Television Round Up

[shadowkat]

1. Well, hmmm...Roseanne Barr incites fury with a racist tweet and ABC cancels her show. Good. Thank you, ABC. It was the right thing to do. Wish you'd not rebooted the series to begin with...

I'm not surprised by it. Although, I'm wondering about something...is it better to force people to be mindful of what they say and to not say it, or better for them to say it? What if Roseanne kept her mouth shut? Never went on Twitter? Or doesn't have a twitter account? Would it have been better if she thought the words and said nothing? I don't know. Been wondering that for a while now. Is it a good thing to censor -- or better to hear them? And how do you know if a person is joking or really means the words in the way you've perceived or interpreted them? I think it's easier to misunderstand others than to understand sometimes.

That said? I despise Roseanne. I think she meant the words. And I'm glad the show got cancelled.

2.Finished binge-watching "Angel S5", now binge-watching Netflix's "Lost in Space", which I saved for this period of time.

Further thoughts on Angel S5:

In hindsight, the season makes much more sense than when it aired. Partly because I've read the Angel IDW comics - Season 6, the Buffy comics, and Angel & Faith. (By the way, if you dislike Spike and saw Angel as a classical hero and heavily shipped the character, and heavily shipped Buffy and Angel, skip Angel S5 except for the following episodes: You're Welcome, Origin, and the episodes leading up to and including You're Welcome, skip all the comics but the Angel & Faith. Trust me, it's not worth the pain. If you are like me, and didn't see it that way, and loved Spike, and shipped Buffy and Spike together, and saw Angel as a tragic hero or a commentary on the classical hero as a tragedy straight out of Shakespear's MacBeth or Othello...go ahead and watch all of it, and read all of it -- you'll be fine. You might want to skip over some of IDW Angel comics...which have nothing to do with the storyline and thread and contradict it.)

Whedon clearly does not like the classical hero trope -- or he feels the need to subvert it and comment on it rather heavily. (Thinking about this....it clarifies much of his writing. It really doesn't matter to Whedon who the hero is, or what gender, he has issues with anyone who says they are a hero. This actually tracks and explains some of my issues with his take on various superhero action comics. He handled the X-men best -- because they aren't classical heroes, they are reluctant heroes, they get themselves into trouble when they try to be heroes. So it worked there for the most part.
Justice League and Wonder Woman on the other hand...not so good. You really shouldn't undercut or comment on DC's Classical Hero trope...without well being a bit confusing. The Avengers? A mixed bag.
It worked best with Firefly, Angel, Buffy, and to a degree the first Avenger's film. Also made his black and white version of Much Ado About Nothing rather brilliant in places.)

I'm wondering if Whedon and Greenwalt saw eye-to-eye on this? I'm not certain they did. Whedon to give him credit -- does manage to knit it together convincingly, at least thematically -- I mean, if we go with the idea that we're in the characters point of view and they are "unreliable" narrators.
And view themselves as "heroes" when they aren't? If you go from that perspective, S5 works, as does S4 and the previous seasons. In their perspective they are doing what needs to be done to save the world, which leads neatly into the Buffy comics...where Angel is once again acting to bring about an apocalypse in a misguided attempt to play savoir of the Universe and achieve Shanshu.

Also, it's rather flawed in places. The plot is a convoluted mess. You can tell the writers changed their minds and directions, and sort plotted off the top of their heads. The thematic arc works, and for the most part the individual character arcs work...although I'm not sure what they were doing with Gunn, and it doesn't really jive with the character from past seasons, and Fred seems to be there for Wes, as Spike is there solely to emphasize the dark side of Angel, or show how there isn't as much difference between Angelus and Angel as we may have thought. As result only Angel and Wes really have a true and extensive character arc, everyone else just sort of supports theirs. (I think Buffy handled this better.)

That said, there are some marvelous episodes in there --

* Destiny -- if you ignored the plot, which, well, doesn't make sense. But the character bits are marvelous.

