Also. I liked TOGoM. I liked it for ridiculous reasons. But still.

Kiba, I don't think most people in the FF fandom knew that. At least not until much much later. I was just some bitter, awful person who should be fired. (hee. fired.)

Then I suppose I could see how they maybe might leap to that conclusion. I think maybe I'm so used to seeing "Kristen, who runs TimMinear.net," that I thought even people who don't know you might know your loyalties. (That isn't quite the word I wanted, but it will have to do. I just woke up.)

Hey, man, I've already seen 'shippers.

Yes, but there are 'shippers for everything. There are people who ship Snyder/(Your Favorite Character Here). 'Shippers don't need text. They will settle for subtext or the fancy flights of their imaginations. I'm just relieved that (it seems) the show isn't about that. I don't want to see a cool crime drama become a weepy romance.

Oh wait, this is a Tim Minear production.

I'm okay, then. Were there to be any romance, it would be snarky.

Danny and Mel could get it on at any time.

I feel like they're more likely to break into a siblingly fight. I've seen no tension there.

Kiba borrowed my brain because I thought it had a very Jane air to it, too.

Cash, this is not so - I thought Mark Fish had written it, and then looked it up and saw Jane E., and doubted myself. But you are right, it did have some Jane-ish bits. In the middle of the episode I said, "I must go look up this Mark Fish person. I like his writing."

was Angel with or without shirt? 'Cause that's the true test.

Where I come from, we call this the -mere- test.

Minear may want to emulate CSI, but leave out the judgement.

As I said earlier - I felt the show provided a very balanced perspective, if anything, went a bit heavy on scolding poor, judgmental Paul. I can't imagine Web would be all, "Actually, Paul, S&M play can be a beautiful thing if it is between consenting partners who share great affection for one another." Or "Paul, ballgags are nice." Or any number of other things in that vein. It's not his job, it's not in his character, it would make it a TOTALLY different show.

Now that I've said all that, I realized they were probably calling CSI judgmental, and not The Inside. Oops.

I do remember slagging Tim off for that horrid Buffy episode he wrote once. The one with the flying beagles.

Boy that is an awful episode. I think that's why my boyfriend stopped watching.

I chained Angel to a bed because he was potentially murdering in his sleep.

If I recall correctly, much of season 2 was about Angel being a big ole creepy sex freak, in his dreams. Which only makes you wonder, if you know you're gonna sleep-walk, and you know you're having bad dreams (or, not-dreams) involving your ex, why would you sleep naked?

Dude needed some nice flannel jammies.

I felt the show provided a very balanced perspective, if anything, went a bit heavy on scolding poor, judgmental Paul.

Eh, I don't really agree. If you'll notice, Rebecca's scolding of Paul was along the lines of "you don't know what happened to them to make them that way." It would've been nice to see some acknowledgment that an attraction to S&M doesn't necessarily imply some hidden trauma. Cole had a nice jab though when he pointed out that in judging him, Paul was also judging the vics.

I'll be glad next week when we get off the poor lonely vulnerable single women, too.

Cash, this is not so - I thought Mark Fish had written it, and then looked it up and saw Jane E., and doubted myself. But you are right, it did have some Jane-ish bits. In the middle of the episode I said, "I must go look up this Mark Fish person. I like his writing."

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't even see the writing credits--just Jane in the co-executive producer credit and thought, "did she write this, too?" I was making assumptions based on the dialog.

It would be interesting to hear if Jane contributed that line of dialogue in the war room, or somewhere along in the process. I trust the Buffista sniffer for certain things, and an ear for ME alumni wordsmithing is one of them.

I felt the show provided a very balanced perspective, if anything, went a bit heavy on scolding poor, judgmental Paul.

Eh, I don't really agree. If you'll notice, Rebecca's scolding of Paul was along the lines of "you don't know what happened to them to make them that way." It would've been nice to see some acknowledgment that an attraction to S&M doesn't necessarily imply some hidden trauma.

Yes, this. While the episode didn't portray S&M as badly as usually happens in TV, it still fell into the "people who are into S&M are fucked-up, yo!" trap.

And Rebecca's last line pissed me off so badly that I threw my remote at the TV.

If you'll notice, Rebecca's scolding of Paul was along the lines of "you don't know what happened to them to make them that way."

But Rebecca interprets everything from that perspective. She's got hidden trauma, therefore, she understands everyone else's.

It would've been nice to see some acknowledgment that an attraction to S&M doesn't necessarily imply some hidden trauma.

I can't think of anyone for whom pointing something like that out would have been in character. It would have felt very false and after-school-specialy to me.

I liked that the BDSM turned out to be mostly irrelevant to the case, because it meant that everything that was assumed about the women and their relationship to Brandt was wrong.

Also. I liked TOGoM. I liked it for ridiculous reasons. But still.

I liked it too.

(the way the poster suggests, with allusions to safe words and blah blah lifestyle blah.)

The only safe word reference I can think of was when Faith tried to strangle Xander, and Angel asked her, "What, he forgot the safe word?" But that was on Buffy.

But Rebecca interprets everything from that perspective. She's got hidden trauma, therefore, she understands everyone else's.

I really tried to keep reminding myself that -- she's SO damaged that she views everything through the lens of being a victim (I did like Paul busting her for making "Victim" such a significant part of her identity).

It would've been nice to see some acknowledgment that an attraction to S&M doesn't necessarily imply some hidden trauma.

I can't think of anyone for whom pointing something like that out would have been in character. It would have felt very false and after-school-specialy to me.

I think just a really understated comment from Creepy Bossman (can't remember his name) would have been in character. Because I got the sense, during the reenactment, that he knew that S&M =/ sexual violence.