FLM films - My Webpage

2003-04-07 21:03:21-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? The episode Angel--till then thought he was just a mystery guy. > >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw away > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > Retcon--too humble and school boy nervous with Jenny before that. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Retcon. But it worked nicely. > >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No > >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > Yes >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > Yes >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Yes and Yes >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > Error, or they just didn't care. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No > >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > Detailed plan through Grad Day 2--with some planning on the fly, mainly because of the Angel spin-off. Even Marti, in a very obnoxious commentary on the DVD of What's My Line, said Spike and Dru were supposed to be around only for Season 2 but worked so well they kept bringing them back. Ken

2003-04-07 21:03:21-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? The episode Angel--till then thought he was just a mystery guy. > >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw away > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > Retcon--too humble and school boy nervous with Jenny before that. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Retcon. But it worked nicely. > >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No > >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > Yes >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > Yes >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Yes and Yes >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > Error, or they just didn't care. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No > >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > Detailed plan through Grad Day 2--with some planning on the fly, mainly because of the Angel spin-off. Even Marti, in a very obnoxious commentary on the DVD of What's My Line, said Spike and Dru were supposed to be around only for Season 2 but worked so well they kept bringing them back. Ken

2003-04-07 21:51:09-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>, Sleeper wrote: > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Pretty much as soon as he gave her that cross. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Just a throw away. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? The actual details were unplanned, but that there was some darkness in Giles' past was there all along. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Joss is quite forthright in saying that he didn't come up with that until he was actually writing _Surprise_ > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? Nope. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? I think that Buffy cared for Riley a great deal. I don't think it was love. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Only in that he grew and changed from his experiences. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Nope. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Planned. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? The institution was all in her head. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between. He's had the outline in his head for some time, but is continually reworking the details. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-04-07 21:51:09-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>, Sleeper wrote: > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Pretty much as soon as he gave her that cross. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Just a throw away. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? The actual details were unplanned, but that there was some darkness in Giles' past was there all along. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Joss is quite forthright in saying that he didn't come up with that until he was actually writing _Surprise_ > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? Nope. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? I think that Buffy cared for Riley a great deal. I don't think it was love. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Only in that he grew and changed from his experiences. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Nope. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Planned. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? The institution was all in her head. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between. He's had the outline in his head for some time, but is continually reworking the details. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-04-08 00:50:39+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Do you understand BtVS? >From: "Sleeper" Unknown >Date: 4/7/2003 5:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com> > > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > N/A. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > One of those "the end...OR IS IT!" horror cliches. I didn't take it seriously. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > Retcon. Big, stinking, howling retcon. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > I wasn't sure. I hadn't been watching long enough. I eventually found out it was a retcon. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > No, I thought it was supposed to indicate that Willow was bisexual, because VampWillow was bisexual. I think Willow being gay retcons Doppelgangland. If Willow was purely gay, why would her vamp self have dug on Xander? The vampire is supposed to be the repressed version of the human. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > No. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > No, it was a natural evolution for the character. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Not surprised, but I think it would have been more interesting to keep the key stuff in. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > Don't know, never cared. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > Probably not. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > Vague idea. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-04-08 00:50:39+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Do you understand BtVS? >From: "Sleeper" Unknown >Date: 4/7/2003 5:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com> > > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > N/A. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > One of those "the end...OR IS IT!" horror cliches. I didn't take it seriously. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > Retcon. Big, stinking, howling retcon. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > I wasn't sure. I hadn't been watching long enough. I eventually found out it was a retcon. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > No, I thought it was supposed to indicate that Willow was bisexual, because VampWillow was bisexual. I think Willow being gay retcons Doppelgangland. If Willow was purely gay, why would her vamp self have dug on Xander? The vampire is supposed to be the repressed version of the human. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > No. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > No, it was a natural evolution for the character. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Not surprised, but I think it would have been more interesting to keep the key stuff in. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > Don't know, never cared. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > Probably not. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > Vague idea. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-04-08 01:02:38+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Empress <shopperspender@hotmailnotspam.com>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Way before "Angel." I noticed we only saw him at night. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? I took it as a cheesy B horror movie-like effect, didn't think we'd see them again. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Retcon. And a bad one. In "The Witch," he notes that the spell to reverse Amy's mom's spells was his "first casting." Plus, in early S1, he knows next to nothing about vampires, witchcraft, and most of the supernatural without looking it up first. Later, they reference Ripper's wild supernatural ways; he should have known more in S1. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Probably planned. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? I think we were supposed to believe she *tried* and it was just another "add it to the Buffy can never have a normal life column." > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Not so much. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? I think it was only meant to be pertinent to the Glory story arc; when the arc ended, the key nonsense was dropped. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Don't know, don't care. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > Grand vision, he just doesn't waste much time on the details, like continuity and characterization. :)

2003-04-08 01:02:38+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Empress <shopperspender@hotmailnotspam.com>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Way before "Angel." I noticed we only saw him at night. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? I took it as a cheesy B horror movie-like effect, didn't think we'd see them again. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Retcon. And a bad one. In "The Witch," he notes that the spell to reverse Amy's mom's spells was his "first casting." Plus, in early S1, he knows next to nothing about vampires, witchcraft, and most of the supernatural without looking it up first. Later, they reference Ripper's wild supernatural ways; he should have known more in S1. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Probably planned. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? I think we were supposed to believe she *tried* and it was just another "add it to the Buffy can never have a normal life column." > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Not so much. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? I think it was only meant to be pertinent to the Glory story arc; when the arc ended, the key nonsense was dropped. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Don't know, don't care. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > Grand vision, he just doesn't waste much time on the details, like continuity and characterization. :)

2003-04-08 01:43:34+01:00 - Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that Angel was a vampire? 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant or it was just a throw away visual? 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from her introduction? 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as gay? 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her head? 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and exciting. When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have worked it out before 'Angel' aired. 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of thing. 3. A clear retcon. 4. Ditto. 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just built on it later. 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open up to him was a retcon. 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically started making him interesting. 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely another story about Buffy. 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually ends. 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-08 01:43:34+01:00 - Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that Angel was a vampire? 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant or it was just a throw away visual? 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from her introduction? 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as gay? 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her head? 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and exciting. When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have worked it out before 'Angel' aired. 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of thing. 3. A clear retcon. 4. Ditto. 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just built on it later. 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open up to him was a retcon. 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically started making him interesting. 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely another story about Buffy. 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually ends. 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-08 03:19:40+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (MegaSilver <megasilver@worldnet.att.net>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? N/A. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Just a cheap horror film clich���. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Probably retcon. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Joss has stated that it's retcon. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? At the time, I didn't think much of it; it might have been though. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? We were supposed to, but I never bought it. For as much as they wanted her to, they didn't seem to be able to make her. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Yes; he was a bigger dork in S5. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Not really. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Dunno. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? Please, dear Lord, NO!!!! > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between. No one can start a TV show like BtVS and really know exactly where it's going to be in six years (but he does plan ahead and foreshadow things better than most other TV producers, IMHO).

2003-04-08 03:19:40+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (MegaSilver <megasilver@worldnet.att.net>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? N/A. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Just a cheap horror film clich���. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Probably retcon. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Joss has stated that it's retcon. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? At the time, I didn't think much of it; it might have been though. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? We were supposed to, but I never bought it. For as much as they wanted her to, they didn't seem to be able to make her. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Yes; he was a bigger dork in S5. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Not really. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Dunno. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? Please, dear Lord, NO!!!! > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between. No one can start a TV show like BtVS and really know exactly where it's going to be in six years (but he does plan ahead and foreshadow things better than most other TV producers, IMHO).

2003-04-08 05:58:15-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>, "Sleeper" says... > > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > When they revealed it in ep 7. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > Throwaway. A nod to a classic horror movie cliche ending. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > Planned in the sense that Joss always knew he wanted Giles to be more than just a stuffy librarian. That's partly why he cast Tony Head. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > Not planned - but that's not something I'd describe as a retcon. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > Yes. It was late season 3, around the time they would be thinking about S4 stuff in general. Joss originally planned for Willow to have a gay fling but come back to Oz. So I'd say the 'kinda gay'/VampWillow being bi- stuff pre-shadowed that. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > Yes. I think she did love him. Not as much as Angel and in a different way but she loved him. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > Yes. I agree with you that they made him insecure about his relationship, more needy, in order to create the scenario where Buffy would realistically reject him. I was irritated by it at the time because it was clearly a response to fan pressure. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Not surprised. Slighty disappointed because I thought there was more mileage in it - which would have given Dawn more to do in S6. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > I don't remember a continuity error concerning its weight. Buffy could lift it but Spike couldn't - but Spike's only a vampire and Buffy's a Slayer. It couldn't be borne by a glass counter but it could by a sturdy wood bookcase - again not surprising to me. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > There's no sensible way to answer that question since we're dealing with fiction. It's all made up - so parts of it can't be more real than others. But if you mean do I think the finale will end with Buffy in the mental hospital - then no I don't. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > As I understand it, they plan out the whole season's arc before they begin. This is mostly Joss although other writers have input. Writers then pitch ideas for standalones and other eps. Joss does however plant things which can be picked up later - Tara being not quite human, the 7-3-0 stuff. These don't always get implemented as planned though - there's vagueness and flexibility. There's also flexibility to change things as situations change or fan reaction dictates - e.g. keeping Spike on, keeping Tara. So I'd say Joss has a season ahead planned and a few ideas - which may change - for after that.

2003-04-08 05:58:15-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>, "Sleeper" says... > > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > When they revealed it in ep 7. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > Throwaway. A nod to a classic horror movie cliche ending. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > Planned in the sense that Joss always knew he wanted Giles to be more than just a stuffy librarian. That's partly why he cast Tony Head. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > Not planned - but that's not something I'd describe as a retcon. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > Yes. It was late season 3, around the time they would be thinking about S4 stuff in general. Joss originally planned for Willow to have a gay fling but come back to Oz. So I'd say the 'kinda gay'/VampWillow being bi- stuff pre-shadowed that. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > Yes. I think she did love him. Not as much as Angel and in a different way but she loved him. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > Yes. I agree with you that they made him insecure about his relationship, more needy, in order to create the scenario where Buffy would realistically reject him. I was irritated by it at the time because it was clearly a response to fan pressure. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Not surprised. Slighty disappointed because I thought there was more mileage in it - which would have given Dawn more to do in S6. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > I don't remember a continuity error concerning its weight. Buffy could lift it but Spike couldn't - but Spike's only a vampire and Buffy's a Slayer. It couldn't be borne by a glass counter but it could by a sturdy wood bookcase - again not surprising to me. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > There's no sensible way to answer that question since we're dealing with fiction. It's all made up - so parts of it can't be more real than others. But if you mean do I think the finale will end with Buffy in the mental hospital - then no I don't. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > As I understand it, they plan out the whole season's arc before they begin. This is mostly Joss although other writers have input. Writers then pitch ideas for standalones and other eps. Joss does however plant things which can be picked up later - Tara being not quite human, the 7-3-0 stuff. These don't always get implemented as planned though - there's vagueness and flexibility. There's also flexibility to change things as situations change or fan reaction dictates - e.g. keeping Spike on, keeping Tara. So I'd say Joss has a season ahead planned and a few ideas - which may change - for after that.

2003-04-08 06:43:30-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon (WtchyWmyn) wrote in message news:<20030408032610.16068.00000790@mb-ca.aol.com>... > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or >planned from > her introduction? > > > Joss has stated that it's retcon. > > "Retcon" is when something in the history is CHANGED. When continuity is > disturbed. Kinda like mystical monks doing a spell on you to make you ignore > what you know of history to accept a new fact and um... yeah you know where I'm > going with that... > > In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally > in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone > stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon > because it contradicts the whole first season. > > Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her > history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I > honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). > > Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." > If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, > it's not a retcon. > > I don't have the DVDs so I guess i'll have to wait a few weeks to see Jenny > show up in the episodes > > Can anyone give me Joss' actual quote on this matter and/or examples of how > Jenny's background was altered with the new info about her secret identity? You may have a point in it not contradicting something expressly--after all, it was never said she was NOT a Gypsy. BUT I think what was retcon was something more subtle, something I've tried to put my finger on and express in the past. It's attitudinal, and how the characters interact. For example, on the Giles front, it didn't bother me that he might have a secret Ripper past. What bothered me is that that past seemed to contradict his fumbling, bumbling milquetoast attitude toward Jenny when he was clearly becoming attracted to her. I mean, he could have suppressed that wild past to the point of denial, but it just seemed unlikely. Similarly with Jenny. Her omments about her surprise that Buffy was the Slayer ("The part that gets me, though, is where Buffy is the Vampire Slayer. She's so little."), her description of herself as Technopagan, and her interactions with Giles and Buffy seemed inconsistent with not only her Gypsy past but also her supposed role as Gypsy spy supposed to somehow keep Angel from his moment of pure happiness. So, to that extent I think it can be a retcon without expressly contradicting a given factual historical statement. Unless, of course, there's a better word to describe that. Ken

2003-04-08 06:43:30-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon (WtchyWmyn) wrote in message news:<20030408032610.16068.00000790@mb-ca.aol.com>... > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or >planned from > her introduction? > > > Joss has stated that it's retcon. > > "Retcon" is when something in the history is CHANGED. When continuity is > disturbed. Kinda like mystical monks doing a spell on you to make you ignore > what you know of history to accept a new fact and um... yeah you know where I'm > going with that... > > In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally > in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone > stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon > because it contradicts the whole first season. > > Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her > history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I > honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). > > Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." > If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, > it's not a retcon. > > I don't have the DVDs so I guess i'll have to wait a few weeks to see Jenny > show up in the episodes > > Can anyone give me Joss' actual quote on this matter and/or examples of how > Jenny's background was altered with the new info about her secret identity? You may have a point in it not contradicting something expressly--after all, it was never said she was NOT a Gypsy. BUT I think what was retcon was something more subtle, something I've tried to put my finger on and express in the past. It's attitudinal, and how the characters interact. For example, on the Giles front, it didn't bother me that he might have a secret Ripper past. What bothered me is that that past seemed to contradict his fumbling, bumbling milquetoast attitude toward Jenny when he was clearly becoming attracted to her. I mean, he could have suppressed that wild past to the point of denial, but it just seemed unlikely. Similarly with Jenny. Her omments about her surprise that Buffy was the Slayer ("The part that gets me, though, is where Buffy is the Vampire Slayer. She's so little."), her description of herself as Technopagan, and her interactions with Giles and Buffy seemed inconsistent with not only her Gypsy past but also her supposed role as Gypsy spy supposed to somehow keep Angel from his moment of pure happiness. So, to that extent I think it can be a retcon without expressly contradicting a given factual historical statement. Unless, of course, there's a better word to describe that. Ken

2003-04-08 07:26:10+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon)


> 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or >planned from her introduction? > Joss has stated that it's retcon. "Retcon" is when something in the history is CHANGED. When continuity is disturbed. Kinda like mystical monks doing a spell on you to make you ignore what you know of history to accept a new fact and um... yeah you know where I'm going with that... In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon because it contradicts the whole first season. Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, it's not a retcon. I don't have the DVDs so I guess i'll have to wait a few weeks to see Jenny show up in the episodes Can anyone give me Joss' actual quote on this matter and/or examples of how Jenny's background was altered with the new info about her secret identity?

