Television Ramble - Then and Now
Mar. 22nd, 2015 10:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. BTVS and ATS -- A Doylist Perspective. (I can't look at a television series or novel without thinking of the Doylist Perspective - its how I think. I'm a writer - I think about the process. What is involved, what influenced the writer, how that influenced the work. I honestly think Doylist and Watsonian are intertwined. To analyze without looking at both...lacks something.)
I don't have the links to the interviews - too frigging long ago. Most are gone. And this is sort of response to something I read online, which was reviewing the series mainly from a Watsonian perspective, but I thought being a bit harsh in regards to how the writers handled various characters - without taking into consideration various problems with producing and writing a television show. That said, and I need to make this clear - despite what you may think - it is not a direct response. I've read similar reviews of the series from this perspective elsewhere, and over and over and over again.
So please don't take it personally. It's just - lately, I've been involved with collaborations and stories on tv, in the theater, or the result of a collaboration are quite different than well one's that aren't. I think a lot of fans forget that, mainly because it lies outside of their experience? I don't know. Or they aren't as obsessed with process as I am. So, just sharing what I've learned about television production - in particular in regards to these two series.
* The writers had about 2 days, if that, to write a script, have it edited, and revised before filming. Filming was a harsh 2 week regime, about 12-13 hours. Then roughly edited. Also, they were low-budget television series on a junior broadcast channel, that was targeted to 14-35 year old women, at least in the case of Buffy.
* Recurring guest actors weren't given contracts. And they weren't paid that well. Nor were some of the supporting.
*The problem with tv shows that are focused around a central character such as "Buffy", "Angel", "Sherlock", or "Bones" - is the lead character gets all of the attention. Everyone else is sort of disposable but the lead. Whedon stated in various interviews that his biggest regret with Buffy and Angel was that they weren't ensembles...and he decided after doing Firefly, which as a pleasure, that he would only do ensemble television shows and movies from this point forward. Because the problem with the non-ensemble is you inadvertently end up with "diva" complex, particularly when dealing with young, wet-behind the ears, actors who have never starred in their own tv series before. Which, he admitted was partly his fault - because he set the tone and gave the leads on both series far too much power. (Keep in mind - it was his first tv series as show-runner, too.) But, after doing Roseanne, he didn't find it quite that bad in comparison, but it did make for a difficult set dynamic at times. It also, tied the hands of the writers - they were stuck making each episode about the central character in some way - they had to find the Buffy or Angel in every episode, as opposed to focusing on say Spike, Anya, Xander, Willow, et al.
* Various actors were difficult to keep due to contract issues - which resulted in rewrites and hodgepodge plot lines. Julie Benze (Darla), Lindsey, Doyle, Drusilla, Seth Green (OZ), Giles, Ethan, Jenny Carpenter, Tara, Lindsey Crouse --- didn't quite cooperate with the writers. Drusilla was supposed to return with Spike in S4, but Juliette Landau who portrayed her was unavailable. Tara was supposed to return in S7, but Amber Benson was unavailable. Lindsey and Darla were major players at the end of Season 2 Angel, but both actors became unavailable and they had to rewrite the ending of that season. (Pylea was the result). Seth Green opted out of Buffy in S4 - and he had a huge arc, as did Lindsey Crouse - as result they had to re-plot the entire season. S5 was amongst the few seasons that was pre-plotted with no major changes. S2 - did have a major change - the character of Spike took off, and the writers enjoyed writing him so much they couldn't bare to kill him.
* Spike and Angel - are difficult but fun characters, much like Omar in the Wire and Kalinda in The Good Wife or Hook in Once Upon a Time that can suffer from over-exposure. It's better if you keep a little mystery going there. Or you can fall into the bad boy cliche. Despite what people may believe - Whedon adored the character of Spike and inserted a lot of himself into that character. Spike is a writer and a poet, with a sick mother and an absentee father, with a somewhat difficulty bullying relationship with an older brother (Angelus) - if you've read Whedon's back story - it screams Spike. He had some problems with the actor, much much later in the series, (according to various backstage gossips and rather amusing con Q&A's, where Marsters says a wee bit more than he should). But his hands were tied a bit regarding what he could do with the character, in much the same way the writers of The Wire, OUAT, and Good Wife's hands are tied regarding certain characters.
