The Minearverse 4: Support Group for Clumsy People
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls and The Inside), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
I still wish we'd get a Ripper/Watcher series.
YES. Is there still any information around, re: what Joss had in mind for the series?
I live in dread that [...] a movie with Drusilla will result in her becoming pregnant with Spike's Miracle Baby and staking herself to save it.
Spike as a daddy? I shudder.
ETA: Perhaps, Spike could become the Fagin-like leader of a gang of disaffected, thieverous (word?) orphans, and organize them into soldiers for some sort of "turf war"...or something. I mean, there's bound to be some dark, twisted humor in "Spike as father figure;" but, please, no "Spike as father."
that the standalones were better than the mythology-centered stuff, and that the writers had a hard time plotting story arcs which didn't meander or lose momentum.
I read an article in EW, I think it was, where Piller basically said he wanted to concentrate more on the stand-alones because they were fun and they were good at them, and if you have too much mythology you end up alienating potential viewers. Which is valid, but it doesn't make me interested in being a hardcore fan for the long haul or anything.
I just read about "Ripper" (or what was supposed to be "Ripper") on TV.com. Hmm. I dunno. For my money, it would be more interesting if Giles were to work outside of the Watchers' Council. You know, as a sort of rogue demon hunter? With the mythology stuff delving more into his very shady, pre-Watcher past?
Which is valid, but it doesn't make me interested in being a hardcore fan for the long haul or anything.
Word.
ETA: Wait, I should say more. There is a benefit to standalones (even diehards need a breather from the main story every now and then), but I don't think most viewers' heads are trained to think "Standalones Only" anymore. Nowadays, we approach every new drama or genre show the way we would approach a new novel, expecting long-ranging arcs w/ many, many chapters.
Also...: I don't think the amount of mythology you have in a given show actually matters. I, myself, found it difficult to become truly immersed in "The X-Files," not b/c there was so much mythology, but b/c, none of it seemed linear. The information I knew kept contradicting itself (or so it seemed), and it was maddening how Chris Carter and his team never seemed to answer any questions definitively. After awhile, when it was clear to me that this show was never going to throw me a bone, I just plain gave up.
I don't think most TV viewers' heads are trained to think "Standalones Only" anymore.
Yet L&O keeps breeding and breeding and breeding.
How many TV watchers are fans? Fans care for arc, watchers less so, I'd wager.
Related to an off topic conversation from a week or so ago... there is an Eagles concert airing on NBC right now (central).
Joe Walsh looks like my grandpa, but he's still a big ol' goof.
How many TV watchers are fans? Fans care for arc, watchers less so, I'd wager.
How I can be classified depends on the show. There are shows that I am a fan of, and then shows that I watch.
Shows I just "watch" don't really need major arcs. They are convienence shows for me, like drive-thru entertainment.
If it is a show where I can call myself a fan, then I love arcs and character development and mythology. Like eating a fabulous restaurant where it is more than just the food but still an amazing dinner.
I think what I am trying to say is that for me, L&O is fast food and I want other options when I am hungry, but sometimes I just settle for a cheeseburger.
Contrary to what seems to be the entire thread, I am excited for a Spike movie, and don't care when it's set. There didn't seem to be any way out of most end-season situations on either show, but there always was. And I don't care if characters come back from the dead, either.
I neither like or dislike Spike. But I never particularly liked or disliked any character in the Buffyverse, it was always about how their character arcs were written. I didn't dislike Buffy!Wesley, but I didn't care for the character all that much. Angel!Wesley grew on me big time, because of how he was written. Not that AD doesn't deserve accolades for the protrayal, he certainly does. But almost every actor in every M.E. show had been able to carry his/her assigned role with a few notable exceptions (I'm looking at you, Eve) and, to me, the success or failure of a Spike movie is going to be less about the Spike character, and more about how the movie's written (I'm looking at you, Tim.) When I heard about the Angel spin-off, and Cordelia going with him, I never thought to myself, "now that's a show." But Joss made me a believer.
Now, he could spin off a show with Andrew, Clem and Kitty Fantastico back from the dead, and I'd be just as excited. Because I know the writing and arcs and everything I love about the Buffyverse would be in place. Plus it opens the door for both on-screen and off-screen cameos which make my inner fangurl squee.
to me, the success or failure of a Spike movie is going to be less about the Spike character, and more about how the movie's written (I'm looking at you, Tim.)
Did Tim say he was asked to write too, or just to direct?
Now, he could spin off a show with Andrew, Clem and Kitty Fantastico back from the dead, and I'd be just as excited. Because I know the writing and arcs and everything I love about the Buffyverse would be in place. Plus it opens the door for both on-screen and off-screen cameos which make my inner fangurl squee.
*cough* Wolfram, there are fanboys, too, you know. That said, girl, boy, I'm with you on the above.
He posted "write," too, Cindy.
Wolfram, there are fanboys, too, you know. That said, girl, boy, I'm with you on the above.
But the word "fangurl" makes me giggle.