* Lineage -- again the plot makes no sense, we've no clue who the enemy is, and neither does anyone else...but the character bits are great.

* Damage -- for once the plot and the character bits work. This may well be among the best episodes of the season. It also is the counter-point to "Lies My Parents Told Me", where the characters have to own their actions. Spike realizes for the first time that the slayers he killed had families, it wasn't just a great fight. He never looked back at the victims, never saw them. While Angel admits that's all he was interested in, he got off on hurting them. And the episode asks the question does the intent really matter? Spike answers it for us, no, not really. He's as much a monster as Angelus was and Walter Kendall who tortured the antagonist, Dana, in this episode, and now Dana as well.
What fascinates me about this episode upon re-watch, is it depicts the consequences of both Angel and Spike's crimes as vampires. Dana references the two slayers Spike kills, and Kendall, whose crimes, Angel admits, he would have considered art back in the day and done himself. Drusilla is Angel's Dana, after all. This may well be the best of the season.

* Smile Time -- another stand-a-lone, so the plot and characters for the most part make sense. Also like Damage it fits within the thematic arc. Both episodes explore Angel more than anyone else. In this one, Angel becomes literally speaking a puppet (and I actually think the puppet is more expressive than David Boreanze. LOL!)

* Underneath -- which focuses more on Gunn, and is also a lovely metaphor. Plot-wise it also makes no sense, since it's hard to understand why they pulled Lindsey out of WRH purgatory, only to have him provide zero information. (The Lindsey/Eve arc doesn't quite work.) So, if you ignore plot. Here we have the juxtaposition of what is happening in the WRH hell -- aka suburbia, where you go down to the basement each day to get your heart cut out, with Illyria pretending to be Fred when Fred's parents visit.

* Origin -- this episode is one of the few that the plot and story hold together well. Although, I still think Angel got off way too easy for the mind-wipe. What's interesting about



3. Finished binge-watching Lost in Space - Netflix version of the 1960s/70s era Irwin Allen television show. They've kept a few bits from the series, the diabolical Dr. Z. Smith (now played by Parker Posey) who manages to be even more diabolical, and improved on others. The Robot is now part of an alien race. And there's more emphasis on the female characters. Also both the other leading male adult character and Dr. Smith are more developed than they were in the original series. We actually get to meet them separately from the Robinson's and see how they end up lost in space with them.

This ten episode arc is really an origin story of sorts. It gives the back-story on how The Robinsons, Devon, Dr. Smith (aka June Harris), and a robot end up lost in space. Also, here, the robot is an alien -- and the reason they end up lost in space.

While I enjoyed it more than the first version, I had similar issues with it. The plot is furthered for the most part by the characters making increasingly stupid decisions. After a while, I wanted to kick the characters. And some of the characters decisions make no sense -- except as a contrivance to further the plot or conflict.



* Dr. Smith for some reason decides to disrupt all activities to get off the planet to get her own personal pet robot. Because she wants something to protect her. I'm thinking, eh, that's all well and good -- except if you are stuck on the planet. And the only person who can get you off -- is being used to put together a robot -- as opposed to you know, getting you off the planet. Wouldn't it make more sense to lie low and wait until you get back on board the Resolute to do all of this?

* Will decides to trust Smith and let her out, after he's found out that she's done horrible things and knows what she's capable of. Really Will?

* The Robinson's take in Dr. Smith, with little information. And trust her with their kids, personal information, etc. Will even asks why they trust her, but not the robot. In Will's defense the robot saved their lives.

* Sending the two guys into space, when there's no oxygen really to support one, and it's unlikely they'll make to the Resolute...

* Will brings in his walkie-talkie code device to the cave where the creatures are, that they are removing the creatures excrement to fuel their ships. Knowing perfectly well that any sound will set the creatures off -- and you have to be absolutely quiet. So the kid takes the device in and it goes off with a reply from his father. And he's thrilled, only to have all the creatures in the cave wake up and leap down on the humans. Seriously, Will? You found the cave, you know the creatures in it respond to sound.

