|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:05 am |
  |
|
Brian K. Vaughan is what would happen if Joss Whedon was smart, genuinely clever, could write, did basic research, came up with interesting concepts and premises and ran with them and knew how to develop strong characters, and not just go about claiming he does solely on the grounds that they act disgruntled, toss out shitty one-liners and can do roundhouse kicks.
Lost is still one of the most cynical stunts in recent memory, however.
Whedon should have stuck to what he did best: Writing family movies for Pixar. His other stuff is basically Mary Sues and cheap angst anime rip-offs.
Watch as his Wonder Woman movie boasts the same trite early 90s "strong" female archetype, and tries ever so hard to be light-hearted and patronise you with the same boring adolescent rebellious themes of yesteryear's season of Buffy, or Firefly, or fucking Alien: Resurrection, because they're all interchangeable anyway.
Don't look now, but the hacks have taken over your TV set. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
 |
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:46 am |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| (Buffy season 7 would have been a decent season for Willow if it wasn't for her awful new girlfriend Kennedy). |
And if they didn't dump every plot they set up for her, with her trying to return to a normal life at University, still having flashes of Dark Willow if she used powerful magics (ala Selfless), and her abilities growing so that spells would happen when she didn't want them to (ala Same Time, Same Place).
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:47 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
| and Michelle Trachtenberg got used for filler episodes (o no, she's having trouble in highschool o no :( ). |
The writers have accepted this (even Whedon), and have said that if they could they would go back and change it. Perhaps lip service, but at least they seem to realise how the fucked up. Same with Connor.
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:53 am |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| Brian K. Vaughan is what would happen if Joss Whedon was smart, genuinely clever, could write, did basic research, came up with interesting concepts and premises and ran with them and knew how to develop strong characters, and not just go about claiming he does solely on the grounds that they act disgruntled, toss out shitty one-liners and can do roundhouse kicks. |
BKV may just be my favourite comics writer ever. If not him then Grant Morrison.
| Quote: |
| Watch as his Wonder Woman movie boasts the same trite early 90s "strong" female archetype, and tries ever so hard to be light-hearted and patronise you with the same boring adolescent rebellious themes of yesteryear's season of Buffy, or Firefly, or fucking Alien: Resurrection, because they're all interchangeable anyway. |
Firefly was not good, but have you actually seen much of Buffy and Angel? I mean Whedon didn't write all of it, there are many writers in there who are (arguably) better than him, and go further than him because they operate on higher concepts. Whedon is very much about the characters, that's all. That's why he needs people to help him out to keep things interesting. Tim Minear, Drew Goddard, David Fury, Jane Espenson, Ben Endlund...
Also, come on, it's Wonder Woman. No matter who's writing it, it'll be a bad movie, because she's like Rogue. Not interesting outside of a team environment.
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:54 am |
|
|
| Gouki wrote: |
[Firefly was not good, but have you actually seen much of Buffy and Angel? I mean Whedon didn't write all of it, there are many writers in there who are (arguably) better than him, and go further than him because they operate on higher concepts. Whedon is very much about the characters, that's all. That's why he needs people to help him out to keep things interesting. Tim Minear, Drew Goddard, David Fury, Jane Espenson, Ben Endlund...
|
Joss Whedon wrote and directed all of my favorite TV episodes... The Body, Once More With Feeling, and A Hole in the World are the three most incredible TV experiences I've ever seen. But yeah, there's no way I would WANT him to have written all of Buffy/Angel. Some of the other writers have very different sensibilities which combine to give the shows a richer, more textured feel. Joss Whedon's greatest gift is his realization that the most trivial things in life are the most real. The most poignant scenes from his shows are: choosing a sweater, talking about a yellow crayon, and debating about cavemen vs astronauts.
The best example of the way brilliant writers brought different things to the table was Angel season 5. It's really a seperate show that draws from the Angel and Buffy cast and rewards having seen the previous 11 seasons of the shows, but it could be enjoyed by someone new to the series. It also has most of the best writers of Buffy/Angel, and they all want to do different things. Drew Goddard makes hilarious references to events on Buffy and Angel that happened years ago. David Fury and Steven S. DeKnight focus on the Angel/Spike rivalry, which is as fascinating as it is funny. Executive producers Jeffrey Bell and David Fury planned out a season-long storyline about the moral complexities of power and compromising with evil people which was interrupted by the other executive producer Joss Whedon's fetish for superpowered girls, as he introduced a new wondergirl just 7 episodes from the end of the series. And to top it all off, the network wanted them to do as many standalone episodes as possible.
