FLM films - My Webpage

2002-12-25 20:04:10-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com>)


In article <tjmk0v42qbdonpth4svse1sl0r86u1ipke@4ax.com>, egk@hotmail.com says... > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > > >"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message > >news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... > >> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > >> equally monstrous spin-off." > >> > >I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I > >would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. > > I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many > times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not > something i'd currently want to watch. I with you on this point. A show about Dawn isn't something I'm looking foward to either. if SMG does leave, I hope the "Normal Again" episode doesn't rear it's ugly head. If SMG leaves the series, and a spinoff is created...please PLEASE let the Buffyverse still exist as we know it. Don't insult our intelligence and yank away the security blanket we've come to depend on. The famous saying in "Le"Morte de Authur" comes to mind..."The King is dead...long live the King."

2002-12-25 20:04:10-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com>)


In article <tjmk0v42qbdonpth4svse1sl0r86u1ipke@4ax.com>, egk@hotmail.com says... > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > > >"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message > >news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... > >> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > >> equally monstrous spin-off." > >> > >I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I > >would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. > > I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many > times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not > something i'd currently want to watch. I with you on this point. A show about Dawn isn't something I'm looking foward to either. if SMG does leave, I hope the "Normal Again" episode doesn't rear it's ugly head. If SMG leaves the series, and a spinoff is created...please PLEASE let the Buffyverse still exist as we know it. Don't insult our intelligence and yank away the security blanket we've come to depend on. The famous saying in "Le"Morte de Authur" comes to mind..."The King is dead...long live the King."

2002-12-25 20:26:02-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >> equally monstrous spin-off." >> >I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not something i'd currently want to watch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-25 20:26:02-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >> equally monstrous spin-off." >> >I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not something i'd currently want to watch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-26 01:06:15+00:00 - SMG is throwing in the towel - (benvarkent@aol.com)


According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." "SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, Dawn, because... FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an equally monstrous spin-off." http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html Ben Varkentine "Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow Read my film, music and book reviews at http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival)

2002-12-26 01:06:15+00:00 - SMG is throwing in the towel - (benvarkent@aol.com)


According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." "SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, Dawn, because... FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an equally monstrous spin-off." http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html Ben Varkentine "Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow Read my film, music and book reviews at http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival)

2002-12-26 01:13:03+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... > FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > equally monstrous spin-off." > I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. -- JoAnn Peeler

2002-12-26 01:13:03+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... > FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > equally monstrous spin-off." > I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. -- JoAnn Peeler

2002-12-26 03:09:47+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <8frk0vc8kdo95j2sn1dml94nie5takbj6q@4ax.com>, Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Dec 2002 01:06:15 GMT, benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) > wrote: > > >According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of > >their > >"six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > > > >"SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR > >GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' > >REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if > >the > >price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. > >EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little > >sister, > >Dawn, because... > >FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > >equally monstrous spin-off." > > > >http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > > > > >Ben Varkentine > > > >"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > > > >Read my film, music and book reviews at > >http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) > > I would be interested in a spin off, but it would have to be with a > completely fresh cast, with the occasional guest appearence. I also > want it away from SunnyD. I wouldnt even mind if *gasp* there was no > Slayer. They could try a group of militant Van Helsings like Rileys > group....except with personality. A group of paranomrals might work > as well. I also wouldnt mind another Slayer either past or present. > Of course if it was set in the past it would kinda destroy the whole > *trying to stop the end of the world* vibe. > > I hear there are some good actors over on the FireFly set who could > use work. Damn that show was getting good right as it was > cancelled.... Altohugh I doubt Head would want to do it a show about him reforming the COW would get my vote. MOTW, looking for new SITs, battle with a Big Bad, could be fun... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002-12-26 03:09:47+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <8frk0vc8kdo95j2sn1dml94nie5takbj6q@4ax.com>, Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Dec 2002 01:06:15 GMT, benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) > wrote: > > >According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of > >their > >"six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > > > >"SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR > >GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' > >REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if > >the > >price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. > >EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little > >sister, > >Dawn, because... > >FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > >equally monstrous spin-off." > > > >http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > > > > >Ben Varkentine > > > >"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > > > >Read my film, music and book reviews at > >http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) > > I would be interested in a spin off, but it would have to be with a > completely fresh cast, with the occasional guest appearence. I also > want it away from SunnyD. I wouldnt even mind if *gasp* there was no > Slayer. They could try a group of militant Van Helsings like Rileys > group....except with personality. A group of paranomrals might work > as well. I also wouldnt mind another Slayer either past or present. > Of course if it was set in the past it would kinda destroy the whole > *trying to stop the end of the world* vibe. > > I hear there are some good actors over on the FireFly set who could > use work. Damn that show was getting good right as it was > cancelled.... Altohugh I doubt Head would want to do it a show about him reforming the COW would get my vote. MOTW, looking for new SITs, battle with a Big Bad, could be fun... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002-12-26 03:47:47+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - ("Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spammers@Bite.Me>)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 From: "Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spammers@Bite.Me> Message-ID: <wnvzrpehmanffnhjvatfbet.h7pjvp0.pminews@news-server.optonline.net> References: <20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:47:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: "Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spammers@Bite.Me> X-Newsreader: PMINews 2.00.1205 For OS/2 Organization: Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: SMG is throwing in the towel Give me "Faith: The Dark Slayer" I think she'd be a LOT more interesting than "Sweetness and Light" Buffy anyway. Of course, Eliza already HAS a successful movie career, so that might be tough... On 26 Dec 2002 01:06:15 GMT, Ben Varkentine wrote: >According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their >"six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > >"SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR >GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' >REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the >price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. >EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, >Dawn, because... >FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >equally monstrous spin-off." > >http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > >Ben Varkentine > >"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > >Read my film, music and book reviews at >http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) > Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o o o o Visit the Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club at: o o http://www.nassauwings.org/ o o A Charter Member of the Motorcycle Web Ring! o o o o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQE+Cm3VgvzYfxgMc34RAvLMAKDiUVlG4mUo4Uc/0x9ZXzFXxuvhlwCdH3kQ JneMiNPuc+c3OxUdStE+tTM= =1/QW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2002-12-26 03:47:47+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - ("Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spammers@Bite.Me>)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 From: "Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spammers@Bite.Me> Message-ID: <wnvzrpehmanffnhjvatfbet.h7pjvp0.pminews@news-server.optonline.net> References: <20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:47:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: "Jaime A. Cruz, Jr." <Spammers@Bite.Me> X-Newsreader: PMINews 2.00.1205 For OS/2 Organization: Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: SMG is throwing in the towel Give me "Faith: The Dark Slayer" I think she'd be a LOT more interesting than "Sweetness and Light" Buffy anyway. Of course, Eliza already HAS a successful movie career, so that might be tough... On 26 Dec 2002 01:06:15 GMT, Ben Varkentine wrote: >According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their >"six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > >"SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR >GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' >REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the >price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. >EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, >Dawn, because... >FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >equally monstrous spin-off." > >http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > >Ben Varkentine > >"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > >Read my film, music and book reviews at >http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) > Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o o o o Visit the Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club at: o o http://www.nassauwings.org/ o o A Charter Member of the Motorcycle Web Ring! o o o o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o_o&o -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQE+Cm3VgvzYfxgMc34RAvLMAKDiUVlG4mUo4Uc/0x9ZXzFXxuvhlwCdH3kQ JneMiNPuc+c3OxUdStE+tTM= =1/QW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2002-12-26 04:30:02+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (hobbymanchris@aol.com)


>On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >something i'd currently want to watch. > I would. I like Dawn

2002-12-26 04:30:02+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (hobbymanchris@aol.com)


>On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >something i'd currently want to watch. > I would. I like Dawn

2002-12-26 04:40:35+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On 26 Dec 2002 01:06:15 GMT, benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote: >According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their >"six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > >"SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR >GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' >REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the >price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. >EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, >Dawn, because... >FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >equally monstrous spin-off." > >http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > >Ben Varkentine > >"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > >Read my film, music and book reviews at >http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) I would be interested in a spin off, but it would have to be with a completely fresh cast, with the occasional guest appearence. I also want it away from SunnyD. I wouldnt even mind if *gasp* there was no Slayer. They could try a group of militant Van Helsings like Rileys group....except with personality. A group of paranomrals might work as well. I also wouldnt mind another Slayer either past or present. Of course if it was set in the past it would kinda destroy the whole *trying to stop the end of the world* vibe. I hear there are some good actors over on the FireFly set who could use work. Damn that show was getting good right as it was cancelled....

