An ad thanking SMG
And the point is.....?
Seems almost as pointless as that ad a few months ago about how great the Buffy/Angel relationship was and how "Chosen" proved they'd get back together one day. I agree that she did a great job on Buffy, but is this just fans kissing up to try and persuade her to do a guest spot on Angel.
March 17 2004
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
Simon | March 17, 18:31 CET
prufrock | March 17, 18:34 CET
Ghost Spike | March 17, 18:43 CET
Link to ad:
http://www.supportspike.com/Campaign04/spike_3.jpg
[ edited by twiggy on 2004-03-17 16:54 ]
twiggy | March 17, 18:52 CET
God, what will the Ducks do with their money when the Jossverse is over? Maybe pay for some therapy...
syd | March 17, 19:38 CET
Firefly Flanatic | March 17, 19:38 CET
Ghost Spike | March 17, 19:46 CET
*rolls eyes*
I almost find it insulting to the actress. It's so...cheap.
[ edited by syd on 2004-03-17 18:24 ]
syd | March 17, 19:51 CET
willowzbitch | March 17, 19:58 CET
Interesting to note that some people have taken it as an opportunity to bash SMG even though she had nothing to do with the ad
[ edited by garda39 on 2004-03-17 18:09 ]
garda39 | March 17, 20:08 CET
Linda | March 17, 20:12 CET
Caroline | March 17, 20:18 CET
syd | March 17, 20:26 CET
Yeah, a little obsessive. I think if SMG saw this she'd go, "Oh, that's.....sweet....?"
Rogue Slayer | March 17, 20:42 CET
wissxwe | March 17, 20:48 CET
I hope casual viewers are not steered away from being proper fans because they are woried that they might become as 'obsessive' as these people.
brob1 | March 17, 20:58 CET
And yes, no more actor bashing. It is a recent and highly annoying new trend around these parts.
MindPieces | March 17, 21:12 CET
spikeangellover | March 17, 21:13 CET
Though that would require a large amount of stupidity.
Ghost Spike | March 17, 21:16 CET
I enjoyed the first Scooby movie and am looking forward to the second. I'm happy she's been successful and I only wish her the best. I still think this ad was over the top though and comes across as obsessive.
Firefly Flanatic | March 17, 21:20 CET
norman | March 17, 21:28 CET
Sheesh!!
And may I remind some of you that the same people who paid for this ad, had a hand in helping pay for ads thanking the entire cast, of both Buffy and Angel once they reached the 100th episode. These same people donated to the save Angel campaign. Again... it's their money, they can spend it which ever way they wish and if thanking or sucking up to SMG is a way, then be it.
[ edited by nychick on 2004-03-17 19:47 ]
nychick | March 17, 21:35 CET
Ghost Spike | March 17, 21:44 CET
nychick | March 17, 21:49 CET
lala | March 17, 22:05 CET
the story of Buffy and 'her Angel' (as if nothing worth knowing
happened to Buffy after that) and is so obviously designed to shame SMG into agreeing to be in the AtS finale and give them (they think) the big B/A ending they want. It's so transparant and something that was pulled in the end of BtVS as well. AtS is ending, if anything, why not take out an ad thanking DB for playing the part of Angel for the last eight years? That'd make more sense than this shameless bid to get the ending they want.
syd | March 17, 22:23 CET
(BTW Caroline, it's your site, but who's 'bashing' here? I agree the basher-boards are a pain, but just as bad are the boards where you are not allowed to do anything but praise and rave or get banned. Please tell me that's not where we're going here.)
Personally I never saw much point in thanking an actor. I have no intentions of thanking an SMG or a James or a Kevin Spacy for for that matter, for their career. If I met them I would tell them I appreciate their work and think they're good actors. But I'm not going to thank them for it.
An ad thanking 'all involved' to show appreciation for a show like Buffy and Angel, that I can see more. Plenty of people work hard for those shows, starting with the writers and the guy who came up with the whole thing in the first place, Joss. And then there's the cameramen, the people in charge of light, decors, effects, etc. It's a group effort. The actors are visible and this culture gives their celebrity an enormous status, but it irks me sometimes that we almost act like they're all that matters.
Well, I guess it helps that they photograph so well, doesn't it?
