'Beneath You'
Is it better the second time around? Or the third? Or tenth? This is the place to come when you have a burning desire to talk about an old episode that was just re-run.
As opposed to giving some resolution, no matter how inadequate, to the Buffy question?
Are you kidding? You're kidding. They resolved the Buffy question! Cookie dough! The smile! "Can stand up - will stand up!" That's what pissed me off most - more than the pandering, more than making a joke out of Angelus - was bringing Buffy back after the perfect closure of Chosen for - what? A couple of cheap gags and another bloody flashback?
I am also very hard pressed to think of a series that lasted for more than a 3-4 years, and that had any reliance on a presumed continuity, that didn't eventually succomb to a round of "wouldn't it be cool if", or "this would be neat", or "we need to shake things up" that in turn sacrafices some of the continuity/integrity somehow. Can anybody think of one?
Deep Space Nine.
I wasn't in the fandom when it aired and ended up catching the entire 7 seasons over a period of months, but the attention paid to the continuity and the arcs was breathtaking. I guess one can make a case of Vic Fontane falling into this camp, but I thought he was fun and well-used overall. And Odo/Kira, despite its occasional foray into soapy/weird rom-com territory, ended beautifully, I thought.
I can't think of any shoutouts (exept that moon in Firefly, which was clearly acceptable), so ignore that bit of my rant. And I meant that the point you always used to make about them buggering up Spike somewhere along the line was a good one.
As much as I adored Bashir on DS9, they asspulled on him, I'll swear.
Honestly, I think it's nigh impossible. With budgets and whims and instant feedback and personnel changes, any TV series that runs for a while is just not going to be able to sustain the integrity (should the author intend any, really) of a book or even series of books.
I think they were less pandering to the fans than writing to those actors who remained enthusisastic and prepared. Some actors burn out after playing the same character for a long time or personal reasons interfere and you have to write around them. There is very little time in TV to pull a good performance out of an actor on set or to edit around a spotty one, and writers and producers are leery of writing for actors who may not be able to play a big arc or a big scene.
This partially explains BtVS, but I can't believe that every actor on AtS other than JM was suffering from S5 burnout. Though, of course, I've long suspected that S5's issues stemmed from a combination of network pressures and getting to write a shiny new thing. Well, and a final arc that made no sense. For a season that contains so much good, I'm astoundingly meh about it as a whole.
As for pandering, I'm generally against it.
They resolved the Buffy question! Cookie dough! The smile!
Uh, yeah. And then Spike died. And came back. And Angel took over Wolfram and Hart and lost the trust of Buffy and everyone else.
Hate the episode, fine. Plenty of people do. But arguing that they tossed it in as filler solely for the sake of a throwaway joke makes no sense to me.
Are you kidding? You're kidding. They resolved the Buffy question! Cookie dough! The smile! "Can stand up - will stand up!" That's what pissed me off most - more than the pandering, more than making a joke out of Angelus - was bringing Buffy back after the perfect closure of Chosen for - what? A couple of cheap gags and another bloody flashback?I don't agree with much of what you say about Spike, but here on the Buffy question from A:ts TGiQ, we are as one. I hated that with a passion. I have to not think about it. Instead, I remember the "Ciao" scene, and choose to let the rest of it live in the fog.
Where Spike is concerned, I had no problem with them using the attempted rape, or something else equally as dark to send him for a soul. I knew a soul had to be coming for him. He'd changed both too much, and not enough, thanks to the enchipment. But season 7 didn't make it all worth it, for me, that is.
exept that moon in Firefly, which was clearly acceptable
DAMNED SKIPPY!!!
I meant that the point you always used to make about them buggering up Spike somewhere along the line was a good one.
Didn't mean to sound defensive -- I wasn't feeling all that persuasive. I've just been thinking about "my" versions of characters recently, and bemoaning what I see as a requirement to edit their lifespans. But hey. See post #1229.
I have to say, I do think that TGIQ was about the worst Angel episode. I judge it extra-harshly, though, because of its placement in the season. Just like my hatred of the Pylea in S2 is exacerbated by it being how a kick-ass season ended. Keep the fluff somewhere else. Pacing was just fucked.
I enjoyed bits of it, but in a very free from structure and context way, and when the clock is ticking the final few seconds, I don't want to be nibbling meringues.
As much as I adored Bashir on DS9, they asspulled on him, I'll swear.
Oh yeah. Also, Bashir/Ezri in S7 didn't work for me at all. But not enough so that it seriously interfered with my enjoying the show.
Hate the episode, fine. Plenty of people do. But arguing that they tossed it in as filler solely for the sake of a throwaway joke makes no sense to me.
I haven't rewatched it (or A:ts season 5 at all, to be fair). What do you think was the purpose of it? It felt like, if not filler to me then, a stand alone--a stand alone that came too late in the season, when there was still much to accomplish.
eta...
Or see ita:
I have to say, I do think that TGIQ was about the worst Angel episode. I judge it extra-harshly, though, because of its placement in the season. Just like my hatred of the Pylea in S2 is exacerbated by it being how a kick-ass season ended. Keep the fluff somewhere else. Pacing was just fucked.