Q&A...before bed
Aug. 26th, 2010 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatLJ is still attempting to make me watch video ads. But my no scripts stops them. Hee. Go me. (Sorry, I refuse to pay for the privilege of blogging. Not when other people out there are being paid for it!)
Kidbro is coming very close to convincing me to buy a MacBook Pro - 12 inch lap-top. We've been discussing it via email at work. Short spastic emails back and forth. Kidbro is a man of few words. He tells me that he will only own Macs, that once I get a Mac, I'll never turn back, and that it is more intuitive and user friendly than the PC. Although loading MAC software can be expensive (it's expensive for PC's). Price wise they are actually about the same. Sure Dell talks a good game, but once you're down, you're paying close to 3K. And no, I can't afford a cheap computer - been there done that. Better to spend the dough up front. I purchase things for a living - I've learned that playing the penny-wise pound-foolish game is a bad idea. Always better to purchase high quality, then try to save by going with what appears to be a bargain. Because you'll most likely end -up paying for it through the nose later. (And yes, I know I used a ton of biz slang in that paragraph. Good luck to the non-English folks on the flist. Mucho apologies.)
Last count - poll on the computer was tied. Apparently there are more PC users on flist than I knew about. I thought everyone had a Mac, but me. Teach me to make stupid assumptions about flist. Facebook was sort of entertaining - there was a brief disagreement about PC vs. Mac. Cousin HK was pushing PC over a slew of Mac lovers. Eight comments, and she was the only pro-PC. Her argument however was somewhat lame - don't go Mac, because it has a steep learning curve. Uh, how steep can it be? Kid bro disagreed. She also argued that you can't install flash on Safari, which met with disagreement - a Mac user wondered why she wasn't using Firefox. I was rather amused by the whole thing. But... The IT blokes - former boss, included, extolled the wonders of Mac Pro. So who to trust? I'll probably check prices, and go with my gut in the end.
In other news: Dexter S4 continues to rock. Best season of that show to date. It's not slowed down yet. Seasons 1-3 all had that problem, got sluggish in the middle. I'm thinking John Lithgow may have a lot to do with this - he is rather brilliant as the Trinity killer. It's also the writing. And Dexter's voice overs this season are hilarious. In last night's episode, he ended up saving the Trinity Killer twice. He intended to kill him. "No - you don't get to kill yourself! That's my job! You're not taking that away from me!" Dexter tells us as he swoops in to save Trinity. Then as Trinity hangs off the building, with Dexter holding his hand..."wait, if I let go of you, you will die, by my hand, and no one will blame me...hmmm" and it is at that point, the habitat for humanity people swoop in and help poor Dexter save the serial killer Trinity. LOL! (Yes, I have a sick sense of humor, we know this.)
As an aside, is it just me or does Lj have a bad habit of double or triple posting. This has happened to me a number of times. Highly annoying. Mucho apologies for the triple posting, was unintentional. Corrected the moment it was discovered. Seems to happen when I correct or edit a post that has been posted.
Regarding yesterday's questions? My own answers are below in case anyone is remotely interested.
Do you think Whedon did not intend Angel and Spike to be integral characters to the series, and resented the fact that they in fact became integral to it? That he wanted the series to be more black and white in tone, and the vampires to equal disease and death solely?
