|
Post by Nickim on Feb 7, 2004 10:01:24 GMT -5
I agree that there are lots of ways to avoid it - but I'm doubting that he'd ever try to make the FG think Cordy was evil. He's got too much respect for her to do that. (And her newly ascended self would have to come and smack him down, and nobody wants that.) I think they're gonna address it, if for no other reason than that Connor's been refererred to at least four times in four seperate episodes, so if they don't want to deal with it, why keep reminding us of it? It's coming. Good points, Rachael. I never thought about Cordy coming back to haunt Angel if he tells lies about her. She'd kick his behind.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 7, 2004 10:48:09 GMT -5
Good points, Rachael. I never thought about Cordy coming back to haunt Angel if he tells lies about her. She'd kick his behind. You now, I give Charisma a lot of credit for coming back and giving us closure. I had heard that she was shocked when she found out that she wouldn't be coming back for S5 of Angel. She thought she'd be there for the end. The look on her face when she told Angel - You're Welcome" when he turned to answer the phone, was one of bravery and bittersweet sadness. I have to wonder if she was also thinking at that point (Charisma, not Cordy ) of "what might have been" if she had been picked up for S5. It made the moment all the more poignant. Much like Buffy (Sarah's) expression at the end of "Chosen", only her's was more of a "look to the future" expression. I really think that when Cordy said to Angel "I'll be seeing you." that it set up a scenario for something between her and Angel in the future, and really left Buffy behind - which makes sense in the light of Sarah's refusal to leave Buffy behind.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 7, 2004 11:49:34 GMT -5
Yes, yes. Something is heading our way in regard to the Connor-decision. My guess is that a vengeful Eve will see to it that the FG finds out about the Connor thing. I think the FG will be upset, but they care enough about Angel to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain . . . but they'll want him to un-do it, I think. Maybe. I really hope that we do see it all exposed and coming to a head. Could make for some great storytelling. Now, that makes perfect sense to me - and I wonder what else she knows, having had access to W&H's resources. If I was her (and evil), I'd've tried to get something on each of the FG, in case I ever needed to keep them in line. I have this little thing running around my head - Eve and the Tree of Knowledge, but can't get it to sit still and be looked at to see if it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 7, 2004 11:51:53 GMT -5
You now, I give Charisma a lot of credit for coming back and giving us closure. I had heard that she was shocked when she found out that she wouldn't be coming back for S5 of Angel. She thought she'd be there for the end. The look on her face when she told Angel - You're Welcome" when he turned to answer the phone, was one of bravery and bittersweet sadness. I have to wonder if she was also thinking at that point (Charisma, not Cordy ) of "what might have been" if she had been picked up for S5. It made the moment all the more poignant. Much like Buffy (Sarah's) expression at the end of "Chosen", only her's was more of a "look to the future" expression. I really think that when Cordy said to Angel "I'll be seeing you." that it set up a scenario for something between her and Angel in the future, and really left Buffy behind - which makes sense in the light of Sarah's refusal to leave Buffy behind. Hmm. I didn't know she'd wanted to be around for Season 5. I thought she wanted more time with her new family. If it's true, then I have to say, as much as I love Spike, if it was a choice between him and Cordy (because of salaries or some such), I'd've gone with Cordy. (Assuming we got to keep this Cordy.)
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Feb 7, 2004 14:22:52 GMT -5
Hmm. I didn't know she'd wanted to be around for Season 5. I thought she wanted more time with her new family. If it's true, then I have to say, as much as I love Spike, if it was a choice between him and Cordy (because of salaries or some such), I'd've gone with Cordy. (Assuming we got to keep this Cordy.)Vile heresy--I'll have no part of it!
