![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Television rap, whine and muse
Before I go take a nap or read the NY Times...I feel the oddest need to rap, whine and muse about TV.
TV muse...
Was thinking about my BTVS obsession the other day, or rather my interest in the Spike/Buffy relationship...which continues to fascinate me. Not the relationship, but my interest in it. Also that whole thread, which I didn't read (no time) but![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ponygirl referred to in her livejournal - about how we are fascinated by the "bad boy." Funny. While flipping channels the other day I caught a glimpse of "I love Lucci" - 35 years of loving Television's perennial bad girl - Erica Kane on Soap Net. OR how Joan Collins made Dynasty the most watched show in the 80's. Or Heather Locklear's bad girl in Melrose Place. It ain't just the bad boy folks, that people are interested in - the bad girl fascinates as well. Why else would so many male and female fans be hot and heavy over Lilah on Angel? Or prefer Illyria to Fred? Or adore Faith? [Now, as an aside, my interest in S/B has zip to do with the bad boy/bad girl thing. Actually I liked it because it was one of the few relationships on the series in which neither character appeared to be in control - they kept wrestling for control, but neither seemed to have it. B/A? Angel had control the whole way. B/R? Riley drove that sucker. X/A - Xander. W/T? Another nifty wrestling match - which is why I prefer it to W/X or W/O. Willow/Oz - definitely Oz. Dru/Spike? - Definitely Dru. Angel/Darla - wrestling match the whole way. Jenny/Gile - wrestling match. My favorite relationships - the ones that fascinated me the most - were the ones in which neither character had complete control, they wrestled for it. I think I liked that. I like the idea that the relationship is a partnership. Equal fighting. Equal fighting over falling for each other. Equal love/hate. Equal lust. Equal fighting over being the one to control the other. And eventually equal trust and respect. I know, not everyone saw the B/S relationship this way - and that's what fascinated me as well - that you could see it in so many different ways and each one completely works for each individual. It was the one story in that show that I can flip five different ways, get five different versions and still fit within the structure. Nifty, that.] Getting back to the bad boy/bad girl fetish in television and to a degree movies, I honestly think ponygirl was right when she mentioned in her journal that it is about the narrative flow - creating conflict in drama. You need edgy characters. Characters who shake stuff up. That's why the trickster shows up in so many myths - to shake things up, that's his role. Male or female. He or she or it is not necessarily evil per se as much as means of shaking things up, creating conflict. Sometimes the trickster, if we're really lucky, becomes the lead and it becomes about how he/she/it deals with order, how they handle being controlled or boundaries. The need to control the trickster character - I believe is what lies behind the fascination. The need to control our own baser instincts, our own desires, lusts, needs. IT is also the desire to break free of them - what would it be like to be free of the need to control our world?
To have it shaken a bit. To be Faith or Spike or Darla or any number of trickster characters? Our fascination with them is two fold - life is more interesting when it isn't controlled and the natural human desire to experiment with the unknown, to push past the boundaries, to explore - without that desire we wouldn't have computers, the internet, cures for diseases, books, or guns.
TV Rap & Whine...
Bored by most the offerings this week. Felt like rehashed plots. Alias keeps reminding me of La Femme Nikita. But I did watch this week's episode, because it gripped me more than the political preachiness of West Wing or the egotistical sniping of American Idol. While the plot in some ways was quite similar to the Nikita episode, where Nikita is poisoned, hallucinating, and Michael has to find a cure for her before she dies (the poison was given to her by Section to test Michael) - it focused on some trippy character issues. Such as Sydney's inability to trust the three male presences in her life: her father, Sloan (the mentor/evil father figure), and Vaughn (her handler/now boyfriend). Each one at a separate point in her life has tried to control her - either through withholding information or imposing information onto her. Now with this drug - her mind trapped in waking nightmare. She remains uncertain what information to trust. Information is her job. Manipulating it. Pilfering. Sharing it. And now, she can't trust it. The Nikita episode was in some respects more obvious (the acting better, but that's just because I prefer the actors who played Nikit and Michael to Syndney and Vaughn), less metaphor driven, this episode is subltler, vaguer. At the end of it, we the audience are left in somewhat the same position as Sydney - can we really trust these men? Should we? Even though they've proven they love her - can she ignore their ruthlessness? Much better episode than most. Also Dixon's last line to Sloan was worth the hour. I happen to be a Carl Lumby fan. So overall - I liked this episode better than the Nikita one, but still prefer the Nikita version. I think my reason for this is La Femme Nikita was about a woman desperately trying to hold on to her innocence, her compassion, her humanity - trying not to let the job she had strip it away from her. Nikita is a tragic tale, and Nikita herself a tragic heroine. Her journey is the dark side of Buffy's. In Nikita - the violence and torture is not done for laughs, it hurts, you want to look away from it. Nikita herself is tortured by what she's done and horrified by the toll it takes on her and everyone around her. When a gun was shot on that show, a life taken, we felt the cost of it. Alias? Violence is glossed over more, made more into a cartoon, fun with nifty music. Sydney doesn't feel the cost as much. She's still in some ways the wide-eyed kid. And that bugs me.
