|
Post by Emmie on Mar 1, 2009 15:52:50 GMT -5
About Gwen being less battle-savvy, did they forget how she fought Angel in Ground State with her martial arts skills? Gwen doesn't need to rely on her electrical powers to be a force to be reckoned with.
Now this is interesting. She can't even have anyone mention Buffy's name. It makes Lynch's oblique references to Buffy make more sense. But apparently Whedon got back the rights to say ANGEL characters names in Season 8 (#20 Buffy: "Oh Angel.") when he co-plotted After the Fall. Still feels a bit like Whedon bought back the characters. And this reminds me of AtS Season 3 and 4 when they were limited to how many times they could actually use the word "Buffy".
|
|
buffyfest
Potential Slayer
That, and a burning baby fish swimming all around your head.[Mo0:24]
Posts: 133
|
Post by buffyfest on Mar 1, 2009 16:25:00 GMT -5
Now this is interesting. She can't even have anyone mention Buffy's name. It makes Lynch's oblique references to Buffy make more sense. But apparently Whedon got back the rights to say ANGEL characters names in Season 8 (#20 Buffy: "Oh Angel.") when he co-plotted After the Fall. Still feels a bit like Whedon bought back the characters. And this reminds me of AtS Season 3 and 4 when they were limited to how many times they could actually use the word "Buffy". It is interesting. I didn't realize that Whedon would need to "buy back" the rights to say Angel in Dark Horse's title, though. I thought they always had it. Am I wrong? I always thought it might've gone down like this: DH had the chance to get the license for the Angel title but made the mistake of letting IDW get a hold of it. License contracts usually state what can and cannot be used so that another license isn't cannibalized (like if you had a t-shirt company and got the license for Super Mario Brothers, Nintendo might not let you make hoodies because it would conflict with whoever had a sweatshirt license and cost that other company money.) So perhaps when DH gave up on that license they still fought for not letting IDW use the Buffy characters and used the argument that it would affect their business (and taking it a step further... affecting Fox & Whedon's percentage of whatever they makes on the comic..which could be higher on the Buffy comic or less.) I could be wrong about all of this, but I know a little bit about licensing and I always had that hypothetical scenario in my head. I don't' like to think about it though because it's too much real world stuff affecting the fiction. Seems like a lot of red tape and it's a shame b/c it really affects the quality of both stories.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2009 16:25:05 GMT -5
I live in fear of the day Joss has a really big falling-out with Fox.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Mar 1, 2009 16:38:14 GMT -5
It is interesting. I didn't realize that Whedon would need to "buy back" the rights to say Angel in Dark Horse's title, though. I thought they always had it. Am I wrong? It was kinda insinuated that one of the reasons Whedon co-plotted After the Fall was a rights issue regarding reacquiring free license to use ANGEL characters in Season 8. I always thought it might've gone down like this: DH had the chance to get the license for the Angel title but made the mistake of letting IDW get a hold of it. License contracts usually state what can and cannot be used so that another license isn't cannibalized (like if you had a t-shirt company and got the license for Super Mario Brothers, Nintendo might not let you make hoodies because it would conflict with whoever had a sweatshirt license and cost that other company money.) So perhaps when DH gave up on that license they still fought for not letting IDW use the Buffy characters and used the argument that it would affect their business (and taking it a step further... affecting Whedon's percentage of whatever he makes on the comic..which could be higher on the Buffy comic or less.) Well, it was actually that DH held the licensing rights to ANGEL and directly sold them to IDW. They didn't miss out on an opportunity, but essentially gave it away before realizing that Whedon was then going to start up a canon continuation of Buffy in "Season 8". And I'm speculating here, but it appears like IDW holding the rights to ANGEL meant that BUFFY couldn't use the characters freely (the way they crossed over in the older DH comics). Whedon working on After the Fall has a few consequences imo: 1) established it firmly as canon, 2) reaffirmed it by including storylines that would have appeared in Season 6 of AtS, 3) reacquired the rights for DH to use the characters in Season 8. I also find it interesting that Lynch has said recently that they "can't call" Angel's series Season 6 and he can't call his upcoming Spike series Season 1. That seems like a forced limitation and one I can only see coming from Whedon. I could be wrong about all of this, but I was in licensing for a while and I always had that hypothetical scenario in my head. I don't' like to think about it though because it's too much real world stuff affecting the fiction. Seems like a lot of red tape and it's a shame b/c it really affects the quality of both stories. It's speculation on my part that comes from an Allie response that caused quite a stir when it came out. The