But as far as Buffy goes I paradoxically find less demonstrative characters easier to read, it's as if the big loud emotional displays blare out all the underlying subtleties. It's often hard to remember that it works differently for other people, many of whom disliked S7 as you say.
It is hard to remember. I've been thinking about that a lot. How people just plain think and see things differently, no matter how many interests or values they may have in common. We all forget this, I think - assuming everyone is seeing it more or less the same way. And it's sooo frustrating when they don't. For example - I've fallen in love with the Dresden Files and adore Paul Blackthorn's performance, but am clearly in the minority - the frustration is that I know it will be cancelled in favor of a tv show and performances that do nothing for me and do not work for me - such as Doctor Who or a series like Star-Gate.
Buffy was much the same way - I think. I remember getting into heated debates with people way back in 2003 regarding the acting. A lot of people said that the actors were phoning it in in S7. They weren't emoting as much and were more restrained. Quite a few fans in fact, believed that James Marsters was a better actor in the earlier seasons, when he was more demonstrative and less restrained. Marsters would *completely* disagree - stating he was far too theaterical and projected too much for the screen and that his performance was actually the best in S7 BTVS and S5 ATS, and that the earlier work, such as Fool For Love makes him cringe. Who's right? No one. It's what works for you. Like you state above. They are just different approachs or styles.
It becomes frustrating when the majority likes a style I don't like, because of course that's the one that will win. Usually it is the more restrained, almost stoic style - at least lately. The character barely twitchs a la Emily Deschanel on Bones or David Boreanze. I need more than a twitch, otherwise in my view I'm watching pretty statues walk across the screen. OTOH - I hate it when they ham it up or go way over the top. Balance - it's all about balance.
But I think, as a non-comic reader, the thing I enjoyed about this one was how off kilter it made me. My problem with the previous issue was how quickly it went by, it was hard to get very invested but this one I had to keep skipping back to confirm that what I thought I was reading was actually happening and I'm still not sure. It's been such a long time the series was over that I'd forgotten the sheer excitement of not knowing what to make of things, what might happen, that Whedon is not a safe writer. It's all rather giddy making.
I'd agree, it is the aspect of the story I've always liked. The ambiguity. The little touches. Makes the analytical part of me jump up and down for joy and it is one of the many reasons I'm still in love with Buffy..
The good comic books are actually like this. There's several that are not clear cut - you just need to know what to look for. It's like any medium - there's great stuff, ho-hum, and interesting. Not unlike tv in that way. ;-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 10:30 pm (UTC)It is hard to remember. I've been thinking about that a lot. How people just plain think and see things differently, no matter how many interests or values they may have in common. We all forget this, I think - assuming everyone is seeing it more or less the same way.
And it's sooo frustrating when they don't. For example - I've fallen in love with the Dresden Files and adore Paul Blackthorn's performance, but am clearly in the minority - the frustration is that I know it will be cancelled in favor of a tv show and performances that do nothing for me and do not work for me - such as Doctor Who or a series like Star-Gate.
Buffy was much the same way - I think. I remember getting into heated debates with people way back in 2003 regarding the acting. A lot of people said that the actors were phoning it in in S7. They weren't emoting as much and were more restrained. Quite a few fans in fact, believed that James Marsters was a better actor in the earlier seasons, when he was more demonstrative and less restrained. Marsters would *completely* disagree - stating he was far too theaterical and projected too much for the screen and that his performance was actually the best in S7 BTVS and S5 ATS, and that the earlier work, such as Fool For Love makes him cringe. Who's right? No one. It's what works for you. Like you state above. They are just different approachs or styles.
It becomes frustrating when the majority likes a style I don't like, because of course that's the one that will win. Usually it is the more restrained, almost stoic style - at least lately. The character barely twitchs a la Emily Deschanel on Bones or David Boreanze. I need more than a twitch, otherwise in my view I'm watching pretty statues walk across the screen. OTOH - I hate it when they ham it up or go way over the top. Balance - it's all about balance.
But I think, as a non-comic reader, the thing I enjoyed about this one was how off kilter it made me. My problem with the previous issue was how quickly it went by, it was hard to get very invested but this one I had to keep skipping back to confirm that what I thought I was reading was actually happening and I'm still not sure. It's been such a long time the series was over that I'd forgotten the sheer excitement of not knowing what to make of things, what might happen, that Whedon is not a safe writer. It's all rather giddy making.
I'd agree, it is the aspect of the story I've always liked. The ambiguity. The little touches. Makes the analytical part of me jump up and down for joy and it is one of the many reasons I'm still in love with Buffy..
The good comic books are actually like this. There's several that are not clear cut - you just need to know what to look for. It's like any medium - there's great stuff, ho-hum, and interesting. Not unlike tv in that way. ;-)