It was always the plan to bring Spike on to Angel. Tim Minear actually went on Angel's Soul fan board to state as much to the considerable chagrin of some of the diehard fans.
And Whedon, Fury, and Bell - stated it as well. They did have issues though - Marsters did not come cheap and drove a hard bargain. Spike's coming to ATS was part of their pitch to the WB for Angel's renew. I remember the fights, lots of whining. Personally, I would have jumped ship if the shippers got what they wanted - talk about sleep inducing.
And it would not have gotten renewed. Angel had crappy ratings. It was airing opposite Alias at the time, and at one point The West Wing. I know because I gave up on it at various points to watch Alias or The West Wing. We didn't have DVR's back then.
When he was brought on - it was meant to be gradual, not all at once. They didn't want to introduce him as a regular until the 8th episode. Sort of similar to what they did with Wes and Fred and various others. It was supposed to be a surprise - with the audience not knowing about it. But the WB wanted to attract Spike fans, so spoiled the audience and insisted the character be brought in immediately.
David Boreanze loved Marsters introduction - he was bored and burnt out, Marsters added a bit of new energy. They met and discussed the characters background and motivations.
Also, Spike got to be edgier...less fluffy, because we were seeing the character through Angel's pov. And Angel unlike Buffy wasn't about a group of heroes, so much as anti-heroes, particularly in S5, which was very dark and noirish, more so than some of the previous seasons.
There was some disagreement on how to write Spike - so the character was a bit all over the place. Because the writers and actors did not agree on how to portray him. There was clear consensus. If you read the interviews and commentary, they contradict themselves.
Did however make the character fascinating, because unlike the other characters - this one was basically a little bit of everything - romantic hero, anti-hero, villain, comic relief, wacky side-kick...the whole spectrum. He also acted against everyone - and because the actor was into the method and always on - people loved acting with him, because he was there in the scene with them - as opposed to staring off into space, or lounging whenever the camera wasn't focused on him.
The writers fought over the soul thing, and over the rape thing, and over the romance with Buffy thing, and over who should win a battle - Angel or Spike, and over whether Spike should die and how, and over well everything. Like I said - they did not agree, and were vehement about it. Jane Espenson and David Fury fought against the rape storyline. Fury fought against Spike getting his soul. Marsters suggested Spike was in love with Buffy and that's why he was hanging around - he did not think Spike would ever achieve that goal, because hello, villain. And he didn't see the character the same way the writer's did. He was actually more in line with how Fury viewed Spike than Whedon, Marti, and Espenson. So there was a bit of conflict there too. And it wasn't like they had a character bible or provided the actors with anything to go with.
[I'm ignoring the comics. Different medium. Different writers. Different creators. Not relevant. So don't mention them.]
2. Am slowly weaning down my television shows....
I've basically cancelled from the DVR: Better Call Saul, The Walking Dead, How to Get Away with Murder, Arrow, Flash, Supernatural, Hart of Dixie, Forever, Constantine, Secrets and Lies, The Originals, Reign, Empire, Blackish, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Fresh Off the Boat, the Odd Couple, Revenge, Battle Creek
I'm still watching: American Crime, Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, Vampire Diaries, The Good Wife, Once Upon a Time, Justified (great characters...I personally think this series is better written than Breaking Bad et al or the characters are more likable), Big Bang Theory, Broadchurch, iZombi (giving it a chance - it's more interesting than the Flash although it does remind me of The Flash), Marvels Agents of Shield, Gotham, Sleepy Hollow, The 100, Elementary, Nashville, General Hospital
Considering dumping The 100, Sleepy Hollow, Gotham, Marvel Agents of Shield and American Crime...because I can't seem to get myself in the mood to watch them without my attention wandering. Also, too many frigging television shows. I need to get rid of a few more. And no, I'm not dumping General Hospital - it's gotten interesting and my mother watches it.