And that's another thing I find a bit odd about the tone this ad, it sort of thanks her too for being pretty. As for the timing, yes right after BtVS S7 would have been more appropriate. If the ads purpose is indeed to convince her to appear on Angel, then it would help to simply ask her. And while I'm sure she'll appreciate the whole gesture, I doubt it will change her mind if she had decided not to guest star.
I don't know. Liking their work, thinking they're great, thinking they're hot, I get all that. But things like these almost seem closer to 'worship'. To each their own, I just get a weird vibe from that.
[ edited by EdDantes on 2004-03-17 20:27 ]
EdDantes | March 17, 22:24 CET
Personally, I just think many have a thing against SMG for whatever reason and that's quite a shame. I don't know whether it's a dissasociation problem or her rumored diva-ness or just personal, but whichever it is, no need for the harsh bashing and condecending remarks towards the fans.
ETA: Um, can I just say this. I hear all this stuff about how the ad comes off as obsessive and it's wierd etc. Um, we are here on a site talking about said obsessive and wierd ad, hence... finish the rest!! :)
[ edited by nychick on 2004-03-17 21:27 ]
nychick | March 17, 22:32 CET
ringworm | March 17, 22:56 CET
Rogue Slayer | March 17, 23:07 CET
Some people don't care for SMG for whatever reason, but it's really too bad since she plays Buffy, and, well, that's the name of the show. I would love to know how people who have only heard about a person being a &%#@^$# in the media can go ahead and decide that's how she is. You don't know someone, until you KNOW someone.
As for people wanting the Bangel thing or the Spuffy thing, I think we all want a happy ending, and everyone has their own idea of one. Either way, it will be interesting to see how it will end :-(
lisi | March 17, 23:11 CET
The timing of the ad strikes me as curious, though. What is it meant to accomplish besides extending the obvious general appreciation to SMG? (Which I think she fully deserves, by the way.) Why emphasize SMG as Buffy and the Buffy/Angel relationship now, almost a year after the actress and the character have wrapped up BtVS? I don't get it. And I do agree that the ad appearing right now might lessen the impact of the Save Angel ad in the same magazine. Then again, maybe not. Maybe the ad could be seen as another example of fan devotion to the general BuffyAngelverse and thus generally supportive of Angel as a character and show.
phlebotinin | March 17, 23:11 CET
MindPieces | March 17, 23:29 CET
I too also feel that unless you know the person in real life, you really can't know who they are or what they are about.
If Angel had already ended and they wanted to thank the stars of Buffy and Angel and the writers that would've been really nice and the timing would've made sense. But from what I understand, they already did this when Buffy ended.
Also, I don't know if I met SMG that I would run up and thank her personally for her role in Buffy. I think I'd tell her how much I loved her portrayal and what a wonderful job she did in the role. I do think if I met Joss Whedon I would thank him for creating these great shows and bringing to life these wonderful characters. He did create them and he is the mastermind behind the shows and therefore, I think he would deserve to be thanked.
But it's all perspective, again, and just because it's something I wouldn't do doesn't mean it's not okay for these people to want to do it. But for me, the timing was weird and it came across as a little creepy.
Mindpieces: "SMG has always come across as very poised and professional, so that's how I choose to think of her"
Totally agree with that statement.
And Ringworm, just because you don't like this ad doesn't mean you are bashing SMG. She has nothing to do with the ad. I think she's lovely and a wonderful actress and it was a beautiful picture of her (albeit a bit "Dynasty" looking).
Firefly Flanatic | March 17, 23:43 CET
Next time you're watching your DVDs, try watching an episode with the sound turned off. You will be astonished at how much you are getting from the program because of the way it was filmed and how it was put together.
Just felt like sayin' it.
wissxwe | March 18, 00:03 CET
Simon | March 18, 00:06 CET
Yeah...my statement was worded so poorly even I'm not sure what I meant. I never meant to imply that not liking the ad means not liking SMG, though I can't see how anyone could interepret my statement any other way. :)
Regardless, the pic in the ad is great. It's the words that weird me out.
ringworm | March 18, 00:07 CET
EdDantes | March 18, 00:08 CET
Caroline | March 18, 00:26 CET
The ad is somewhat strange as far as how dramatic it is, and the timing obviously. Maybe they are sort of trying to "kiss up" to her in hopes of her making an appearance. Perhaps they should have just taken an ad out and asked her to, at least they would look a little less obsessive!
lisi | March 18, 00:30 CET
By the same token, you can wonder how someone could think SMG is great without KNOWing her.