* Judy decides to dive into the water and get what they need, after a fifteen minute argument that the parents have regarding sending their ten year old boy down to do it. And I'm thinking -- really?
It's been too long, you're going to get trapped.

* Judy decides it's more important to save the guy trapped under the fuel tanker than the fuel. Even if the guy is probably dead already -- since they have little medical equipment and no real way of helping him and her medical knowledge is rudimentary. Devon goes along with her. And they lose the fuel.

* Instead of telling everyone about the fact that the planet is rapidly becoming dangerous, heating up, and falling into the sun -- the scientists decide to keep it a secret -- even though it may have motivated a couple of people in a different fashion. Once they find out -- it does motivate them. Because a lot of people are like, oh, we have plenty of time, we can do whatever we please.

* Instead of telling the parents about the robot, the dumb kids decide to keep it a secret for a long time, allowing Smith time to manipulate the situation.

* It doesn't occur to anyone that the person who had the most access to the things in the Robinson's ship and the most motive to give a gun to Angela was Dr. Smith, no -- Victor makes more sense??



Stories built on dumb decisions by characters -- frustrate me. Other than that? I did like the characters and actors, quite a bit. Parker Posey does a better job with the Smith character than previous actors, and the character is better written. So too are the female characters. The male characters are oddly the weak links. The kid playing Will is captivating. And the robot is rather cool and well conceived -- particularly as the alien. There's a neat twist regarding the robot, which worked very well. Overall it is by far the best version of the story to date.

If there's a second season, I'll tune in. I liked the characters.

4. Lucifer -- the two stand-a-lone's that Fox burned off sort of explained why this show hasn't been that successful. Too much focus on the procedural or buddy-cop formulaic elements. The second episode was a little less focused on buddy-cop mystery than the first episode.

* Note to television writers -- mussed up hair on male actors is more attractive than slicked back hair. Seriously. The rugged rough and tumble look is great on some actors.

* I can tell these episodes were filmed as a means of advertising Lucifer to other networks in case of cancellation. Both episodes are stand-a-lone, neither matter to the arc. And add nothing to the current storyline.

- the first is about Ella and focuses mainly on the mystery (which I had troubles following or caring about). There's a supernatural element, but it is handled in a frustrating manner.

- the second is a what-if story, what-if Chloe had become an actress instead of a cop, what-if her father lived, how would this have affected everyone's lives? And to what degree is God a manipulator?
This episode is more interesting and entertaining than the first, but I'm not sure if it's a good episode to sell a show to another distributor.


Anyhow...they were okay. I liked the second episode better than the first. But was disappointed in both. The writing just isn't there anymore ...the dialogue is just not as good; I'm not quite sure what happened.

Comments

[cactuswatcher]

I sometimes think my sense of humor is odd. But Roseanne Barr is completely unbelievable sometimes. Was she drunk the other night, high or just stupid? (I don't know, maybe Trump thinks that kind of humor is funny.) It was interesting that at least one of the younger actors was calling her agent to say she just had to quit the show, when she learned it wasn't necessary because it was already cancelled earlier in the day.

You can't imagine how disappointed we teenagers were that Lost in Space and then a year later Batman on TV turned out to be only for much younger children. They were probably a good portion of the reason I didn't see any of the original Star Trek series till it was in syndication as reruns. Just couldn't trust network TV.

[shadowkat]

I sometimes think my sense of humor is odd. But Roseanne Barr is completely unbelievable sometimes. Was she drunk the other night, high or just stupid? (I don't know, maybe Trump thinks that kind of humor is funny.)

I know. I thought the exact same things.

However, I used to work with people who have that same unbelievably offensive off-color sense of humor. They've made, what we used to call off-color remarks. It's common in certain industries -- particularly blue-collar, where people didn't go to college, and have never lived outside of the 'burbs. They don't perceive themselves as racist at all, and get along fine with the non-white co-workers. They are nice, kind people. But their sense humor is basically Archie Bunker. Norman Lear's All in the Family really captured blue-collar white Americans very well.