Medium? The last two episodes have left me sort of blah. Not sure why.
ER? Very good if somewhat preachy episode about Carrie finding her mother.
I taped to watch later - because it was an episode I'd been waiting for and I love Frances Fisher who played the role. And although I think the show may have been a little too heavy handed regarding the message - I wholeheartedly agreed with it. One of the reasons I refuse to attend church any longer (was raised Catholic) is the exclusion of homosexuals. I am not homosexual by the way nor do I believe my sexuality is relevant. I consider Christianity's dismissal of a whole group of people based on their sexual orientation incredibly hypocritical, offensive, and demeaning. This episode hit on the reasons I feel this way succinctly and to the point. I believe in God, I just believe God is unfathomable and does not care about silly things like sexuality. That's a human trait which we've in our arrogance, fear, and egoism imposed/projected onto something unfathomable to us.
Joan of Arcadia - comforting, somewhat sappy in places, but comforting. I like the range of character actresses this show continues to focus on.
Gilmore Girls - also oddly comforting. I enjoyed this weeks episode, even if portions of it grated.
Veronica Mars - not as good as the previous one, where the mother disappeared.
But still fascinating. These characters are definitely growing on me. Veronica's only draw-back is it's on opposite House. Damn Fox and their scheduling. Almost makes me wish I had a DVR (the cable version of Tivo).
BattleStar Galatica - best damn series on TV. Nail-biting episode. Lots of unpredictable twists and turns. And the acting continues to blow me away.
This week's episode - in a fitting tribute to both Arthur Miller (The Crucible) and to the witch hunts of the McCarthy era (which if we aren't careful, we could be in danger of repeating) - the Galatica crew deals with the concept that Cylons, the horrible enemy, may look and be one of them.
It's a lovey take on Serling's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street. The twist? One of the Cylons is one of them. In fact - she's one of their pilots.
Sleeping with the Chief. And if the Tribunal had been allowed to continue, they may have uncovered her. Or maybe not. That question is left unanswered.
The episode poses many questions and answers none of them. What is worse?
Letting the enemy walk amongst us? Or abridging our civil rights, living in a military state of suspicion and rigid rules? Having briefly experienced both scenarios? I'd rather let the enemy walk amongst us. Trust me - you do not want to live in East Germany during 1970-1980s. Seeing the World Trade Center Collasp was preferable to that bleak world. But why live in either? That's the third question posed. Who do you trust? What are willing to sacrifice? Is love worth any cost? Unlike the other shows on this week, Battlestar is the only one that doesn't answer our questions, doesn't give us a neat little morality lesson at the end. Instead, like its predecessors - The Twilight Zone, Star Trek Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Farscape, The Prisoner and Angel - it poses questions.
The irony is that the old Battlestar Galatica - was the opposite. It was a comforting parent to a wayward child. Each episode left us with a nice little morale straight from the mouth of Lorne Green - similar to the morals he left us with on Bonanza. In some ways that was what the old Battlestar was meant to be - a Bonanza in space. Which makes watching the new version all the more enjoyable.
TV muse...
