|
|
Post by Emmie on Apr 10, 2009 23:39:38 GMT -5
With their newfound popularity, vampires have become maladapted. lol... But I agree about the OOC-ness of the vampires camping outside a town for an indefinite period of time. They're clearly Hanselstadt groupies. So sad how desperate they are for withered, old blood. Even Spike preferred his food to be a bit fresher than what you get from old people. School Hard: Spike: You don't know?! (lets go of the man) I'm a veal kind of guy. You're too old to eat. (grabs his head and snaps his neck) But not to kill. |
|
dane5by5
Wise-cracking Techno Genius
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 734
|
Post by dane5by5 on Apr 11, 2009 0:38:02 GMT -5
Emmie, I've said before that I enjoy reading your manifestos and breakdown of issues, so I'm not upset by your opinions on this particular issue, but you keep saying Giles dialgoue was stunted and poorly written. I think this is the same style of dialogue Giles used throughout the television series, however seeing it written makes it seem worse that it was, especially without ASH delivery and intonation, lines like "Vampires. I don't understand what they're waiting for?" and "We just made it. This is the only train that reaches Hanselstadt. It's deep in the mountains." seem completely in character for Giles. Sure they may be more exposition, but that is what the medium calls for, and it was not unusual for Giles to speak like this when explaining things to the Scoobies.
I'll give my opinions on your two questions:
1) I think the townspeople using their children to feed the demon was a statement on humanity being cruel and exploitive, this was necessary for Faiths statement at the end, that Slayers, whether they are now hated and exploited, should still protect people as this is the right thing to do. It also allowed for parallels to be draw with the Slayers position as vulnerable, like children, in this new world order. It doesn't matter why the townspeople didn't just pack up and leave, to use a longwinded analogy, there were recent bushfires in Australia and many of the people in the effected regions decided to stay behind and try to save their homes. Many of them died as a result of this, and I asked the same thing, if they knew there was a danger, why didn't they just pack up and leave? In the end, it doesn't matter why they chose to stay behind, just the consequences of their choices.
2) All I can think of in regards to this, is that the vampires knew the townspeople would eventually run of out children to feed to the demon, and were just waiting it out, before they could take over the entire town and kill everyone.
Wexina, only the first part I said was directed in reply to your post. While I agree that if Gossip Girl can use plot progression to facilitate character development, BtVS should too, this is a different medium and with much less time to display this character development. So what I think is, like Scott Allie said, why can't an issue be about the story without exploring the characters relationships and development, and then be used in reference later to facilitate this development or the characters relationship.
Mathieu, I didn't mean to single you out, I couldn't remember who took issue with the young Italian girl speaking English. I just wanted to make a point that BtVS fans analyse things to a degree that many other audiences would not.
|
|
El Diablo Robotico
Ensouled Vampire
Robo Pimp-Daddy
"Surely you have heard about our great victory over the Devil's Robot."[Mo0:3]
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by El Diablo Robotico on Apr 11, 2009 0:38:09 GMT -5
A lot of fans were "reading WAY too deep into" the subtext of Buffy/Faith in Season 3 to the point that Joss basically called them out on a fanboard for actively looking for slash when nothing was there. The fans responded by directing Joss to their meta written on the subject. He read it and apologized, saying he'd never realized that the subtext was there. He and his writers had written it and not even realized it til it was pointed out to them by fans. Wait--the Buffy/Faith S3 stuff wasn't intentional?  I swear I remember hearing Doug Petrie talk about how it was a subplot that was deliberately put in there, just never specifically addressed on-screen by any of the characters. Oh, well--just more proof that my mind isn't what it used to be.  The "G" didn't bother me, in spite of the well-thought arguments against it. It's just not something I feel like looking that deeply into. If she called Buffy "B", she can call Giles "G" and still sound in-character, AFAIC. The other initial criticism some people had of this issue was Faith's attitude toward CoCo, and how it didn't seem to match her words at the end of NFFY. But like I was telling Xi, this actually didn't bother me, either. It's similar to my main problem with #22, which was that Satsu clearly expressed at the end of WatG that she knew Buffy wasn't gay and that they weren't going to have a relationship, and then #22 begins with Kennedy showing up and explaining to her that Buffy isn't gay and they're never going to have a relationship. Xi had some good reasoning on why the situations are different between Faith and Satsu, but I'm not completely convinced yet.  To me, you either have to chalk both cases up to the characters acting contrary to their previous words and say that the writers goofed, or decide that both Faith and Satsu later discovered the truth of the expression "easier said than done", in which case the writers got it right. ...Which isn't my way of saying I thought this issue was good.  It had a lot of stuff wrong with it (plot, dialogue, art--the works), but I'll give Krueger a pass on those two things. --edit-- So what I think is, like Scott Allie said, why can't an issue be about the story without exploring the characters relationships and development, and then be used in reference later to facilitate this development or the characters relationship. A fair point, except that the only other example that really comes to mind where "Buffy" became 'story first/characters second' was S7, and the story and the characters both suffered for it. Joss's stuff has always been character-driven, and that's when it's at its best. |
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Apr 11, 2009 1:48:37 GMT -5
A lot of fans were "reading WAY too deep into" the subtext of Buffy/Faith in Season 3 to the point that Joss basically called them out on a fanboard for actively looking for slash when nothing was there. The fans responded by directing Joss to their meta written on the subject. He read it and apologized, saying he'd never realized that the subtext was there. He and his writers had written it and not even realized it til it was pointed out to them by fans. Wait--the Buffy/Faith S3 stuff wasn't intentional? I swear I remember hearing Doug Petrie talk about how it was a subplot that was deliberately put in there, just never specifically addressed on-screen by any of the characters. Oh, well--just more proof that my mind isn't what it used to be. Joss gave a recent audio interview where he told that anecdote about telling the fans during Season 3 that there was no Buffy/Faith subtext and then going to read their meta and having to recant. Now perhaps it's something Petrie owned after the fact or something Petrie deliberately put in there without really telling Joss, but it definitely wasn't something Whedon had planned according to Whedon himself. Nobody else listened to that interview? Gah, it was pretty recent. Within the last few months. I don't have it saved though. Emmie, I've said before that I enjoy reading your manifestos and breakdown of issues, so I'm not upset by your opinions on this particular issue, but you keep saying Giles dialgoue was stunted and poorly written. I think this is the same style of dialogue Giles used throughout the television series, however seeing it written makes it seem worse that it was, especially without ASH delivery and intonation, lines like "Vampires. I don't understand what they're waiting for?" and "We just made it. This is the only train that reaches Hanselstadt. It's deep in the mountains." seem completely in character for Giles. Sure they may be more exposition, but that is what the medium calls for, and it was not unusual for Giles to speak like this when explaining things to the Scoobies. , I'm going to bring over a post I made on Buffy Forums to illustrate how this is very much not true for Giles. It's an analytical comparison of his dialogue for The Long Way Home versus Safe. This is something I've just pulled from my other post to show how there are ways of writing "intelligent Giles" and "robotic Giles" in the comics. Also interesting to note - I just heard a story today where Espenson turned in a script to Whedon where she'd written a line for one character then decided to switch it to someone else without altering the line. Whedon immediately noticed and told her she couldn't do that. That each character had such a specific voice that you couldn't just copy/paste lines. Yet the lines Giles speaks in the first half of Safe are very much robotic, copy/paste lines in comparison to what Whedon wrote for Giles. _________________________________________________________ The point is that the way Giles spoke was completely flat. ALL he did was flat exposition that wasn't filtered through a Giles voice translator. Compare the lines from Safe with The Long Way Home: It's most definitely not an odd complaint. Read the lines. In the first, Giles is self-reflective and carries an air of intelligence. In the other, he repeats what other characters say to him and states the obvious, even going so far as to say outloud where they are geographically and saying "deep in the mountains" when a location bubble would suffice. Krueger wastes lines. This issue had so much potential for character development and it was completely wasted. It's bad writing that never even attempts to give the two characters depth. Soledad in #21 had more depth as a new character than Faith did in #24. It was a poorly executed story by a writer that doesn't have a handle on Whedon-y wordplay or the deep characterization of who he's writing. Seriously, read the lines above in comparison. The first sounds like Giles. The second is just exposition that doesn't sound like anyone at all. I guess I'm going to have to break down the differences here. GILES: I think they were, yes. Someone engineered that conflict – and sacrificed two young men in the process. I think we need to know who."I think they were, yes." This line first follows the rhythm of Giles speech delivery. The "yes" thrown in at the end is indicative of this - it's a little add-on that is a Giles-type of phrase. The way Spike likes to start his sentences without pronouns - Spike doesn't like to use complete sentences quite a bit. "Someone engineered that conflict – and sacrificed two young men in the process. I think we need to know who." This shows Giles is using his very, very BIG brain. It's analytical thought at work. He's read the scenario and reached the decision that he needs to go to a demon to call a truce. To powwow with the demon world to figure it out. This tells us about Giles' character - that he's intelligent, that he's analytical, that he's able to put differences aside if he feels its for the greater good, that he has serious cojones to meet demons alone without any Slayers in order to make headway for the greater good. These lines tell us a lot about exposition AND about Giles = Good writing. "Slayer Sanctuary?" This tells us Giles can parrot back what's just been said by the girl standing in front of him. "Tell me more about this Slayer Sanctuary." This rhythm of his speech feels robotic. I can imagine a Giles!bot saying this. Or even Summer Glau as Cameron the Terminator. It's devoid of intellectual thought, emotion, anything resembling characterization. It's not even a clever way to get the exposition moving. This could have been done in more creative ways and even more naturally with Giles simply asking question that actually showed his immense intellect.
"We need to find this place." For this line, I'll just repeat my commentary from my review which was = No shit. It's laughable that this comes from Giles mouth. It possibly could have worked if it was paired with another line that showed the import, Giles' drive, his emotions. But standing alone it's laughable and obvious. "We just made it. This is the only train that reaches Hanselstadt. It's deep in the mountains." This line makes me again want to laugh. "we just made it" - Duh, we can see that by the fact that you're all standing next to the train. "This is the only train that reaches Hanselstadt." - And this is important why? Or affects the story in any way? "It's deep in the mountains." Bwah! This entire line of dialogue could be scrapped and replaced by a location bubble or not at all. We already know that they're traveling to Hanselstadt. It being deep in the mountains could be established another way, not that the info even matters because the main point is that the town is remote. There are more creative and natural ways to establish this. Again, the line tells us nothing about Giles and read robotically. Krueger's method of writing for Giles is to make him A) state the obvious and B) repeat what another character just said only phrased as a question. He manages to snap out of this a bit towards the end of the issue, but the majority of his lines for the first half are robotic and idiotic considering how deep of a character he is. And wasting half an issue of character voice means that a lot of people were completely thrown out of the story, literally tossing up their hands in disappointment. The fact that you two guys were able to read on is great for you. A lot of fans who've been along for the entire Season 8 ride were completely thrown out by this example of inadequate, inferior storytelling. And to say I limited Giles' lines in this issue is a bit ludicrous when in comparison, I only took a snippet of one scene from LWH while I took all the lines from Giles for the first third of the issue. And comparably, Giles plays a larger role in #24 than he does in LWH. And yet his development and characterization are like deep night and a superficial day. It's bad writing. Why bother defending it? Just like we say I Robot, You Jane is a bad episode. Everything in Season 8 doesn't have to be defended as brilliant or even moderately good. This just isn't. I'd happily throw it out actually. Krueger doesn't have a handle on the wordplay of the Whedon world either. Imagine him trying to write Andrew's dialogue in comparison to Goddard. |
|
El Diablo Robotico
Ensouled Vampire
Robo Pimp-Daddy
"Surely you have heard about our great victory over the Devil's Robot."[Mo0:3]
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by El Diablo Robotico on Apr 11, 2009 2:04:48 GMT -5
Now perhaps it's something Petrie owned after the fact or something Petrie deliberately put in there without really telling Joss, but it definitely wasn't something Whedon had planned according to Whedon himself. Very possible, since I think the episodes where it's most prevalent are all ones that Petrie wrote. Wow, sneaky Doug!  |
|
dane5by5
Wise-cracking Techno Genius
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 734
|
Post by dane5by5 on Apr 11, 2009 8:22:09 GMT -5
The reason I defend the issue is because I genuinely believe this was a GOOD story, it was a interesting premise and an adequate execution, it could have been better, but many episodes and issues would have benefited from some edits and additional character moments.
Emmie, keep in mind that this issue had the set up, climax and conclusion in 22 pages. "The Long Way Home" had four times that page count. Almost all the Giles dialogue you have referenced is during the "set up" of the issue, once you get to the climax, Giles discussion with Duncan, that was quality writing, for all characters.
I've noticed in this discussion, while some people, like yourself, have an aversion to poor characterisation, I dislike poor story/narrative, which is often why I find myself defending season seven of BtVS and season four of AtS, which I think was a great narrative, but many fans think was unconvincing in characterisation. I guess it really comes down to predilection.
|
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Apr 11, 2009 8:23:59 GMT -5
Well I watched I Robot, You Jane a few days ago and you know what?? I wish all the shows on tv were as badly written as the worst Buffy episodes! I actually enjoyed it a lot. You really feel for Buffy all along and the story is just very light and fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Apr 11, 2009 9:12:46 GMT -5
Joss gave a recent audio interview where he told that anecdote about telling the fans during Season 3 that there was no Buffy/Faith subtext and then going to read their meta and having to recant. Now perhaps it's something Petrie owned after the fact or something Petrie deliberately put in there without really telling Joss, but it definitely wasn't something Whedon had planned according to Whedon himself. Nobody else listened to that interview? Gah, it was pretty recent. Within the last few months. I don't have it saved though. |
|
Marcos
Novice Witch
Define "human".[Mo0:30]
Posts: 210
|
Post by Marcos on Apr 11, 2009 10:36:25 GMT -5
Well, I already expressed my support for Emmie's comments. Her criticism about the issue in general is excellent, and Giles is indeed really badly written (but so is the entire issue, so it's all part of the big messy crap). But.... I did some homework. I looked up some season 7 scripts and took a look at some Faith dialogue. Well, to my surprise, Faith calls Buffy "B" many times after the graveyard teasing dialogue (at which "B" really serves for irony). In Dirty Girls, when Faith's speaking to Spike and Buffy arrives, she calls her "B", but I didn't sense any malice there. Also, and that being the most relevant indication that MAYBE Faith's use of "B" is not ironic as it used to be: in Empty Places (an episode I don't see as OOC at all, because as shocking as it was, it made sense, 'cause it had plenty of precedent. Buffy saying "I am the law", sayig she is better than them, she is the one true only powerful, etc. I would kick her out if I was there  ). In the big conflict scene, Faith says: "FAITH: It's a neat theory, B. But I'm not
going back in that place. Not
without proof. And neither should
you. And neither should they."Later, when Rona points out that Buffy's not the only Slayer, Faith says: "Faith: Ka-wha? Whoa, whoa, whoa, so not
what I meant, I'm not the in-charge
chick, I just think B here needs to
chill out for a bit, take a siesta
maybe, but I'm not the one you want."It's an extremely serious scene and Faith's line indicates that, even though Buffy's kinda "tired", she is the Slayer to lead. Well, dunno about you guys, but at least regarding the "B" controversy, I guess I will step aside, 'cause I'm now convinced that Faith (the new, grounded, no-psycho Faith) is actually capable of nicknaming people "Bs" or "Gs" in a friendly way. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Apr 11, 2009 11:12:22 GMT -5
But.... I did some homework. I looked up some season 7 scripts and took a look at some Faith dialogue. Well, to my surprise, Faith calls Buffy "B" many times after the graveyard teasing dialogue (at which "B" really serves for irony). In Dirty Girls, when Faith's speaking to Spike and Buffy arrives, she calls her "B", but I didn't sense any malice there. Yeah marcos, a few pages back I'd mentioned that she does call Buffy "B" in Season 4 and later on, but by then it's probably more habit than anything else. Actually both examples you cite show the circumstances for why Faith uses the nickname - she's feeling defensive when Buffy punches her and she's feeling defensive when everyone says she should be in charge now instead of Buffy. Being on the defense is the main reason Faith uses nicknames at all. I still think the origin of the nickname is what's key in understanding the meaning and the origin of Faith calling Buffy "B" isn't sunshine and puppies. As for the nickname, I still say it's so small that it's not that big a deal, but it's just indicative of Krueger not quite getting it. I maintain that the sticking point is more so that Faith likes and respects Giles and so wouldn't give him a name that he doesn't like, and more so wouldn't reduce him to such a nickname because of her newfound maturity. Again, this is a common trope found in fanfic for writers who don't quite understand how to write Faith - they have her calling everyone by the first letter of their name. Next we'll have Faith calling Dawn "D" because hey, it sounds okay! *shrugs* Dane, I happen to also love Season 4 and Season 7. I have an aversion to inadequate storytelling, something I feel does applie to this issue and most definitely does NOT apply to Season 7 of BUFFY and Season 4 of ANGEL (characterization on the whole for the entire season most definitely isn't a fail like this). I still don't find any explanation reasonable for the forced situations of the townspeople refusing to leave versus sacrificing their children nor why vampires would hang out outside the town "waiting" as Giles said. Vampires don't wait in the 'verse. Either they're intelligent like Spike and Angel and make a plan, or they're mindless and go around looking for the easiest kill. (just to clarify, everything I posted after that extended line wasn't written in response to you but was a direct copy of a previous post. so no intended tone implied there) Krueger could have explained both situations by saying the demon had an irresistible pull for vampires and humans that draws them in. He didn't. There's no text for this. Their behavior remains mysterious and inexplicable and considering it would be so easy to fix, it's indeed very bad writing. As for Giles dialogue, there's a way to do set-up that sounds like Giles and there's a way to do set-up that sounds like set-up. Krueger did the latter. Note the speech pattern and use of more intelligent vocabulary used by Whedon, the way he throws a "yes" onto the end of a line that truly creates the rhythm of Giles' speech. It allows the reader to hear Anthony Stewart Head delivering the lines, hearing his inflection perfectly. When I read Krueger's lines I hear a Gilesbot instead who parrots back what's said to him and makes obvious conclusions based on what's being fed to him by whoever's speaking. Giles scene in LWH is largely setup also, explaining how the demons and cult were both being setup by something larger. But in such a sparseness of language, this is relayed while also relaying Giles' character. What's most frustrating is that this set-up dilemma is completely the fault of Krueger's own choices on how to tell the story. He very easily could have relied on NFFY to give some more hints into where Giles and Faith were at. Standing on the shoulders of what came before like A Beautiful Sunset did regarding characterization. Instead we have an issue that is clearly plot and metaphor driven, but even fails in this regard because of it's two most obvious plot holes Krueger forgot to plug over with duct tape - vampires don't loiter indefinitely for no reason and an entire town wouldn't stay when all their children are being wiped out again for no apparent reason. |
|
Marcos
Novice Witch
Define "human".[Mo0:30]
Posts: 210
|
Post by Marcos on Apr 11, 2009 11:30:49 GMT -5
I guess they're lazy vampires. They prefer to wait for the city than to look around for meat LOL It'd be easy to suggest that the town is another Hellmouth. And Giles saying "I got a theory" would also help on the characterization Emmie, on the nickname thing, well, your point make sense (again). But it sounds to me that if "B" became normal to her, so could "G". Also, she not always calls people for the letter, but for example, she calls cancer "the big C". I dunno, I just don't see the "G" as OOC anymore (not OOC, but badly written, because I guess Faith is more creative than that). And the fact that Giles lets her do it, well, many things changed since Sunnydale era, when he didn't let Xander nickname him. He was the big daddy there. With Faith, he's her partner. Well, it's just my view of things, but yours, as I said, also makes perfect sense.  |
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Apr 11, 2009 11:32:35 GMT -5
Yeah marcos, a few pages back I'd mentioned that she does call Buffy "B" in Season 4 and later on, but by then it's probably more habit than anything else. Actually both examples you cite show the circumstances for why Faith uses the nickname - she's feeling defensive when Buffy punches her and she's feeling defensive when everyone says she should be in charge now instead of Buffy. Being on the defense is the main reason Faith uses nicknames at all. I still think the origin of the nickname is what's key in understanding the meaning and the origin of Faith calling Buffy "B" isn't sunshine and puppies. As for the nickname, I still say it's so small that it's not that big a deal, but it's just indicative of Krueger not quite getting it. I maintain that the sticking point is more so that Faith likes and respects Giles and so wouldn't give him a name that he doesn't like, and more so wouldn't reduce him to such a nickname because of her newfound maturity. Again, this is a common trope found in fanfic for writers who don't quite understand how to write Faith - they have her calling everyone by the first letter of their name. Next we'll have Faith calling Dawn "D" because hey, it sounds okay! *shrugs* Dane, I happen to also love Season 4 and Season 7. I have an aversion to inadequate storytelling, something I feel does applie to this issue and most definitely does NOT apply to Season 7 of BUFFY and Season 4 of ANGEL (characterization on the whole for the entire season most definitely isn't a fail like this). I still don't find any explanation reasonable for the forced situations of the townspeople refusing to leave versus sacrificing their children nor why vampires would hang out outside the town "waiting" as Giles said. Vampires don't wait in the 'verse. Either they're intelligent like Spike and Angel and make a plan, or they're mindless and go around looking for the easiest kill. (just to clarify, everything I posted after that extended line wasn't written in response to you but was a direct copy of a previous post. so no intended tone implied there) Krueger could have explained both situations by saying the demon had an irresistible pull for vampires and humans that draws them in. He didn't. There's no text for this. Their behavior remains mysterious and inexplicable and considering it would be so easy to fix, it's indeed very bad writing. As for Giles dialogue, there's a way to do set-up that sounds like Giles and there's a way to do set-up that sounds like set-up. Krueger did the latter. Note the speech pattern and use of more intelligent vocabulary used by Whedon, the way he throws a "yes" onto the end of a line that truly creates the rhythm of Giles' speech. It allows the reader to hear Anthony Stewart Head delivering the lines, hearing his inflection perfectly. When I read Krueger's lines I hear a Gilesbot instead who parrots back what's said to him and makes obvious conclusions based on what's being fed to him by whoever's speaking. Giles scene in LWH is largely setup also, explaining how the demons and cult were both being setup by something larger. But in such a sparseness of language, this is relayed while also relaying Giles' character. What's most frustrating is that this set-up dilemma is completely the fault of Krueger's own choices on how to tell the story. He very easily could have relied on NFFY to give some more hints into where Giles and Faith were at. Standing on the shoulders of what came before like A Beautiful Sunset did regarding characterization. Instead we have an issue that is clearly plot and metaphor driven, but even fails in this regard because of it's two most obvious plot holes Krueger forgot to plug over with duct tape - vampires don't loiter indefinitely for no reason and an entire town wouldn't stay when all their children are being wiped out again for no apparent reason. Emmie, I'm starting to think that you might be the one having a hard time adjusting to the comic book format ;-) I mean, let's put it this way, when we would watch the show on screen, anything that the characters said, no matter how badly written their lines might have been, we would consider it was pretty much in charcater because, hey, we heard the actors pronounce the words so it gives credentials to the line. I mean we could still question their behavior or reactions and say that we didn't like the direction one of the characters was taking but it didn't make the whole thing sound "off" or whatever. Now every single line that we read in the comics, we analyze and over-analyze it to make sure it's not "out of character" and we try to see if by reading it we can hear the original actor say it in our head. Maybe we have to detach ourselves from the original cast and let the characters evolve on their own in the comic format... |
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Apr 11, 2009 11:38:25 GMT -5
I guess they're lazy vampires. They prefer to wait for the city than to look around for meat LOL It'd be easy to suggest that the town is another Hellmouth. And Giles saying "I got a theory" would also help on the characterization Emmie, on the nickname thing, well, your point make sense (again). But it sounds to me that if "B" became normal to her, so could "G". Also, she not always calls people for the letter, but for example, she calls cancer "the big C". I dunno, I just don't see the "G" as OOC anymore (not OOC, but badly written, because I guess Faith is more creative than that). And the fact that Giles lets her do it, well, many things changed since Sunnydale era, when he didn't let Xander nickname him. He was the big daddy there. With Faith, he's her partner. Well, it's just my view of things, but yours, as I said, also makes perfect sense. Agreed! We're on the same page. I think many things have changed since Sunnydale and Giles and Faith work as a team now. Giles is not the father figure anymore. The only thing that still bothers me though is the townpeople feeding the monster with their kids. Who on Earth would do that? It's against any human instinct of survival. You don't sacrifice the young generation. When a group of people is in peril, you save the children first, then the ladies and then come the gentlemen. However I don't really care for this order!! |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Apr 11, 2009 12:14:48 GMT -5
We're in a Catch-22, aren't we? Those that defend the usage of "G" keep saying that it's because the Faith/Giles dynamic has changed to one of a more equal partnership. Yet, that's not what we were given. We had Faith act like a petulant child and Giles chiding her. Even the subtext of the dinner is elder/apprentice oriented. Faith leaves the table with the junior Slayer to apparently go see the other girls, while the "big people" talk shop.
This character regression I keep harping about has been countered by El Diablo (in personal communication) by saying that we have no idea what went down between Faith and the girls she set out to save between "NFFY" and "Safe". Perhaps, like her first attempt (i.e. one Gigi), she failed. Simone's army is growing... meaning lots of wayward Slayers out there that Faith hasn't gotten to. Valid points. EXCEPT that if Krueger was a better writer in this instance, he would have indicated those failures in Faith's "regret moment". Instead of using a throwaway character (the Third, incidentally reminds me of Luke... the vessel for the Harvest), Krueger could have flashed back to Faith's failures then. What this achieves is two things mainly. It explains why Faith seems to have regressed, but it also gives us characterization. It would still have achieved the same effect; i.e. showing that the monster fed on regret. Once again, a flaw in the execution of a nifty concept. As for Robo-Giles, I think Emmie covered that sufficiently and extensively.
mathieu: This isn't so much a debate of the format as much as it is about the competence of a writer to translate a character's essence on paper. Even if an actor had spoken those lines, they aren't believably Giles. As Emmie pointed out, Giles is exposition-guy, but he's not a robot. Krueger missed Giles inflections, expressions, and syntax patterns. What he gave us was something that looked like Giles (well... as much as Richards can draw an adequate Giles), but sounded like the idiot child of Sesame Street and Banana in Pajamas.
|
|
Mathieu
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by Mathieu on Apr 11, 2009 12:28:39 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that I feel like we wouldn't have such a debate over this if Safe had been on tv with the real actors. Whatever line Anthony Stewart Head would have had to say, it would have sounded like Giles, maybe some kind of lame Giles, but still Giles. Now that we don't have the actors' voices to back up a badly written script, anything badly written sounds out of character.
However, I'm not saying the whole issue was genius. I HATED it actually when Giles said "Enough, Faith!" like she was a 5 year old. I LOATHED it. The line sounded really off, not necessarily the character but just the talk they had. Kind of forced.
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Apr 11, 2009 13:11:33 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that I feel like we wouldn't have such a debate over this if Safe had been on tv with the real actors. Whatever line Anthony Stewart Head would have had to say, it would have sounded like Giles, maybe some kind of lame Giles, but still Giles. Now that we don't have the actors' voices to back up a badly written script, anything badly written sounds out of character. I disagree. It would have sounded like ASH saying some bad lines, not Giles. A character's voice is more than just the sound of the voice. It's the accent, the timbre, the inflections, but also the syntax patterns. ASH, while British, changed his accent (and more than likely, the way he usually speaks) to more wholly embody Giles. |
|
Marcos
Novice Witch
Define "human".[Mo0:30]
Posts: 210
|
Post by Marcos on Apr 11, 2009 13:33:59 GMT -5
Agreed. It's not about the actor's voices at all. A bad line/dialogue is bad anywhere.
|
|
El Diablo Robotico
Ensouled Vampire
Robo Pimp-Daddy
"Surely you have heard about our great victory over the Devil's Robot."[Mo0:3]
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by El Diablo Robotico on Apr 11, 2009 14:32:59 GMT -5
Agreed. It's not about the actor's voices at all. A bad line/dialogue is bad anywhere. A perfect example of that being the Lorne/Angel scene near the beginning of "Waiting in the Wings". I know it's one of a lot of people's favorite Lorne moments, but the use of that many "pastry" nicknames in such a short span has just always struck me as 'off'. Like Joss was trying just a little too hard...  |
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Apr 11, 2009 14:43:05 GMT -5
Maybe Lorne was hungry at the time. And whoever wrote the dialouge, made it so Angel could say "Stop calling me pastries".
I thought the "overdoing" was part of the joke.
But I guess we all have different "taste" in dialouges.
|
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on Apr 11, 2009 16:50:55 GMT -5
Although it's been well argued as a prominant symbol of Faith's growth, I don't see how her saying "G" could be taken as far as to say she's regressed as a character. Looking at it as a very basic human habit, Faith is a person that uses nicknames; so even if she intentionally used them in a demeaning manor before, and even if she seemingly made effort to stop doing it out of respect before, it's not a dramatic reversal to see that she still uses them. A real person probably still would, and I saw no negativity to the use in this issue. If anything, it could be argued that her nicknaming Giles is actually a positive step for their relationship in my opinion. It shows that they're on more of a level field, Giles isn't in the parental or authorititive position.
|
|
