Rainy drippy Saturday
Oct. 30th, 2004 03:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe smell of cooking brownies fills my apt. Yep, I caved and made some more, (no, not from scratch, are you nuts! )and they are baking in my oven. Needed comfort food.
Hard week. Still sore from my tumble on Tuesday. Tired from work - or trying hard not to make any mistakes at work. Way I look at it? I survived my first month and a half. That's something. Healthcare benefits kicked in - ironic if they didn't considering I am working at a healthcare company. So saw some doctors for the requisite check-ups. Today's was the eye doc. Who requires a follow-up visit next week. (Dang it.) But outside of that, all is swell.
Finished my Farscape Marathon. That's right have now watched the entire series, including the four-hour miniseries. And what an interesting ride. I prefer the series to the mini-series by the way. Not that I didn't like the mini-series, I did, loved it. But, the series felt more character centric, less preachy/ideal driven. What is it about tv shows and their latter seasons? They all start getting preachy and "ideal" oriented towards the end, almost as if the writer has decided, wait I've established the characters, now it's "MESSAGE" time. I have a captive audience - time to tell them what I think, before I lose my chance! That said? I think Farscape was the most entertaining in this respect, not to mention most cohesive, and true to its characters. Can't say the same for other tv shows I'm afraid. BTVS? Sort of lost me in the second half of Season 7. Or rather it lost most of its characters. Never felt that way with Farscape, but then Farscape was only on for four years and wrapped up with a four-hour mini. Only other sci-fantasy show that comes close to this level plot-tight character centric - cohesive story-telling, may be Bablyon 5, which was meant to be a tele-novel. Both feel like watching novels for TV. At any rate, I recommend Farscape, with the following adivisories: 1)You have to get to episode 15 or 17 before it takes off. 2)The mini-series won't make much sense if you don't watch the series, trust me on this. It's not a movie you can watch separately from the series, the two are interconnected. 3)If you do not like alien makeup or puppetry and prefer straight, literal story-telling with few visual metaphors - you will probably hate this series. 4) It is morally dark in places and has graphic torture sequences - if you have issues with that or can't handle graphic violence or torture scenes? You may not be able to handle this show. These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps.
Hard week. Still sore from my tumble on Tuesday. Tired from work - or trying hard not to make any mistakes at work. Way I look at it? I survived my first month and a half. That's something. Healthcare benefits kicked in - ironic if they didn't considering I am working at a healthcare company. So saw some doctors for the requisite check-ups. Today's was the eye doc. Who requires a follow-up visit next week. (Dang it.) But outside of that, all is swell.
Finished my Farscape Marathon. That's right have now watched the entire series, including the four-hour miniseries. And what an interesting ride. I prefer the series to the mini-series by the way. Not that I didn't like the mini-series, I did, loved it. But, the series felt more character centric, less preachy/ideal driven. What is it about tv shows and their latter seasons? They all start getting preachy and "ideal" oriented towards the end, almost as if the writer has decided, wait I've established the characters, now it's "MESSAGE" time. I have a captive audience - time to tell them what I think, before I lose my chance! That said? I think Farscape was the most entertaining in this respect, not to mention most cohesive, and true to its characters. Can't say the same for other tv shows I'm afraid. BTVS? Sort of lost me in the second half of Season 7. Or rather it lost most of its characters. Never felt that way with Farscape, but then Farscape was only on for four years and wrapped up with a four-hour mini. Only other sci-fantasy show that comes close to this level plot-tight character centric - cohesive story-telling, may be Bablyon 5, which was meant to be a tele-novel. Both feel like watching novels for TV. At any rate, I recommend Farscape, with the following adivisories: 1)You have to get to episode 15 or 17 before it takes off. 2)The mini-series won't make much sense if you don't watch the series, trust me on this. It's not a movie you can watch separately from the series, the two are interconnected. 3)If you do not like alien makeup or puppetry and prefer straight, literal story-telling with few visual metaphors - you will probably hate this series. 4) It is morally dark in places and has graphic torture sequences - if you have issues with that or can't handle graphic violence or torture scenes? You may not be able to handle this show. These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 03:53 pm (UTC)If it even remotely has a character in any way resembling Lex, I'm so there!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 06:51 pm (UTC)Farscape has also been one of the rare shows on TV that combined good plotting, emotional depths, science, characterization, and themes without losing one of the balls.
