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
"Not the bang, not the word... the true beginning."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 23 September 2014




Tweet







February 27 2006

Are shows such as 'Buffy' and 'Angel' more fake than wrestling? Comparing the Whedonverse to the world of wrestling.

Well never really saw that connection coming...

On Angel, there was the Cordelia-Connor quasi-incest relationship, attempted violence against small children, penis and masturbation jokes, beastiality, and references to orgies.

I think I missed an episode.
Bestiality=Angel and Nina, perhaps? The rest I suppose existed throughout the series but all of it was rather subtle.
There was a wrestling episode in Angel, you know. Mexican Wresting. All becomes clear now.
Wait, are they saying that wrestling is more real than quasi-incest, violence, penises and masturbation, bestiality, and orgies?
I think what they're trying to say is that they both aired on TV networks.
Thanks for the reminder, gossi, and I was so close to blocking that ep out for the rest of eternity ;)
Ahem. That episode was apparently Jeff Bells personal baby. See, things like random singing episodes and Angel being a puppet - I find normal. Mexican wrestling? It was just weird, man. I think this is a commentary on me.
The big diference is that wrestling is fake and vampires are real.

I don't seem to recal hearing that Joss "demanded" to know about Angels renewal. And the "storyline that went nowhere" about the Scoobies not trusting Angel anymore? Might that have been something set up for the following seasons? We don't all have the attention span of a goldfish, you know!

"During the height of its popularity, Raw and Smackdown were considered very cutting edge with compelling storylines and razor sharp wit." That would be in that bizzaro-world without shrimp, right?
I don't seem to recal hearing that Joss "demanded" to know about Angels renewal

There was an article out a while ago where David Fury said basically that. And that sorta sparked a Joss post which sparked a David post....if I recall correctly.

ETA: And I do! Discussion can be found here

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2006-02-27 01:23 ]
ok- just based on the headline alone, i refuse to read this article. I mean, some people are really stretching for a way to diss tv! first off- was anyone EVER claiming vampires were real? anyway...i just can't succumb myself to this article. But reading what people said-
"the plotline that went nowhere of the scoobies not trusting angel"- did the article seriously say that?? Ummm... that wasn't so much a plotline, as an interesting reaction to the fact that angel had seemingly aligned himself with a shady deal- wolfram and hart! i mean come on! it was just good writing! i mean- they could have gone into more detail about it...or it could have just been there, as a multilayered detail about the characters universe, consequences etc...
That has got to be one of the lamest and pointless comparisons i've ever wasted five minutes reading. Did anyone else get the idea that the writer had little or no idea what he was talking about when it came to Buffy and Angel.

As previously mentioned the fact that Buffy and the Scoobies didn't trust Angel anymore wasn't dropped so much as cut short by the small matter of the show being axed. Buffy didn't fight evil puppets, she fought alongside one heroic puppet. I won't even begin to imagine where he was going with the bestiality thing.

Speaking of the paragraph on supposed "bad taste" storylines, was anyone else a little pissed off with the suggestion that Willow "turning gay" was listed in that section? How was that in any way bad taste? And since when have references to orgies or penis and masturbation jokes been classed as storylines anyway? Talk about grasping at straws!

I usually love to read well thought out comparisons between Whedon shows and other series but this was far from well thought out and barely a comparison at all. Terrible article!

[ edited by Vampire With A Gun on 2006-02-27 01:44 ]
This was written by a person who was a fan of Buffy and Angel as well as wrestling...his point wasn't to slam Joss's work but to take a few jabs at the networks! I enjoyed WWE and WCW wrestling in their "haydays" and am a long-time fan of pro wrestling...I think one can enjoy both the intellectually-stimulating work of Joss Whedon and the showmanship of Vinny Mac!
Turning gay is bad taste? Eh?
Never watched wrestling, so I can't comment in detail on the accuracy of the comparison, except that his thesis seems, well, forced. The writer evokes alleged "similarities" that would pretty much exist between any two TV projects: a female star gets pregnant and loses her job; actors move on and - gasp - become movie stars; spin-off series don't get the credit they deserve; storylines that seem to echo each other. Is any of that at all specific to BtVS/Angel and Wrestling?

The writer seemed like a fan of BtVS/Angel to me, but he was trying way too hard to fashion an article from what is not much more than a fun pub discussion. Still, it's probably a funner read if you're a fan of both Whedon and wrestling.