Uh. No. To the extent that we can ever know such things. Although I can see why people think that, particularly after reading the comments to my last post on it - thank for that by the way. And admittedly, several of the actors and writers certainly did believe this was true to one degree or another. But I've seen and read most of the things Whedon's done, as well as almost all of his interviews and the above statement just doesn't fit the pattern of his work or his background. Toy Story was not a black and white universe and the relationship between Woody and Buzz Lightyear is very similar to the relationship between Spike and Angel. Whedon - also studied the same film genres that I did and some of the same books, and literary criticism. The man was obsessed with Shakespeare and the early works of James Cameron (both of which I also studied as an undergrad) - Whedon is about two-three years older than me. He was schooled in the western genre and horror noir, weaned on Terminator, Star Wars, Rio Bravo, the Searchers, and John Ford. Plus all those slasher films of the 1970s through 1980s. And I saw the Buffy movie, not only the movie, but read the crappy novelization in the book store. The Buffy Movie - starring Luke Perry as Pike, and Rutger Hauer as Lothos (and yes, Hauer was hotter than Perry), was your campy, black and white vampire flick. Whedon hated it. Absolutely hated it. What Whedon wanted to do with Buffy was to write a female version of a slasher flick - where the little blond girl is the thing that scares the monsters. Instead of dying in the alley or on the eve of losing her virginity, she kills the vamps. You can see him going against that old trope in the opening episode - with Darla playing the innocent blond Catholic school girl - who in most of these shows, including True Blood, Vampire Diaries, et al - gets killed. In Whedon's show, she is the killer - she kills the guy, not the opposite. We are expecting him to kill her. Angel is similarily introduced as the mysterious guy, the brooding love interest, the cliche. But Whedon seeks to subvert that standard trope - he's the nice guy, turned evil, and she defeats him. It was meant to be homage to his Mom - who unfortunately died before he ever got to show it to her. She died of Cancer sometime around 1996 or thereabouts. It was before the TV show aired.
He may not have intended for Angel and Spike to get the fan following they did. But he'd have to be an idiot to have resented it, in my opinion. If Angel and Spike hadn't taken off, the show would most likely have not lasted more than two seasons if that. It would have been Scooby Doo Where Are You without Angel and Spike. Which, ahem, no. Also, hello, spin-off. Whedon co-created, and co-produced Angel the Series. That was not just Greenwalt's baby. They created it together. And it was produced by Whedon's production company Mutant Enemy. So, if Whedon resented Angel or disliked Angel - why in the hell would he create a spin-off featuring that character? Also, why would he want the Angel license to revert back to Dark Horse - so he could finish Angel's story? Plus, Whedon actually wrote the pilot episode for Angel the Series not Greenwalt - that was Amends. He also wrote the critical Spike sequences in Fool for Love and Beneath You. I don't know, Whedon's a clever enough writer to get rid of characters and actors he doesn't like or don't work. (Ex. Cordelia and the somewhat self-absorbed Charisma Carpenter.).
Whedon as near as I can figure is an intiutive writer, who doesn't really plan things. You can't plan that well in TV anyhow. The medium sort of works against you. It's not like writing a novel or a fanfic. And often in television what many writers do is throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. I saw that happening a lot on Buffy. They would throw plots or characters out there and see what took off and what didn't. The Initiative storyline clearly did not take off and was more or less placed on the back burner or dropped. Riley - same deal - he disappeared fairly quickly. Spike and Dru were dynamite. Surprised the heck out of everyone. So they changed the entire plan. Note - when they created the two characters, Dru had been cast, but Spike was an unknown quantity. They couldn't find anyone and had gone through over 1000 candidates. Marsters literally came out of the blue, just as David Boreanze had with Angel.
Spike was initially supposed to be Southern, with a Cajun accent (sort of like Gambit in the X-men, actually the initial description of Spike reminds me a lot of Gambit except as a vampire, or maybe Lestate from Anne Rice - which may be a closer fit.) Marti had already pitched and written Dru for Juliet Landau. Then they thought, no, we should go for a punk look, a sort of Sid Vicious style character. We'll have Angel stake him and become the big bad. Perfect. (Also terribly cliche - I've seen that done in the comic books one too many times, very glad they didn't go that route for that reason amongst many others). Enter James Marsters, an unknown theater actor, whose chemistry with both Juliet Landau and David Boreanze blew everyone away. (according to interviews at the time, he tested with both actors and both actors pushed for him to get the role). Whedon took one look at Marsters, and said, dye his hair blond, kill the dark cajun look, go for punk rocker - Billy Idol meets Sid Vicious, and a British Accent. If he didn't want the character to take off? He wouldn't have made that decision. Often a character will take off on a writer, we don't expect it. IT's not planned.
IT happens. And only a really stupid writer would resent it. That's gold. Whedon may be a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. You don't get where Whedon has in the industry if you are stupid.
I think Whedon's flexible. He doesn't commit to a storyline. He is fluid. You have to be to work in tv. It's unforgiving of those who aren't.