Was thinking about my BTVS obsession the other day, or rather my interest in the Spike/Buffy relationship...which continues to fascinate me. Not the relationship, but my interest in it. Also that whole thread, which I didn't read (no time) but
ponygirl referred to in her livejournal - about how we are fascinated by the "bad boy." Funny. While flipping channels the other day I caught a glimpse of "I love Lucci" - 35 years of loving Television's perennial bad girl - Erica Kane on Soap Net. OR how Joan Collins made Dynasty the most watched show in the 80's. Or Heather Locklear's bad girl in Melrose Place. It ain't just the bad boy folks, that people are interested in - the bad girl fascinates as well. Why else would so many male and female fans be hot and heavy over Lilah on Angel? Or prefer Illyria to Fred? Or adore Faith? [Now, as an aside, my interest in S/B has zip to do with the bad boy/bad girl thing. Actually I liked it because it was one of the few relationships on the series in which neither character appeared to be in control - they kept wrestling for control, but neither seemed to have it. B/A? Angel had control the whole way. B/R? Riley drove that sucker. X/A - Xander. W/T? Another nifty wrestling match - which is why I prefer it to W/X or W/O. Willow/Oz - definitely Oz. Dru/Spike? - Definitely Dru. Angel/Darla - wrestling match the whole way. Jenny/Gile - wrestling match. My favorite relationships - the ones that fascinated me the most - were the ones in which neither character had complete control, they wrestled for it. I think I liked that. I like the idea that the relationship is a partnership. Equal fighting. Equal fighting over falling for each other. Equal love/hate. Equal lust. Equal fighting over being the one to control the other. And eventually equal trust and respect. I know, not everyone saw the B/S relationship this way - and that's what fascinated me as well - that you could see it in so many different ways and each one completely works for each individual. It was the one story in that show that I can flip five different ways, get five different versions and still fit within the structure. Nifty, that.] Getting back to the bad boy/bad girl fetish in television and to a degree movies, I honestly think ponygirl was right when she mentioned in her journal that it is about the narrative flow - creating conflict in drama. You need edgy characters. Characters who shake stuff up. That's why the trickster shows up in so many myths - to shake things up, that's his role. Male or female. He or she or it is not necessarily evil per se as much as means of shaking things up, creating conflict. Sometimes the trickster, if we're really lucky, becomes the lead and it becomes about how he/she/it deals with order, how they handle being controlled or boundaries. The need to control the trickster character - I believe is what lies behind the fascination. The need to control our own baser instincts, our own desires, lusts, needs. IT is also the desire to break free of them - what would it be like to be free of the need to control our world?To have it shaken a bit. To be Faith or Spike or Darla or any number of trickster characters? Our fascination with them is two fold - life is more interesting when it isn't controlled and the natural human desire to experiment with the unknown, to push past the boundaries, to explore - without that desire we wouldn't have computers, the internet, cures for diseases, books, or guns.
TV Rap & Whine...
Bored by most the offerings this week. Felt like rehashed plots. Alias keeps reminding me of La Femme Nikita. But I did watch this week's episode, because it gripped me more than the political preachiness of West Wing or the egotistical sniping of American Idol. While the plot in some ways was quite similar to the Nikita episode, where Nikita is poisoned, hallucinating, and Michael has to find a cure for her before she dies (the poison was given to her by Section to test Michael) - it focused on some trippy character issues. Such as Sydney's inability to trust the three male presences in her life: her father, Sloan (the mentor/evil father figure), and Vaughn (her handler/now boyfriend). Each one at a separate point in her life has tried to control her - either through withholding information or imposing information onto her. Now with this drug - her mind trapped in waking nightmare. She remains uncertain what information to trust. Information is her job. Manipulating it. Pilfering. Sharing it. And now, she can't trust it. The Nikita episode was in some respects more obvious (the acting better, but that's just because I prefer the actors who played Nikit and Michael to Syndney and Vaughn), less metaphor driven, this episode is subltler, vaguer. At the end of it, we the audience are left in somewhat the same position as Sydney - can we really trust these men? Should we? Even though they've proven they love her - can she ignore their ruthlessness? Much better episode than most. Also Dixon's last line to Sloan was worth the hour. I happen to be a Carl Lumby fan. So overall - I liked this episode better than the Nikita one, but still prefer the Nikita version. I think my reason for this is La Femme Nikita was about a woman desperately trying to hold on to her innocence, her compassion, her humanity - trying not to let the job she had strip it away from her. Nikita is a tragic tale, and Nikita herself a tragic heroine. Her journey is the dark side of Buffy's. In Nikita - the violence and torture is not done for laughs, it hurts, you want to look away from it. Nikita herself is tortured by what she's done and horrified by the toll it takes on her and everyone around her. When a gun was shot on that show, a life taken, we felt the cost of it. Alias? Violence is glossed over more, made more into a cartoon, fun with nifty music. Sydney doesn't feel the cost as much. She's still in some ways the wide-eyed kid. And that bugs me.
Medium? The last two episodes have left me sort of blah. Not sure why.
ER? Very good if somewhat preachy episode about Carrie finding her mother.
