|
Stonefish posted:I don't think there's a Man, Woman or Cabbage alive who'd disagree with that assessment. I must be: Other. Cuz I love Connor from pregnant Darla to cute widdle baby to pissed off Peter Pan with wrist rockets, and yes, even sexin' up Cordelia, Connor. Loved his entire arc - it is the central arc of the entire TV show - especially they payoff in Season 5. A truly mythic character and storyline - a son born of demons abducted and raised by his Father's greatest enemy in a Hell dimension, returned to seek vengeance on his well meaning Father.... it's like Reverse Star Wars with Vampires! I'd love to see a Connor TV show - I know, I know, it'll never happen. But there's a lot more stories to be told about Connor, since the show has positioned him to be the true Hero, born and destined. We also don't really know what he is.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2009 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Toaster Beef posted:My bad on the Spike thing, but regardless of timing he was at least as bad as Angel, and still got over his whole 'soul' thing within five minutes and a pat on the back. As far as Spike goes, the way I see it he was 3/4s of the way to "redemption" before he even got a soul. As Joss has said, Spike, deep inside, has always been that poem-writing dork of his mortality. As he spent more time with the Buffy crew and soaked up their influence, that guy started coming out more and more. Obviously, having no moral compass, he fucks that up a lot, and it's the ultimate fuckup of trying to rape Buffy that makes him realize that he can't take those last steps on his own. So he does something really loving epic: He goes through days of torture and trials and EARNS his soul back. Of course coping with that is going to be easier than being the evilest motherfucker ever and then having a soul force fed to you. The difference between Angel and Spike is that Angel missed being evil so badly that he actually tried to go back during the Boxer rebellion, whereas Spike was so disgusted with his nature that he fought to win back his humanity. Also, Ive decided that anyone who calls Buffy selfish, a bitch, or anything else for her behavior in season 7 is loving retarded. Watch through season 6 again, and explain to me how you can be upset with some bitchiness from a girl who has been in non-stop overload mode since she was BROUGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD 2 years ago. She barely has a moment to stop and breathe in that whole time, much less have any kind of mental recovery. Is it really shocking that she gets a bit too commandy at times?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 00:26
|
|
|
Wasn't Anya supposed to be killed at the end of Selfless? That entire episode was a great wrap-up to her character but for the rest of Season 7 she was really just standing around doing nothing the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
It was worth it just for Andrew to write and then underline "Breakup Sex" on the chalkboard when talking to the potentials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
I just watched "Him" and, I gotta say, the entire sequence with Buffy trying to blow up Robin Wood made season seven worthwhile by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 06:26
|
|
|
mobn posted:Also, Ive decided that anyone who calls Buffy selfish, a bitch, or anything else for her behavior in season 7 is loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 09:04
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:I just watched "Him" and, I gotta say, the entire sequence with Buffy trying to blow up Robin Wood made season seven worthwhile by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 09:36
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Me too, but I'm a sucker for straight-man in foreground with crazy-poo poo in background gags. That goes double for the nature of this particular gag. That particular piece of equipment has apparently been sitting in the summers basement for 5-6 years, just waiting to be used.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 09:38
|
|
|
What's that do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 09:43
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I, too, feel that people who do not share my beliefs about the temperament of television characters are suffering from a mental defect Every word I ever utter is 100% meant and in no way hyperbolized, exaggerated, or in any other way distorted for the purposes of effect, brevity, or clarity. Also, I in no way feel that the use of obsessively exacting grammar and vocabulary in order to indicate sarcasm or irony is a stupid joke that has been done more times than Dawn has needed rescuing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 10:45
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Me too, but I'm a sucker for straight-man in foreground with crazy-poo poo in background gags. See also: Once More with Feeling; Giles, Anya and Xander walk/talk, serious exposition, janitors dancing wonderfully in the background
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 17:40
|
|
|