I also believe that Whedon loves to take humongous risks with his characters. Some writers take situational risks - they throw their characters into all sorts of bizarre situations but the characters themselves never really change that much. (Star-Gate, Bones, Eureka, X-Files, Star Trek are all examples of this type of story-telling). This is fairly safe writing. The characters never really do anything atrocious, they are comforting to the viewer. The viewer knows that the characters will most likely survive or be rescued and that they will end up happy. Most tv shows go this route. Other writers take risks with the characters themselves, their characters create the situation, and they change a great deal in the process - often by the end of these stories - you find yourself marveling at them. I personally prefer this type of writing, even if it can at times be frustrating and painful to see a favorite character jump into the proverbial abyss. Because I find this less predictable and far more interesting, not to mention more real. But it is not safe writing. And more often than not, gets a series canceled before its time. (Examples: American Gothic, Being Human, Farscape, Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, Grey's Anatomy, Dexter, True Blood, BSG, Caprica, Breaking Bad, Mad Men,
Rescue Me, Damages...). Whedon is a writer who takes huge risks with his characters. Sure he thrusts them into bizarre situations, but more often than not the situations are ones of the characters own making. Not something that has been thrust on to them or an external force has created. And even when an external force is involved - the characters don't come out of it well. They are damaged, broken, changed. Whedon's tv shows aren't SAFE. And one often feels a bit like a masochist watching them, particularly if you allow yourself to fall in love with or become attached to a character.
To me, as a writer and reader, there's no point if you aren't taking a risk. It's the one place in my life that I don't want to play it safe necessarily. I feel at times that I play it safe pretty much everywhere else. Here - I feel I should and can take risks. But not everyone feels that way. Most people don't. They may take huge risks in their everyday lives and when they watch tv or read a book or write a story - they like "safe".
This brings me to the harder question of the two posed and the far less safe one. Because it is more personal. What turns me off is often those things that bug me the most about myself. I can't abide dogmatic or self-righteousness. Yet, I'm well aware that I can at times be both.
Hypocrisy amuses me, because I've learned it is a human trait. But it also drives me bonkers.
But that's not answering the question - those are general things.
I think what will launch me into rant mode is usually when I feel I've been attacked or my tastes or interests have been attacked. I'll also do it when I feel like a writer/actor has disappointed me. When I thought they were doing one thing or represented one thing, and discovered I was wrong. This happened recently with both James Marsters and Joss Whedon. They disappointed me. And I found that I could not look at or respect either man in quite the same way again. That does not mean I can't enjoy their work, I can. I'm just not a "FAN" any longer.
(And no, I'm not going to tell you what it was.)
Sigh, guess it's too late to go watch another episode of Dexter before bed?
Thank God tomorrow is Friday.
Kidbro is coming very close to convincing me to buy a MacBook Pro - 12 inch lap-top. We've been discussing it via email at work. Short spastic emails back and forth. Kidbro is a man of few words. He tells me that he will only own Macs, that once I get a Mac, I'll never turn back, and that it is more intuitive and user friendly than the PC. Although loading MAC software can be expensive (it's expensive for PC's). Price wise they are actually about the same. Sure Dell talks a good game, but once you're down, you're paying close to 3K. And no, I can't afford a cheap computer - been there done that. Better to spend the dough up front. I purchase things for a living - I've learned that playing the penny-wise pound-foolish game is a bad idea. Always better to purchase high quality, then try to save by going with what appears to be a bargain. Because you'll most likely end -up paying for it through the nose later. (And yes, I know I used a ton of biz slang in that paragraph. Good luck to the non-English folks on the flist. Mucho apologies.)
Last count - poll on the computer was tied. Apparently there are more PC users on flist than I knew about. I thought everyone had a Mac, but me. Teach me to make stupid assumptions about flist. Facebook was sort of entertaining - there was a brief disagreement about PC vs. Mac. Cousin HK was pushing PC over a slew of Mac lovers. Eight comments, and she was the only pro-PC. Her argument however was somewhat lame - don't go Mac, because it has a steep learning curve. Uh, how steep can it be? Kid bro disagreed. She also argued that you can't install flash on Safari, which met with disagreement - a Mac user wondered why she wasn't using Firefox. I was rather amused by the whole thing. But... The IT blokes - former boss, included, extolled the wonders of Mac Pro. So who to trust? I'll probably check prices, and go with my gut in the end.
