|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 23, 2006 22:10:19 GMT -5
i loved this episode, i loved reading all your thoughts on it, and i'm so glad to be back on S3! coherent, thought-out comments of my own to follow at a later time ;D Hi again, artemis! Nice to see you back here at the S3. Just finished watching the episode - loved it! Excellent writing - very funny lines interspersed with the dramatic - wonderful, wonderful. Impossible to shame the shameless, then that shameless smirky Logan comes in, all ashamed of himself. As well he should be. He was so very wrong to sleep with Hannah! But - he is so desperately lonely, in huge trouble and very young himself - just sad all around. I mean, look who the guy's best pal is now - the world's biggest insensitive dork, Dick C. I wonder what Veronica will say to Logan? She is kinda jealous I think, so she's going to have to rise above that to provide good advice. Where would a hiding Heidi hide, if a hiding Heidi was all hidey? With her old boyfriend! And look at her talking about her former hedonism at the wedding - she's . . . why, she's . . . shameless!!Loved Cliff - "I'm with stupid" and Vinnie and Kendall - (what in the world did she do to Logan's shower drain?? And why did Aaron want her to do it? ) Aaron - so slimey! The slimiest! So guilty! The guiltiest. Slimeball! I love Harry Hamlin. And more about the real-estate deals! Could the bus crash have been about rich folks trying to buy up some property currently owned by poorer folks? Remember how Marcos' death had his parents considering selling their home? But - Aaron - how does that fit in? And . . . ooook!! I love the Beav. Great ep!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 23, 2006 22:33:39 GMT -5
Been swamped with work so I kind of skipped last week. Watched it once though. In no sensible order, my immediate reactions: Exactly how long is the “Previously” part? They are practically recapping the whole series. But not a bad thing to do at this point; I enjoyed it enormously. That's exactly how it seemed! And I enjoyed it muchly too. I like your summary. How do the expectations and assumptions affect you? How do they shape how people see you? And perhaps, just how far will you go? Exactly! I hadn't thought of that parallel - but it works! Especially because both Dick and Lamb are acting the way they are partly just to drive the other person crazy. Well, when it's true, it's true. I am sooooooo curious to know what Aaron has Kendall doing for him. Why is she taking what I can only presume to be some of Logan's hair / DNA? And particularly, why is his dad asking her to do this? A very useful quote. ;D Most excellent episode. I keep having that feeling, like the pieces are about to gel and fall together. I mean, they don't, so I still am totally lost. But I have hope! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 23, 2006 22:34:03 GMT -5
i loved this episode, i loved reading all your thoughts on it, and i'm so glad to be back on S3! coherent, thought-out comments of my own to follow at a later time ;D #wavey#
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 23, 2006 22:40:46 GMT -5
i loved this episode, i loved reading all your thoughts on it, and i'm so glad to be back on S3! coherent, thought-out comments of my own to follow at a later time ;D Hi again, artemis! Nice to see you back here at the S3. Just finished watching the episode - loved it! Excellent writing - very funny lines interspersed with the dramatic - wonderful, wonderful. Impossible to shame the shameless, then that shameless smirky Logan comes in, all ashamed of himself. As well he should be. He was so very wrong to sleep with Hannah! But - he is so desperately lonely, in huge trouble and very young himself - just sad all around. I mean, look who the guy's best pal is now - the world's biggest insensitive dork, Dick C. Oy! You never said a truer word! **nods** Especially now that he's come to her for help/advice. Too. Many. Possibilities! I keep thinking I have part of the puzzle, but . . . ;D
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 24, 2006 0:11:36 GMT -5
She's not 14. She's a sophmore. Hudson is 14 and he's in 8th grade so that makes her 15 or 16. Rob has no problem with teenagers having sex. Look at all the sex last season. The problem is the actress looks like she's 12. Poor casting is my opinion. I don't blame Logan in the slightest here. I respectfully disagree, oh perky one. I think RT knew she looked younger than even the age she's playing but wanted that look to ratchet up sympathy for her. I really think he cast for effect here and succeeded. Yeah, he wanted to make Logan look like a heel for taking advantage of a poor innocent little girl, and he succeeded - and he succeeded in making Logan realize that he did a bad thing. Except, no matter how young Hannah looks, she really isn't all that innocent. She was the one who brought up sex first. That's pretty ballsy for such an innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 24, 2006 0:13:29 GMT -5
i loved this episode, i loved reading all your thoughts on it, and i'm so glad to be back on S3! coherent, thought-out comments of my own to follow at a later time ;D #wavey# Welcome back!