Buy.com has the complete buffy set for $105 for anyone else who missed out on it being $70 a few weeks ago. I just picked up the full angel collection from amazon when it was $50 and I'm really tempted to grab this as well. http://www.buy.com/prod/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-complete-series/q/loc/322/40722957.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Jd7154 posted:Buy.com has the complete buffy set for $105 for anyone else who missed out on it being $70 a few weeks ago. I just picked up the full angel collection from amazon when it was $50 and I'm really tempted to grab this as well. Those two sales were great. I had some problems with getting the "Angel" set, so they refunded some of my money, and I got the entirety of both series for $100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
Jd7154 posted:Buy.com has the complete buffy set for $105 for anyone else who missed out on it being $70 a few weeks ago. I just picked up the full angel collection from amazon when it was $50 and I'm really tempted to grab this as well. thanks for the link, I went ahead and picked it up as thats still a pretty good price, less than $20 a season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
mobn posted:The difference between Angel and Spike is that Angel missed being evil so badly that he actually tried to go back during the Boxer rebellion, whereas Spike was so disgusted with his nature that he fought to win back his humanity. quote:Also, Ive decided that anyone who calls Buffy selfish, a bitch, or anything else for her behavior in season 7 is loving retarded. Watch through season 6 again, and explain to me how you can be upset with some bitchiness from a girl who has been in non-stop overload mode since she was BROUGHT BACK FROM THE DEAD 2 years ago. She barely has a moment to stop and breathe in that whole time, much less have any kind of mental recovery. Is it really shocking that she gets a bit too commandy at times?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
Got hooked on Firefly, now watching Buffy. I just got going on Season 3 and one thing is really bugging me: Everyone seems to conveniently forget that Angel had no soul during the second part of season 2 if it gives them a chance to be dramatic. You'd think Buffy, being the sole defender of him, would think to point that out, but instead everyone just wallows in drama. I think I'll be happier once he's off wallowing in his own show. Apart from that I'm really enjoying it. The Mayor is a really fun villian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
Chex Warrior posted:Got hooked on Firefly, now watching Buffy. I just got going on Season 3 and one thing is really bugging me: Everyone seems to conveniently forget that Angel had no soul during the second part of season 2 if it gives them a chance to be dramatic. You'd think Buffy, being the sole defender of him, would think to point that out, but instead everyone just wallows in drama. I think I'll be happier once he's off wallowing in his own show. Don't worry, she will not make the mistake of ignoring a SOUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLL later on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
To be honest, seasons five through seven of Buffy weren't so terrible. They just could have gone without the Buffy dying and nerd plotlines. The whole 'heh nerds' thing was drawn out entirely too long, and then they just kept bringing Andrew's friends back even though I stupidly assumed they'd be gone since they died and all. Also, gently caress Joss regarding show relationships. You're a dick for ruining Anya and Xander, and then give an inkling that they might be coming back together at the end, following her getting chopped in half. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 05:29
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:To be honest, seasons five through seven of Buffy weren't so terrible. They just could have gone without the Buffy dying So what you're saying is that seasons six and seven weren't bad but they could have done without the thing that defined the entirety of the two seasons and their direction and character development?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 05:51
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:So what you're saying is that seasons six and seven weren't bad but they could have done without the thing that defined the entirety of the two seasons and their direction and character development? I guess I should have re-phrased, I agree with the person who mentioned earlier that the whole thing needed to be stretched out a little more. But the other plotline could be done without completely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 06:46
|
|
|
Chex Warrior posted:Got hooked on Firefly, now watching Buffy. I just got going on Season 3 and one thing is really bugging me: Everyone seems to conveniently forget that Angel had no soul during the second part of season 2 if it gives them a chance to be dramatic. You'd think Buffy, being the sole defender of him, would think to point that out, but instead everyone just wallows in drama. I think I'll be happier once he's off wallowing in his own show. Everyone around him, Angel included, treats Angelus as being the other side of the Angel coin. It's not that Angelus is another person entirely; it's that this is Angel without all those little pesky morals and values in the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 06:55