In other news: Dexter S4 continues to rock. Best season of that show to date. It's not slowed down yet. Seasons 1-3 all had that problem, got sluggish in the middle. I'm thinking John Lithgow may have a lot to do with this - he is rather brilliant as the Trinity killer. It's also the writing. And Dexter's voice overs this season are hilarious. In last night's episode, he ended up saving the Trinity Killer twice. He intended to kill him. "No - you don't get to kill yourself! That's my job! You're not taking that away from me!" Dexter tells us as he swoops in to save Trinity. Then as Trinity hangs off the building, with Dexter holding his hand..."wait, if I let go of you, you will die, by my hand, and no one will blame me...hmmm" and it is at that point, the habitat for humanity people swoop in and help poor Dexter save the serial killer Trinity. LOL! (Yes, I have a sick sense of humor, we know this.)
As an aside, is it just me or does Lj have a bad habit of double or triple posting. This has happened to me a number of times. Highly annoying. Mucho apologies for the triple posting, was unintentional. Corrected the moment it was discovered. Seems to happen when I correct or edit a post that has been posted.
Regarding yesterday's questions? My own answers are below in case anyone is remotely interested.
Do you think Whedon did not intend Angel and Spike to be integral characters to the series, and resented the fact that they in fact became integral to it? That he wanted the series to be more black and white in tone, and the vampires to equal disease and death solely?
Uh. No. To the extent that we can ever know such things. Although I can see why people think that, particularly after reading the comments to my last post on it - thank for that by the way. And admittedly, several of the actors and writers certainly did believe this was true to one degree or another. But I've seen and read most of the things Whedon's done, as well as almost all of his interviews and the above statement just doesn't fit the pattern of his work or his background. Toy Story was not a black and white universe and the relationship between Woody and Buzz Lightyear is very similar to the relationship between Spike and Angel. Whedon - also studied the same film genres that I did and some of the same books, and literary criticism. The man was obsessed with Shakespeare and the early works of James Cameron (both of which I also studied as an undergrad) - Whedon is about two-three years older than me. He was schooled in the western genre and horror noir, weaned on Terminator, Star Wars, Rio Bravo, the Searchers, and John Ford. Plus all those slasher films of the 1970s through 1980s. And I saw the Buffy movie, not only the movie, but read the crappy novelization in the book store. The Buffy Movie - starring Luke Perry as Pike, and Rutger Hauer as Lothos (and yes, Hauer was hotter than Perry), was your campy, black and white vampire flick. Whedon hated it. Absolutely hated it. What Whedon wanted to do with Buffy was to write a female version of a slasher flick - where the little blond girl is the thing that scares the monsters. Instead of dying in the alley or on the eve of losing her virginity, she kills the vamps. You can see him going against that old trope in the opening episode - with Darla playing the innocent blond Catholic school girl - who in most of these shows, including True Blood, Vampire Diaries, et al - gets killed. In Whedon's show, she is the killer - she kills the guy, not the opposite. We are expecting him to kill her. Angel is similarily introduced as the mysterious guy, the brooding love interest, the cliche. But Whedon seeks to subvert that standard trope - he's the nice guy, turned evil, and she defeats him. It was meant to be homage to his Mom - who unfortunately died before he ever got to show it to her. She died of Cancer sometime around 1996 or thereabouts. It was before the TV show aired.
He may not have intended for Angel and Spike to get the fan following they did. But he'd have to be an idiot to have resented it, in my opinion. If Angel and Spike hadn't taken off, the show would most likely have not lasted more than two seasons if that. It would have been Scooby Doo Where Are You without Angel and Spike. Which, ahem, no. Also, hello, spin-off. Whedon co-created, and co-produced Angel the Series. That was not just Greenwalt's baby. They created it together. And it was produced by Whedon's production company Mutant Enemy. So, if Whedon resented Angel or disliked Angel - why in the hell would he create a spin-off featuring that character? Also, why would he want the Angel license to revert back to Dark Horse - so he could finish Angel's story? Plus, Whedon actually wrote the pilot episode for Angel the Series not Greenwalt - that was Amends. He also wrote the critical Spike sequences in Fool for Love and Beneath You. I don't know, Whedon's a clever enough writer to get rid of characters and actors he doesn't like or don't work. (Ex. Cordelia and the somewhat self-absorbed Charisma Carpenter.).
