|
Greetings, Whedon thread.  Prepare for a long and wordy post.  This is, I think, my first time posting here, so I should probably introduce myself a bit. I was introduced through Whedon through Serenity in college, which at the time, I thought was okay, I guess. Then I moved into an apartment with six people who wanted to watch Buffy with someone who hadn't seen it before. I watched it (and Angel, alternating by airdate), and they tried to pull an elaborate prank in which they convinced me that Buffy's sister had been a character the whole time, and called my friends so that everyone would reference an episode that the group of them had made up. It did not work on me, which I am frankly a little disappointed by, because it is an excellent prank. Anyway, I enjoyed Buffy and Angel but had some complaints. I watched Firefly, and had the same reaction. I watched Dollhouse (about two years after it had aired, I think), and nearly tore my hair out shaking my head about wasted potential. I watched all of these things while I was living in that apartment. At the time, the people at the liquor store knew me, and I was going through approximately 1.75 L of hard alcohol a week. It is possible I might have had a slight problem. I had a very terrible job at the time. I remember at one point, I went to a "Feminism and Dating" event (the guest speaker was Jaclyn Friedman) and jokingly made a joke about how I worked at "Wolfram and Hart," and I walked away with four loving phone numbers, and realized that maybe this hobby/mindfuck prank my roommates were playing on me was bigger than I had considered. Anyway!! I recently decided to rewatch Buffy, but to keep myself from being in the position where Netflix asks that insulting, judgmental "Are you still watching this?" question, I've been trying to make teach myself to make animated gifs while I watch. Because it is a huge pain in the balls with constant pausing and rewatching, I noticed a few things in the first episode. First of all, wow.   I had remembered that the acting was rough around the edges, but it's Xander levels of amateur, and I mean that both in terms of the character and the actor who portrays him. There are maybe two people in the main cast with the chops to withstand watching a scene twice in a row: Alyson Hannigan (surprisingly) and Anthony Stewart Head. I will never understand how Charisma Carpenter lasted ten seconds. I cannot believe that she is a high school student for a moment. Here is a horrible amateur gif I took, which represents Nicholas Brendon trying to portray emotion:  (I mean that is a failure.) Secondly: the late 90s were more absurd looking than I recall.  I wish we lived in a society in which in which I, a married heterosexual man, could wear this:  The episode is very high school and contains characters saying things like "Neg!" "Uh, Pos!" and 'You need a personality, stat!" It is also very representative of Whedonesque dialogue. Nobody in the real world would say "Don't you have an elsewhere to be?" but we are willing to forgive it in this setting. He is also very big on portraying awkwardness with things like Buffy telling Giles the reason she is visiting him is to say "To tell you I don't care... which I don't... and have not told you... so... goodbye" or that vampire kid who Whedon wanted to put in the credits as a prank saying "I'm on the prowl! Look at me... prowling!" On paper, these would be so irritating, you'd want to light the screenplay on fire, but they sort of work in this first episode. Still, there are thing that are good about it. The opening reversal of fortune with Darla is probably old-hat now, but even despite the make-up (someone needs to tell early 90s sci-fi show creators that it is difficult to act with a bunch of prosthetic teeth in your mouth, partially because they look silly and partially because you can't talk anymore), it is an okay "Gotcha!" opening.  As usual, there are times when Joss Whedon gets and times when he doesn't, but because this is a high school show, some of the times he really dones't get it land a bit better. Buffy's choosing a dress, which easily could have been from many of his other shows, sort of isn't that bad for a 16 year old in 1996:  The whole Schrodinger's Rapist phenonenon when Angel follows Buffy is well-played. As is done in a lot of media in YA, the show takes the general "Everything is life and death and nobody understands the unique trials and tribulations I must experience" of adolescence and makes them literal, which is part of what makes the show endearing. I expected to hate it. I hated the first season a lot the first time, and almost quite after the finale. But it isn't so bad, despite it's actors who don't have enough experience, it's ridiculous makeup, it's unapologetic attempts to infiltrate the impenetrable and embarrassing teenage brain. Despite all of it, I am glad I decided that this was going to be my next unwinding, brainless rewatch now that 30 Rock is done. I apologize for all the words. I will find somewhere else to put them as I do the rest of the episodes. If I ever get decent at the gif thing or I find any fun screenshots, I'll stop by to post them. Whedon: he is... okay... sometimes? Alright, see ya later. 
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Hi, yes everyone hates the first season. It is quite clear there is a great deal of network interference and confusion. They wanted another Sabrina the Teenage Witch or Saved By The Bell, and Joss handed them Buffy. Horror is one of the most feminist art forms, and Joss took that and turned the last girl standing into a bogeymen for monsters. Buffy is so old and dated that it has to be taken in context with the times much like Archie Bunker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I will find somewhere else to put them as I do the rest of the episodes. Dem .gifs. HERE. THIS THREAD. You put them right here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
daggerdragon posted:Dem .gifs. HERE. THIS THREAD. You put them right here. Yeah I gotta agree. You'd think this show would mined dry by now, but it looks like that's not the case. And your gifs look pretty technically good to me. Keep crankin' 'em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The antagonists in Whedon's world tend to be from 'outside' of society, vampires/demons from hell or shady characters being needlessly murder-y or mean selfish superheroes who don't do their jobs properly to name a few, and are only very formally feminist. His works invariably say that society would be better if it weren't for those pesky Bad People corrupting some ideal version of pre-existing society. In fact, I'll just go ahead and say that this is not so much a projection as it is just flatly inaccurate; antagonists in Whedon's works are almost always fundamental aspects of society, not those outside of it. The Mayor (and therefore the entire social infrastructure) of Sunnydale. The Initiative, an arm of the US military. Wolfram & Hart, comprising the governmenting body of LA with branches throughout the world. The Alliance...literally the prevailing sociopolitical system of future humanity. And of course the Dollhouse. Whedon's vampires and demons aren't from hell, they're from right here. Sometimes they are, literally, the people running the game. And it's not as if Buffy defeats the Mayor and puts a better mayor in his place and all of a sudden their town is a better place. The system that creates the Mayor is not changed, the fight continues forever...until the end of the series where Buffy blows up the entire town in order to destroy the hell that lurks there. The subtext couldn't possibly be more text. On the contrary, protagonists of his worlds are, generally, those outside of society, who don't reap the benefits of a functional society. And how does this apply to his his feminist process? Well I'm not actually sure, because I feel like you're projecting a lot on that front as well. From what I can tell, you believe that Whedon believes that Chris Pratt's character is some sort of misogynistic persona that is never called out for his misogyny, but that's not what Whedon actually said. "I'm too busy wishing this clip wasn't 70's era sexist. She's a stiff, he's a life-force - really? Still?" It doesn't sound to me as if he's saying that Chris Pratt's character is a horrific person and that Bryce Dallas Howard needs to fend off his sexism somehow, merely that the both of them embody sexist tropes in their presentation. Ice Queen vs. Vibrant Jokester in a dated mix that invariably makes the woman look worse than the man. It doesn't mean that the male character is somehow affronting the female character in some offensive manner that needs to be Addressed By Narrative, it means that the Narrative itself has set up a no-win situation for the female character. If she takes his disrespect without complaint, she's being victimized. But if she bites back at him, she's a shrew that proves him right. Whedon's complaint has little to do with how Pratt's character comes across and more to do with how she comes across.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The antagonists in Whedon's world tend to be from 'outside' of society, vampires/demons from hell or shady characters being needlessly murder-y or mean selfish superheroes who don't do their jobs properly to name a few, and are only very formally feminist. His works invariably say that society would be better if it weren't for those pesky Bad People corrupting some ideal version of pre-existing society. Whedon's not the only screenwriter who's come out and said that trailer is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:And how does this apply to his his feminist process? Well I'm not actually sure, because I feel like you're projecting a lot on that front as well. From what I can tell, you believe that Whedon believes that Chris Pratt's character is some sort of misogynistic persona that is never called out for his misogyny, but that's not what Whedon actually said. You've misread me. Whedon's problem is specifically that he actually believes lady is a stiff and Pratt is a life force - when this is Pratt's narrative. Without even getting into whether invoking tropes is automatically dated and bad or pretending we can tell whether they are straightforward plays of those tropes or not in two minutes of footage, Whedon fails to entertain the notion that Pratt's character is kind of a sucky person. Substituting the man's side of the story for the story itself is a big mistake, but it's exactly the sort of mistake you'd expect someone who wrote Avengers (where everything is constantly being spelled out for the audience) to make. It's the same mistake you're making here. You're saying these grandiose things about 'the narrative itself' 'setting BDH up to fail', but in reference to two minutes of screentime where she tries to have a conversation with a manchild and the manchild fails to keep up. Maybe in Pratt's narrative she's a stiff - but Pratt also thinks he can talk to velociraptors and wears shorts to a date and can't stand still in a basic conversation with an adult. Why relinquish control of the narrative to him? Feminism isn't just about more equalier storytelling or whatever - it's about learning to read existing stories and new ones oppositionally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Have I misread you?Hbomberguy posted:Chris Pratt's character's vaguely sexist assertions don't get immediately shot down by the lady in the scene, and this is simply too problematic for him to cope with. He wants the film to tell you Chris Pratt is wrong to make sure you know, and instead of concluding that this is further characterisation for the weirdo who thinks he can talk to velociraptors, he views it as sexist. Hbomberguy posted:Whedon fails to entertain the notion that Pratt's character is kind of a sucky person. People are substituting the man's side of the story for the story itself because that is how the story is written and how it reads. That the two-minute narrative favors the man's story against the woman's story is the very reason for the complaint. "There's no problem if you choose not to interpret the situation problematically" doesn't actually solve any problems. I'm not even sure where you're getting that he can't keep up with her, because the entire conversation is him throwing confidence at her while she sputters and attempts to defend herself personally and professionally. Chris Pratt isn't "the weirdo who thinks he can talk to velociraptors." He can, in fact, talk to velociraptors. The very fact that he can talk to velociraptors is the reason BDH is even there offering him a job. The entire context of the situation is a validation of his skills, and that she attempts to downplay it, pass the buck off to her bosses, is yet another way for the movie to endear us to him instead of her. In another film, in another franchise, perhaps the fact that he wears cargo shorts while she wears lab coats is meant to indicate his immaturity against her social competence, but not in this film and this franchise. Here, he's Ian Malcolm pontificating on the power of Life, he's Alan Grant peering into the minds and instincts of the animals he loves, while she encompasses the sterile scientists who didn't listen, played god with monsters, and got everyone on the island killed by lizard birds. Every microscopic fabric of this situation has been carefully, meticulously hand-crafted to make him look better at her expense. Or...do you have reason to suspect that his empathic relationship with raptors is going to end up being useless if not counterproductive in the film, whereas her clinical detachment from her subjects will somehow be their key to success? Do you think men and women watching this film are going to relate more to the character who makes sex jokes or the character who storyboards their dates? I mean...do you even actually like the scene? Hbomberguy posted:Feminism isn't just about more equalier storytelling or whatever - it's about learning to read existing stories and new ones oppositionally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
So wait, are we having paragraphs long arguments about Joss trolling a Jurassic World trailer which is absent context? I try to avoid his actual interviews and speeches because without the lens of fiction with which to express himself, he comes off kind of goofy, but if he's incited a full on thing about a movie that is possibly a weird parody of its 90s dad, uh... well...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
This is the true Whedon curse-- his ability to incite internet dweebs to never shut the gently caress up about the stupidest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
quote:People are substituting the man's side of the story for the story itself because that is how the story is written and how it reads. Furthermore you don't have to 'dissociate with someone's story' or dislike them just because you find they think some weird things. I don't suddenly cease to associate with John Hammond's dreams of giving people a true experience in the original movie just because he is quite overtly sexist. The scene is characterisation. Both characters are kind of weird people who justifiably from their point of view find the other person to be incompatible with them. feminism as an interpretation method is not just a way of 'grading' films on their sexism or equality, it is an attempt to explain the inequalities themselves in the diegesis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Ugh I've been doing a rewatch of Buffy/Angel with a friend to introduce her, but now that we've started alternating between Season 4 of Buffy and Season 1 of Angel the sense of progression has ground to a halt. Angel is quality but Buffy's sense of momentum makes most Season 1 Angel episodes feel like marking time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:This is the true Whedon curse-- his ability to incite internet dweebs to never shut the gently caress up about the stupidest poo poo. So, Firefly fans?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Ugh I've been doing a rewatch of Buffy/Angel with a friend to introduce her, but now that we've started alternating between Season 4 of Buffy and Season 1 of Angel the sense of progression has ground to a halt. Angel is quality but Buffy's sense of momentum makes most Season 1 Angel episodes feel like marking time. Interesting... I recall Angel season 1 being the absolute worst of both series. It has not one, but two hackneyed episodes where Angel is given the ability to not be a vampire anymore but must give them up for his Irish Catholic Guild Batman reasons, the early attempt at an anthology show makes it seem like Baby Fantasy Law and Order, Charisma Carpenter has always struck me as one of the weakest actors in a cast of people who are not particularly strong and she is not given a lot of material to work with like... ever. It's just an absolute trainwreck, and it's a miracle it survived to season 2. Buffy I remember having its ups and downs but peaking in the middle of its run and slowly deteriorating, while Angel largely increases in quality. It'll be interesting to see, if and when I get there (I'll deffo split Buffy and Angel by airdate), if I have the same impression when I'm a little more observant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:So, Firefly fans? I've tried to re-watch Firefly like 5 times and every single time I'm aghast at how hard it is to sit through even on a level beyond "I know the plots, jokes, and one-liners far too well." Harsh truth here-- it really hasn't aged well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I've tried to re-watch Firefly like 5 times and every single time I'm aghast at how hard it is to sit through even on a level beyond "I know the plots, jokes, and one-liners far too well." Harsh truth here-- it really hasn't aged well. Yeah no poo poo. And it wasn't that good to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Eh it was definitely an admirable attempt and all the actors were solid enough and had chemistry, and considering they were working on a TV budget back in 2002 the overall presentation is impressive. It's just weird how aside from "Out of Gas" how little re-watch value there really is in the show. It honestly feels like it was both before and after its time-- the character dynamics and ramshackle genre look would fare far better in 90s syndication alongside poo poo like Xena, Hercules, Jack of All Trades and Trek reruns, but the high-minded ambitions of making a sci-fi version of the Reconstruction-era South without slavery would be a near-impossible sell even today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
I remember Firefly being fun and at least having a significantly better and well-weathered cast than both Buffy and Angel, but I remember actual moments from the show to count on the fingers of one hand, so who knows? I did rewatch Dollhouse about a year ago with the wife, though, and every single episode is so goddamn rife with wasted potential as to an interesting high concept, to say nothing of the fact that Whedon apparently learned from previous network interference that his best move was to intentionally spite all of the money people he was working with, that just... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Whedon apparently learned from previous network interference that his best move was to intentionally spite all of the money people he was working with, that just... I intellectually understand this, I really do, but whenever push comes to shove in my life I can relate to his reasoning. It's stupid, prideful reasoning, but I understand it. I have no problem deferring to the will of powerful people, but when they try to play the Patron without drawing up formal terms and insisting I instinctively know how to serve them like a good soldier I lose all respect for their strength and walk away. I can only imagine how much worse that is on a TV show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Have I misread you? Which specific trailer are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I intellectually understand this, I really do, but whenever push comes to shove in my life I can relate to his reasoning. It's stupid, prideful reasoning, but I understand it. I have no problem deferring to the will of powerful people, but when they try to play the Patron without drawing up formal terms and insisting I instinctively know how to serve them like a good soldier I lose all respect for their strength and walk away. I can only imagine how much worse that is on a TV show. It ended up being really confusing for his audience at the time, though, enough that the actual series finale was a total mystery to people who watched it as it aired instead of buying it on DVD, and that's really the show biz equivalent of taking your ball, going home, and then coming back with tools to disassemble the nets. I know what you mean. It can't have been easy to deal with Fox, but both he and Bryan Fuller so consistently have "The network interference killed us" as the excuse that even if it's true, sort of marks them as lacking certain leadership qualities to deal with producing content for network television.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
I agree whole-heartedly. Joss Whedon is definitely the kind of creative Princeling who thinks that because he deals with non-creative aristocrats and has a cult following he's some kind-of "salt of the earth" genre proletariat, when really he's just another talented rich kid who is somehow too insulated to realize how poo poo he really is at playing certain games and network television is one of them. I don't say that as a knock either, I think network television is one of the toughest creative games to work in regularly and most "personalities" like him only gravitate towards it because up until very recently it was the only way to tell serialized live-action stories. In a way I imagine Marvel Studio's iron grip on their properties was freeing for him because he knew exactly where the boundaries were at all times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I agree whole-heartedly. Joss Whedon is definitely the kind of creative Princeling who thinks that because he deals with non-creative aristocrats and has a cult following he's some kind-of "salt of the earth" genre proletariat, when really he's just another talented rich kid who is somehow too insulated to realize how poo poo he really is at playing certain games and network television is one of them. I don't say that as a knock either, I think network television is one of the toughest creative games to work in regularly and most "personalities" like him only gravitate towards it because up until very recently it was the only way to tell serialized live-action stories. In a way I imagine Marvel Studio's iron grip on their properties was freeing for him because he knew exactly where the boundaries were at all times. There are a whole bunch of portions of this post that should be used as the thread title, but all of them are probably just a few characters too long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Story of my life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:Which specific trailer are you referring to? And Whedon's brisk response to it: https://twitter.com/josswhedon/status/586422567205912576 Hbomberguy posted:I automatically read a person telling their side of a story as their side of a story, rather than as the story itself. If you automatically associate the man's voice with objective reality instead of the woman's, you are being sexist. It doesn't even matter if you (the audience) don't actually, emotionally end up associating with this character, what I'm pointing out here are the -- again, rather basic -- tricks and sleights-of-hand that the narrative uses to sway the audience in the direction it wants you to sway. And it just so happens that most characters who we are most often led to associate with, who receive the most sympathy via filmmaking technique...are male, historically and currently. Hence, Whedon's commentary. Perhaps there is, as you say, an element of sexist bias on the audience's part to interpret the male character's story as the definitive story. But in my previous post I've listed a variety of ways that this two-minute narrative seems to bias us against the female character in favor of the cocky manchild's narrative voice...from the entire context of the scene, their characterizations, responses, choice of words, right down to their wardrobe. What is your rationale for presuming that the audience is intended to see these two characters' perspectives equally -- much less that they are intended to favor her perspective over his -- other than the fact that both of them exist, as characters, in the story? If you automatically, without exception, read all stories as presenting all sides of all characters equally, regardless of any actual narrative choices suggesting otherwise, you are simply dismissing any aspect of the story that doesn't line up with what you want the story to be. This of course doesn't mean that we ought to take every word out of Chris Pratt's mouth as gospel, merely that his is the mouth we're meant to engage with in the scenario presented. A character could be the most unreliable narrator flat-out lying to everyone and everything through a whole film, including the audience, and it doesn't mean he's not the character the filmmakers intended us to engage with. And even if he wasn't? Depicting both male and female characters in this situation based on unflattering sitcom stereotypes isn't phenomenally more commendable or less sexist. Hbomberguy posted:Furthermore you don't have to 'dissociate with someone's story' or dislike them just because you find they think some weird things. I don't suddenly cease to associate with John Hammond's dreams of giving people a true experience in the original movie just because he is quite overtly sexist. Hbomberguy posted:feminism as an interpretation method is not just a way of 'grading' films on their sexism or equality, it is an attempt to explain the inequalities themselves in the diegesis. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Again, based on what? Popular vote? I find that the quickest, most surefire method used to silence feminist thought nowadays is through constricting and policing what feminism means, usually by accusing others of "doing it wrong." (Whedon himself is also very guilty of this. His most recent Equality Now speech was a terror to sit through.) BrianWilly posted:This seems like a rather nongermane interpretation of feminism. This is a fairly common problem when it comes to this type of conversation. People have a tendency to simultaneously say 'feminism means different things to different people' and 'No-one can criticise other people's versions of feminism because that would be oppressive!' The very concept of having a discussion about these definitions or the process of reading goes out the window. You haven't even really offered or justified a definition you feel is better - you've literally just gone 'oh yeah? Who voted for that?' and moved on. Good criticism is not simply explaining why it is good or bad, but unpacking it in order to understand its essence - this is why I am approaching Whedon's claim not simply as something that is either right or wrong, but indicative of his wider approach when it comes to interpreting and writing film. People think and say things for a reason and it is that reasoning that is worth unpacking. I don't view films in terms of who we're 'meant to' engage with - I don't watch a film and think 'I am meant to engage with this person!' I also do not watch with an eye for what the 'intent' of a scene is. Your arguments revolve solely around the words 'meant to' and 'intent', so none of them hold any water to me. If you view scenes the way you are, you will be dealing entirely to what the creators intend you to think - or rather, what you think the creators intended you to think, since intent is totally inaccessible through a work itself. You aren't dealing with the work beyond its most superficial aspects, treating them as attempts by a puppet master to make you think a certain way. A man prances around making a big show of how special he is in order to mask that he's still working for the same company as the 'stiff'. The characters represent two different ways of dealing with being a part of a corporation. BDH is in the role the lawyer was in previously (right down to trying to hire a 'rockstar' scientist), but this time she's more of a main character. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Oooooh new posts! And not about motel rampages. As long as we are getting our missive on, I can defend Charisma Carpenter. Bicyclops posted:I will never understand how Charisma Carpenter lasted ten seconds. I cannot believe that she is a high school student for a moment. Your reading of her was correct and well cast then, she was never supposed to be a high school student because her character shouldn't want to be one. She had to be a too cool for school type who could socially lord over someone with all the positive qualities of Buffy. Without Cordelia playing spoiler to all of Buffy's social aspirations, Buffy would have just been a nebbish like Willow. Cordelia's character had to appear above the scoobies by both looking older and acting detached so that there could be the arc of her joining and splitting from the gang. In other shows her type of character can go painfully wrong as evidenced by what Tori Spelling on 90210 was supposed to be before she sank to finally become believable as Ms. David Silver. Cordelia, on her own, managed to prop up and anchor an entire invisible social hierarchy in a highschool full of 1-episode transients, and on a show where it was absolutely necessary for the main cast to be seen and felt as a collection of outsiders. The whole show does not work if Buffy is held up as the coolest kid around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Cordelia, on her own, managed to prop up and anchor an entire invisible social hierarchy in a highschool full of 1-episode transients, and on a show where it was absolutely necessary for the main cast to be seen and felt as a collection of outsiders. The whole show does not work if Buffy is held up as the coolest kid around. I knew this on a subconscious level but I'm so grateful you articulated this, because it's true and Ms.Carpenter deserves mad props for it. As it were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Buffy has to keep burning down schools and destroying entire towns to 'stop evil', when the evil comes from the process of society itself. Buffy's ultimate goal is apparently to destroy the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Holy poo poo, dude. This is precious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Johnnie5 posted:This is precious. The goal with communication between people is to understand what a person is saying (or trying to say) and why they are saying it. Since all people communicate differently, understanding people means working with what they're saying - what they 'meant to' say, and hoping they do the same. Communication is a two way street. With art, however, the process functions differently, because art can be read in all kinds of ways a creator might not have initially intended for them to do so, and this doesn't make those readings invalid. People can get all sorts of things from a film, or a scene. When you triumph what the film is 'trying to say', or what the creator(s) are trying to say, you're hamstringing your own ability to form a reading of the film in order to try and divulge how you're 'supposed' to read it. You're putting this nebulous idea of what is intended to be derived over what you personally derive, how things 'are supposed to be' in some prelapsarian ideal state from what is. It's a failure to live up to the duty of forming an opinion of your own. So you get conflicting statements like "The audience interprets based on the material presented to them" and "What is your rationale for presuming that the audience is intended to see these two characters' perspectives equally?", subtly shifting the priority from 'the material' to 'how the audience is supposed to (in my opinion) read the material.' It is not the material's job to tell you how to read it. It is up to you to decide. I don't like going to Shakespeare to make this point but the way people are still coming up with alternative ways of looking at the same plays and the (often feminist, although some would say Queer) readings that reinterpret the stories as depictions of social problems with gender is a truly fascinating and interesting process, and none of that can happen if you're too busy being preoccupied with what a 16th Century writer 'wanted' you to think. The stories lose the radical potential that makes them Art in the first place, and become mere sex comedies. Obviously, it is possible to learn about an author by engaging with their work, but I find it more useful to form my own reading of their writing than attempt to read it the way they 'want' me to. Anders Breivik doubtless 'wants' you to think his manifesto is about how to deal with Cultural Marxism, but it's pretty blatantly about his own misdirected feelings of unimportance and uselessness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:
She looks and sounds more like an almost 30-year-old who somehow got held back and is still pathetically high school Mean Girl in her words and actions, though. I am still in the first season, though, and my impressions may change this time around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:The whole show does not work if Buffy is held up as the coolest kid around. Which is one of the reason why I think High School Buffy doesn't hold up very well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:She looks and sounds more like an almost 30-year-old who somehow got held back and is still pathetically high school Mean Girl in her words and actions, though. I am still in the first season, though, and my impressions may change this time around. You're not wrong but honestly that's part of the retrograde charm for me. It's all so hopelessly mid-90s in its style and slowly grows out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Interesting... I recall Angel season 1 being the absolute worst of both series. It has not one, but two hackneyed episodes where Angel is given the ability to not be a vampire anymore but must give them up for his Irish Catholic Guild Batman reasons, the early attempt at an anthology show makes it seem like Baby Fantasy Law and Order, Charisma Carpenter has always struck me as one of the weakest actors in a cast of people who are not particularly strong and she is not given a lot of material to work with like... ever. It's just an absolute trainwreck, and it's a miracle it survived to season 2. Buffy I remember having its ups and downs but peaking in the middle of its run and slowly deteriorating, while Angel largely increases in quality. Can't believe I missed this earlier. I recalled season one of Angel being pretty bad but more memorable than like 85% of seasons 3 and 4 but once you start splitting it with Buffy on the show's strongest run (seasons 2-5) the weaknesses are crazy apparent. Also you want to talk actresses unsuited to a part? Kate's actress is gorgeous but my god does this woman feel like anything.but a believable cop. Early Wesley is also still pretty insufferable. Both will always be better than Connor though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:
My friend started watching Angel all the way through right after I did, and I was walking by as infant Connor was crying and said "Hm. Well, his character doesn't change much," and I think that pretty much sums up how I felt about him. I remember Elisabeth Rohm being slightly better once she got on Law & Order, but yeah, she always sounded a bit cardboard to me. I'd actually forgotten she was on Angel!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Vincent Kartheiser did the most he could with that role. Connor pretty much needed a lifetime of therapy to get over his demonic Oedipus complex and his character pretty much just suffers from the Shinji Ikari problem where the fanbase wants him to man up and be a hero but his issues run a lot deeper than what can be covered in a season of a show. Now Dawn, Dawn is just inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I didn't want Connor to man up, I wanted Connor to think about someone besides himself or face consequences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Acne Rain posted:I didn't want Connor to man up, I wanted Connor to think about someone besides himself or face consequences. He did in season 5! His actions did make sense it and he was never written as a likable character in season 3-4. Did you think Elisabeth Rohm did not work due to her being a lesbian? Season 1 angel also had Hawkeye and the great couple of episodes with Faith that led to great things with Wesley.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Acne Rain posted:I didn't want Connor to man up, I wanted Connor to think about someone besides himself or face consequences. That's a super realistic attitude to expect from a teenager raised in a hell-dimension who just finds himself in another hell-dimension full of betrayal and manipulative entities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:34
|
|