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Mar 24, 2006 0:51:50 GMT -5
What I don't get, when I've read some of the recaps at TWoP, is why there is such a focus on L's serious greyness when almost every character has done seriously morally ambiguous things. Two possibilities spring to mind. I think they're both right, to a point...though I doubt everyone will agree. 1. Veronica's iffy actions almost always emanate from good intentions (bringing Lily's murderer to justice, for example). I don't think the same can be said for Logan...especially in Season 1. 2. Backlash. Whenever this kind of program has a breakout supporting character, there's bound to be some hard feelings from those who would prefer to see THEIR favorite get to appear in all 22 episodes, with THEIR own independent storyline. Hence, the vitriol increases. Whatever the reasons, personally I find it nice to see Logan slowly developing into a young man with a conscience, yet in a realistic way. It would've been a false note (for me) if he hadn't had sex with Hannah when the opportunity arose...so to speak. The difference is Logan's reaction in the aftermath. I don't think he would've given half a damn about hurting Hannah in early Season 1. This year, that doesn't appear to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Cal on Mar 24, 2006 7:12:36 GMT -5
Finally got to see this episode last night. I loved it! As usual, reading all of your comments has only added to my enjoyment of it. We have such insightful people on the S3! ;D I've been reading a lot of backlash towards Logan (and not just by the Logan haters) over his treatment of Hannah, over in LJ land. I don't really understand why that is. Where would be the fun in a two-dimensional character who only ever does things his fans approve of? No fun at all! I like the greyness to his character. It's what attracted me to him in the first place, just like it did with my boy Spike. VM would be a boring show if all our favourite characters behaved like saints the whole time. This season is really getting going now and I'm loving every minute of it!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 24, 2006 7:43:18 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree, oh perky one. I think RT knew she looked younger than even the age she's playing but wanted that look to ratchet up sympathy for her. I really think he cast for effect here and succeeded. Yeah, he wanted to make Logan look like a heel for taking advantage of a poor innocent little girl, and he succeeded - and he succeeded in making Logan realize that he did a bad thing. Except, no matter how young Hannah looks, she really isn't all that innocent. She was the one who brought up sex first. That's pretty ballsy for such an innocent. Logan is total good girl bait. He's the perfect instrument through which Hannah can rebel against her parents and such. I loved the way both actors played the scene where she let him know that she was ready to say yes to sex. Jessy S (Hannah) handled it very well, and Jason D was perfect.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 24, 2006 7:56:15 GMT -5
What I don't get, when I've read some of the recaps at TWoP, is why there is such a focus on L's serious greyness when almost every character has done seriously morally ambiguous things. Two possibilities spring to mind. I think they're both right, to a point...though I doubt everyone will agree. 1. Veronica's iffy actions almost always emanate from good intentions (bringing Lily's murderer to justice, for example). I don't think the same can be said for Logan...especially in Season 1. 2. Backlash. Whenever this kind of program has a breakout supporting character, there's bound to be some hard feelings from those who would prefer to see THEIR favorite get to appear in all 22 episodes, with THEIR own independent storyline. Hence, the vitriol increases. Whatever the reasons, personally I find it nice to see Logan slowly developing into a young man with a conscience, yet in a realistic way. It would've been a false note (for me) if he hadn't had sex with Hannah when the opportunity arose...so to speak. The difference is Logan's reaction in the aftermath. I don't think he would've given half a damn about hurting Hannah in early Season 1. This year, that doesn't appear to be the case. But - for me - I don't judge actions based on intentions. You can't really KNOW the intentions of others, not with any certainity whatsoever. People are complicated. They often hide underlying "I need attention/power/validation" motives under "good intentions." They hide their true motives from everyone - very often including themselves. They really believe their own line of bull. It's just as wrong for me draw a gun and rob a stranger to feed my hungry baby, as it is for you to rob a stranger to buy a new sound system for your car. We both hurt said-stranger just as much, we both chose the very same, wrong way of doing something when other methods would have worked . . . I don't care what I'm telling myself or others, if I rob a stranger to feed my baby, I've got other, not so pleasant, underlying motives, and they are the same as yours. Now - you can come up with extreme circumstance examples on either side of this spectrum that are basically "exceptions" to me - but Veronica isn't in those kind of extreme circumstances. I don't buy the "it's different according to who is doing it" argument, generally. It's amost never different according to who's doing it. I agree with your take on Logan. He's growing and maturing. Veronica too.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 24, 2006 7:58:48 GMT -5