2003-04-08 07:26:10+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon)


> 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or >planned from her introduction? > Joss has stated that it's retcon. "Retcon" is when something in the history is CHANGED. When continuity is disturbed. Kinda like mystical monks doing a spell on you to make you ignore what you know of history to accept a new fact and um... yeah you know where I'm going with that... In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon because it contradicts the whole first season. Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, it's not a retcon. I don't have the DVDs so I guess i'll have to wait a few weeks to see Jenny show up in the episodes Can anyone give me Joss' actual quote on this matter and/or examples of how Jenny's background was altered with the new info about her secret identity?

2003-04-08 07:42:44-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Dave Wilton <dave@wilton.net>)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? N/A. But it I had watched from the beginning, I probably would have been suspicious by the Harvest and twigged to it by NKIABotFD. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw-away. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Neither. A retcon has to change something that we had previously known. The introduction of Ripper is backstory, not retcon. And no, it wasn't planned from the beginning--except maybe some vague idea that he had a dark past. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Again, backstory. Unplanned. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. There would have been other clues if gay Willow had been planned. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No, but his relationship with Buffy was changing, which is realistic. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? No. It had run its course. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Error. But a funny one. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. "Normal Again" should be chucked from the canon. There was a huge retcon here, with Buffy saying she had been institutionalized before. That line completely invalidated most of Joyce's S1-2 scenes. The ending was a cliche not worthy of BtVS--the series previously made fun of crap like this. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Vague idea. --Dave Wilton dave@wilton.net http://www.wordorigins.org

2003-04-08 07:42:44-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Dave Wilton <dave@wilton.net>)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? N/A. But it I had watched from the beginning, I probably would have been suspicious by the Harvest and twigged to it by NKIABotFD. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw-away. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Neither. A retcon has to change something that we had previously known. The introduction of Ripper is backstory, not retcon. And no, it wasn't planned from the beginning--except maybe some vague idea that he had a dark past. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Again, backstory. Unplanned. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. There would have been other clues if gay Willow had been planned. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No, but his relationship with Buffy was changing, which is realistic. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? No. It had run its course. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Error. But a funny one. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. "Normal Again" should be chucked from the canon. There was a huge retcon here, with Buffy saying she had been institutionalized before. That line completely invalidated most of Joyce's S1-2 scenes. The ending was a cliche not worthy of BtVS--the series previously made fun of crap like this. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Vague idea. --Dave Wilton dave@wilton.net http://www.wordorigins.org

2003-04-08 09:25:01-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <4c527512.0304080543.cedda16@posting.google.com>, kenm47@ix.netcom.com says... > >>In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally >> in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone >> stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon >> because it contradicts the whole first season. >> <snip> > >It's attitudinal, and how the characters interact. For example, on the >Giles front, it didn't bother me that he might have a secret Ripper >past. What bothered me is that that past seemed to contradict his >fumbling, bumbling milquetoast attitude toward Jenny when he was >clearly becoming attracted to her. I mean, he could have suppressed >that wild past to the point of denial, but it just seemed unlikely. > Clearly it was a retcon in the sense that there was some reconciling to do. However I think that the clever thing about the plot of In The Dark Age is that provides a realistic basis to explain all the apparent problems. In other words, I think it's an example of a successful retcon. Firstly 'it's my first casting' is now easily understandable. His last 'casting' was something he'd likely want to forget or deny. Lying to cover up that past is believable. Secondly as to his so-called bumbling attitude, especially with Jenny. I'm not sure that reckless, violent and involved in dangerous magics necessarily makes you suave and confident with the ladies. Particularly if you've spent 20 years trying not to be those things - which as far as we know is the case. We're told that Giles rebelled against the sheer level of work and study involved in training to be a Watcher. The fact that he at some stage went back to it - implies that he had to take up that lifestyle again. I can easily imagine teenage Giles, horrified at having accidentally killed someone with the Eyghon summoning, vowing to throw himself more into his study, partly to regain a sense of control, and partly to comfort himself that by gaining knowledge he could hopefully avoid a similar error again. That sort of thing would have a huge impact on his character. Finally in S1 Giles is very much a fish out of water - he's moved to the US - big cultural change, he's learning to be a real active Watcher as opposed to a glorified academic, he's learning to relate to Buffy. It makes a lot of sense that he seems more confident and relaxed in S2, he's had time to settle into his new role, new surroundings, new relationships. Of course I'm not saying they planned all this from the start of S1 - though Joss always wanted to explore more sides to Giles - but I'm saying it all fits together remarkably well. A lot better than some retcons since. Which is why I call it a successful retcon.

2003-04-08 09:25:01-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shuggie <Shuggie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <4c527512.0304080543.cedda16@posting.google.com>, kenm47@ix.netcom.com says... > >>In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally >> in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone >> stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon >> because it contradicts the whole first season. >> <snip> > >It's attitudinal, and how the characters interact. For example, on the >Giles front, it didn't bother me that he might have a secret Ripper >past. What bothered me is that that past seemed to contradict his >fumbling, bumbling milquetoast attitude toward Jenny when he was >clearly becoming attracted to her. I mean, he could have suppressed >that wild past to the point of denial, but it just seemed unlikely. > Clearly it was a retcon in the sense that there was some reconciling to do. However I think that the clever thing about the plot of In The Dark Age is that provides a realistic basis to explain all the apparent problems. In other words, I think it's an example of a successful retcon. Firstly 'it's my first casting' is now easily understandable. His last 'casting' was something he'd likely want to forget or deny. Lying to cover up that past is believable. Secondly as to his so-called bumbling attitude, especially with Jenny. I'm not sure that reckless, violent and involved in dangerous magics necessarily makes you suave and confident with the ladies. Particularly if you've spent 20 years trying not to be those things - which as far as we know is the case. We're told that Giles rebelled against the sheer level of work and study involved in training to be a Watcher. The fact that he at some stage went back to it - implies that he had to take up that lifestyle again. I can easily imagine teenage Giles, horrified at having accidentally killed someone with the Eyghon summoning, vowing to throw himself more into his study, partly to regain a sense of control, and partly to comfort himself that by gaining knowledge he could hopefully avoid a similar error again. That sort of thing would have a huge impact on his character. Finally in S1 Giles is very much a fish out of water - he's moved to the US - big cultural change, he's learning to be a real active Watcher as opposed to a glorified academic, he's learning to relate to Buffy. It makes a lot of sense that he seems more confident and relaxed in S2, he's had time to settle into his new role, new surroundings, new relationships. Of course I'm not saying they planned all this from the start of S1 - though Joss always wanted to explore more sides to Giles - but I'm saying it all fits together remarkably well. A lot better than some retcons since. Which is why I call it a successful retcon.

2003-04-08 10:07:20-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 08 Apr 2003 07:26:10 GMT, wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon (WtchyWmyn) wrote: >> 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or >planned from >her introduction? > >> Joss has stated that it's retcon. > >"Retcon" is when something in the history is CHANGED. When continuity is >disturbed. Kinda like mystical monks doing a spell on you to make you ignore >what you know of history to accept a new fact and um... yeah you know where I'm >going with that... > >In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally >in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone >stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon >because it contradicts the whole first season. > >Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her >history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I >honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). > >Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." >If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, >it's not a retcon. > >I don't have the DVDs so I guess i'll have to wait a few weeks to see Jenny >show up in the episodes > >Can anyone give me Joss' actual quote on this matter and/or examples of how >Jenny's background was altered with the new info about her secret identity? I don't think there was ever enough done with Jenny as a character for it to qualify as an on-screen retcon. If Joss said that he may be referring to the background for the character that was in his own mind. I think the plan was originally for her to be a complete outsider to the supernatural goings on but there's nothing I can think of that contradicts that. If it's not a retcon I don't know what other word to use to describe what the original poster asked. It wasn't planned from the beginning that her character be a member of the Kalderash clan of Gypsies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-08 10:07:20-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 08 Apr 2003 07:26:10 GMT, wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon (WtchyWmyn) wrote: >> 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or >planned from >her introduction? > >> Joss has stated that it's retcon. > >"Retcon" is when something in the history is CHANGED. When continuity is >disturbed. Kinda like mystical monks doing a spell on you to make you ignore >what you know of history to accept a new fact and um... yeah you know where I'm >going with that... > >In "The Witch" Giles states this is his first spell, is nervous, and generally >in season one doesn't seem to sure of himself or know a whole lot. Someone >stated this earlier in the thread. Anyway, Giles = Ripper is genuine retcon >because it contradicts the whole first season. > >Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her >history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I >honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). > >Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." >If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, >it's not a retcon. > >I don't have the DVDs so I guess i'll have to wait a few weeks to see Jenny >show up in the episodes > >Can anyone give me Joss' actual quote on this matter and/or examples of how >Jenny's background was altered with the new info about her secret identity? I don't think there was ever enough done with Jenny as a character for it to qualify as an on-screen retcon. If Joss said that he may be referring to the background for the character that was in his own mind. I think the plan was originally for her to be a complete outsider to the supernatural goings on but there's nothing I can think of that contradicts that. If it's not a retcon I don't know what other word to use to describe what the original poster asked. It wasn't planned from the beginning that her character be a member of the Kalderash clan of Gypsies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-08 11:23:03-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - ("J. Doe" <foo@bar.com>)


Sleeper wrote: > = > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst oth= ers > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands wh= at > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how i= n > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > = > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that= > Angel was a vampire? > = > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be signific= ant > or it was just a throw away visual? > = > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > = > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned = from > her introduction? > = > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come o= ut as > gay? > = > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley= ? > = > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4= ? > = > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dro= pped? > = > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > = > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in= her > head? > = > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > = > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet reall= y > enjoy them because to you all the clich=E9s and formulas are new and ex= citing. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > = > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassi= c > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English= to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? > = > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done y= ou're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what= the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time yo= ur > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If yo= u > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes = wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're tellin= g. > = > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > = > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think= that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would= have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. Agreed with both of those. > 3. A clear retcon. I'm not so sure. I think they always planned to reveal a darker side to h= is character. The "Ripper" character speciffically, no, but the general idea= , yes. > 4. Ditto. Joss knew what/how his big bad was going to be at the end of the season. = While he didn't have the details planned out, I think he knew it was going to b= e Angel/Angelus. So by the point in the season that Jenny was introduced, I= think he knew what he wanted to do with her. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They j= ust > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to o= pen > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically= > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister.= The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I= > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinel= y > another story about Buffy. Again, agreed with all of the above. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny.= I think you missed the boat on this one. Are you reffering to the scene a= t the end of the season where Anya suggests "Well, there's always Olaf's ha= mmer, but no one can lift it...." And then buffy goes over and causually picks = it up? I think you read that scene wrong. They wern't implying that the hammer w= as suddenly light, they were showing that *Buffy* was strong enough to pick = it up. She has super-strength, remember? Remember the scene in season 1 where he= r mother is prying away on a shipping crate with a crowbar and can't budge the lid= , and = then Buffy just casually rips the lid off? > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usu= ally > ends. Agreed on this one too. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out= =2E I disagree with the way you characterized this question. You presented 2 extremes with no room in the middle. You gave us only the options of "Det= ailed plan" or "Vague Idea", which are both extreme ends of the spectrum. I thi= nk the truth actually lies inbetween. I think he has much more than a vague = idea of how he wants a season to play out, the "big picture" for the season is= pretty well planned. On the other hand, I don't think he knows the exact details for episode 20 of a season, when he's working on episode 2. --- Gregc

2003-04-08 11:23:03-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - ("J. Doe" <foo@bar.com>)


Sleeper wrote: > = > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst oth= ers > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands wh= at > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how i= n > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > = > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that= > Angel was a vampire? > = > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be signific= ant > or it was just a throw away visual? > = > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > = > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned = from > her introduction? > = > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come o= ut as > gay? > = > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley= ? > = > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4= ? > = > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dro= pped? > = > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > = > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in= her > head? > = > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > = > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet reall= y > enjoy them because to you all the clich=E9s and formulas are new and ex= citing. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > = > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassi= c > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English= to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? > = > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done y= ou're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what= the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time yo= ur > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If yo= u > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes = wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're tellin= g. > = > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > = > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think= that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would= have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. Agreed with both of those. > 3. A clear retcon. I'm not so sure. I think they always planned to reveal a darker side to h= is character. The "Ripper" character speciffically, no, but the general idea= , yes. > 4. Ditto. Joss knew what/how his big bad was going to be at the end of the season. = While he didn't have the details planned out, I think he knew it was going to b= e Angel/Angelus. So by the point in the season that Jenny was introduced, I= think he knew what he wanted to do with her. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They j= ust > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to o= pen > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically= > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister.= The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I= > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinel= y > another story about Buffy. Again, agreed with all of the above. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny.= I think you missed the boat on this one. Are you reffering to the scene a= t the end of the season where Anya suggests "Well, there's always Olaf's ha= mmer, but no one can lift it...." And then buffy goes over and causually picks = it up? I think you read that scene wrong. They wern't implying that the hammer w= as suddenly light, they were showing that *Buffy* was strong enough to pick = it up. She has super-strength, remember? Remember the scene in season 1 where he= r mother is prying away on a shipping crate with a crowbar and can't budge the lid= , and = then Buffy just casually rips the lid off? > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usu= ally > ends. Agreed on this one too. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out= =2E I disagree with the way you characterized this question. You presented 2 extremes with no room in the middle. You gave us only the options of "Det= ailed plan" or "Vague Idea", which are both extreme ends of the spectrum. I thi= nk the truth actually lies inbetween. I think he has much more than a vague = idea of how he wants a season to play out, the "big picture" for the season is= pretty well planned. On the other hand, I don't think he knows the exact details for episode 20 of a season, when he's working on episode 2. --- Gregc

2003-04-08 11:50:05-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? I suspected it from the beginning, but didn't know for certain until it was "revealed" on screen. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw away. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Planned, more or less. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Planned. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? No. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Yes. Clearly, he changed and developed as time passed. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Yes and no. It seemed like a waste, but less Dawn is always a good thing. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Error. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? Personally, I like the idea, but I don't she is really in the institution. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? General idea, more or less on a season by season basis.