2002-12-26 04:40:35+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On 26 Dec 2002 01:06:15 GMT, benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote: >According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their >"six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > >"SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR >GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' >REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the >price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. >EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, >Dawn, because... >FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >equally monstrous spin-off." > >http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > >Ben Varkentine > >"Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > >Read my film, music and book reviews at >http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) I would be interested in a spin off, but it would have to be with a completely fresh cast, with the occasional guest appearence. I also want it away from SunnyD. I wouldnt even mind if *gasp* there was no Slayer. They could try a group of militant Van Helsings like Rileys group....except with personality. A group of paranomrals might work as well. I also wouldnt mind another Slayer either past or present. Of course if it was set in the past it would kinda destroy the whole *trying to stop the end of the world* vibe. I hear there are some good actors over on the FireFly set who could use work. Damn that show was getting good right as it was cancelled....

2002-12-26 05:59:02+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


EGK wrote in message ... >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >wrote: > >>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>> >>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. > >I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >something i'd currently want to watch. But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How could anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer?

2002-12-26 05:59:02+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


EGK wrote in message ... >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >wrote: > >>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>> >>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. > >I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >something i'd currently want to watch. But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How could anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer?

2002-12-26 06:36:33+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (rander3127@aol.com)


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >EGK wrote in message ... >>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>wrote: >> >>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>> >>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >> >>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >>something i'd currently want to watch. > > But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How could >anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. -Rich

2002-12-26 06:36:33+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (rander3127@aol.com)


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >EGK wrote in message ... >>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>wrote: >> >>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>> >>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >> >>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >>something i'd currently want to watch. > > But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How could >anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. -Rich

2002-12-26 07:14:37+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


rander3127@aol.com wrote in message ... >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" ><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>EGK wrote in message ... >>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >>>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>>> >>>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >>>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >>> >>>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >>>something i'd currently want to watch. >> >> But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How could >>anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? > >Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. MT will do a lot better than being side-kick to Scoobie-Doo's side-kick. She has acting ability, charisma, charm and is going to get even more beautiful as she gets older. And she can dance too. IMO a spin-off with MT would be a winner.

2002-12-26 07:14:37+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


rander3127@aol.com wrote in message ... >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" ><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>EGK wrote in message ... >>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an >>>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>>> >>>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >>>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >>> >>>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is not >>>something i'd currently want to watch. >> >> But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How could >>anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? > >Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. MT will do a lot better than being side-kick to Scoobie-Doo's side-kick. She has acting ability, charisma, charm and is going to get even more beautiful as she gets older. And she can dance too. IMO a spin-off with MT would be a winner.

2002-12-26 07:23:13-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com>)


In article <s%zO9.57242$E_.45771@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com says... > <Tofu> wrote in message news:3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au... > > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" > > <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > > I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to > > have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move > > freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. > > > > -- > > Tofu > > BTVS has lasted 7 years and has had some memorable moments. However, it has > changed from a series with a high school background to a series with the > reflecting the lack of direction of its main characters. Note that of all > the mains, only Zander has made a grudging transition to adulthood. Buffy is > directionless, with some undetermined source of income (minimum wage would > not keep the house). Willow's last few years would not likely have left her > time to keep up a good GPA in university. Anya had the Magic Shop, but was a > combination of ageless demon and immature human - albeit the hottest woman > on the screen whenever she was shown. > > To try and restate the show with Dawn as the central character would be > bound to fail. Her value to the show as anything more than the inevitable > hostage is still unproven. To older viewers, she is an annoyance, as most > teenagers generally are. As well, while the main characters have feelings > for her, Buffy is the reason the relationship exists. Without her, I cannot > see the mains continuing to risk life and limb. Nor do I think that the > audience would be interested in taking the step back to watching a teenaged > Slayer, despite her cuteness. > > Lastly, Buffy has suffered the same issue that afflicted many a show in the > past. Each season, the enemy must be bigger, darker and more dangerous. Last > season, this was done in a disappointing way. While Willow was a threat, the > idea that she could destroy the world was far fetched. The whole threat was > almost a throwaway, much like the season. This year is not fantastic, but > the threat may turn out better. (I am not one to say right now, as I hate > this whole Spike with a soul thing. I wanted the chip out of his undead > head. This would have made any Spike based plotline far more effective.) Let > this year be the end, with the show ending before it grinds into > cancellation. > > I predict a rather limited career for SMG after the show ends. She is not a > great beauty on the Hollywood index but not a bad actress. She has the > opportunity to be the cute girl on a series or in some movies. It will be > interesting to watch how she grows into her thirties. > > > I think your assessment to the actors and the Buffy series is chillingly accurate. The only thing I disagree with is the reference to Sarah Michelle Gellar as not being a great beauty. In my opinion she is and although I will never in my lifetime make as much money as she is/has on the Buffy series, I do feel sad that she won't be as successful as she's been on the Buffy series. Although I can't begrudge her decision should she decide to leave the Buffy series to try something different I should be happy for her to try because she's given us all she has to this series. I'm just worried that Joss Whedon's "conclusion" is to give us a painful episode like "Normal Again" any credence to having this series concluded on such an abrupt way. Something just occurred to me. Should Joss Whedon actually choose to end this series using the "Normal Again" episode theory, it would be a terrible slap in the face to the actors that worked alongside Sarah Michelle Geller in my opinion. Here is a group of people who've worked as long as Sarah Michelle Gellar and here we have Joss Whedon popping the bubble with the story ending with Buffy Summers waking up in the hospital telling Mommy and Daddy that she's alright now. This would be especially galling to Allison Hannigan, the actress who portrays Willow as the nerdy, geeky second in command Jewish lesbian witch. I"m choosing Willow over Xander, and Spike because based on "Normal Again" it's Willow that Buffy confesses to and cries out in anguish "What if I'm still there, Will?" As for your assessment of Dawn, played by Michelle Trachtenberg. I have to say you're right on the money here. There's almost nothing redeemable about this character and the need for this fake sister of Buffy for. And let's face it, Dawn isn't Buffy's sister at all. That's what really scares me about the "Normal Again" episode. If Dawn is so important why doesn't Joss Whedon give her a reason to exist other than being a all important "key". A Key to what? I don't even know why she was created for. It's almost as if she was the plot device to bring in the actress Clare Kramer as Glory. Now THERE is a spinoff potential. Clare Kramer as Glory was not only in my opinion, the best Big Bad on the Buffy series, but also the best potential for a spinoff. Here's a character that's a child god with conflicting emotions about being human wanting to have it all. The storyline possibilities would have been endless. But no. Joss Whedon had to kill off Glory, after all, all Big Bads are defeated and killed. And this is also a disturbing clue that the "Normal Again" episode may be the way Joss Whedon is heading. Because Buffy always prevails and destroys the evil Big Bad as if it's some boogie monster laying in wait under the bed. But having the show end definitively with no more Slayers per "generation" as spoken about would be an insult to the whole premise of the Slayer line in the first place. To be spiritually true to vision of Buffy Summers and the Slayer mythic arc it has to continue. There has to be a new Slayer to take up the mantle for us to feel comfortable in the knowledge that the Buffyverse still exists out there somewhere. This is why "Normal Again" should be rejected and Joss has to tell us that "Normal Again" was a cruel and false way of misleading us. He has to address those lingering fears about that episode once and for all and show us that Buffy Summers exists ONLY in the Buffyverse and nowhere else. It's the only way to make what Sarah Michelle Gellar has given us all these years as something to cherish and remember.

