This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Let's go to work."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 07 July 2020


May 26 2011

IGN Interview with Sarah Michelle Gellar. SMG discusses Ringer, and is funny. :)

That's a good one - thank you for waiting until the time was right, Sarah, to come back to television. SMG on some incarnation of Celebrity Housewives; as.if. I love the clips but even more love what she says about redemption. If it were a genre show, she could be almost be a female Angel.
Was that a tiny bit of snark about stunts on BtVS, at the end there?

I've gotta say, she can sell this, she really can; the two sisters look and sound the same, and yet they're so distinct, Bridget practically seems smaller.

And having watched another clip, it feels downright weird seeing her with a gun.
I'm really getting hyped for this show.
Great interview. Someone should put a big ole' spoiler tag on this though!
@ManEnoughToAdmitIt, she has made other references in other interviews about not being up for stunt work cause she's not 18 anymore, so I guess it's a running theme for her seeing as she's mostly speaking to the Buffy audience.

I love how vague she is about all of this. I seem to dimly recall her once saying that she could never keep secrets to herself about shows(when she was on Buffy), but she's doing a bang up job here!

If she were on celebrity rehab what would she be recovering from? Too much yoga? Too much Starbucks? I'm fairly sure that's all the press ever see her doing...
it's nice nice that she's started showing some personality and humour, a lot of her interviews are slightly boring because she gives the standard answers that are a wee bit boring. I love how she's showing personality and humour!
@Mitholas - THANK YOU!!! There's a reference to a character-specific plot point that I had no idea about and would have preferred to discover while watching the show! :(
What's the spoiler?
@Simon - In the interview, it's revealed that . Personally, I wish I hadn't known that.
That is the basic premise of the show as far as I can tell. It did get mentioned from the very beginning.
I'm sorry if anyone got 'spoiled' - I don't know how to add the spoiler tag, and in any case I'm pretty sure Simon's right. It's the basic premise of the show. Reminds me of the time when a friend accused me of spoiling Cloverfield by saying that it was a monster movie.
Oh great, 'Cloverfield' is a movie ? Thanks a lot.


That sarcasmed, I haven't been as anal careful about avoiding 'Ringer' spoilers as I am for other shows and I still didn't know beforehand that . It's not the end of the world because it sounds like it happens quite early on - and I also wonder if things will turn out to be exactly as they initially seem anyway, particularly if both sisters appear frequently ? - but in a perfect world i'd rather not know that. Look out a window sometime though, a perfect world it ain't ;).
She sounds like she was having a lot of fun with this interview! Can't wait to see SMG on TV every week again. :)
I've always found SMG to be exceptionally entertaining during her interviews. She very rarely gives you a generic answers and will almost always throw in a hefty amount of sarcasm. *swoon* My favourite interviews of hers have to be with Jonathan Ross and Richard Blackwood. She was amazing during those interviews.
Yeah both decent interviews. Think the one with Blackwood was the first time I heard SMG swear (which was novel).
Disappearance/killing, what's the difference? this is TV. Whatever happens will likely happen within the first ten minutes of the show existing so it depend how how much is a spoiler, I guess. Does Oceanic 815 crashing count as one? It's basically the same as that.
Man, is this writer definitely not a fan of Sarah's...

[ edited by J Linc on 2011-05-27 15:03 ]
In an attempt to "play the ball", let me say J Linc, you have to just look at it as one person's opinion that not many will buy into. I have some antipathy for the site anyway so that doesn't help, but it would be nice if the writers didn't have to take provocateurship (yes, I made that up) to a whole new level. And it's Giles, not Gilles. So many sites, even the ones I enjoy, need to have people proof more carefully. You can have an extremely well-written article/interview, and then have your pleasure diminished by one jarring typo or errant misspelling. Not in this case, though.

