I haven't seen it in a while... The main thing I remember is that I'd put the 1952 story's climax earlier -- because Angel does this terrible thing, and you don't really have time to think about it before he's killing the demon. It loses some impact for me as is.

Which may have been intentional, to be fair. One of the things that interests me about the show is how they seemed to be experimenting with how dark they could go without alienating everyone, and that was relatively early.

It won a Hugo award.

I liked AYNOHYEB, but I don't have a deep emotional attachment to it or anything. I don't see "trite" as a valid assessment, though. I mean, it was cool. Nice little throwback, and an interesting look at Angel's history. There are other Tim episodes I like more, like "Billy" and "Lullaby" and "Reunion" and "Out of Gas" and "Karma Chameleon" and that one Buffy ep.

Hey, why the fuck doesn't Tim have a picture up at IMDb? That's just wrong.

Oh, so they weren't using put in the headline the way I (sort of) thought they were. But, OK - WB wears 'Cult' cap - what does that mean? I'm picturing frogs in baseball caps - like I'm for the Yankees (I'm not), so JenP wears Yankees cap?

So I think they mean WB is wearing the 'Cult' cap in that, yeah, they're supporting it. By putting this O'Bannon thriller on the fast track. The Frog fast track, because saying the "WB fast track" would be redundant. Although isn't Frog inaccurate, now that they killed that mascot?

I like it. Allyson hates it with a hard and gem-like flame. You have to be able to get past the typical Heinlein woman.

I still respectfully disagree about this sort of characterization of Heinlein women. You have to not assume that any woman character is Heinlein's personification of all women everywhere.

I know those seem like fighting words, but I have my opinion, and I am often afraid to say it because saying "I don't think Heinlein's women are unbelievable" offends some. Unfortunately this leads to flaming swords of argument on the subject.

So I conclude with "to each his own." But then I like his writing style. He wasn't perfect, but he was ahead of the curve, historically.

Once you've had a cartoon frog dancing and singing "Dubba Dubba WB!" on people's television screens for years, it becomes pretty difficult to disassociate that from your network's corporate ID after the fact.

Yeah, unbranding must be quite the challenge after you've spent so much time... branding. In any case, I don't watch the WB anymore; I had no idea they'd killed the frog. Interesting.

I still respectfully disagree about this sort of characterization of Heinlein women. You have to not assume that any woman character is Heinlein's personification of all women everywhere.

But that's not what I said. I said that there is a typical Heinlein woman, and there is: she shows up in novel after novel, very much the same: sexual, assertive, kittenish, competent.

Writers fall into patterns: some of language, some of situation, some of characterization. One of Heinlein's was a particular female character. That doesn't mean that Heinlein never wrote a woman who didn't fit that template; that means that many of his women did. Heinlein's characterization was not his strong point; he was better at it than Asimov, not so good as Cordwainer Smith.

Spike is a fascinating character, and James is a versatile chap

I agree with the former. I'm personally not so sure about the latter. I used to think James was, like, perfection on a stick. And then, at some point, his presence on screen had me reaching for my remote. In fairness to Mr. Marsters, I don't know if that was the writing, the directing or his acting. I suspect it was a combination that led to my pain.

Fair enough, Betsy. My error. I guess I was just anticipating the eternal Heinlein battles and trying to preempt.

Ah. 'kay. Haven't read that one, then. Should I?

It's much better than the Lazarus Long books, especially the later ones. It's probably his best book, overall. I tend to think it is.

If you've read a LL book that involves his mother, you've seen the worst Heinlein has to offer in terms of his female characterization. In those books, even I got annoyed and sometimes offended, and I am both insensitive and have a long fuse, plus an unhealthy respect for Heinlein's writing. If you could handle those, at all, you should be fine with Wyoh in Moon.

If you're virulently anti-Libertarian, you may take issue with the overt political stance of the book, which is often grouped with Ayn Rand's stuff in the realm of Libertarian fiction.

Otherwise, though, it's a great work of the era, and totally worth the read. One of my all-time favorites.