(ETA) Oh, The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco is in my top five Angel episodes - off-beat genius.
Gossi you crack me up.

And I think trying to read an article about wrestling has made me hurt inside.
SNT, as somebody who had a good friend subject them to years of the torture of watching wrestling on Sky One, and he must have been a good friend for me to put up with it, trust me when i say that the comparison is very poor! ;)
It only tells me that the WWE would be worth watching if JOSS was the head booker instead of Vince. Besides, Vince is trying to get into the horror game by making Kane then next Jason Vorhees. That's why Kane is at Wizard World in a few weeks. Let's just sit back and enjoy Vince get a real wake-up call that movies aren't just like wrestling...mostly (didn't he learn anything from "No Holds Barred"?)
Okay, someone tell me where I was when DAVID FURY posted 3 times on this board?! Sometimes, I'm so ashamed of myself...

ps...how frickin' cool are these guys?

pps...gotta love the penis jokes from Spin the Bottle--wait, what was this post about again? Difference between us and them? Our writers CAN write and WWE writers should be shot.
Hey, I resent this: "Buffy and Angel also struggled in their last two seasons to maintain consistency. Like Raw and Smackdown, they would often resort to "Shock TV" rather telling consistently good stories." Season Five of Angel is possibly one of my favorite TV seasons ever.

And it's hard to take an article seriously when there's an ad on the sidebar about women's wrestling being "a night of erotic insanity".
Firefly had a penis joke too, is it just like wrestling?

"Buffy and Angel also struggled in their last two seasons to maintain consistency. Like Raw and Smackdown, they would often resort to "Shock TV" rather telling consistently good stories."
I don't think the reviewer and I watched the same season 4-5 of Angel and Buffy (well, Buffy it's hard to say, I haven't actually finished yet...)
Eh, it seems like the guy actually does enjoy both, just is suggeting things that might appeal more to a wrestling fan.

I actually really liked Angel's last two seasons in comparison to Buffy's, in the fourth season it was a massive arc but each episode actually had something of a plot in itself (road trip episode, memory loss/fake time-travel ep, apocolypse ep, bodyguard ep, zombie ep, theif caper, etc) and in the fifth it tried to go back to stand alones (I think the Mexican wrestling episode was terrific and I hate wrestling as a whole).

As a whole it's a stupid argument though. "Hm, let's contrast two series that in no way claim to be reality, and a sport event where everyone is aware it's staged in spite of claims otherwise!"
Are articles such as these more fake than real journalism?
Take this off.
Oy.

ETA:

Okay, someone tell me where I was when DAVID FURY posted 3 times on this board?! Sometimes, I'm so ashamed of myself...


Wow, you think you feel ashamed? I posted in that friggin' thread and didn't know David Fury posted in it until just now.

Yikes on me...

[ edited by UnpluggedCrazy on 2006-02-27 05:22 ]
Wow, that link set off pop-up-ad hell on my computer! Always a sign that I won't like what's to come.

I saw the headline and I expected... I'm not sure exactly what. Since I couldn't imagine what could put wrestling and BtVS/Angel in the same article. But maybe some argument about how people who criticize shows like Buffy for not being "real" enough should realize how fake the "real" stuff on television is? Anyhow, whatever I was expecting, it wasn't that. As others have mentioned above, the "amazing similarities" he points out simply... aren't. They all tend to either be things that happen on any TV show, or they simply aren't really similarities.

But my favorite quote of all from the article is this: "During the height of its popularity, Raw and Smackdown were considered very cutting edge with compelling storylines and razor sharp wit."
Um..... what do you say to this? Better just to accept that our tastes differ... Though i suppose good to know that Buffy and Angel fans can come from all types, and appreciate a wide array of genres...

(also, that "bad taste" gay storyline... grrrr. One of the few things in there that made me mad as opposed to just making me laugh at the absurdity of his arguments).
What the ... cutting edge? Razor sharp wit?

Isn't wrestling just a couple of people whacking each other? Oy, things sure have come far since I've last seen a wrestling program.

And I'm with the others on the "bad taste" thing. That whole thing turned a midly amusing article to just plainly hateful.
And peanut butter is like penises, because they both have nuts. So does wrestling! I kind of suspect there were some involved on Buffy and Angel, too.