It's one of the messiest and most beautiful works of art I've ever seen. Admittedly, there are some mediocre standalones in the mix. And EVERY aspect of this season - Angel/Spike, the female god Illyria, the complexities of working with bad guys - could have been fleshed out 3 times as much. But there's some pure genius on display. A Hole in the World may have originated from Joss Whedon's need to have a superpowered woman in the mix, but it's still tied with his Buffy episode The Body as the saddest TV episode ever made. Illyria is actually really interesting. And while the complexities of the setting are not addressed in all the episodes, the last 2 episodes conclude the show so wonderfully that a lot of Angel fans don't mind that the series was cancelled.
There's just something wonderful about a season of TV that shows so much potential and then abruptly ends. The writers and actors go out exactly as their characters do - with a bang, content that they have shown the world what they're capable of. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:21 am |
|
|
| I really loved how they handled Illyria. I thought it would be stupid, but it was really well done. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:27 am |
|
|
| Ebrey you should forward my PM to you about Spike and Buffy to Psiga so I don't have to try to write it again. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:06 am |
|
|
Or you could be not-a-pussy and just paste it for all to see.
Also: Though I only lightly skimmed the Angel series, I made sure to watch the last few episodes. All considered: Holy crap was that a nice ending.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:44 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
| Or you could be not-a-pussy and just paste it for all to see. |
I guess I forgot I could do that (asshole!)
It's in here somewhere. HERE WE GO:
| Ebrey wrote: |
| The first 5 seasons mostly had a coherent message: women should have power, even though they will misuse it just as men with power do. There were the examples of righteous female power (Buffy and Willow) vs abuse of female power (Faith and the evil prof from S4). Kind of a neat and realistic brand of feminism. |
I think the real thrust is a simple message of strength. We all know Buffy has the physical strength--that's the easy part to show; the part that's easy to understand. Though women are not as physically strong as men in the real world, in this show they are. It's the hard part shown easily, which is already impressive as long as the don't fuck it up by having Buffy be...well, you know. Her emotional strength is what does it, though. People tend to understand, but never dwell on the fact that women are traditionaly more emotionally capable and nuanced than men are. Since man's physical superiority and more brutish nature has naturally driven our gender to a roll of dominance, we simply paint emotional depth as weak.
Then, you know, we're the ones that can't handle our lives. Guys tend to crumble before women. In any real relationship, women tend to do the hard work.
Buffy simply extrapolates that ideal, naturally, through the unnatural. Buffy (and Willow) are very "girly" in how they handle emotional problems (ie. they actually acknowledge them, talk about things, etc.), but their ability to actually make meaningful progress is important. It's like, in most shows or whatever, the little things are simply not a problem. In Buffy, like in life, the little things are everything, and while you can look at that as a sign of "weakness" on the part of the characters, the real strength of Buffy is how these things are dealt with realistically. These are not "strong characters," they are strong people. We can look at Buffy and Willow and see a strength that isn't fake. Thus, when the problems shift to the more show-y "large" problems, we can still look at them through the lense of reality, and appreciate the struggle all the more.
| Ebrey wrote: |
| Then in S6 things got really confusing. The two good female role models became, essentially, villains. On the other hand, while everything Faith did were things a woman with a gun could do, some of the bad actions Buffy and Willow did were things only men do (Buffy beats the shit out of a lover, Willow magically date rapes hers... women wouldn't do that even if they had guns and political power, etc.). So is it a critique of female or male power? |
On the contrary, the Buffy/Spike relationship in season six was always a high point for me. As I said above, it is usually the women that are in power in a meaningful relationship. Buffy's emotional depth and understanding allows her to explore this relationship at her liesure. Sometimes she does bad things with this, like only coming to Spike when she's feeling bad (using him as a vice, essentially) or throwing him out, harshly, when the mood strikes. It shows control on her part. And women, in this domain, are always in control. Spike's character is a pretty sharply pointed representation of Man. He's clearly strong. People fear him. He plays both the badass and suave cards well, as they fit. But really, he's an emotional wreck; a simpleton incapable of properly engaging his emotions on a meaningful level. In a lot of relationships with men not quite as nice as Spike (or simply men that feel more scorned), the man will take this out on the woman because he can. He can act tough and throw shit through a wall and that'll freak her out. And if she keeps it up, maybe he'll smack her.
