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.
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.