And, her tweet was unbelievably stupid. Not surprised that one of the younger actors was hunting a way to quit the show -- wondering if anyone else was too? I'm guessing the older actors probably thought -- yep, that's it, we're dead.
Curious what their reactions were. The only reason I was tempted to watch it was well everyone but Roseanne - Jackie, Darlene, and John Goodman. I love those three actors. All of which are excellent stage and screen character actors. But unfortunately it's called Roseanne and built around her brand of humor-- so you can't watch them without having to deal with her and her sense of humor.

You can't imagine how disappointed we teenagers were that Lost in Space and then a year later Batman on TV turned out to be only for much younger children.

Oh, I can. I saw all the episodes of those shows as a kid. I wasn't a teen at the time. This was between the ages of 5-10 years of age. I loved them as a kid, but I couldn't stand them as a teen. (Actually I never loved Lost in Space, it was basically just Father Knows Best in Space with a crazy Robot and mad scientist and monsters. Either really cheesy and boring, or scary for my 7 year old sensibilities. Batman was at least different and sort of fun. That and weirdly I had a crush on Robin. Adam West did nothing for me, I was into his sidekick, Robin.) Did I mention my best friend at the time was a fan of science fiction horror stories?

The Monkees was really the only series directed at kids that held up from that time period which I watched frequently. Trying to think of others...but drawing a blank.

[yourlibrarian]

I'm wondering if Whedon and Greenwalt saw eye-to-eye on this?

I suspect not as well, although by S5 Jeff Bell was showrunning. He's now on Agents of SHIELD.

I haven't watched S5 in some time now. I remember being quite disappointed by it at the time. There were bright spots here and there but the fact that the show was retooled largely to be more episodic (and the network insisted on the addition of Spike) made me think we'd be going back to the S1 premise with weekly cases only with a lot more buddy cop snark since Spike was there. But the writers couldn't seem to break away from arc writing, and then since Firefly had been cancelled Joss had more time to provide input on the show, and he is not an episodic writer.

Stories built on dumb decisions by characters -- frustrate me. Other than that? I did like the characters and actors, quite a bit. Parker Posey does a better job with the Smith character than previous actors, and the character is better written. So too are the female characters. The male characters are oddly the weak links.

I've only seen 2, or maybe it was 3, episodes. I got interrupted by other things but I'm not sure I'm interested in returning. While I did prefer the changes they'd made to the plot and characters, I realized I am simply not interested in family centered stories with kids. And given what you said about dumb plotting, yeah, I'll probably leave it.

Haven't seen Lucifer yet, maybe tonight.

[shadowkat]

From what you've written above? I'm thinking you'll enjoy Lucifer more than I did since you like the buddy-cop set up and the mystery of the week bit. And you should definitely skip Lost in Space.

[dlgood]

But unfortunately it's called Roseanne and built around her brand of humor-- so you can't watch them without having to deal with her and her sense of humor.

Ask Valerie Harper how indispensable lead actors are. If a bus fell on her character tomorrow, you could have made a show around Darlene. ABC wouldn't have, but you could have...

[dar_vidder]

Although, I'm wondering about something...is it better to force people to be mindful of what they say and to not say it, or better for them to say it? What if Roseanne kept her mouth shut? Never went on Twitter? Or doesn't have a twitter account? Would it have been better if she thought the words and said nothing?

I think it's better if they go unspoken. Because by voicing ugly, racist thoughts it gives them further power, especially if you have a big platform like Roseanne does.

Ever since Trump was elected there's been a huge spike in hate rhetoric/hate crimes. Some people will say that the offenders thought the way they always felt (even before Trump was elected) and that nothing's changed, but everything's changed IMO. Because it's like Trump bolstered extremists by giving them permission to openly hate and bully without shame or fear of reprisal.