outright details of the license are a mystery. It's clear that IDW holds the rights to publish the ANGEL title and apparently to publish titles for other ANGEL characters, yet they "can't" call AtF Season 6 nor Spike's series Season 1. Nor can they mention Buffy when DH can mention Angel. Yet DH can't publish ANGEL titles. There seems to be something that was perhaps worked out in order to ensure the possibility of crossover action by DH and Whedon. Because it was presented as problematic that IDW holds the rights to the ANGEL characters for Season 8, so I doubt that DH had the foresight to retain the rights to use ANGEL characters within in a limited regard when they sold the rights to IDW. Otherwise it wouldn't have been presented as a problem that had been fixed. I live in fear of the day Joss has a really big falling-out with Fox. It's a fascinating problem. It reminds me of reading about Shakespeare and his relationship with his patron, Lord Chamberlain. Thankfully for Shakespeare, his patron let him fully own his own scripts and even own his own props. He stepped away from the process more than any other lord patrons. Shakespeare had a lot of freedom in this regard creatively. With Joss, we see this pressure constantly reflected in the darker tones of his works nowadays. The oppression of the organization that destroys the free will of those who work for them. It's a theme present in Angel (Smile Time, W&H), Buffy (Season 8), Firefly (The Alliance and the drug that killed aggression in Serenity), and finally most blatantly textual in Dollhouse.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2009 16:46:34 GMT -5
It is interesting. I didn't realize that Whedon would need to "buy back" the rights to say Angel in Dark Horse's title, though. I thought they always had it. Am I wrong? I always thought it might've gone down like this: DH had the chance to get the license for the Angel title but made the mistake of letting IDW get a hold of it. License contracts usually state what can and cannot be used so that another license isn't cannibalized (like if you had a t-shirt company and got the license for Super Mario Brothers, Nintendo might not let you make hoodies because it would conflict with whoever had a sweatshirt license and cost that other company money.) So perhaps when DH gave up on that license they still fought for not letting IDW use the Buffy characters and used the argument that it would affect their business (and taking it a step further... affecting Whedon's percentage of whatever he makes on the comic..which could be higher on the Buffy comic or less.) My (possibly imperfect) understanding of the situation: 1. Fox handles all licensing of Buffy and Angel properties. Mutant Enemy/Joss has no legal standing here, but Fox is well aware that his participation and/or stamp of canonicity on any Buffyverse venture increases sales by several orders of magnitude. 2. Dark Horse had the rights to produce all Buffyverse comics, and did so for several years with no participation from Joss. 3. At some point Dark Horse, while keeping the Buffy license, allowed the Angel license to lapse. (Scott Allie admits that in hindsight this was a mistake, but they didn't know back then that Joss would choose to get involved in the comics and make them DH's #1 selling title of all time.) 4. Fox then sold the Angel license to IDW. Under those terms DH could not use Angel characters in their comics, and can't even reprint the old Angel comics that they published earlier. 5. Joss decided to do the season 8 comics with DH. In trying to clear the rights to use Angel and/or Spike (who apparently is included under the Angel license now), Fox offered him a deal: participate in a new post-AtS comic series IDW was doing, as co-plotter and executive producer, giving it the canonicity seal of approval, and thereby tripling sales of the comic. In return, Fox and IDW both agreed to let Angel characters be used in the Buffy series. But as a matter of courtesy, Joss refrained from doing so until "After the Fall" was finished. (Which it is now). 6. I'm pretty sure if Joss had wanted characters in AtF to refer to Buffy or other BtVS characters, they could have done so. Certainly neither IDW nor Fox would have objected to this, giving the AtF comic an even greater connection to the Buffyverse and thereby making it even more of interest to Buffy fans. DH would have been the only ones with a possible gripe, but they seem to have a very good relationship with Joss and I don't think they'd have fought very hard over such a trivial thing. I think it was probably Joss's intention to keep all matters Buffy strictly out of AtF.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Mar 1, 2009 16:50:30 GMT -5
And that is a much better explanation of how I understand it, also. Well said, Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2009 16:55:55 GMT -5
I clearly spend waaaay too much time thinking about this stuff.
|
|
Nina
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 141
|
Post by Nina on Mar 1, 2009 16:56:27 GMT -5
Didn't Brian say somewhere (an interview or Q/A) that they planned to use a major BtVS character, but decided not to do it? I'm not sure, sometimes I remember things wrong.
And there is the Loan Shark? I don't know how serious this deal is and if minor characters like the shark fall under it.