|
|
|
Same goes for every single human being on the planet, really. Take away all the positive attributes and what remains will be, logically speaking, 100% evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 09:31
|
|
|
Alexandr posted:Everyone around him, Angel included, treats Angelus as being the other side of the Angel coin. It's not that Angelus is another person entirely; it's that this is Angel without all those little pesky morals and values in the way. I disagree. Angel and Angelus are two different beings. Angelus is a vampire, a demon; Angel is the soul of Liam mixed with the demon Angelus. The Slayerverse puts great stock in the soul, and pretty much defines it as the person. So, when it's just Angelus, there's no soul, no Liam, no trace of humanity; As Angel, there is a soul. It's that black and white, and justifies to me seperating Angelus from Angel in most cases. Especially the crimes of Angelus - how could Liam in any way be responsible? His soul was by definition not present when all of Angelus' crimes were committed. Now, you could say that each vampire is shaped by the personality of the host, and thus Angelus' legendary cruelty and sadism can be traced back to Liam. But that's a tenuous connection, though true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
Psimitry posted:For me it was two things: 1. If I'm not mistaken, it ran with Fast Lane, and I was going to be raped by a donkey if I was going to watch something from the creators of "The Fast and the Furious." Holy poo poo someone tell me these commercials exist somewhere online, I have to see this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
The ads I saw for Firefly were set to Smash Mouth's "Walking on the Sun" and made it look like a goofy comedy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 04:58
|
|
|
Firefly ads were truly horrible, and the reason why I refused to even watch the DVDs my roommate tried to get me to watch for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 05:46
|
|
|
Dark Chicken posted:Firefly ads were truly horrible, and the reason why I refused to even watch the DVDs my roommate tried to get me to watch for a while. No, no dude. You didn't watch Firefly because it wasn't very good. You can tell, because these six dudes with boxes on their TVs didn't watch it. So they canned it. How's that meant to work anyway? Let's say six billion people all watched the premiere of Fringe, and at the end of the first ep, they all said "Whoa, that was completely loving terrible. I'm never putting myself through that again." It would get the hugest ratings ever, based solely on the way it was advertised. Yet stuff still gets canned before it has a chance to find it's stable point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 13:30
|
|
|
Stonefish posted:No, no dude. You didn't watch Firefly because it wasn't very good. You can tell, because these six dudes with boxes on their TVs didn't watch it. So they canned it. They don't actually do boxes. Still handwritten journals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
Stonefish posted:How's that meant to work anyway? Let's say six billion people all watched the premiere of Fringe, and at the end of the first ep, they all said "Whoa, that was completely loving terrible. I'm never putting myself through that again." For the people who do this for a living, the idea that premiers get stronger ratings than average is probably not new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2009 21:40
|
|
|
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I withdraw the question. I don't want to have an understanding of that sort of poo poo in my head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2009 09:24
|
|
|
Psimitry posted:They don't actually do boxes. Still handwritten journals. But I'm sure there's another way they get ratings as the journals couldn't possibly reach Neilsen in the two days after shows are aired when the ratings come in. There kind of have to be boxes that record what channel you're on. But yeah. it's hosed that if six people watched Firefly, they could've saved it. They just had to be the right six people. I'll be glad as poo poo when TV is all On-Demand and we can actually KNOW, FOR SURE which shows are being watched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2009 12:24
|
|
|
I'm just looking forward to the point when nielsens are less important than DVR and Online viewing. It's probably not as far away as you think. It's instant, precise data that isn't biased for people writing down "THIRTY TV's IN THE HOUSE - ALL WATCHING FARSCAPE!!!" Edit: Actually, this may be even more off-topic, but I'd love to see the TV paradigm shift to "Production on Demand." What's this mean? Well, I figure it'd work out that the network pays for pilots via advertising. After that, people would essentially "buy-in" to shows in advance. It would include a copy of the DVD's at the end of the season, and would still include advertising during the run. However, the networks could have a large supply of production cash up-front, wouldn't have to worry about scheduling against giants that they know they can't beat, and could potentially sell a lot more DVD's. Psimitry fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Jan 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2009 13:06