* Once Upon a Time has gotten really clever. Their current plot arc is about the villains hunting the author to give them a happy ending. Except as Ariel points out, villains can't get a happy ending because they go about it the wrong way.
The villains figure the way to give themselves a happy ending is to turn the person who gave the heroes one, into a villain.
It's a rather clever plot line - because it examines the structure of fairy tales, why we tell them, and what a happy ending means from a thematic point of view as well as a philosophical one.
My favorite bit? The author is trapped within his own storybook. That's wonderful, sort a twist on Pirendello's Six Characters in Search of an Author - which clearly someone has read.
I adore this show. It's so much fun, and amongst the few that isn't predictable.
* Vampire Diaries has also gotten clever.
* Justified - this clever too. The dialogue and acting is superb. I adore watching Sam Eliot and Mary Steenbergen, and Jeff Fahey. Also there's so many layers to the characters, no one is one thing. The plot has all sorts of double and triple crosses. Reminds me of an Elmore Leonard novel.
I don't have the links to the interviews - too frigging long ago. Most are gone. And this is sort of response to something I read online, which was reviewing the series mainly from a Watsonian perspective, but I thought being a bit harsh in regards to how the writers handled various characters - without taking into consideration various problems with producing and writing a television show. That said, and I need to make this clear - despite what you may think - it is not a direct response. I've read similar reviews of the series from this perspective elsewhere, and over and over and over again.
So please don't take it personally. It's just - lately, I've been involved with collaborations and stories on tv, in the theater, or the result of a collaboration are quite different than well one's that aren't. I think a lot of fans forget that, mainly because it lies outside of their experience? I don't know. Or they aren't as obsessed with process as I am. So, just sharing what I've learned about television production - in particular in regards to these two series.
* The writers had about 2 days, if that, to write a script, have it edited, and revised before filming. Filming was a harsh 2 week regime, about 12-13 hours. Then roughly edited. Also, they were low-budget television series on a junior broadcast channel, that was targeted to 14-35 year old women, at least in the case of Buffy.
* Recurring guest actors weren't given contracts. And they weren't paid that well. Nor were some of the supporting.
*The problem with tv shows that are focused around a central character such as "Buffy", "Angel", "Sherlock", or "Bones" - is the lead character gets all of the attention. Everyone else is sort of disposable but the lead. Whedon stated in various interviews that his biggest regret with Buffy and Angel was that they weren't ensembles...and he decided after doing Firefly, which as a pleasure, that he would only do ensemble television shows and movies from this point forward. Because the problem with the non-ensemble is you inadvertently end up with "diva" complex, particularly when dealing with young, wet-behind the ears, actors who have never starred in their own tv series before. Which, he admitted was partly his fault - because he set the tone and gave the leads on both series far too much power. (Keep in mind - it was his first tv series as show-runner, too.) But, after doing Roseanne, he didn't find it quite that bad in comparison, but it did make for a difficult set dynamic at times. It also, tied the hands of the writers - they were stuck making each episode about the central character in some way - they had to find the Buffy or Angel in every episode, as opposed to focusing on say Spike, Anya, Xander, Willow, et al.
* Various actors were difficult to keep due to contract issues - which resulted in rewrites and hodgepodge plot lines. Julie Benze (Darla), Lindsey, Doyle, Drusilla, Seth Green (OZ), Giles, Ethan, Jenny Carpenter, Tara, Lindsey Crouse --- didn't quite cooperate with the writers. Drusilla was supposed to return with Spike in S4, but Juliette Landau who portrayed her was unavailable. Tara was supposed to return in S7, but Amber Benson was unavailable. Lindsey and Darla were major players at the end of Season 2 Angel, but both actors became unavailable and they had to rewrite the ending of that season. (Pylea was the result). Seth Green opted out of Buffy in S4 - and he had a huge arc, as did Lindsey Crouse - as result they had to re-plot the entire season. S5 was amongst the few seasons that was pre-plotted with no major changes. S2 - did have a major change - the character of Spike took off, and the writers enjoyed writing him so much they couldn't bare to kill him.
* Spike and Angel - are difficult but fun characters, much like Omar in the Wire and Kalinda in The Good Wife or Hook in Once Upon a Time that can suffer from over-exposure. It's better if you keep a little mystery going there. Or you can fall into the bad boy cliche. Despite what people may believe - Whedon adored the character of Spike and inserted a lot of himself into that character. Spike is a writer and a poet, with a sick mother and an absentee father, with a somewhat difficulty bullying relationship with an older brother (Angelus) - if you've read Whedon's back story - it screams Spike. He had some problems with the actor, much much later in the series, (according to various backstage gossips and rather amusing con Q&A's, where Marsters says a wee bit more than he should). But his hands were tied a bit regarding what he could do with the character, in much the same way the writers of The Wire, OUAT, and Good Wife's hands are tied regarding certain characters.
It was always the plan to bring Spike on to Angel. Tim Minear actually went on Angel's Soul fan board to state as much to the considerable chagrin of some of the diehard fans.
And Whedon, Fury, and Bell - stated it as well. They did have issues though - Marsters did not come cheap and drove a hard bargain. Spike's coming to ATS was part of their pitch to the WB for Angel's renew. I remember the fights, lots of whining. Personally, I would have jumped ship if the shippers got what they wanted - talk about sleep inducing.
And it would not have gotten renewed. Angel had crappy ratings. It was airing opposite Alias at the time, and at one point The West Wing. I know because I gave up on it at various points to watch Alias or The West Wing. We didn't have DVR's back then.
When he was brought on - it was meant to be gradual, not all at once. They didn't want to introduce him as a regular until the 8th episode. Sort of similar to what they did with Wes and Fred and various others. It was supposed to be a surprise - with the audience not knowing about it. But the WB wanted to attract Spike fans, so spoiled the audience and insisted the character be brought in immediately.
David Boreanze loved Marsters introduction - he was bored and burnt out, Marsters added a bit of new energy. They met and discussed the characters background and motivations.
Also, Spike got to be edgier...less fluffy, because we were seeing the character through Angel's pov. And Angel unlike Buffy wasn't about a group of heroes, so much as anti-heroes, particularly in S5, which was very dark and noirish, more so than some of the previous seasons.
There was some disagreement on how to write Spike - so the character was a bit all over the place. Because the writers and actors did not agree on how to portray him. There was clear consensus. If you read the interviews and commentary, they contradict themselves.
Did however make the character fascinating, because unlike the other characters - this one was basically a little bit of everything - romantic hero, anti-hero, villain, comic relief, wacky side-kick...the whole spectrum. He also acted against everyone - and because the actor was into the method and always on - people loved acting with him, because he was there in the scene with them - as opposed to staring off into space, or lounging whenever the camera wasn't focused on him.
The writers fought over the soul thing, and over the rape thing, and over the romance with Buffy thing, and over who should win a battle - Angel or Spike, and over whether Spike should die and how, and over well everything. Like I said - they did not agree, and were vehement about it. Jane Espenson and David Fury fought against the rape storyline. Fury fought against Spike getting his soul. Marsters suggested Spike was in love with Buffy and that's why he was hanging around - he did not think Spike would ever achieve that goal, because hello, villain. And he didn't see the character the same way the writer's did. He was actually more in line with how Fury viewed Spike than Whedon, Marti, and Espenson. So there was a bit of conflict there too. And it wasn't like they had a character bible or provided the actors with anything to go with.
[I'm ignoring the comics. Different medium. Different writers. Different creators. Not relevant. So don't mention them.]
2. Am slowly weaning down my television shows....
I've basically cancelled from the DVR: Better Call Saul, The Walking Dead, How to Get Away with Murder, Arrow, Flash, Supernatural, Hart of Dixie, Forever, Constantine, Secrets and Lies, The Originals, Reign, Empire, Blackish, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Fresh Off the Boat, the Odd Couple, Revenge, Battle Creek
I'm still watching: American Crime, Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, Vampire Diaries, The Good Wife, Once Upon a Time, Justified (great characters...I personally think this series is better written than Breaking Bad et al or the characters are more likable), Big Bang Theory, Broadchurch, iZombi (giving it a chance - it's more interesting than the Flash although it does remind me of The Flash), Marvels Agents of Shield, Gotham, Sleepy Hollow, The 100, Elementary, Nashville, General Hospital
Considering dumping The 100, Sleepy Hollow, Gotham, Marvel Agents of Shield and American Crime...because I can't seem to get myself in the mood to watch them without my attention wandering. Also, too many frigging television shows. I need to get rid of a few more. And no, I'm not dumping General Hospital - it's gotten interesting and my mother watches it.
* Once Upon a Time has gotten really clever. Their current plot arc is about the villains hunting the author to give them a happy ending. Except as Ariel points out, villains can't get a happy ending because they go about it the wrong way.
The villains figure the way to give themselves a happy ending is to turn the person who gave the heroes one, into a villain.
It's a rather clever plot line - because it examines the structure of fairy tales, why we tell them, and what a happy ending means from a thematic point of view as well as a philosophical one.
My favorite bit? The author is trapped within his own storybook. That's wonderful, sort a twist on Pirendello's Six Characters in Search of an Author - which clearly someone has read.
I adore this show. It's so much fun, and amongst the few that isn't predictable.
* Vampire Diaries has also gotten clever.
* Justified - this clever too. The dialogue and acting is superb. I adore watching Sam Eliot and Mary Steenbergen, and Jeff Fahey. Also there's so many layers to the characters, no one is one thing. The plot has all sorts of double and triple crosses. Reminds me of an Elmore Leonard novel.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 10:26 am (UTC)I actually do understand that RL factors can influence the way a TV show turns out. We would never have had the Cordy/Connor story, I'm sure, if Charisma Carpenter hadn't fallen out with Joss and then got pregnant, or if David Greenwalt hadn't left the show. I also remember hearing that Marc Blucas told Joss he only wanted to stay about a season and a half, so Riley had to be written out in mid-BtVS season 5 (though like you, I couldn't produce the interview where whoever said this said this), so even if the character had been a lot more popular than he was, he could never have been the long-haul guy for Buffy. (ETA: It's also possible that this was a complete fabrication on the part of whoever said this to disguise the fact that they were writing Riley out due to the fans not liking the character, just as it was claimed at the time that Doyle was always planned to be written out of the first series of AtS after only eight episodes, whereas later it transpired (as was only rumoured at the time) that it was because the actor had a serious drugs problem).
I also remember a Fury interview where he said that Spike couldn't be like he was in BtVS in AtS. Different show, different ambience, different needs. I get that. I also get that many of the AtS writers hadn't written him before and so his characterisation was a bit inconsistent, especially to start with, and that the way they ultimately wrote him was a perfectly legitimate way for the character to go (though that doesn't mean it was the only way he could have been written).
Fact is, what they ultimately came up with wasn't my favourite iteration of the character, but who knows, if AtS hadn't been cancelled maybe that would have changed in later seasons. In fact, that was kind of the point I was making in my post (that may of course be nothing to do with yours). Spike with a soul never got the chance to develop fully. If you discount the comics, when he died in the alley in NFA, he was still a work in progress.