For me personally(and this isn't necessarily about SMG or any Buffyverse person, just anyone in the public eye), when I hear one story about someone being a jerk(or having some negative personality attribute), I can write it off to being a bad day or even a misrepresentation of events.
When I hear more than one story, it makes me think there might be some truth to it. When an actor will gush about one coworker, but will only give cursory, polite responses regarding another, I have a brain, I can read between the lines.
Actors, Russel Crowe, for example, tend to get reputations for their behaviors on and off set. I don't think that discussing those reputations is considered bashing, even when the rep is negative. To me, it seems the same as discussing something reportedly nice about the actor/actress. I can see when people get out of hand that it's a bit much, but really, saying "James is so nice and thoughtful" is the same as "James comes off as a bit rude in interviews." It's all conjecture and opinion. Just like a lot of people took offense at DB's last interview, and many didn't see anything wrong with it. Seeing negative doesn't mean you're bashing. It just means you have a different opinion.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 00:37 CET
Silent Night | March 18, 00:51 CET
"By the same token, you can wonder how someone could think SMG is great without KNOWing her."
Well I assume a person is nice first and then change my opinion based on what I see and hear them say and their demeanour in interviews
garda39 | March 18, 01:08 CET
Well I think, and some will disagree with me, an interview is a poor judge of someone's character. It simply shows they know how to act in front of a camera or an interviewer(and, hey, actors, so not that hard). I mean, everyone thought Rosie O'Donnell was the "Queen of Nice" because she seemed so on her show. Then things came to the surface that she wasn't as great as everyone thought.
I mean, I think Russel Crowe is a total jerk, but at least he's true to his character all the time--his character NOT being a jerk, but just not caring much about political correctness and stuff.
There are VERY few interviews I've seen(save the Mishka Barton interview.....brrrr) where an actor comes off really poorly or negatively. But I'm sure there are more actors who are just plain jerks than are exposed in interviews.
I like to take a whole picture of the person to decide. For instance, I've read only one bad thing about James Marsters, and that was an account written by a rude fan who was mad that all of the magazines she had him autograph so she could sell on Ebay got smudged and then she asked him to re-sign them. And she thought he was a jerk because she yelled something at him while he was on stage and he gave her an odd look. That's it. So yeah, those things I toss out as crap. But if their were repeated reports that James was a jerk or acted a certain way to fans or on set, I wouldn't dismiss them as readily. And I'm certain he would still seem just as nice and sweet in interviews.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 01:19 CET
garda39 | March 18, 01:40 CET
kidine | March 18, 01:57 CET
Caroline | March 18, 02:08 CET
[ edited by blwessels on 2004-03-18 01:25 ]
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 03:22 CET
My point is, you really have to take things in context and realize that most public figures know how to act in front of a camera/interviewer and what to say about themselves and coworkers. That the above actors SAID the things they said in interviews/commentaries etc, says a lot to me about SMG's character.
Also, tangential things I learned about her shape my opinion too. Like the fact that she didn't invite any costars to her wedding, like the fact that she didn't want to hang out with her coworkers during OMWF filming when her parts were over, like the fact that she didn't show to her own wrap party.....
And I'm sure folks will say she has good excuses for those events, and I'm not implying she has to be best friends with anyone, but it's just a contrast to someone like Aly or Tony whose characters I rate higher. Just my opinion. I don't aim to change anyone else's and I certainly don't mean to bash. Just info sharing and trying to explain my position.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 03:35 CET
And yes the public personas of actors is a very real part of their job and considering PR reasons and how often they change their tune, it's not much to go by either way.
As Joss said, not everyone on the set of Buffy got along. And face it, if we'd have worked there, we would've 'chosen sides' which is how it goes at most offices/workplaces. Some people you get along with better than others.
But since we didn't work there we draw our conclusions from what we got. And those conclusions will differ per person.
One thing though, while assuming the positive is a nice attitude to have in life, I'm not sure why I should have to assume Buffy/Angel actors are incapable of being less than nice sometimes. They're not saints, they're all just people too.
