of interconnecting stories, each with its own lead: an ensemble cast. Trouble is, they feel it's still necessary to combine this with a more traditional leading character. I'm not sure it wouldn't work better to skip that altogether. > > > Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, what > is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working towards? > Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, Buffy, or > maybe going evil for good. The other characters are working towards...? > At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate goal other than helping > Angel reach his goals, how about Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future > end of the series goals except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot > devices only there to further Angel's story. Spoilers ahead: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 They have goals and their own stories: Wes: to overcome the insecurity and inferiority complex that was his most dominant trait when we first met him. He's partly succeeded in this, but that success has also revealed a ruthlessness and callousness he now has to deal with. Fred: to build a whole new life for herself post-Pylea. She was a scientist of some sort (metaphysics?) before Pylea. Then came 5 years of hell. She's made a bit of a come-back as a person: learning to fight has helped her overcome her fears of ever being a victim again, and being able to love and be loved (by her parents and the other AI folks as well as Gunn) has restored a lot of her self-confidence as a human being. But her one attempt to recapture her original vocation ended with her and Gunn killing her old professor...an act which destroyed their relationship. Now, she's going to be back in the lab, with a colleague (Knox) and a test subject (Spike) either of whom might be a new romantic as well as professional interest. Gunn: to continue his climb out of the ghetto...or in his case, the sewers beneath the ghetto. He's cut his old ties and changed a lot of his tastes and values. And so far, he's done it without too many ethical compromises; he's remained pretty much himself and a good guy. Now, however, he's going for the real big time: the education (magically induced) that will make him a highly respected, well-paid lawyer. Maybe even a judge later on? But this time, I think he's taken a very wrong turn in the moral highway. Lorne: I'm not so sure. Lorne has broken free of Pylea emotionally as well as geographically now on a personal level but he's sort of like someone who comes out but then spends all their time with gay people...and I do think Lorne is a gay analogy. He's reached the point where he's comfortable with himself and his "difference," but he doesn't go out much into mainstream society where his "obviousness" might cause problems. This means he's dealing with society's problem by making it his own; he protects them from the knowledge of his own existence. I'm hoping they do something with this, but not holding my breath. With that said, however, ME still does tend to focus on their leads a bit too much. This (not Spike) is what led to the shift away from Willow and Xander in the last few seasons as their stories and lives diverged from Buffy's. Trouble is, many of us still cared at least as much for their story as we did for Buffy's; some of us cared a lot more for their story. And we didn't get to see much of it because the focus remained on Buffy. I think Xanderphiles especially got cheated. I think and hope they've decided not to make the same mistake with Angel and to let the ensemble's various stories play out regardless of whether they serve or complement Angel's story. himiko

2003-09-11 15:47:12-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309101851.661dd5a9@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309100914.945e2@posting.google.com>... > > > The theme of the season is "corruption," and it > > seems as if Eve and W&H as a whole are already doing their best to > > corrupt Angel. Add in envy of Spike, rivalry with Spike, and there's > > the potential for some really crackling drama in Angel's life season. > > Just because Spike's corporeality can cause havoc of Angel's life > doesn't mean that he's not benefited from it from story-wise POV. --He? He who? You mean Spike? I suppose he "benefits from it" in the sense of getting screentime and so forth. Wes "benefited from" the conflict over his kidnaping of Baby Connor a couple years ago, too. Wes got lots of great character development out of that. Is there anything wrong with that--with regard to any character? Do you object *only* in the case of Spike? There were times in the past when Gunn, Lorne, Fred, and Teen Connor were all new characters just being introduced. Did you go through a period in which you resented each of them for taking time away from Angel, Cordy, and Wesley? Didn't you eventually form an attachment to at least some of the new characters? > > It doesn't always have to be simple and direct. > > My problem is when some people try too hard to link the development of > a character to that of the title character, it can be stretching it a > little bit. > > > But subtract the Angelus nastiness and focus on the > > poignancy of lonely Angel hearing the sounds of other people's > > lovemaking when he can't have the same kind of fulfillment himself. > > Yes, in that particular area yes. But how their break up has anything > to do with Angel? Or that Fred is attracted to Wes? --I don't know; I was just focusing on one stage in Gunn's and Fred's lives. What you're asking is very complex. I guess I'd say that Wes's interest in Fred, and his frustration over Fred choosing Gunn before he (Wes) even spoke up and told Fred how he felt, all contributed to the alienation and bitterness that Wes felt after his abduction of Baby Connor went so terribly wrong. The conflict between Angel and Wes over Baby Connor was one side of things; the rivalry Wes felt in his mind between himself and Gunn over Fred was another side of things. But ultimately the Wes-Gunn-Fred thing wouldn't have been included by the writers unless it somehow contributed to the Wes-Angel conflict; Angel is the title character, and everything must impact on him in some way or it doesn't get airtime. As I said, it isn't always simple and direct. > > > It's not as > > if it'll be all Spike and no Angel. It'll be Spike + Angel, and > > that'll be dynamite! > > No, that'll suck to no end. The show should be about Angel and the > rest of the supporting characters. It's not exclusively about Angel > and Spike. --I didn't say "exclusively." I wasn't talking about AtS as a whole, I just was talking about the Spike-Angel conflict and how Spike's presence will impact on Angel. THAT SIDE OF THINGS -- *just* that side of things, I was saying -- won't be all Spike and no Angel; it'll be Spike + Angel. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. And > it mind-boggles me that you put Spike first before Angel as if he's > the lead character of the show. Spike is not the lead character. --Oh, for crying out loud. Do you realize how far off the deep end you're going? I can say "Willow and Buffy" if I want to; it doesn't make Willow a bigger star on BtVS than Buffy was. Order in which names are listed means nothing. Nothing. I certainly wasn't trying for any subtle message by saying "Spike + Angel" rather than "Angel + Spike." And if you're going to take offense at something that meaningless and trivial, then I just give up. > He's just a supporting characters like the others. --Except that he's new to the show, and he has a pre-established fanbase from another show, and the WB execs have high hopes of what Spike's presence will accomplish. For those reasons, Spike naturally will be the focus of a lot of attention. And there's nothing wrong with that. Clairel

2003-09-11 18:03:56-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjpifn$levru$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Daniel Garten wrote: > > That doesn't mean that individual characters are just plot device. > > They have their own stories that often has no correlations to the > > title character. > > > > > Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, what > is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working towards? For Cordelia, obviously there was that goal to become an actor and there's the side story of her becoming a better person (which she already started). Note how from time to time Cordelia fails on both counts (being a good actor and being a good person) because once she reached this, her story is over. For Wesley, there's that need for him to prove to his father that he wasn't as useless as everyone prior to "Angel" assumed him to be. And just like Cordelia he keeps stumbling into these obstacles that often make him look inadequate. > Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, Buffy, or > maybe going evil for good. The other characters are working towards...? > At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate goal other than helping > Angel reach his goals, how about Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future > end of the series goals except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot > devices only there to further Angel's story. Admittedly, this is more easier to see on Cordelia and Wesley than on Fred and Gunn. But that's mostly because "Angel" storyline has always focused on the core trio of Angel, Cordelia, and Wes starting from S1 to S4. But starting from S4, they're starting to show Gunn's and Fred's. Note how there are recurring characters whose function is nothing but to support the story of the other regulars. For example, Lilah in S4 has the majority of her stories related to Wes not to Angel. Her story helps to build Wes story 90% of the time not another character's. Ditto with characters like Gunn's ex gang members who appear from time to time.

2003-09-11 19:05:31-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309111447.3783c7e2@posting.google.com>... SPOILER SPACE S P O I L E R > Do you object > *only* in the case of Spike? I object it when that character is the only character who got an interesting storyline. Compare it to S4, while Wes got the alienation storyline, Angel got the Connor and cordelia storyline, Cordelia got the descending from heaven and become corrupted storyline, Gunn and Fred gets to deal with how the consequences of their unravelling relationship and the killing of Fred's professor. There was storyline/arc for everyone. But now, I don't see any arc for other characters apart from Spike. It's funny how this is supposed to be the "Year of Gunn" but so far what I got is him being wired to various machine and him peeing all over W&H. Yeah, that's interesting storyline for Gunn we got there! > There were times in the past when Gunn, Lorne, Fred, and Teen Connor > were all new characters just being introduced. Did you go through a > period in which you resented each of them for taking time away from > Angel, Cordy, and Wesley? Didn't you eventually form an attachment to > at least some of the new characters? Yes and yes, I did eventually form an attachment to some of the new characters. But that's because they weren't shoved down my throat like there's no tomorrow. God, how long was it before Gunn even got something interesting to do? He was used in moderation in S1 and S2. Ditto with Lorne. He spent ages as a recurring before he was made into a regular. And look at Lilah, she spent 4 years as recurring and yet she never gets to be made into a regular. > > Yes, in that particular area yes. But how their break up has anything > > to do with Angel? Or that Fred is attracted to Wes? > > --I don't know; I was just focusing on one stage in Gunn's and Fred's > lives. What you're asking is very complex. I guess I'd say that > Wes's interest in Fred, and his frustration over Fred choosing Gunn > before he (Wes) even spoke up and told Fred how he felt, all > contributed to the alienation and bitterness that Wes felt after his > abduction of Baby Connor went so terribly wrong. See what I meant about stretching it thin? > > No, that'll suck to no end. The show should be about Angel and the > > rest of the supporting characters. It's not exclusively about Angel > > and Spike. > > --I didn't say "exclusively." I wasn't talking about AtS as a whole, > I just was talking about the Spike-Angel conflict and how Spike's > presence will impact on Angel. THAT SIDE OF THINGS -- *just* that > side of things, I was saying -- won't be all Spike and no Angel; it'll > be Spike + Angel. You don't seem to get the point that the show (AtS) as a whole was never and should never be about Angel and Spike. It should be about how Angel related to all other characters, where Spike just happens to be one of them. So it should not be about Angel and Spike but also about Angel and Wes, Angel and Fred, Angel and Gunn, etc. > --Oh, for crying out loud. Do you realize how far off the deep end > you're going? I can say "Willow and Buffy" if I want to; it doesn't > make Willow a bigger star on BtVS than Buffy was. Order in which > names are listed means nothing. Nothing. Of course it does. Otherwise why once again you write Spike first before Angel in this reply? > > He's just a supporting characters like the others. > > --Except that he's new to the show, and he has a pre-established > fanbase from another show, and the WB execs have high hopes of what > Spike's presence will accomplish. For those reasons, Spike naturally > will be the focus of a lot of attention. And there's nothing wrong > with that. There's everything wrong with that. By doing this WB forced Spike's addition into the throat of the existing AtS viewers. You may like it now but you won't like it once there's a backlash the size of the nile river. It won't do him any good for WB to have him show up on Angel and take over other characters' storyline and shove him to the background. There's already enough animosity for him as it is now. The last thing that WB will want is to alienate even more audience than they already have. In case you haven't noticed, his addition has sparked a lot of anger from many different factions of fans and not just from people who normally don't like him. At the moment people are willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt because it hasn't started yet but once it has and they see the exact same thing that is described bit by bit in the spoiler summaries, those who adopted the wait and see attitude will eventually be pissed off as well. Yes, WB may want the new, pre-established Spike fanbase from BTVS. But it is not a wise move to do it by alienating the existing AtS fans, which at the moment already lost the Cordelia and Connor fans.