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Sometimes there's a box on your TV with a little light that goes off. You have to write what you were watching when the light blinks and that's all. Other times, yes. It's just a handwritten journal. On the plus side, we might be able to save shows that got killed due to the flawed Nielsen system. On top of that, I think the truth will come out that 40 million people a night aren't watching some rear end in a top hat pick loving briefcases out of a lineup. But then again, you know that all that data will be gathered just to bombard you with targeted advertising. Given the current shotgun approach to advertising now, that may be considered a positive as well. But this is a Joss thread, not a "NIELSEN IS loving US AGAIN" thread, so let's get this train on the tracks. So who here actually owns the Dr. Horrible DVD? I'm very tempted to order it, but I've read that in some cases the DVD is some ghetto purple-bottomed DVD-R, and in some cases it is a silver-bottomed silk-screened artwork pretty professional job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2009 13:38
|
|
|
Psimitry posted:I'm just looking forward to the point when nielsens are less important than DVR and Online viewing. Are you kidding? Nobody's going to pay fifty bucks up front to watch a show they've only seen the pilot of. TV only works like it does because your payment is largely passive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2009 15:17
|
|
|
mobn posted:Are you kidding? Nobody's going to pay fifty bucks up front to watch a show they've only seen the pilot of. TV only works like it does because your payment is largely passive. I would have gladly paid.. maybe not FIFTY, but certainly 30-40 upon watching the pilot of "Pushing Daisies." Now, admittedly that is an exception, but it's not impossible that there would have been others. Others that spring to mind that I probably would have paid in advance after seeing just the pilot: Terminator, The Big Bang Theory, South Park, The West Wing, House, Penn & Teller - Bullshit, and Boston Legal (though on that one I would have stopped paying as time went on). Oddly enough, though I wouldn't have paid up-front for these: How I Met Your Mother, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Scrubs, and Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
Zombie Dictator posted:So who here actually owns the Dr. Horrible DVD? I'm very tempted to order it, but I've read that in some cases the DVD is some ghetto purple-bottomed DVD-R, and in some cases it is a silver-bottomed silk-screened artwork pretty professional job. Just got mine today. DVD case is your standard plastic variety used by movies. The top of the DVD appears to be professionally printed with some artwork. The bottom of the DVD has a purple-ish tint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Psimitry posted:Edit: Actually, this may be even more off-topic, but I'd love to see the TV paradigm shift to "Production on Demand." A less complicated possibility: I think But yeah, a network sponsors a direct to DVD serial, lower production values but free from FCC regulation and judged solely on DVD sales and rentals, with single disc volumes - not entire seasons - coming one at a time. Could be interesting. Sorry for furthering the derailment. DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jan 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:A less complicated possibility: I think OVA is just fancy nerd-speak for direct-to-video (DTV) stuff. We do plenty of that here in North America, too. Just less often with crummy cartoons. Honestly, that's the approach I wish was taken with Firefly-- instead of wasting the capital on a pretty much guaranteed box-office failure, spend 1/4 of the cash on a high-quality, 100-minute DVD/cable release. Let the buzz carry the franchise as long as possible. The Firefly hype wasn't big enough to get people to theatres, but I believe it would've scaled down nicely. I'm here because I just watched Dr. Horrible, and man, the name sure is truth in advertising. It has a blog, it has songs, and it's horrible. Aside from a couple of quips, it came off like Neil Patrick Harris losing a bet and having to star in some dude's youtube project. It would've been better without the sub Cop Rock-level songs. Mostly I just wish this dude would figure out how to make something as good as Firefly. I couldn't get behind Buffy and I don't see any promise in Dollhouse, but I liked Firefly just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
Mike Toole posted:I'm here because I just watched Dr. Horrible, and man, the name sure is truth in advertising. It has a blog, it has songs, and it's horrible. Uh, gently caress you. Dr. Horrible owns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2009 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Well, about half of it anyway. I can't get enough of the first and last songs from part 2, but I could do without a fair chunk of the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2009 08:34
|
|