EdDantes | March 18, 03:51 CET
How come we never have threads extolling the virtues of
Biles/Guffy/Buffles/Giffy/make up your own...
redfern | March 18, 03:57 CET
So apparently this proves I'm not a very nice person because I have been guilty of all of these offences (adjusted to my life of course)
AlL it actually proves is that I place my family above my work and I don't feel comfortable hanging around at social occasions wearing a fake smile and making small talk
If other people feel comfortable doing those things good for them
garda39 | March 18, 04:16 CET
And I really don't care if she went to wrap parties or not or if she hung out with the crew later. I've worked with people that I've gotten along wonderfully with but outside of my job I didn't have much in common with them or had different interests. It doesn't mean I'm a bad person. It also doesn't mean that I never got in an argument or had a disagreement with a co-worker because those types of things happen all the time when people are put together. People have arguments and then they make up, it's a part of life. So I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of thing happened on the BtVS too.
And as for the comments about Russell Crowe "I mean, I think Russel Crowe is a total jerk, but at least he's true to his character all the time--his character NOT being a jerk, but just not caring much about political correctness and stuff." Are you suggesting that if on the inside you might not be such a nice person then you should be true to yourself and just go around acting like a big ass because then you are being real? God I hope not. If everyone who had a not so nice thought in their head just started saying everything they really felt, so they could be "real" and not care "about political correctness and stuff" would make this world even more scary than it is. No one is a nice person 100% of the time and it doesn't make you a bad person or a phony because you show yourself in a good light by trying to do and say the right things.
EdDantes: "One thing though, while assuming the positive is a nice attitude to have in life, I'm not sure why I should have to assume Buffy/Angel actors are incapable of being less than nice sometimes. They're not saints, they're all just people too."
And because no one is a saint, no one should really judge someone else until they've walked a mile in their shoes, because afterall, they're just people too.
I'd rather be the type of person who tries to see the positive and good in someone because I honestly feel everyone has good in them. To me, it is pointless to always see the negative.
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 04:26 CET
irish | March 18, 04:45 CET
irish | March 18, 04:45 CET
Yes, and a happy st. pat's to everyone, too.
phlebotinin | March 18, 04:53 CET
(Sorry, I've always loved that joke.)
prufrock | March 18, 05:05 CET
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 05:41 CET
i wonder though with Spuffy vs Spiffy and Giffy vs Guffy do fans place more emphasis on one of the two involved parties?
(yes i have yet to see a nickname involving more than two individuals)
rsfayez | March 18, 06:11 CET
If you have links, I'd be very appreciative. I can admit if I'm wrong, but I've never heard or seen that.
If you don't like her that's fine but you don't need to work so hard at trying to get other people to dislike her too. And don't say you aren't trying to get people to dislike her because anytime someone posts that they think she's a nice person you come out with a post that makes a point of trying to say she's not. I don't understand why it's so important for you that other people agree with you on this matter.
Well, as I said before, I'm not trying to get anyone to dislike her. I'm sure I couldn't if I wanted to. But the same can be said for you, why is it so important everyone like her? You have no problem extoling her virtues, but if I bring up issues in contrast(just to balance things, because I feel all sides of an issue are important), you don't see that I'm just presenting the other side of your argument, you see it as an attempt to 'convert.' It seems SMG is above reproach in your opinion(otherwise why would you get so upset about something negative being said?), which I feel no one is. Not even my Perfect James.
I'm talking seeing the actual words come out of peoples mouths or hearing them speak on the commentarys - I have heard nothing but nice things said about her.
Can I recommend the Firefly dvd commentary then!
And if you don't believe written interviews, that's fine. But I don't happen to dismiss them as readily. Aly and Nick both made comments in magazine interviews that they thought it was rotten they weren't told by SMG that she had decided to quit the show, and that they found out from Entertainment Weekly. David's comments are well known. I refer you to the above dvd set for Joss's comments(as well as the well-known Freddie Prinze 'nonsense' discussion). James is always diplomatic, but did make a comment at a Q&A that Sarah made fun of his method acting--I'll concede that might be good natured teasing, then again, who knows. There are numerous accounts of SMG being very controlling on the set, telling visiting directors what they should be doing. These are the things I base my opinion on, even moreso than seeing SMG talk about herself or her show. She's an ACTOR for Pete's sake! She knows how to act in front of the public. And she's not going to say anything negative about herself! (Almost)Everyone is different when they're interviewed or asked to comment on someone else. You can usually get a better idea of how someone really is if you ask/listen to those around them, rather than asking that person to comment on their coworkers/work.