I taped to watch later - because it was an episode I'd been waiting for and I love Frances Fisher who played the role. And although I think the show may have been a little too heavy handed regarding the message - I wholeheartedly agreed with it. One of the reasons I refuse to attend church any longer (was raised Catholic) is the exclusion of homosexuals. I am not homosexual by the way nor do I believe my sexuality is relevant. I consider Christianity's dismissal of a whole group of people based on their sexual orientation incredibly hypocritical, offensive, and demeaning. This episode hit on the reasons I feel this way succinctly and to the point. I believe in God, I just believe God is unfathomable and does not care about silly things like sexuality. That's a human trait which we've in our arrogance, fear, and egoism imposed/projected onto something unfathomable to us.
Joan of Arcadia - comforting, somewhat sappy in places, but comforting. I like the range of character actresses this show continues to focus on.
Gilmore Girls - also oddly comforting. I enjoyed this weeks episode, even if portions of it grated.
Veronica Mars - not as good as the previous one, where the mother disappeared.
But still fascinating. These characters are definitely growing on me. Veronica's only draw-back is it's on opposite House. Damn Fox and their scheduling. Almost makes me wish I had a DVR (the cable version of Tivo).
BattleStar Galatica - best damn series on TV. Nail-biting episode. Lots of unpredictable twists and turns. And the acting continues to blow me away.
This week's episode - in a fitting tribute to both Arthur Miller (The Crucible) and to the witch hunts of the McCarthy era (which if we aren't careful, we could be in danger of repeating) - the Galatica crew deals with the concept that Cylons, the horrible enemy, may look and be one of them.
It's a lovey take on Serling's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street. The twist? One of the Cylons is one of them. In fact - she's one of their pilots.
Sleeping with the Chief. And if the Tribunal had been allowed to continue, they may have uncovered her. Or maybe not. That question is left unanswered.
The episode poses many questions and answers none of them. What is worse?
Letting the enemy walk amongst us? Or abridging our civil rights, living in a military state of suspicion and rigid rules? Having briefly experienced both scenarios? I'd rather let the enemy walk amongst us. Trust me - you do not want to live in East Germany during 1970-1980s. Seeing the World Trade Center Collasp was preferable to that bleak world. But why live in either? That's the third question posed. Who do you trust? What are willing to sacrifice? Is love worth any cost? Unlike the other shows on this week, Battlestar is the only one that doesn't answer our questions, doesn't give us a neat little morality lesson at the end. Instead, like its predecessors - The Twilight Zone, Star Trek Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Farscape, The Prisoner and Angel - it poses questions.
The irony is that the old Battlestar Galatica - was the opposite. It was a comforting parent to a wayward child. Each episode left us with a nice little morale straight from the mouth of Lorne Green - similar to the morals he left us with on Bonanza. In some ways that was what the old Battlestar was meant to be - a Bonanza in space. Which makes watching the new version all the more enjoyable.
no subject
no subject
I preferred the Angel/Darla relationship to Angel/Buffy partly because you were never sure. Here were two people who clearly cared about each other, who lusted after one another, but due to their separate and at times contrasting yet similar issues, they could not show or admit, even to themselves what they felt. So you got the dance. But underneath the dance - you see the affection, the sparks. There's always more sparkage, when the two people in the romance are staying just out of reach, but not quite.
Buffy/Spike was very similar to Darla/Angel. Two people who cared for one another, who were very much alike in some ways, but whose contrasting yet similar issues got in the way. They could never quite
admit or let down their guard with the other one without the fear of being kicked - and whenever they did - the timing was always just slightly off. What would have happened if Buffy had told Spike how she felt prior to the burning sequence? When he asked in End of Days, before her timely smooch with Angel?
And what would have happened if Spike had not been ready to leave the world when she finally said it?
We'll never know. Just as what would have happened if Darla got to keep her soul and wasn't vamped?
OR did have Connor without the staking? Or Angel never got cursed or never met Buffy? Is Buffy what the fakeSwami tells Angel - in Guise Will Be Guise - just a means of getting back at Darla??
What makes you wonder in BTVS and ATS - is who is the true love here? Is it Angel/Darla or Angel/Buffy?
Is it Spike/Dru or Spike Buffy? My take - was it was Angel/Darla and Spike/Buffy, but that's because those two relationships seemed to be the most equal - the least father/daughter, mother/son - but hey that's just my perspective.
no subject
Mine as well.