[ edited by Tonya J on 2011-05-27 16:19 ]
The phone call at the end of the longer trailer (this one) is the only thing I've seen in any of the promotional materials so far that is maybe a description of the premise and a small spoiler. And it's the best kind of clue as to what the show is going to be like, I think.
SMG is funny and hugely charismatic, which is one reason why I'm concerned about this show. It does not seem like it can play to her strengths. Everything I've seen so far makes it seem like a dreary string of cliches that takes itself way too seriously. And I can't really see how I'm going to care about these mopey characters.

Again, I hope I'm wrong. Sorry for the negativity.
@Break_Atmo - Adding a Spoiler tag takes literally the click of a button. When posting, under the "Link Title" bar, you should see a box you can check mark for, "This link contains spoilers".

@Jaymii - What's the difference? Pretty substantial, I'd say. One, you have the potential to come back from. The other, not so much (unless you're a supernatural show that went to the Joss Whedon school of writing). Also, that kind of detail very much influences how the rest of the story will unfold and how the characters will proceed. For example, would Leonard Shelby's motivations mean as much if the tattoo on his chest read, "John G hid my wife where I can't find her."? :)

"Spoilers" come in all shapes and sizes. From the few trailers I've seen (deliberately so), none of them outright tell you what's up with Siobhan. I'm with Saje on this one. It's news to me, therefore I feel like I've been spoiled. I now know something going in that I didn't before and it's going to affect my viewing of the show. Whether it happens in the first ten minutes (which is nothing more than speculation at this point) or the first episode is irrelevant (to me).

Yes, I knew going in that Lost was about a plane crash on an island. What I did not know was that . Had I known that beforehand, I would have been a bit upset and would have then gone into first viewing just waiting for it to happen.
It does not seem like it can play to her strengths

Peter Traugott , who is one of the executive producers , job at Brillstein Entertainment Partners is to look out for projects suited to his clients strengths and as he mentioned in his interview a few months ago he though of SMG when he saw the spec script .
I'm not sure I understand what her strengths are or are not supposed to be anyway. She was great in, say, Cruel Intentions, which played to almost none of the same performance strengths she called upon for, say, Buffy, where she was also great.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-05-28 01:22 ]
It's pretty obvious that she's more than just a comedic actor, she does drama superbly and from watching Veronika Decides To Die and The Return and other such films where there really is no humour you can see that she's incredibly versatile.

I'm glad this isn't a comedy/drama and that she's doing something with more range, I'd hate for her to be pigeonholed into a witty character only role. Also, from the trailer it looks like Bridgette is kinda sarcastic and witty, while Siobhan is a bit more stiff and starchy(speculation, but there was at least one line of quite funny in there), I'm sure there's room for snarky jokes too, it can't all be plot pushing dialogue.
kungfubear -- I realize you feel spoiled right now, but this show has been sold by SMG as a story with twists and turns. You need only read her describing her experience in reading the script (uh huh uh huh WHAT? wait, wait wh-WHAT?!). Maybe you can take some small comfort in that? As Sunfire mentioned above, there's another promo that reveals cards I really, really wished I hadn't known about yet -- and honestly, the spoiler we're discussing in comments here pales in comparison. Point taken about spoilers coming in different sizes, though.

[ edited by Emmie on 2011-05-28 03:17 ]
There, I added a spoiler tag. Maybe it's necessary, maybe not, but whatever. Now people can make their own decisions.
I actually think in this case it doesn't need a spoiler tag as it is the show's premise. However episode specific details and more detailed spoiler tags would obviously require one. Otherwise it will just get out of hand and generally be very silly.
Mod override !

Spoiler tag, no spoiler tag, it's literally been a veritable roller-coaster for some definitions of those words (mainly wrong ones).

(I get your point Simon but assuming the event in question happens in the first episode, how is it not an episode specific detail ? Also, re: premise, kinda depends what you include in the 'premise' surely ? E.g. "A young boy with apparent mental health issues goes to a psychiatrist that only he can see because BRUCE WILLIS IS DEAD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MOVIE !" could be the premise for something ;)
The spoiler was actually this:

What this does is, it . I suppose by now it's too late though.
As normal in these discussions I see someone posted spoilers about a totally unrelated item and it's always that item .