See the connection? It's all so very clear!
Good Grief!

(sigh)

What everbody else said.
No, no, wait! Everybody STOP! You're missing the point. This is actually an incredibly well-drawn series of connections between wrestling and the Buffyverse. As I was reading, certain other connections that the author hadn't seen sprang to my mind. Here are just a few of them:

Wrestling -- People breathe.
Buffyverse -- People breathe.

Wrestling -- Stuff happens.
Buffyverse -- Stuff happens.

Wrestling -- And even more stuff.
Buffyverse -- And even more stuff, too!

Okay, sarcasm off.

I stopped reading when the author said that Buffy and Angel like to recycle plotlines from each other. Hello?! There are only so many supernatural tropes you can call on before you have to start duplicating!
I'm with BAFfler and others; this is a weird, nonsensical article that struggles with it's own reason for existing. Was this one of those weeks where a writer just has nothing to write about and in a flurry of despair in the face of an approaching deadline pulls something out of his....? Hey I don't know. Pure conjecture on my part. It would be an explanation at least.

Because the basic question at the foundation of this article is: is a *scripted* fantasy TV show with supernatural occurrences more or less *fake* than *scripted* live performances of a *fake* sport show?

Well that's a question for the ages, isn't it? (Note sarcasm) Sorry, but it's kinda ludicrous. And he may be a fan, but the way he tries to twist elements in the shows as hideously as possible in order to prove -well I'm not even sure what he's trying to prove- is just forced and ill-conceived. Bestiality?? Characters 'turning gay' in 'bad taste'? Or my favorite: 'References to orgies'. Oh no! They 'referenced' several non-existent fantasy beings having had off-screen group sex. Heavens... Reaaally digging there, weren't you?

And then stretching all that into a comparative link to wrestling? Well in the sense that all entertainment that is in serial, recurring form and uses some form of storylines will always have some things in common I suppose. But that's hardly worth an article, and it could easily be applied to any number of such entertainment.

(Steven Grant in his column has compared the wrestling federation's attempts to sell its product to the comic world. He makes a stronger case. But he did so mainly in terms of the marketing and promotion tactics.)

Reading this article, at best I can say 'huh, look at some superficial, out-of-context examples kind of comparing to the wrestling world if you look with squinted eyes and shut half your brain down'. And then it still says nothing about the concept of 'fakeness'! To quote the Princess Bride line: "You use that word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means".
Wheee. C'mon guys, you have to appreciate the funny of a main page link comparing Buffy/Angel to wrestling. Seeing this kinda made my day ;-)

Other than that, I agree with the general concensus of this being a pretty bad comparison.

Oh, and add me to the growing line of people feeling ashamed they'd missed that Fury post. Heh. I read (but, fortunately didn't post in :-p) that thread almost up to the point where Fury posted, but probably lost track right before. And yes, I missed his '24' post as well. Jeez ;-)
The only association I get is remembering when I compared fight scenes between Buffy and Dark Angel. Buffy's were interesting, DA's felt like wrestling.

(I don't know how that relevant, but sometimes my brain is on random mode.)
Wait a minute, wrestling is fake ?

Oh, cruel, cruel world that has such Mondays in it.

(i'm not even gonna ask about the Easter Bunny).
Nebula1400:

And peanut butter is like penises, because they both have nuts.


Oh, you just made a penis joke! That's bad taste ... and a storyline ... apparently! ;)

And, Saje, don't worry about the Easter Bunny. It's real. It's actually a demonic seven foot tall rabbit that goes around killing children at Easter by shoving overpriced novelty chocolate eggs down their throats but it's real!

Sorry, watching Darkness Falls has coloured my opinion on cute childhood fantasy characters for all time! :)

[ edited by Vampire With A Gun on 2006-02-27 12:00 ]
(ETA) Oh, The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco is in my top five Angel episodes - off-beat genius.

Mine too - especially in season 5 itself, which is not my favourite season.
I started having trouble when I read the title and when into grammar-related convulsions. Good call on the Princess Bride quote.
(ETA) Oh, The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco is in my top five Angel episodes - off-beat genius.

Mine too - especially in season 5 itself, which is not my favourite season.