It blew me away. And it improves, oddly enough, on re-watching. Just re-watched episode one and saw things didn't see the first round. I've cried during this series and it takes a lot to get me to cry at TV. I've also had a couple of "whoa" moments. There's a relationship on the show that will remind you of Lex/Clark but is so much darker, and so deeper - and really gets to the heart of the concept of humanity.
One theme that flows throughout the series is :"do you value intelligence over heart? And is reason without emotion, without compassion useful? Good?"
I highly recommend it. It is "no holds barred, no rules sci-fi". Goes for the jugular on a couple of issues.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 07:10 pm (UTC)Ditto. I agree with Rob on this one. Having seen all the seasons of Alias, every season of Smallville but the current one, all of Bablyon5, ATS, and BTVS (three shows that up until now I considered the best in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy TV genre) - I have to state Farscape is a better series.
Why?
At one point or another all the other series lost me.
I either got annoyed at the leads or lost interest in them. Or felt that the series dropped a ball.
Farscape never lost me.
Oh - and we have a female character that would give Emma Peel a run for her money.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-30 07:19 pm (UTC)I thought one friend of mine might like it, but it was a little too dark for her tastes (she sort of squicked about how it felt to her like "a dark, lost universe" and she couldn't see "the light....the hope." Funny, I always thought Farscape was about nothing but hope, but different tastes, I guess....I do think you have to have a certain tolerance for darkness to really love the series. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I agree with you that S1 is mostly fluff, but oh, what fluff it was. The other provisos I would add --
Heh. Well I'm one of those bizarre people who found Not Fade Away hopeful. Actually I prefer dark sci-fi to the light ones, I find it more realistic and hopeful. More emotionally in depth. I think it's why I adored BTVS and ATS as much as I did, and have little patience for some of the lighter sci-fi shows on TV. Different tastes.
S1 does have some amazing episodes and gets quite dark after episode 14. I'm re-watching it and appreciating it more on the second-go around.
It's sort of like Babylon 5's S5 (and yeah, I think the comparison between Farscape and B5 is really apt, although Farscape is in no way as tightly plotted as B5 was. But Farscape had definite arcs and the seasons were obviously thought out). I don't blame this on the creators -- more on the stupid SciFi network.
As much as I adored B5, I did have problems with it that I didn't have with Farscape. I wasn't crazy about the lead - played by Bruce Boxelitner. He was okay, but I tended to want less of him and more of everyone else. Farscape? Never had that problem - only show I've ever watched in which I never had that problem. Odd. Very subjective response, I know. Another problem with B5 was its final season. I actually like Farscape's finale season much better. B5 lost me a bit.
I think that B5 would have been better off if it had ended in S4 and hadn't been extended, while I think Farscape should have had two more seasons. I say that, even though I found Season 4 a little preachy at times and more plot than character driven.
Yep, S3 Farscape gives S3 Angel a run for its money on emotional angst. Actually it may surpass. Although interestingly enough I didn't cry that much in S3, but I did cry at the end of Bad Timing.
Not sure why exactly. I admit I cry at weird things. I cried at a scene in Fractures, but not during the Choice. Go figure.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-30 08:22 pm (UTC)Exactly. That was a huge part of my problem with S7 BTVs and S5 ATS at times, the pop culture references taking me out of the action. There's a scene in Underneath where Spike says something to Angel, that just doesn't work for me. Or Angel's bit about the rat pack in The House Always Wins that had me wondering for five minutes, wait,
wasn't he down in the gutter? Whedon commits the same sins in the X-Men series by the way, makes pop-culture jokes that don't fit the characters.
one of the writers said a lot of the pop culture references were ad-libbed by Ben Browder, and the writers liked it so much they kept the ref in and even wrote in more than they would've.
Didn't know that. Oh...that takes Browder up yet another notch in my estimation as one of the best sci-fi actors ever. I honestly think he surpasses Patrick Stewart and James Marsters. Never does he phone it in. He is always on. I completely buy his character and never once think its the actor I'm seeing. If he didn't make it work - the series wouldn't have worked. His character references just about every sci-fi show on. There's a great comment to Jool in S3: "Welcome to the Federation Starshipp USS Butt-Crack."
I should give S1 more credit -- it's got stunner eps like "PK Tech Girl," "That Old Black Magic," "DNA Mad Scientist," "Rhapsody in Blue," "Durka Returns" -- and those are just the standouts (then there are my personal guilty favorites like "Throne for a Loss," "Through the Looking Glass," "Thank God It's Friday Again") --
Dang. I'm still missing PK Tech Girl and Throne for A Loss, but a friend does have them on DVD and on tape, so hopefully I will get them soon. She's overwhelmed with more important things at the moment, such as a baby. I may just rent them off of netflix when I get a DVD player.
I actually like the Premier episode quite a bit, particularly in comparison to what happens later. The irony is delicious.
Well, I felt the same way, although a lot of people seem to feel the focus is on John/Aeryn. Some friends also have problems with the John/Aeryn relationship and feel it's focused on to the detriment of the other, alien characters, but, well, I love John and I love Aeryn (although I didn't particularly love the tug-o-war in late S3 and early S4). But hell, if I can come to regard a muppet I didn't like as a beloved character just like the rest of the crew (Pilot), I'd say they did a pretty good job....
Same exact thing happened with me. I adore John/Aeryn and could literally watch those two all day. I fell in love with them. They are the equivalent of the modern day Avengers in some respects, but with a better sense of humor and more sex appeal. Also, had the same response - Pilot took a while to grow on me, but by the episode, The Way We Weren't - which had me in tears, I adored him.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-30 08:32 pm (UTC)I have a friend who loves SG-1 too, don't get it. SG-1 bores me. I've tried on numerous occassions to get into it and my mind wanders part-way through or I get distracted by something or I just start flipping channels. It won't hold my attention. I think the reason might be that it is by the numbers sci-fi or rather by the rules. In the SFX interview with Brian Hensen, they mention how Farscape was "no rules sci-fi", where they allowed the characters to get tortured, have intense emotional experiences and go beyond what was traditionally allowed. SG-1 never breaks rules. They suggest the characters care for each other - but there is never a sexual romance. Not really. It is safe. And I suppose safe art bores me? It's weird really because every other part of my life is safe, except for art - I like art that gives me "ah-hah" moments.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-30 08:47 pm (UTC)According to the SFX interview I just read with Ben Browder,
they had enough material to go into a sixth season and everyone in the cast was right there with them. But it was cancelled. Now - Brian Hensen says he feels the next step after the mini-series is an actual film. The big screen. I hope so. I'd love to see this series on screen sans commericials. My main complaint about the mini was the commercials and the teasers they kept showing. I have it all on tape, but with millions of commericials I have to fast forward through.
Right with you there, really....B5 actually did end for all extents and purposes in S4 -- I remember reading online than JMS had wrapped up all the storylines so it wouldn't feel the show had come to an abrupt end, only then you get stuck at the beginning of S5 having to ramp everything up all over again, and I felt the season didn't really take off again til the Centauri war eps. I think JMS said both the Minbari and Earth wars wouldn't've been wrapped up so quickly and we would have ended on the cliffhanger of Sheridan being interrogated.
That was what I remember. They cancelled it. Claudia Christian moved on to something else. Then suddenly it got picked up and everyone came back but Claudia Christian (Ivanova - who happened to be on of my favorite characters).