There's something to be said for the veneer of basic decency. Where people hold prejudices, but would be appalled at being called out as a bigot or a homophobe, and rush to defend themselves. As long as mainstream society is at least still pretending to be Good Upstanding People, there might be hella ugly, vile sentiments simmering under the surface, but legislation can still be passed to help the most vulnerable of us. Because people are still at least paying lip service to notions like equality and justice. Once society rips off the veneer altogether and people feel free to spew their most poisonous comments at others without repercussions, we're in big trouble. (Not that the most vulnerable weren't in big trouble already, but I think it has gotten exponentially worse with a lot of hate groups coming out of the shadows and recruiting higher numbers in the wake of the election).

As an aside, in my personal life I've recently been trying to make an effort to stop voicing my every thought. Because not all thoughts are exactly gems or worthy of putting out into the world. I think everyone has knee-jerk biased thoughts from time to time, and it's important to challenge them instead of just spreading them.

- the second is a what-if story, what-if Chloe had become an actress instead of a cop, what-if her father lived, how would this have affected everyone's lives? And to what degree is God a manipulator? This episode is more interesting and entertaining than the first, but I'm not sure if it's a good episode to sell a show to another distributor.

I liked the 2nd ep better than the 1st, too, but it bothered me a bit that Chloe and Lucifer were the only characters who made the "right" choice at the end.

[jesuswasbatman]

I think if you compare Angel S1-4 and Greenwalt's own show Grimm to Angel S5 and Buffy, it's clear that Greenwalt brought the urban fantasy element to Angel, with non-evil demons with interesting personalities and group cultures, whereas Whedon was just into demons as killable metaphors for problems.

Grimm is pretty much what many fans desperately wanted Buffy to become - a show about the latest in a line of Chosen One fighters of supernatural evil being forced to realise that no types of being are always evil and that many of their "heroic" predecessors were just serial hate murderers.

[deird1]

...well, you’ve successfully put me off Grimm. :)

[shadowkat]

I'm not sure, sometimes it depends on the series. I know UPN tried to figure out how to do a show without Buffy, when Gellar quit in S7 and said it was her last. (They were planning on continuing without Whedon, which is actually done more than without the lead actor.) But couldn't figure out how to make it work. It works better if the drama is more ensemble based -- and not named after the lead actor or they aren't set up as the main draw.

I wasn't watching it -- so I don't know if they could have pulled it off or not. But, I admittedly would have watched the show if Roseanne had been killed off, and it centered around Darlene, Jackie and John Goodman.

[shadowkat]

1. I think it's better if they go unspoken. Because by voicing ugly, racist thoughts it gives them further power, especially if you have a big platform like Roseanne does.

I agree. The problem with supporting complete political incorrectness...is that you also risk providing a platform for racist rhetoric and action. As evidenced by Trump. Hate speech has always been a problem -- is it illegal under the Constitution, should it be? It also goes both ways, there's a slippery slope...of sorts. It's always been a matter of how far do we go, and what do we consider a step too far.

Roseanne has been tweeting racist remarks for some time now, her latest was clearly a step too far. And the difference between Roseanne tweeting it and say you or I, is Roseanne has over a million followers, is a celebrity, and has a platform -- given to her by ABC for rebooting her show. She has a level of influence and power that we don't. It's the difference between me, calling the President of the US -- the Doofus in my journal, and say, the President of the US the leader of Korea, a Doofus.

Privilege and power factor into the equation.

OTOH, I should be allowed to called the President a Doofus, without fear of injury. But if I were reporting to him or working in a position of power, say at the Pentagone, no, I shouldn't. Because I place our nation's security in jeopardy. That said, there is a big difference between calling a white president a "doofus" and a black president, a "terrorist" or an "ape" based on his color and name. One is a racist statement directed at a group of people who have been historically dehumanized and disfranchised by another group of people, while the other is a statement directed at one man's behavior.

I think in some regards the rules need to be applied based on context and situation. Not across the board, or we run into censorship.

Yet...