Well, that's clearly not going to work with Buffy. And it doesn't. She's not impressed. If anything, she can and does fuck him up. He's got nowhere left to turn, after that fails. So what does he do, from then on to the end of the series? He mans up. He has to check and guage himself, emotionally, because traditional expressions of masculinity are not going to work with Buffy. In the end, to his own credit, he becomes a better, more stable man. Joss's message here, then, is rather obvious.
(and there are plenty of women that can and do act like Buffy does in this situation. Men will act in this manner as a way to lash out do to frustration; women will do so to assert control, or establish themselves as equal partners)
Angel works the same way, really, only because Buffy is in a different place during those years, her reaction is more gentle. How many times does she talk him off the ledge, so to speak? When he can't have her, he quite literally loses his damn mind. She could lose hers too, but she doesn't. In fact, she could've kept that relationship going all she wanted to, but she ends it because she knows it isn't good for those around her. She knows she can't get what she needs out of it. Angel, being the guy, would've clinged to her forever and ever if she didn't stop him. While he's going nuts, she's trying to help her friend's get through their own seperations. When he finally loses it, she's the one that convinces him to stick around. Buffy keeps people together, and forces them to confront themselves in a manner that will make them a better person. She does this through feminine means, and she does it while dealing with and expressing her own issues.
Willow's character is simply fascinating. I look at her from her early crush on Xander and her Rated G relationship with Oz to the complexities of how she deals with Tara, and the way her and Kennedy stay together out of a mutual need to find something to ground themselves with through the chaos. It's just...worlds apart. Being in a deep relationship is a natural state for her, and that's something we'd have never expected from the clumsly, dorky Willow of the early seasons. Contrast her attempts to lose her virginity with Oz to her sex scene with Kennedy in the second to last (or was it last?) episode.
| Ebrey wrote: |
| And then there's the finale where Xander saves the world with the power of love. As a story, we love it because the underdog wins. But if you try to interpret it politically it's offensive to both men and women. It's either saying that men should take supporting roles to women, supporting them and trying to change the decisions they make with the power they alone have... or it's saying that people without power (ie women) should love and support and try to subtly change the people in power (men). Xander never tries to attain equal power to a slayer (Willow shows this is possible) because he likes the slayer. A feminist would say Xander may trust the current slayer (president), but he needs power in case the next slayer is not so noble. |
Xander occupying the traditional role of the woman is kind of interesting. He, too, is emotionally strong. I guess you can look at it and say Joss is taking the easy way out by simply reversing the problem and having a man in the traditional remale role, but I think he's more trying to say that a man can act a little girly and still be ok. Xander is strong, emotionally, and all to willing to do what he can, physically, despite the knowledge that he is simply not up to par. Early on the series used this more as a classic "nerd standing up to the bullies" thing, but even then it was clear Xander simply did not care. He was above that (outside of his desire to have sex). Later on, though, it seems Joss tried to carve a roll for him as the positive example of a more wholistic man. I think that was cemented when Buffy said he was "her strength" after he lost his eye. I can see that being interpreted as a backhanded compliment--as Xander occupying the traditional female role of subservient support, but, yeah. What I said before that. He's wholisitc.
That's the idea of feminism, in theory. Not necessarily to make men and women "equal" (and this is not unlike the W.E.B. Dubois/Fredrick Douglas debates), but to carve out a roll for the traditional strengths of feminitity in our society, and give that mindset a method to succeed. Too often successful women are successful in spite of their womanhood, rather than because of it. Women are encouraged to succeed by being more like men in our society; true progress will come when we aren't so dependant on the masculine mindset to drive us forward politicaly, socialy and economicaly. Buffy, as a series, provides a model of how it could work.
