|
SHIELD
Sept 12, 2012 23:08:15 GMT -5
Post by Brainstem on Sept 12, 2012 23:08:15 GMT -5
Reporters also tend to use quotes when they aren't directly quoting. While I do want to trust that he only means underdogs in the sense that they're simply inadequate compared to the supers, I don't that that's the case. The more I see of Whedon, the less and less impressed I am by his creativity.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and we'll have... -An intellectual, probably snooty but with a warm heart and, likely, an accent -A rough, tough guy who shoots first and asks questions later -A useless character that the producers realize is useless soon after her (I mean... his or her) introduction, so the character is quickly given last-minute abilities --Usually also a time bomb type character -A dedicated snarker
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 12, 2012 23:10:18 GMT -5
Post by WildKnight on Sept 12, 2012 23:10:18 GMT -5
"Dedicated snarker" I like it.
I wouldn't even call SHIELD underdogs compared to supers, not by a long shot. SHIELD runs circles around most of the supers in Marvel. They're always tricking them into doing or not doing things, locking them up in secret prisons, etc.
In fact, I'm pretty well convinced that the Marvel Universe would be a lot better off if all the costumed heroes hung up their tights and let SHIELD handle the villains
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 12, 2012 23:15:09 GMT -5
Post by Brainstem on Sept 12, 2012 23:15:09 GMT -5
Yeah, but if you want to sell it to a wide audience, I think that's something he'll have to play up. If SHEILD is too good, then you start to wonder why they're not handling everything in the films but, if they're too inept, you have to wonder why the supers aren't stepping in.
I'm anticipating a generic crime drama with the Marvel name attached.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 12, 2012 23:48:38 GMT -5
Post by Beacon on Sept 12, 2012 23:48:38 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb here and we'll have... -An intellectual, probably snooty but with a warm heart and, likely, an accent -A rough, tough guy who shoots first and asks questions later -A useless character that the producers realize is useless soon after her (I mean... his or her) introduction, so the character is quickly given last-minute abilities --Usually also a time bomb type character -A dedicated snarker He does seem to play around a lot with the same archetypes but … So do a lot of writers … especially comic writers. Some of them may be similar but I don’t think it’s fair to paint a character as nuanced as Giles with the same brush as the other snooty intellectuals. (Or maybe Tony Head is just that much better an actor than the other people Joss hires) At least the Buffy and Angel characters took turns with the archetypes. I haven’t read enough of his X-Men to judge one way or another but his Runaways run stayed very true to the existing characterizations. Dollhouse sucked. I know I said it before but it needs repeating. Dr. Horrible doesn’t really use those archetypes. Also he doesn’t really use those archetypes in Dollhouse … which sucked.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 5:32:29 GMT -5
Post by WildKnight on Sept 13, 2012 5:32:29 GMT -5
Giles... nuanced... LOL
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 10:14:21 GMT -5
Post by Beacon on Sept 13, 2012 10:14:21 GMT -5
It helps if you actually watch the show. His origin story basically makes him John Constantine … if Constantine was enough of a bastard to join an organization that sends girls to their deaths. Over time his loyalties shifted and he actually became the father figure to Buffy that he was pretending to be but he’s still pretty ruthless.
I think the line he delivers when he kills Glory’s helpless human host sums up his character perfectly.
“Buffy is a hero. She’s not like us.”
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 10:31:46 GMT -5
Post by Black Sam on Sept 13, 2012 10:31:46 GMT -5
I'm with Beacon. Giles was my favorite character.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 11:07:16 GMT -5
Post by WildKnight on Sept 13, 2012 11:07:16 GMT -5
*sigh*
Giles is not nuanced, and John Constantine is a bigger bastard than Giles could ever hope to be. John Constantine would not only join that organization, he'd found it, then go have a drink and not even think about it.
Giles has personality traits that are not immediately obvious to other characters within the setting. That is not the same as being nuanced.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 11:45:00 GMT -5
Post by Dhark on Sept 13, 2012 11:45:00 GMT -5
I liked 'The Ripper' as well, especially in scenes like that.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 13:56:38 GMT -5
Post by Beacon on Sept 13, 2012 13:56:38 GMT -5
[quote author=wildknight board=Supers thread=16780 post=339117 time=1347552436Giles has personality traits that are not immediately obvious to other characters within the setting. That is not the same as being nuanced.[/quote]
Giles has personality traits not immediately obvious to the audience. He’s a lot more complicated than the uptight librarian he presents himself as.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 14:08:18 GMT -5
Post by Brainstem on Sept 13, 2012 14:08:18 GMT -5
See the above "boring/useless character that the producers realize is boring/useless"
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 15:09:43 GMT -5
Post by Beacon on Sept 13, 2012 15:09:43 GMT -5
I thought that was Willow (before she became the most powerful person in the regular cast).
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 15:12:06 GMT -5
Post by WildKnight on Sept 13, 2012 15:12:06 GMT -5
Giles is about as challenging as my 9 year old's homework.
He is not complex. The fact that there are things about him that aren't revealed until later might be impressive... if they were things they'd intended from the start, rather than things they tossed in later to bolster the show. Even if he'd been intended to have those traits to begin with, they're not at all "hidden"... they're logical extensions of what you see from the very start.
He belongs to an organization that uses young girls to hunt monsters. That's screwed up. Yes, he's capable of being ruthless. You'd have to be to do what he does from the very start.
Giles is a plastic character, a carbon copy of every other academic in the history of fiction. They ALWAYS end up being "the one that makes the hard choices"... they have to be. They don't have the super powers to let them do anything else.
Hell, the new (not the newest, but the one prior) Voltron series revealed that the old man on that show was, in fact, secretly manipulating events, knew that Sven was going to get captured and the Princess would have to take over, etc. The nerd is ALWAYS the douche. Always.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 15:41:58 GMT -5
Post by Brainstem on Sept 13, 2012 15:41:58 GMT -5
I read a blog thing someone did about Buffy (30 Days of Buffy or some nonsense) and when talking about Giles, they pointed out the biggest issue was that he never died. The mentor figure clearly ran his course and they even gave him a good deal of "I'm no longer useful!" in plot, but the character should have died rather than kind of fizzling away into some kind of ambiguity/uselessness. The writers even had plenty of chances to kill him off, but the character became weakened more and more simply because they wouldn't.
And I'd say Willow and Giles both kind of fit up to the bill of a useless character, certainly with Willow being a time bomb, too, but Willow I think created her own niche pretty quickly into the show. Giles was a mess of characterizations that didn't always work out well. As much as I love the character, it's much more to do with the performance than the character itself.
|
|
|
SHIELD
Sept 13, 2012 19:10:18 GMT -5
Post by WildKnight on Sept 13, 2012 19:10:18 GMT -5
You'll notice, though, that Willow ALSO went through that "dark" phase where she was doing morally questionable things because she thought she was the smartest person in the room.
Academic characters always seem to go that way. Merlin is the main character (heck, the show is named for him) of the show "Merlin", and his arc is pretty much entirely that.
|
|