As an aside, in my personal life I've recently been trying to make an effort to stop voicing my every thought. Because not all thoughts are exactly gems or worthy of putting out into the world. I think everyone has knee-jerk biased thoughts from time to time, and it's important to challenge them instead of just spreading them.

I agree with this too. And am working on it myself, not always very successful at it. But human.

Although, I do think it is important to feel compassion for those who may be careless with their words. We all don't process words and information the same way. Or think the same way. Also, people can often say things they don't necessarily mean under duress, stress, pain and anxiety. We often don't know what the other person is going through at the time. It's important to demonize the words, not the person. Too often in our society, we demonize people not the act, we think that actions and words define who we are -- but they don't and can often be misunderstood or misperceived.

I liked how Sarah Silverman dealt with this problem a while back. When a man attacked her on social media, instead of dismissing him as a troll or fighting him, she addressed him with compassion and understanding. Asking if he was in pain? What was going on with him? Telling him that he was a lovely person. The end result of the exchange was that she'd discovered the poor man was suffering from chronic and intense back pain, debilitating, and she managed to find him help for it. They ended the exchange as friends and he apologized. Instead of condemning him for his words, she addressed the rage and pain that lay behind them. She got curious instead of righteous and angry.

But in order to do this, she had to be mindful of her own words, and come to him from a place of peace, security and confidence. I don't think I could have done what she was able to do. It's not as easy as it looks.

That said -- you are correct, words can get us into trouble and cause major problems. And it is hard to take them back once they've been said or published. As both Trump and Roseanne have discovered the hard way.

[dlgood]

From a storytelling standpoint, there's no reason you couldn't write a show called "Darlene" if you wanted to do a modern "Roseanne" -- her character is baseically at a similar stage in life as Roseanne Conner was when that show started.

But this is a nostalgia re-up of an old show. Centered around Roseanne. That doesn't sell without her. And as great as Sara Gilbert is, I don't know that she draws network level numbers of eyeballs as a series lead. It could have worked on a smaller platform for smaller dollars. Like YouTube red doing "Cobra Kai" which is a follow-up to the Karate Kid based on those characters now in middle age.

[shadowkat]

Yeah, I agree. I think it would work on a smaller scale. But Sara Gilbert just doesn't have the same draw. And this was sort of similar to Will & Grace reboot -- a nostalgia reboot to draw in an older target audience.

This show is too centered on Roseanne. It's like what I said above -- shows centered on a specific character are very hard to reboot or continue without that specific character. Angel couldn't have continued without Angel, for example.
The only times I've seen it work were John Ritter's show, but it only worked because they pulled in James Garner to take over. And in Two and a Half Men, and that only worked with Ashton Kushner. And neither worked for long.

That's why a lot of show-runners prefer ensemble dramas. Well that and you don't run into the diva complex.

[shadowkat]

I don't know if I agree regarding Whedon. Mainly because I've read Whedon's take on both series in the comic books, without any input from Greenwalt.

I think Whedon fell more in the middle. He explored the idea of supernatural creatures not being pure evil or pure good, just as humans aren't pure evil or pure good. And demonstrated how...there's complexity, and people aren't one thing. Remember how the slayer is created? She has a demon's essence put inside her. She is part demon. That's how she got her power. The metaphor was in the first three seasons -- Buffy saw things as very black and white, demons bad, people good. But as time wore on...it become more and more clear that it's not that easy. Spike helps her save the world in S2, granted for his own selfish reasons, while Faith helps the formerly human Mayor destroy it, for her own selfish reasons. Then in S4, we have the Initiative, with humans creating supersoliders from human/demon hybrids, the bad guys are the humans, the government in S4. And in S5, Spike helps Buffy save the world and her sister from a demon Goddess who inhabits a human male, who is depicted as far worse than Glory because of his complaceny. In S6? The villains are three fanboy geeks, humans, and Willow. Clem a demon isn't all that bad. And in S7, a vampire fights the monster inside to get a soul and save the world.