2003-04-08 11:50:05-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? I suspected it from the beginning, but didn't know for certain until it was "revealed" on screen. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw away. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Planned, more or less. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Planned. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? No. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Yes. Clearly, he changed and developed as time passed. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Yes and no. It seemed like a waste, but less Dawn is always a good thing. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Error. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? Personally, I like the idea, but I don't she is really in the institution. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? General idea, more or less on a season by season basis.

2003-04-08 12:34:56-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (himiko@animail.net)


Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? I pretty much guessed it from the original alley scene. I also said at the time "what do you bet she falls in love with him?" No one took my bet. > > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? A throw-away. I wasn't expecting as much of a story line as I got in the first two seasons. S2 was a very unexpected and welcome surprise. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Neither. I think it was a response to a good actor managing to embue a stock character with real personality. That required backstory, some of which may have been provided by ASH. At least, all the actors I know, when they aren't given any backstory for a character, they create it for their own benefit. This can cause problems if the writers later produce something very different. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Planned, I think. Possibly not down to the last detail, but a married Giles is out of the question so clearly she was destined for tragedy. And we'd heard about the gypsy curse already. And Calendar is a likely Anglification for Kalderash. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? Yes and no. Both Xander and Willow seemed very uncertain about their sexuality in high school...as are a large number of teens. Either could have come out as gay without much trouble, although I suspect, without any evidence, that it was originally supposed to be Xander. VampWillow was just an outward manifestation of Willow's own unexpressed homosexual fears and desires. It could have been left as nothing more than typical teen homophobia, as a sign that Willow was mildly bi and might experiment in college, or that she might come out fully as a lesbian. It was meant to provide a basis for intriguing speculation on TeenWillow's actual sexuality, and it did. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Now, there, they got me. During S4, that's exactly what I thought. Watching it later on, I'm not so sure. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? He started to have a character. He started to be mildly interesting if not likeable. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Disappointed more than surprised. I feared that might happen, and that ME actually had no other plans for Dawn than to keep her around to be the next slayer. I think I was right, but I continue to hope keyness will manifest. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? I honestly don't care. Of all the trivial points for people to get hung up on... > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? In at least one dimension, yes. In the dimension in which the show normally exists, no. Personally, I think it was the lack of shrimp that drove her over the edge. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in-between. I think he has a general plan and some specific scenes. But he has to be flexible, what with actors quitting and all. > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich�s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. I ceased to be demanding about TV fare somewhere back in the 60s. Quality TV is mostly an oxymoron. BTVS is the rare exception. My first reaction on watching the first episode was that someone (the name of Joss was unknown to me) had written terrific theater of the absurd and passed it off as a TV show. My second reaction was that it bore a striking resemblence to a particular genre of anime. But the really striking thing was the quality of the writing. The dialogue was especially fine, and the tongue in cheek humor was a definite plus. Later on, the rich character development and the twisting, inter-twining seasonal arcs and mini-arcs absolutely delighted me. S6 was a bit of a downer in this regard because it lacked much of a seasonal arc and there was that substance abuse nonsense with Willow's whole character arc, but even so, BTVS remained head and shoulders above anything else on TV. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? No, because I didn't expect anything more from JP than good SFX...and that's what I got. The entertainment industry in America is also an oxymoron. Entertainment is in short supply from these folks. > > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. I've certainly become more aware of it over the years. And by joining discussion groups on the Internet, I've heard a lot of gossip I would otherwise have missed. Actually, this has broadened my appreciation for the last minute fixes when they're well done. That the whole W/T arc could evolve from SG's decision to leave is a sign of really clever writing under stress IMO. OTOH, substituting Adam and the Initiative for Maggie Walsh in the same season, was a flub. himiko

2003-04-08 12:34:56-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (himiko@animail.net)


Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? I pretty much guessed it from the original alley scene. I also said at the time "what do you bet she falls in love with him?" No one took my bet. > > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? A throw-away. I wasn't expecting as much of a story line as I got in the first two seasons. S2 was a very unexpected and welcome surprise. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Neither. I think it was a response to a good actor managing to embue a stock character with real personality. That required backstory, some of which may have been provided by ASH. At least, all the actors I know, when they aren't given any backstory for a character, they create it for their own benefit. This can cause problems if the writers later produce something very different. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Planned, I think. Possibly not down to the last detail, but a married Giles is out of the question so clearly she was destined for tragedy. And we'd heard about the gypsy curse already. And Calendar is a likely Anglification for Kalderash. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? Yes and no. Both Xander and Willow seemed very uncertain about their sexuality in high school...as are a large number of teens. Either could have come out as gay without much trouble, although I suspect, without any evidence, that it was originally supposed to be Xander. VampWillow was just an outward manifestation of Willow's own unexpressed homosexual fears and desires. It could have been left as nothing more than typical teen homophobia, as a sign that Willow was mildly bi and might experiment in college, or that she might come out fully as a lesbian. It was meant to provide a basis for intriguing speculation on TeenWillow's actual sexuality, and it did. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Now, there, they got me. During S4, that's exactly what I thought. Watching it later on, I'm not so sure. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? He started to have a character. He started to be mildly interesting if not likeable. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Disappointed more than surprised. I feared that might happen, and that ME actually had no other plans for Dawn than to keep her around to be the next slayer. I think I was right, but I continue to hope keyness will manifest. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? I honestly don't care. Of all the trivial points for people to get hung up on... > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? In at least one dimension, yes. In the dimension in which the show normally exists, no. Personally, I think it was the lack of shrimp that drove her over the edge. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in-between. I think he has a general plan and some specific scenes. But he has to be flexible, what with actors quitting and all. > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich�s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. I ceased to be demanding about TV fare somewhere back in the 60s. Quality TV is mostly an oxymoron. BTVS is the rare exception. My first reaction on watching the first episode was that someone (the name of Joss was unknown to me) had written terrific theater of the absurd and passed it off as a TV show. My second reaction was that it bore a striking resemblence to a particular genre of anime. But the really striking thing was the quality of the writing. The dialogue was especially fine, and the tongue in cheek humor was a definite plus. Later on, the rich character development and the twisting, inter-twining seasonal arcs and mini-arcs absolutely delighted me. S6 was a bit of a downer in this regard because it lacked much of a seasonal arc and there was that substance abuse nonsense with Willow's whole character arc, but even so, BTVS remained head and shoulders above anything else on TV. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? No, because I didn't expect anything more from JP than good SFX...and that's what I got. The entertainment industry in America is also an oxymoron. Entertainment is in short supply from these folks. > > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. I've certainly become more aware of it over the years. And by joining discussion groups on the Internet, I've heard a lot of gossip I would otherwise have missed. Actually, this has broadened my appreciation for the last minute fixes when they're well done. That the whole W/T arc could evolve from SG's decision to leave is a sign of really clever writing under stress IMO. OTOH, substituting Adam and the Initiative for Maggie Walsh in the same season, was a flub. himiko

2003-04-08 12:38:38-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Sleeper wrote: > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? always knew > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? throw away > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? seemed like some sort of dark past would have been always planed for him, otherwise, he's just a stuffy, dull librarian, not a very interesting character > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? it seemed planned, otherwise, what was the point of Jenny? *just* a lover interest for Giles? That's pretty lame, but lame is to be expected in TVland, and Joss *says* it was a retcon... > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? no > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? depends on how you define love. What love *really* is, is caring about someone, liking them, etc. So, yes, Buffy loved Riley. It wasn't TV love, it wasn't "once in a lifetime", trumpets blaring, planets colliding love, so if you expect love to be TV love, then no, Buffy didn't love him. I think we were supposed to think Buffy loved him, or at least think she thought she loved him, but that he would never be able to compare to Angel. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? he seemed to naturally progress > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? no, from the beginning it seemed like just a way to introduce Dawn, since the show was suffering from not having a representative of it's target age group. I never expected it to be brought up again after season 5. (Of course, Buffy has pleasantly surprised me in the past) > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Don't know what you mean? That it was heavy? Planned. That Spike couldn't lift it? They just thought it was funny and threw it in. Don't see how that's a continuity error though... > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? no > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? vague idea. I believe when he started writing it, he had a very vague idea of what he wanted to do with the first couple of seasons. Keeping Spike around was never part of that plan, but Spike proved very popular so he stayed. Spike was a pretty major character so that would obviously messed up any planning after season 3. Same for Dawn, she obviously wasn't planned, and since season 5 was pretty much about her, season 5 obviously wasn't planned AT ALL. I think most of the "foreshadowing" people think Joss puts in, is random stuff that he either comes up with an explanation for later, or it gets dropped. > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich�s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. That's true. Most TV and movies are disappointing to me because I know exactly what's going to happen after the first 5 minutes - usually before that, just by reading the briefest of synopsis. Buffy pleasantly surprises me from time to time, though - they frequently follow through on something I expected them to drop (like Buffy's money problems after Giles handed her the check) > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? Very familiar with it. Hated the film, but I don't know if that was why. I've always thought it was just because the book was so good and so much better. > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. Not necessarily. Since I know it's not magic, I appreciate the skill much more knowing what's going on. > If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely > another story about Buffy. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually > ends. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > >

2003-04-08 12:38:38-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Sleeper wrote: > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? always knew > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? throw away > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? seemed like some sort of dark past would have been always planed for him, otherwise, he's just a stuffy, dull librarian, not a very interesting character > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? it seemed planned, otherwise, what was the point of Jenny? *just* a lover interest for Giles? That's pretty lame, but lame is to be expected in TVland, and Joss *says* it was a retcon... > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? no > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? depends on how you define love. What love *really* is, is caring about someone, liking them, etc. So, yes, Buffy loved Riley. It wasn't TV love, it wasn't "once in a lifetime", trumpets blaring, planets colliding love, so if you expect love to be TV love, then no, Buffy didn't love him. I think we were supposed to think Buffy loved him, or at least think she thought she loved him, but that he would never be able to compare to Angel. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? he seemed to naturally progress > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? no, from the beginning it seemed like just a way to introduce Dawn, since the show was suffering from not having a representative of it's target age group. I never expected it to be brought up again after season 5. (Of course, Buffy has pleasantly surprised me in the past) > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Don't know what you mean? That it was heavy? Planned. That Spike couldn't lift it? They just thought it was funny and threw it in. Don't see how that's a continuity error though... > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? no > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? vague idea. I believe when he started writing it, he had a very vague idea of what he wanted to do with the first couple of seasons. Keeping Spike around was never part of that plan, but Spike proved very popular so he stayed. Spike was a pretty major character so that would obviously messed up any planning after season 3. Same for Dawn, she obviously wasn't planned, and since season 5 was pretty much about her, season 5 obviously wasn't planned AT ALL. I think most of the "foreshadowing" people think Joss puts in, is random stuff that he either comes up with an explanation for later, or it gets dropped. > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich�s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. That's true. Most TV and movies are disappointing to me because I know exactly what's going to happen after the first 5 minutes - usually before that, just by reading the briefest of synopsis. Buffy pleasantly surprises me from time to time, though - they frequently follow through on something I expected them to drop (like Buffy's money problems after Giles handed her the check) > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? Very familiar with it. Hated the film, but I don't know if that was why. I've always thought it was just because the book was so good and so much better. > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. Not necessarily. Since I know it's not magic, I appreciate the skill much more knowing what's going on. > If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely > another story about Buffy. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually > ends. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > >

2003-04-08 14:28:17-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > N/A > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > Throw away > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > retcon > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > retcon > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > Yes > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > No > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > Yes > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Would have preferred that the Key was dropped, period. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > Planned > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > No > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > I think he has a pretty detailed and structured plan. He has certainly said so often enough. That doesn't mean that the story is so ridgid that an actor who isn't working out can't be replaced, a good temporary character can't be developed into a major player, or a dull character can't be livened up a little. ). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. He is a little pale and only seen at night. I wasn't watching at that point, but if I had been I certainly would have guessed it. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. No, the only time Buffy ever says she loves Riley is when she's talking to Angel and she's upset with him about his relationship with Faith. I think she genuinely cared for Riley very much, but it's always been Angel she loves. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. I kind of preferred him dull. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. No, it wasn't. The Key issue will be revisted before all is said and done this season. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. It was funny to see Buffy smashing Glory to death with a Troll Hammer? > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually. It's not nearly as uncomplicated as you make it out to be. But, no I don't think the point of "Normal Again" was to imply that Buffy is actually a nutcase. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > He has the basic idea planned out. Producing a television series is nothing like writing a novel, of course. Harry Potter goes to work everyday for JK Rowling whether or not he has a better offer, or a substance abuse problem. Rowling can't change her book in the middle because readers don't like the storyline, or she's come up with a better idea at the last minute. > -- Shannon Spike: "We're bringing Mother, of course. I think you'll like her." Druscilla: "Do you mean to eat?" >