Last edited by negativedge on Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:59 am |
|
|
| negativedge wrote: |
| I really loved how they handled Illyria. I thought it would be stupid, but it was really well done. |
For sure. It's definitely bizarre that as soon as Buffy ended, Whedon turned his two other series into girl power shows when that's not what they're about at all. But it ends up working perfectly, because Wesley is great at watcher relationships (see: Wes and Faith in season 4) and twisted ones (Wes and Lilah, also season 4), and this is a bit of both. And their final scene together is one of many reasons Not Fade Away is such a beloved finale (in addition to Spike finally getting applause for using "effulgent", and Lindsey & Lorne's final scene, and the alley freeze frame).
Another thing that was mind blowing about Angel season 5 was that there was actually a good arc involving Gunn. Anyone who has watched the first 4 seasons of the show knows how incredibly crappy of a character he is, so this was really impressive.
EDIT: I just quoted neg's PM and then he posted it here. Whoops! |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
IIOIOOIOO
double banned
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:09 am |
|
|
| Buffy is asinine. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:35 am |
|
|
| Nope. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:22 am |
|
|
Yes, as is it's supposed feminism. Or any other ideal advertises. The intent is sad, and the writing achieves every opposite effect, flattering it's audience for being short-sighted and thinking how "cool" it is that there's a girl omgosh kicking ass while dramatising the least important "issues" of a quaintly pathetic suburban lifestyle and perspective.
It doesn't help that he's unable to use any other kind of character archetypes. You just need to read Astonishing X-Men or rewatch Resurrection to see that Whedon's incapable of writing anything other than teen angst derivatives.
There are so many reasons why Whedon's material is offensive, and offensively bad, but it's definitely his nerdish sexism and attitudes of petty rebellion heralded as progressiveness which stinks the most. Probably why his stuff is so popular, that said.
| Gouki wrote: |
| No matter who's writing it, it'll be a bad movie, because she's like Rogue. Not interesting outside of a team environment. |
Have you read Mike Carey's X-Men: Supernova? Rogue forms her own team, and it's a brilliant demonstration of her leadership abilities as well as her own stubborn maturity. Carey has a surprisingly empathic understanding of the characters he is using, and knows how to write them to make the fights epic in proportion, as well as innovative.
Morrison is awesome, yeah. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Red_venom
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:23 pm |
|
|
Im really enjoying 30 Rock and the Office.
I avoided 30 rock until I was bored last week and watched all 8 episodes of it in 2 days. Its like a more toned down and sitcom-y Arrested Development. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:02 am |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| Yes, as is it's supposed feminism. Or any other ideal advertises. The intent is sad, and the writing achieves every opposite effect, flattering it's audience for being short-sighted and thinking how "cool" it is that there's a girl omgosh kicking ass while dramatising the least important "issues" of a quaintly pathetic suburban lifestyle and perspective. |
You know, before I ever watched it, I just assumed Buffy was complete shit for those reasons. Imagine my surprise when that wasn't the case! |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:16 am |
|
|
Gouki and neg, I'm curious what you thought of the third-to-last Angel episode where Angel and Spike go off to search for Buffy in Italy? A lot of people passionately hate it, because it's much sillier than the episodes before and after it, because it's the third to last episode of Angel yet it's "about" Buffy (it's actually about Angel and Spike), and because it uses a crappy body double for Sarah Michelle Gellar at one point. But I thought it was pretty brilliant. The episodes before it had focused on Wes and Illyria, and even if they are my two favorite characters from the season... you've got to bring it back to Angel and Spike before the series ends. Showing they're still madly in love with Buffy, rather than diminishing everything else they do, makes it more impressive. They really love Buffy, but they want to do the right thing even more.
I liked it a lot better than the other Andrew episode about the abused slayer... that one had way too little to do with the main characters, it was practically an X-Files episode. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:33 am |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| Gouki and neg, I'm curious what you thought of the third-to-last Angel episode where Angel and Spike go off to search for Buffy in Italy? |
It's okay. It's a little disheartening that it was Goddard's and DeKnight's last contribution to the TVverse. And I'm pretty amused by the fact that the Season 8 comics immediately say that "it wasn't the real Buffy". I don't hate it, but I don't love. It there are plenty of episodes I'd rather watch, but just as many I wouldn't watch instead of it.
