Tidbits on ATs, and Ghost in The Robot
Jun. 4th, 2004 05:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFirst a few positive and somewhat amusing back-stage tidbits on
Angel the Series that I got emailed to me today. Made me smile, hope it does the same for someone else.
JONAH: I just finished writing my syndicated column on Buffy and Angel
and I just posted that stuff about how emails get into the Corner and I
get the following email from a former producer of Angel:
Jonah, I note sadly and with great dejection that my e-mail to you of
5/21 has gone unread. I whine. And I reproduce it for you here (it was
regarding your musing that "Angel" might have some, um, afterlife):
> Yes, Jonah, you're wrong. There's no plan nor hope that another
network is gonna pick up "Angel." David went blonde and James shaved
his head. Wow. Must really be The End. And I speak with some inside
info, having written and produced "Angel" for four years with Joss,
along with several fantabulous episodes of "Firefly." (though I wasn't
on "Angel" this last season, as I was busy getting cancelled all over
again on Fox with "Wonderfalls.")
Joss ended "Angel" the way he did because "fighting the good fight"
and how "there is no big win" was always the mission statement of
"Angel." The fight goes on. It's a series of battles, small and large.
And a series of series cancellations if you happen to be on Fox on
Friday nights, I might add. But I digress. And if the finale seemed
rushed, it's probably because every episode of every season is rushed.
<
That said, I wanted to chime in on the Vamps-Shouldn't-Photograph
thing. Mostly because I'm supposed to be writing and this seemed like
time better spent. Anyway! I notice that a reader wrote to you:
"It has been established within the Whedon-verse that you can
photograph a
vampire. On an episode of ANGEL, Cordelia and Angel are looking at an
old
photo with Angel in it. Cordy remarks, "So vampires DO photograph. The
just
don't photograph WELL."
The scene was actually between Cordy and Wesley. Yes, I'm a geek, but I
also wrote that scene and that line. I tried to explain this seeming
problem in an earlier episode by having Angel explain re: why he turns
up on film: "It's not physics, it's metaphysics." Sadly, that line was
cut (shot, but cut) because the episode was nine minutes over in its
first assemblage. So I suppose that doesn't count.
However we were not inconsistent: In fact, Angel could not be
photographed before we wrote that he'd show up on film. (Hey, if it
works for some pols, should work for a TV writer who's just tryin' to
spin a yarn, yes?)
Your devoted --
Tim Minear
And...the inside scoop on the making of Puppet Angel...
"Oh, here's funny news: I was talking to the friend of
mine who built Puppet Angel, and it turns out that DB
and he worked everything out beforehand, then they
taped, then DB dubbed in the lines after. The friend
said DB was very cool and easy to work with."
So apparently it's just a few people that DB doesn't get
along with on the set of ATS. Can't say I blame him for that, just makes him human like the rest of us.
Oh, I know now where Puppet Angel ended up - in the hands of his creator. Yep the puppeteer who created the puppet got to keep the puppet. Have to say that's fitting. We should all get to keep our own creations - don't you think?
Now on to the Ghost in The Robot report...sigh.
I made it to and from Farmingdale, Long Island to see GiTR
with a kind friend who had gotten me a ticket. I met her and another friend of hers at the train station in Farmingdale. Farmingdale is about a two hour train ride from Brooklyn, including Subway and Long Island Railroad.
First off - a disclaimer:
I am not overly fond of certain types of live music - it's just not my thing. Love musicals, love folk music (depending on the artist), love some singers and old British rock bands - I think I could get into a Stones or Who concert for an hour without getting too bored. Loved Pink Floyd and Peter Gabriel/KAte Bush. Would have found the Doors very entertaining. But garage bands? Tends to bore me actually or give me a headache. Particularly when it is in a bar, packed with people, no seats, and cranked up to decimal levels so you can barely hear the lyrics over the percussion feedback. Granted it could have been a worse venue - I've been in worse, such as Irving Plaza in NYC. We at least had windows and doors opened to an outdoor deck. It wasn't as closed in. There was no smoking. I could in short breath. But still it's not a venue I'm fond of. Plus every time you go to one of these things - you spend at least an hour and a half standing around waiting for the band to go on. The cover band? LOL!.
The lead was stoned and drunk and well, try to imagine an amateur actor doing an impression of Jim Carrey/or Jack Black impersonating Mick Jagger. I laughed for fifteen minutes. Then grew bored. The music... it was just loud vibrating noise to me. Nothing memorable.
So did I like Ghost in The Robot? Not really. Not my kind of music. Not going to run out and get the CD. Although there were two songs that weren't all that bad: David Letterman (had a nice metanarrative humor to it), and Valeri ( a nice beat even though it's borrowed from the original). Did I enjoy the concert? Yes and no.
James Marsters is a marvel to behold. The man is the consummate performer. He knows how to work an audience and maintain what is going on behind and around him on-stage at the same time. Watching him perform live is mesmerizing for a *little* while. Also he knows how to use every inch of his body in a performance. HE does this one move onstage that blew me away - it's a back-arc jump in mid-air on a tiny stage next to his guitarist, landing in the same spot he jumped without showing any effort whatsoever. Also he has this action going with a lollipop that is well...interesting and also illustrates how incredibly coordinated this guy really is. I fully believe he did his own stunts on ATs and BTVS. After watching him on stage - I wouldn't be surprised if he could juggle, dance, chew gum, and sing all at the same time. (Someone should cast him in the Boy From OZ).
When Marsters first appears on stage, he is working at this thing in his hands that has a green wrapper- biting it, trying to unwrap it, while singing, gyrating his hips, tapping to the music, flirting with the audience, all at the same time. Someone in front of him offers him something and he takes it from the person and it's a lollipop which he sucks on while still unwrapping the other thing (clearly another lollipop) and singing the song and moving with the music. Not looking the least bit uncomfortable, nervous, or uncertain about any of these things.(My jaw dropped in pure amazement.) He looked like he was born on that stage - he was that at home. He also made love to that audience and treated them like they were his best friends. He stroked every member of his band. Kept them in line. And at the same time let us all know this was new to him and how pleased he was we were all there and how much he hoped we were enjoying it and how much he loved it. Weirdest thing I've seen. And I have watched professional performers on stage before, people with much better voices and musical ability - but Marsters was by far the better "performer". He acted the songs. They were horrible songs - from the little I could make out of them. But he made me want to like them. He made me want to like his band.
There's something about him on stage live, that I can't quite put my finger on, which explains why people are so nutty about the guy. It's a charisma, I think. He makes you feel warm inside, accepted, beautiful, important, just by looking at you. It's not real of course. A performance. Which I saw him come in and out of at times - when he dealt with the band. Telling the band to stop drinking beer, the professional/business man. Then he turns back to the audience and it's there again that giddy charm.
Have to admit, after a while it got old for me. Yes, Marsters on stage is the equivalent of "sex on a stick", for anyone turned on by men, and with his dark hair, black t-shirt, black jeans, and high cheek-bones - he looks a great deal like an older Montgomery Clift. Beautiful man. No question about that. But - watching his performance reminds me a bit of lusting after a beautiful chocolate cake or desert that you see in a bakery window, which looks so tantlizing in the store but when you buy it leaves you feeling dissatisfied, empty, still craving something but realizing you'll never get it. It might have been different if the music was good, it wasn't. Or the lyrics moved me, they didn't.(Actually, I remember thinking that my college boyfriend's rock band was actually much better. So were most of the people I knew who sang in college. I knew quite a few amateur wannabe musicians in college. Better lyrics, better instrumental mix - just didn't have a famous actor with money to sponsor them.) Instead all I got was this fascinating, sexy dance, and yes he did move better than anyone I've seen on stage including a couple of professionals - but with no satisfaction at the end. An hour of it was more than enough. And I honestly don't see myself going to another performance.
The other interesting thing about the performance, was the interaction between the audience and the band. The audience was well-behaved. Not that different than any other rock band audience I've seen. What hit me as interesting is how far some people had come to see it and how far they were willing to go to see him again, on stage, in person, at a convention. It's the "cult of the personality" - something I don't completely understand. While I appreciate Marsters as a performer and love the character he played, I'm not *in love*, okay maybe a little in lust with him but that died wthe moment we left the venue. Nor do I have this overwhelming desire to meet him in person. Ugh. No. Please. I just like to watch him perform, preferably as an actor, he's no musician. He never played an instrument (which disappointed me a bit), he just sang and his voice was drowned out by the background intrumentals, which were just a notch above white noise in my opinion. But he is a great performer. As my friend stated - it would have been better if we could have turned the sound off, or brought ear-plugs. My ears still hurt from the experience.
So why do people do it? Flock in droves like lemmings to see a celebrity in person? Spend money to get a piece of him? They've been doing it since Jesus Christ if we think about it. What is it about us as human beings that makes us crave that sort of interaction? Is it the sense of unconditional love we seek - that asks nothing of us in return. Someone who looks at us with an expression of love in their eyes and seems to care about us? I think that could be it. OR maybe our own desire to adore someone without consequences. The need to worship. To come together and love something - like a huge group hug. I'm an oddity, the group hugs always seem empty to me, meaningless. So does the worshipping. I go en mass to worship whatever it is- and I end up standing there, somewhat removed from the proceedings thinking - this is really silly. Why are we doing this? And this person is sort of silly too. I guess I'm just not into worshipping things or people or ideas. Every time I do something that comes close to it - I leave the experience feeling unsatisfied and mildly disturbed. Not that going to Ghost in The Robot concert is similar to worshipping a celebrity necessarily - but I did get a feeling some of the interaction between Marsters and his audience was indeed that. They seemed to me, at least, to be worshipping him and he in return was basking in the glow and worshipping them back.
Weird experience.
On the songs? The only ones I can remember were:
1. Katie (disturbing and somewhat squicky song about a girl with tattoos with a thing for her daddy...I think Marsters wrote it, which lends a whole new angle of interpretation to his performance as Spike.)
2. David Letterman (interesting song, with a wry wit, clearly
making fun of tv idols)
3. Nothing (silly song with inane lyrics - you heard it on Sharon Osborn)
4. Bad (a love song that is well bad...from the little I could hear of it).
5. German/Jew - apparently this got them into trouble in Germany, ahem, I can see why: "I'm German, You're JEwish, we can't work this..." was one of the lyrics. Disappointing.
6. Valeri ( I like the original version by another band better, but it has a nice beat.)
And that's all I could really remember or get. Charlie - this sulkly kid with a guitare sang one which I wasn't overly fond of. Charlie should not sing. The band seems to think he's amazing. I admit, I'm no music expert, but this kid did not sound amazing to me.
So overall? James Marsters performance? =A- (the minus is his singing voice, which was mostly drowned out by the music, and his odd support of the awful Charlie), GiTR=D-, Venue=B
Angel the Series that I got emailed to me today. Made me smile, hope it does the same for someone else.
JONAH: I just finished writing my syndicated column on Buffy and Angel
and I just posted that stuff about how emails get into the Corner and I
get the following email from a former producer of Angel:
Jonah, I note sadly and with great dejection that my e-mail to you of
5/21 has gone unread. I whine. And I reproduce it for you here (it was
regarding your musing that "Angel" might have some, um, afterlife):
> Yes, Jonah, you're wrong. There's no plan nor hope that another
network is gonna pick up "Angel." David went blonde and James shaved
his head. Wow. Must really be The End. And I speak with some inside
info, having written and produced "Angel" for four years with Joss,
along with several fantabulous episodes of "Firefly." (though I wasn't
on "Angel" this last season, as I was busy getting cancelled all over
again on Fox with "Wonderfalls.")
Joss ended "Angel" the way he did because "fighting the good fight"
and how "there is no big win" was always the mission statement of
"Angel." The fight goes on. It's a series of battles, small and large.
And a series of series cancellations if you happen to be on Fox on
Friday nights, I might add. But I digress. And if the finale seemed
rushed, it's probably because every episode of every season is rushed.
<
That said, I wanted to chime in on the Vamps-Shouldn't-Photograph
thing. Mostly because I'm supposed to be writing and this seemed like
time better spent. Anyway! I notice that a reader wrote to you:
"It has been established within the Whedon-verse that you can
photograph a
vampire. On an episode of ANGEL, Cordelia and Angel are looking at an
old
photo with Angel in it. Cordy remarks, "So vampires DO photograph. The
just
don't photograph WELL."
The scene was actually between Cordy and Wesley. Yes, I'm a geek, but I
also wrote that scene and that line. I tried to explain this seeming
problem in an earlier episode by having Angel explain re: why he turns
up on film: "It's not physics, it's metaphysics." Sadly, that line was
cut (shot, but cut) because the episode was nine minutes over in its
first assemblage. So I suppose that doesn't count.
However we were not inconsistent: In fact, Angel could not be
photographed before we wrote that he'd show up on film. (Hey, if it
works for some pols, should work for a TV writer who's just tryin' to
spin a yarn, yes?)
Your devoted --
Tim Minear
And...the inside scoop on the making of Puppet Angel...
"Oh, here's funny news: I was talking to the friend of
mine who built Puppet Angel, and it turns out that DB
and he worked everything out beforehand, then they
taped, then DB dubbed in the lines after. The friend
said DB was very cool and easy to work with."
So apparently it's just a few people that DB doesn't get
along with on the set of ATS. Can't say I blame him for that, just makes him human like the rest of us.
Oh, I know now where Puppet Angel ended up - in the hands of his creator. Yep the puppeteer who created the puppet got to keep the puppet. Have to say that's fitting. We should all get to keep our own creations - don't you think?
Now on to the Ghost in The Robot report...sigh.
I made it to and from Farmingdale, Long Island to see GiTR
with a kind friend who had gotten me a ticket. I met her and another friend of hers at the train station in Farmingdale. Farmingdale is about a two hour train ride from Brooklyn, including Subway and Long Island Railroad.
First off - a disclaimer:
I am not overly fond of certain types of live music - it's just not my thing. Love musicals, love folk music (depending on the artist), love some singers and old British rock bands - I think I could get into a Stones or Who concert for an hour without getting too bored. Loved Pink Floyd and Peter Gabriel/KAte Bush. Would have found the Doors very entertaining. But garage bands? Tends to bore me actually or give me a headache. Particularly when it is in a bar, packed with people, no seats, and cranked up to decimal levels so you can barely hear the lyrics over the percussion feedback. Granted it could have been a worse venue - I've been in worse, such as Irving Plaza in NYC. We at least had windows and doors opened to an outdoor deck. It wasn't as closed in. There was no smoking. I could in short breath. But still it's not a venue I'm fond of. Plus every time you go to one of these things - you spend at least an hour and a half standing around waiting for the band to go on. The cover band? LOL!.
The lead was stoned and drunk and well, try to imagine an amateur actor doing an impression of Jim Carrey/or Jack Black impersonating Mick Jagger. I laughed for fifteen minutes. Then grew bored. The music... it was just loud vibrating noise to me. Nothing memorable.
So did I like Ghost in The Robot? Not really. Not my kind of music. Not going to run out and get the CD. Although there were two songs that weren't all that bad: David Letterman (had a nice metanarrative humor to it), and Valeri ( a nice beat even though it's borrowed from the original). Did I enjoy the concert? Yes and no.
James Marsters is a marvel to behold. The man is the consummate performer. He knows how to work an audience and maintain what is going on behind and around him on-stage at the same time. Watching him perform live is mesmerizing for a *little* while. Also he knows how to use every inch of his body in a performance. HE does this one move onstage that blew me away - it's a back-arc jump in mid-air on a tiny stage next to his guitarist, landing in the same spot he jumped without showing any effort whatsoever. Also he has this action going with a lollipop that is well...interesting and also illustrates how incredibly coordinated this guy really is. I fully believe he did his own stunts on ATs and BTVS. After watching him on stage - I wouldn't be surprised if he could juggle, dance, chew gum, and sing all at the same time. (Someone should cast him in the Boy From OZ).
When Marsters first appears on stage, he is working at this thing in his hands that has a green wrapper- biting it, trying to unwrap it, while singing, gyrating his hips, tapping to the music, flirting with the audience, all at the same time. Someone in front of him offers him something and he takes it from the person and it's a lollipop which he sucks on while still unwrapping the other thing (clearly another lollipop) and singing the song and moving with the music. Not looking the least bit uncomfortable, nervous, or uncertain about any of these things.(My jaw dropped in pure amazement.) He looked like he was born on that stage - he was that at home. He also made love to that audience and treated them like they were his best friends. He stroked every member of his band. Kept them in line. And at the same time let us all know this was new to him and how pleased he was we were all there and how much he hoped we were enjoying it and how much he loved it. Weirdest thing I've seen. And I have watched professional performers on stage before, people with much better voices and musical ability - but Marsters was by far the better "performer". He acted the songs. They were horrible songs - from the little I could make out of them. But he made me want to like them. He made me want to like his band.
There's something about him on stage live, that I can't quite put my finger on, which explains why people are so nutty about the guy. It's a charisma, I think. He makes you feel warm inside, accepted, beautiful, important, just by looking at you. It's not real of course. A performance. Which I saw him come in and out of at times - when he dealt with the band. Telling the band to stop drinking beer, the professional/business man. Then he turns back to the audience and it's there again that giddy charm.
Have to admit, after a while it got old for me. Yes, Marsters on stage is the equivalent of "sex on a stick", for anyone turned on by men, and with his dark hair, black t-shirt, black jeans, and high cheek-bones - he looks a great deal like an older Montgomery Clift. Beautiful man. No question about that. But - watching his performance reminds me a bit of lusting after a beautiful chocolate cake or desert that you see in a bakery window, which looks so tantlizing in the store but when you buy it leaves you feeling dissatisfied, empty, still craving something but realizing you'll never get it. It might have been different if the music was good, it wasn't. Or the lyrics moved me, they didn't.(Actually, I remember thinking that my college boyfriend's rock band was actually much better. So were most of the people I knew who sang in college. I knew quite a few amateur wannabe musicians in college. Better lyrics, better instrumental mix - just didn't have a famous actor with money to sponsor them.) Instead all I got was this fascinating, sexy dance, and yes he did move better than anyone I've seen on stage including a couple of professionals - but with no satisfaction at the end. An hour of it was more than enough. And I honestly don't see myself going to another performance.
