From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
Neil said, defining fannishness potential:
(1) the need for an active suspension of disbelief (pre-requisite of all
SF
and fantasy shows).
I would tend to disagree--I'd say that active suspension is not necessary if the show is internally consistent.
Whereas I would say that it is necessary for anything that clearly has not happened or could not happen in the real world.
Fine, whatever, vampires, hyperspace drive...what drives me round the twist is Episode 3 says the ship can't go over 22 lightyears/minute and in Episode 5 it's cheerfully cruising along at 45...
In-series anomalies are a real pain (though they can be fun to rationalise, where this is possible). But you don't need to suspend disbelief for vampires? Or hyperdrives? Or deadly curling tongs?
(2) episodic structure, a succession of closed stories (though not necessarily without a broader story arc to hold the series together).
But Buffy and Angel are very fannish (or at least very fanned, if that's a word) and they are outright soap operas--it's very much assumed that viewers will be aware of detailed past events.
As I've already said, I'm not familiar with these shows (I don't even know what Angel is about, nor do I particularly want to), so I don't know how easy it would be for a first-time viewer to pick up the threads if dropping in mid-series. I gather Bab5 also depends heavily on back-knowledge, which might be I was singularly unimpressed by all three of the episodes I've seen. (OTOH, I got quite captivated by The Water Margin despite not having a clue what it was all about.)
It was tactful of Neil not to mention: (n) Fan has crush, perhaps slightly embarrassing crush for being on the "wrong" person--i.e., second leads seem to have more fen than leads, even though you're "supposed" to root for the lead.
I refer my honourable friend to the reply I made to the member for Bizarro7.
Neil