Damage was pretty good. I found it interesting that Buffy and the gang basically caused this girl to be completely fucked up and ruined her. It'd be interesting to see more things like that being explored in the comic.
You say the X-Files episode comparison like it's a bad thing?
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:49 am |
|
|
I loved it. It was highly amusing, great fan service, etc. And you're right--the show needed to do the Spike and Angel thing one last time. And hey, I know Angel is it's own thing, but I don't think it's a crime to sometimes acknowledge that it came from a different show. The main thing I liked is that the humor in that episode never seemed forced to me--it was just sort of natural, once you realize how obsurd it is to have these two guys running around like lunatics, trying to put aside their love/hate thing for the sake of competition. I seem to recall a scene where they just kind of sat down on a curb or something and looked at each other like "we are fucking morons" and that was kind of that.
Still, dissappointed that Sarah Michelle Gellar couldn't show up for that one episode. I mean, come on--I know she was filming The Grudge or whatever, but that movie was shit and she ought to have realized she had no career without Joss. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:17 pm |
|
|
| Gouki wrote: |
| You say the X-Files episode comparison like it's a bad thing? |
The X-Files is everything Buffy/Angel is not. The X-Files focuses on the monster of the week, which makes most episodes feel like cheaply made ripoffs of better sci-fi movies. There are only 2 main characters, and while they're great characters, they don't really develop or have meaningful relationships (it's kind of hard to when there's only one character to have a relationship with!). I know that Whedon said he couldn't watch the X-Files because it was so frustrating that Scully never believed in extraterrestials when there was so much evidence to the contrary (that's probably why he ended the high school period of Buffy with every student accepting that there school is definitely supernatural).
And I thought it was nice to see DeKnight do a comedy episode, since he's definitely the most twisted Buffy/Angel writer (he wrote both the domestic abuse and rape episode of Buffy S6). It was also David Greenwalt's only contribution to the last 2 seasons of Angel, and while he's not my favorite, it was nice to acknowledge him before the series ended.
| negativeedge wrote: |
| Still, dissappointed that Sarah Michelle Gellar couldn't show up for that one episode. I mean, come on--I know she was filming The Grudge or whatever, but that movie was shit and she ought to have realized she had no career without Joss. |
This interview with David Fury reveals two interesting things. One... they never wanted SMG to be in The Girl in Question. The joke of that episode was that they never end up finding Buffy... so why would they need SMG? On the other hand, they did ask her to be in the 100th episode, and she was doing The Grudge, so they got Charisma Carpenter instead (which Fury admits was definitely the better move). I read somewhere else that SMG offered to be in the Angel finale, but Whedon declined, since it would be too distracting for her to be in the last episode of the series (Angel is in the last episode of Buffy, but Angel is a Buffy character, while the reverse is not true).
Fury also comments on how Whedon and SMG aren't as close as one would think. Like you said, SMG would have no career with Joss, but Joss wouldn't have much of a career without SMG, and neither seems to acknowledge it. Both SMG and Whedon are extremely talented, so I can see why they FEEL they didn't need the other - but the truth is, they did. There just aren't a lot of good writers and actors working in TV, and when you have one but not the other the show's still not going to be very good.
Also SMG wasn't happy with not being able to do any comedy in the last couple seasons. I think she was expecting them to make her character in season 7 lighter due to her complaints about season 6, and instead they gave her a bunch of really awful monologues... I can see why she wouldn't be pleased. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Zebadayus
pelvis othello
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
|
I strongly dislike Buffy.
I strongly like the X-Files.
The X-Files seems like a mature program to me. Very witty humor. Top-notch acting. I also enjoy the fact that it's episodic. It works for it.
I don't see these things in Buffy. Every single character annoys me. Too many pretty people as well.
Nobody seems to ever consider that less-fortunate looking people may end up fighting evil.
David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson were both fine looking people of course, but they weren't "omg SUCH hotties!", and most actors in the show were pretty realistic looking.
Remember the Lone Gunmen?
Also, it just occured to me that Buffy and The X-Files shouldn't be compared. They're directed at different audiences. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:06 am |
|
|
| zebadayus wrote: |
The X-Files seems like a mature program to me. Very witty humor. Top-notch acting. I also enjoy the fact that it's episodic. It works for it.
|
Here's what I don't understand - why would you watch the X-Files rather than an actual sci-fi movie? Episodic television combines all the limitations of movies (stories have to be told in 2 hours or less) and all the limitations of TV (the entire thing is shot in a week on a tiny budget). |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:53 am |
|
|
Familiarity with characters, canonical storytelling, relative consistency in writing/directing/cinematography. How many movies can you chain together which do all of those things at once?
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Broco
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Headquarters
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:21 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
| Familiarity with characters, canonical storytelling, relative consistency in writing/directing/cinematography. |
That's like a list of reasons to eat fast food instead of going to real restaurants. "Man, good ol' familiar Big Mac. Always consistent." |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:34 am |
|
|
Or like a laundry list of reasons to eat at real restaurants. "Man, good ol' familiar Applebee's angus bacon cheeseburger on focaccia. Always consistent."
You're also dodging my question. I guess you're saying that you don't like my question?
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Broco
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Headquarters
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:47 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
| Or like a laundry list of reasons to eat at real restaurants. |
Not really. The whole reason many people don't bother trying anything other than fast food is that they can't be sure what they're going to get. You move to another city or something, the only way to ensure consistency with what you knew before is to eat at a chain restaurant. It's the lazy option; low risk, low reward, comfortably familiar. Meanwhile if you try out that Peruvian fish place, you don't know what the hell you're going to get. Might be amazing, might be inedible. Spending your time watching an episodic TV series instead of trying out various movies is similar. (I see Applebee's is itself a chain restaurant and you're citing it as good food; no comment on that since I've never eaten there.)
And yeah, I don't really get the question. Familiarity and consistency barely register as positive things for me, why would you want to watch a bunch of movies which are all the same anyway? I guess you could watch a movie and a bunch of its sequels... but there's a reason why sequels have a bad reputation. (The diminishing return problem would also apply to episodic TV series, but fortunately there's nothing to diminish because the first episode generally isn't all that good in the first place.)
I think the only genre that is really made for episodic TV is comedy. With comedy, feature-length film often gets boring because there tends to be no drama to hold up interest for that length. For the same reason, it doesn't need long-form plots of serial TV. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:08 am |
|
|
I'd counter-point that restaurants like Applebee's are available in various regions all around America. The reasons I ate fast food were because of money and convenience. Getting out of college at 10:45pm? Taco Bell's across the street. Don't have $8 and an hour to eat at a restaurant? Jack in the Box has a ciabatta burger which is okay.
Your claim of consistency is dodgy, since I often have to take drive-thru meals back for their lack of consistency.
If you don't like the idea of developing a liking for certain characters and then seeing them for 20, 40, 60, or whatever number of episodes, then good for you. Very obviously there are untold millions of people in the world who disagree with your view.
What sorts of TV shows can you recommend which meet your strict tastes?
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:27 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
If you don't like the idea of developing a liking for certain characters and then seeing them for 20, 40, 60, or whatever number of episodes, then good for you. Very obviously there are untold millions of people in the world who disagree with your view.
|
I like seeing characters for 100 episodes. As long as those characters have a 100-episode long story. If the characters are going to stay the same in every episode, then why should I watch more than 1 episode? Cheaply made, 45 minute versions of sci-fi classics like Alien and the Thing with the same main characters are not as good as the real thing.
As Broco said, only comedy benefits from the episodic treatment at all, because it can be more specific and funny than movies (spending an episode waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant is hilarious, spending a movie doing the same would not be). |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Broco
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Headquarters
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:37 am |
|
|
Well it's not so much that my tastes are strict -- I try to appreciate the good in everything -- it's that I have limited time for entertainment and when there is all this truly excellent stuff clamoring for my attention, I can't devote my time to the merely decent. Especially when it lasts for a bazillion episodes.
