July 2003 posts
Season
7 as Post-Modernism (Explains Anya/Giles and others) -- s'kat
(for morgain), 18:48:07 07/02/03 Wed
Hi, all - found this on B C & S and was intriqued. It's the first
post-modern critique I've seen of Season 7. I reposted it in a
new thread for fear it would get lost in KdS thread and I'm not
sure it really fits the topic of female empowerment expressed
in the KdS thread below. With any luck Voy won't gobble it up.
It certainly made see the Anya/Xander characters from a new angle.
Date Posted: 11:20:20 07/02/03 Wed
Author: morgain
Author Host/IP: 24.200.195.107
One of the things that most bothered me about season 7 was the
meta-perspective that seemed to infuse the entire storyline and
character development... the zeitgeist of the entire narrative.
And it niggled at me all season, and it was not clear what the
issue was until I read an article by Kearney called "The
narrative imagination."
In one sentence, it was, in my opinion, the cynicism of the postmodern
perspective that marred the flow; in this season, solid storytelling
was replaced by technology and simulation.
This season was one that has contained the most special effects
and "tricks" that I can remember. Their use seemed,
for the most part, to be for their own sake-- to be flashy and
impressive. Two of the most sterling examples were the seal and
the finale with the Ubervamps. In both cases, the effects were
interesting, but in what way did they act as vehicles for the
story arc, the emotional arc, or the character development? Only
in the case of Andrew in Storyteller did the seal further these
elements. Spike and Xander were used to open the seal, but what
did it tell us about them? WRT Spike, why did only a few drops
of his blood open the seal? For Xander, it was an opportunity
to "simulate" a previous storyline: Xander as demon
magnet [more on simulation later].
One of the strengths, for me, of BtVS has been the core character
interaction. During the finale I found myself wondering why they
were wasting so much time with the battle sequence. From interviews,
it seemed the general feeling was 'Ooo, special effects...cool!'
I knew from BOTN that fighting the Ubervamps would be difficult,
and I didn't need it confirmed for long sequences. What I needed
to see from that scene was the initial power of the new slayers,
the turning of the tide and the final dusting of all of the Turok-Han,
as well as the character bravery. I did not need to see a miniversion
of the assault on Helm's Deep from TTT. The use of technology
and special effects this season was like using too much cayenne
pepper when cooking: all subtlety was lost, it no longer acted
like a nice zippy accent, but overwhelmed the flavour of the entire
dish.
The second element of postmodernism was the most bothersome to
me. The postmodern cult of the imagination is based on a culture
of simulation where the role of the imagination is reduced more
and more to surface imitation and repetition [regressing characters
and retreads of old plots] devoid of reference to historical reality
[the characters' growth and development throughout 6 seasons].
Postmodernists claims that 'poetics has priority over ethics'
[Kearney], and this is why the ultimate message of female empowerment
got lost, diluted, and perverted I might say, because female empowerment
is not just about young fated women, but all women, men and children.
Season 7 of BtVS then lapsed into a terminal crisis of self-parody.
The imagination fueling the narrative circulated aimlessly in
an endless play of simulation: this is why so much of your critique
rightfully mentions the failure to acknowledge character growth,
and a return to the state of being of characters in previous seasons.
This is most aptly seen with Anya, but is also evident in Andrew,
if one sees Andrew as the stand-in for early Xander. This is one
of the reasons why I think Xander had little to do. If one is
going to 'go back to the beginning' [the first clue that a postmodern
perspective is at work] and if his role is now taken by Andrew,
what else is there for him?
Images and characters were no longer authentic expressions of
who they had become; they merely served as imitations of previous
themes and character quirks. Characters were constructed as 'desiring
machines' [Kearney] as a way to represent the postmodern crisis
of identity. This accounts for Anya's preoccupation with sex,
the sexual encounters between Xander and Anya that had no effect
on their emotional closeness, and for the most part, the lack
of emotional connection between characters. Only in KIM do we
see an emotional connection between Willow and Kennedy and in
Touched we see a sexless yet intimate and emotional encounter
that is between Spike and Buffy, but in the midst of sexual yet
emotionally sterile encounters [except for Willow and Kennedy--
I think that an emotional subtext was clearly intimate, but not
realized between the actresses].
The parodies then created a lack of depth, since the predominant
preoccupation became simulation of previous seasons. This was
true of characters [Anya and Giles-- I saw him more like the Giles
of early season 1 in his remoteness from the group once he returned
to Sunnydale] but also in terms of plot [ Him / BBB is the most
blatant example] and running jokes [for example the sign of Sunnydale
falling into the pit-- it could have been an opportunity for a
statement about Spike, but wasn't... just a running gag]. This
reduced the overall arc to a game of spectacle and simulation,
making it impossible to identify with the characters for the most
part, since they lacked emotional resonance.