She oddly shows up in the last episode, because he pulled that one when the show got picked up again and placed it at the end of S5. I think S5 would have worked better if it were shorter. They drug things out.
That said - I agree, the best bits were the Gnarn/Centauri
conflict. Actually that was my favorite part of the series -the conflict between Centauri and Gnarn and the flip-flop of who was the bad guy. In that regard B5 is memorable. Farscape didn't develope Rygel, Zhen or D'Argo quite as well as B5 did G'narn and Centauri. G'narn and Centauri were true works of art. They came close though.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 05:43 am (UTC)But is it fun?
Date: 2004-10-31 05:47 am (UTC)What you say about "MESSAGE TIME" is SO TRUE. WHen I want insightful looks into human society, morality and culture, I rarely go to authors' views. I may go to their works of art, but not to their opinions or views.
Re: But is it fun?
Date: 2004-10-31 06:21 am (UTC)YES!!! More so actually than most science fiction.
This is one of the few tv series that has made me laugh throughout. I don't think I laughed so hard at anything since well, the Puppet!Angel episode.
Look At the Princess - is hilarous arc in Season 2.
There's an episode where the characters end up in each other's bodies that combines physical and situational comedy in a way that Red Dwarf tried to do, but failed miserably in my opinion. (It's a rare thing for me to laugh at physical comedy, since I can't handle "embarrassement"). All the way through, Cricton makes wise-ass comments that make me giggle.
Very much a sense of fun. It was the same wry, dry sense of humor ATS and BTVS have. (One of my problems with the Trek series is it took itself too seriously. Farscape? Not a problem. It actually makes fun of its own genre and the shows that came before it.) Heck they have an episode that combines Chuck Jones Cartoons (such as Road Runner) with live action. How's that for fun?
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 06:26 am (UTC)The Godot comment would have made sense coming from Giles or Wesely, possibly even Willow or Tara, but not Buffy, Xander, Spike, or Dawn. I can see Angel stating it - sort of. That is not to say one is brighter than the other.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 06:46 am (UTC)No, sorry, wish I did. I'd send you the mag, but it isn't mine to send (borrowed from a friend who wants it back.) If you are looking for it - its the issue that has the tribute to Angel. The Farscape stuff is really brief. Most of the mag talks about the Spiderman movie and Angel finale. Browder spends most of his time discussing how he "does not" body wax, (I believe him - he had chest hair in those scenes), and how he wanted a new costume but they couldn't afford one after all the F/X. Hilarous interview. Browder is a funny guy.
Also, they could obviously do more on film than on a tv series, even though they did quite a lot (ha, during the mini when Rygel was puking up little bits of John and Aeryn everyone was like "Yup, yup, that's Farscape"). Also, now that they've tied up a lot of the previous plotlines and characters, maybe a movie wouldn't be as rushed as the mini felt.
Yup, that goes to answer Rah's question about is it fun? LOL! This show has such a clever whit. The whole bit with Rygel/Aeryn/Crichton in the mini reminded me of a similar bit in Out of Their Minds.
Hilarious.
Oh, yeah, the Londo/G'Kar relationship on B5 was really something extraordinary, and it just grew and kept growing over all five seasons. And those weren't even the human main lead parts! Just amazing. I think the closest Fscape came to that was with D'Argo and John, but yeah, no characters were as developed as Londo and G'Kar were.
I agree. Haven't seen anyone develop supporting characters as well as B5's Londo and G'Kar. The mere fact that G'Kar started out the villian and Londo the funny clown, and later G'Kar becomes heroic and Londo one of the most complex villians I've seen is amazing. Farscape came really close to this with Scorpius and Crais, who start out nasty villians and become oddly heroic and incredibly complex. Actually I think Scorpius may give Londo a run for his money on best complex villian.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 06:59 am (UTC)Very much agree. Lani Tuper did some amazing things on this serious. The depth he brought in his vocals to Pilot and to his performance as Crais were brilliant. One of my favorite sections of the series is the two part "Into The Lion's Den" - which gives Crais a pivotal and heroic role.