Finally got to see this episode last night. I loved it! As usual, reading all of your comments has only added to my enjoyment of it. We have such insightful people on the S3! ;D I've been reading a lot of backlash towards Logan (and not just by the Logan haters) over his treatment of Hannah, over in LJ land. I don't really understand why that is. Where would be the fun in a two-dimensional character who only ever does things his fans approve of? No fun at all! I like the greyness to his character. It's what attracted me to him in the first place, just like it did with my boy Spike. VM would be a boring show if all our favourite characters behaved like saints the whole time. This season is really getting going now and I'm loving every minute of it! You said it, cal! I love the greyness of the characters. Why - they are almost like real people!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 24, 2006 8:32:16 GMT -5
What I don't get, when I've read some of the recaps at TWoP, is why there is such a focus on L's serious greyness when almost every character has done seriously morally ambiguous things. Two possibilities spring to mind. I think they're both right, to a point...though I doubt everyone will agree. 1. Veronica's iffy actions almost always emanate from good intentions (bringing Lily's murderer to justice, for example). I don't think the same can be said for Logan...especially in Season 1. 2. Backlash. Whenever this kind of program has a breakout supporting character, there's bound to be some hard feelings from those who would prefer to see THEIR favorite get to appear in all 22 episodes, with THEIR own independent storyline. Hence, the vitriol increases. Whatever the reasons, personally I find it nice to see Logan slowly developing into a young man with a conscience, yet in a realistic way. It would've been a false note (for me) if he hadn't had sex with Hannah when the opportunity arose...so to speak. The difference is Logan's reaction in the aftermath. I don't think he would've given half a damn about hurting Hannah in early Season 1. This year, that doesn't appear to be the case. **nods to all of this** I would also add the generalism that many people don't want or like characters as much when they are complex in this way. They like their villians like they like their men - evil! (Um, wait a minute . . . ) And they want the hero or heroine to be noble and right. So, if the character they see as a villian isn't being totally villian-y, they exagerate the badness and look away from the ambiguity. And if their hero character is behaving less than nobly sometimes, they downplay it or explain it to complete goodness (not explain it's complexity, as Rob has done above, but try to explain it as totally good or not there at all), rather than see it as part of this character's layers. IMHO, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 24, 2006 8:33:16 GMT -5
Finally got to see this episode last night. I loved it! As usual, reading all of your comments has only added to my enjoyment of it. We have such insightful people on the S3! ;D I've been reading a lot of backlash towards Logan (and not just by the Logan haters) over his treatment of Hannah, over in LJ land. I don't really understand why that is. Where would be the fun in a two-dimensional character who only ever does things his fans approve of? No fun at all! I like the greyness to his character. It's what attracted me to him in the first place, just like it did with my boy Spike. VM would be a boring show if all our favourite characters behaved like saints the whole time. This season is really getting going now and I'm loving every minute of it! #metoo#
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 24, 2006 8:36:52 GMT -5
Two possibilities spring to mind. I think they're both right, to a point...though I doubt everyone will agree. 1. Veronica's iffy actions almost always emanate from good intentions (bringing Lily's murderer to justice, for example). I don't think the same can be said for Logan...especially in Season 1. 