[Rob Helmerichs]

I wouldn't worry too much about the cross-overs between Buffy and Angel--as has been said, it's nice to watch them in the order as originally aired, but you will miss very, very little if you don't.

If you can, great, you'll get a couple of nifty bits, but don't lose any sleep over it!

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Originally posted by Skittles
I never really cared for the Cordelia character during the second season of Buffy. She'll really blossom into a much more interesting (though not necessarily likable) character as time passes on the show.

Interestingly, I found just the opposite. When she was just a shallow, brainless, self-absorbed twit, she was fine. But as they deepened the character, it only served to emphasize Carpenter's remarkable thespian limitations. The girl can't act.

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Originally posted by ClutchBrake
Season 1 of Angel has been worth it thus far if for nothing more than Angel's dance interlude in "Expecting". I had to instant replay that several times.

Wait 'til he saves the puppy!

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Originally posted by Skittles
My thought is, give it time. After the Scooby Doo movie franchise dies down, she'll come back.

My hunch is that 25 years from now, she'll be like Richard Hatch, looking back at his one moment of glory and devoting his life to pathetic attempts to recreate it...

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

While I think SMG is not a good actor, they certainly built the role (and the show) around her limitations, which is fine. They did the same thing with Cordy, intitially, but when the character began to expand, she quickly expanded beyond Carpenter's ability, and became annoying (that is, annoying not on purpose).

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

I found that season 4 works a LOT better the second time through, when you realize they knew exactly what they were doing all along, but it was so off-center, it wasn't apparent until the end the first time.

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

hmmm....

You'll understand...

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

But the fourth season is a special case, because it seems so aimless, but has such a tight, well-hidden structure that is really only apparent the second time through. I'd say it is easily the season that improves the most the second time through.

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

It must be bunnies! (Or maybe midgets.)

Sorry. I was transported.

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Cool. I just wish they hadn't trimmed out parts (including parts of some songs) to shorten it for syndication.

Well, they had to. Syndication has to fit into a 1-hour time slot. Just think of it as, they lengthened it for the original broadcast and DVD!

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

One thing that some Buffy seasons suffer from is that the show was very carefully planned out. Usually, the overall shape of the season was obvious almost from the beginning, and those are the seasons that people loved the most as they were airing. But a couple of them (especially 4 and 6) developed more subtly, with the Big Bad only emerging late in the game. Those are the ones that people disliked (or even hated) when they aired, but I think they greatly reward a second viewing, when the overall shape of the season is more obvious.

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

I wish they'd offer a complete set of Buffy HD discs for sale. I'd buy that day one.

I probably wouldn't. Warner seems adamant about torturing the image into widescreen.

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Fox is making Buffy widescreen and Joss Whedon isn't happy

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Except the widescreen presentation screws up all kinds of things. My earlier link had several technical examples; Whedon himself gave some very compelling dramatic examples (e.g., in The Body there's a scene where the widescreen image completely destroys the emotion of the moment) back when the DVDs first came out, but I can't find a link to it with all the articles that have been done in light of the new HD butcherings.

They knew exactly what the image would look like on TV, and they very carefully arranged things to fit within that image. AFAIC, widescreen presentation of a 4:3 image is as bad as a pan-and-scan presentation of a widescreen image. OAR rules!

 

[Rob Helmerichs]

Exactly. Either do the widescreen conversion right, or just keep it in 4:3.

And I would argue in this case there is no "right" widescreen conversion...it was very carefully and deliberately framed for 4:3.

I'm repeating myself, but it seems strange to me that so many years after the pan-and-scan craze died out, we're re-litigating the issue of OAR.