2003-04-08 14:28:17-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > N/A > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > Throw away > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > retcon > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > retcon > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > Yes > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > No > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > Yes > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > Would have preferred that the Key was dropped, period. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > Planned > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > No > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > I think he has a pretty detailed and structured plan. He has certainly said so often enough. That doesn't mean that the story is so ridgid that an actor who isn't working out can't be replaced, a good temporary character can't be developed into a major player, or a dull character can't be livened up a little. ). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. He is a little pale and only seen at night. I wasn't watching at that point, but if I had been I certainly would have guessed it. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. No, the only time Buffy ever says she loves Riley is when she's talking to Angel and she's upset with him about his relationship with Faith. I think she genuinely cared for Riley very much, but it's always been Angel she loves. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. I kind of preferred him dull. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. No, it wasn't. The Key issue will be revisted before all is said and done this season. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. It was funny to see Buffy smashing Glory to death with a Troll Hammer? > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually. It's not nearly as uncomplicated as you make it out to be. But, no I don't think the point of "Normal Again" was to imply that Buffy is actually a nutcase. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > He has the basic idea planned out. Producing a television series is nothing like writing a novel, of course. Harry Potter goes to work everyday for JK Rowling whether or not he has a better offer, or a substance abuse problem. Rowling can't change her book in the middle because readers don't like the storyline, or she's come up with a better idea at the last minute. > -- Shannon Spike: "We're bringing Mother, of course. I think you'll like her." Druscilla: "Do you mean to eat?" >

2003-04-08 14:36:58-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu>)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? 'Know', when it was revealed in Angel. Suspect, Welcome to the Hellmouth. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw-away, that could become significant if they wanted. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? The specifics were almost certainly not planned from the beginning, but Giles having some sort of darkness in his past likely was. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Definitely not planned from the beginning. I don't think Jenny being a continuing character, at the level she was, was planned when she first appeared in IRYJ. It seems to me to be a case of the character clicking and therefore expanding. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? For her being gay, no. For Willow's potential for evil, yes. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Define 'loved'. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Obviously, and intentionally. Stuff happened and the character should, and did, change. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Dropped? The 'whole Key business' played out for 22 episodes. There weren't a lot of references to it in the first half of season 6, but there were several in the second half of season 6. There have also been references in season 7. Just because something isn't currently the major plot driver doesn't mean it's forgotten or ignored. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? No continuity error. From Triangle on, they specifically showed that the hammer was metaphysically 'heavy' (Spike couldn't lift it, but Buffy could, when it was set on a counter, it collapsed the counter) >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. As you say in your response to mantis-egg question, it's the trope ending for this type of story, doesn't mean any more than that. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Yes.

2003-04-08 14:36:58-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu>)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? 'Know', when it was revealed in Angel. Suspect, Welcome to the Hellmouth. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw-away, that could become significant if they wanted. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? The specifics were almost certainly not planned from the beginning, but Giles having some sort of darkness in his past likely was. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Definitely not planned from the beginning. I don't think Jenny being a continuing character, at the level she was, was planned when she first appeared in IRYJ. It seems to me to be a case of the character clicking and therefore expanding. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? For her being gay, no. For Willow's potential for evil, yes. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Define 'loved'. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Obviously, and intentionally. Stuff happened and the character should, and did, change. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Dropped? The 'whole Key business' played out for 22 episodes. There weren't a lot of references to it in the first half of season 6, but there were several in the second half of season 6. There have also been references in season 7. Just because something isn't currently the major plot driver doesn't mean it's forgotten or ignored. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? No continuity error. From Triangle on, they specifically showed that the hammer was metaphysically 'heavy' (Spike couldn't lift it, but Buffy could, when it was set on a counter, it collapsed the counter) >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. As you say in your response to mantis-egg question, it's the trope ending for this type of story, doesn't mean any more than that. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Yes.

2003-04-08 16:41:28-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> writes: > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? "Angel" was the first episode I saw, aside from a minute at the end of OOMOOS. So I pretty much had an unfair advantage on this question. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? I knew they would be throwaway. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Dunno. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? That development had some strong retcon elements, but it seems like it was the other way around: They had planned a betrayal some time before. But in the meantime, Jenny grew on them, and the story changed direction. So it got watered down very much. So when the "betrayal" came 'round in "Innocence" through "Passion", the audience reaction was "Huh? She didn't make him go evil. OK, she didn't say she was a gypsy, but why is that so bad?" > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. ISTM it was a throwaway that the audience latched onto and then Joss adopted for real. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Eh, depends on what you mean by "love". She definitely had the "Ah found me my man" thing going for a while. But not very deeply. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Very much. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Yes, both. Fairly surprised, since they set up such a big issue. Quite disappointed, since without resolving that, Buffy and gang look like the Monks' chumps. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Continuity error. Not a big deal. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Closer to vague idea. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-04-08 16:41:28-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> writes: > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? "Angel" was the first episode I saw, aside from a minute at the end of OOMOOS. So I pretty much had an unfair advantage on this question. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? I knew they would be throwaway. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Dunno. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? That development had some strong retcon elements, but it seems like it was the other way around: They had planned a betrayal some time before. But in the meantime, Jenny grew on them, and the story changed direction. So it got watered down very much. So when the "betrayal" came 'round in "Innocence" through "Passion", the audience reaction was "Huh? She didn't make him go evil. OK, she didn't say she was a gypsy, but why is that so bad?" > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. ISTM it was a throwaway that the audience latched onto and then Joss adopted for real. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Eh, depends on what you mean by "love". She definitely had the "Ah found me my man" thing going for a while. But not very deeply. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Very much. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Yes, both. Fairly surprised, since they set up such a big issue. Quite disappointed, since without resolving that, Buffy and gang look like the Monks' chumps. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Continuity error. Not a big deal. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Closer to vague idea. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-04-08 18:41:22-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Don't remember. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throwaway. Cliched horror movie ending. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Major retcon. The Witch, not to mention his general ignorance of the supernatural, shows that. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Retcon. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. That she's gay is the retcon. Indeed, VampWillow _wasn't_ gay; she was bi. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Yes. And, unfortunately, they had him leave just when he was becoming less lame. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Continuity error, but they decided to turn it into a joke. Even bigger continuity error: that it was a Troll God's Hammer. Olaf wasn't a troll god. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. More cliche. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between. More than "vague," but less than JMS did. And he's willing to alter it in midseason if he feels like it. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-08 18:41:22-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Don't remember. >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throwaway. Cliched horror movie ending. >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Major retcon. The Witch, not to mention his general ignorance of the supernatural, shows that. >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Retcon. >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? No. That she's gay is the retcon. Indeed, VampWillow _wasn't_ gay; she was bi. >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Yes. And, unfortunately, they had him leave just when he was becoming less lame. >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes. >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Continuity error, but they decided to turn it into a joke. Even bigger continuity error: that it was a Troll God's Hammer. Olaf wasn't a troll god. >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. More cliche. >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between. More than "vague," but less than JMS did. And he's willing to alter it in midseason if he feels like it. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-08 21:17:40+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: : It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others : aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling : devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what : the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in : tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. : 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that : Angel was a vampire? When I read it in tvguide. : 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant : or it was just a throw away visual? Too soon to be onto their tricks yet. : 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Planned. : 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from : her introduction? Planned. : 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as : gay? No. : 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. : 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No. : 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Not dropped, but finished. : 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Planned. : 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her : head? No. : 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? on that spectrum, somewhere in between those poles. : As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really : enjoy them because to you all the clich占�s and formulas are new and exciting. : When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. : For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic : Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to : survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? No. : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open : up to him was a retcon. It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their relationship differently. : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically : started making him interesting. Or did knowing Buffy change him? shawn

2003-04-08 21:17:40+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: : It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others : aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling : devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what : the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in : tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. : 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that : Angel was a vampire? When I read it in tvguide. : 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant : or it was just a throw away visual? Too soon to be onto their tricks yet. : 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Planned. : 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from : her introduction? Planned. : 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as : gay? No. : 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. : 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No. : 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Not dropped, but finished. : 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Planned. : 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her : head? No. : 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? on that spectrum, somewhere in between those poles. : As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really : enjoy them because to you all the clich占�s and formulas are new and exciting. : When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. : For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic : Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to : survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? No. : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open : up to him was a retcon. It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their relationship differently. : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically : started making him interesting. Or did knowing Buffy change him? shawn

2003-04-09 03:37:48+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (MegaSilver <megasilver@worldnet.att.net>)


"WtchyWmyn" <wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote in message news:20030408032610.16068.00000790@mb-ca.aol.com... > Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her > history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I > honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). > > Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." > If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, > it's not a retcon. I *think* technically, it's still retcon, since the writers had never intended it, and usually I don't like retcon myself, but I still thought it was a good one.

2003-04-09 03:37:48+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (MegaSilver <megasilver@worldnet.att.net>)


"WtchyWmyn" <wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote in message news:20030408032610.16068.00000790@mb-ca.aol.com... > Are there any examples of Jenny's background leading us to believe that her > history was changed? I'm the first one to jump on the retcon bandwagon, but I > honestly thought this was a nice surprise (no pun intended). > > Just because Joss thought it up at the last minute doesn't make it a "retcon." > If her history was never explored and her background was never contradicted, > it's not a retcon. I *think* technically, it's still retcon, since the writers had never intended it, and usually I don't like retcon myself, but I still thought it was a good one.

2003-04-09 12:31:08-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (wtfan_ny@yahoo.com)


1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that Angel was a vampire? Episode 7- "Angel" 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant or it was just a throw away visual? Throw Away. 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? When I first watched I thought it was planned, but we've never really gotten a confirmation. 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from her introduction? I knew it was a retcon, and we did get confirmation later on. 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as gay? Yes, but I certainly didn't catch on. I just thought it was a joke. 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? We were supposed to believe it, but I just think Riley, Parker, and Spike have all been rebound guys for Buffy. So, yes, but I didn't buy it. 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No, I hated him equally in season 5. 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? It was?! 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Huh?! Couldn't Buffy pick it up because she's.... Buff Buff? 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her head? I've had a lot of fun with this one. Actually, I think that the entire mental hospital business is an alternate dimension rather than being reality or a dream, and in "Normal Again", Buffy is transported to that dimension. 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Normally just a vague idea, but (and I'm spoiler-free), I think he has a detailed plan for Season 7.

2003-04-09 12:31:08-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (wtfan_ny@yahoo.com)


1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that Angel was a vampire? Episode 7- "Angel" 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant or it was just a throw away visual? Throw Away. 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? When I first watched I thought it was planned, but we've never really gotten a confirmation. 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from her introduction? I knew it was a retcon, and we did get confirmation later on. 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as gay? Yes, but I certainly didn't catch on. I just thought it was a joke. 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? We were supposed to believe it, but I just think Riley, Parker, and Spike have all been rebound guys for Buffy. So, yes, but I didn't buy it. 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No, I hated him equally in season 5. 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? It was?! 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Huh?! Couldn't Buffy pick it up because she's.... Buff Buff? 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her head? I've had a lot of fun with this one. Actually, I think that the entire mental hospital business is an alternate dimension rather than being reality or a dream, and in "Normal Again", Buffy is transported to that dimension. 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Normally just a vague idea, but (and I'm spoiler-free), I think he has a detailed plan for Season 7.

2003-04-09 20:35:40-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (himiko@animail.net)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<4oucnY0sc7WSOQmjXTWcqw@brightview.com>... > himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message > news:c7902983.0304081134.18930dc9@posting.google.com... > > Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message > news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > > > > I ceased to be demanding about TV fare somewhere back in the 60s. > > Quality TV is mostly an oxymoron. BTVS is the rare exception. > > Well, I can't really comment on American TV of the sixties, me not being an > American or indeed alive then. There are so many channels and so much > airtime to fill it isn't possible for everything to be great or even good. > Surely ceasing to be demanding is the tail end of the bell curve. At some > point you *were* more demanding and got disappointed. We were all more than demanding in the 50s. We were wildly, ridiculously (in retrospect) hopeful. TV was going to change the face of the world. It would bring higher education and high culture into the home of everyone. Yeah, right. In the 50s, we actually had some very good repertory companies presenting solid, original stage plays by solid, experienced writers and played by talented actors. What survived still stands as quality stuff. But quality couldn't survive the commercial needs of TV and it didn't. Sponsors and ratings reduced us to the lowest common denominator quite rapidly. The most hopeful era since then has been the 90s. Cable raised our hopes again. Yes, it's impossible for everything to be great or even good given how much of it there is; what's remarkable though is that there can be so much stuff and most nights NONE of it is good...or even watchable. You'd think just by the law of averages, SOMETHING decent should be on at any given time. But there really isn't much variety; just a whole lot of variants on the same damn crap. Another thing that raised our hopes was the story arc. Now, there's a strength TV has over movies, stage, etc. And SF/Fantasy led the way. Bab5 and JMS were the most extreme (a 5 year arc) and outspoken, of course, but other shows experimented even more with how to interweave standalone episodes, mini-arcs, seasonal arcs, and even longer term arcs. One of these, and one of the most creative and successful, was BTVS; and it threw in great writing, an actual message and p.o.v., and a surprisingly high level of acting skill for a young cast just for good measure. Very cool. To see something like that go out without even the offer of a spin-off to make way for yet another crappy "reality" show is very depressing. > > [Snip] S6 was a bit of a downer in this regard because it > > lacked much of a seasonal arc and there was that substance abuse > > nonsense with Willow's whole character arc, but even so, BTVS remained > > head and shoulders above anything else on TV. > > To me a bad episode or season or seasons of BtVS can be just as unenjoyable > as any other bad TV show. Then you're missing the main strength of TV: the story arc. The fact that you can tell a longer story, that you can produce the media equivalent of a novel or even a series of novels. Movies are really just short stories. So are plays. And both do short stories better than any TV episode for a variety of reasons. If TV sticks to the standalone, it will never produce anything except second rate mini-movies or plays. Of course, right now it isn't even doing that. Survivor, my ass. Frankly, I think the whole industry is shooting itself in the foot for the sake of a quick profit. OTOH, it may not be a bad thing. Fewer young people than ever are watching TV at all. I'm not sure they're doing anything more productive though; video games, on-line gaming, chatting, and other computer related stuff seem to be picking up the slack. But TV addiction is on its way out: possibly good news for our society, but bad news if you're in the TV industry. himiko