As for bringing Spike to AtS as a regular always being the plan, I've heard so many conflicting stories about this, who knows what the actual truth is? I remember JM saying that Joss had only wanted him for a short arc and that he didn't want to do that because he didn't want to have to dye his hair for it because that might prevent him getting other roles. But of course that might have been a discussion that took place very early in BtVS season 7 and that Tim Minear was unaware of, or it might not have happened at all. JM changes his stories all the time.
Also, another factor influencing what we do and don't know about what went on at the time is that the show writers all work in Hollywood still. If they want to carry on working, which I'm sure they do, they have to stay on the right side of people with influence, of which Joss is certainly one after his success with the Avengers movie. Even as a complete outsider, I know enough to know that people who open their mouths and blab too much are not regarded favourably in the TV/movie industry and that some of the things JM has said over the years were pretty unwise, to put it mildly. ;)
no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 11:09 pm (UTC)The backstage gossip on that was rather interesting. Apparently Charisma and Greenwalt ran into problems with Fox and the WB. They were causing scheduling delays. And Fox asked Whedon to come in and fix things, as it were. Greenwalt also was unsatisfied with the network and studio (ie. they were fighting), so wanted out.
I don't know exactly what went down, just that the network and studio was unhappy and wanted them out. ME had problems with the WB at various points after S4 Buffy.
I also remember hearing that Marc Blucas told Joss he only wanted to stay about a season and a half, so Riley had to be written out in mid-BtVS season 5 (though like you, I couldn't produce the interview where whoever said this said this
I hadn't heard that bit. What I'd read was he was informed a few episodes prior to Into the Woods that he would be written out and his contract not renewed. Marsters mentioned it at some Q&A or interview - he was telling Blucas not to worry about getting jobs, and was sorry to see him go. I know he did not get along with SMG. And that his character had been written into a corner - the writers clearly did not know what to do with him, and had no idea how to write a believable military guy.
Fact is, what they ultimately came up with wasn't my favourite iteration of the character, but who knows, if AtS hadn't been cancelled maybe that would have changed in later seasons.......[.....] Spike with a soul never got the chance to develop fully.
Like I said above that's part of the problem with a series that is focused on a lead character. You can't really fully develop Spike - if your focal point is Buffy or Angel.
Willow, Giles, Xander, Faith,Fred, Dawn, Charles Gunn, Cordelia, Harmony, Wes...all had the same problem. Fans were frustrated with their development as well. Willow's arc was a mess. And Giles ---we got snippets of, actually his character's development frustrated me the most - because initially he was the only reason I was watching. Wes got more than most -- in part because the actor was quite good, and his storyline synced well with Angel's. Willow, similarly, got the most development on Buffy because her storyline synced well with Buffy's.
But I don't think the writer's could give you what you wanted. Spike was, like it or not, a supporting character. And a secondary one at that - he wasn't even a lead supporting - like Wes, Fred, Cordy, Gunn were for Angel or Xander, Willow, Giles, Dawn were for Buffy.
Ask fans of Xander or the others...and they have the exact same complaints that you have. They felt that they got shafted. But hey, not an ensemble. So unless your favorite character was Buffy or Angel - you were doomed to be disappointed.
The other problem with the Spike character - was none of the writers agreed on how to write him. Heck the actors didn't agree. So as a result - we got a far more complex character than we probably would have gotten if they had agreed. Not to mention one that was written all over the map - meaning that no one was completely satisfied. I mean here was a character that changed depending on who wrote him.
Made him fun as heck to debate, write meta on, or fanfic -- because he was impossible to pigeon hole. Some of the writers believed he was redeemable, some didn't. Not helped by Whedon constantly changing his mind regarding the character. You couldn't get Whedon to provide a definitive take on the character - he contradicts himself or side-steps the question. As a result there was no real consistency. I think this probably frustrated Marsters a great deal - because actors are used to have a defined role, and motivation, not a moving target. Boreanze's character was more clearly defined, as was Buffy.