2. Backlash. Whenever this kind of program has a breakout supporting character, there's bound to be some hard feelings from those who would prefer to see THEIR favorite get to appear in all 22 episodes, with THEIR own independent storyline. Hence, the vitriol increases. Whatever the reasons, personally I find it nice to see Logan slowly developing into a young man with a conscience, yet in a realistic way. It would've been a false note (for me) if he hadn't had sex with Hannah when the opportunity arose...so to speak. The difference is Logan's reaction in the aftermath. I don't think he would've given half a damn about hurting Hannah in early Season 1. This year, that doesn't appear to be the case. But - for me - I don't judge actions based on intentions. You can't really KNOW the intentions of others, not with any certainity whatsoever. People are complicated. They often hide underlying "I need attention/power/validation" motives under "good intentions." They hide their true motives from everyone - very often including themselves. They really believe their own line of bull. It's just as wrong for me draw a gun and rob a stranger to feed my hungry baby, as it is for you to rob a stranger to buy a new sound system for your car. We both hurt said-stranger just as much, we both chose the very same, wrong way of doing something when other methods would have worked . . . I don't care what I'm telling myself or others, if I rob a stranger to feed my baby, I've got other, not so pleasant, underlying motives, and they are the same as yours. Now - you can come up with extreme circumstance examples on either side of this spectrum that are basically "exceptions" to me - but Veronica isn't in those kind of extreme circumstances. I don't buy the "it's different according to who is doing it" argument, generally. It's amost never different according to who's doing it. I agree with your take on Logan. He's growing and maturing. Veronica too. Hmmmm. I'm only partly in agreement with you. Ultimately, if we are talking about harm to others, yes, the motive doesn't matter. But I think the "whys" behind someone's actions do play a part in how I see those actions.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 24, 2006 10:34:32 GMT -5
But - for me - I don't judge actions based on intentions. You can't really KNOW the intentions of others, not with any certainity whatsoever. People are complicated. They often hide underlying "I need attention/power/validation" motives under "good intentions." They hide their true motives from everyone - very often including themselves. They really believe their own line of bull. It's just as wrong for me draw a gun and rob a stranger to feed my hungry baby, as it is for you to rob a stranger to buy a new sound system for your car. We both hurt said-stranger just as much, we both chose the very same, wrong way of doing something when other methods would have worked . . . I don't care what I'm telling myself or others, if I rob a stranger to feed my baby, I've got other, not so pleasant, underlying motives, and they are the same as yours. Now - you can come up with extreme circumstance examples on either side of this spectrum that are basically "exceptions" to me - but Veronica isn't in those kind of extreme circumstances. I don't buy the "it's different according to who is doing it" argument, generally. It's amost never different according to who's doing it. I agree with your take on Logan. He's growing and maturing. Veronica too. Hmmmm. I'm only partly in agreement with you. Ultimately, if we are talking about harm to others, yes, the motive doesn't matter. But I think the "whys" behind someone's actions do play a part in how I see those actions. But why would intentions be insignificant in judging actions if harm to others was involved, but significant in judging actions otherwise? What I mean is - look at it the opposite way - if I suspect a tycoon has given $1million dollars to breast cancer research because said-tycoon hopes to get into the pants of the cancer charity's head honcho, is his action any less charitable? I think maybe the crux of the matter here is the difference between judging actions and judging people.And really - this is totally my personal opinion - but unless I'm officially on a jury, it's not my business to judge people. How can I ever really know their motives, or understand what it's like to be in their shoes? How can I ever know enough about their background or brain chemistry, or whatever, to judge THE PERSON? How do I know that if I wasn't in their shoes, I wouldn't have done the same terrible thing they did? So - I stick to judging actions. Giving $1 million dollars to a worthwhile charity is a great thing to do, period. I can't really know for sure what the tycoon's motive was. And even if I heard him on tape, saying his motive was to get into the charity director's pants, who knows what is really behind, around, and underneath his statement. So, I'm not into judging the tycoon. I would be into judging the action of giving the $1million as good, and judging the action of telling others he was motivated by a sexual interest in the charity director, bad. I would definitely feel justified, if I was the director, in confronting him, keeping him out of my life, and possibly, refusing to accept the $1 million (if I couldn't reasonably expect to keep him out of my life otherwise). Taking care of me is my business. Judging actions so that I can take care of me is my business. Judging people - not my business. So - what I mean is - the goodness or badness of actions isn't dependent on the motives of the individual (again, I'm aware I speak in huge generalities here, and extreme circumstances could provide some exception). And judging the goodness or badness of people isn't something I'm qualified to do. I can never really be knowledgable or wise enough for that. No one can. IMO all the way of course, and I understand that reasonable and very intelligent folks can and do disagree.
|
|