2003-04-09 20:35:40-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (himiko@animail.net)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<4oucnY0sc7WSOQmjXTWcqw@brightview.com>... > himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message > news:c7902983.0304081134.18930dc9@posting.google.com... > > Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. > > > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message > news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > > > > I ceased to be demanding about TV fare somewhere back in the 60s. > > Quality TV is mostly an oxymoron. BTVS is the rare exception. > > Well, I can't really comment on American TV of the sixties, me not being an > American or indeed alive then. There are so many channels and so much > airtime to fill it isn't possible for everything to be great or even good. > Surely ceasing to be demanding is the tail end of the bell curve. At some > point you *were* more demanding and got disappointed. We were all more than demanding in the 50s. We were wildly, ridiculously (in retrospect) hopeful. TV was going to change the face of the world. It would bring higher education and high culture into the home of everyone. Yeah, right. In the 50s, we actually had some very good repertory companies presenting solid, original stage plays by solid, experienced writers and played by talented actors. What survived still stands as quality stuff. But quality couldn't survive the commercial needs of TV and it didn't. Sponsors and ratings reduced us to the lowest common denominator quite rapidly. The most hopeful era since then has been the 90s. Cable raised our hopes again. Yes, it's impossible for everything to be great or even good given how much of it there is; what's remarkable though is that there can be so much stuff and most nights NONE of it is good...or even watchable. You'd think just by the law of averages, SOMETHING decent should be on at any given time. But there really isn't much variety; just a whole lot of variants on the same damn crap. Another thing that raised our hopes was the story arc. Now, there's a strength TV has over movies, stage, etc. And SF/Fantasy led the way. Bab5 and JMS were the most extreme (a 5 year arc) and outspoken, of course, but other shows experimented even more with how to interweave standalone episodes, mini-arcs, seasonal arcs, and even longer term arcs. One of these, and one of the most creative and successful, was BTVS; and it threw in great writing, an actual message and p.o.v., and a surprisingly high level of acting skill for a young cast just for good measure. Very cool. To see something like that go out without even the offer of a spin-off to make way for yet another crappy "reality" show is very depressing. > > [Snip] S6 was a bit of a downer in this regard because it > > lacked much of a seasonal arc and there was that substance abuse > > nonsense with Willow's whole character arc, but even so, BTVS remained > > head and shoulders above anything else on TV. > > To me a bad episode or season or seasons of BtVS can be just as unenjoyable > as any other bad TV show. Then you're missing the main strength of TV: the story arc. The fact that you can tell a longer story, that you can produce the media equivalent of a novel or even a series of novels. Movies are really just short stories. So are plays. And both do short stories better than any TV episode for a variety of reasons. If TV sticks to the standalone, it will never produce anything except second rate mini-movies or plays. Of course, right now it isn't even doing that. Survivor, my ass. Frankly, I think the whole industry is shooting itself in the foot for the sake of a quick profit. OTOH, it may not be a bad thing. Fewer young people than ever are watching TV at all. I'm not sure they're doing anything more productive though; video games, on-line gaming, chatting, and other computer related stuff seem to be picking up the slack. But TV addiction is on its way out: possibly good news for our society, but bad news if you're in the TV industry. himiko

2003-04-09 20:38:02-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (sean.daugherty@oberlin.edu)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Not applicable here.... > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Joke. Pastiche of the B-movie horror genre. There really wasn't anywhere else they could take the concept, and I saw it as a throwaway from the start. I was a little more surprised that the ending to "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" wasn't followed up on, but not absolutely shocked on that one, either.... > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Probably a retcon. Giles probably didn't get a deeply fleshed out history from the beginning, and his Ripper past was likely developed only after the show had really found its legs. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't *work*, because it does, and quite well, and was instrumental in fleshing out his character. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Retcon. And a slightly silly one, at that, that was only redeemed by its ultimate payoff. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? I doubt that was the singular purpose, but I expect Joss and Marti realized the possibility. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yeah. And from a storytelling perspective, I did. It's just that Marc Blucas and SMG had very little chemistry, and so most of their scenes together rang a little hollow. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Conceptually, yes. I think Riley was retconned, but more or less effectively so. Since the chemistry between the two actors didn't really take, I think the way in which they had the two drift apart was fairly inspired, actually. At least, up until the final scenes of "Into the Woods," where the ball was fumbled rather spectacularly, IMO. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Nope. And I don't think it was "dropped." There was absolutely no reason to think that the presence of the Key would matter one bit beyond Glory's very specific plan. It simply wasn't relevant, particularly after the writers had repeatedly established that, despite her mythological origins, Dawn was very much a functional, "real" human being. This is a key (*ahem*) example of fans expecting/desiring something that didn't come to pass in the show and insisting that it was somehow the writers' fault. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? A little of column A, a little or column B... :) Probably a slightly continuity error, but pretty insignificant, really. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. I viewed the ending of "Normal Again" much the same way I viewed the ending of "Teacher's Pet." It *was* intentionally ambigious, but I think the question was, and should rightfully remain, hanging, particularly as revisiting it and declaring with certainty that Buffy is just hallucinating everything would undercut the issues of subjective reality that "Normal Again" was getting at, IMO. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between the two. He has a strong idea of how each story is going to turn out, but nothing is set in stone until it's actually filmed. In other words, he's not flying by the seat of his pants, but he having a concept and having a script are two very different things.

2003-04-09 20:38:02-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (sean.daugherty@oberlin.edu)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Not applicable here.... > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Joke. Pastiche of the B-movie horror genre. There really wasn't anywhere else they could take the concept, and I saw it as a throwaway from the start. I was a little more surprised that the ending to "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" wasn't followed up on, but not absolutely shocked on that one, either.... > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Probably a retcon. Giles probably didn't get a deeply fleshed out history from the beginning, and his Ripper past was likely developed only after the show had really found its legs. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't *work*, because it does, and quite well, and was instrumental in fleshing out his character. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Retcon. And a slightly silly one, at that, that was only redeemed by its ultimate payoff. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? I doubt that was the singular purpose, but I expect Joss and Marti realized the possibility. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yeah. And from a storytelling perspective, I did. It's just that Marc Blucas and SMG had very little chemistry, and so most of their scenes together rang a little hollow. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? Conceptually, yes. I think Riley was retconned, but more or less effectively so. Since the chemistry between the two actors didn't really take, I think the way in which they had the two drift apart was fairly inspired, actually. At least, up until the final scenes of "Into the Woods," where the ball was fumbled rather spectacularly, IMO. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Nope. And I don't think it was "dropped." There was absolutely no reason to think that the presence of the Key would matter one bit beyond Glory's very specific plan. It simply wasn't relevant, particularly after the writers had repeatedly established that, despite her mythological origins, Dawn was very much a functional, "real" human being. This is a key (*ahem*) example of fans expecting/desiring something that didn't come to pass in the show and insisting that it was somehow the writers' fault. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? A little of column A, a little or column B... :) Probably a slightly continuity error, but pretty insignificant, really. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No. I viewed the ending of "Normal Again" much the same way I viewed the ending of "Teacher's Pet." It *was* intentionally ambigious, but I think the question was, and should rightfully remain, hanging, particularly as revisiting it and declaring with certainty that Buffy is just hallucinating everything would undercut the issues of subjective reality that "Normal Again" was getting at, IMO. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Somewhere in between the two. He has a strong idea of how each story is going to turn out, but nothing is set in stone until it's actually filmed. In other words, he's not flying by the seat of his pants, but he having a concept and having a script are two very different things.

2003-04-09 20:53:30-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (sean.daugherty@oberlin.edu)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0304081134.18930dc9@posting.google.com>... > Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. > Planned, I think. Possibly not down to the last detail, but a married > Giles is out of the question so clearly she was destined for tragedy. > And we'd heard about the gypsy curse already. And Calendar is a > likely Anglification for Kalderash. Question is, when did we get the name "Kalderash"? I don't recall it being mentioned in the first season. The name of the gypsy tribe probably emerged from Jenny Calendar's name, once they'd decided they wanted to go down that route (sometime in S2), not vice versa. Or so I would guess. Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me <shrugs> > I've certainly become more aware of it over the years. And by joining > discussion groups on the Internet, I've heard a lot of gossip I would > otherwise have missed. Actually, this has broadened my appreciation > for the last minute fixes when they're well done. That the whole W/T > arc could evolve from SG's decision to leave is a sign of really > clever writing under stress IMO. OTOH, substituting Adam and the > Initiative for Maggie Walsh in the same season, was a flub. I'm convinced this is another planned occurance which backfired for ME. People liked Maggie Walsh, and were convinced that she *had* to be the Big Bad for the season. But it seems very unlikely to me. Given what we had seen of Prof. Walsh up until that point, there don't seem to be very many ways ME could have effectively stretched her threat out to the whole season. The introduction of Adam, IMO, was brilliant, a nice twist of the Frankenstein story. If it was a last minute substitution, it certainly rings a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives. The problem is, Adam *did* turn out to be something of a flub. His introduction, and Prof. Walsh's demise, was superb. But Adam himself didn't work quite well as a villain, and his plan was rather uninspired. A regrettable mistake, but I still tend to believe it was a bed that ME made for itself from the beginning, not one they unhappily found themselves in at the last moment.

2003-04-09 20:53:30-07:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (sean.daugherty@oberlin.edu)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0304081134.18930dc9@posting.google.com>... > Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. > Planned, I think. Possibly not down to the last detail, but a married > Giles is out of the question so clearly she was destined for tragedy. > And we'd heard about the gypsy curse already. And Calendar is a > likely Anglification for Kalderash. Question is, when did we get the name "Kalderash"? I don't recall it being mentioned in the first season. The name of the gypsy tribe probably emerged from Jenny Calendar's name, once they'd decided they wanted to go down that route (sometime in S2), not vice versa. Or so I would guess. Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me <shrugs> > I've certainly become more aware of it over the years. And by joining > discussion groups on the Internet, I've heard a lot of gossip I would > otherwise have missed. Actually, this has broadened my appreciation > for the last minute fixes when they're well done. That the whole W/T > arc could evolve from SG's decision to leave is a sign of really > clever writing under stress IMO. OTOH, substituting Adam and the > Initiative for Maggie Walsh in the same season, was a flub. I'm convinced this is another planned occurance which backfired for ME. People liked Maggie Walsh, and were convinced that she *had* to be the Big Bad for the season. But it seems very unlikely to me. Given what we had seen of Prof. Walsh up until that point, there don't seem to be very many ways ME could have effectively stretched her threat out to the whole season. The introduction of Adam, IMO, was brilliant, a nice twist of the Frankenstein story. If it was a last minute substitution, it certainly rings a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives. The problem is, Adam *did* turn out to be something of a flub. His introduction, and Prof. Walsh's demise, was superb. But Adam himself didn't work quite well as a villain, and his plan was rather uninspired. A regrettable mistake, but I still tend to believe it was a bed that ME made for itself from the beginning, not one they unhappily found themselves in at the last moment.

2003-04-09 22:54:34-07:00 - Joss's past plans (Re: Do you understand BtVS?) - (Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? I didn't watch Buffy from the beginning so I already knew, but I think I might have puzzled it out before it was revealed. That you never saw him in direct sunlight was sort of a big clue.<g> > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Classic throwaway though they could always have brought it back whenever they wanted to. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? He's a character that practically demands a meaty background that stands at odds with his surface appearance. The Ripper as written was probably done later, hence making him appear a complete neophyte to magic in The Witch rather than somebody uncomfortable with it and very afraid of screwing it up. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? If it wasn't a retcon then they wrote as being pretty good at lying. She said a lot of things that could only be meant to pull the wool over the eyes of everybody about her already knowing things about Angel and Buffy. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? I'd say no except that for what Angel tried to say when Buffy cut him off. The vampire's orientation and general personality is directly affected by the human's personality and underlying nature. VampWillow was meant to foreshadow the flexibility Willow would show in her relationship with Tara in the next season. She was supposed to return to Oz before Seth Green departed the show. Tara would have been revealed to not be human and leave the show. VampWillow was also to foreshadow how Willow was likely to act if she turned to the dark side, which was looking increasingly likely even at the time of The Wish and Dopplegangland with her constant quest to increase her skill and power with magic, rules be damned. After all, rules had never stood in her way when it came to hacking computer systems. The writers were trying to remind us of VampWillow when DarkWillow said "Bored now", but of course I realize that's no proof the foreshadowing was intended. Oz would have been the one killed if Seth Green hadn't left. Some have said Tara would have died rather than been brain sucked in Tough Love, except that would have meant Willow would have defeated Glory rather than failing and become the Big Bad then. I suppose that would have been consistant with the Big Bad switches of the previous seasons. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Unlike Forrest Gump, I don't know what love is. She really, really liked him, but she didn't have the passion for him that she had with Angel. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? They intended to get rid of him, so I say yes. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? That it required extra strength to wield was natural. That it should be a 'Troll God's' hammer and capable of hurting Glory was a BIG RETCON, unless it was former Troll God's hammer that Olaf acquired somewhere and unless Olaf was merely tapping Xander with the hammer in Triangle. ME has a problem with physics. Wes should have been rendered into little pieces by the blast in "To Shanshu in LA". > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No, except the way Joss talks from time to time, he's wicked enough to end the show this way. It wouldn't be the first show to turn an entire series into unreality (St. Elsewhere, Newhart). > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? He has a definite plan for the ending of a season before it starts. Period. He has sometimes has other plans farther in advance. Both sometimes take some working with to get around cast changes and 'a better idea' cropping up. I've already talked about Willow's relationship with Tara and Oz above. It's an standing rumor that Maggie Walsh would have remained the Big Bad, somebody who would have psychologically sucked Buffy into her world, if Lindsay Crouse hadn't had a previous commitment that required her disappearing before the end of the season. When Kristine Sutherland told Joss in season three that she wouldn't be available much in season four, he said fine because Joyce wouldn't be appearing much anyway, but by the way, we're killing Joyce in season five. Willow was supposed to go Dark eventually from the moment she recursed Angel. Giles warned her of the consequences, and she was consistantly written as somebody who was in a constant search for knowledge that would give her more power and control because she felt insecure with her place in the scheme of things. Dawn was DEFINITELY foreshadowed in "This Year's Girl", and I don't think it's a stretch to believe she was planned fourteen episodes earlier in Graduation Day part II. SMG claims that Joss told her that she was getting a sister two years early, around the end of season two or sometime early in season three (I forget which). Faith's words in GDII are DEFINITELY meant to foreshadow Buffy's death at the end of season five in preparation for the possible end of the series when the WB contract ran out. 730 was the number of days in between. "Miles to go" definitely meant "Miles to go before I sleep", from STOPPING BY WOODS ON A SNOWY EVENING by Robert Frost. The word sleep in the line has long been interpreted as a metaphor for death.