Why the need to do that I've never understood ?
Wondering if you mean me garda39 ? Except i'm also wondering how plot details of a 12 year old film can possibly be considered spoilers in any meaningful sense (so presumably not me) ? I.e. i'm in the not unfamiliar state of being confused ;).

(if you do mean me then that's the reason why it's always that item BTW. Because 12 years ago it would've been extremely spoilery so it works for the purposes of a joke about spoilers)
Yes I do mean you since you asked and no it's not spoilerly to me

i'm also wondering how plot details of a 12 year old film can possibly be considered spoilers in any meaningful sense

So it's not meaningful that someone born since 1999 who might want to see the movie without knowing that .

It seems people on the internet have decided that everyone should have gone to see the movie in 1999 and if you didn't you deserved to be spoiled even people born after 1999
garda39, are you saying no potentially spoileriffic conversation should happen in public forums because people continue to breed? I was 4 when Soylent Green came out. Damn all you for telling me the twist my entire life! Never saw the movie. Don't really care. :)
garda39, are you saying no potentially spoileriffic conversation should happen in public forums because people continue to breed

Are you saying that's not a meaningful reason to not post a spoiler?

I was 4 when Soylent Green came out. Damn all you for telling me the twist my entire life!

Though judging by that you appear to be saying I was spoiled so I'm going to spoil you

Also are you saying people , , because maybe they were spoiled , should be dicks and bring up unrelated spoilers in a discussion that has nothing to do with either of those 2 movies ?

Forums for those movies even discusions here relating to Joss or cast etc of any Joss show making a movie similiar to either of those movies would be an appropriate place .

Whether that interview above contains a spoiler not so much especially you are going to post something that definitely is a spoiler .
I eat dead people.

... no wait, that's not it.

OK, leaving aside the back-door accusation of being a dick (cos in fairness, anatomically that's pretty close to playing the ball ;)...

It seems people on the internet have decided that everyone should have gone to see the movie in 1999 and if you didn't you deserved to be spoiled even people born after 1999

I don't think people deserve to be spoiled garda39 but at the same time, people are going to be spoiled, that's what happens when time progresses and in one direction - not everyone gets to experience everything at the same time as everyone else. Clearly there has to be a line (arbitrary though it may be) or else we'd never talk about plot points of anything anywhere. 12 years is way beyond my line for a publicly available forum on the internet where, without checking, i'm pretty sure 'The Sixth Sense' spoilers abound, even on entirely unrelated sites. The nature of the twist has become - along with Soylent Green being people - an element of popular culture (it's even been on 'The Simpsons'). This is a popular culture site on the internet, 'nuff said.

(FWIW BTW, I saw 'The Sixth Sense' in 2001/02 and latterly only avoided being spoiled by, in one instance, getting off the bus 2 miles before my stop. If I was spoiled at that point though, it'd hardly be their fault for sitting behind me on the number 15 and talking about what they wanted to, it'd just be one of those things)

[ edited by Saje on 2011-05-28 23:29 ]
garda39 I really don't know what you're going on about but it would be your best interests if you cooled down for a bit. Also calling people 'dicks' is not on. I would refer you to the rules as to what our policy on spoilers is.

I eat dead people.

Not helpful.
kungfubear, I was being a little bit facetious. It's a series built upon many revelations like this and there are certainly much larger ones to come by.
LOL. I remember reading an interview with SMG back in 2001 and I realized she had spoiled The Sixth Sense for me. I guess I don't see enough movies when they are in theatres.
If one sister *actually* dies I don't think the other plot developments we've been given about the show will work. Guessing this is either a foiler or soem critics misunderstood the teasers they were seeing.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home