Whedon as near as I can figure is an intiutive writer, who doesn't really plan things. You can't plan that well in TV anyhow. The medium sort of works against you. It's not like writing a novel or a fanfic. And often in television what many writers do is throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. I saw that happening a lot on Buffy. They would throw plots or characters out there and see what took off and what didn't. The Initiative storyline clearly did not take off and was more or less placed on the back burner or dropped. Riley - same deal - he disappeared fairly quickly. Spike and Dru were dynamite. Surprised the heck out of everyone. So they changed the entire plan. Note - when they created the two characters, Dru had been cast, but Spike was an unknown quantity. They couldn't find anyone and had gone through over 1000 candidates. Marsters literally came out of the blue, just as David Boreanze had with Angel.
Spike was initially supposed to be Southern, with a Cajun accent (sort of like Gambit in the X-men, actually the initial description of Spike reminds me a lot of Gambit except as a vampire, or maybe Lestate from Anne Rice - which may be a closer fit.) Marti had already pitched and written Dru for Juliet Landau. Then they thought, no, we should go for a punk look, a sort of Sid Vicious style character. We'll have Angel stake him and become the big bad. Perfect. (Also terribly cliche - I've seen that done in the comic books one too many times, very glad they didn't go that route for that reason amongst many others). Enter James Marsters, an unknown theater actor, whose chemistry with both Juliet Landau and David Boreanze blew everyone away. (according to interviews at the time, he tested with both actors and both actors pushed for him to get the role). Whedon took one look at Marsters, and said, dye his hair blond, kill the dark cajun look, go for punk rocker - Billy Idol meets Sid Vicious, and a British Accent. If he didn't want the character to take off? He wouldn't have made that decision. Often a character will take off on a writer, we don't expect it. IT's not planned.
IT happens. And only a really stupid writer would resent it. That's gold. Whedon may be a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. You don't get where Whedon has in the industry if you are stupid.
I think Whedon's flexible. He doesn't commit to a storyline. He is fluid. You have to be to work in tv. It's unforgiving of those who aren't.
I also believe that Whedon loves to take humongous risks with his characters. Some writers take situational risks - they throw their characters into all sorts of bizarre situations but the characters themselves never really change that much. (Star-Gate, Bones, Eureka, X-Files, Star Trek are all examples of this type of story-telling). This is fairly safe writing. The characters never really do anything atrocious, they are comforting to the viewer. The viewer knows that the characters will most likely survive or be rescued and that they will end up happy. Most tv shows go this route. Other writers take risks with the characters themselves, their characters create the situation, and they change a great deal in the process - often by the end of these stories - you find yourself marveling at them. I personally prefer this type of writing, even if it can at times be frustrating and painful to see a favorite character jump into the proverbial abyss. Because I find this less predictable and far more interesting, not to mention more real. But it is not safe writing. And more often than not, gets a series canceled before its time. (Examples: American Gothic, Being Human, Farscape, Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, Grey's Anatomy, Dexter, True Blood, BSG, Caprica, Breaking Bad, Mad Men,
Rescue Me, Damages...). Whedon is a writer who takes huge risks with his characters. Sure he thrusts them into bizarre situations, but more often than not the situations are ones of the characters own making. Not something that has been thrust on to them or an external force has created. And even when an external force is involved - the characters don't come out of it well. They are damaged, broken, changed. Whedon's tv shows aren't SAFE. And one often feels a bit like a masochist watching them, particularly if you allow yourself to fall in love with or become attached to a character.
To me, as a writer and reader, there's no point if you aren't taking a risk. It's the one place in my life that I don't want to play it safe necessarily. I feel at times that I play it safe pretty much everywhere else. Here - I feel I should and can take risks. But not everyone feels that way. Most people don't. They may take huge risks in their everyday lives and when they watch tv or read a book or write a story - they like "safe".
This brings me to the harder question of the two posed and the far less safe one. Because it is more personal. What turns me off is often those things that bug me the most about myself. I can't abide dogmatic or self-righteousness. Yet, I'm well aware that I can at times be both.