If everyone who had a not so nice thought in their head just started saying everything they really felt, so they could be "real" and not care "about political correctness and stuff" would make this world even more scary than it is.
No, I said jerky people, not people who have a bad thought in their head. I have to give a bit of respect to Russell, because as much as I think he acts like a jerk, at least he is "real." We waste too much time being fake in our lives. I'm not saying it's cool to be rude, but there is something between fake nice and rude. Sometimes I'm disappointed when I see actors I like being "real", but they're human and shouldn't have to put on a facade for fans.(Re: the recent David article, I'm glad he can be relieved, but he could have worded himself differently without being fake--unless he really WON'T miss anything or anyone, and ISN'T glad he had the opportunities, and in that case, he's just of a lower character, but that's who he is)
And because no one is a saint, no one should really judge someone else until they've walked a mile in their shoes, because afterall, they're just people too.
Yes, and aren't you guilty of judging SMG also? Just because some people's judgment is positive doesn't mean you're any less 'judging.'
Look the bottom line is(though I'm sure not the last word) some people think SMG is great, some people think she's less than great, and some people hate her. Everyone relies on their own methods of getting the info, and no one is going to convince anyone of something they don't already believe. I just feel that unabashed praise should be tempered with the not so positive aspects of someone's character. Then you get a whole picture. I don't hate SMG nor think she's evil. My personal opinion of her is that she's a controlling, professional actress who has been raised in the industry and knows how to get what she wants. I think her character perhaps meant she didn't have any close friends on set. I also think she was tired of/burned out by Buffy a couple of years before it was over, and that may have contributed to her percieved attitude. None of this is necessarily bad, but just my opinion. I'd be first in line for her autograph because I think she's a great actress and I can't imagine Buffy being played by anyone else. I just might not have her over for tea.
I wish her the best in her career, and hope that my assumptions about her are completely off the mark.
Now, on that entirely too long note, I'm gonna scram so I can dodge the fruit.
PS: I've always liked the idea of a particular Naughty Slayer and her Stern Watcher......mmmm.....B'Giles
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 06:21 CET
Spufangel
Spufander
Bangiles
Bangillow
Bangander
Spufanya(hmm, that one sounds funny)
Banganya(that one too...)
And, drumroll please......Spufangiles!!! Hot Foursome! Lucky Slayer....
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 06:28 CET
As for all the conjecture about whether some celeb is one thing or another, it's just human nature to gossip about others. Celebs are easy targets because they're always in the public eye. People are going to make their own conclusions in any case.
In a recent SFX interview, JM said, when pressed for gossip about his castmates, "You're never gonna get dirt out of me. First of all, there's very little dirt to get, and second of all, you don't speak out about it. At the end of the day we created something beautiful, and we will always have that." That's a nice way to look at it.
As for the ad, I found it weird as well, but my take on it is mostly from a business pov. I don't mind if they want to push their agenda -- that's what advertising is all about -- but it's so poorly written it suggests that they have ulterior motives in thanking SMG, which undermines any positive intent behind the ad. Basically, I found it very clumsy and unsophisticated, although nowhere near as bad as the Bangel ad that appeared last year. If fans want to take out ads, it might be a good idea to get some professional help in designing/writing them if they want the best impact for their bucks and frankly, to avoid embarrassment. After all, this stuff appears in a major entertainment trade publication. If you think we're hyper-critical, imagine how Hollywood insiders are going to see this ad. What's the point, after all, if your ad ends up embarrassing, rather than celebrating, your beloved idol?
punkinpuss | March 18, 06:29 CET
I don't go out of my way to defend anyone, I have a right to say that I think she's a nice person, as others do and even when the commentator of the site asks people to stop actor bashing, you still can't resist to argue with anyone who has something nice to say about SMG. I didn't chose to open this discussion with you, you did by signaling me out as you did with two other people who posted why they liked her. No one is perfect, I'm sure she has faults as everyone else does I just don't care to really put the time and effort into going out of my way to be a negative person.
As for the Tony Head picture at her wedding, no I don't have a link. I saw the picture and that's good enough for me. I saw it back when she got married and looked at the pictures on someones site back then.
And in order for me, or anyone, to be able to judge her, or anyone else, I disagree with your views of a whole picture. A whole picture to me would be knowing the person in person, not what you've read, not what you've read between the lines on what others have said and not anything on TV.
