shadowkat | (no subject)

(no subject)

Well, I polished up the 28 pages of story I've written. (Single-spaced). But
can't seem to get any further tonight. More interested in snarking for a bit on my live journal.

Today? Not as frustrating as yesterday. Actually sort of pleasant. And there's a new Veronica Mars on tonight, which I'm looking forward to. Supposed to be one of the best written episodes of the series. (Which means I'll probably be disappointed in it - much better off when I go into things with low expectations. I'm a critical bitch in case you haven't noticed, and going into anything with high expectations is not a good thing.) Hmmm...is the better mood and work bringing out the snarky side of me?

According to whedonesque they are considering a Spike Movie. Not sure this is necessarily a good thing. First off - what would it be about? Spike solving some mystery of the week? Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd watch it. But I'd watch Marsters read the phone book, actually I think I have watched him read the phone book - no wait, that was The Mountain. I'd also watch just about anything Whedon did - with a few minor exceptions (Alien Resurrection - have yet to make it through that film, and a few other things he ghost wrote.) Not so keen on his comic books though. Fray...not gripping me. Could be a mood thing.

Do want to see Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy and since my neice's first b-day party has been moved to May 14th and is no longer this weekend, I might take myself to it. Haven't read the book - so no worries of comparing it. (yes, that's right someone out there has not read Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy - the shame! the shame! Nor has any interest in doing so. I did however see two or three of the tv episodes when I was a child. Have vague memories of them.) Also looking forward to seeing Batman Begins, Star Wars Revenge of The Sith, V is for Vendetta, War of the Worlds, Charlie and The Chocolat Factory,
Harry Potter, Serenity, yes - when it comes to movies, I'm a bit of a geek.
I like the fun ones. (I also love the serious ones - but do not necessarily need to see them in the movie theater - can rent those.) My pal Wales on the other hand is interested in seeing Crash, Palindromes...(which could be interesting, but also depressing if I know Todd Solondze).

Got bogged down with the L Word. Episodes 9-12 did not enthuse me. (Still talking S1 here folks). Everyone but Shane and possibly Bette started grating on my nerves. And I really don't like the direction they took with Dana, who was my favorite character. I adored her and the sous chef. (By the way - I didn't know Tina was played by the same actress who played Justine. That's where I've seen her before?? I think I liked her better as Justine, which is weird. I know.)

Okay, must eat - then off to watch Gilmore Girls (please be better than the last two weeks episodes, although I did enjoy the Luke bits - Luke is becoming my favorite character), and Veronica Mars.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thing is, there's a lot that could be explored in a Spike movie.
For a character who was on the show that long, he's never had someone that loved him as much as he loved them. He's never had friends that were his and not someone elses that he just happened to hang with.

I would like to see him deal with life in his way, cause for Spike it wouldn't be about fighting crime, it'd be about life, even if he is dead.

I would love to see how Spike's story moves on, when he can't hide into being someone's back up. When he's alone and has to make a way in life for himself and not for someone elses sake.

Sure there could be fights and action and...

Thing is... I don't think that right now, seeing how Joss left the chars from Buffy, that aside of Spike and Gunn, that there's anyone else I'd want to watch.

I still haven't watched Firefly, but what I've heard of it just doesn't at all interest me. I thought the Buffyverse was interesting, but mostly cause Spike was in it.
And I'd love to see someone, anyone, explore the importance of a vampire voluntarily deciding to break out of the box and choose to make his own decisions, wether good or evil, by regaining his soul.
Cause they damn sure never showed any consequences of that on either Buffy or Angel. (hell, if you'd watch Angel and believe some of the crap he and his friends put out, you'd almost think that it's more important and more admirable to be cursed with a soul after the rape, torture and murder of a young woman, than it is to actually fight for your soul *grumble*)

I don't think you'd like what they chose to do with a Spike movie. Because remember the same writers are involved and their interest with the character and issues are very different.