2003-09-11 19:15:15-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in message news:<20030910045423.08106.00000576@mb-m14.aol.com>... > Every character's story was annexed by The First Evil. Not every character's. The First Evil's story actually gave Spike a center focus on the show since he's the object of one of First Evil's-God knows what-plan. My objection is why can't every character on the show given similar treatment by the First Evil? >>Every character's story > related somehow to Xander, somehow to Willow, somehow to Giles, etc. > Everything was interrelated. I'm sorry Rose, but I have to disagree. I don't see the instance where every character's story was somehow related to Xander. I had the occasions where I wonder if Xander and Willow are still friends at all in S7. If it wasn't for that story where Xander got his eye gouged, I'll have thought the two are not friends anymore. > That said, if S5 Angel totally revolves around Spike, that'll be a mistake. Now, there's something we can agree on.

2003-09-11 21:23:36-05:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


himiko wrote: >> >> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, >> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working >> towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, >> Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other characters are >> working towards...? At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate >> goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, how about >> Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the series goals >> except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot devices only there to >> further Angel's story. > > Spoilers ahead: > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 > > They have goals and their own stories: Are these goals really comparable to Angel's though? They aren't really tangible goals that you can say Wes is now over his insecurity and inferiority complex. This is more of a personality trait that makes up the character not as a goal that can be reached. The same goes for Fred. You said to build a new life for herself. Is this really something tangible that can be reached. Can you really at one point say "there I've done it I've built a new life for myself"? If that is her goal than in that case she has already reached the end of her story because she has built a new life for herself. I can say the same for Gunn. To climb out of the ghetto? At what point can he say " there I made it I'm no longer a ghetto kid? Going by spoilers for Gunn if that is his goal he has reached that and his story is also finished. To me none of these is like reaching the holy grail of your existence. These are just back story that make up the personality of a character. Not one of these is a tangible goal that you can say " aha I've reached what I've wanted/searching/ striving for" the same way that Angel has. Compare the goals that Angel is striving for his are made up that when he reaches them you will know that he has. He will become human. He might save the world, or if W&H has anything to do with it he might help destroy the world. His goals are tangible when he reaches them you will know it. You can't say the same for any of the other characters. Jul

2003-09-12 00:22:58-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Daniel Garten wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<bjpifn$levru$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> Daniel Garten wrote: >> > That doesn't mean that individual characters are just plot device. >>> They have their own stories that often has no correlations to the >>> title character. >>> >> >> >> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, >> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working >> towards? > > For Cordelia, obviously there was that goal to become an actor and > there's the side story of her becoming a better person (which she > already started). Note how from time to time Cordelia fails on both > counts (being a good actor and being a good person) because once she > reached this, her story is over. For Wesley, there's that need for > him to prove to his father that he wasn't as useless as everyone prior > to "Angel" assumed him to be. And just like Cordelia he keeps > stumbling into these obstacles that often make him look inadequate. Becoming an actress was her back story and after S1 and one ep in S3 when was the last time her being an actress was mentioned, when was the last time she even mentioned trying out for a part? If that was her holy grail of existance than it ended in the ep where she became part demon. Becoming a better person is not a goal persay, it's not a point that you can reach because as a human being we are always striving to be a better person, you can never reach that goal because it's ongoing. Same thing goes for Wes, his feelings of uselessness can be over come but there can't be a point where he says "there I'm now over my inferiority complex and have reached my goal" it's an ongoing process that can never be reached, because just like Cordy's wanting to be a better person it's something that a person is always striving for, not something that you can say you've ever reached. > >> Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, Buffy, or >> maybe going evil for good. The other characters are working >> towards...? At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate goal >> other than helping Angel reach his goals, how about Gunn...Fred? >> They don't have any future end of the series goals except for >> Angel's. Why? Because they are plot devices only there to further >> Angel's story. > > Admittedly, this is more easier to see on Cordelia and Wesley than on > Fred and Gunn. But that's mostly because "Angel" storyline has always > focused on the core trio of Angel, Cordelia, and Wes starting from S1 > to S4. But starting from S4, they're starting to show Gunn's and > Fred's. Note how there are recurring characters whose function is > nothing but to support the story of the other regulars. For example, > Lilah in S4 has the majority of her stories related to Wes not to > Angel. Her story helps to build Wes story 90% of the time not another > character's. Ditto with characters like Gunn's ex gang members who > appear from time to time. And that's what I'm saying about ALL the characters that aren't Angel. The only reason they are there is to relate to Angel. Not one character other than Angel has a a story that doesn't move Angel's story along in some way. Wes' story was to kidnap Connor so Angel would lose something important to him. Wes was than pushed out of the gang to show a nasty side to Angel. Wes' decent to the dark side with Lilah was also part of the set up for 1) to become the type of person that would hold Justin prisoner so he could resue Angel 2) to set up why he would follow Angel and join W&H 3) To show a nasty side to Wes that Angel was going to need when he became Angelus 4) To give AD something to do besides sit around and twiddle his thumbs. You can look at it that it was Wes' story but in the end it just feed Angel's story. Jul -- "Beating dead horses is one of the most popular uses for Usenet. Porn and spam being the others." (Pete, Alt-tv-BtVS Poster)

2003-09-12 00:44:13-07:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (himiko@animail.net)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjrann$ma8c3$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > himiko wrote: > > >> > >> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, > >> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working > >> towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, > >> Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other characters are > >> working towards...? At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate > >> goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, how about > >> Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the series goals > >> except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot devices only there to > >> further Angel's story. > > > > Spoilers ahead: > > > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 > > 6 > > 7 > > 8 > > 9 > > 0 > > > > They have goals and their own stories: > > > Are these goals really comparable to Angel's though? They aren't really > tangible goals that you can say Wes is now over his insecurity and > inferiority complex. This is more of a personality trait that makes up > the character not as a goal that can be reached. > > The same goes for Fred. You said to build a new life for herself. Is > this really something tangible that can be reached. Can you really at > one point say "there I've done it I've built a new life for myself"? If > that is her goal than in that case she has already reached the end of > her story because she has built a new life for herself. > > I can say the same for Gunn. To climb out of the ghetto? At what point > can he say " there I made it I'm no longer a ghetto kid? Going by > spoilers for Gunn if that is his goal he has reached that and his story > is also finished. > > To me none of these is like reaching the holy grail of your existence. > These are just back story that make up the personality of a character. > Not one of these is a tangible goal that you can say " aha I've reached > what I've wanted/searching/ striving for" the same way that Angel has. > > Compare the goals that Angel is striving for his are made up that when > he reaches them you will know that he has. He will become human. He > might save the world, or if W&H has anything to do with it he might help > destroy the world. His goals are tangible when he reaches them you will > know it. You can't say the same for any of the other characters. > Jul I don't think you can say it of Angel either. Aside from the fact that it's no longer clear if the shanshu prophecy even refers to him, what happens when/if he becomes human? He lives until he dies...and has other goals that evolve as do those of his fellows. There is not point where anyone in this show (or real life) ever fully achieves any goal worth having. I think that's rather the point; Angel even said as much to Faith, and Spike certainly knows this now. There is no point at which Angel can say he's done it, he's redeemed himself. Even if he does shanshu which he might never. As vampire or human, he will live until he dies, and whatever he does in that time will be what he has done. himiko

2003-09-12 02:54:18-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjrl7u$ma3me$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Becoming an actress was her back story and after S1 and one ep in S3 > when was the last time her being an actress was mentioned, when was the > last time she even mentioned trying out for a part? If that was her holy > grail of existance than it ended in the ep where she became part demon. > Becoming a better person is not a goal persay, it's not a point that you > can reach because as a human being we are always striving to be a better > person, you can never reach that goal because it's ongoing. What else would you suggest for a human being character to achieve? They can't work towards a goal to shanshu like Angel or to become normal like Buffy because they are normal people to begin with! It's the improvement in their lives that they are striving to achieve. And that makes absolute sense to me. > Same thing goes for Wes, his feelings of uselessness can be over come > but there can't be a point where he says "there I'm now over my > inferiority complex and have reached my goal" it's an ongoing process > that can never be reached, because just like Cordy's wanting to be a > better person it's something that a person is always striving for, not > something that you can say you've ever reached. Of course it can. Do you really think anyone become successful in their job if they can't overcome their feelings of usefulness? At one point in your life, you'll realise that you have it good and you are very secure in your ability to do something. It can be reached and it's an attainable goal. While it's not very tangible, it still is valid and reachable. > > Admittedly, this is more easier to see on Cordelia and Wesley than on > > Fred and Gunn. But that's mostly because "Angel" storyline has always > > focused on the core trio of Angel, Cordelia, and Wes starting from S1 > > to S4. But starting from S4, they're starting to show Gunn's and > > Fred's. Note how there are recurring characters whose function is > > nothing but to support the story of the other regulars. For example, > > Lilah in S4 has the majority of her stories related to Wes not to > > Angel. Her story helps to build Wes story 90% of the time not another > > character's. Ditto with characters like Gunn's ex gang members who > > appear from time to time. > > And that's what I'm saying about ALL the characters that aren't Angel. You probably should read my sentence again. I said there are other characters in the show whose stories does not support Angel but support the stories of the other characters (ie. Wes, Gunn, Cordelia). For example, Harmony's appearance back in S2 was to show us how different Cordelia then from the Cordelia in her high school year. Harmony had little to nothing to do with Angel. > The only reason they are there is to relate to Angel. Not one character > other than Angel has a a story that doesn't move Angel's story along in > some way. Wes' story was to kidnap Connor so Angel would lose something > important to him. Wes was than pushed out of the gang to show a nasty > side to Angel. Wes' decent to the dark side with Lilah was also part of > the set up for 1) to become the type of person that would hold Justin > prisoner so he could resue Angel Wes doesn't need to sleep with Lilah to do what he did to Justine. Have you even watch season 1? Wes was very capable of doing what must need to be done when it comes to saving Angel. See that guy whose hand he tortured to get information where Angel was from "The Ring". > 2) to set up why he would follow Angel > and join W&H If we're going in this set of mindset, then you're implying that the reason Wes follows Angel to W&H has nothing to do with Angel but more because he wants to save Lilah, thus proving that not everything that he does is connected to Angel. 3) To show a nasty side to Wes that Angel was going to > need when he became Angelus Again, don't need to. We already saw that even back in S1, S2 (when he sent those soldiers to their death). 4) To give AD something to do besides sit > around and twiddle his thumbs. What does the actor got to do with it? We're talking about character's stories. Of course the actor is there so that they'll act. That's kind of 'duh' even to a ten year old. Plus, in this way of thinking, you're implying that when they give JM a story, they do it so that he will have something to do other than staring into a blank wall with a vacant expression and gaping his mouth open. See how that sort of thinking will lead you? > You can look at it that it was Wes' > story but in the end it just feed Angel's story. And you can keep denying that while each characters do linked to Angel to a certain extent, they certainly have their own lives and their own stories to tell. And whether or not their story will supplant Angel's growth or not, I just simply want their turn to supplant or not supplant Angel's stories. I have no desire of seeing a full season where only one of the characters get to provide Angel with interactions/stories like back on BTVS.

2003-09-12 07:03:47-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (ksins5@hotmail.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjrl7u$ma3me$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > 4) To give AD something to do besides sit > around and twiddle his thumbs. You can look at it that it was Wes' > story but in the end it just feed Angel's story. I wasn't going to answer your first reply to my post because I didn't want to make things worse. But this is ridiculous. Your post has become mean-spirited to the point that you feel the need to insult the actor who plays the character. Like other people who have commented on this, I disagree that Wes' story is merely there to feed Angel's story. You are free to disagree but I ask you not to insult the actor who play the character into this. CSinclair

2003-09-12 10:43:45-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (reldevik@usa.net)


dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309111805.6e7412a5@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309111447.3783c7e2@posting.google.com>... > > SPOILER SPACE > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > > > Do you object > > *only* in the case of Spike? > > I object it when that character is the only character who got an > interesting storyline. Compare it to S4, while Wes got the alienation > storyline, Angel got the Connor and cordelia storyline, Cordelia got > the descending from heaven and become corrupted storyline, Gunn and > Fred gets to deal with how the consequences of their unravelling > relationship and the killing of Fred's professor. There was > storyline/arc for everyone. But now, I don't see any arc for other > characters apart from Spike. It's funny how this is supposed to be the > "Year of Gunn" but so far what I got is him being wired to various > machine and him peeing all over W&H. Yeah, that's interesting > storyline for Gunn we got there! > > > There were times in the past when Gunn, Lorne, Fred, and Teen Connor > > were all new characters just being introduced. Did you go through a > > period in which you resented each of them for taking time away from > > Angel, Cordy, and Wesley? Didn't you eventually form an attachment to > > at least some of the new characters? > > Yes and yes, I did eventually form an attachment to some of the new > characters. But that's because they weren't shoved down my throat > like there's no tomorrow. God, how long was it before Gunn even got > something interesting to do? He was used in moderation in S1 and S2. > Ditto with Lorne. He spent ages as a recurring before he was made > into a regular. And look at Lilah, she spent 4 years as recurring and > yet she never gets to be made into a regular. > > > > Yes, in that particular area yes. But how their break up has anything > > > to do with Angel? Or that Fred is attracted to Wes? > > > > --I don't know; I was just focusing on one stage in Gunn's and Fred's > > lives. What you're asking is very complex. I guess I'd say that > > Wes's interest in Fred, and his frustration over Fred choosing Gunn > > before he (Wes) even spoke up and told Fred how he felt, all > > contributed to the alienation and bitterness that Wes felt after his > > abduction of Baby Connor went so terribly wrong. > > See what I meant about stretching it thin? > > > > > No, that'll suck to no end. The show should be about Angel and the > > > rest of the supporting characters. It's not exclusively about Angel > > > and Spike. > > > > --I didn't say "exclusively." I wasn't talking about AtS as a whole, > > I just was talking about the Spike-Angel conflict and how Spike's > > presence will impact on Angel. THAT SIDE OF THINGS -- *just* that > > side of things, I was saying -- won't be all Spike and no Angel; it'll > > be Spike + Angel. > > You don't seem to get the point that the show (AtS) as a whole was > never and should never be about Angel and Spike. It should be about > how Angel related to all other characters, where Spike just happens to > be one of them. So it should not be about Angel and Spike but also > about Angel and Wes, Angel and Fred, Angel and Gunn, etc. > > > --Oh, for crying out loud. Do you realize how far off the deep end > > you're going? I can say "Willow and Buffy" if I want to; it doesn't > > make Willow a bigger star on BtVS than Buffy was. Order in which > > names are listed means nothing. Nothing. > > Of course it does. Otherwise why once again you write Spike first > before Angel in this reply? > > > > He's just a supporting characters like the others. > > > > --Except that he's new to the show, and he has a pre-established > > fanbase from another show, and the WB execs have high hopes of what > > Spike's presence will accomplish. For those reasons, Spike naturally > > will be the focus of a lot of attention. And there's nothing wrong > > with that. > > There's everything wrong with that. By doing this WB forced Spike's > addition into the throat of the existing AtS viewers. You may like it > now but you won't like it once there's a backlash the size of the nile > river. It won't do him any good for WB to have him show up on Angel > and take over other characters' storyline and shove him to the > background. There's already enough animosity for him as it is now. > The last thing that WB will want is to alienate even more audience > than they already have. In case you haven't noticed, his addition has > sparked a lot of anger from many different factions of fans and not > just from people who normally don't like him. At the moment people > are willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt because it > hasn't started yet but once it has and they see the exact same thing > that is described bit by bit in the spoiler summaries, those who > adopted the wait and see attitude will eventually be pissed off as > well. Yes, WB may want the new, pre-established Spike fanbase from > BTVS. But it is not a wise move to do it by alienating the existing > AtS fans, which at the moment already lost the Cordelia and Connor > fans. --Well, I said if you couldn't see how absurdly you were overreacting about the "Spike + Angel" phrase I would give up. So I am giving up. Just one final point: you are vastly exaggerating the number of AtS fans who are angry about Spike's presence and about to give up watching the show. There are a few people like that who are very vocal on this newsgroup. But that doesn't translate into millions (or even thousands) of angry, disgusted viewers out in televisionviewerland. Your scary threats aren't very scary. The WB execs aren't fools. They undoubtedly knew there'd be some people out there disappointed about the loss of Cordy--I was disappointed myself. But they also knew it couldn't be helped, because of the mysterious, unknowable behind-the-scenes conflict between Charisma Carpenter and Joss. They also probably figured that no reasonable viewer would hold a grudge against James Marsters and the character he plays just because of a *completely unrelated* conflict between Charisma and Joss. They also probably figured that no reasonable viewer would ever view Connor as a permanent addition to the show; it was made clear from the beginning that he was there temporarily, to serve a dramatic purpose, and would be removed when he had no more purpose to fill. I actually know very few fans of Connor. He wasn't the sort of character one becomes attached to. Your great grievance against ME and James Marsters turns out to be pretty flimsy and specious when closely analyzed. Clairel

2003-09-12 11:18:45-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


CSinclair wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<bjrl7u$ma3me$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> 4) To give AD something to do besides sit >> around and twiddle his thumbs. You can look at it that it was Wes' >> story but in the end it just feed Angel's story. > > I wasn't going to answer your first reply to my post because I didn't > want to make things worse. But this is ridiculous. Your post has > become mean-spirited to the point that you feel the need to insult the > actor who plays the character. Like other people who have commented > on this, I disagree that Wes' story is merely there to feed Angel's > story. You are free to disagree but I ask you not to insult the actor > who play the character into this. > > > CSinclair I'm not insulting AD at all and I'm not being mean spirited, I'm being truthful. The writers have made it clear a number of times that at points they don't know what to do with a character so the character is just there. MN said they didn't know what to do with Spike the beginning of S7 so they kept him in the basement for 5 eps and didn't do anything with him. Joss has said they didn't know what to do with Xander. So we see him stand around and fix windows. In S4 it's been said Joss didn't know what to do with Spike so he had him as the wacky neighbor to the point JM complained about it, Joss had to take him aside and told him to never question it, and that's why he had to dress in Xander's clothes in Doomed. The actors do have contracts to be in a certain amount of episodes or for a certain amount of time each season. The writers still have to fullfill that contract obligation, whether it's having the character act crazy in a basement, sweeping floors or doing something off on the side somewhere. Jul

2003-09-12 16:17:52-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (colette_wedding@hotmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309120943.30b2ca73@posting.google.com>... > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309111805.6e7412a5@posting.google.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309111447.3783c7e2@posting.google.com>... > > > > SPOILER SPACE > > > > > > S > > > > P > > > > O > > > > I > > > > L > > > > E > > > > R > > > > > > > Do you object > > > *only* in the case of Spike? > > > > I object it when that character is the only character who got an > > interesting storyline. Compare it to S4, while Wes got the alienation > > storyline, Angel got the Connor and cordelia storyline, Cordelia got > > the descending from heaven and become corrupted storyline, Gunn and > > Fred gets to deal with how the consequences of their unravelling > > relationship and the killing of Fred's professor. There was > > storyline/arc for everyone. But now, I don't see any arc for other > > characters apart from Spike. It's funny how this is supposed to be the > > "Year of Gunn" but so far what I got is him being wired to various > > machine and him peeing all over W&H. Yeah, that's interesting > > storyline for Gunn we got there! ...and it is Spike's fault Gunn is peeing... > > > There were times in the past when Gunn, Lorne, Fred, and Teen Connor > > > were all new characters just being introduced. Did you go through a > > > period in which you resented each of them for taking time away from > > > Angel, Cordy, and Wesley? Didn't you eventually form an attachment to > > > at least some of the new characters? > > > > Yes and yes, I did eventually form an attachment to some of the new > > characters. But that's because they weren't shoved down my throat > > like there's no tomorrow. God, how long was it before Gunn even got > > something interesting to do? He was used in moderation in S1 and S2. > > Ditto with Lorne. He spent ages as a recurring before he was made > > into a regular. And look at Lilah, she spent 4 years as recurring and > > yet she never gets to be made into a regular. > > > > > > Yes, in that particular area yes. But how their break up has anything > > > > to do with Angel? Or that Fred is attracted to Wes? > > > > > > --I don't know; I was just focusing on one stage in Gunn's and Fred's > > > lives. What you're asking is very complex. I guess I'd say that > > > Wes's interest in Fred, and his frustration over Fred choosing Gunn > > > before he (Wes) even spoke up and told Fred how he felt, all > > > contributed to the alienation and bitterness that Wes felt after his > > > abduction of Baby Connor went so terribly wrong. > > > > See what I meant about stretching it thin? > > > > > > > > No, that'll suck to no end. The show should be about Angel and the > > > > rest of the supporting characters. It's not exclusively about Angel > > > > and Spike. > > > > > > --I didn't say "exclusively." I wasn't talking about AtS as a whole, > > > I just was talking about the Spike-Angel conflict and how Spike's > > > presence will impact on Angel. THAT SIDE OF THINGS -- *just* that > > > side of things, I was saying -- won't be all Spike and no Angel; it'll > > > be Spike + Angel. > > > > You don't seem to get the point that the show (AtS) as a whole was > > never and should never be about Angel and Spike. It should be about > > how Angel related to all other characters, where Spike just happens to > > be one of them. So it should not be about Angel and Spike but also > > about Angel and Wes, Angel and Fred, Angel and Gunn, etc. > > > > > --Oh, for crying out loud. Do you realize how far off the deep end > > > you're going? I can say "Willow and Buffy" if I want to; it doesn't > > > make Willow a bigger star on BtVS than Buffy was. Order in which > > > names are listed means nothing. Nothing. > > > > Of course it does. Otherwise why once again you write Spike first > > before Angel in this reply? YOU'VE GOT TO BE FREAKIN' KIDDING ME!!! > > > > He's just a supporting characters like the others. > > > > > > --Except that he's new to the show, and he has a pre-established > > > fanbase from another show, and the WB execs have high hopes of what > > > Spike's presence will accomplish. For those reasons, Spike naturally > > > will be the focus of a lot of attention. And there's nothing wrong > > > with that. > > > > There's everything wrong with that. By doing this WB forced Spike's > > addition into the throat of the existing AtS viewers. You may like it > > now but you won't like it once there's a backlash the size of the nile > > river. (insert dramatic music here)-------->*DUHN DUHN DUHN!!!!!* > > It won't do him any good for WB to have him show up on Angel > > and take over other characters' storyline and shove him to the > > background. There's already enough animosity for him as it is now. Spike? James Marsters? God? Satan? Buddha? Allah? Jesus?...Joss? > > The last thing that WB will want is to alienate even more audience > > than they already have. In case you haven't noticed, his addition has > > sparked a lot of anger from many different factions of fans and not > > just from people who normally don't like him. At the moment people > > are willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt because it > > hasn't started yet but once it has and they see the exact same thing > > that is described bit by bit in the spoiler summaries, those who > > adopted the wait and see attitude will eventually be pissed off as > > well. Gee. You just seem to know every-damn-body! > > Yes, WB may want the new, pre-established Spike fanbase from > > BTVS. But it is not a wise move to do it by alienating the existing > > AtS fans, which at the moment already lost the Cordelia and Connor > > fans. > --Well, I said if you couldn't see how absurdly you were overreacting > about the "Spike + Angel" phrase I would give up. So I am giving up. > Just one final point: you are vastly exaggerating the number of AtS > fans who are angry about Spike's presence and about to give up > watching the show. There are a few people like that who are very > vocal on this newsgroup. But that doesn't translate into millions (or > even thousands) of angry, disgusted viewers out in > televisionviewerland. Your scary threats aren't very scary. > > The WB execs aren't fools. They undoubtedly knew there'd be some > people out there disappointed about the loss of Cordy--I was > disappointed myself. But they also knew it couldn't be helped, > because of the mysterious, unknowable behind-the-scenes conflict > between Charisma Carpenter and Joss. They also probably figured that > no reasonable viewer would hold a grudge against James Marsters and > the character he plays just because of a *completely unrelated* > conflict between Charisma and Joss. They also probably figured that > no reasonable viewer would ever view Connor as a permanent addition to > the show; it was made clear from the beginning that he was there > temporarily, to serve a dramatic purpose, and would be removed when he > had no more purpose to fill. I actually know very few fans of Connor. > He wasn't the sort of character one becomes attached to. > > Your great grievance against ME and James Marsters turns out to be > pretty flimsy and specious when closely analyzed. > > Clairel Clairel, I have to applaud you. It is ridiculous to get like that about putting Spike's name before Angel's. I used to get all mad when somebody in school would get thier paper done before me and then it would be inside the basket before mine. I also got mad if I wasn't first in line. Now, I am 19 years old and I see how I must have looked like. I also agree with what you said about the WB suits not being fools. They know how the game is played. This place is indeed very vocal. Of course there are people who are nervous about it cause change is scary.

2003-09-12 22:14:28-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (bsunjay@post.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309120943.30b2ca73@posting.google.com>... > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309111805.6e7412a5@posting.google.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309111447.3783c7e2@posting.google.com>... > > > > SPOILER SPACE > > > > > > S > > > > P > > > > O > > > > I > > > > L > > > > E > > > > R > > > > > > > Do you object > > > *only* in the case of Spike? > > > > I object it when that character is the only character who got an > > interesting storyline. Compare it to S4, while Wes got the alienation > > storyline, Angel got the Connor and cordelia storyline, Cordelia got > > the descending from heaven and become corrupted storyline, Gunn and > > Fred gets to deal with how the consequences of their unravelling > > relationship and the killing of Fred's professor. There was > > storyline/arc for everyone. But now, I don't see any arc for other > > characters apart from Spike. It's funny how this is supposed to be the > > "Year of Gunn" but so far what I got is him being wired to various > > machine and him peeing all over W&H. Yeah, that's interesting > > storyline for Gunn we got there! > > > > > There were times in the past when Gunn, Lorne, Fred, and Teen Connor > > > were all new characters just being introduced. Did you go through a > > > period in which you resented each of them for taking time away from > > > Angel, Cordy, and Wesley? Didn't you eventually form an attachment to > > > at least some of the new characters? > > > > Yes and yes, I did eventually form an attachment to some of the new > > characters. But that's because they weren't shoved down my throat > > like there's no tomorrow. God, how long was it before Gunn even got > > something interesting to do? He was used in moderation in S1 and S2. > > Ditto with Lorne. He spent ages as a recurring before he was made > > into a regular. And look at Lilah, she spent 4 years as recurring and > > yet she never gets to be made into a regular. > > > > > > Yes, in that particular area yes. But how their break up has anything > > > > to do with Angel? Or that Fred is attracted to Wes? > > > > > > --I don't know; I was just focusing on one stage in Gunn's and Fred's > > > lives. What you're asking is very complex. I guess I'd say that > > > Wes's interest in Fred, and his frustration over Fred choosing Gunn > > > before he (Wes) even spoke up and told Fred how he felt, all > > > contributed to the alienation and bitterness that Wes felt after his > > > abduction of Baby Connor went so terribly wrong. > > > > See what I meant about stretching it thin? > > > > > > > > No, that'll suck to no end. The show should be about Angel and the > > > > rest of the supporting characters. It's not exclusively about Angel > > > > and Spike. > > > > > > --I didn't say "exclusively." I wasn't talking about AtS as a whole, > > > I just was talking about the Spike-Angel conflict and how Spike's > > > presence will impact on Angel. THAT SIDE OF THINGS -- *just* that > > > side of things, I was saying -- won't be all Spike and no Angel; it'll > > > be Spike + Angel. > > > > You don't seem to get the point that the show (AtS) as a whole was > > never and should never be about Angel and Spike. It should be about > > how Angel related to all other characters, where Spike just happens to > > be one of them. So it should not be about Angel and Spike but also > > about Angel and Wes, Angel and Fred, Angel and Gunn, etc. > > > > > --Oh, for crying out loud. Do you realize how far off the deep end > > > you're going? I can say "Willow and Buffy" if I want to; it doesn't > > > make Willow a bigger star on BtVS than Buffy was. Order in which > > > names are listed means nothing. Nothing. > > > > Of course it does. Otherwise why once again you write Spike first > > before Angel in this reply? > > > > > > He's just a supporting characters like the others. > > > > > > --Except that he's new to the show, and he has a pre-established > > > fanbase from another show, and the WB execs have high hopes of what > > > Spike's presence will accomplish. For those reasons, Spike naturally > > > will be the focus of a lot of attention. And there's nothing wrong > > > with that. > > > > There's everything wrong with that. By doing this WB forced Spike's > > addition into the throat of the existing AtS viewers. You may like it > > now but you won't like it once there's a backlash the size of the nile > > river. It won't do him any good for WB to have him show up on Angel > > and take over other characters' storyline and shove him to the > > background. There's already enough animosity for him as it is now. > > The last thing that WB will want is to alienate even more audience > > than they already have. In case you haven't noticed, his addition has > > sparked a lot of anger from many different factions of fans and not > > just from people who normally don't like him. At the moment people > > are willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt because it > > hasn't started yet but once it has and they see the exact same thing > > that is described bit by bit in the spoiler summaries, those who > > adopted the wait and see attitude will eventually be pissed off as > > well. Yes, WB may want the new, pre-established Spike fanbase from > > BTVS. But it is not a wise move to do it by alienating the existing > > AtS fans, which at the moment already lost the Cordelia and Connor > > fans. > > --Well, I said if you couldn't see how absurdly you were overreacting > about the "Spike + Angel" phrase I would give up. So I am giving up. > Just one final point: you are vastly exaggerating the number of AtS > fans who are angry about Spike's presence and about to give up > watching the show. There are a few people like that who are very > vocal on this newsgroup. But that doesn't translate into millions (or > even thousands) of angry, disgusted viewers out in > televisionviewerland. Your scary threats aren't very scary. > The WB execs aren't fools. They undoubtedly knew there'd be some > people out there disappointed about the loss of Cordy--I was > disappointed myself. But they also knew it couldn't be helped, > because of the mysterious, unknowable behind-the-scenes conflict > between Charisma Carpenter and Joss. They also probably figured that > no reasonable viewer would hold a grudge against James Marsters and > the character he plays just because of a *completely unrelated* > conflict between Charisma and Joss. Please excuse this intrusion to your fun-filled bashing of another poster, but I just have to give my 2 cents here. You're assuming that the only fans who are angry at Spike/JM are the Cordelia fans. You don't realise that people like myself (Xander and Willow fans) don't like him either thanks to ME conveniently ignoring our favourite characters back in S7 and gave that poison an interesting story while the rest of the other characters get crappy ones. Some of us definitely won't follow his story on "Angel" so if what Joss and WB wants are for BTVS viewers (which Xander and Willow fans were one of those) to follow Spike's story, scratch that. Some of us are ready to follow West Wing or Jake 2.0. Others are adopting wait and see attitude to see if other Angel characters are ignored or not. And so far, they are, so no reason to watch there. Then you have Connor fans who don't like that their favourite character's story has been shafted thanks to Spike's addition. Then there are fans of other "Angel" characters who feel that their favourite characters are sidelined thanks to Spike addition. Oh yes, I can just see the poster you're arguing with is real pleased about the way other characters on "Angel" are treated. Top that with you and other Spike fans general Nazi-attitude to anyone or anything who said anything unfavourably about Spike and WB constant forefronting of Spike at the expense of other characters. Which makes people who normally don't resent Spike starting to resent him. > I actually know very few fans of Connor. > He wasn't the sort of character one becomes attached to. OH really? Maybe you should strong along to FanForum and ask those Connor fans what they think. Maybe you'll be lucky and get a nice word or two from them. Or not. The general resentment is mostly caused by the way WB and ME keeps forefronting Spike at the expense of other characters and the way you little Nazis keeps jumping on every single person who don't like Spike even when they just say that they're worried that their favourite characters haven't got any story. You just have to go "well, it's not Spike's fault, so piss off and shut up!". Congratulations! Keep it up and hopefully ME and WB and you will end up alienating more people than they already have. ****** Dona nobis pacem et salva nos a hostibus Salva nos, Deus ******

2003-09-13 02:57:31-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (dxgarten@ignmail.com)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309120943.30b2ca73@posting.google.com>... > dxgarten@ignmail.com (Daniel Garten) wrote in message news:<49cf8df3.0309111805.6e7412a5@posting.google.com>... > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0309111447.3783c7e2@posting.google.com>... > > > > SPOILER SPACE > > > > > > S > > > > P > > > > O > > > > I > > > > L > > > > E > > > > R > > > > > --Well, I said if you couldn't see how absurdly you were overreacting > about the "Spike + Angel" phrase I would give up. I don't think I'm overreacting given the fact that lately almost every single media out there trying to make this show sound like The Spike Show. > Just one final point: you are vastly exaggerating the number of AtS > fans who are angry about Spike's presence and about to give up > watching the show. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. We don't really know now, do we? But I know that a number of Cordelia and Connor fans refused to watch the show. That's quite a sizeable chunk which admittedly maybe covered by the new fanbase coming to watch Spike. But if WB and ME keep ignoring the other characters to the point that those of us who want to see Wes, Gunn, Fred, Lorne to get a good story not getting anything out of this show, then I have to say I'm not going to continue watching. It's that simple. It's not a threat. It's just that I'd rather not watch something resembling a train wreck after witnessing one last season with BTVS S7. > There are a few people like that who are very > vocal on this newsgroup. But that doesn't translate into millions (or > even thousands) of angry, disgusted viewers out in > televisionviewerland. You are right about that and the reverse also applied. There are very vocal Spike fans but that doesn't translate into a 3 million viewers who have stuck loyally for "Angel" these past 4 years. Like I said, most of us are on a 'wait and see' attitude, hoping for some kind of a sign that the writers aren't ignoring the other characters by just giving them one episode and then nothing else after that. > Your scary threats aren't very scary. You think that was a threat? Because I didn't feel I was making any. Oh well, different strokes. > The WB execs aren't fools. They undoubtedly knew there'd be some > people out there disappointed about the loss of Cordy-- And yet they decide to ignore it. Because they think they can replace the few of Cordy fans with the new Spike fans. And in the process of doing so, they don't realise that they're alienating the fans of other characters by over-promoting Spike and ignoring the rest of the characters and putting Angel in the background in almost every promotion piece that came out from their marketing department. > They also probably figured that > no reasonable viewer would hold a grudge against James Marsters and > the character he plays just because of a *completely unrelated* > conflict between Charisma and Joss. What they don't realise is that many viewers have been hardened due to the bitter experiences they've had in the past with BTVS. It'll take a long time and a real effort from ME to convince these disenchanted viewers that their favourite characters are not going to be shafted to the background. And so far I haven't seen either ME or WB doing that. > Your great grievance against ME and James Marsters turns out to be > pretty flimsy and specious when closely analyzed. I hope that you're right. Because if I'm right, then I know I wouldn't stick around anymore. And I know many other fans who are planning to do similar thing. It may not translate into million fans so don't get worked up just yet. I'm not suggesting that I know million fans. But I know I just ordered a lot of anime DVDs lately in the case that Wednesday night turns out to be unfulfilling. If I'm unfortunately turned out to be right, then "Witch Hunter Robin" looks quite interesting. And I've heard others planned to watch other shows (although IMO, I can't think of anything else being interesting on Wed TV except for Enterprise but I'm not a trekkie). I'm just stating examples of the sort of things people are planning to do in the case this show turned out to be BTVS S7 part 2.