I just don't get why if someone says they think she's nice that you feel you need to "balance" it out by pointing out all you think she's done. It's basically the same argument you had over and over with Allyson regarding your opinion that "why can't she just let people have hope" about Angel being renewed. You had issue with her feeling the need to tell people it's hopeless yet you are basically kind of doing the same thing in regards to anyone saying SMGs a nice person.
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 06:58 CET
Never had to go out of my way to hear negative things. They come just as easily as positive things.
A whole picture to me would be knowing the person in person, not what you've read, not what you've read between the lines on what others have said and not anything on TV.
Obviously, but I don't think anyone on this board knows these actors in person, so we go with the info we get, that's all. I'm sure you'll agree that your positive view of SMG isn't anymore whole than my view.
when the commentator of the site asks people to stop actor bashing, you still can't resist to argue with anyone who has something nice to say about SMG.
Again, we have different views of bashing. I don't felt I've bashed at all. (I'm sure the Mods will let me know, and hopefully email me with the requirements of what constitutes a bash if I'm wrong) And haven't really argued, either. Just presented my viewpoints and things I've heard and seen, just like you. Just because my view is less sunny than yours doesn't mean it's bashing. And obviously you suffer from the same problem I do, you can't resist 'arguing' with someone who has something less than stellar to say about SMG.
You had issue with her feeling the need to tell people it's hopeless yet you are basically kind of doing the same thing in regards to anyone saying SMGs a nice person.
Not true. I feel a more accurate comparison would have been if everytime someone says something nice about SMG, that I came out and said, "You people are ridiculous. SMG is a terrible person and everyone hates her. It's pointless to like her, because there is nothing likeable about her." Allyson spoke in absolutes, which I try never to do.
I'm merely saying, "Hey, she might not be the angel she's made out to be." Why is it wrong to let people hear another side? I feel it's no more or less necessary than spouting her attributes.
It's like with a politician. I may support someone, but I want to know all their viewpoints so I can make an informed judgment. And even with the negative, I may still support them. I'm not going to make a judgment call on an actor's character based on some E! special interview they do. Nor on all the bad gossip I hear.
BTW, BLWessels, why(in your opinion) is it acceptable for you to post on this board a paragraph of why you think SMG is nice, and all the people who have said nice things about her, yet it's just terrible and I'm trying to make people dislike SMG when I bring up opposing opinions? For every negative I have, you will come up with a positive, and vice versa. I don't see the problem with hearing all sides in a discussion like this. I'd just say, you are guilty of anything you have accused me of.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 07:49 CET
Here's a link to a picture from SMGs wedding. This is not the picture I was referring to earlier, I tried, but I couldn't find that one. This one isn't a very clear shot but I believe that is Tony Head in the second row back with his head tilted. The picture I saw was a picture of SMG standing with guests and Tony was behind her but a little to her side laughing. The picture I saw was very clear and a close up shot of both of them. Here's the url:
http://www.smgfan.com/images2002/wedding/smgweddingbuffyaddict2.jpg
[ edited by blwessels on 2004-03-18 06:12 ]
[ edited by blwessels on 2004-03-18 06:26 ]
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 07:57 CET
If by singling out you mean replying directly to something you post, I'm sorry I can't 'make a point' of it. It's what people do here. Usually why the threads are so long. If you felt attacked or took offense at me replying directly to your comments, I'm sorry. But I'll probably reply to other posts you do at some point. Feel free not to respond.
As for the pic, it's just too unclear for me to tell. It very well could be him, but I was under the impression Tony didn't wear glasses in real life. I may be wrong. Hey, I'd love to believe she invited some folks from Buffy to her wedding.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 09:12 CET
As I stated before this picture is not the one I mentioned in my earlier post. That picture was clearly him and this link I listed is just not a clear enough or close enough one to determine for sure but it does look like him. I posted the link anyway because I thought you and others would still be interested in seeing it and determining for yourselves whether or not you thought it was him. While searching for this photo I did come across a picture of Tony at what appeared to be a book signing and he was wearing glasses in that photo. That was from
http://www.anthonyhead.org/ if your interested. It was under the Galleries section and it was in Gallery 5, the first picture of the bottom row. They had a lot of great photos of him on that site.
