Tuvix <rwhelan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<Pine.GSO.4.53.0307040543380.22317@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> 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.
Conversely, a too-rigid adherence to the false idol of "Continuity"
can often be a form of pandering to the saggy mantits fanboy brigade.
At least, such is what happens in comics.
They
> are betting that the audience will, in large, forgive lack
> of craftsman****p 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
> im****tant, and violating what they themselves (and Whedon
> himself) had believed were im****tant 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.
Nope. Those may be artistic defects, but they aren't sins motivated
by the desire to grind out stories to make more money.
I'd be interested in seeing how many other writers here share your
feeling that one should never contradict the established parameters of
one's characters, at least in an ongoing series. As one myself, I've
never felt that kind of consistency was a sacred cow. There are a lot
of things about my two novels that, were I writing them now, I'd do
differently, and I'm sure that, if anyone were insane enough to give
me a TV series, I would not let what I felt about my characters in
2004 put too many constraints on what I decided to do with them in
2007. Whatever my other sins, I don't think this makes me a hack.
There are also certain practicalities. It's a matter of record that
Robia LaMorte became increasingly unhappy with her role on the show
and wanted out of it, mainly due to her religious leanings. Does
anyone know how early in BUFFY's run she started expressing her
dissatisfaction? Once you know an actor is going to be leaving, your
perspective on a character changes, and you start making plans more in
accordance with your strategy for getting rid of them than with what's
gone before.
It should also be remembered, that as far as the dynamics of TV series
go, Jennie Callender simply wasn't that im****tant. She'd been
introduced as the potential girlfriend of a sup****ting character and
had never been part of the core cast. Placing too much im****tance on
her in the overall scheme of things reminds me of the way that Star
Wars fans has elevated Boba Fett out of all pro****tion to his actual
role in the original trilogy.
|