So while I'm sympathetic to your frustration, heck I certainly shared it, I think the very nature of the medium went against either of us or any fan for that matter getting what they wanted, unless of course they were a fan of Buffy (the character) or Angel (the character).
no subject
Date: 2015-03-24 10:17 am (UTC)I know perfectly well Spike was never going to be centre stage in more than the odd episode or what have you, because that's what happens with supporting characters. I know also that real world factors (such as Nick Brendon's addiction problems) can influence how characters develop (or don't).
I'm just pointing this out because when you say the writers couldn't have given me what I wanted I'm unclear what you mean. I wasn't actually asking for anything, just pointing out that I personally felt Spike with a soul's character development was cut short in a way that the other characters' wasn't because he'd undergone such a profound change relatively late in the game and then AtS got cancelled, and that I personally found his arc ultimately unsatisfactory for that reason.
It would have been more satisfactory (for me) if it had either ended in Chosen or continued on for another season, by the end of which, I suppose, we would have known more about (for better or worse) the character's direction of travel.
In other words, I'm trying (probably quite ineptly) to say that just because I discuss something in Watsonian terms doesn't mean I'm unaware of the Doylist realities. ;)
no subject
Date: 2015-03-24 10:57 pm (UTC)As you may or may not have figured out by now? I'm obsessed with process or what is involved in creating a television series, the pitfalls, the obstacles etc. And I used your post as an excuse to discuss it - but hey, at least I did it in my own journal, where you could ignore me.
If I was directing this specifically to you - I would have responded directly to your post. But what I was attempting to do (obviously not all that coherently) was discuss the pitfalls of the tv biz. (Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mea Culpa.)
For example? As much as I enjoyed Angel S5 and Chosen, I was rather disappointed in how they wrote Spike's arc. I wanted more interaction between Spike and Willow, dammit. Also in Angel - I really wanted a deeper exploration of Spike and Angel's relationship - and a resolution regarding their mutual relationship with Buffy.
Not to mention their relationships with the other members of the Buffy cast - such as Xander, Giles, and specifically Faith and Willow. But the medium and the demands of the network, studio, actor availability, how the writers viewed the characters and story, not to mention fellow fans and what they "vocally" wanted (some were nutty enough to launch letter campaigns to get what they wanted), sort of made that impossible for me to ever achieve.
So at the end of the day, I'm sort of glad I got the great story that I got, because I don't think the writers/actors/medium would have provided anything else. Some tv shows do provide it - but for some bizarre reason, I've been less obsessed with those. You'd think it would be the opposite. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2015-03-25 08:28 am (UTC)Wasn't looking to start a fight, that's for sure. Not that sort of person. I hope I didn't come across that way? I think with so few posts about BtVS these days, when you do come across one on your flist (well, when I do), I tend to want to respond.
I think as far as Spike's abortive arc on AtS goes, it's probably just as well for me the show got cancelled, because I can't see for the life of me how he would have fit in on the show going forward except in the role he had in season 5, snarky truth-teller. If Joss didn't consider the Spike/Angel relationship important enough for it to be the major thing in season 5 (misquoting Fury here), there's no way he would have in season 6.
Then the show already had a hero (Angel) around whom everyone else revolved. It had a tragic male figure in Wesley, and then it had Gunn, who never had a defined role or a good storyline until season 5 anyway. Then Spike's parachuted in. Basically, there's no role left going except comic relief.
Which is fine. Spike can fill that role. But it means you end up with losing a lot of the things that made people (or some people) like him in the first place, and it was those things that made him popular, and it was because he was popular that the WB insisted he be in AtS. So it was never really going to work, was it?
Well anyway, it's just my opinion. I've come across plenty of people who insist that Spike only got character development at all in AtS. And there are plenty of things I like about it myself.
Horses for courses.