Truthfully, I think the point of the character was the contrasts. The fool for love aspect. The need to belong, but not quite doing so. The very things that obsessed you with him - were what made him work. Can't see a writer letting go of or resolving those issues. Nor should they. Especially in a one or two hour movie.

I have a feeling if they did a Spike movie - you'd hate it. Because I can't see them addressing any of your issues, for some of the same reasons they didn't in the series.

I'm only speaking for myself, of course, but I'm enjoying Season 2 of The L Word much more than I did Season 1.

Sunday, that is--if I haven't gone to bed yet, I figure it's still Monday. I went w/my brother to see it at the Ziegfeld--definitely recommend seeing it on a big screen. It's fun, although there are some missteps; you may be better off for not having read the book, I'm sorry to say. They switched some things around for no reason I could see, although some changes--mostly visual ones, where they certainly have more leeway--worked pretty well, & there were some nice tributes to the 1st TV version. My major beef w/the film was the ending, which had almost nothing to do w/the book except for involving the same characters; I'll leave further comment for after you've seen it, rather than spoil you in even a general way. I will say I was surprised how many of the lines I could mouth as they were said onscreen, more than 20 years after reading the book, although that may be partly attributable to the fact that many of them have been immortalized on buttons! My biggest disappointment, though, was that the previews didn't include Serenity!

I'll be interested to know what you think of it. I'll definitely have more to say once you've posted about it.

Please don't go to see V For Vendetta unless the reviews are fantastic. Based on the pre-release publicity, it looks like being a travesty on the scale of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film, and paying money to the film-makers will just encourage Hollywood to keep on disembowelling good comics.

Dang. Sorry to hear that - it looked like it could be interesting. I think there's another one - starring Keira Knightly, which may be better (not based on that comic) which I can't remember the name of - but in a similar vein.

Agree with you about the disembowelling of good comics. There's only been a couple of films that have transferred the medium well: Sin City (may be the best - having literally transferred the graphics to the screen, still not sure if that is necessarily the best approach, but it is at least innovative and interesting), Superman (the first movie starring Reeve), Batman (the first one starring Keaton), Hellboy (not too bad), Spiderman 2,
and possibly X-Men 2. League was laughable and dull. I rented it once.
Not worth that. Made Connery a bit of a joke in the industry - they consider it his vanity project. Curious to see if Gilman ever gets Watchman to the screen. Strange that comics don't get transfered more often or far better than they do - considering the story-boarding part has pretty much already been done for the filmmaker, all they have to do is film it.

Hello Shadowkat! Do you remember me (from the Cross and Stake Spoiler Board)?

I've never wanted a Spike spin-off but I'd like to see a Spike movie. I'm sure there's a lot to tell about Spike. And if it's a Spike centric work, they'd make an effort, wouldn't they? I mean Joss or even David Fury, or Jane Espenson would write something deep enough to fit in Spike's journey.

I miss Spike.

If I were a good JM fan I should rather wish him other roles to play...

But I miss Spike...

Chani

Yep, remember you. Thanks for posting.

Also hear you - miss Spike myself. Haven't seen JM play anything close to the depths of that character - which means it was the writing as much as the actor portraying him that captivated me. If they did a movie - the only people I'd want writing it would be: Whedon. Who put a great deal of his own issues and what he knew or identified with in Marsters in the character.

Fury, Deknight, Espenson, Goddard, Petrie and Marti also got the character. But he's Whedon's boy. Question is - does Whedon have anything else to say about him or would he just be doing it for the job?

