In article <mcardle-2712072250090001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
mcardle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Edward McArdle) wrote:
> In article <5urqm31ag8481frget1l6s543pmvj4mi5e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Rob Jensen
> <ShutUpRob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:02:55 +0100, Pete B <xxxh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <Xns9A0DB0FA02D4Brspwchadbryantnet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>rspw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >>>
> >>> "On the Buffy front, there has been something of rather substantial
> >>> pro****tion which has been concealed," Whedon posted. "There's
nothing I
> >>> can say about this until after January 15th, probably closer to the
end
> >>> of that month."
> >>>
> >>
> >>Interesting, so Sarah Michelle Gellar has given up trying to make a
> >>break through and skulks back to Buffy, eh? :)
> >
> >Hey, if the movie shows why and how Dawn became a giant and
> >guest-stars Eliza Dushku, then more power to SMG for "skulking back."
> >At least SMG would be admitting she made a mistake, which is more than
> >Alexis Bledel is doing regarding single-handedly shutting down Gilmore
> >Girls.
> >
> >Also, I don't so much blame SMG for SMG not breaking through so much
> >as I blame Southland Tales.
>
> SMG has been in some films, which many ex-TVseries stars do not. And I
> think being in a Buffy film is a lot different from being in a constant
TV
> series. Shorter hours, and it ends. David Boreanz said he would have
been
> up for an Angel film, but not a series, if I heard correctly.
Many (if not all) of the movies that Sarah Michelle Gellar has been in
were made by her own company - it simply proves that you don't need
talent when you're the boss.
|