I think Whedon was interested in how power affected people and corrupted people from within. I also think Whedon is a metaphorical thinker not a literal one. Greenwalt seems to be more literal.

I didn't like Grim. Couldn't get past the first two episodes. Had a lot to do with the lead cast who didn't appeal to me. Also, it was more focused on scary and gross monsters. And it lacked the humor that Buffy had.

[shadowkat]

I liked the 2nd ep better than the 1st, too, but it bothered me a bit that Chloe and Lucifer were the only characters who made the "right" choice at the end.

Agreed. I had the same reaction. Why is everyone else's life royally screwed up but theirs?

I was disappointed in the final two episodes.

[dlgood]

This show is too centered on Roseanne. It's like what I said above -- shows centered on a specific character are very hard to reboot or continue without that specific character.

Again, I bring up Valerie - the show starred Valerie Harper and was Executive Produced by her husband, Tony Cacciotti. And the show was centered around Harper, who had a lot of creative control. Harper & her Husband staged a walkout (as she'd done successfully on Rhoda) for extra money and syndication revenue. NBC fired Harper, replaced her with Sandy Duncan and mostly re-centered the show around Jason Bateman, who played Valerie's son on the show. It ran for 76 episodes after Harper's firing.

Granted that was 30 years ago. But it has been done.

[shadowkat]

Odd, I don't remember the show at all. In fact I didn't know there was a show called Valerie.

It's not a matter of it being done before or not, so much as whether it will work in all situations. UPN asked Mutant Enemy to do it after Gellar quit, but they'd lost Gellar and Whedon, and then Eliza Dusku, Emma Caulfield, and well the only people willing to continue weren't enough of a draw. It really depends on the show, how it is constructed, the audience, and how it is received. I'm willing to bet that prior to doing what they did with Valerie, the network asked their marketing/programming department to bring in various focus groups to review it with. They do that a lot, bring in focus groups to determine what works and what doesn't work -- then give the writers the feedback.

There's a movie out there entitled The TV Set, starring David Duchovny and Sigourney Weaver, by Judd Apatow, that is about putting on a television series for a network during the 1980s and 1990s. If you find it, check out the commentary, it's rather revealing in regards to the process.

[dar_vidder]

I couldn't have done what Sarah Silverman did either. When confronted with someone who's acting hostile, I generally become defensive and scared, and it's very hard for me to get my words out. I really admire those that can take a step back and react with curiosity instead of anger/fear.

[dar_vidder]

Yeah, I just thought there should've been more balance in that last ep with some characters on upward trajectories while others were spiraling downward. Dan and Maze following darker paths than their original counterparts made some sense to me since they are characters that were greatly influenced by those around them for better or worse, especially in S1. So a Dan who never married Chloe/had Trixie and a Maze who never befriended Linda or learned about feelings/friendship might've very well ended up on the paths they did in that ep. But Amenadiel and Linda are characters who live with conviction, who make mistakes, but operate independently and don't rely as much on others for their own personal growth imo. I just didn't buy that either of those characters would be in the situations they were in. *shrugs*

[shadowkat]

I couldn't have either -- I tend to get defensive, scared, and really angry. I don't know how she was able to do it.

It's one of the reasons I'm very careful who I read on social media. And I am rarely on Twitter -- also I don't follow that many people. And rarely post on Twitter. Twitter is dangerous.

I've had my fair share of kerfuffles on live journal and dreamwidth on politics and television fandom topics. Also a lot on FB.

I'm learning to stay away from certain topics. And to be more mindful. It's very easy to be misunderstood or have something taken the wrong way. And while it's okay to vent in one's own head from time to time, not such a hot idea to do it to others...I made the mistake once of making a joke about engineers to a cousin who is a software engineer, he didn't take it well. He forgave me, hello, my cousin. But..alas, I regretted it and tried to delete but not before he saw it and ripped me a new one. The sentence seemed innocuous to me but it wasn't to him.