2002-12-26 07:23:13-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com>)


In article <s%zO9.57242$E_.45771@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com says... > <Tofu> wrote in message news:3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au... > > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" > > <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > > I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to > > have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move > > freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. > > > > -- > > Tofu > > BTVS has lasted 7 years and has had some memorable moments. However, it has > changed from a series with a high school background to a series with the > reflecting the lack of direction of its main characters. Note that of all > the mains, only Zander has made a grudging transition to adulthood. Buffy is > directionless, with some undetermined source of income (minimum wage would > not keep the house). Willow's last few years would not likely have left her > time to keep up a good GPA in university. Anya had the Magic Shop, but was a > combination of ageless demon and immature human - albeit the hottest woman > on the screen whenever she was shown. > > To try and restate the show with Dawn as the central character would be > bound to fail. Her value to the show as anything more than the inevitable > hostage is still unproven. To older viewers, she is an annoyance, as most > teenagers generally are. As well, while the main characters have feelings > for her, Buffy is the reason the relationship exists. Without her, I cannot > see the mains continuing to risk life and limb. Nor do I think that the > audience would be interested in taking the step back to watching a teenaged > Slayer, despite her cuteness. > > Lastly, Buffy has suffered the same issue that afflicted many a show in the > past. Each season, the enemy must be bigger, darker and more dangerous. Last > season, this was done in a disappointing way. While Willow was a threat, the > idea that she could destroy the world was far fetched. The whole threat was > almost a throwaway, much like the season. This year is not fantastic, but > the threat may turn out better. (I am not one to say right now, as I hate > this whole Spike with a soul thing. I wanted the chip out of his undead > head. This would have made any Spike based plotline far more effective.) Let > this year be the end, with the show ending before it grinds into > cancellation. > > I predict a rather limited career for SMG after the show ends. She is not a > great beauty on the Hollywood index but not a bad actress. She has the > opportunity to be the cute girl on a series or in some movies. It will be > interesting to watch how she grows into her thirties. > > > I think your assessment to the actors and the Buffy series is chillingly accurate. The only thing I disagree with is the reference to Sarah Michelle Gellar as not being a great beauty. In my opinion she is and although I will never in my lifetime make as much money as she is/has on the Buffy series, I do feel sad that she won't be as successful as she's been on the Buffy series. Although I can't begrudge her decision should she decide to leave the Buffy series to try something different I should be happy for her to try because she's given us all she has to this series. I'm just worried that Joss Whedon's "conclusion" is to give us a painful episode like "Normal Again" any credence to having this series concluded on such an abrupt way. Something just occurred to me. Should Joss Whedon actually choose to end this series using the "Normal Again" episode theory, it would be a terrible slap in the face to the actors that worked alongside Sarah Michelle Geller in my opinion. Here is a group of people who've worked as long as Sarah Michelle Gellar and here we have Joss Whedon popping the bubble with the story ending with Buffy Summers waking up in the hospital telling Mommy and Daddy that she's alright now. This would be especially galling to Allison Hannigan, the actress who portrays Willow as the nerdy, geeky second in command Jewish lesbian witch. I"m choosing Willow over Xander, and Spike because based on "Normal Again" it's Willow that Buffy confesses to and cries out in anguish "What if I'm still there, Will?" As for your assessment of Dawn, played by Michelle Trachtenberg. I have to say you're right on the money here. There's almost nothing redeemable about this character and the need for this fake sister of Buffy for. And let's face it, Dawn isn't Buffy's sister at all. That's what really scares me about the "Normal Again" episode. If Dawn is so important why doesn't Joss Whedon give her a reason to exist other than being a all important "key". A Key to what? I don't even know why she was created for. It's almost as if she was the plot device to bring in the actress Clare Kramer as Glory. Now THERE is a spinoff potential. Clare Kramer as Glory was not only in my opinion, the best Big Bad on the Buffy series, but also the best potential for a spinoff. Here's a character that's a child god with conflicting emotions about being human wanting to have it all. The storyline possibilities would have been endless. But no. Joss Whedon had to kill off Glory, after all, all Big Bads are defeated and killed. And this is also a disturbing clue that the "Normal Again" episode may be the way Joss Whedon is heading. Because Buffy always prevails and destroys the evil Big Bad as if it's some boogie monster laying in wait under the bed. But having the show end definitively with no more Slayers per "generation" as spoken about would be an insult to the whole premise of the Slayer line in the first place. To be spiritually true to vision of Buffy Summers and the Slayer mythic arc it has to continue. There has to be a new Slayer to take up the mantle for us to feel comfortable in the knowledge that the Buffyverse still exists out there somewhere. This is why "Normal Again" should be rejected and Joss has to tell us that "Normal Again" was a cruel and false way of misleading us. He has to address those lingering fears about that episode once and for all and show us that Buffy Summers exists ONLY in the Buffyverse and nowhere else. It's the only way to make what Sarah Michelle Gellar has given us all these years as something to cherish and remember.

2002-12-26 07:40:30+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Tofu)


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >rander3127@aol.com wrote in message ... >>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" >><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>EGK wrote in message ... >>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" ><jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for >an >>>>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>>>> >>>>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that >I >>>>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >>>> >>>>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>>>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is >not >>>>something i'd currently want to watch. >>> >>> But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How >could >>>anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? >> >>Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. > > > MT will do a lot better than being side-kick to Scoobie-Doo's >side-kick. She has acting ability, charisma, charm and is going to get even >more beautiful as she gets older. And she can dance too. > IMO a spin-off with MT would be a winner. > I have to agree. If SMG left, give it to Dawn. I think she'd be great. I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. -- Tofu "Stress is when you wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet." - Unknown.

2002-12-26 07:40:30+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Tofu)


On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >rander3127@aol.com wrote in message ... >>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" >><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>EGK wrote in message ... >>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" ><jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for >an >>>>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>>>> >>>>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that >I >>>>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >>>> >>>>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>>>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is >not >>>>something i'd currently want to watch. >>> >>> But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How >could >>>anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? >> >>Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. > > > MT will do a lot better than being side-kick to Scoobie-Doo's >side-kick. She has acting ability, charisma, charm and is going to get even >more beautiful as she gets older. And she can dance too. > IMO a spin-off with MT would be a winner. > I have to agree. If SMG left, give it to Dawn. I think she'd be great. I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. -- Tofu "Stress is when you wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet." - Unknown.

2002-12-26 09:31:04+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Carey <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com>)


<Tofu> wrote in message news:3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au... > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" > <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to > have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move > freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. > > -- > Tofu BTVS has lasted 7 years and has had some memorable moments. However, it has changed from a series with a high school background to a series with the reflecting the lack of direction of its main characters. Note that of all the mains, only Zander has made a grudging transition to adulthood. Buffy is directionless, with some undetermined source of income (minimum wage would not keep the house). Willow's last few years would not likely have left her time to keep up a good GPA in university. Anya had the Magic Shop, but was a combination of ageless demon and immature human - albeit the hottest woman on the screen whenever she was shown. To try and restate the show with Dawn as the central character would be bound to fail. Her value to the show as anything more than the inevitable hostage is still unproven. To older viewers, she is an annoyance, as most teenagers generally are. As well, while the main characters have feelings for her, Buffy is the reason the relationship exists. Without her, I cannot see the mains continuing to risk life and limb. Nor do I think that the audience would be interested in taking the step back to watching a teenaged Slayer, despite her cuteness. Lastly, Buffy has suffered the same issue that afflicted many a show in the past. Each season, the enemy must be bigger, darker and more dangerous. Last season, this was done in a disappointing way. While Willow was a threat, the idea that she could destroy the world was far fetched. The whole threat was almost a throwaway, much like the season. This year is not fantastic, but the threat may turn out better. (I am not one to say right now, as I hate this whole Spike with a soul thing. I wanted the chip out of his undead head. This would have made any Spike based plotline far more effective.) Let this year be the end, with the show ending before it grinds into cancellation. I predict a rather limited career for SMG after the show ends. She is not a great beauty on the Hollywood index but not a bad actress. She has the opportunity to be the cute girl on a series or in some movies. It will be interesting to watch how she grows into her thirties.