If you'd like recommendations, I can strongly endorse The Wire, which is absolutely fantastic in every way and has redefined my conception of what a TV series can be. I can't think of any other TV series up to that standard currently -- though I may have missed something, since I don't own a TV and only occasionally download shows when it sounds like they're worthwhile. From what I've heard, Battlestar Galactica and HBO shows like Big Love and Six Feet Under are quality, so that's what I intend to check out next. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:02 am |
|
|
Ebrey: The odd thing is that shows like Buffy have character development for better or worse. Let me tell you how much I hated seeing Willo turn into a soggy lesbo and Buffy turn into a depressed fuckup.
Regarding comedies: To say that only comedies work in episodic form is misguided. You could say that they take to episodic form better than movies, but that's more a failing point of movies. And once again I say that untold millions of people are interested in long-running series regardless of anything. Fucking bastard Friends actors were earning whole movie budgets worth of money apiece as a salary in their final seasons.
Broco: I can appreciate the stance of not having time to devote to anything that doesn't strike you as excellent. That's fair, and I'll agree with you.
However, I have to pull your restaurant analogy away, because it's basically like saying that you only have enough time for one meal every couple days and would rather make sure that one meal is great.
The bottom line thing about movies for me is: Makers can throw fucktons of money at a movie and that won't make it good. Even when it is good, it took at least a year to make. What if you want more? There is no more. Or what if you didn't like it? Tough luck, you already paid for it. If you see it in a theater you have to deal with people. But does that make them worse than TV shows? Of course not. They're different.
Coming into a TV show thread to complain about how TV shows aren't movies is bugging me, as you can see.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:26 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
Ebrey: The odd thing is that shows like Buffy have character development for better or worse. Let me tell you how much I hated seeing Willo turn into a soggy lesbo and Buffy turn into a depressed fuckup.
|
But if there's no character development, there's no point. I wouldn't watch a movie where I knew nothing more about the main characters when the credits rolled, and they didn't change at all. When you're talking about a 100 hour TV series, then it needs 50 times more character development than a movie. That's why serial television is so difficult and few people attempt it. That's why you need complex, multifaceted protagonists like Tony Soprano and Buffy, and a rotating cast of supporting characters who bring out different sides of them.
TV shows like Law & Order and the X-Files are essentially watching the same movie 100 times. While there are others, like The Wire and Buffy, which are like watching a 100 hour movie. If I want consistency, I'm going to rewatch one of my favorite movies, because I already know that L&O and the X-Files and the like are not as good as a classic movie. But if I want a story much longer than a movie can provide, I'll watch an HBO show or Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica or 24. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:57 am |
|
|
So you're a stickler for character development, and any use of the medium that does not appeal to your tastes is merely a 100 times rehash of the same things that you don't like. Is that the gist? That's the message that I'm getting.
I should also mention that I have watched neither X-Files nor Sopranos, nor have I watched Alien or The Thing.
Oh, I did watch the X-Files movie and kinda liked it, though. Wanted more of that, especially if the characters stayed the same. Alas, it wasn't the [lack of] production value, nor the [lack of] character development that kept me from X-Files -- it was the sheer disinterest in many of the story arcs. (Also what keeps me away from Sopranos. I. Just. Don't. Care.)
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
negativedge
banned
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:03 am |
|
|
| The X-Files isn't completely episodic. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:31 am |
|
|
Seriously guys, The X-Files similar to Buffy in one major way: You should really watch it before you judge it.
The majority is episodic (which, interestingly, this is the first forum I have come across which complains of it being too episodic rather than, too much myth arc which seems to be the main complain no matter how wrong it is). Yes, but for the X-Files it works. The characters develop strongly and believably, and despite their only being two characters in the opening credits for the first 8 seasons, there re plenty of characters throughout the series.
The Lone Gunmen, Scully's mother/sister/brother, Krycek, Skinner, Reyes, Doggett, Cigarette Smoking Man, X, Deep Throat, Marita Covarubious, Angent Spender, Angent Fowler, Mulders parents. Samantha Mulder.
The thing is, unlike Buffy or Angel where they thrive on multiple characters, The X-Files doesn't need them. Because the relationship between Mulder and Scully develops beautifully over 9 years, and then when you think it's been done, Dogget and Reyes breathe fresh air into the show, bringing with them a unique take on the series/the cast chemistry/and the X-Files.