^^^^I really liked it as well, which makes this unfortunate to say the least: http://imdb.com/title/tt0457510/

I encourage you to watch the trailer and try not to flinch.
I'm a Whedon fan and a WWE fan so I've actually noticed some of these similiarties before.
Ah, yes, MySerenity, Nacho Libre does not look good. But still vastly better than Jared Hess' awful awful awful AWFUL Napoleon Dynamite.

(And, yeah, when I saw the Nacho trailer, I immediately thought of "The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco," which happens to be one of my least favorite Angel episodes.)

[ edited by UnpluggedCrazy on 2006-02-27 17:10 ]
It seems like Numero Cinco is one of the more divisive of the Angel episodes - people either love it or hate it.
When it first aired, I just thought it was strange (and not in a good way), and actively disliked it. I remember talking to my then-boyfriend by phone and both of us saying "what the hell was that??" But subsequent viewings actually made me appreciate it a lot more, and I think my initial reaction was partly because I knew nothing whatsoever about Mexican wrestling. I still wouldn't put it up there among my true favorites, but it long ago left "Why We Fight" and "Life of the Party" in my "worst of season 5" mental category, and now I see some of that "off-beat genius" that MySerenity mentioned...
Funny how some episodes (and movies) can be so polarizing. I love Doublemeat Palace (cheesy effects notwithstanding), Why We Fight, and Numero Cinquo. I also love all the episodes that are pretty much consensus genuius (OMMF, Hush, Becoming I & II), Normal Again, Epiphany, Waiting in the Wings, To Shansu in LA, Not Fade Away, and so many, many more). To each his own, of course.

But, UnpluggedCrazy, we will just have to go to war over my beloved Napoleon Dynamite!
Aaah, yes, Numero Cinco. I remember duscussing the episode on Usenet after it first aired. I was uninpressed, mostly because the episode was so strange that I had trouble relating to it in any way, and because I felt the cheese-factor was much too high (I, too, knew nothing about Mexican wrestling). My fellow posters all seemed to love it though, and since then I've read enough arguments which lead me to believe that it is actually a very strong episode - just one that I don't necessarily 'get'.

UnpluggedCrazy: wow, you hated Napoleon Dynamite that much? I remember not being able to involve myself in what was shown on screen, simply because I did not like any of the characters, but the movie itself was actually pretty decent. Just not something I'd watch again.
I hated Napoleon Dynamite so much it caused me physical pain. ACP, along with most of the beginning of season 5 of Angel, I just didn't get the point. After viewing it for the second or third time however I realized how important it was for Angel's character (especially after watching Power Play again last night and witnessing Angel's disgust with being called a "hero").
Several bits:
Pro Wrestling - Pre-determined - yes. Fake, no. Yeah, a lot of those punches don't make contact, but a lot of those moves do, and while the point is not to actually hurt the other guy (and yourself), accidents do happen, especailly considering some of the crazy stuff some wrestlers do for the fans. So, before you use the F-term, I reccomend looking up Darren Drozdov (paralyzed by a botched running powerbomb), and Eiji Ezaki (paralyzed when his foot got caught in the ropes while doing a Quebrada, also called a Springboard Moonsault).

That said, I had to take the article with a substansial grain of salt, as it's specifically comparing itself to the WWE, which, wrestling wise (and anymore - storyline wise) has had some absolutely horrible storylines and booking in the last few years (John Cena and JBL's one-year title reigns, putting Johnathan Coachman (who is more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks and the Wayans combined) at the announce table, forbidding the criserweights from doing the high-risk moves which is part of their appeal in the first place.

Further more, with every Buffy/Angel storyline which the article's writer compared with a WWE storyline, Joss executed the storyline much, much better then the WWE did. Sure, on Buffy or Angel we wouldn't see a hurracanrana or a suicide plancha (though, in all fairness, we wouldn't see those in the WWE anymore *grumbles*), we wouldn't see anyone give birth to a hand either.

For the record, I don't particularly watch the WWE's programming anymore. The good booking has really been on Raw, but that's on cable so I don't have that, the cruiserweights don't do the high-risk moves anymore on Smackdown, and the local fed (Portland Wrestling), and the far superior alternative to the WWE (NWA-Total Nonstop Action), is on cable. So, that leaves me with Ring of Honor DVDs, and downloaded matches from Japan.

EDIT: And, of course, DVDs of old ECW events. Would it be blasphemy to compare Paul E. to Joss?