2002-12-26 09:31:04+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Carey <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com>)


<Tofu> wrote in message news:3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au... > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" > <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to > have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move > freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. > > -- > Tofu BTVS has lasted 7 years and has had some memorable moments. However, it has changed from a series with a high school background to a series with the reflecting the lack of direction of its main characters. Note that of all the mains, only Zander has made a grudging transition to adulthood. Buffy is directionless, with some undetermined source of income (minimum wage would not keep the house). Willow's last few years would not likely have left her time to keep up a good GPA in university. Anya had the Magic Shop, but was a combination of ageless demon and immature human - albeit the hottest woman on the screen whenever she was shown. To try and restate the show with Dawn as the central character would be bound to fail. Her value to the show as anything more than the inevitable hostage is still unproven. To older viewers, she is an annoyance, as most teenagers generally are. As well, while the main characters have feelings for her, Buffy is the reason the relationship exists. Without her, I cannot see the mains continuing to risk life and limb. Nor do I think that the audience would be interested in taking the step back to watching a teenaged Slayer, despite her cuteness. Lastly, Buffy has suffered the same issue that afflicted many a show in the past. Each season, the enemy must be bigger, darker and more dangerous. Last season, this was done in a disappointing way. While Willow was a threat, the idea that she could destroy the world was far fetched. The whole threat was almost a throwaway, much like the season. This year is not fantastic, but the threat may turn out better. (I am not one to say right now, as I hate this whole Spike with a soul thing. I wanted the chip out of his undead head. This would have made any Spike based plotline far more effective.) Let this year be the end, with the show ending before it grinds into cancellation. I predict a rather limited career for SMG after the show ends. She is not a great beauty on the Hollywood index but not a bad actress. She has the opportunity to be the cute girl on a series or in some movies. It will be interesting to watch how she grows into her thirties.

2002-12-26 10:29:13-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <MPG.1874cc2628afc5189897bc@news.cyburban.com>, Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com> wrote: > Something just occurred to me. Should Joss Whedon actually choose to end > this series using the "Normal Again" episode theory, it would be a > terrible slap in the face to the actors that worked alongside Sarah > Michelle Geller in my opinion. Here is a group of people who've worked > as long as Sarah Michelle Gellar and here we have Joss Whedon popping > the bubble with the story ending with Buffy Summers waking up in the > hospital telling Mommy and Daddy that she's alright now. This would be > especially galling to Allison Hannigan, the actress who portrays Willow > as the nerdy, geeky second in command Jewish lesbian witch. I"m choosing > Willow over Xander, and Spike because based on "Normal Again" it's > Willow that Buffy confesses to and cries out in anguish "What if I'm > still there, Will?" Why would ending the series that way matter at all to the actors? They're professionals doing a job. They acted the part well regardless of how the story eventually turns out. The actors wouldn't really be insulted at all. > Now THERE is a spinoff potential. Clare Kramer as Glory was not only in > my opinion, the best Big Bad on the Buffy series, but also the best > potential for a spinoff. Not really. Spinoffs in a genre such as this almost have to center around a hero, not a villain.

2002-12-26 10:29:13-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <MPG.1874cc2628afc5189897bc@news.cyburban.com>, Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com> wrote: > Something just occurred to me. Should Joss Whedon actually choose to end > this series using the "Normal Again" episode theory, it would be a > terrible slap in the face to the actors that worked alongside Sarah > Michelle Geller in my opinion. Here is a group of people who've worked > as long as Sarah Michelle Gellar and here we have Joss Whedon popping > the bubble with the story ending with Buffy Summers waking up in the > hospital telling Mommy and Daddy that she's alright now. This would be > especially galling to Allison Hannigan, the actress who portrays Willow > as the nerdy, geeky second in command Jewish lesbian witch. I"m choosing > Willow over Xander, and Spike because based on "Normal Again" it's > Willow that Buffy confesses to and cries out in anguish "What if I'm > still there, Will?" Why would ending the series that way matter at all to the actors? They're professionals doing a job. They acted the part well regardless of how the story eventually turns out. The actors wouldn't really be insulted at all. > Now THERE is a spinoff potential. Clare Kramer as Glory was not only in > my opinion, the best Big Bad on the Buffy series, but also the best > potential for a spinoff. Not really. Spinoffs in a genre such as this almost have to center around a hero, not a villain.

2002-12-26 11:51:51+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Tofu wrote in message <3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au>... >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" ><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>rander3127@aol.com wrote in message ... >>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" >>><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>EGK wrote in message ... >>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" >><jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>>>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for >>an >>>>>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>>>>> >>>>>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that >>I >>>>>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >>>>> >>>>>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>>>>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is >>not >>>>>something i'd currently want to watch. >>>> >>>> But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How >>could >>>>anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? >>> >>>Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. >> >> >> MT will do a lot better than being side-kick to Scoobie-Doo's >>side-kick. She has acting ability, charisma, charm and is going to get even >>more beautiful as she gets older. And she can dance too. >> IMO a spin-off with MT would be a winner. >> > >I have to agree. If SMG left, give it to Dawn. I think she'd be great. > > >I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to >have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move >freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. Well, Spike for sure, Anya, Willow and Giles. Bring back Oz and Cordelia and Harmony and Faith with convincing stories to explain it all and you'd have a great show Of course, Faith could be bad or good, or swing either way. Harmony has to be lovely and vacuous and verbose. Oz just has to say pretty much nothing.

2002-12-26 11:51:51+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Tofu wrote in message <3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au>... >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" ><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>rander3127@aol.com wrote in message ... >>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:59:02 GMT, "Aethelrede" >>><aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>EGK wrote in message ... >>>>>On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 01:13:03 GMT, "JoAnn Peeler" >><jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Ben Varkentine" <benvarkent@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com... >>>>>>> FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for >>an >>>>>>> equally monstrous spin-off." >>>>>>> >>>>>>I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that >>I >>>>>>would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. >>>>> >>>>>I wouldn't mind a spin-off at all. Buffy has already died one too many >>>>>times for my taste. On the other hand, a show centered around Dawn is >>not >>>>>something i'd currently want to watch. >>>> >>>> But MT is so totally cute, and Dawn is such an utter sweetie. How >>could >>>>anyone not love a spinoff with MT as the slayer? >>> >>>Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. >> >> >> MT will do a lot better than being side-kick to Scoobie-Doo's >>side-kick. She has acting ability, charisma, charm and is going to get even >>more beautiful as she gets older. And she can dance too. >> IMO a spin-off with MT would be a winner. >> > >I have to agree. If SMG left, give it to Dawn. I think she'd be great. > > >I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to >have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move >freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. Well, Spike for sure, Anya, Willow and Giles. Bring back Oz and Cordelia and Harmony and Faith with convincing stories to explain it all and you'd have a great show Of course, Faith could be bad or good, or swing either way. Harmony has to be lovely and vacuous and verbose. Oz just has to say pretty much nothing.