Don't get me wrong - I think there is quite a bit more to be said about the character - things that were left out, due to the fact that we were in Angel or Buffy's story. All we learned about Spike - was what was needed to enhance their stories or what would affect those characters journeys literally or metaphorically. He was often used as a tool to explore them - a doppleganger for Angel, a shadow for Buffy. Just as Angel was to a degree when he was a supporting player. We didn't get to delve into the character until he got a series. When I read comics - I used to love the old limited series - Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat and Wolverine - because they gave us a chance to see who these people are outside of the main action. Like the Zeppo did for Xander. Or Dopplegangland does for Willow. Fool For Love sort of does it for Spike. Lies My Parents Told Me, unfortunately, is trying to do too much in a short period of time, so doesn't do it as well - so things got a bit muddled. They tried to explore Wood, Giles, Buffy and Spike's issues all within the same episode. While Fool For Love focused primarily on Riley and Spike's - mostly Spike's with Riley in the background.

Part of the reason I got obsessed, was the gaps. I found the character of William fascinating. The fact that William lay behind the Spike bravado, interested me. Partly because I got that. I understood the snark. The desire to be with people, but uncertainity. The constant downplay of certain talents. Here was a former scholar, a writer, a poet - who kept telling everyone he wasn't much of a thinker and wasn't all that bright.
Yet - he always has just the right one-liner and quip. Very quick with the word play. What I liked about Whedon is how he played with words or what people said - showing that what you see? Isn't necessarily what you get.
He liked peeling back the masque and showing the opposite of expectation.
He also didn't mind sick and twisted story lines. Wasn't afraid of them.
As long as it showed something new about the character and did not hurt people too much.

I understand your point of view. I agree about Spike being Whedon's boy but Joss might not be available...and I really think that David Fury gets the character pretty well. Without him "Destiny" (my favourite Ats episode) wouldn't have been the same.

And yes Spike, as all the characters, mostly was used to tell a story about Buffy (except in FFL) or about Angel. BTW I didn't like LMTM much. I think they got William wrong (I LOVE William!)and the episode was above all about The Slayer. IMO they didn't explore Giles' issues, they wrote Wood's plot and Giles' betrayal because Buffy needed to grow apart from her surrogate father. It was still the story of growing-up and at some point children must face their parents' flaws and failures. William's and Wood's own experiences were only there to echoe Buffy's epiphany. From then on, for Buffy Giles was no longer super-Watcher.
Giles' character has never been that under-developed than in season 7. He was a pure tool then.

"Sleeper" is the true Spike centric episode of the season IMO.

But I agree a Spike episode should focus on William, or rather on the fact that William was a potential Spike and Spike is still William. Spike told Buffy he wasn't a thinker the same way William told Cecily he was a bad poet. The main features of Spike were already there in FFL William.

JM might never find such a role again...

PS: I friended you, hope you don't mind...

Don't mind the friending. (Just as long as you understand that I'm cutting back on my flist, so can't friend anyone else, it's too long for me to manage at the moment.)

Regarding the whole writer thing - I think Fury has his hits and misses.
He wrote most of Lies My Parents Told Me - the episode you didn't like.
And we don't know how much of Sleeper he wrote - that was co-written with Espenson, who may have done a good portion of it. Destiney? Co-written with Deknight (who also wrote Dead Things and Seeing Red).

Lies? The difficulty with the episode is how ambitious it was. It may have been one of the most ambitious episodes they tried, which is why I liked it. Not comforting. Not nice. Very sick and twisted in places. And no one comes out smelling rosy. I know people who have a visceral dislike for that episode, who despised Spike afterwards because they identified with Wood so closely. Or rather the Nikki-Wood relationship. Others who hated it because of Giles lack of use. Except if you look at the season metaphorically and at what the writers were trying to do - Giles should have stayed in the background, peripheral, we weren't in his point of view after all but in Buffy's. It wasn't the Giles show. It wasn't an ensemble show like Firefly. It was a show were the principle focus was a girl's coming of age and at that point in her life - the father figure becomes a shadowy presence, inconsequential, more of an annoyance than a help. Which if you look at Giles in S7 is exactly how he appears to us. It's basically a case of the fan wanting something different from the story than what the writer wishes to tell.

Which is why I caution you regarding the Spike movie - it's as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

saw hitchhiker's guide yesterday

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject