On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Ian McDowell wrote:
> RogerM <rodger.mckay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> > So true. Gay Willow, 'nuff said.
> >
> > Whedon can write a good episode, but he has the soul of a hack.
>
> Doing something you think it's cool or interesting, even if it's
> inconsistent with what you did before, is not the quality of a hack.
> Doing something because you think it will make you more money is.
> "Hack" is one of the most ill-used words on Usenet.
It's a hack feature, however. A lack of attention to continuity, in
service of what will be "cool" or "interesting" is a hacky
calculation, albeit an intelligent hacky calculation. They
are betting that the audience will, in large, forgive lack
of craftsmanship if they are entertained or diverted by
the new development. I don't mind this, particularly, if the
show isn't making great efforts to define their characters,
as happened on "Voyager", but BTVS seemed to think this
important, and violating what they themselves (and Whedon
himself) had believed were important aspects of the show,
reveal their motivations as more cynical. Non-hacks would
have made efforts to write around established character
traits, rather than ignoring them, or making previously
innoent or benevolent behavior seem malicious or sinister
in retrospect.
|