|
|
|
Post by Cal on Feb 7, 2004 15:33:25 GMT -5
Hmm. I didn't know she'd wanted to be around for Season 5. I thought she wanted more time with her new family. If it's true, then I have to say, as much as I love Spike, if it was a choice between him and Cordy (because of salaries or some such), I'd've gone with Cordy. (Assuming we got to keep this Cordy.) I don't think that it's fair to put this on JM. I liked Cordy - season's 1-3 - and would have loved to see her in a regular role on season 5. But, for whatever the reason, that wasn't to be. I just don't think that it's fair on JM to imply that it's because of him that she is out of a job. I don't think that it will be a surprise when I say I love Spike being on the show, and wouldn't want it any other way. But I liked Cordy, too. It shouldn't come down to a choice between them. They are both fine actors, but the time had come when JW (and I'm sure he has his own reasons) decided that he had taken Charisma's character as far as he wanted to. That is JW's decision, nothing to do with JM. I felt I had to say something about this. This is the sort of anti Spike attitude that I have come across on other sites - one of the reasons I don't visit them any more. We are all entitled to like the character's of our choice, but to blame one actor for another one being written out is totally unfair. I am sure that you didn't mean anything by your remark, Rachael, and this post is not really aimed at you. I have come across this opinion so many times on other sites that it really gets my back up. Cal
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 7, 2004 15:52:46 GMT -5
Vile heresy--I'll have no part of it! Yup, that was my level of hell, all right. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 7, 2004 15:56:59 GMT -5
I don't think that it's fair to put this on JM. I liked Cordy - season's 1-3 - and would have loved to see her in a regular role on season 5. But, for whatever the reason, that wasn't to be. I just don't think that it's fair on JM to imply that it's because of him that she is out of a job. I don't think that it will be a surprise when I say I love Spike being on the show, and wouldn't want it any other way. But I liked Cordy, too. It shouldn't come down to a choice between them. They are both fine actors, but the time had come when JW (and I'm sure he has his own reasons) decided that he had taken Charisma's character as far as he wanted to. That is JW's decision, nothing to do with JM. I felt I had to say something about this. This is the sort of anti Spike attitude that I have come across on other sites - one of the reasons I don't visit them any more. We are all entitled to like the character's of our choice, but to blame one actor for another one being written out is totally unfair. I am sure that you didn't mean anything by your remark, Rachael, and this post is not really aimed at you. I have come across this opinion so many times on other sites that it really gets my back up. Cal Now, when did I ever blame the actor for the producers' decisions? My post related entirely to characters, and there was no blame attached - unless you count the reference to salaries (and it was well-known that they didn't have enough to add an additional full-time character without losing one, but that was never officially cited as the reason for Cordy's departure). It was just an opinion about which character I'd rather see, if I did have to choose - my opinions are perfectly safe, given that they have no influence whatsoever on decisions regarding the show. And it's quite unfair of you to label it as "anti-Spike attitude", when it's obviously no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 7, 2004 15:57:19 GMT -5
Vile heresy--I'll have no part of it! Hee. I'm with you, Nan - I love all the actors on AtS, but the truth is I would choose JM to be on the show as Spike, over any of them, if forced to do so (including DB, and it's his show! Talk about heresy. But there ya go. I gotta have my Spike). I do agree with you, cal, that I don't think CC was let go as a direct result of JM coming to the show (and Rachael, like cal, I understand that is not what you were saying). And by the way Rachael - I am not sure I have ever told you how much I like your posts, especially the ones that discuss current eps.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 7, 2004 15:59:05 GMT -5
Hee. I'm with you, Nan - I love all the actors on AtS, but the truth is I would choose JM to be on the show as Spike, over any of them, if forced to do so (including DB, and it's his show! Talk about heresy. But there ya go. I gotta have my Spike). I do agree with you, cal, that I don't think CC was let go as a direct result of JM coming to the show (and Rachael, like cal, I understand that is not what you were saying). And by the way Rachael - I am not sure I have ever told you how much I like your posts, especially the ones that discuss current eps. Why, thank you kindly, ma'am. (I'd put in that little bowing guy, but I'm just too lazy right now.)