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Mar 1, 2009 17:02:46 GMT -5
It is interesting. I didn't realize that Whedon would need to "buy back" the rights to say Angel in Dark Horse's title, though. I thought they always had it. Am I wrong? It was kinda insinuated that one of the reasons Whedon co-plotted After the Fall was a rights issue regarding reacquiring free license to use ANGEL characters in Season 8. Yes, and Brian Lynch said that wasn't true. And Scott Allie instantly issued an apology for insinuating that that was the case. We're forgetting when, before the first issue of Season Eight even came out, Joss said he could use Angel and Spike whenever he wants. We're forgetting the story both Brian and Joss told a bunch of times about how "After the Fall" came about. Joss met Brian. "Read Spike: Asylum." "Oh, that was good. You know, there's this Angel continuation, wanna etc?" "Yes, I do etc." "Okay, here are some ideas. I like your fish." "Oh yeah? Here are some of my ideas, like?" "Yes, but let's have the dragon do THIS instead." "Okay, awesome." After the Fall. About Gwen being less battle-savvy, I think that's a big hop to a conclusion that Kelley didn't intent anyone to jump to. I'm sure Gwen could still put the hurtin' with some kicks and/or punches. She will, of course, as Kelley stated, be less battle savvy... less in comparison to After the Fall when she blew up all the demons trying to become the Lord of Westwood, shocked one of the most powerful vampires ever off a roof and into a dumpster, and faced off against a bunch of dragony jets. Even if Gwen pulls some Crouching Tiger moves, anything she does after her stunts in After the Fall will be less.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Mar 1, 2009 17:13:52 GMT -5
It was kinda insinuated that one of the reasons Whedon co-plotted After the Fall was a rights issue regarding reacquiring free license to use ANGEL characters in Season 8. Yes, and Brian Lynch said that wasn't true. And Scott Allie instantly issued an apology for insinuating that that was the case. The offensive part that required apologies was in saying that was the "only reason" - which is something I've disregarded in my viewpoint. The implications of Allies viewpoint I've speculated on in a completely different direction regarding rights issues. And this is speculation, pure and simple. Yet it has been suggested that using Angel characters in Buffy Season 8 was a potential rights problem that had been fixed. Pat, yeah that's a bit obvious that Gwen will still be able to punch and kick. But their certainly was some implied sidelines action in saying she's there to watch their backs rather than being on the frontlines, standing side by side. If she's standing there at all. Gwen is just as qualified, perhaps even more so than, Kate to be a frontlines fighter.
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Mar 1, 2009 17:16:52 GMT -5
The offensive part that required apologies was in saying that was the "only reason" - which is something I've disregarded in my viewpoint. The implications of Allies viewpoint I've speculated on in a completely different direction regarding rights issues. Please link me. I'd like to see how those who hold this belief reconcile it with Joss Whedon himself saying the exact opposite two years ago. About Gwen, I think her and Kate will be about equal in that department. Which is interesting, seeing as one is an ex cop and one is an ex (?) thief. I don't see why Gwen couldn't just remove the LISA device when it's time for scrappin', though. Admittedly, I'm only on a season one rewatch and haven't seen that episode in quite a while, but I don't remember any "never take this out" clause. Maybe she won't want to. But either way, I didn't really get the sideline vibe from the interview, just a "not as epic fighty" vibe. Which is expected. PS: Sorry if that reply doesn't make sense. The post I was replying to changed a couple of times, I think, so if I missed anything or contradicted anything you said, my b.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Mar 1, 2009 17:27:25 GMT -5
Nah, you made sense. I was thinking the exact same thing. Gwen can just take off LISA and put on some gloves for some toe-to-toe action.
Regarding the quote, I actually misphrased it. The apology went for saying the "main reason" Joss worked on After the Fall was "so Fox would give us unlimited permission to use any Angel character we wanted in Season Eight." That is clearly not a "main reason" for Joss in my mind. And it was an apology for implying ANGEL was somehow less. I view it clearly that Joss was interested in contributing to a story.
But again, we have a person with authority saying they needed FOX to give them "unlimited permission". Meaning they didn't have it prior to some point.
ETA: Just on a side note, does anyone else find the "curse" function to be the the most passive aggressive thing you can do here at Slayalive? Jeez. Just flat out post that you disagree with me or something. I've never used the curse function on any single poster here at SlayAlive and have spent literally hours of time giving 100's of points of karma to new members and anyone who's contributing to the conversation. Even if it's a stance I disagree with. If you're cursing me, I wish you'd have the guts to tell me you disagree with me and then post *curses*. Just like when I like a post and tell the poster, I include the phrase *karmas*.