[ edited by Count_Zero on 2006-02-27 19:34 ]
Good point Count Zero, wrestling may be set up an planned in advance but the players are skilled similiar to stunt people and I can appreciate what goes into their performances. However it's the cheesyness and melodrama that makes my skin crawl. It's like watching a movie with great stunts but terrible script and acting everywhere else.
Re: wrestling's "fakeness".... I once lived with a host family in Kenya who lived for pro-wrestling (I thought it was called the WWF, but since i really know nothing about that world, I might have gotten the acronym wrong). In fact, it was the most popular show with almost everyone I met in Kenya.
And, they were all both horrified and refusing to believe when I or my fellow students tried to tell them it wasn't "real" in the sense they thought it was. I had more than one person tell me I didn't know what the hell I was talking about and of course pro wrestling was a legitimate sport. Others looked like we'd just crushed their lovely bubble of an illusion. Kind of like saje and that easter bunny... :-)
(I thought it was called the WWF, but since i really know nothing about that world, I might have gotten the acronym wrong)

The WWF was forced to change it's name to WWE by the World Wildlife Fund in a lawsuit, as the Fund registered the "WWF" trademark in the UK before Vinnie-Mac did (although Vince's WWF is, IIRC, older). Long story short, Vince lost the suit, and was forced to drop the "F" from the name of the company "World Wrestling Federation Entertainment". Hence, "WWE".

EDIT: This is the point in which fans of wrestling who follow both the business end and the in-ring end (or "Smart-marks" or "smarks"[1] to used the kayfabed[2] term) feel that the decline of the booking and writing went down-hill even faster.

[1]"Smarks" is derived from the two kayfabe definitions. The kayfabe definition of "smart" is someone who knows that wrestling is pre-determined. A "mark" is someone who thinks that wrestling is real, or at least watches wrestling as if it was real. Thus, a "smart mark" or "smark" is someone who knows wrestling is pre-determined, but appreciates it as if it wasn't (in other words, enjoys good storylines as well as good in-ring work).

[2]Kayfabe is a term (and the term describing the slang derived from it) going back to the old "carny" days of Wrestling. Think here of the days of the first issue of Spider-Man, where Spidey was in a "last 5 minutes in the ring with the heel-wrestler". Basically, "kayfabe" means (sort of) "What happens in the ring is real and not predetermined (sp)". Kayfabe essentially died after the infamous (and widely known in smark circles) Montreal Screwjob and the fallout thereof.

[ edited by Count_Zero on 2006-02-27 19:47 ]
See, I hate certain movies, and they happen to be movies everyone else loves. Napoleon Dynamite, Fight Club, Duck Soup, etc.

That always gets me in trouble.

But I can honestly say that, along with Office Space, Napoleon Dynamite is the unfunniest comedy I have ever seen. I didn't laugh once at either of those, and actually had to grab a book to prevent myself from falling asleep.
Well, we have a wrestling expert in the house. Thanks Count_Zero for those helpful explanations. Without wishing to appear snotty, I had no idea that one could use the word "storyline" to describe what happened in pro-wrestling - but then I've never watched it, so speak purely from ignorance.

The first half of Office Space was brilliant. I should have turned off then. I can see the humor of Napoleon Dynamite, but it was trying just a little too hard for my taste. Still, definitely preferable to, say, most recent National Lampoon stuff. Or whatever the latest shock "comedy" is from those brothers.

There are certain highly-rated movies I dislike too, UC, most notably American Beauty. I think it's OK to dissent once in a while. :)
Well, we have a wrestling expert in the house. Thanks Count_Zero for those helpful explanations. Without wishing to appear snotty, I had no idea that one could use the word "storyline" to describe what happened in pro-wrestling - but then I've never watched it, so speak purely from ignorance.

Understandable, as wrestling storylines generally go by feuds, and the really good storylines (Vince McMahon vs. Steve Austin, Raven vs. Tommy Dreamer and Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels, among others) are few and far between, and are generally more notable for the matches that the storyline lead to, rather then the promos that built them up, with some exceptions.
Whoa...Office Space had my wife and me totally hooked from the opening scene...agree that it tapered off at the end (the plot is pretty much unnecessary, from my perspective), but we've watched in many times and roar every time...the execution of the printer...the interviews with The Bobs..."It's good to be a gangster"..."flair"...okay, I'll stop...