Even Buffy/Angel never made me gasp as much as the X-Files.
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:49 am |
|
|
I watched all of the first season of the X-Files. There were tiny hints of character development, and a plot arc, every few episodes. But it was 20 hours long, and everything important could have been in 2 hours. The rest was "let's do The Thing on a tiny budget with Mulder and Scully as the main characters!" and crap like that... Two main characters is just barely enough for a movie; a novel needs more, and a TV series is much longer than a novel.
Psiga, episodic TV isn't necessarily rehashing something I don't like... for instance, I like Mulder and Scully. But watching a show where the characters don't change and there's not much of an ongoing plot is like watching the pilot over and over again. And there's no way the Law & Order pilot and the X-Files pilot and the CSI pilot, etc. hold up to a great movie. Nor would I want to watch the same movie once a week. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:39 am |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| I watched all of the first season of the X-Files. There were tiny hints of character development, and a plot arc, every few episodes. But it was 20 hours long, and everything important could have been in 2 hours. The rest was "let's do The Thing on a tiny budget with Mulder and Scully as the main characters!" and crap like that... Two main characters is just barely enough for a movie; a novel needs more, and a TV series is much longer than a novel. |
You... can't watch the first season and give up. Just like you can't base your thoughts of Buffy and Angel and Farscape on the first season. It's not to say it's perfect, but Season 2 - 5 is some fantastic television, that really clicks and draws the viewer in. Watching it from the start to finish in huge chunks should blow your mind if you're a real person. It learns how to blend comedy and drama, it starts to become less episodic as character arcs begins to carry over from one stand-alone to the next and the myth-arc kicks into high gear.
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:28 pm |
|
|
| negativedge wrote: |
| Dracko wrote: |
| Yes, as is it's supposed feminism. Or any other ideal advertises. The intent is sad, and the writing achieves every opposite effect, flattering it's audience for being short-sighted and thinking how "cool" it is that there's a girl omgosh kicking ass while dramatising the least important "issues" of a quaintly pathetic suburban lifestyle and perspective. |
You know, before I ever watched it, I just assumed Buffy was complete shit for those reasons. Imagine my surprise when that wasn't the case! |
And after watching it, it's still sexist castration anxiety.
"Look, ladies! I can make you kick ass too! I'm so fucking progressive!"
It's fucking insulting, as is the angst, ersatz of the worst Japanese anime has to offer.
That's pretty much what Buffy is: The worst of anime, retard-mating with the worst of Americana.
The character development issue really isn't one, in long-lasting episodic narratives. Characters typically start off on a concept, and should stick to it. That doesn't mean you can't expand upon them, peel apart their depth, but radical changes rarely ever work.
P.S. Is Broken Saints a good series, albeit not a TV one? I've been interested in it for a while, but I wouldn't want to spend 12 hours on it only to realise it's short-sighted in every way, like another, less dynamic, Matrix trilogy. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:25 am |
|
|
I remember following Broken Saints back as it was coming out in flash episodes. I lost track of it before the end, when they were taking too many months to get episodes out.
A little bit dodgy in quality, but I remember liking it and thinking that it was decently inspired. I've seen more impressive stuff since then, though.
Um, I was impressed by the haiku which would be presented during the loading screens. Like, the haiku were the most impressive parts or something.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:10 pm |
|
|
| I propose Venture Brothers be made the official SelectButton TV series, because the writers spend the commentaries debating which Venture Brothers guy they would fuck. Priceless. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Judge Ito
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: IA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:24 am |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| I propose Venture Brothers be made the official SelectButton TV series, because the writers spend the commentaries debating which Venture Brothers guy they would fuck. Priceless. |
Also: obscure music references abound. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Frequent Pilgrim
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:27 am |
|
|
Guys, Twelve Oz. Mouse just had its final episode (Most likely) and it expanded my concept of what any show or cartoon could be.
Don't try to watch it unless you see every episode in order. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Gouki
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Australia.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:32 am |
|
|
Arrested Development really, really should still be alive.
Beast Wars is also very good.
_________________
... Maybe later. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