Hypocrisy amuses me, because I've learned it is a human trait. But it also drives me bonkers.
But that's not answering the question - those are general things.
I think what will launch me into rant mode is usually when I feel I've been attacked or my tastes or interests have been attacked. I'll also do it when I feel like a writer/actor has disappointed me. When I thought they were doing one thing or represented one thing, and discovered I was wrong. This happened recently with both James Marsters and Joss Whedon. They disappointed me. And I found that I could not look at or respect either man in quite the same way again. That does not mean I can't enjoy their work, I can. I'm just not a "FAN" any longer.
(And no, I'm not going to tell you what it was.)
Sigh, guess it's too late to go watch another episode of Dexter before bed?
Thank God tomorrow is Friday.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 04:29 am (UTC)My problems with mac are tw things. The first one doesn't apply when you have a laptop anyway, but I hate it that I can not open them and exchange parts. the first thing I do with a new computer is pry it open and have looksee and hook up my old hard drive, so I don't have to transfer data.
Also when it's broken or getting slow I can add/exchange parts and don't have to buy a new one. With mac I feel like a cash cow for them, because I can't repair it myself.
The second thing is the software. Some things just aren't as great in the mac version and again I don't like the inaccessabilty of it.
I'm thinking before I go mac, I'd go linux, because there at east everything is under my control. That's just reflecting on my lacking skills though, because a tuturing kid of mine is a wizard with mac. He says they have the best hardware ever. But he also knows how to get rid oft the preinstalled software (be it an i-pod or a computer) and write some more to his liking, which I can't do.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 04:11 pm (UTC)What you just described above? ACK! (I only know what linux is because have a few tech savvy friends.)
When I look for electronical equipment - I'm looking for something that is extreemly user friendly, low-maintenance, and requires very little to no tinkering from me. The only thing that I should be expected to do is turn on the blasted thing and use it. Low-tech gal. ;-) (I owned the original Macintosh - when they had teeny tiny screens back in the 1980s, because I could not stand MS-DOS (basically you had to program to get anywhere) and this was way before Gates invented Windows.)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 09:18 am (UTC)I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees this! I was going to write a meta after seeing Toy Story 3 about how having Angel (Woody) as your protagonist does not mean you need to diminish the hero role of your supporting character, Spike (Buzz) - this was all a message to IDW, by the way, but I suppose it should be a memo to Dark Horse now?
Oh, dear. I just made myself very, very frightened.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-28 05:04 am (UTC)Don't know what that means re: Joss because I have no clue when he was involved. The script went through a bunch of hands.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 12:32 pm (UTC)I don't think he's particularly interested in either of them, though - or at least they're not characters that resonate with him the way, say, Willow does. But still, intergral part of the story.
I suspect the resentment notion may stem from James Marsters' repeated affirmations (which are only his own view) that Spike subverted the themes of the show.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 04:24 pm (UTC)Sigh. Yep. Not the most reliable source, Marsters. Highly entertaining at times - because he just loves to gossip and whinge. But. He really should stop doing it in regards to past employers/actors/etc if he wants to get future employment in that industry. Hollywood is a VERY incestuous small town.
don't think he's particularly interested in either of them, though - or at least they're not characters that resonate with him the way, say, Willow does. But still, intergral part of the story.
Hee. I think Mr. Whedon's love for Willow is quite similar to well, our love for Spike. He basically likes Spike the way I like Willow, and loves Willow the way I love Spike. (Whedon sort of reminds me of stormwreath and beer_goodfoamy in that respect).
Doesn't mean he doesn't like Spike or Angel, just that he's more interested in telling stories about the girls - for well, most likely, the same reasons fangirls are more interested in telling stories about the boys. Can't fault him for that. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 01:36 pm (UTC)Oh I'm so glad you are loving Dexter, I think you've gotten to Thanksgiving dinner now (the episode entitled 'Hungry Man'), I couldn't believe how much I loved that (how much it reminded me of my childhood thanksgiving dinners, lol)! Brilliant.
I really agree about Spike & Angel, and actually it reminds me of Jayne Cobb: in the commentary Joss says he never intended that Jayne would become so popular, but Adam Baldwin was just too adorable (paraphrasing there). Stuff happens, partly because TV is collaborative.