Yeah, Whedon is the master of the undercut, esp with a joke or a pop reference -- even when it just really didn't seem to fit, like when Buffy axed Caleb and then said, "He had to split." Oh, boo. Yes she's quippy and it was this sort of hysterical relief from the tension, but talk abt being booted out of the moment. That brings to mind the Faulkner "kill your darlings" line -- if you have a line that seems especially perfect or witty or whatever, it probably needs to come out, if for no other reason than it'll stick out as something the author loves, rather than something that comes organically from the characters.
Yes. I think Whedon suffers from this ailment quite a bit. As did many of his writers. It's an ailment I understand all too well, since I also suffer from it. Falling in love with your own words. Whedon is often at his best when he's fixing someone else's script. Passion - his fixes of Ty's script were amazing. He re-wrote the Angelus monologue. Same with Beneath You - you have Petrie's self-indulgences, then Whedon's fix. I think he writes the best when he's not trying to be clever and just trying to tell his story or figure out these characters. When he falls for one of the characters or his own words, he hits the wrong chord somehow. I see the same problem happening in Astonishing X-Men, specifically with Kitty Pride.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 07:14 am (UTC)Ah, have the last ten minutes of that one on tape - it came before the Farscape miniseries which I was taping. I keep fast-forwarding over it. My God, the last ten minutes reminded me of an old A-Team episode. Star-Gate is too similar to JAG for my tast.
Ohhh, yeah. I mean hell, at this point, they killed off four main characters (even if two were resurrected, well, no, one was resurrected and JohnPrime was sort of just left over) -- now that's risktaking.
I was blown away when they did that. Not too surprised with Crichton2, but for a while I couldn't guess which one would go. In most sci-fi that does the double routine, the double that goes is the least romantic one. Or CrichtonPrime. The romantic one is left.
Or they cop out completely and just combine the two - a la The Replacement. Here, we had two characters deal with the concept - which is the copy? Wait maybe neither was. It also allowed the show to be a comedy and a tragedy. The Crichton/Aeryn storyline was operatic and filled with emotional angst, while the Crichton/D'Argo storyline was zany humor and fun. Never seen anyone try that before.
I also really loved that the hero -- who was rather buff and masculine -- was the one getting his psyche crumpled like tinfoil, and taking all kinds of emotional risks and really getting shoved into some dark spaces -- and there were all kinds of strong, sexy women, too! I don't think even B5 had as many strong women -- outnumbering the male protags IIRC.
Ah yes. They actually put him in a dress in one episode. Also the women on the ship are in some respects stronger than he is. One of the few science fiction shows I've seen that had that many strong and differently shaped women. At one point we have an old woman, a young one, a short one, and a tall militaristic one. Also the one of the few sci-fi shows that had a female character I could identify with.
Odd considering it was written and created by men.
Andyeah, Stargate is safe in all kinds of ways -- emotionally, tv-episodically (reset button at the end of every ep, from what I can tell) that it's....just....dull. It's like basically they have their own fumfuh-fumfuh handwave wormhole, except it's under control of the military and all the leads are military as well (the one "civilian" acts like a soldier and so does the guy with the thing on his forehead). One thing I loved abt Farscape from the beginning was it didn't have that militaristic sf background -- well, you did have Aeryn and the Peacekeepers but the PK didn't become a huge driving part of the show til well in. It was this motley gang sort of rattling about the universe, always on the run, and always arguing. I loved that.
Yes, that's my problem with SG-1 as well. Militaristic shows do little for me - I admit. JAG and NCIS bore me as well. Don't find them interesting. Space Above and Beyond was okay for a while.
The nice thing about Farscape was the sense of fun, the desire to play with concepts and characters, to break rules. And the chaos. It was a gang of misfits dealing with the universe. Whedon was in a sense trying to do the same thing with Firefly but wasn't given enough time to pull it off.
Re: But is it fun?