2002-12-26 16:53:47+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (danielarmato@aol.com)


>Subject: Re: SMG is throwing in the towel >From: "Carey" no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com >Date: 12/26/2002 4:31 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <s%zO9.57242$E_.45771@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> > ><Tofu> wrote in message news:3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au... >> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" >> <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >> >> I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to >> have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move >> freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. >> >> -- >> Tofu > >BTVS has lasted 7 years and has had some memorable moments. However, it has >changed from a series with a high school background to a series with the >reflecting the lack of direction of its main characters. Always a hard transition for shows. Shows that start in HS have a big problem at the end of 4 years, though I don't see why College can't extend you another 4. It is not *that* vastly different, excepting more freedom. Note that of all >the mains, only Zander has made a grudging transition to adulthood. He has? Why, because he has a "normal" job. Is that the only indicator of "adulthood"? Besides, they are all still 21 to 22. Far from needing to be "adults" yet. Buffy is >directionless, with some undetermined source of income (minimum wage would >not keep the house). I'd call being a slayer and saving the world as far from directionless as you can get, unless you value making a buck more than saving the life of possibly every man, women, child, and creature on the planet. I guess priorities vary, LOL. Willow's last few years would not likely have left her >time to keep up a good GPA in university. It's not that hard to get a decent GPA, especially if you have a good head on your shoulders. Plus, magick would help. "I call upon you pen, write like the wind....." Anya had the Magic Shop, ...because Giles left it to her. Not really of her own doing. but was a >combination of ageless demon and immature human - albeit the hottest woman >on the screen whenever she was shown. > ..except when Buffy is there! Anya is ok, but I never really thought of her as a particularly "hot" character. >To try and restate the show with Dawn as the central character would be >bound to fail. I would object to any show without SMG. She *is* the show. Her value to the show as anything more than the inevitable >hostage is still unproven. She has great potential, but BTVS is Buffy's show. A spin-off is possible, like Angel, but not a replacement for BTVS. To older viewers, she is an annoyance, as most >teenagers generally are. As well, while the main characters have feelings >for her, Buffy is the reason the relationship exists. Without her, I cannot >see the mains continuing to risk life and limb. Nor do I think that the >audience would be interested in taking the step back to watching a teenaged >Slayer, despite her cuteness. > >Lastly, Buffy has suffered the same issue that afflicted many a show in the >past. Each season, the enemy must be bigger, darker and more dangerous. Except S6. I don't think Willow was more of a threat than Glory. Last >season, this was done in a disappointing way. While Willow was a threat, the >idea that she could destroy the world was far fetched. The whole threat was >almost a throwaway, much like the season. This year is not fantastic, but >the threat may turn out better. (I am not one to say right now, as I hate >this whole Spike with a soul thing. I wanted the chip out of his undead >head. This would have made any Spike based plotline far more effective.) Let >this year be the end, with the show ending before it grinds into >cancellation. > Hmmm...I like the season so far. >I predict a rather limited career for SMG after the show ends. She is #10 on the list of top box office grossing female movie stars for the last year. She is linked with a great franchise (Scooby Doo)---the first movie is not too far down on the list of All Time box office draws, BTW. Moview such as Cruel Intentions and Harvard man show her incredible range. She is considering a run on Broadway (yes, she can sing and dance, too) and that huge Maybelline contract is always a good thing, too. Her fanbase is huge. Notice how most of her stuff does a lot better among the fans than what the critics predict. She is not a >great beauty on the Hollywood index but not a bad actress. I guess opinions vary. I think she is #1 on the list! Most polls (though usually from relatively mindless magazines only concerned with looks, granted---but that's what we are talking here) put her in the top 10 or 20. As for talent, Sarah is amazingly gifted. She is just a natural. A phenom. She is, IMO, one of the handful of truly great actresses in Hollywood today. She has the >opportunity to be the cute girl on a series or in some movies. It will be >interesting to watch how she grows into her thirties. > Very well, one would imagine.

2002-12-26 16:53:47+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (danielarmato@aol.com)


>Subject: Re: SMG is throwing in the towel >From: "Carey" no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com >Date: 12/26/2002 4:31 AM Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <s%zO9.57242$E_.45771@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> > ><Tofu> wrote in message news:3e0ab19c.53113635@news.alphalink.com.au... >> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 07:14:37 GMT, "Aethelrede" >> <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >> >> I hope they can keep the rest of the Scoobies, too. It'd be better to >> have SMG cleanly replaced with MT and everything else to just move >> freely from there, with the remaining gang intact, IMO. >> >> -- >> Tofu > >BTVS has lasted 7 years and has had some memorable moments. However, it has >changed from a series with a high school background to a series with the >reflecting the lack of direction of its main characters. Always a hard transition for shows. Shows that start in HS have a big problem at the end of 4 years, though I don't see why College can't extend you another 4. It is not *that* vastly different, excepting more freedom. Note that of all >the mains, only Zander has made a grudging transition to adulthood. He has? Why, because he has a "normal" job. Is that the only indicator of "adulthood"? Besides, they are all still 21 to 22. Far from needing to be "adults" yet. Buffy is >directionless, with some undetermined source of income (minimum wage would >not keep the house). I'd call being a slayer and saving the world as far from directionless as you can get, unless you value making a buck more than saving the life of possibly every man, women, child, and creature on the planet. I guess priorities vary, LOL. Willow's last few years would not likely have left her >time to keep up a good GPA in university. It's not that hard to get a decent GPA, especially if you have a good head on your shoulders. Plus, magick would help. "I call upon you pen, write like the wind....." Anya had the Magic Shop, ...because Giles left it to her. Not really of her own doing. but was a >combination of ageless demon and immature human - albeit the hottest woman >on the screen whenever she was shown. > ..except when Buffy is there! Anya is ok, but I never really thought of her as a particularly "hot" character. >To try and restate the show with Dawn as the central character would be >bound to fail. I would object to any show without SMG. She *is* the show. Her value to the show as anything more than the inevitable >hostage is still unproven. She has great potential, but BTVS is Buffy's show. A spin-off is possible, like Angel, but not a replacement for BTVS. To older viewers, she is an annoyance, as most >teenagers generally are. As well, while the main characters have feelings >for her, Buffy is the reason the relationship exists. Without her, I cannot >see the mains continuing to risk life and limb. Nor do I think that the >audience would be interested in taking the step back to watching a teenaged >Slayer, despite her cuteness. > >Lastly, Buffy has suffered the same issue that afflicted many a show in the >past. Each season, the enemy must be bigger, darker and more dangerous. Except S6. I don't think Willow was more of a threat than Glory. Last >season, this was done in a disappointing way. While Willow was a threat, the >idea that she could destroy the world was far fetched. The whole threat was >almost a throwaway, much like the season. This year is not fantastic, but >the threat may turn out better. (I am not one to say right now, as I hate >this whole Spike with a soul thing. I wanted the chip out of his undead >head. This would have made any Spike based plotline far more effective.) Let >this year be the end, with the show ending before it grinds into >cancellation. > Hmmm...I like the season so far. >I predict a rather limited career for SMG after the show ends. She is #10 on the list of top box office grossing female movie stars for the last year. She is linked with a great franchise (Scooby Doo)---the first movie is not too far down on the list of All Time box office draws, BTW. Moview such as Cruel Intentions and Harvard man show her incredible range. She is considering a run on Broadway (yes, she can sing and dance, too) and that huge Maybelline contract is always a good thing, too. Her fanbase is huge. Notice how most of her stuff does a lot better among the fans than what the critics predict. She is not a >great beauty on the Hollywood index but not a bad actress. I guess opinions vary. I think she is #1 on the list! Most polls (though usually from relatively mindless magazines only concerned with looks, granted---but that's what we are talking here) put her in the top 10 or 20. As for talent, Sarah is amazingly gifted. She is just a natural. A phenom. She is, IMO, one of the handful of truly great actresses in Hollywood today. She has the >opportunity to be the cute girl on a series or in some movies. It will be >interesting to watch how she grows into her thirties. > Very well, one would imagine.