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 09:48 CET
Go read interviews about other shows ,Star Trek etc,as this happens a lot on sets where the cast has been together a long time and knows themselves the best way things should be shot
If you listen to the commentary for "Consquences" the director on that says that when SMG noticed that the lights had been set up in the slightly wrong place on the docks she moved to the new location without any fuss ,implying to me he's met people who did cause a stink
garda39 | March 18, 10:05 CET
As for replying, I just can't say that I won't reply to a comment you make. Half the time I am already replying before I notice who the writer is. Sometimes I reply without knowing who it is at all. Yes, I pointed you out specifically only in an effort not to seem like I was 'bashing', but to give a response to something posted. So yeah, I will probably reply to you in the future. Possibly even in regards to Sarah. Hazards of the board. Again, feel free not to respond.
I know, this is the age old battle of the so-called Sarah apologists and so-called Sarah bashers. Nothing gonna change there.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 10:08 CET
Well, this goes back to my belief that actors should just act and let the directors and writers do their job. I know a lot of people feel differently.
If you listen to the commentary for "Consquences" the director on that says that when SMG noticed that the lights had been set up in the slightly wrong place on the docks she moved to the new location without any fuss ,implying to me he's met people who did cause a stink.
Well, that's what she's supposed to do! Go where the director tells her. I never said she was a complete terror to work with. I think if she didn't follow any direction, she'd be quickly out of a job. Yes, I believe there are much worse actors to work with than SMG. SMG is professional and I think when push comes to shove, she will bend to the director's authority, whether she agrees or not.
Rogue Slayer | March 18, 10:12 CET
Read my post or go listen to the commentary
He didn't have to tell her
[ edited by garda39 on 2004-03-18 08:20 ]
garda39 | March 18, 10:18 CET
I have Buffy websites in my Favorites but I usually don't have any sites that are just about SMG and that's why I didn't save the site with the wedding pictures.
Okay, if you do post to a SMG comment of mine, I will try to just ignore it. I don't have issues with you when it comes to other topics and we usually agree on most things but on this subject we never agree. I do notice who I am replying to and if I know that person is touchy on a subject I try my best to avoid commenting unless they single me out on something I said specifically.
Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 10:26 CET
1) She didn't appear at the wrap party. Why? The shot for Buffy was three weeks overdue. (Drew Goddard, Succubus Club Interview) The original start date for the shooting of SD2 was the last week of March, they were already shooting SD2 when she arrived. Is Gellar, the consumate professional, supposed to delay work on a set just to attend a party? From people who attended the bash, I heard the producers or the network, did setup a teleconferencing link so that SMG could say something to the partiers.
2) SMG didn't hang out with the other cast members when OMWF was filmed. No one seems to take into account that they were simultaneously filming four other episodes of Buffy. SMG was taking 16 hours of dance rehearsal and an additional 18 hours of voice training. She may not have been totally behind the idea, at first, but she did contribute. She enlisted the aid of personal friend, Adam Shankman, to choreograph the dance numbers. Adam Shankman in addition to being a major dance choreographer, is a feature film director. His directorial work includes The Wedding Planner, A Walk to Remember, and Bringing Down the House (The ninth highest grossing movie of 2003). Somehow, I think, this man had better things to do than to visit a set of supposedly squabbling actors and producers.
No she did not attend the premier of OMWF. I think, the girl has a right to a much needed rest. As a rule, she doesn't attend very many premiers. She reportedly hates crowds. The entire time that she was on Buffy (7 years) she attended 16 premiers, mostly for her's or her husband's films. Compare that to MT whose been to about 6 in the last year alone. (This last comment is not meant as a bash, it is just a comparison.)
3) None of the actors and producers attended her wedding. Well only sixty friends and family actually attended the four day wedding. Let's assume some were invited, who could attend? Joss Whedon has a wife who is seven months pregnant at the time. Joss is also running three network shows. Marti Noxon is on pregnancy leave. She just gave birth less than three months ago. Is she supposed to pack an infant son to Mexico? All things considered, they were probably better off not going, between the hurricane, the earthquake, and the food poisoning that hit half the wedding party (SMG and Freddie Prinze, Jr included) it didn't seem like a particularly healthy place to be. Odds are, if they did attend and delays in production resulted, we the fans, would be cursing SMG for inviting them and putting them in peril. lol.
IMHO
Anne 5_by_5 | March 18, 13:51 CET
mai | March 18, 20:06 CET