Actually, we like almost nothing that enjoys great popularity. Don't say that out of snottiness...just the fact of the matter.
Wait, Napoleon Dynamite was supposed to be a funny comedy? I just watched it as a small quirky indie movie (and I'm not affraid to admit I enjoyed it less than I had thought I would - the main character annoyed the crap out of me. But then again, I think he was suppossed to do that). And, SNT, you disliked American Beauty? Wow, shame on you. That movie was amazing! ;-)

Then, ofcourse, I do agree that everyone is allowed to dissent. I, for instance, don't get why the whole world is in love with Tarantino. All flash and no substance as far as I'm concerned. Yep, you can hit me now. ;-)
I nearly swallowed a lot of chlorinated water when swimming when recalling some moments in Napoleon Dynamite...it is quirky, indeed, oddball, and I never tell anybody "You're going to love this!", beacause I have no idea if it will connect with anybody, no matter how well I know him or her...I've watched it 10 times, and it makes me laugh more every time I see it.

"Your mom goes to college."

Makes no sense as an insult, and I can't think of it without breaking into laughter.

Thankfully, Buffy, Angel, and Firefly dialogue is easier to repeat to people and get the hoped-for response (had a conversation this afternoon with a new convert about Willow as Old Reliable...the Geyser...no, that was Old Faithful...wasn't Old Faithful the dog...Old Yeller! Xander, never help me.

And, I finally won a terribly skeptical pal over for Firefly with Mal's casual stabbings of Atherton Wing...
Chris iV, I also like Napoleon. Thought it was incredibly funny, even though I was visually confused through most of the movie (stirrup pants and internet dating? The hell? What decade is this?). Uncle Rico is not to be denied. And there's a llama!

My Ff converts tend to get hooked when Mal kicks bad-ass into the engine. Go figure, but it's the truth. *shrug*
Just chiming in here because I love the fact that a rather inane article about BtVS and pro-wrestling has led us to discussions of Numero Cinco, WWE "storylines," the TV tastes of Kenyans, and now, peoples' thoughts on Napoleon Dynamite, Office Space, American Beauty and more. This is why I love Whedonesque :-)

(For the record, my husband adores Napoleon Dynamite, but I was in the wrong mood when I tried to watch it and only made it through 20 minutes. I plan to try again another time. As someone else said, it was just trying too hard for me. But Office Space - especially the first half is brilliant. Not quite as brilliant as "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, perhaps, but still quite funny. I do like both American Beauty and some Tarantino films, but can't abide Titanic, A Beautiful Mind, Good as it Gets, or Ray all of which seemed to be universally adored. And my husband detests The English Patient with a fiery passion.)
Bow to your sensei! BOW to your sensei!!!!

I tend to try to customize each potential convert...the skeptic I menitoned above loves military history, so when I told him about the whole Civil War allegory, he was mildly interested. But he also likes sly, sardonic humor, so when I told him about that scene with Atherton, he was sold.

He's the one who, very early on, saw something in Book that was, as he put it, "more of the quarterdeck than the cloister."

Then there are the folks who hear "Whores are social elites" and that's all they need...!
Hah! acp, must agree with your husband re: The English Patient. How bored was I? I loved your first paragraph, however, and agree completely!

SNT, we disagree on a couple of movies you listed, AB of course (did we talk about that one before?), and Napoleon. In my opinion, it didn't try at all. That's what makes me crack up so much. It's just a few days in the life of this huge geek who is completely unlikeable, but in the end becomes a hero of sorts, winning the day for Pedro (yes, I sported the shirt for a week or two), with his 'sweet disco moves' (again, confusion). Then goes back to his weird little life. It doesn't sound funny at all by that description, but it is to me. I'll usually stop if I'm flipping and it's (did I use the right one? ;P) on.
There is someone here who denies the brilliance of Tarantino?! I...I've heard of this creatures before...but...never have I...seen one... :-P

A lot of people do make the "style over substance" point when it comes to Tarantino, but I find there to be a lot of depth in most of his movies, except for perhaps Kill Bill: Vol. 1. But Vol. 2 is all about character, and greatly enriches Vol. 1.

But, to whoever said they hated Titanic...amen, brother. AMEN.

And am I the only one who hates Brazil?

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