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Feb 7, 2004 16:03:48 GMT -5
I don't think that it's fair to put this on JM. I liked Cordy - season's 1-3 - and would have loved to see her in a regular role on season 5. But, for whatever the reason, that wasn't to be. I just don't think that it's fair on JM to imply that it's because of him that she is out of a job. I don't think that it will be a surprise when I say I love Spike being on the show, and wouldn't want it any other way. But I liked Cordy, too. It shouldn't come down to a choice between them. They are both fine actors, but the time had come when JW (and I'm sure he has his own reasons) decided that he had taken Charisma's character as far as he wanted to. That is JW's decision, nothing to do with JM. I felt I had to say something about this. This is the sort of anti Spike attitude that I have come across on other sites - one of the reasons I don't visit them any more. We are all entitled to like the character's of our choice, but to blame one actor for another one being written out is totally unfair. I am sure that you didn't mean anything by your remark, Rachael, and this post is not really aimed at you. I have come across this opinion so many times on other sites that it really gets my back up. Cal I'm with you on that; the amount of pure vitriol which was written about JM when he was hired for s5 and CC was not was some of the ugliest stuff I've ever seen online, including accusations of JM actively undermining CC's position with Joss/ME. I liked Charisma in Buffy, and went into AtS s4 cold, without understanding her character in the earlier seasons... and HATED her, after the funny "I'm so bored" in Deep Down and her interfernence in "The House Always Wins". I hated her lines, her part in the story, and her look. Then I saw s1-3 on TNT and really got into Cordelia's part in the story, up until the "higher power" bit, which I loathed again. I don't know WHY the story was taken that way, but it didn't work at all for me, and I can't see, other than the way "You're Welcome" worked out, what they would have done to bring back the old, funny, useful, grounded Cordelia. That's who I miss, and I don't see any clear path back to that after s4. Julia, well, that's not particularly clear, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Feb 7, 2004 16:07:54 GMT -5
Now, when did I ever blame the actor for the producers' decisions? My post related entirely to characters, and there was no blame attached - unless you count the reference to salaries (and it was well-known that they didn't have enough to add an additional full-time character without losing one, but that was never officially cited as the reason for Cordy's departure). It was just an opinion about which character I'd rather see, if I did have to choose - my opinions are perfectly safe, given that they have no influence whatsoever on decisions regarding the show. And it's quite unfair of you to label it as "anti-Spike attitude", when it's obviously no such thing. Rachael, I didn't see you doing it, but I did see the ugliness which Cal has referred to, so that line of thought prompts the same aversion in me as it does in her. If we could have gotten the old Cordy, it would have been best to have both, I think, but as I said I can't see how they could have brought back the old Cordy for more than one episode without having to entirely rebuild her story line. Julia, or, oops, Cordy ex machina strikes again.
|
|
|
Post by Cal on Feb 7, 2004 16:19:08 GMT -5
Now, when did I ever blame the actor for the producers' decisions? My post related entirely to characters, and there was no blame attached - unless you count the reference to salaries (and it was well-known that they didn't have enough to add an additional full-time character without losing one, but that was never officially cited as the reason for Cordy's departure). It was just an opinion about which character I'd rather see, if I did have to choose - my opinions are perfectly safe, given that they have no influence whatsoever on decisions regarding the show. And it's quite unfair of you to label it as "anti-Spike attitude", when it's obviously no such thing. Oh dear, Rachael, it looks like I've offended you, when that really wasn't my intention. If I have, then I apologise. As I said, my post was not aimed at you. I know that was not what you meant at all. When I mentioned the anti-Spike attitude, I was not saying that you were anti-Spike, I was just pointing out the attitude on other sites regarding Charisma's leaving of the show. Some of those comments were venomous, to say the least. It just makes my blood boil to think of them. Again, if I have offended you, then I apologise. Cal
|
|
|
Post by Cal on Feb 7, 2004 16:28:33 GMT -5
I'm with you on that; the amount of pure vitriol which was written about JM when he was hired for s5 and CC was not was some of the ugliest stuff I've ever seen online, including accusations of JM actively undermining CC's position with Joss/ME. Julia, well, that's not particularly clear, is it? That was what I was referring to in my post. I obviously didn't say it very well though, did I? Cal
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 7, 2004 16:32:34 GMT -5
Oh dear, Rachael, it looks like I've offended you, when that really wasn't my intention. If I have, then I apologise. As I said, my post was not aimed at you. I know that was not what you meant at all. When I mentioned the anti-Spike attitude, I was not saying that you were anti-Spike, I was just pointing out the attitude on other sites regarding Charisma's leaving of the show. Some of those comments were venomous, to say the least. It just makes my blood boil to think of them. Again, if I have offended you, then I apologise. Cal Very briefly, and not seriously, and I'm so over it now. I know no one here means to offend others.
|
|