2003-04-09 22:54:34-07:00 - Joss's past plans (Re: Do you understand BtVS?) - (Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? I didn't watch Buffy from the beginning so I already knew, but I think I might have puzzled it out before it was revealed. That you never saw him in direct sunlight was sort of a big clue.<g> > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Classic throwaway though they could always have brought it back whenever they wanted to. > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? He's a character that practically demands a meaty background that stands at odds with his surface appearance. The Ripper as written was probably done later, hence making him appear a complete neophyte to magic in The Witch rather than somebody uncomfortable with it and very afraid of screwing it up. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? If it wasn't a retcon then they wrote as being pretty good at lying. She said a lot of things that could only be meant to pull the wool over the eyes of everybody about her already knowing things about Angel and Buffy. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? I'd say no except that for what Angel tried to say when Buffy cut him off. The vampire's orientation and general personality is directly affected by the human's personality and underlying nature. VampWillow was meant to foreshadow the flexibility Willow would show in her relationship with Tara in the next season. She was supposed to return to Oz before Seth Green departed the show. Tara would have been revealed to not be human and leave the show. VampWillow was also to foreshadow how Willow was likely to act if she turned to the dark side, which was looking increasingly likely even at the time of The Wish and Dopplegangland with her constant quest to increase her skill and power with magic, rules be damned. After all, rules had never stood in her way when it came to hacking computer systems. The writers were trying to remind us of VampWillow when DarkWillow said "Bored now", but of course I realize that's no proof the foreshadowing was intended. Oz would have been the one killed if Seth Green hadn't left. Some have said Tara would have died rather than been brain sucked in Tough Love, except that would have meant Willow would have defeated Glory rather than failing and become the Big Bad then. I suppose that would have been consistant with the Big Bad switches of the previous seasons. > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Unlike Forrest Gump, I don't know what love is. She really, really liked him, but she didn't have the passion for him that she had with Angel. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? They intended to get rid of him, so I say yes. > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes. > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? That it required extra strength to wield was natural. That it should be a 'Troll God's' hammer and capable of hurting Glory was a BIG RETCON, unless it was former Troll God's hammer that Olaf acquired somewhere and unless Olaf was merely tapping Xander with the hammer in Triangle. ME has a problem with physics. Wes should have been rendered into little pieces by the blast in "To Shanshu in LA". > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? No, except the way Joss talks from time to time, he's wicked enough to end the show this way. It wouldn't be the first show to turn an entire series into unreality (St. Elsewhere, Newhart). > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? He has a definite plan for the ending of a season before it starts. Period. He has sometimes has other plans farther in advance. Both sometimes take some working with to get around cast changes and 'a better idea' cropping up. I've already talked about Willow's relationship with Tara and Oz above. It's an standing rumor that Maggie Walsh would have remained the Big Bad, somebody who would have psychologically sucked Buffy into her world, if Lindsay Crouse hadn't had a previous commitment that required her disappearing before the end of the season. When Kristine Sutherland told Joss in season three that she wouldn't be available much in season four, he said fine because Joyce wouldn't be appearing much anyway, but by the way, we're killing Joyce in season five. Willow was supposed to go Dark eventually from the moment she recursed Angel. Giles warned her of the consequences, and she was consistantly written as somebody who was in a constant search for knowledge that would give her more power and control because she felt insecure with her place in the scheme of things. Dawn was DEFINITELY foreshadowed in "This Year's Girl", and I don't think it's a stretch to believe she was planned fourteen episodes earlier in Graduation Day part II. SMG claims that Joss told her that she was getting a sister two years early, around the end of season two or sometime early in season three (I forget which). Faith's words in GDII are DEFINITELY meant to foreshadow Buffy's death at the end of season five in preparation for the possible end of the series when the WB contract ran out. 730 was the number of days in between. "Miles to go" definitely meant "Miles to go before I sleep", from STOPPING BY WOODS ON A SNOWY EVENING by Robert Frost. The word sleep in the line has long been interpreted as a metaphor for death.

2003-04-09 23:55:40+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304081134.18930dc9@posting.google.com... > Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > > I honestly don't care. Of all the trivial points for people to get > hung up on... In the show you're right it wasn't important but I think it's a nice example of how viewers can misconstrue (in my opinion) the writers' intentions. Some people thought that it was deliberately done and was going to lead somewhere but got abandoned. I guess I'm suggesting that they are wrong and if so, that they are more likely to be consistently wrong in their reading of what's going on than those who didn't, and it may mean they actually enjoy the show more. Unless they think Buffy really is in an institution. > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > > enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and > > exciting. When you've become more familiar with them you become more > > demanding. > > I ceased to be demanding about TV fare somewhere back in the 60s. > Quality TV is mostly an oxymoron. BTVS is the rare exception. Well, I can't really comment on American TV of the sixties, me not being an American or indeed alive then. There are so many channels and so much airtime to fill it isn't possible for everything to be great or even good. Surely ceasing to be demanding is the tail end of the bell curve. At some point you *were* more demanding and got disappointed. > [Snip] S6 was a bit of a downer in this regard because it > lacked much of a seasonal arc and there was that substance abuse > nonsense with Willow's whole character arc, but even so, BTVS remained > head and shoulders above anything else on TV. To me a bad episode or season or seasons of BtVS can be just as unenjoyable as any other bad TV show. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:55:40+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304081134.18930dc9@posting.google.com... > Ooh. It's a poll. I love polls. > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > > I honestly don't care. Of all the trivial points for people to get > hung up on... In the show you're right it wasn't important but I think it's a nice example of how viewers can misconstrue (in my opinion) the writers' intentions. Some people thought that it was deliberately done and was going to lead somewhere but got abandoned. I guess I'm suggesting that they are wrong and if so, that they are more likely to be consistently wrong in their reading of what's going on than those who didn't, and it may mean they actually enjoy the show more. Unless they think Buffy really is in an institution. > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > > enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and > > exciting. When you've become more familiar with them you become more > > demanding. > > I ceased to be demanding about TV fare somewhere back in the 60s. > Quality TV is mostly an oxymoron. BTVS is the rare exception. Well, I can't really comment on American TV of the sixties, me not being an American or indeed alive then. There are so many channels and so much airtime to fill it isn't possible for everything to be great or even good. Surely ceasing to be demanding is the tail end of the bell curve. At some point you *were* more demanding and got disappointed. > [Snip] S6 was a bit of a downer in this regard because it > lacked much of a seasonal arc and there was that substance abuse > nonsense with Willow's whole character arc, but even so, BTVS remained > head and shoulders above anything else on TV. To me a bad episode or season or seasons of BtVS can be just as unenjoyable as any other bad TV show. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:55:47+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:NPCdncSFS49OiQ6jXTWcrg@comcast.com... > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message > news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. > > No, it wasn't. The Key issue will be revisted before all is said and done > this season. Hmm, maybe but only because it's an option open to them. Not because it was the reason for her introduction. > > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > > It was funny to see Buffy smashing Glory to death with a Troll Hammer? No, it was funny to see Spike try and steal it and then fail to even lift it. > > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation > > usually ends. > > It's not nearly as uncomplicated as you make it out to be. Sure it is. > But, no I don't > think the point of "Normal Again" was to imply that Buffy is actually a > nutcase. > > > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > He has the basic idea planned out. Producing a television series is > nothing like writing a novel, of course. Harry Potter goes to work > everyday for JK Rowling whether or not he has a better offer, or a > substance abuse problem. Rowling can't change her book in the middle > because readers don't like the storyline, or she's come up with a better > idea at the last minute. Joss' comment was in reference to JK Rowling having planned out the plots of all her Harry Potter novels in detail before she started writing the first one. She has the final chapter for the seventh one already written. I think he was saying that his plans are far less detailed or solid than that. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:55:47+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in message news:NPCdncSFS49OiQ6jXTWcrg@comcast.com... > > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message > news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. > > No, it wasn't. The Key issue will be revisted before all is said and done > this season. Hmm, maybe but only because it's an option open to them. Not because it was the reason for her introduction. > > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > > It was funny to see Buffy smashing Glory to death with a Troll Hammer? No, it was funny to see Spike try and steal it and then fail to even lift it. > > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation > > usually ends. > > It's not nearly as uncomplicated as you make it out to be. Sure it is. > But, no I don't > think the point of "Normal Again" was to imply that Buffy is actually a > nutcase. > > > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > He has the basic idea planned out. Producing a television series is > nothing like writing a novel, of course. Harry Potter goes to work > everyday for JK Rowling whether or not he has a better offer, or a > substance abuse problem. Rowling can't change her book in the middle > because readers don't like the storyline, or she's come up with a better > idea at the last minute. Joss' comment was in reference to JK Rowling having planned out the plots of all her Harry Potter novels in detail before she started writing the first one. She has the final chapter for the seventh one already written. I think he was saying that his plans are far less detailed or solid than that. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:55:53+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Hey I'm being asked to download the Korean character set again. Here's the header I received. Path: news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!border3.nntp .aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!eas ynews!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.fas.harv ard.edu!not-for-mail From: Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Subject: Re: Do you understand BtVS? Date: 8 Apr 2003 21:17:40 GMT Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 80 Message-ID: <b6ve9k$io2$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: is07.fas.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Xref: nntp3.aus1.giganews.com alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer:822531 Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:b6ve9k$io2$1@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: > > : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to > : open up to him was a retcon. > > It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their > relationship differently. No it isn't but it doesn't seem to be the line the show pushed. > : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > : started making him interesting. > > Or did knowing Buffy change him? That was the device they used to explain him changing not the reason why they changed him. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:55:53+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Hey I'm being asked to download the Korean character set again. Here's the header I received. Path: news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!border3.nntp .aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!eas ynews!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.fas.harv ard.edu!not-for-mail From: Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Subject: Re: Do you understand BtVS? Date: 8 Apr 2003 21:17:40 GMT Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 80 Message-ID: <b6ve9k$io2$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: is07.fas.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Xref: nntp3.aus1.giganews.com alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer:822531 Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:b6ve9k$io2$1@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: > > : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to > : open up to him was a retcon. > > It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their > relationship differently. No it isn't but it doesn't seem to be the line the show pushed. > : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > : started making him interesting. > > Or did knowing Buffy change him? That was the device they used to explain him changing not the reason why they changed him. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:56:06+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


J. Doe <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:3E92E957.EC33C59A@bar.com... > Sleeper wrote: > > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > I think you missed the boat on this one. Are you reffering to the scene at > the end of the season where Anya suggests "Well, there's always Olaf's > hammer, but no one can lift it...." And then buffy goes over and causually > picks it up? No. I'm referring to Buffy being able to wave the troll hammer about in Triangle and in the next episode Spike not being able to even lift it. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:56:06+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


J. Doe <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:3E92E957.EC33C59A@bar.com... > Sleeper wrote: > > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > I think you missed the boat on this one. Are you reffering to the scene at > the end of the season where Anya suggests "Well, there's always Olaf's > hammer, but no one can lift it...." And then buffy goes over and causually > picks it up? No. I'm referring to Buffy being able to wave the troll hammer about in Triangle and in the next episode Spike not being able to even lift it. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:56:14+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Dave Wilton <dave@wilton.net> wrote in message news:ean59vsmc536v7iofp6laqjjj312mi8tk3@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > > Neither. A retcon has to change something that we had previously > known. The introduction of Ripper is backstory, not retcon. And no, it > wasn't planned from the beginning--except maybe some vague idea that > he had a dark past. > > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned > > from her introduction? > > Again, backstory. Unplanned. No the point of Backstory is that it *is* planned so you can build clues about the coming revelations into the story. If you make revelations without adequately setting them up they'll look like they came out of nowhere by writers fiat. A well done Retcon though can look like Backstory if earlier events can be made to work as intentional build up. But it rarely feels exactly right. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-09 23:56:14+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Dave Wilton <dave@wilton.net> wrote in message news:ean59vsmc536v7iofp6laqjjj312mi8tk3@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > > Neither. A retcon has to change something that we had previously > known. The introduction of Ripper is backstory, not retcon. And no, it > wasn't planned from the beginning--except maybe some vague idea that > he had a dark past. > > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned > > from her introduction? > > Again, backstory. Unplanned. No the point of Backstory is that it *is* planned so you can build clues about the coming revelations into the story. If you make revelations without adequately setting them up they'll look like they came out of nowhere by writers fiat. A well done Retcon though can look like Backstory if earlier events can be made to work as intentional build up. But it rarely feels exactly right. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-10 05:12:58+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: : Hey I'm being asked to download the Korean character set again. Here's the : header I received. Yeah, I can't fix it. My ability to post breaks when I try. :> : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to :> : open up to him was a retcon. :> :> It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their :> relationship differently. : No it isn't but it doesn't seem to be the line the show pushed. Doesn't it? She thought they were happy and hunky dory. He thought she ignored him and didn't offer true intimacy. :> : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically :> : started making him interesting. :> :> Or did knowing Buffy change him? : That was the device they used to explain him changing not the reason why : they changed him. Ah, so they changed him because he was dull, or somesuch? Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. Shawn