Re: Battlestar Galactica questions
It's not as sci-fi geek friendly, I think, as other sci-fi shows or the prior version. ie. Doesn't have its own slang. In the old version - we had constant references to centons and other made-up words. Same
with Firefly, Star Trek, Farscape, etc. Battlestar
seems to be less interested in using jargon for some reason - almost as if it is afraid the jargon will scare off the non-sci-fi audience or detract from the story? Not sure. In an odd way I find the lack of jargon refreshing and innovative...but I've never been a huge fan of sci-fi lingo. It's always been something I tolerated. Which I know puts me distinctly in the minority on my flist. ;-)
Re: Battlestar Galactica questions
If you tell me a good story with interesting characters, that I can connect to or identify with? I'm there. If you are just playing with themes or throwing tech lingo around, I'm bored. Which is actually my difficulty with so many science fiction short stories - they aren't about characters or really interested in telling a story - what they are interested in is either moralizing, preaching, or showing off with tech babble or witty satire. And that tends to bore me.
trying to catch up here...
I wonder if the fascination w/the bad boy/girl has more to do w/wanting to be with s/him or wanting to be s/him. Is what we really want the freedom to act the way we want without caring how it affects others--to manipulate others to get our way? Do we need to displace that onto a fantasy object so we can tell ourselves we're not like that? Sure, it can be a fun fantasy, but who'd want to be involved w/someone like that in real life? (No, really. W/real-life consequences.)
Me, I actually like nice. It's #1 on my list of desired characteristics. I don't think it makes someone bland or boring--never understood why some people think so. It's not enough by itself, but the thing is, that's never all there is to a person. You can have all sorts of other qualities, but if you're not nice too--I'm not interested.
I'm not so sure I agree about Angel & Riley being in control in their relationships w/Buffy. Angel, maybe in the beginning, but Buffy grew up a lot in dealing w/Angelus. I don't look at these relationships as parent/child, but Buffy was the one taking responsibility when Angel 1st returned, & Angel had plenty of childish moments. Riley liked the way Buffy took charge. When he & Angel finally faced off & it degenerated into a fistfight, Buffy was the closest thing I've seen on the show to a parent separating squabbling children.
On to your TV muse. (Is there a muse for TV? Poetry, music, dance, drama...but TV? Maybe we should come up w/a name for her--Videope?
I never got into Alias, & I gave up on this season during the premiere, so I can't really comment on it. I'm with ya on the Carl Lumbly fandom, though--the few times I watched, it was because I was channel-surfing & saw him. That wasn't enough this time around, though.
Agree about Medium being less satisfactory lately. What is & isn't revealed in her dreams & visions seems contrived lately. The ones that had Allison suspicious of her husband last week were especially eyeroll-worthy.
I'd given up on ER for this season, based on the end of last season. Too hyped up, & they substituted violence for drama at the end. But now I'm kinda sorry I didn't see last week's ep. I did watch this week's, & had a mixed reaction to the main storyline (from a stroke victim's POV, w/her internal voiceover). For someone who'd lost the ability to talk, she just talked too much.
I've tried Veronica Mars off & on. Still a tossup for me, w/some things I like & some that just don't do much for me. (But I love that the dog is named Backup!)
I'm not that impressed w/House. For 1 thing, I don't find it all that entertaining to watch the main character be nasty to the others. For another, in all 3 eps I watched, the plot was like a Tru Calling ep--the boyfriend killed her! no, the ex did it! no, he left the gun behind & she killed herself!--except w/diseases. Enough red herrings to feed a family of 4. I get tired of that. Plus I know too much about medicine to buy some of that stuff. (The prescription "cough medicine" was the worst. There is no such thing. A cough is way too generic a symptom. Anything you need a prescription for is going to be for the specific cause of the cough. That's why they never gave the name of the medicine--just of the one the patient got by mistake. Oh, & the standard reference book of prescription drugs has a section w/color pictures of commonly prescribed pills. But I guess it was more dramatic to have House open bottle after bottle of pills looking for the right ones, or actually, the wrong ones.)
Oops, was I ranting? Heh. Yeah, I'm 1 of those fans who like the science to be right. Even in science fiction, let alone science fact. Although I have wondered how much people who make up terms like "dilithium" get paid....
You're making me sorry I haven't been watching Battlestar Galactica! I guess I've been prejudiced based on the old series, which was as deeply stupid as Sunnydale cops. Think it's too late to catch up?
Re: trying to catch up here...
Me, I actually like nice. It's #1 on my list of desired characteristics. I don't think it makes someone bland or boring--never understood why some people think so. It's not enough by itself, but the thing is, that's never all there is to a person. You can have all sorts of other qualities, but if you're not nice too--I'm not interested.