2002-12-26 21:54:49-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (-Andy- <acs@fcgnet.works.net>)


Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com> enlightened us with news:Xns92F0C2E50767BDamouth@66.75.162.196 on 26 Dec 2002: > benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote in > news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com: > >> According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her >> as one of their "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > > It doesn't really matter what the stars say now. Especially since she DIDN'T say it. They (EW) are just making a prediction based on no facts but based on gossip. Which is pretty much what they do (other than the reviews they do occassionally)... spread gossip.... I'm not sure why people keep saying she has quit or won't be back for Season 8 when SHE apparently hasn't said anything yet.... Extremely annoying.... almost as bad as the folks who like to make up all that "slayer line" stuff when there isn't anything in the shows to prove anything about who is /isn't "The Slayer" or how they are created. I think too many people read fanfic (as good as some of it is) or the novels and assume THAT is canon. Or live in their own little world and assume what THEY think happened is canon. Geez!!!!!! -Andy-

2002-12-26 21:54:49-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (-Andy- <acs@fcgnet.works.net>)


Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com> enlightened us with news:Xns92F0C2E50767BDamouth@66.75.162.196 on 26 Dec 2002: > benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote in > news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com: > >> According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her >> as one of their "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > > It doesn't really matter what the stars say now. Especially since she DIDN'T say it. They (EW) are just making a prediction based on no facts but based on gossip. Which is pretty much what they do (other than the reviews they do occassionally)... spread gossip.... I'm not sure why people keep saying she has quit or won't be back for Season 8 when SHE apparently hasn't said anything yet.... Extremely annoying.... almost as bad as the folks who like to make up all that "slayer line" stuff when there isn't anything in the shows to prove anything about who is /isn't "The Slayer" or how they are created. I think too many people read fanfic (as good as some of it is) or the novels and assume THAT is canon. Or live in their own little world and assume what THEY think happened is canon. Geez!!!!!! -Andy-

2002-12-26 23:30:02+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (paulfxfoley@aol.com)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: >I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. > There already is a spinoff. Angel. It's second rate. --Paul ------------------------------ On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and Infidels adore. --Alexander Pope

2002-12-26 23:30:02+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (paulfxfoley@aol.com)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: >I've seen pros and cons on the viability of a spin-off, but I know that I >would be very, VERY excited about a fresh spin-off sans SMG. > There already is a spinoff. Angel. It's second rate. --Paul ------------------------------ On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and Infidels adore. --Alexander Pope

2002-12-27 03:09:29+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>)


benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote in news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com: > According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one > of their "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." It doesn't really matter what the stars say now. It could easily be a ploy for more money. Even if her mind is made up, it could change. Nothing is certain at this point. -Dan Damouth

2002-12-27 03:09:29+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>)


benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote in news:20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com: > According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one > of their "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." It doesn't really matter what the stars say now. It could easily be a ploy for more money. Even if her mind is made up, it could change. Nothing is certain at this point. -Dan Damouth

2002-12-27 03:35:20+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


<rander3127@aol.com> wrote in message news:gp8l0vkma17ifk8mfa8rd3m1luup51dgd0@4ax.com... > Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. Excuse me while I call ME and the WB to let them know that Angel has or "will bomb." I think ole random 3K there is pulling everyone's leg. Thanks for participating Randy! -- JoAnn Peeler

2002-12-27 03:35:20+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


<rander3127@aol.com> wrote in message news:gp8l0vkma17ifk8mfa8rd3m1luup51dgd0@4ax.com... > Any spin off or non-Geller "Buffy" will bomb. Excuse me while I call ME and the WB to let them know that Angel has or "will bomb." I think ole random 3K there is pulling everyone's leg. Thanks for participating Randy! -- JoAnn Peeler

2002-12-27 16:17:12-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (TEPC@webtv.net)


All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical.

2002-12-27 16:17:12-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (TEPC@webtv.net)


All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical.

2002-12-27 16:31:14-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (-Andy- <acs@fcgnet.works.net>)


EGK <egk@hotmail.com> enlightened us with news:uhip0v4uiu0gku9e30p344jlddluf7ebjk@4ax.com on 27 Dec 2002: > On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off >>starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to >>watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. I haven't decided myself. IF they do something with Dawn next year that makes her worth watching I'll watch a spinoff with Dawn in it with an open mind. I don't think a spinoff STARRING MT is necessarily a bad thing. but that wouldn't be the reason I would watch. It's the story that I'm interested in (Case-in-point... I enjoyed watching Andrea Parker in "The Pretender" but the stories got old/tired so I stopped watching.... and that comedy she is in now... "Less than Perfect" blech!! You couldn't pay me to watch it (well... maybe a LOT of money might get me to watch it!). ) > How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many > people have said they don't like it. That's putting it mildly... not something I can grok... hating a character like some hate Dawn around here. It's "only" a television show.... > I suppose they could change the character completely but then > it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. Hmmm... they don't have much time left to change her if that's the goal.... > It would be no different then the many > viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. They just > didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. Hmmm.... I no longer watch Angel because my local cable company dropped the WB station it carried and picked up UPN instead.... right before Buffy moved to UPN (phew!!!). But I also haven't found any compelling reasons to keep up with Angel. It stopped being a story I cared about. How often does an audience actually follow an actor to a new show ? And stick with them if the show isn't worth watching ? -Andy-

2002-12-27 16:31:14-06:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (-Andy- <acs@fcgnet.works.net>)


EGK <egk@hotmail.com> enlightened us with news:uhip0v4uiu0gku9e30p344jlddluf7ebjk@4ax.com on 27 Dec 2002: > On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off >>starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to >>watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. I haven't decided myself. IF they do something with Dawn next year that makes her worth watching I'll watch a spinoff with Dawn in it with an open mind. I don't think a spinoff STARRING MT is necessarily a bad thing. but that wouldn't be the reason I would watch. It's the story that I'm interested in (Case-in-point... I enjoyed watching Andrea Parker in "The Pretender" but the stories got old/tired so I stopped watching.... and that comedy she is in now... "Less than Perfect" blech!! You couldn't pay me to watch it (well... maybe a LOT of money might get me to watch it!). ) > How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many > people have said they don't like it. That's putting it mildly... not something I can grok... hating a character like some hate Dawn around here. It's "only" a television show.... > I suppose they could change the character completely but then > it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. Hmmm... they don't have much time left to change her if that's the goal.... > It would be no different then the many > viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. They just > didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. Hmmm.... I no longer watch Angel because my local cable company dropped the WB station it carried and picked up UPN instead.... right before Buffy moved to UPN (phew!!!). But I also haven't found any compelling reasons to keep up with Angel. It stopped being a story I cared about. How often does an audience actually follow an actor to a new show ? And stick with them if the show isn't worth watching ? -Andy-