2003-04-10 05:12:58+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: : Hey I'm being asked to download the Korean character set again. Here's the : header I received. Yeah, I can't fix it. My ability to post breaks when I try. :> : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to :> : open up to him was a retcon. :> :> It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their :> relationship differently. : No it isn't but it doesn't seem to be the line the show pushed. Doesn't it? She thought they were happy and hunky dory. He thought she ignored him and didn't offer true intimacy. :> : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically :> : started making him interesting. :> :> Or did knowing Buffy change him? : That was the device they used to explain him changing not the reason why : they changed him. Ah, so they changed him because he was dull, or somesuch? Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. Shawn

2003-04-11 12:03:39+10:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (water cooler dictator <starcrazy@optushome.com.au>)


i'm really enjoying reading peoples' responses to this and'll leave mine soon. one question though before i go on (and pardon my ignorance)...but what is a retcon? i mean i think i get it, i'd just like to know where the word comes from. or something. cheers. -wcd- -- ----------------------- "she's a nutjob" "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? > > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely > another story about Buffy. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually > ends. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > >

2003-04-11 12:03:39+10:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (water cooler dictator <starcrazy@optushome.com.au>)


i'm really enjoying reading peoples' responses to this and'll leave mine soon. one question though before i go on (and pardon my ignorance)...but what is a retcon? i mean i think i get it, i'd just like to know where the word comes from. or something. cheers. -wcd- -- ----------------------- "she's a nutjob" "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? > > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely > another story about Buffy. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually > ends. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > >

2003-04-11 13:26:11+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (dsueme@core.com)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. Essentially, I really don't care about much past "Lovers Walk"... > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? "Know?" When they told us... "Angel". > >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? The episode was a throw away. > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? "Ripper"? I'm simply utterly bored with all but about three episodes after the end of season one (Becoming - I have my own view about what constitutes "season one") Anne, Lovers Walk, and Beer Bad. The rest is an incredible wasteland. Dave When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-04-11 13:26:11+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (dsueme@core.com)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > >It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others >aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling >devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what >the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in >tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. Essentially, I really don't care about much past "Lovers Walk"... > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? "Know?" When they told us... "Angel". > >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? The episode was a throw away. > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? "Ripper"? I'm simply utterly bored with all but about three episodes after the end of season one (Becoming - I have my own view about what constitutes "season one") Anne, Lovers Walk, and Beer Bad. The rest is an incredible wasteland. Dave When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-04-12 01:00:07+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:b72ugq$vjb$11@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: > : Hey I'm being asked to download the Korean character set again. Here's > : the header I received. > > Yeah, I can't fix it. My ability to post breaks when I try. Just thought you might be interested. > :> : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to > :> : open up to him was a retcon. > :> > :> It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their > :> relationship differently. > > : No it isn't but it doesn't seem to be the line the show pushed. > > Doesn't it? She thought they were happy and hunky dory. He thought she > ignored him and didn't offer true intimacy. No they both thought things were going okay until Season 5 retconned it. Except for the Angel crossover episode where Riley had a legitimate worry about Buffy's commitment because of her lie by omission about Angel and the curse. They dealt with this (badly) by dismissing it which the audience was supposed to go along with but since they didn't they built on it later. > :> : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which > :> : ironically started making him interesting. > :> > :> Or did knowing Buffy change him? > > : That was the device they used to explain him changing not the reason why > : they changed him. > > Ah, so they changed him because he was dull, or somesuch? Part of the reason he was dull was because he had no inner-life. To provide motivation for his departure they had to change that. They had to change Buffy too. > Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-12 01:00:07+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:b72ugq$vjb$11@news.fas.harvard.edu... > Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: > : Hey I'm being asked to download the Korean character set again. Here's > : the header I received. > > Yeah, I can't fix it. My ability to post breaks when I try. Just thought you might be interested. > :> : 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to > :> : open up to him was a retcon. > :> > :> It's not implausible that the two of them experienced their > :> relationship differently. > > : No it isn't but it doesn't seem to be the line the show pushed. > > Doesn't it? She thought they were happy and hunky dory. He thought she > ignored him and didn't offer true intimacy. No they both thought things were going okay until Season 5 retconned it. Except for the Angel crossover episode where Riley had a legitimate worry about Buffy's commitment because of her lie by omission about Angel and the curse. They dealt with this (badly) by dismissing it which the audience was supposed to go along with but since they didn't they built on it later. > :> : 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which > :> : ironically started making him interesting. > :> > :> Or did knowing Buffy change him? > > : That was the device they used to explain him changing not the reason why > : they changed him. > > Ah, so they changed him because he was dull, or somesuch? Part of the reason he was dull was because he had no inner-life. To provide motivation for his departure they had to change that. They had to change Buffy too. > Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-12 01:00:14+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Sean Daugherty <sean.daugherty@oberlin.edu> wrote in message news:f259cf95.0304091938.66876020@posting.google.com... > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was > > dropped? > > Nope. And I don't think it was "dropped." There was absolutely no > reason to think that the presence of the Key would matter one bit > beyond Glory's very specific plan. It simply wasn't relevant, > particularly after the writers had repeatedly established that, > despite her mythological origins, Dawn was very much a functional, > "real" human being. This is a key (*ahem*) example of fans > expecting/desiring something that didn't come to pass in the show and > insisting that it was somehow the writers' fault. Yeah, I probably misphrased the question. It should have been something like 'Did you think the Key story line reached a natural conclusion or was it dropped (possibly temporarily)?' If you thought Season 5 was telling a genuine story about Buffy and the Key, then there were reasons to think that more would be done with it. People were misinterpreting the mechanics behind Dawn's insertion as real story points. They couldn't believe that they had just sat through an entire season because the Monks were stupid and the Key really couldn't be used for anything else. That would be a really dumb story so their reasoning went there must be more to come. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-12 01:00:14+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


Sean Daugherty <sean.daugherty@oberlin.edu> wrote in message news:f259cf95.0304091938.66876020@posting.google.com... > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com>... > > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was > > dropped? > > Nope. And I don't think it was "dropped." There was absolutely no > reason to think that the presence of the Key would matter one bit > beyond Glory's very specific plan. It simply wasn't relevant, > particularly after the writers had repeatedly established that, > despite her mythological origins, Dawn was very much a functional, > "real" human being. This is a key (*ahem*) example of fans > expecting/desiring something that didn't come to pass in the show and > insisting that it was somehow the writers' fault. Yeah, I probably misphrased the question. It should have been something like 'Did you think the Key story line reached a natural conclusion or was it dropped (possibly temporarily)?' If you thought Season 5 was telling a genuine story about Buffy and the Key, then there were reasons to think that more would be done with it. People were misinterpreting the mechanics behind Dawn's insertion as real story points. They couldn't believe that they had just sat through an entire season because the Monks were stupid and the Key really couldn't be used for anything else. That would be a really dumb story so their reasoning went there must be more to come. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-12 01:01:03+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304091935.6d6d6884@posting.google.com... > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<4oucnY0sc7WSOQmjXTWcqw@brightview.com>... > > Well, I can't really comment on American TV of the sixties, me not being > > an American or indeed alive then. There are so many channels and so much > > airtime to fill it isn't possible for everything to be great or even > > good. Surely ceasing to be demanding is the tail end of the bell curve. > > At some point you *were* more demanding and got disappointed. > > We were all more than demanding in the 50s. We were wildly, > ridiculously (in retrospect) hopeful. TV was going to change the face > of the world. It would bring higher education and high culture into > the home of everyone. Yeah, right. In the 50s, we actually had some > very good repertory companies presenting solid, original stage plays > by solid, experienced writers and played by talented actors. What > survived still stands as quality stuff. But quality couldn't survive > the commercial needs of TV and it didn't. Sponsors and ratings > reduced us to the lowest common denominator quite rapidly. My perspective is shaped by coming from a country that has a poll tax on television owning. In the UK every TV set needs a licence. Black and white licences costing less then colour ones. The money goes to the BBC. It funds the two terrestrial channels, the news channel, BBC's digital chanels BBCs 3 & 4, two(?) children's channels, the BBC web sites, national radio stations Radios 1 to 5, local radio stations and various digital radio stations. The BBC has it's roots in the Reithean tradition, a dedicated belief in the virtues of public service broadcasting, a desire to improve the taste of the audience and a paternal attitude to it. But it also finds that it has to compete with independent television channels. The powers that be, feel that because of the way it's funded the BBC has these Reithean obligations. But why should people pay this tax if they don't watch the channel? So the BBC finds itself being pulled in both directions. Trying to be popular to compete with the advertising supported channels and highbrow to fulfil it's commitments both at the same time. The pressures on television programming here are directly affected by this set up. - How much longer the situation is going to last is unclear. The BBC charter is coming up for renewal and the government has released a white paper (proposed legislation) threatening to shake up the entire industry. The thing is a lot of television output that many Americans think of as being by the BBC such as much of Masterpiece Theatre is actually produced by the independent television channels. From my point of view UK drama is all very bland. There are occasional high points but in general it all has the same feel. It's the US television that we're getting at the moment which is the interesting stuff. Though we only get a small percentage of the progrmming produced. In reference to education the Open University used to get broadcast by the BBC. These were basically illustrated university lectures and formed part of home study degree courses. Now I think they've moved over mostly to video. There are lots of documentaries on at the moment. We seem to have been going through a wave of history programmes. Plenty of wildlife programming too. > The most hopeful era since then has been the 90s. Cable raised our > hopes again. Yes, it's impossible for everything to be great or even > good given how much of it there is; what's remarkable though is that > there can be so much stuff and most nights NONE of it is good...or > even watchable. You'd think just by the law of averages, SOMETHING > decent should be on at any given time. But there really isn't much > variety; just a whole lot of variants on the same damn crap. No, what you should expect is clumping. Clumps of quality television being shown near together and chunks of dross. Because there's so much dross these clumps would be relatively rare. It's the reason you have to be wary of illness clusters. There maybe a common cause or it could just be a random grouping. Think about flipping a coin a hundred times. You'd expect about 50 heads to come up. But you wouldn't expect it to go heads, tails, heads, tails, heads alternating at every toss. You'd expect to have runs of heads or tails. Of course TV isn't a purely random process so none of this really applies. > > To me a bad episode or season or seasons of BtVS can be just as > > unenjoyable as any other bad TV show. > > Then you're missing the main strength of TV: the story arc. The fact > that you can tell a longer story, that you can produce the media > equivalent of a novel or even a series of novels. Movies are really > just short stories. So are plays. And both do short stories better > than any TV episode for a variety of reasons. If TV sticks to the > standalone, it will never produce anything except second rate > mini-movies or plays. If we equate the episodes of a season to chapters in a novel then it's quite possible to think a number of chapters stink to high Heaven but still enjoy the overall book. UK drama is heavily dominated by pseudo-soaps at the moment. Programmes which are episodic in appearance but actually have soap style long running character arcs to hold your interest. Unfortunately they all seem to be ensemble pieces and so have the problems that soaps have, that if you're only interested in one character you have to put up with swathes of stuff about characters you don't care about. And they have no strong centre. No anchor to structure the show with beyond the basic situation. It's a bit like watching a washing machine you see the same stuff going around and around. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-12 01:01:03+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