Everyone is nice and everyone is cruel. It just depends who they are with. I've known some people that you would upon meeting them think this is the nicest person who walked the planet, charming, kind, joking, on the surface they are incredibly nice. But...ah but. One was a bank robber, in Leavenworth Penitentary. Very nice man. Very pleasant. Another, well an ex-boyfriend in college. Sweetheart as a friend, one of the nicest people on the planet. As a boyfriend? Well... we won't go there. The last a former boss,
also sweetheart, nice guy to everyone who didn't threaten his ego or challenge him. And wasn't ahem, a woman.
Evil can be very *nice*, very sweet. When asked about a next door neighbor who had been accussed of killing over 20 women, someone was known to have said:"oh but he was so NICE."
Me, I like nice fine. But I don't trust it. Or depend on it. People are complicated creatures, we all are nice and we all are cruel depending on the situation. Just look at the discussion boards - there are posters who are incredibly nice to certain people and incredibly cruel to others. Are they nice people? Well, it depends on who you ask.
Now don't misunderstand me - I like nice. I despise conflict. I avoid confrontation in real life and when cruelty comes a calling, I leave the room and choose not to engage. No one likes to be with someone who is mean, no one chooses that. Real life ain't that easy. People aren't black and white. We don't have nice guys in one corner and mean guys in the other. Sometimes I wish we did, make life easier, but also sort of boring I suppose. Part of being human is that predatory nature that lies in us all, like it or not we are predators, we are animals, we are competitive and we aren't always nice.
I'm not so sure I agree about Angel & Riley being in control in their relationships w/Buffy. Angel, maybe in the beginning, but Buffy grew up a lot in dealing w/Angelus. I don't look at these relationships as parent/child, but Buffy was the one taking responsibility when Angel 1st returned, & Angel had plenty of childish moments. Riley liked the way Buffy took charge. When he & Angel finally faced off & it degenerated into a fistfight, Buffy was the closest thing I've seen on the show to a parent separating squabbling children.
My difficulties with Riley might actually have more to do with Marc Blucas than the character. Marc Blucas is one of those actors who bores me silly. In my humble opinion he has the screen chemistry of television test pattern and about as many expressions as Keanu Reeves, except not nearly as pretty. Stiff, cute guy.
Bores me silly. He's not alone - there's a whole list of actors who I just can't watch on-screen without becoming distracted, flipping channels or getting bored. And they all have the same exact acting style as Blucas. The stiff, almost, but not quite expressionless, stoic, *way* less is more deal:
1. Keanu Reeves
2. Matt Damon (with the exception of Good Will Hunting, and Bourne movies (which this worked in))
3. Ben Affleck...(although he may well be the most expressive of the bunch)
4. Richard Burgi (currently on Point Pleasant as the father of Christina character)
5. Grant Show
6. Richard Dean Anderson
7. Marc Blucas
8. Michael Vartan (Vaughn on Alias).
And Leonardo Di Caprio (although I think he has a great deal of talent, just no screen charisma - bores me, except for Romeo & Juliet and Catch if You Can.) Also David Boreanze - he was fine as Angel, but to be honest, I didn't watch Angel for Boreanze, I watched it for everyone else - Boreanze's acting tends to bore me.
It's subjective, I know.
Re: trying to catch up here...
It's very serialized. But I think you could figure it out.
Each episode is amazing. Tonight's one of the best I've seen.
And actually demonstrated some of what I was talking about above about nice. Very interesting show. Not at all like the original series in any respect.
Part II...regarding relationships and tv
Let's face it - Mutant Enemy wasn't interested in writing about nice happy people. And you weren't all that interested in watching it - or you'd have been watching the Gilmore Girls which was on opposite at the same time or for that matter Touched by An Angel or Seventh Heaven which were on opposite Angel on Sundays. Not because you don't like nice or I don't like nice, we do, we just prefer it when it's real and not a bland comforting fantasy. Not that Gilmore Girls is bland, it's not. We like to see drama, conflict on TV - see what happens when someone does something, we've considered, and when it blows up in their faces - we are reassured we didn't do it. Enjoying something on TV does not mean we enjoy it in reality. Loving a fantasy does not mean we want the reality. The biggest mistake you can make is assuming it does. That's what's fun about fiction or fantasy or dreams - they aren't real - and therefore anything goes, without consequences without pain. The danger occurrs when we attempt to make them real or when lines get blurred and we can't tell the difference.