2002-12-27 16:50:31-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: >All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-27 16:50:31-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: >All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-27 17:25:50-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:22:16 +0000 (UTC), "Jon Mason" <badboymason@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"EGK" <egk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:uhip0v4uiu0gku9e30p344jlddluf7ebjk@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: >> >> >All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >> >Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >> >first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. >> >> How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people >have >> said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >> completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would >be >> no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own >show. >> They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. > >I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not going to >watch it, based just on a character who stars in it. ESPECIALLY when its a >spinoff of a show you care about enough to sit on the internet and talk to >other people about. I could understand people who arent that into Buffy >being apathetic about a new Dawn/whoever series, but to be a Buffy fan and >dismiss a new spinoff out of hand is just crazy to me...at least watch 1/2 >episodes, after which it may indeed suck, but at least you will know for >sure... > I understand your point. I said myself I just wasn't looking forward to any series centered around Dawn. I might still watch it but seeing as I have to jump through hoops to watch Buffy as it is, (no local UPN), I doubt I'd care enough. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-27 17:25:50-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:22:16 +0000 (UTC), "Jon Mason" <badboymason@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"EGK" <egk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:uhip0v4uiu0gku9e30p344jlddluf7ebjk@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: >> >> >All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >> >Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >> >first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. >> >> How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people >have >> said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >> completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would >be >> no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own >show. >> They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. > >I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not going to >watch it, based just on a character who stars in it. ESPECIALLY when its a >spinoff of a show you care about enough to sit on the internet and talk to >other people about. I could understand people who arent that into Buffy >being apathetic about a new Dawn/whoever series, but to be a Buffy fan and >dismiss a new spinoff out of hand is just crazy to me...at least watch 1/2 >episodes, after which it may indeed suck, but at least you will know for >sure... > I understand your point. I said myself I just wasn't looking forward to any series centered around Dawn. I might still watch it but seeing as I have to jump through hoops to watch Buffy as it is, (no local UPN), I doubt I'd care enough. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-27 22:22:16+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Jon Mason <badboymason@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <egk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uhip0v4uiu0gku9e30p344jlddluf7ebjk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > > >All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring > >Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the > >first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. > > How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have > said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character > completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be > no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. > They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not going to watch it, based just on a character who stars in it. ESPECIALLY when its a spinoff of a show you care about enough to sit on the internet and talk to other people about. I could understand people who arent that into Buffy being apathetic about a new Dawn/whoever series, but to be a Buffy fan and dismiss a new spinoff out of hand is just crazy to me...at least watch 1/2 episodes, after which it may indeed suck, but at least you will know for sure...

2002-12-27 22:22:16+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Jon Mason <badboymason@hotmail.com>)


"EGK" <egk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uhip0v4uiu0gku9e30p344jlddluf7ebjk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > > >All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring > >Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the > >first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. > > How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have > said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character > completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be > no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. > They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not going to watch it, based just on a character who stars in it. ESPECIALLY when its a spinoff of a show you care about enough to sit on the internet and talk to other people about. I could understand people who arent that into Buffy being apathetic about a new Dawn/whoever series, but to be a Buffy fan and dismiss a new spinoff out of hand is just crazy to me...at least watch 1/2 episodes, after which it may indeed suck, but at least you will know for sure...

2002-12-28 03:42:05+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Phoenix Rain <Phoenix_rain@earthlink.net>)


> > > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off > >>starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to > >>watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. Prolly cause now one wants to hear Dawnie yelling GET OUT! GET OUT! GET OUT! to a vampire. LOL. Sorry, I could not resist this. Rain

2002-12-28 03:42:05+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Phoenix Rain <Phoenix_rain@earthlink.net>)


> > > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off > >>starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to > >>watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. Prolly cause now one wants to hear Dawnie yelling GET OUT! GET OUT! GET OUT! to a vampire. LOL. Sorry, I could not resist this. Rain

2002-12-28 04:58:39+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical.<< Logic ain't your strong suit, is it? We're Buffy fans. Michelle Trachtenberg plays Dawn. We never identified ourselves as Dawn fans. Can you say, "Duh"? Kate

2002-12-28 04:58:39+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the first place. IMHO it's hypocritical.<< Logic ain't your strong suit, is it? We're Buffy fans. Michelle Trachtenberg plays Dawn. We never identified ourselves as Dawn fans. Can you say, "Duh"? Kate

2002-12-28 05:04:08+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not going to watch it, based just on a character who stars in it.<< What's not to understand? I found the character of Angel yawnworthy. I find the actor who plays him untalented and not particularly attractive. Why in God's name would I want to watch a show which would require me to watch an actor I don't like playing a character I don't like? >>ESPECIALLY when its a spinoff of a show you care about enough to sit on the internet and talk to other people about.<< Who says that just because I like the show I have to like every character in it, watch every spinoff from it, or buy every freaking piece of merchandise connected to it (which is probably next on this list)? I used to like M*A*S*H when it was on, but I wouldn't have watched the short-lived spinoff if my life had depended on it. The only thing that wouldn't make any sense is if I indentified myself as a Buffy fan, but didn't watch Buffy. >>I could understand people who arent that into Buffy being apathetic about a new Dawn/whoever series, but to be a Buffy fan and dismiss a new spinoff out of hand is just crazy to me<< What's out of hand about it? Angel bored me to tears when he was on Buffy. The illogical thing would have been for me to think there was any reason he wouldn't continue to do so. >>at least watch 1/2 episodes, after which it may indeed suck, but at least you will know for sure...<< Why? Do I have some desperate, heretofore unknown to me need to watch another TV show? Kate

2002-12-28 05:04:08+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not going to watch it, based just on a character who stars in it.<< What's not to understand? I found the character of Angel yawnworthy. I find the actor who plays him untalented and not particularly attractive. Why in God's name would I want to watch a show which would require me to watch an actor I don't like playing a character I don't like? >>ESPECIALLY when its a spinoff of a show you care about enough to sit on the internet and talk to other people about.<< Who says that just because I like the show I have to like every character in it, watch every spinoff from it, or buy every freaking piece of merchandise connected to it (which is probably next on this list)? I used to like M*A*S*H when it was on, but I wouldn't have watched the short-lived spinoff if my life had depended on it. The only thing that wouldn't make any sense is if I indentified myself as a Buffy fan, but didn't watch Buffy. >>I could understand people who arent that into Buffy being apathetic about a new Dawn/whoever series, but to be a Buffy fan and dismiss a new spinoff out of hand is just crazy to me<< What's out of hand about it? Angel bored me to tears when he was on Buffy. The illogical thing would have been for me to think there was any reason he wouldn't continue to do so. >>at least watch 1/2 episodes, after which it may indeed suck, but at least you will know for sure...<< Why? Do I have some desperate, heretofore unknown to me need to watch another TV show? Kate

2002-12-28 07:29:16-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (TEPC@webtv.net)


I've watched and enjoyed many movies and TV shows with actors I don't like. Half the music CD's I own are by people who if I met them in person I would probably loathe. You got to go with the material when it comes to the entertainment biz.

2002-12-28 07:29:16-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (TEPC@webtv.net)


I've watched and enjoyed many movies and TV shows with actors I don't like. Half the music CD's I own are by people who if I met them in person I would probably loathe. You got to go with the material when it comes to the entertainment biz.

2002-12-28 07:33:14-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (TEPC@webtv.net)


Also, remember that Dawn is a fictonal character. Her personality can change with stroke of a pen. I believe we've seen this happen on this show.

2002-12-28 07:33:14-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (TEPC@webtv.net)


Also, remember that Dawn is a fictonal character. Her personality can change with stroke of a pen. I believe we've seen this happen on this show.

2002-12-28 08:59:32+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


EGK wrote in message ... >On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >>Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >>first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. > >How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have >said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be >no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. >They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. I didn't. I hated the character from the start and the feeling increased until I just felt every minute with him on screen was a minute wasted. Wesley on BTVS was at least amusingly uptight. I might get into later seasons of "Angel" with Cordelia and even Wesley playing larger roles, but Angel just turns me off. Dawn, on the other hand, is a real pleasure to watch. One second she's a little brat, spoiled and whining the way most middle class girls her age do, and the next she's making out with a vampire and then staking it the way the slayers sister ought to. If there is a spin-off, I would like to see Dawn in it, even if Faith is the star. And MT may be jailbait in the USA, but she is so pretty...