Date: 2004-10-31 07:31 am (UTC)I'm the same way. Part of the reason I'm enjoying Farscape so much is until yesterday I hadn't read one interview with an actor or writer. I was just enjoying the art. It did affect my enjoyment. I can't help but wonder if my enjoyment of BTVS and ATS may have been tainted by reading the authors and actors views on the piece. I mean honestly does it matter that Sarah Michelle Gellar hated doing Dead Things? Or that Whedon thought we should see this message as opposed to that one? What matters is what we get out of our experience with the art-work. And in many cases it may not be what the author/creator intended or expected.
I may love the poems of T.S. Eliot, but despise his views and don't like what I've read of the man.
(Oh on the fun side - Farscape is probably the zaniest funniest sci-fi series I've ever seen.)
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 05:21 pm (UTC)Actually it was an authorial dig at the SAT tests in general and how completely inaccurate they are in determining one's ability to succeed in college.
(Or, ie. they are rigged.) They make it a little obvious in that episode: Willow (the brain) gets lower scores than Cordelia and Buffy, and Oz, who states that he just tests well. The author is basically poking fun at standardized tests. (Which is one of things I loved about the series actually, because I despise standardized testing with a vengeance. )
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 05:32 pm (UTC)I agree, Londo truly was more of a tragic hero, a la Crais. I think I liked Scorpius because he was never redeemed, instead the series merely explained him.
Scorpius was what Crichton might have been if he allowed science to come first. There's a point in the series, in Into The Lion's Den, in which Cricton wonders if Scorpius might be right. He struggles with Scorpius' views throughout - because Scorpius solution seems at times the easiest way out. By the end of the series - I stopped seeing him as pure villian, and more a complex shadow self. (Don't get me wrong, I never found him attractive or sympathetic. Yet... he intrigued me. Everything time I thought I understood or knew the character, they revealed a new layer. In that regard - he gives Londo a run for his money.)
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-10-31 05:37 pm (UTC)S7 frustrated me. I loved the first 9 episodes, after that point they sort of lost me and I felt their main characters. The story got too self-referential, too clever in places (a la Storyteller and Lies)
and far too forced. Instead of exploring characters and story, showing what unfolded, I felt as if the writers were dictating or forcing things a bit. It felt disjointed. Now, I haven't seen a BTVS episode since April of 2004, so when I get around to re-watching the series on DVD, I may change my mind.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-11-01 10:01 am (UTC)S6 was a great third draft of a potentially brilliant novel, it just needed two more passes through editing. (That's unfortunately the case with 99% of TV shows. Too little time to edit. So we're left unsatisfied. The fact that S2, S3 and S5 were perfect or close to it, probably means we were spoiled. Same with Farscape - s2 and s3 are perfect, s4 could use a few touch-ups, but pretty much the same.)
S7? Ugh. Andrew and Wood. I despised them both, for different reasons.
I honestly wish some of the scenes they had with anya and andrew, had been Anya and Dawn or Anya and willow. The ones they had with Spike and Andrew, had been Spike and Giles or Spike and Xander. Or wait, Giles and Xander like in the prior seasons. The ones they had with Faith and Wood? Faith and Xander or Faith and willow or Faith and spike. The ones with Spike and Wood? Spike and Giles. Wood and Andrew were late additions that became major characters. Bad idea.
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-11-01 05:56 pm (UTC)No need to feel embarrassed. I actually get an odd thrill out of
criticizing the heck out of S7. Having just finished watching Farscape, which wrapped their series in a wonderful manner, without losing any characters, not over-shadowing old characters such as D'Argo and Chiana and Pilot with new ones like Sikousa and Nerante, I find myself looking at S7 BTVs and thinking, damn this could have been so much better.
Oh, completely agree regarding Andrew and everything you wrote above!