The other interesting thing about the performance, was the interaction between the audience and the band. The audience was well-behaved. Not that different than any other rock band audience I've seen. What hit me as interesting is how far some people had come to see it and how far they were willing to go to see him again, on stage, in person, at a convention. It's the "cult of the personality" - something I don't completely understand. While I appreciate Marsters as a performer and love the character he played, I'm not *in love*, okay maybe a little in lust with him but that died wthe moment we left the venue. Nor do I have this overwhelming desire to meet him in person. Ugh. No. Please. I just like to watch him perform, preferably as an actor, he's no musician. He never played an instrument (which disappointed me a bit), he just sang and his voice was drowned out by the background intrumentals, which were just a notch above white noise in my opinion. But he is a great performer. As my friend stated - it would have been better if we could have turned the sound off, or brought ear-plugs. My ears still hurt from the experience.
So why do people do it? Flock in droves like lemmings to see a celebrity in person? Spend money to get a piece of him? They've been doing it since Jesus Christ if we think about it. What is it about us as human beings that makes us crave that sort of interaction? Is it the sense of unconditional love we seek - that asks nothing of us in return. Someone who looks at us with an expression of love in their eyes and seems to care about us? I think that could be it. OR maybe our own desire to adore someone without consequences. The need to worship. To come together and love something - like a huge group hug. I'm an oddity, the group hugs always seem empty to me, meaningless. So does the worshipping. I go en mass to worship whatever it is- and I end up standing there, somewhat removed from the proceedings thinking - this is really silly. Why are we doing this? And this person is sort of silly too. I guess I'm just not into worshipping things or people or ideas. Every time I do something that comes close to it - I leave the experience feeling unsatisfied and mildly disturbed. Not that going to Ghost in The Robot concert is similar to worshipping a celebrity necessarily - but I did get a feeling some of the interaction between Marsters and his audience was indeed that. They seemed to me, at least, to be worshipping him and he in return was basking in the glow and worshipping them back.
Weird experience.
On the songs? The only ones I can remember were:
1. Katie (disturbing and somewhat squicky song about a girl with tattoos with a thing for her daddy...I think Marsters wrote it, which lends a whole new angle of interpretation to his performance as Spike.)
2. David Letterman (interesting song, with a wry wit, clearly
making fun of tv idols)
3. Nothing (silly song with inane lyrics - you heard it on Sharon Osborn)
4. Bad (a love song that is well bad...from the little I could hear of it).
5. German/Jew - apparently this got them into trouble in Germany, ahem, I can see why: "I'm German, You're JEwish, we can't work this..." was one of the lyrics. Disappointing.
6. Valeri ( I like the original version by another band better, but it has a nice beat.)
And that's all I could really remember or get. Charlie - this sulkly kid with a guitare sang one which I wasn't overly fond of. Charlie should not sing. The band seems to think he's amazing. I admit, I'm no music expert, but this kid did not sound amazing to me.
So overall? James Marsters performance? =A- (the minus is his singing voice, which was mostly drowned out by the music, and his odd support of the awful Charlie), GiTR=D-, Venue=B
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Agreed...
Date: 2004-06-05 10:32 am (UTC)Thank you for this comment - it supports what I tried to explain to aksbat(?) above - which is that there were people there who liked the music. Just because I didn't, doesn't necessarily make it bad. I told a friend of mine over the phone today, who does enjoy these sort of things more than I do, that it sounded quite a bit like RadioHead actually. (I don't like RadioHead - it's not my thing). And yes, there were men and women there who clearly enjoyed the music and were into it.
Maybe he would be different at a Q&A, I've listened to tapes online of his Q&As and seen write-ups and they are amazingly informative. The man gives the best Q&A/Interviews - instead of lecturing, he takes questions and he gears the questions towards riffs on theater, how to get into the acting world, how to run a rock band, how to produce theater, method acting, television production, business of television, directing, writing and philosophy. It's a bit like signing up for a theater or television seminar. The only other people that are that interesting to listen to or read are: Joss Whedon (some of his writers) and possibly Anthony Stewart Head. Very versatile and bright man. So in a way spending the money to see him is no different than spending money to see Robert McGee do a screenplay seminar or
any of those other gurus.