2002-12-28 08:59:32+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


EGK wrote in message ... >On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >>Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >>first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. > >How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have >said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be >no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. >They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. I didn't. I hated the character from the start and the feeling increased until I just felt every minute with him on screen was a minute wasted. Wesley on BTVS was at least amusingly uptight. I might get into later seasons of "Angel" with Cordelia and even Wesley playing larger roles, but Angel just turns me off. Dawn, on the other hand, is a real pleasure to watch. One second she's a little brat, spoiled and whining the way most middle class girls her age do, and the next she's making out with a vampire and then staking it the way the slayers sister ought to. If there is a spin-off, I would like to see Dawn in it, even if Faith is the star. And MT may be jailbait in the USA, but she is so pretty...

2002-12-28 11:07:24+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Speaker-to-Customers <greebo@manx.net>)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: >>> I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not >>> going to watch it, based just on a character who stars in it.<< > > What's not to understand? I found the character of Angel yawnworthy. > I find the actor who plays him untalented and not particularly > attractive. Why in God's name would I want to watch a show which > would require me to watch an actor I don't like playing a character I > don't like? And he's stupid and his hair goes straight up. Paul Speaker-to-Customers

2002-12-28 11:07:24+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Speaker-to-Customers <greebo@manx.net>)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: >>> I really dont understand BEFORE a series starts, saying you're not >>> going to watch it, based just on a character who stars in it.<< > > What's not to understand? I found the character of Angel yawnworthy. > I find the actor who plays him untalented and not particularly > attractive. Why in God's name would I want to watch a show which > would require me to watch an actor I don't like playing a character I > don't like? And he's stupid and his hair goes straight up. Paul Speaker-to-Customers

2002-12-28 11:13:35-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:38:11 GMT, Mary Jo DiBella <mdibella@rochester.rr.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:50:31 -0500, EGK <egk@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: >> >>>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >>>Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >>>first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. >> >>How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have >>said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >>completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be >>no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. >>They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. > >Not exactly....I'd LOVE to see Angel as a star of his own show. Unfortunately, >this isn't the same character as he was before. They've turned Angel into a >goofy buffoon, and that is a show I won't watch. Last season I thought Angel the series was better then Buffy. This season with the latest Conner/Cordelia plot, I've totally lost interest in that show. On the other hand, they've done the same thing you mention above with Spike's character on Buffy. That is turned him in to a pathetic buffoon. I complain about it a lot but am still watching. It just shows I have more invested in the characters on that show. With Angel the series, I never did so bad plot or character development just leave me not caring. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-28 11:13:35-05:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (EGK <egk@hotmail.com>)


On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:38:11 GMT, Mary Jo DiBella <mdibella@rochester.rr.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:50:31 -0500, EGK <egk@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: >> >>>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >>>Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >>>first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. >> >>How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have >>said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >>completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be >>no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. >>They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. > >Not exactly....I'd LOVE to see Angel as a star of his own show. Unfortunately, >this isn't the same character as he was before. They've turned Angel into a >goofy buffoon, and that is a show I won't watch. Last season I thought Angel the series was better then Buffy. This season with the latest Conner/Cordelia plot, I've totally lost interest in that show. On the other hand, they've done the same thing you mention above with Spike's character on Buffy. That is turned him in to a pathetic buffoon. I complain about it a lot but am still watching. It just shows I have more invested in the characters on that show. With Angel the series, I never did so bad plot or character development just leave me not caring. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2002-12-28 12:04:16-08:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (GG2010@webtv.net)


benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote in message news:<20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com>... > According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their > "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > > "SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR > GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' > REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the > price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. > EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, > Dawn, because... > FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > equally monstrous spin-off." > > http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > > Ben Varkentine > > "Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > > Read my film, music and book reviews at > http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) MOVIE STARDOM??? LMAO....Scooby DOO movies?

2002-12-28 12:04:16-08:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (GG2010@webtv.net)


benvarkent@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) wrote in message news:<20021225200615.01474.00000275@mb-fd.aol.com>... > According to Entertainment Weekly Online, anyway, who list her as one of their > "six stars who threw in the towel in 2002." > > "SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR > GIG Kicking undead butt on ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'' > REASON FOR QUITTING Her contract is up, and movie stardom beckons. But, if the > price is right, she may be lured back for guest appearances. > EXIT STRATEGY A season of preemptive slayer training for Buffy's little sister, > Dawn, because... > FALLOUT ...without its marquee character, UPN could be scrambling for an > equally monstrous spin-off." > > http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,399465~7~0~alookatsix,00.html > > > Ben Varkentine > > "Thanks for being a smart-arse"-- Keith Gow > > Read my film, music and book reviews at > http://ink19.com/ (new) & http://popmatters.com/ (archival) MOVIE STARDOM??? LMAO....Scooby DOO movies?

2002-12-28 14:38:11+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Mary Jo DiBella <mdibella@rochester.rr.com>)


On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:50:31 -0500, EGK <egk@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >>Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >>first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. > >How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have >said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be >no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. >They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes Not exactly....I'd LOVE to see Angel as a star of his own show. Unfortunately, this isn't the same character as he was before. They've turned Angel into a goofy buffoon, and that is a show I won't watch. MJ

2002-12-28 14:38:11+00:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (Mary Jo DiBella <mdibella@rochester.rr.com>)


On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:50:31 -0500, EGK <egk@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:17:12 -0500 (EST), TEPC@webtv.net wrote: > >>All these Buffy fans who say they won't watch a spin off starring >>Michelle T. are worst than the people who refuse to watch BtVS in the >>first place. IMHO it's hypocritical. > >How so? We've already got a taste of Dawn's character and many people have >said they don't like it. I suppose they could change the character >completely but then it wouldn't be the one we've already seen. It would be >no different then the many viewers who didn't follow Angel to his own show. >They just didn't think he was a character they cared to see as the star. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes Not exactly....I'd LOVE to see Angel as a star of his own show. Unfortunately, this isn't the same character as he was before. They've turned Angel into a goofy buffoon, and that is a show I won't watch. MJ

2002-12-29 11:18:34-08:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (mcdaniel_san@yahoo.com)


"Carey" <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<EAtP9.79890$E_.76652@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>... > Another way to look at this: > > Many of us have stayed the course, watching BTVS for its entire run. I wouldn't go bragging about that. > It is > harder to watch now but we have enough invested to stay through to the end. You mean, I guess, that given all of the time you've wasted a little more wasted time will only be a tiny percentage of the total or insignificant. That's true. You have enough credit now to spend a couple of months vegitating without feeling guilty about it. > We want to see how the show ends and whether questions are answered or left > open. Do you really expect any loose ends to be tied up? That's not the usual way TV series end so have some pain killers handy. > Just to clarify, we will make the effort to watch the show. However, it is > time to bring it to a great end, rather than let it sink to new lows (can > anyone say X-Files?). What is the point of watching a show that you don't enjoy? -McDaniel

2002-12-29 11:18:34-08:00 - Re: SMG is throwing in the towel - (mcdaniel_san@yahoo.com)


"Carey" <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<EAtP9.79890$E_.76652@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>... > Another way to look at this: > > Many of us have stayed the course, watching BTVS for its entire run. I wouldn't go bragging about that. > It is > harder to watch now but we have enough invested to stay through to the end. You mean, I guess, that given all of the time you've wasted a little more wasted time will only be a tiny percentage of the total or insignificant. That's true. You have enough credit now to spend a couple of months vegitating without feeling guilty about it. > We want to see how the show ends and whether questions are answered or left > open. Do you really expect any loose ends to be tied up? That's not the usual way TV series end so have some pain killers handy. > Just to clarify, we will make the effort to watch the show. However, it is > time to bring it to a great end, rather than let it sink to new lows (can > anyone say X-Files?). What is the point of watching a show that you don't enjoy? -McDaniel