Andrew was written poorly in my opinion. Tom Lenk did a decent job with what he had to play with, but the role was so poorly written and far too cliche in places. I literally cringed during most of Andrew's scenes, and found Storyteller close to unwatchable. An example of a well-written and acted peripherary character was Jonathan. Jonathan up until S7 had actually been the Andrew role and was written deftly, with quite a few layers, and no cliches. Watching Andrew on-screen after having seen Jonathan, was too painful. Also an example of the writer masturbation, the writers got a thrill out of Andrew, he was in effect their Mary Sue.
You nailed my difficulties with Wood. Completely agree with you here. I actually liked him in the first nine episodes. I had troubles buying him "hiring" Buffy as a counselor, that seemed a stretch. Although I went along with it. Never bought Wood as Nikki's son or Nikki having a son - I might have if they'd built it better instead of just throwing it at me. Felt like bad fanfic the moment I heard it. Way too convienent. Also Wood dating Buffy? Ugh. Did not work. At ALL. You can't have Wood hire Buffy (who has no experience) as a counselor, (for almost no pay), then have him *suddenly* come on to her and date her. No build up. He goes from treating her like a student teacher he's mentoring/training/treating like a daughter to a woman he's going to date? Ew. That whole scenario completely squicked me. But that's mostly subjective. From an objective pov? Let's see - Wood hires Buffy as a counselor (she has no experience), then he dates Buffy (whom he has 0 chemistry with and seems to treat as a bit of ditz or student teacher), then we find out his mother was a slayer, then we find out that not only was she a slayer, she was killed by a vampire, and not just any vampire, but SPIKE, who just happens to be Buffy's ex. And oh, add to this it's where Spike got his duster! Sigh. It's not like Holtz and Angel, where we have flashbacks in S2 way before Holtz comes back, showing him chasing Angelus and Darla. Then he shows up the next season. We have an entire season building up his character showing where he comes from, his manipulations. No - the writers figure out Wood's storyline in the middle of S7, around episode 8. It's not plotted out. It's not planned. It's just convienently plopped in as a means of resolving Spike's trigger and creating conflict - sort like the amulet and scythe are convienently plopped in to resolve a situation. Not earned! I think it would have worked better if the writers knew at the start of the season who Wood was and what his role was going to be. Instead of figuring it out on the fly - because sorry, I could tell it was a last minute revelation. It was too convienent, and too poorly executed to have been planned. They might have juxtaposed events a little differently. Maybe written the character a bit better. Known what to do with him after the whole Lies deal. As a result the Wood storyline fell flat for me. I didn't care what happened to him. I didn't buy his relationship with Giles, Faith, or his role in the big fight at the end. He became a character that left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Shame, since I found him intriguing in the beginning.
TBC...
Re: "These guys make Whedon and Minear look like wimps"
Date: 2004-11-01 05:59 pm (UTC)Also agree on Faith. Very disappointed on how they dealt with her character. Especially after Angel dealt with her so well. The only part of the Faith storyline I liked was Faith/Spike - their interactions made sense. But her interactions with Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, and Dawn just seemed off somehow. While she did reconnect on a certain level with Buffy. They never really resolved her conflicts with Willow, Giles or Xander and they had plenty of opportunity. As a result, I just could not buy Willow, Xander, and Giles handing leadership over to Faith. If they'd spent more time showing her connecting with them and less on Caleb and dancing potentials - I might have. The only people we saw her connect with seemed to be Spike, Buffy and Wood.
I'm not sure Whedon was focused on the core four. I got the feeling he was focused on other things - Firefly, his kid, and Angel. He obviously was enamored of the Firefly core actors - Fillion, Torres and Baldwin - since he gave them major roles on Angel and Buffy.
But he seemed to have lost interest in the shows that were currently on the air. Also got a little too preachy - something I saw happening way before S7 by the way. S6 got a little preachy and message heavy at points as well. It's what happens I think when a writer stops trusting his audience, and wants to tell us the story instead of show it. Or maybe it's simply what you said so well above:
It's also just plain hard to keep turning out season-long editions of a brilliant cutting-edge show year after year after year.
Seven years is a long frigging time to be writing a story about a vampire slayer.