You'd think it would be the opposite. ;-)
Always leave 'em wanting. Isn't that another Hollywood mantra?
All the best anyway.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-24 12:56 am (UTC)It's a really small town to put it mildly, and ahem, incestuous. There's a 96% unemployment rate for actors.
And easy to get blackballed. Charisma Carpenter, SMG, Marsters, and Adam Baldwin have all gotten themselves into trouble on social media and various Q&A's.
So too has Nick Brendan. Making them rather entertaining to us, but hurting their careers.
Nathan Fillion, Hannigan, Denisof, Acker, Austin Richards, Eliza Dusku, Julie Benze and David Boreanze have played it smart and said nothing. Boreanze side-steps questions.
Vincent Kartheiser - only stated that his least favorite role was Connor, and he had little to no information regarding the character's arc, and 0 input. It was not a good experience.
Whedon has power - but he's limited to Marvel superhero flicks. I honestly don't think he'll be permitted to do anything outside of that - unless he puts up the money himself. So it's limited power. He's not a Spielberg or a JJ Abrahms for that matter.
Abrahms has more power. As does Shondra Rhimes - who created three successful top-rated female centric and racially diverse series on a prime broadcast network.
She has more power and clout.
In Hollywood it's all about what you've done for me now. So the power players continue to change.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-24 10:20 am (UTC)Yes, and I'm sure you're right about Whedon. He'll probably get offered some other super hero movie if he really does turn down doing the third and fourth Avengers movies.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 10:32 am (UTC)Wayne Pygram who played Scorpius in Farscape (the show's main villain, initially a pure bad guy but then you discover that he had a truly horrific past and objectives that might possibly be altruistic, depending on whether you think his motivation is revenge or to protect other people from those who harmed him). There's a rather disturbing interview on the DVD where Pygram talks about how he lost interest in the character in the final season (in which he's usually allied to the heroes) but was impressed by his last scene, which is a heavy BDSM sex scene. Pygram interpreted it as him killing his girlfriend because his feelings for her were making him weak. (The girlfriend character came back in the ending miniseries, so Pygram was wrong there.)
The other interesting one was Paul Darrow who played Avon in Blake's 7 (starts out as the cynical foil to Blake the idealistic hero, then becomes the new team leader after Blake goes missing). Darrow apparently didn't think Avon was evil so much as considering him what hostile people would call a Gary Stu - tough, sexually irresistible action hero who brutally kills all his enemies. He was not happy with most of the female fans writing fic and meta about how Avon was actually a wounded, vulnerable person putting up a facade. Also, according to rumour, was a bit homophobic and not at all comfortable with Avon being one of the main characters in most of the slash fiction, paired with just about every other male team member by different writers.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 11:17 pm (UTC)And I agree that he made a great foil for John - because Scorpius was in part a depiction of the scientist who decides science or the goal is more important than anything else. That the means justify the science or the experiment.
Possibly the best villain I've seen to date in a sci-fi series because his methods made him the villain, not his ends. Usually it's both.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 11:24 pm (UTC)It's worth remembering I think - that their performances are filmed out of order, and with a lot of breaks. So they probably don't see the whole piece or know it.
Also, so I've recently discovered, you really do experience a work differently if you are acting in it - then if you are watching it. It's sort of like life in a way - you only see your small slice of the pie. Or sliver. Your perspective is more micro than macro.
Which explains a lot of actor interviews - they are discussing their approach to a character or a line, and often not to the whole piece. And villains while fun to play, are also a bit difficult - because you have to go to a place you may not like. Marsters had issues with S6 Spike - he much preferred to play the campy quippy villain.
And Pygram preferred the campier version to the more complicated one which required him to go somewhere that was much harder to hit as an actor.
Robert Carlyle, who plays Rumplestilskin, in stark contrast, actually loves the layers...but he's different type of actor. And his role, admittedly, isn't nearly as dark and gritty.