I'm bringing this up because I just got cursed and frankly, the only things I've been discussing recently have been criticisms of Aftermath and speculation on the rights' issues of IDW and DH. It just feels ultimately petty and negative to *curse* someone for having a well-formed opinion that you disagree with. And the irony is that whoever this member is, I've probably given them hundreds of points in karma. So thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Mar 1, 2009 17:37:43 GMT -5
The "curse" function is the bread and butter for those lacking certain anatomical regions (i.e. spleen, gall bladder, intestines, and the other obvious bits). It is passive aggressive, and hey, do it frequently enough, and Phil will say something about it. An FYI to those who enjoy the "curse" button... Phil has a tally of just about everything done on this forum, including the curse and bless function. Cursing a member is generally frowned upon as we prefer constructive dialogue to childish games. You've been warned.
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Mar 1, 2009 17:37:56 GMT -5
Nah, you made sense. I was thinking the exact same thing. Gwen can just take off LISA and put on some gloves for some toe-to-toe action. Good, thanks. Sometimes I post something, and by the time it's up the post I was replying to has changed so drastically I end up looking like an idiot. And a classy apology it was. I was very happy about that. True, but as I've seen repeated more and more often per day here in the Angel boards, Joss is the king authority of the verse. I still can reconcile the idea of them needing "unlimited permission" with Joss already saying they can use those characters whenever they want. Either way, it's certainly a unique situation. But I'm glad for its uniqueness. I wouldn't have any publisher but Dark Horse be in charge of the Buffy title, nor would I have any publisher but IDW be in charge of the Angel title. Both have done such great jobs.
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Mar 1, 2009 17:41:56 GMT -5
Thing about Gwen taking off the LISA--and I know, confirming your "Pat always posts in double" theory, but here it is--I'm not sure she is in the right psychological state to even consider it. As much as Runge's cover for #22 supports that she will, and as cool and even character-defining as her "ability" is... how interesting would it be if she just opts NOT to do it? After what happened to her in Hell-A, from her first to her last moment, I think that would be the best way to pursue her story.
Wexi, are you British or Scottish or Australian?
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Mar 1, 2009 17:43:01 GMT -5
The "curse" function is the bread and butter for those lacking certain anatomical regions (i.e. spleen, gall bladder, intestines, and the other obvious bits). It is passive aggressive, and hey, do it frequently enough, and Phil will say something about it. An FYI to those who enjoy the "curse" button... Phil has a tally of just about everything done on this forum, including the curse and bless function. Cursing a member is generally frowned upon as we prefer constructive dialogue to childish games. You've been warned. I'm not really worried about a tally or anything like that. Frankly, I don't even think we should have "cursing" as an option. One of the reasons I go around giving new members karma is because they'll post something without really knowing the community well and someone will take a dislike, then suddenly they're at -8 karma. That's an awful feeling to be at negative karma. And I don't think it's something anyone here deserves to feel. Frankly, the anonymity bothers me also. When you Rep other members on other boards, it shows who has repped who.
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Mar 1, 2009 17:46:45 GMT -5
Though, admittedly, new members whose name rhymed with, let's say, Gee Bee Vee, were oh so deserving of a negative eight.
But yeah, seeing that reminds me of when I was in fourth grade and mixed up latitude and longitude on a social studies test where every question was just naming what degree of longitude and latitude certain points were.
I got a zero. And a question mark. The question mark is at LEAST as bad as a negative eight. Similarly shaped, too.
|
|
Nina
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 141
|
Post by Nina on Mar 1, 2009 17:52:27 GMT -5
How does the rep points work here? Just press the add (or subract) button? I ever tried to rep somebody but I was confused that I couldn't give a reason so I'm not sure if something happened. Or should you press twice on a button to add rep points? But if it's just pressing once, could it be that somebody pressed it on accident? Something like that happened me once on a fanart site where you can rate wallpapers, I was scrolling and the page was not fully loaded and I clicked on only one star by accident. But if it was on purpose, it is mean indeed.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 1, 2009 17:55:15 GMT -5
I'm bringing this up because I just got cursed and frankly, the only things I've been discussing recently have been criticisms of Aftermath and speculation on the rights' issues of IDW and DH. It just feels ultimately petty and negative to *curse* someone for having a well-formed opinion that you disagree with. And the irony is that whoever this member is, I've probably given them hundreds of points in karma. So thanks a lot. Well, I just karma'd you to cancel out the curse. (Are Karma Wars a part of Hindu philosophy, I wonder?) Oh, and VBG just recently turned up on the Buffy Boards, where she responded to a post by the board owner by calling her a "moron." Making new friends already!
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Mar 1, 2009 17:56:23 GMT -5
They should use a system of stakes. Where you can rate a post from 1-5 stakes, sort of like how the Buffy/Angel magazine used to rate books and comic. That way, if your post gets one stake, a) it's only for that post and b) no one cares, because a stake graphic still [bold] looks[/bold] awesome.
Plus, you could say "I just got staked," which is fun.
|
|