(no subject)

[shadowkat]

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.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

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.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

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...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

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.