2003-09-13 04:58:12-05:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Bradley Schriff wrote: > > The general resentment is mostly caused by the way WB and ME keeps > forefronting Spike at the expense of other characters and the way you > little Nazis keeps jumping on every single person who don't like Spike > even when they just say that they're worried that their favourite > characters haven't got any story. You just have to go "well, it's not > Spike's fault, so piss off and shut up!". Congratulations! Keep it > up and hopefully ME and WB and you will end up alienating more people > than they already have. > It's funny how Spike fans have been bashed for years because of the character they like. The character is blamed because of the way a storyline goes, because JM most times got three minutes an episode that took away from other characters. Now he's on a new show and we're still expected to put up with all the character bashing quietly and not stand up for our favorite character. All the other fans can root for any character they want. Other fans talk about any character they want and don't have to worry about getting bashed for it. They complain can bash Spike any way they want to the point of some saying they hope JM dies so that Spike isn't on the show, but if a Spike fan sticks up for him we're called Nazi's and told we're alienating people. When Spike is given the same respect in both the show and in fandom that the other characters get than maybe we'll shut up. Jul >

2003-09-13 06:03:06-05:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


himiko wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<bjrann$ma8c3$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> himiko wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, >>>> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working >>>> towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, >>>> Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other characters are >>>> working towards...? At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate >>>> goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, how about >>>> Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the series goals >>>> except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot devices only there >>>> to further Angel's story. >>> >>> Spoilers ahead: >>> >>> 1 >>> 2 >>> 3 >>> 4 >>> 5 >>> 6 >>> 7 >>> 8 >>> 9 >>> 0 >>> >>> They have goals and their own stories: >> >> >> Are these goals really comparable to Angel's though? They aren't >> really tangible goals that you can say Wes is now over his >> insecurity and inferiority complex. This is more of a personality >> trait that makes up the character not as a goal that can be reached. >> >> The same goes for Fred. You said to build a new life for herself. Is >> this really something tangible that can be reached. Can you really at >> one point say "there I've done it I've built a new life for myself"? >> If that is her goal than in that case she has already reached the >> end of her story because she has built a new life for herself. >> >> I can say the same for Gunn. To climb out of the ghetto? At what >> point can he say " there I made it I'm no longer a ghetto kid? >> Going by spoilers for Gunn if that is his goal he has reached that >> and his story is also finished. >> >> To me none of these is like reaching the holy grail of your >> existence. These are just back story that make up the personality of >> a character. Not one of these is a tangible goal that you can say " >> aha I've reached what I've wanted/searching/ striving for" the same >> way that Angel has. >> >> Compare the goals that Angel is striving for his are made up that >> when he reaches them you will know that he has. He will become >> human. He might save the world, or if W&H has anything to do with it >> he might help destroy the world. His goals are tangible when he >> reaches them you will know it. You can't say the same for any of the >> other characters. Jul > > I don't think you can say it of Angel either. If Angel has no goal he's working toward that is reachable at the end of the series than no one would be watching and the show would have ended 2 years ago. Angel's whole story has been set up that in the end he'll get something. We don't know what it is or what it means and that's why we keep watching. If a television show that is built like Ats with a character on a journey has no ending for that journey fans will lose interest pretty quick because there is no reason for the continued pain week after week. Aside from the fact > that it's no longer clear if the shanshu prophecy even refers to him, > what happens when/if he becomes human? He lives until he dies...and > has other goals that evolve as do those of his fellows. And that's the point. We don't know what it means so we keep watching to see what will happen. There is not > point where anyone in this show (or real life) ever fully achieves any > goal worth having. A television show is not real life. It might mimic real life at points but it's not. Television is entertainment and escapism. Viewers want to escape the uncertainty of their lives, vicariously experience adventure, danger, romance, and reach a forseeable point in the future that real life doesn't offer. If the goal of the character is not worth having than there is no point to a story and the fans aren't gong to watch. With Angel we know the goal is there but we don't know what it is or what it means, and the show tries to lead the character and the viewers on that discovery. I think that's rather the point; Angel even said > as much to Faith, and Spike certainly knows this now. There is no > point at which Angel can say he's done it, he's redeemed himself. Sure there is. The last episode of the series we find out if he has lost or won in his quest. We find out if he becomes human, saves the world, destorys the world, gets the curse lifted and gets the girl, , becomes evil Angel or Angelus. Angel has so many possibilities for how it's might end we can't even hazard a guess to what it could possibly be. This is the difference between supporting characters like Faith and Spike, and main characters like Angel and Buffy. The supporting characters are the expendable crewmembers of the Buffyverse, they are set up as pawns to move the main characters toward their goal. We can see that the minor characters goal is possibly unattainable but their true goal is to help the main character reach their goal. Faiths goal of being redeemed for her wrongs couldn't be reached, but the goal of her character helping Buffy to explore parts of herself, of becoming more than the one and only, and in the end helping Buffy to live like a real person, could. The same goes for Spike. His goal of getting the girl, finding love and exceptance wasn't reached. But the goal of the character was to be Buffy's catalist to explore parts of herself just as Faith was. For Buffy to explore the darkness that was in her, to find compassion for something that was beneath her, and to show her heroism by not turning her back on him when she could have. To that end his goal was reached. Just the same as all the other characters can not reach being a better person, or building a new life or whatever, they can help the main character reach their goal of exploring parts of the main character that we the viewers need to see. Jul

2003-09-13 07:43:09-07:00 - Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it! - (bsunjay@post.com)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjupmj$ngdhp$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Bradley Schriff wrote: > > > > The general resentment is mostly caused by the way WB and ME keeps > > forefronting Spike at the expense of other characters and the way you > > little Nazis keeps jumping on every single person who don't like Spike > > even when they just say that they're worried that their favourite > > characters haven't got any story. You just have to go "well, it's not > > Spike's fault, so piss off and shut up!". Congratulations! Keep it > > up and hopefully ME and WB and you will end up alienating more people > > than they already have. > > > > It's funny how Spike fans have been bashed for years because of the > character they like. Have you ever wonder why no other characters' fans ever been hostile with one another? It hass less to do with the characters that they like but it's because they don't jump on every single people who disagree with them. You guys, OTOH, act as if anyone who doesn't like Spike must go to hell hole or something. You can't seem to accept that there are as many people who like Spike as much as those who don't like him. > The character is blamed because of the way a > storyline goes, Do you realise that when they do this, they actually indirectly blamed the networks/the writers for being unable to give other characters equally interesting storylines? Spike is just the point of identification that people use to criticise the writers because he's the character that the writers/the networks seem to give exclusive treatment over other characters. It is unfortunate that a character is used as a point of identification but the truth is, it has always been like this. Remember S4 and and to a lesser extent early S5 of BTVS? Who got bashed the most? That's right, Riley, because he was the one who took away the screen time and attention from other characters. That eventually stopped in S5 because the writers don't give Riley the extreme attention that he got in S4. And at that point no one blame Spike either. Why? Because the other characters are given the same attention as he was. He didn't overshadow their story like he did in S6 or S7. > because JM most times got three minutes an episode that > took away from other characters. Let me just ask you this simple question: Will you prefer JM got that Spike storyline that he got in S7 or the one that Xander/Willow got in S7? > Now he's on a new show and we're still > expected to put up with all the character bashing quietly and not stand > up for our favorite character. If you noticed, most people haven't bashed Spike. They simply voiced their concerns that Spike already got more promotions/attentions/episodes than the other characters. That there seems to be a high concentration of story revolving around him. How is that bashing? That's voicing concern and a legitimate one at that given the past. I will call bashing something to the extent of "Spike sucks! He must rot and die!". That's bashing but with the exception of one or two people, I haven't seen others doing that. They mostly just say that it's unfair for other characters to be put into backburner while Spike got all the juicy storylines. That is not bashing. Just because you don't like what these people are saying that doesn't mean it equals to bashing. > All the other fans can root for any > character they want. Other fans talk about any character they want and > don't have to worry about getting bashed for it. Because they don't have the need to jump on every single's people throat who disagree with them. They don't go "oh, you don't like Spike and therefore you're bashing him" and repeat that ad nauseum. After a while it gets on their nerves. They also don't have the need to gang up on one poster who dislike their favourite characters, something that I noticed some of you do to posters in this NG and in other boards. It's like you have some secret Bat-phone that notifies you if there's someone who says something unfavourable about Spike in one board. And before that poor person realised it, he/she'll be surrounded by 3 or more Spike fans who proceeded to pummell that person senseless with insinuations, accusations, etc. It's this kind of pack mentality that I can't stand. This is why people don't like some Spike fans. Some of you are ready to gang up and badmouth real people to defend a fictional character. > They complain can bash > Spike any way they want to the point of some saying they hope JM dies so > that Spike isn't on the show, Okay, so far I haven't seen anyone in this NG doing that. So please don't exaggerate. And I have seen you or other Spike fans on occasions saying things that maybe not to that level but one where you offend people never the less. So it goes both ways. > but if a Spike fan sticks up for him we're > called Nazi's and told we're alienating people. When Spike is given the > same respect in both the show and in fandom that the other characters > get than maybe we'll shut up. He is given respect in the show. He died a hero, getting the center of attention in the series finale where no other characters did. He got resurrected on another show and become a regular no less. No other supporting character has died a hero's dead and get to be resurrected on another show. What else do you want? For every character in the show to worship him? That will be bad because he'll become a Mary-Sue-ish character. That's a fate worse than anything. No character deserves that. And the reverse also applies. Do you think I liked it when he was made to look like he's been unjustly treated by the Scoobs? It made the Scoobs looked bad. And you can't expect the fandom to like him when obviously every single storyline he got has made other characters look negative/unimportant and that every promotion are catered to him and his character only. You can't force the fandom to like him. The writers and the networks have to achieve this by introducing him slowly instead of the way he will be introduced on "Angel", for example. By not building him up through destroying the vestiges of other characters, by giving other characters equally interesting storylines and attentions, and by giving equal attention and promotion that Spike got to other characters. ****** Dona nobis pacem et salva nos a hostibus Salva nos, Deus ******

2003-09-13 11:15:53-07:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (himiko@animail.net)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bjutg9$nbvp0$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > himiko wrote: > > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > > news:<bjrann$ma8c3$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> himiko wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>>> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, > >>>> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters working > >>>> towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, the shanshu, > >>>> Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other characters are > >>>> working towards...? At the end of the series what is Wes's ultimate > >>>> goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, how about > >>>> Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the series goals > >>>> except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot devices only there > >>>> to further Angel's story. > >>> > >>> Spoilers ahead: > >>> > >>> 1 > >>> 2 > >>> 3 > >>> 4 > >>> 5 > >>> 6 > >>> 7 > >>> 8 > >>> 9 > >>> 0 > >>> > > If Angel has no goal he's working toward that is reachable at the end of > the series than no one would be watching and the show would have ended 2 > years ago. > > Angel's whole story has been set up that in the end he'll get something. I disagree. I think that was Angel's delusion at the beginning, but even he gave it up in Epiphany...and again in Orpheus. Angel is a very existential hero. He strives heroically to reach a goal he knows doesn't exist; two goals actually: his own redemption and that of humanity. Along the way, he finds lesser goals which he mostly fails to achieve. This makes for a far more compelling story, at least to me, than one in which there is a holy grail. It's a full heroic journey with a much higher probability of failure. Unless you consider that what Angel really wants is to die. I suspect that at the end of the series he will realize that (Spike already has), and will do it. Not redemption. Not heaven. Not even hell. He'll just end. > > A television show is not real life. It might mimic real life at points > but it's not. Television is entertainment and escapism. Viewers want to > escape the uncertainty of their lives, vicariously experience adventure, > danger, romance, and reach a forseeable point in the future that real > life doesn't offer. That's what most TV has been turned into, yes. But really good drama isn't just escapism or vicarious adventures. It's real life issues turned into entertainment (including a lot of escapism and vicarious adventuring) so that we can bear to watch them, live through them again, and resolve them in our minds and hearts. Often that resolution takes the form of simple catharsis rather than any particular solution. But whatever the reaction, if it doesn't got beyond simple escapism and vicarious living, it's not good drama...or good comedy, or even good melodrama. It's also a waste of time and palls quickly. TV gets around this problem by introducing new hotties and special effects, and by trying to suggest that each new show is completely different from anything we've ever seen. Check out this years line-up of coming events for great examples of this kind of hype for shows that are basically what we have seen before: Spiderman with nanobots instead of webs, Early Edition without the cat, and so on. I feel myself yawning before it even starts. And I'm not alone. TV viewership overall is dropping fast. New plotting isn't possible; all stories have been done before and even all twists have been done. New hotties playing the same old roles doesn't work either; sex sells, yes, but its main selling point is novelty. What really sells is well written versions of those well-worn plots and character roles. This means believable characters who the audience relates to because in some emotional way, we've been there and done that. Even if the character is a vampire or a ghost or a green demon, if they manifest traits and issues that relate to us, we can relate to them. It also helps if the writers weave those well-worn plots and characters together in new and unexpected ways, but that's secondary. > > Sure there is. The last episode of the series we find out if he has lost > or won in his quest. We find out if he becomes human, saves the world, > destorys the world, gets the curse lifted and gets the girl, , becomes > evil Angel or Angelus. Angel has so many possibilities for how it's > might end we can't even hazard a guess to what it could possibly be. I doubt it. BTVS's ending is more the sort of thing I would expect. He may just die and we'll never know what happened to him. Or he may turn human with ditto results. Or he may just wander off, smiling enigmatically. I would be very disappointed, and slightly offended, but any clear-cut victory. It's just not what I expect from ME. > This is the difference between supporting characters like Faith and > Spike, and main characters like Angel and Buffy. The supporting > characters are the expendable crewmembers of the Buffyverse, they are > set up as pawns to move the main characters toward their goal. We can > see that the minor characters goal is possibly unattainable but their > true goal is to help the main character reach their goal. And this is why I would be disappointed and slightly offended. I think ME did a bit too much of this with Buffy. This is why Willow and Xander seemed to disappear at the end. I am seriously hoping they learned from that. But at least they didn't give Buffy herself any holy grail type ending. Holy grails have no place in existential, postmodern universes. Aside from the absence of a holy grail, there's also the question of an ensemble cast. This is becoming the norm on TV. They learn slowly, but they learn. ME was one of the front runners in noticing that putting all one's eggs in one heroic basket (pun intended) limited a show's appeal for people who didn't like the hero particularly. Since they intended to produce a highly flawed hero with no basket, they were careful to provide other options for those who didn't care for Buffy to identify with. It worked and they used the same technique with AtS and Firefly. > Faiths goal of being redeemed for her wrongs couldn't be reached, but > the goal of her character helping Buffy to explore parts of herself, of > becoming more than the one and only, and in the end helping Buffy to > live like a real person, could. > > The same goes for Spike. His goal of getting the girl, finding love and > exceptance wasn't reached. But the goal of the character was to be > Buffy's catalist to explore parts of herself just as Faith was. For > Buffy to explore the darkness that was in her, to find compassion for > something that was beneath her, and to show her heroism by not turning > her back on him when she could have. To that end his goal was reached. > > Just the same as all the other characters can not reach being a better > person, or building a new life or whatever, they can help the main > character reach their goal of exploring parts of the main character that > we the viewers need to see. I agree, but using supporting characters ONLY in this way is a serious mistake. Many if not most serious fans of both BTVS and AtS tended to invest more in one or more of the supporting characters than in the leads. This is especially true as the story progresses due to the difficulty in changing the lead significantly. The lead's story inevitably becomes less interesting while the supporting characters' stories become more so...unless you just don't tell their stories after a while as ME mistakenly did with Willow and even more with Xander. I'm not 100% sure they learned from that, but I do keep hoping. himiko

2003-09-14 10:06:27-05:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


himiko wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > news:<bjutg9$nbvp0$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... >> himiko wrote: >>> "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message >>> news:<bjrann$ma8c3$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... >>>> himiko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, >>>>>> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters >>>>>> working towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, >>>>>> the shanshu, Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other >>>>>> characters are working towards...? At the end of the series what >>>>>> is Wes's ultimate goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, >>>>>> how about Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the >>>>>> series goals except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot >>>>>> devices only there to further Angel's story. >>>>> >>>>> Spoilers ahead: >>>>> >>>>> 1 >>>>> 2 >>>>> 3 >>>>> 4 >>>>> 5 >>>>> 6 >>>>> 7 >>>>> 8 >>>>> 9 >>>>> 0 >>>>> > >> >> If Angel has no goal he's working toward that is reachable at the >> end of the series than no one would be watching and the show would >> have ended 2 years ago. >> >> Angel's whole story has been set up that in the end he'll get >> something. > > I disagree. I think that was Angel's delusion at the beginning, but > even he gave it up in Epiphany...and again in Orpheus. Angel is a > very existential hero. He strives heroically to reach a goal he knows > doesn't exist; two goals actually: his own redemption and that of > humanity. Along the way, he finds lesser goals which he mostly fails > to achieve. You're getting two things confused. There is a difference between what Angel, the character, wants/thinks, and what the writers have has put out to the viewers as the reward. Yes Angel isn't working for a reward, or at least think he isn't. But the writers have put into the viewers knowledge that there is a reward possible. What the reward is we don't know, and that's why we keep watching. That's the difference. > > This makes for a far more compelling story, at least to me, than one > in which there is a holy grail. It's a full heroic journey with a > much higher probability of failure. For the character yes. The character can be one way, working for one thing, but as a viewer we are watching for another, to see what the goal is, to see if there is failure or what the end is. Does he succeed at reaching what the writers have put out there as a possible ending, whatever it could be. > > Unless you consider that what Angel really wants is to die. I suspect > that at the end of the series he will realize that (Spike already > has), and will do it. Not redemption. Not heaven. Not even hell. > He'll just end. Well that would be a very unsatisifing end to 5+ years. You're also comparing a supporting character to the main character. Angel isn't a supporting character who's role was to give the main character what she deserves, a happy ending. Most likely someone else will do something that gives Angel his ending whatever that will be, and it just might be he stands in the sun and smiles, we don't know until we get there. <snipped stuff> > I doubt it. BTVS's ending is more the sort of thing I would expect. > He may just die and we'll never know what happened to him. Or he may > turn human with ditto results. Or he may just wander off, smiling > enigmatically. That's why I said there are so many possibilities we don't know how it's going to end. He might just end up standing in the sun "smiling enigmatically" and than "just wander off" and that would be the end of his story, which would be fine because it's the end of his story. Just as Buffy's was to get a happy ending and we kept watching to find out what the ending was. We keep watching Angel's story to find out what that ending is too. > > I would be very disappointed, and slightly offended, but any clear-cut > victory. It's just not what I expect from ME. > >> This is the difference between supporting characters like Faith and >> Spike, and main characters like Angel and Buffy. The supporting >> characters are the expendable crewmembers of the Buffyverse, they are >> set up as pawns to move the main characters toward their goal. We can >> see that the minor characters goal is possibly unattainable but their >> true goal is to help the main character reach their goal. > > And this is why I would be disappointed and slightly offended. I > think ME did a bit too much of this with Buffy. This is why Willow > and Xander seemed to disappear at the end. I am seriously hoping they > learned from that. But at least they didn't give Buffy herself any > holy grail type ending. Holy grails have no place in existential, > postmodern universes. Whoa, are you almost agreeing with me that the supporting characters are plot devices? And now we're going to disagree again :) Buffy did have a "holy grail" type ending. She got what she has wanted from the very beginning of the series. To live like a normal girl, to not be "the one" but one of many. She got to have a happy ending and go on to find out who she is. That *was* Buffy's holy grail, and it's been there since the very beginning, just has Angel's has been whatever it will be. > > Aside from the absence of a holy grail, there's also the question of > an ensemble cast. This is becoming the norm on TV. They learn > slowly, but they learn. ME was one of the front runners in noticing > that putting all one's eggs in one heroic basket (pun intended) > limited a show's appeal for people who didn't like the hero > particularly. Since they intended to produce a highly flawed hero > with no basket, they were careful to provide other options for those > who didn't care for Buffy to identify with. It worked and they used > the same technique with AtS and Firefly. himiko I don't like this, I want to agree with you but I can't. There is a holy grail for Angel, just because he doesn't see it, know it, and work towards it, doesn't mean it's not there. Just like Buffy didn't ever say "I'm working towards being a normal girl with a normal life" doesn't mean it wasnt' there. Yes ME has learned with the ensemble cast thing but I don't think it happened until Firefly and why the title wasn't "Mal Captain of the Ship". Joss made a comment when Firefly first started about how nice it was to work on a show where there was no title character (I can't remember the exact quote but he was saying there were no prima donas) As everyone loves to remind me the title of Ats is "Angel" it's about Angel and not some other character. An ensemble cast usually means that it's about all the cast, since the title is all about Angel it has a supporting cast but I'm going to disagree and say that it's not an ensemble cast. Yes I know it's semantics but it distinguishes the difference between a show where all members are seen as equals and where they're not, and as far as Ats goes they are not. > > >> Faiths goal of being redeemed for her wrongs couldn't be reached, but >> the goal of her character helping Buffy to explore parts of herself, >> of becoming more than the one and only, and in the end helping Buffy >> to live like a real person, could. >> >> The same goes for Spike. His goal of getting the girl, finding love >> and exceptance wasn't reached. But the goal of the character was >> to be Buffy's catalist to explore parts of herself just as Faith >> was. For Buffy to explore the darkness that was in her, to find >> compassion for something that was beneath her, and to show her >> heroism by not turning her back on him when she could have. To that >> end his goal was reached. >> >> Just the same as all the other characters can not reach being a >> better person, or building a new life or whatever, they can help the >> main character reach their goal of exploring parts of the main >> character that we the viewers need to see. > > I agree, but using supporting characters ONLY in this way is a serious > mistake. Many if not most serious fans of both BTVS and AtS tended to > invest more in one or more of the supporting characters than in the > leads. This is especially true as the story progresses due to the > difficulty in changing the lead significantly. The lead's story > inevitably becomes less interesting while the supporting characters' > stories become more so...unless you just don't tell their stories > after a while as ME mistakenly did with Willow and even more with > Xander. > > I'm not 100% sure they learned from that, but I do keep hoping. > > himiko That's why fans were so pissed at Tara's death, and more so at Anya and Spike's deaths. They were only there for one thing to turn Willow dark, or to give the core 4 a happy ending. Joss was even surprised that fans were upset when he killed off Tara, and again with Anya and Spike, because the writers don't see the supporting characters as more than plot devices where fans see them as true characters that deserve love, happiness, and happy endings. I do think to some extent ME has learned, but they still use the same dynamic, just learned how to write it better. That's why Cordelia, Connor, or Doyle can be written out so easily. The show does a side step and keeps going in the same direction. The same is true with Wes, Gunn, Fred, or Spike. Send Wes to England to be a watcher, send Fred home to her family in Texas, send Spike to hell, the show does a side step but it can still keep going in the same direction. Take Angel out of the mix and you have "?" the Series with no where to go. Hopefully they have learned from the backlash of BtVS but this is ME and I doubt it. Jul -- "Beating dead horses is one of the most popular uses for Usenet. Porn and spam being the others." (Pete, Alt-tv-BtVS Poster)

2003-09-14 14:52:08-07:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (himiko@animail.net)


"Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message news:<bk2064$oos6n$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > himiko wrote: > > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > > news:<bjutg9$nbvp0$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >> himiko wrote: > >>> "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message > >>> news:<bjrann$ma8c3$1@ID-184786.news.uni-berlin.de>... > >>>> himiko wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure they do. But answer me this, if they have their own stories, > >>>>>> what is their ultimate goal, what are the other characters > >>>>>> working towards? Angel is working towards finding redemption, > >>>>>> the shanshu, Buffy, or maybe going evil for good. The other > >>>>>> characters are working towards...? At the end of the series what > >>>>>> is Wes's ultimate goal other than helping Angel reach his goals, > >>>>>> how about Gunn...Fred? They don't have any future end of the > >>>>>> series goals except for Angel's. Why? Because they are plot > >>>>>> devices only there to further Angel's story. > >>>>> > >>>>> Spoilers ahead: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1 > >>>>> 2 > >>>>> 3 > >>>>> 4 > >>>>> 5 > >>>>> 6 > >>>>> 7 > >>>>> 8 > >>>>> 9 > >>>>> 0 > >>>>> > > >> > > You're getting two things confused. There is a difference between what > Angel, the character, wants/thinks, and what the writers have has put > out to the viewers as the reward. Yes Angel isn't working for a reward, > or at least think he isn't. But the writers have put into the viewers > knowledge that there is a reward possible. What the reward is we don't > know, and that's why we keep watching. That's the difference. Not this viewer. I don't find Angel and/or any of his goals all that interesting. I am far more interested in what happens to Wes. Also Cordy, but I think they've dropped her and I'm feeling all unfulfilled about that. I find all the other characters at least as interesting as Angel. > > For the character yes. The character can be one way, working for one > thing, but as a viewer we are watching for another, to see what the > goal is, to see if there is failure or what the end is. Does he succeed > at reaching what the writers have put out there as a possible ending, > whatever it could be. Again, not this viewer. Angel as lead does set the tone and mood of the show as Buffy did. But that doesn't mean his goals are particularly crucial or that he needs to achieve them. What is his goal anyway? Shanshu? Redemption? I don't know or particularly care. His short-term goals are clearer, and they are very human: to help people, to make up for the evil he's done, to find love, to be a good parent. The others all share these goals and most have a more creative take on how to do it. If DB wants out, AtS could continue IMO, rather the way Blake's 7 did without Blake. I think BTVS could have done so too...and probably should have after S5. Yeah, I know, the wimpy suits would never take a chance like this, but that doesn't mean ME couldn't do it given the budget. This focus on the lead is a financial imperative, not a dramatic one. > That's why I said there are so many possibilities we don't know how it's > going to end. He might just end up standing in the sun "smiling > enigmatically" and than "just wander off" and that would be the end of > his story, which would be fine because it's the end of his story. Just > as Buffy's was to get a happy ending and we kept watching to find out > what the ending was. We keep watching Angel's story to find out what > that ending is too. So why are so many fans of BTVS clamoring for Buffy and other BTVS characters to appear on AtS? Because Buffy's story isn't over. None of their stories are over...except maybe Anya's, but I wouldn't bet on even that. > > > > And this is why I would be disappointed and slightly offended. I > > think ME did a bit too much of this with Buffy. This is why Willow > > and Xander seemed to disappear at the end. I am seriously hoping they > > learned from that. But at least they didn't give Buffy herself any > > holy grail type ending. Holy grails have no place in existential, > > postmodern universes. > > Whoa, are you almost agreeing with me that the supporting characters are > plot devices? Not exactly. I'm agreeing that the writers did trea Xander and, to a lesser extent, Willow that way in S7...AND IT DIDN'T WORK WELL! Why? Because they're not plot devices. I fear ME may be about to make the same mistake with Cordy. Connor, they just might get away with. But Cordy? I'm not buying it. > And now we're going to disagree again :) > > Buffy did have a "holy grail" type ending. She got what she has wanted > from the very beginning of the series. To live like a normal girl, to > not be "the one" but one of many. She got to have a happy ending and go > on to find out who she is. That *was* Buffy's holy grail, and it's been > there since the very beginning, just has Angel's has been whatever it > will be. Not in my interpretation. Buffy's original goal for a "normal life" was classic teen conformity and contained no finding out who she really is elements. It did contain major "not being a slayer" elements. But in the end, she was still a slayer. She changed the world so that being a slayer became more normal, a move which also took some of the pressure off her, but she's still a slayer. Most of her growth is demonstrated by her realization that there's no such thing as "normal" except as we define it, that no one has a "normal life," and that she's still cookie dough. And that there's no guarantee of a happy ending at all; to the contrary, she will continue until she dies which may or may not be as euphoric as it was the second time around. > > There is a holy grail for Angel, just because he doesn't see it, know > it, and work towards it, doesn't mean it's not there. Just like Buffy > didn't ever say "I'm working towards being a normal girl with a normal > life" doesn't mean it wasnt' there. > > Yes ME has learned with the ensemble cast thing but I don't think it > happened until Firefly and why the title wasn't "Mal Captain of the > Ship". Joss made a comment when Firefly first started about how nice it > was to work on a show where there was no title character (I can't > remember the exact quote but he was saying there were no prima donas) As > everyone loves to remind me the title of Ats is "Angel" it's about Angel > and not some other character. An argument which totally ignores the detail that a title character isn't even necessarily the lead. Was Rebecca the lead of "Rebecca?" Blake sure wasn't the lead of "Blake's 7." Joss knows this. He also knows that the suits can't grasp this point. He knows he made a basic mistake in putting a character's name in the title, not because the audience can't work around it (most of us can), but because the suits with their training in corporate hierarchy latch onto it as their one stable northstar in a business that is otherwise totally chaotic and, horror of horrors, heavily dependent on non-passive consumers. But they know who the lead is. That's why they get so upset when they are blind-sided by things like Spikeophilia/phobia or the whole W/T spiddoo. Not only are audiences supposed to sit quietly and enjoy passively, but these were all supporting characters who were supposed be seen even more quietly and passively. All this happened with Angel too, of course. But they handled that with a spin-off that didn't do too well...from their p.o.v. which is rating based, not quality based. And they're handling that in a pretty predictable way too: by sending Spike over to AtS and promoting him as pretty much a co-star. I'm not sure if he'll be treated as a co-star or not; Joss is tricky and often tells suits one thing while doing another. Personally, I'd be just as happy to see Joss experiment and go for a full ensemble show. Not two leads, but 6...or 7 if Cordy returns. So far as I can recall, no one has yet dared to try this. Two leads worked OK in the buddy cop films of the 80s, but even that doesn't get reprised very often. Interconnected stories, each with its own lead, has a strong literary (postmodern, that is) tradition, but so far has not been seen much on the screen. Well, movies and plays are too short, but a TV series could do it. I don't know if you've ever seen an anime series called "Boogie Pop Phantom," but that's a full ensemble show where the main story only become clear as everyone's individual story is added to the mix. It can be done. > > I do think to some extent ME has learned, but they still use the same > dynamic, just learned how to write it better. That's why Cordelia, > Connor, or Doyle can be written out so easily. The show does a side step > and keeps going in the same direction. The same is true with Wes, Gunn, > Fred, or Spike. Send Wes to England to be a watcher, send Fred home to > her family in Texas, send Spike to hell, the show does a side step but > it can still keep going in the same direction. Take Angel out of the mix > and you have "?" the Series with no where to go. Oh, I disagree. You could take Angel out of AtS pretty easily. Just lose him somewhere between the dimensions and let the others spend the season trying to find him, worrying about the very real possibility that he is in some hell dimension, fighting over leadership of their diminished group, re-examining priorities set by the old regime, etc. Personally, I think this is what they should have done with BTVS after S5 with Willow and Spike taking the lead. Sure, the initial episodes would have had to focus on the absent lead, but after that, internal issues and goals would have slowly dominated with the "quest for Buffy" just an occasional mention. And yes, I think it would have worked. BTVS without Buffy could even have been promoted as a first in TV history...most Americans never saw Blake's 7 anyway. himiko

2003-09-15 13:26:03-05:00 - Re: Are supporting characters just plot devices? (was Re: New Angel S5 posters? Don't bet on it!) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


himiko wrote: > "Juleen" <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> Spoilers ahead: <did some snipping> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 >>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>> 7 >>>>>>> 8 >>>>>>> 9 >>>>>>> 0 >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >> You're getting two things confused. There is a difference between >> what Angel, the character, wants/thinks, and what the writers have >> has put out to the viewers as the reward. Yes Angel isn't working >> for a reward, or at least think he isn't. But the writers have put >> into the viewers knowledge that there is a reward possible. What >> the reward is we don't know, and that's why we keep watching. That's >> the difference. > > Not this viewer. I don't find Angel and/or any of his goals all that > interesting. I am far more interested in what happens to Wes. Also > Cordy, but I think they've dropped her and I'm feeling all unfulfilled > about that. I find all the other characters at least as interesting > as Angel. Me neither, but that's not what we're talking about. I think that's why fans of the other characters get so frustrated, because we forget that it is All.About.Angel (or Buffy) We do want the other characters to have their own goals and story but it's not. That's why the Cordy fans or the Connor fans, or why the Spike fans, Xander fans and Willow fans feel cheated, it is about Angel's goal (or Buffy's)whether we watch it for that reason or not. >> >> For the character yes. The character can be one way, working for one >> thing, but as a viewer we are watching for another, to see what the >> goal is, to see if there is failure or what the end is. Does he >> succeed at reaching what the writers have put out there as a >> possible ending, whatever it could be. > > Again, not this viewer. Angel as lead does set the tone and mood of > the show as Buffy did. But that doesn't mean his goals are > particularly crucial or that he needs to achieve them. What is his > goal anyway? Shanshu? Redemption? I don't know or particularly > care. His short-term goals are clearer, and they are very human: to > help people, to make up for the evil he's done, to find love, to be a > good parent. The others all share these goals and most have a more > creative take on how to do it. No. Looking at the spoilers( and since you already have space) the shanshu is mentioned twice within the first 4 episodes so it's still in play, plus it was mentioned in Chosen in a round about way, so it's there and it is one of Angel long term goals. The writers can make shanshu be anything they want in the end because it's been twisted and turned so many times, but it's there. Looking at the short term goals you listed all of the characters feed into those goals to help Angel achieve them. The characters of Wes, Gunn, Fred help him to help people and make up for the evil he's done through their expertise. To be a good parent was Connor's story, that story is done, poof Connor's gone. Cordy because of unknown behind the scenes stuff can be written out of the story with the slash of a pen and while the fans are upset, in the long run it doesn't change the story. The only reason the other characters share these goals is because they are Angel's goals. Wes's goal isn't to make up for the evil he's done, he's there to move Angel through his goal, the same goes for all the characters, their goals are Angel's goal. > > If DB wants out, AtS could continue IMO, rather the way Blake's 7 did > without Blake. I think BTVS could have done so too...and probably > should have after S5. Yeah, I know, the wimpy suits would never take > a chance like this, but that doesn't mean ME couldn't do it given the > budget. This focus on the lead is a financial imperative, not a > dramatic one. I agree and don't agree. I think on BtVS it could have continued without Buffy because I saw her story as finished in The Gift, the writers could have made S6 and 7 than revolve around the other characters but they would've needed to give them something other than Buffy to revolve around. Take Xander and Anya's wedding, it wasn't about them it was about Buffy's light at the end of the tunnel. Spike's story wasn't about him, it was about Buffy's darkness, Spike was just he catalyst to show it. The writers would have needed to give all the characters a reason for being other than being just for Buffy. The same is true on Angel. I don't agree as the show stands right now that if you took Angel out of the mix it could keep going on. None of the characters have any story that holds up with out Angel's story as the spine. Even Spike's story arc at the beginning is tied into Angel, he's only there because of Angel seeing as how not one other character has ever had ties to him. If Angel wasn't there Spike would be nothing. I was reading an article at one time on soap operas and what the decision is to bring back a past character. One of the prerequisites is that there still has to be characters from the past that the returning character has to have history with for them to build on. The same is true for Spike, if Angel wasn't there he would have no story for the writers to build on. > >> That's why I said there are so many possibilities we don't know how >> it's going to end. He might just end up standing in the sun "smiling >> enigmatically" and than "just wander off" and that would be the end >> of his story, which would be fine because it's the end of his story. >> Just as Buffy's was to get a happy ending and we kept watching to >> find out what the ending was. We keep watching Angel's story to find >> out what that ending is too. > > So why are so many fans of BTVS clamoring for Buffy and other BTVS > characters to appear on AtS? Because Buffy's story isn't over. None > of their stories are over...except maybe Anya's, but I wouldn't bet on > even that. Don't ask me, I don't want Buffy anywhere near Ats, and I do feel her story, except for the big finish of the B/A 4 eva tru luv shit, is over. Stick a stake in her and call her done. >> >> Whoa, are you almost agreeing with me that the supporting characters >> are plot devices? > > Not exactly. I'm agreeing that the writers did trea Xander and, to a > lesser extent, Willow that way in S7...AND IT DIDN'T WORK WELL! Why? > Because they're not plot devices. I fear ME may be about to make the > same mistake with Cordy. Connor, they just might get away with. But > Cordy? I'm not buying it. It's done. that was Connor whole story, to show Angel the father, story's done so is Connor. Cordy's story wasn't done but because of whatever went on behind the scenes it is, and while the show has a small glitch on how to handle it, it really doesn't change the direction. Right now I see Spike again as nothing but a plot device on Ats just as he was on BtVS, the only reason he is there so far is to show a part of Angel. Could be the difference between Angel/us, could be how far Angel falls now that he's working with W&H, could be any number of things, but he's still only there for Angel. I do think the writers on Ats do a better job of it, but it's still there. > >> And now we're going to disagree again :) >> >> Buffy did have a "holy grail" type ending. She got what she has >> wanted from the very beginning of the series. To live like a normal >> girl, to not be "the one" but one of many. She got to have a happy >> ending and go on to find out who she is. That *was* Buffy's holy >> grail, and it's been there since the very beginning, just has >> Angel's has been whatever it will be. > > Not in my interpretation. Buffy's original goal for a "normal life" > was classic teen conformity and contained no finding out who she > really is elements. It did contain major "not being a slayer" > elements. But in the end, she was still a slayer. She changed the > world so that being a slayer became more normal, a move which also > took some of the pressure off her, but she's still a slayer. Most of > her growth is demonstrated by her realization that there's no such > thing as "normal" except as we define it, that no one has a "normal > life," and that she's still cookie dough. And that there's no > guarantee of a happy ending at all; to the contrary, she will continue > until she dies which may or may not be as euphoric as it was the > second time around. <bangs head on desk> Yes she changed the rules of what normal was, but it didn't change the goal. She wanted a normal life and in the context of the show that's what she got. Faith's words at the end prove that "Yeah, you're not the one and only chosen anymore. Just gotta live like a person. How's that feel?" That's been set up from the very first season, that's what Buffy wanted to do through 7 years, she wanted to live a life not dominated by slaying. She did get a happy ending as Joss defines it. In his interview after Chosen he said that's why he killed off Anya and Spike, someone had to die, and he couldn't kill the core 4 because then it wouldn't be a happy ending. (paraphrasing it) In the text of the story Buffy got a happy ending because she gets "to live like a real person." There is no guarantee after the show ends and she goes on to whatever life is in store for her, but within the shows limits that is what she got. >> >> There is a holy grail for Angel, just because he doesn't see it, know >> it, and work towards it, doesn't mean it's not there. Just like Buffy >> didn't ever say "I'm working towards being a normal girl with a >> normal life" doesn't mean it wasnt' there. >> >> Yes ME has learned with the ensemble cast thing but I don't think it >> happened until Firefly and why the title wasn't "Mal Captain of the >> Ship". Joss made a comment when Firefly first started about how nice >> it was to work on a show where there was no title character (I can't >> remember the exact quote but he was saying there were no prima >> donas) As everyone loves to remind me the title of Ats is "Angel" >> it's about Angel and not some other character. > > An argument which totally ignores the detail that a title character > isn't even necessarily the lead. Was Rebecca the lead of "Rebecca?" > Blake sure wasn't the lead of "Blake's 7." Joss knows this. He also > knows that the suits can't grasp this point. He knows he made a basic > mistake in putting a character's name in the title, not because the > audience can't work around it (most of us can), but because the suits > with their training in corporate hierarchy latch onto it as their one > stable northstar in a business that is otherwise totally chaotic and, > horror of horrors, heavily dependent on non-passive consumers. But > they know who the lead is. You know it, and I know it, but I don't think anyone within the show knows it. Joss has even said that's why he liked Firefly because it wasn't about one character. Joss and Co. still see the title as Angel so the show revolves around Angel and his story, and why fans that really want it to also be about the other characters own stories get so discourgaged. Right now Joss, WB, whoever, said that they are treating S5 of Ats just like a new series. The whole show is being revamped to be different than what it was. If they were really going to change it they should have changed the title to something that took into account all the other characters stories like "L.A. After Dark", "L.A. Law" or even "Angel and Friends" but sticking with the title that is of the main characters name says that it's still All.About.Angel. In the end going by the spoilers that's not going to change. > > That's why they get so upset when they are blind-sided by things like > Spikeophilia/phobia or the whole W/T spiddoo. Not only are audiences > supposed to sit quietly and enjoy passively, but these were all > supporting characters who were supposed be seen even more quietly and > passively. True. Joss couldn't understand why fans of Tara's or Spike's or Xander's get upset with the storylines of those characters, it's not about them. James at a convention said that the viewers were supposed to associate with Buffy, not Spike. The viewers were supposed to only see Buffy's story but we got invested in the other characters and weren't supposed to. That's why the 'ships get people so upset, we're not supposed to get invested in the 'ships and the SO we were only supposed to see it as a cataylist to show some part of Buffy's story. The same is true for fans of Ats that get upset about the A/C 'ship, or Cordy and Connor's storylines, we aren't supposed to be invested in those characters, we are only supposed to be invested in Angel's story and see where those characters lead him. Since we don't and they won't change it to have *ALL* characters as equals we (the viewers) will continue to be frustrated at the storylines. > > All this happened with Angel too, of course. But they handled that > with a spin-off that didn't do too well...from their p.o.v. which is > rating based, not quality based. And they're handling that in a > pretty predictable way too: by sending Spike over to AtS and promoting > him as pretty much a co-star. I'm not sure if he'll be treated as a > co-star or not; Joss is tricky and often tells suits one thing while > doing another. Not from the spoilers I've read. Spike is there as just another plot device to move Angel's shanshu (or whatever) story along. To show that when you rub elbows with evil, do you become what you dispise. I learned my lesson an BtVS and got invested in a character that had no chance of getting what they wanted, and I'm not going there again. Hopefully when I watch Ats this season I'll watch it as a strickly uncommitted viewer and not put any hopes on any character getting what their hopes and dreams are, in the end it doesn't matter what any character other than the main characters story is. Just like in the story that has Wes and his father issues, in the end I think it will also paralle Angel/Liam and his father issues. I'm not going to get committed in Wes' story of dealing with his father because most likely it's really about Angel's own daddy issues. I don't know, I may be totally wrong, but that's how I see it at this point. > > Personally, I'd be just as happy to see Joss experiment and go for a > full ensemble show. Not two leads, but 6...or 7 if Cordy returns. So > far as I can recall, no one has yet dared to try this. Two leads > worked OK in the buddy cop films of the 80s, but even that doesn't get > reprised very often. Interconnected stories, each with its own lead, > has a strong literary (postmodern, that is) tradition, but so far has > not been seen much on the screen. Well, movies and plays are too > short, but a TV series could do it. > Now that I would love. I would be happy to see each character have their own independent/interlocking stories, but doubt it will ever happen. Firefly might have had a chance but it was to short to see where it was heading. > I don't know if you've ever seen an anime series called "Boogie Pop > Phantom," but that's a full ensemble show where the main story only > become clear as everyone's individual story is added to the mix. It > can be done. Never saw it, but I do think it could be done too. That's why certain books I like are ones that have characters with their own stories that come together to make a whole. I would like to see Angel do that in S5 because as it stands they could easily do that as all the characters have their own thing going, but it doesn't sound like they are going to do it. >> >> I do think to some extent ME has learned, but they still use the same >> dynamic, just learned how to write it better. That's why Cordelia, >> Connor, or Doyle can be written out so easily. The show does a side >> step and keeps going in the same direction. The same is true with >> Wes, Gunn, Fred, or Spike. Send Wes to England to be a watcher, send >> Fred home to her family in Texas, send Spike to hell, the show does >> a side step but it can still keep going in the same direction. Take >> Angel out of the mix and you have "?" the Series with no where to go. > > Oh, I disagree. You could take Angel out of AtS pretty easily. Just > lose him somewhere between the dimensions and let the others spend the > season trying to find him, worrying about the very real possibility > that he is in some hell dimension, fighting over leadership of their > diminished group, re-examining priorities set by the old regime, etc. > Personally, I think this is what they should have done with BTVS after > S5 with Willow and Spike taking the lead. Sure, the initial episodes > would have had to focus on the absent lead, but after that, internal > issues and goals would have slowly dominated with the "quest for > Buffy" just an occasional mention. > It's still about Angel though. They are looking for him, dealing with him not being there, floundering around like they did during the Beige Angel year, but it's still about Angel. The only way they could do it would be to mindwipe all the characters so that Angel never existed and than they come together for their own journey's. I do think BtVS would have been great to have Buffy out of the mix after 5 and all the characters finding their own way. What would they have done without Buffy, would Spike have feel back into EVIL or would he have kept on being gray, would Willow have tried to be the power behind them all like she was in Bargaining and the others fighting her control. Would Dawn have been excepted or would the others have pushed her out because she wasn't "real". It would have made an interesting dynamic to have them find out who they were and what their mission was when it wasn't Buffy. Same goes for Ats, who would these characters be if Angel wasn't there? > And yes, I think it would have worked. BTVS without Buffy could even > have been promoted as a first in TV history...most Americans never saw > Blake's 7 anyway. > Oh the things dreams are made of. I know I would have like S6 a whole lot better. Jul