himiko <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304091935.6d6d6884@posting.google.com... > "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:<4oucnY0sc7WSOQmjXTWcqw@brightview.com>... > > Well, I can't really comment on American TV of the sixties, me not being > > an American or indeed alive then. There are so many channels and so much > > airtime to fill it isn't possible for everything to be great or even > > good. Surely ceasing to be demanding is the tail end of the bell curve. > > At some point you *were* more demanding and got disappointed. > > We were all more than demanding in the 50s. We were wildly, > ridiculously (in retrospect) hopeful. TV was going to change the face > of the world. It would bring higher education and high culture into > the home of everyone. Yeah, right. In the 50s, we actually had some > very good repertory companies presenting solid, original stage plays > by solid, experienced writers and played by talented actors. What > survived still stands as quality stuff. But quality couldn't survive > the commercial needs of TV and it didn't. Sponsors and ratings > reduced us to the lowest common denominator quite rapidly. My perspective is shaped by coming from a country that has a poll tax on television owning. In the UK every TV set needs a licence. Black and white licences costing less then colour ones. The money goes to the BBC. It funds the two terrestrial channels, the news channel, BBC's digital chanels BBCs 3 & 4, two(?) children's channels, the BBC web sites, national radio stations Radios 1 to 5, local radio stations and various digital radio stations. The BBC has it's roots in the Reithean tradition, a dedicated belief in the virtues of public service broadcasting, a desire to improve the taste of the audience and a paternal attitude to it. But it also finds that it has to compete with independent television channels. The powers that be, feel that because of the way it's funded the BBC has these Reithean obligations. But why should people pay this tax if they don't watch the channel? So the BBC finds itself being pulled in both directions. Trying to be popular to compete with the advertising supported channels and highbrow to fulfil it's commitments both at the same time. The pressures on television programming here are directly affected by this set up. - How much longer the situation is going to last is unclear. The BBC charter is coming up for renewal and the government has released a white paper (proposed legislation) threatening to shake up the entire industry. The thing is a lot of television output that many Americans think of as being by the BBC such as much of Masterpiece Theatre is actually produced by the independent television channels. From my point of view UK drama is all very bland. There are occasional high points but in general it all has the same feel. It's the US television that we're getting at the moment which is the interesting stuff. Though we only get a small percentage of the progrmming produced. In reference to education the Open University used to get broadcast by the BBC. These were basically illustrated university lectures and formed part of home study degree courses. Now I think they've moved over mostly to video. There are lots of documentaries on at the moment. We seem to have been going through a wave of history programmes. Plenty of wildlife programming too. > The most hopeful era since then has been the 90s. Cable raised our > hopes again. Yes, it's impossible for everything to be great or even > good given how much of it there is; what's remarkable though is that > there can be so much stuff and most nights NONE of it is good...or > even watchable. You'd think just by the law of averages, SOMETHING > decent should be on at any given time. But there really isn't much > variety; just a whole lot of variants on the same damn crap. No, what you should expect is clumping. Clumps of quality television being shown near together and chunks of dross. Because there's so much dross these clumps would be relatively rare. It's the reason you have to be wary of illness clusters. There maybe a common cause or it could just be a random grouping. Think about flipping a coin a hundred times. You'd expect about 50 heads to come up. But you wouldn't expect it to go heads, tails, heads, tails, heads alternating at every toss. You'd expect to have runs of heads or tails. Of course TV isn't a purely random process so none of this really applies. > > To me a bad episode or season or seasons of BtVS can be just as > > unenjoyable as any other bad TV show. > > Then you're missing the main strength of TV: the story arc. The fact > that you can tell a longer story, that you can produce the media > equivalent of a novel or even a series of novels. Movies are really > just short stories. So are plays. And both do short stories better > than any TV episode for a variety of reasons. If TV sticks to the > standalone, it will never produce anything except second rate > mini-movies or plays. If we equate the episodes of a season to chapters in a novel then it's quite possible to think a number of chapters stink to high Heaven but still enjoy the overall book. UK drama is heavily dominated by pseudo-soaps at the moment. Programmes which are episodic in appearance but actually have soap style long running character arcs to hold your interest. Unfortunately they all seem to be ensemble pieces and so have the problems that soaps have, that if you're only interested in one character you have to put up with swathes of stuff about characters you don't care about. And they have no strong centre. No anchor to structure the show with beyond the basic situation. It's a bit like watching a washing machine you see the same stuff going around and around. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-12 12:41:13-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 12 Apr 2003 16:16:55 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: > >:> Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. > >: I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it >: questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. > >I thought I learned this lesson in grad school (the power of analyzing >over judging; one keeps opening up, the other closes down), but I guess I >fall back into old habits relentlessly. Good questions all! I always thought it was pretty hard to do one without the other unless you have no interest in what you're analysing. For instance if we were professional reviewers and only watched individual episodes of BTVS now and then, our analysis would probably be a lot different. Since most of us have followed from the beginning or at least seen all episodes, our analysis is colored by our judgement of things like how we feel about the characters. It's like sports teams. It's very hard to be analytical in critiquing a team's talent level if you're a fan and love certain players. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-12 12:41:13-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 12 Apr 2003 16:16:55 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: > >:> Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. > >: I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it >: questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. > >I thought I learned this lesson in grad school (the power of analyzing >over judging; one keeps opening up, the other closes down), but I guess I >fall back into old habits relentlessly. Good questions all! I always thought it was pretty hard to do one without the other unless you have no interest in what you're analysing. For instance if we were professional reviewers and only watched individual episodes of BTVS now and then, our analysis would probably be a lot different. Since most of us have followed from the beginning or at least seen all episodes, our analysis is colored by our judgement of things like how we feel about the characters. It's like sports teams. It's very hard to be analytical in critiquing a team's talent level if you're a fan and love certain players. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-12 13:41:20+10:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (water cooler dictator <starcrazy@optushome.com.au>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > pretty much right from the get-go. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > well if it was the first time i'd seen the show i might have considered it significant. but yeah, b grade horror flick thing and also the first season (master-stuff aside), all the episodes were very one-off-esque. introducing each of the characters and the like... > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > from my newly acquired knowledge of the word, a retcon that works pretty well. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > ditto. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > maybe a little. for those that insisted that "there would have been stuff to give it away" - gimme a break! especially if you're referring to andrew-type hints, which as hillarious as they might be, just wouldn't have suited will. especially when she was younger and the like.... > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > no. she wanted something normal...he was there. end of story. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > his selfish prick-ness became more evident? > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > not surprised, i honestly didn't give it another thought. by the end of season five (the finale even), it became clear that not only were they sisters, they're one and the same. end of story. i miss glory though.... > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > i don't think it was planned. but it was great nonetheless and also worked pretty well. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > no. well, don't think so. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > a plan for each season i would suspect. nothing further-reaching than that. > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? > i've never seen jurassic park. or star wars for that matter. > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely > another story about Buffy. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually > ends. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > >

2003-04-12 13:41:20+10:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (water cooler dictator <starcrazy@optushome.com.au>)


"Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote in message news:vxydnXbHBZPDhw-jXTWcoA@brightview.com... > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? > pretty much right from the get-go. > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? > well if it was the first time i'd seen the show i might have considered it significant. but yeah, b grade horror flick thing and also the first season (master-stuff aside), all the episodes were very one-off-esque. introducing each of the characters and the like... > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? > from my newly acquired knowledge of the word, a retcon that works pretty well. > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? > ditto. > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > maybe a little. for those that insisted that "there would have been stuff to give it away" - gimme a break! especially if you're referring to andrew-type hints, which as hillarious as they might be, just wouldn't have suited will. especially when she was younger and the like.... > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? > no. she wanted something normal...he was there. end of story. > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? > his selfish prick-ness became more evident? > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > not surprised, i honestly didn't give it another thought. by the end of season five (the finale even), it became clear that not only were they sisters, they're one and the same. end of story. i miss glory though.... > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? > i don't think it was planned. but it was great nonetheless and also worked pretty well. > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? > no. well, don't think so. > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? > a plan for each season i would suspect. nothing further-reaching than that. > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich���s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? > i've never seen jurassic park. or star wars for that matter. > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. > 2. It was just a throw away. It's a standard ending for this sort of > thing. > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. > 6. I'd say you were supposed to believe that and Buffy's failure to open > up to him was a retcon. > 7. Yup, they changed him to facilitate his departure which ironically > started making him interesting. > 8. No. It was just a device to introduce Dawn as Buffy's real sister. The > disappointment some people felt at it not going on to anything, I > think, stems from them being sucked into thinking it was genuinely > another story about Buffy. > 9. A continuity error plain and simple, left in because it was funny. > 10. Of course not. Again it's just how that sort of story situation usually > ends. > 11. As he said, he's not JK Rowling. He doesn't have it all planned out. > > > Sleeper > -- > 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' > The Bridge, Iain Banks > >

2003-04-12 16:16:55+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: :> Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. : I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it : questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. I thought I learned this lesson in grad school (the power of analyzing over judging; one keeps opening up, the other closes down), but I guess I fall back into old habits relentlessly. Good questions all! Shawn

2003-04-12 16:16:55+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: :> Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. : I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it : questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. I thought I learned this lesson in grad school (the power of analyzing over judging; one keeps opening up, the other closes down), but I guess I fall back into old habits relentlessly. Good questions all! Shawn

2003-04-13 01:37:12+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


water cooler dictator <starcrazy@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:3e962292$0$1031$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > i'm really enjoying reading peoples' responses to this and'll leave mine > soon. one question though before i go on (and pardon my ignorance)...but > what is a retcon? i mean i think i get it, i'd just like to know where the > word comes from. or something. AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!!! Sorry, just my Groundhog Day moment. We've just had two fairly lengthy threads on the subject. For a variety of opinions I suggest you check out on Google Groups 'What is "ret con" short for?' and 'Types of retcons'. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-13 01:37:12+01:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Sleeper <Unknown>)


water cooler dictator <starcrazy@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:3e962292$0$1031$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > i'm really enjoying reading peoples' responses to this and'll leave mine > soon. one question though before i go on (and pardon my ignorance)...but > what is a retcon? i mean i think i get it, i'd just like to know where the > word comes from. or something. AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!!! Sorry, just my Groundhog Day moment. We've just had two fairly lengthy threads on the subject. For a variety of opinions I suggest you check out on Google Groups 'What is "ret con" short for?' and 'Types of retcons'. Sleeper -- 'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.' The Bridge, Iain Banks

2003-04-14 21:55:36+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: : On 12 Apr 2003 16:16:55 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :>Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: :> :>:> Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. :> :>: I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it :>: questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. :> :>I thought I learned this lesson in grad school (the power of analyzing :>over judging; one keeps opening up, the other closes down), but I guess I :>fall back into old habits relentlessly. Good questions all! : I always thought it was pretty hard to do one without the other unless you : have no interest in what you're analysing. For instance if we were : professional reviewers and only watched individual episodes of BTVS now and : then, our analysis would probably be a lot different. Since most of us have I've read some of those, and you're right. I've been stunned by some outsider reactions to the show that found sexism and triviality, ie, stuff that's the LEAST of our concerns here, where we nitpick with loving (or once-loving) familiarity. : followed from the beginning or at least seen all episodes, our analysis is : colored by our judgement of things like how we feel about the characters. I know my enjoyment is totally colored by whom my favorites are, hence loving the Willow-Kennedy kissfest that was otherwise reviled here. : It's like sports teams. It's very hard to be analytical in critiquing a : team's talent level if you're a fan and love certain players. Yeah. We're all in our factions. Shawn

2003-04-14 21:55:36+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: : On 12 Apr 2003 16:16:55 GMT, Shawn Hill <shill@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: :>Sleeper <Unknown> wrote: :> :>:> Everybody evolves on Buffy, that's a good thing. :> :>: I wasn't trying to impy whether it was good or bad. Thinking about it :>: questions 6 and 7 are basically about the same thing. :> :>I thought I learned this lesson in grad school (the power of analyzing :>over judging; one keeps opening up, the other closes down), but I guess I :>fall back into old habits relentlessly. Good questions all! : I always thought it was pretty hard to do one without the other unless you : have no interest in what you're analysing. For instance if we were : professional reviewers and only watched individual episodes of BTVS now and : then, our analysis would probably be a lot different. Since most of us have I've read some of those, and you're right. I've been stunned by some outsider reactions to the show that found sexism and triviality, ie, stuff that's the LEAST of our concerns here, where we nitpick with loving (or once-loving) familiarity. : followed from the beginning or at least seen all episodes, our analysis is : colored by our judgement of things like how we feel about the characters. I know my enjoyment is totally colored by whom my favorites are, hence loving the Willow-Kennedy kissfest that was otherwise reviled here. : It's like sports teams. It's very hard to be analytical in critiquing a : team's talent level if you're a fan and love certain players. Yeah. We're all in our factions. Shawn

2003-04-18 21:03:48-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (DM <danmar@igs.net>)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Don't remember. > >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw away > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? retcon > >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? planned > >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > possible >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? no > >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? yes > >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > no >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? error > >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? hope so - just to come here and read the reactions! > >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? the vaguest >

2003-04-18 21:03:48-04:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (DM <danmar@igs.net>)


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:43:34 +0100, "Sleeper" <Unknown> wrote: > > >1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? Don't remember. > >2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Throw away > >3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? retcon > >4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? planned > >5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? > possible >6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? no > >7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? yes > >8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? > no >9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? error > >10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? hope so - just to come here and read the reactions! > >11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? the vaguest >

2003-04-19 07:21:38+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (James Craine <JamesCraine@Hotmail.com>)


Sleeper wrote: > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? When he turned in Bs bedroom. > > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Not significant, unless they needed it later. > > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Probably retcon. > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Probably retcon. > > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? YES! I thought that immediately. When W said "... and I think I'm a little gay." I groaned OH NO to myself. > > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. > > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No. > > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? No, don't like it anyway. > > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Error. > > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? Nooooooooooooooooo! > > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Half. > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich�s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? Not familiar with them. > > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. Ok, what were the clues? > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. Yea! 2 points. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. If you say so, but I got it right anyway.

2003-04-19 07:21:38+00:00 - Re: Do you understand BtVS? - (James Craine <JamesCraine@Hotmail.com>)


Sleeper wrote: > > It strike's me that one reason some people are enjoying BtVS whilst others > aren't is connected to how familiar people are with the story telling > devices and structures it uses. It's how well the viewer understands what > the writers are doing in shaping the show. So a quick quiz to see how in > tune with the writers you are and what you thought they were doing. > > 1. If you started watching form the start when did you first know that > Angel was a vampire? When he turned in Bs bedroom. > > 2. Did you think the egg at the end of Teacher's Pet would be significant > or it was just a throw away visual? Not significant, unless they needed it later. > > 3. Was Giles being Ripper a retcon or planned from his introduction? Probably retcon. > > 4. Was Jenny being a member of the Kalderash clan a retcon or planned from > her introduction? Probably retcon. > > 5. Did you think VampWillow was meant as a set up for Willow to come out as > gay? YES! I thought that immediately. When W said "... and I think I'm a little gay." I groaned OH NO to myself. > > 6. During season 4 were you supposed to believe that Buffy loved Riley? Yes. > > 7. Was the character of Riley different in Season 5 than from Season 4? No. > > 8. Were you surprised/disappointed that the whole Key business was dropped? No, don't like it anyway. > > 9. Was the weight of the Troll hammer a continuity error or planned? Error. > > 10. Is Buffy in an institution with the whole show taking place just in her > head? Nooooooooooooooooo! > > 11. Does Joss have a detailed plan for the story or just a vague idea? Half. > > As a child you can watch some crummy television and films and yet really > enjoy them because to you all the clich�s and formulas are new and exciting. > When you've become more familiar with them you become more demanding. > > For example how familiar were you with the survival formula for Jurassic > Park? He's to fat to survive. He's to black to survive. He's to English to > survive. Did it affect your enjoyment of the film? Not familiar with them. > > It's like watching a magician. If you can see how the tricks are done you're > going to be less impressed than if it's a mystery. If you can tell what the > writers are doing, if you can see the twists and turns ahead of time your > going to enjoy the show less than if it's all some great journey. If you > understand what the writers are doing you can tell when something goes wrong > or when they decide to change the direction of the story they're telling. > > Here's how I'd answer the above questions (my opinion of course). > > 1. It was obvious that he was a vampire from his first scene. I think that > most people with a bit of knowledge of this sort of fiction would have > worked it out before 'Angel' aired. Ok, what were the clues? > 3. A clear retcon. > 4. Ditto. Yea! 2 points. > 5. No the idea hadn't crossed the writers minds at that point. They just > built on it later. If you say so, but I got it right anyway.