We tend to want meaning in our lives, and not to want to live
'simulated' existences. We may play at simulation, but when we
mark those events that are full of impact on our lives, playing
Tomb Raider rarely makes the list.
And we have come to expect much more than just simulation from
ME.
by morgain (new to our wonderful board)
[> Spoilers to Btvs Chosen
-- s'kat, 18:49:15 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> Preserving thread
from Voy demon!! -- sk, 18:50:16 07/02/03 Wed
[> Re: Season 7 as Post-Modernism
(Explains Anya/Giles and others) -- manwitch, 19:15:17
07/02/03 Wed
I'm going to disagree strongly with this in a little while. Have
to briefly reread Baudrillard.
[> [> Re: Season 7 as
Post-Modernism (Explains Anya/Giles and others) -- s'kat,
19:26:38 07/02/03 Wed
Okay...but disagree nicely (not that you wouldn't manwitch - have
yet to see you be anything but polite) - don't want to scare poor
morgain away.;-)
Actually would love anyone to pitch in - my understanding of post-modernism
has always been woefully below par.
(Admitting I'm dumb when it comes to post-modernism but
intrigued by others who bring it up...where's Grant and slain??
I think Grant was our post-modernist on the board?)
[> [> [> Re: Season
7 as Post-Modernism (Explains Anya/Giles and others) -- manwitch,
19:28:48 07/02/03 Wed
Grant was our anti-postmodernist. Which is a valid lifestyle choice.
[> to me postmodernism has
a different flavor -- manwitch, 22:04:57 07/02/03 Wed
Its late. So my response will be lame.
Morgain has tackled some interesting subjects, but I don't quite
connect the dots the way she does. I also recognize some difficulties
with season 7, but I wouldn't associate those with postmodernism.
I think postmodernism uses the idea of simulation in a very specific
way that has to do with a sociological critique of capitalism.
I'm not sure it transfers to interpretations of art and literature.
So while characters in season 7 might not seem to relate back
to the historical reality (fictional) of the previous 6 seasons,
the characters, as symbols and images in a work of art do relate
to real if intangible qualities that are relevant to the story
being told. "Simulation" in postmodern terms means that
signs have no signifieds whatever. The reality to which they point
simply isn't there, or to put it better, its immaterial. I'm not
sure that is appropriate to what you are saying about Buffy.
Also, postmodernism, as I understand it, does not advocate technology
as a replacement for anything. As part of the postmodern critique
of our culture, postmodernism argues that technology tends to
crowd out other criteria for experience. So if technology was
used in the way you describe, postmodernists might point to that
as indicative of a problem of the culture. It wouldn't be an indication
of the "cynicism" of postmodernism.
That said, I'm not sure I agree with your points about special
effects. I am unconvinced at this point that Season 7 was particularly
unusual in this regard, or that the final battle in Chosen was
any more superfluous to the message of the story than the battles
in Becoming or Graduation Day.
I don't see the "back to the beginning" motif as necessarily
equal to the postmodern "nostalgia." I think there are
some very valid meaningful reasons why season 7 makes reference
to season 1. Again, it has, in my view, a very specific purpose
in terms of Buffy's spiritual journey. In season one she overcame
her childish ego to embark on a journey of spiritual development.
In Season 7, she had again to overcome her ego, but this time
it was the very ego that she embraced in Season one. Her task
is in some ways the same in season 7 as it was in season 1. Overcome
yourself. In season one, she was a child, resistant to her destiny,
and needed to overcome that. In season 7, she was the sole hero
of that spiritual destiny, and needed to overcome that. References
to season one help to illuminate what is happening in season 7.
they are not indicative of abandoning the creative process in
favor of cynicism and special effects.
Finally, I'm not sure the message of Buffy is female empowerment.
Its empowering of the feminine. While it is significant that our
spiritual experience (of which Buffy is a metaphor) is gendered
feminine, it is not of great significance that Buffy is sexed
female. While it is completely great that we have a show that
shows powerful women, that is a delightful byproduct of the show's
core message, which is about how to be the fullest human being
possible under all circumstances. In and of itself, that is neither
specifically postmodern, nor specifically in contrast to it.
I don't mean any of this in a stompingly offensive way, and I
would eagerly read any further elaboration you had on the points
you make. When I see references to "simulation" and
"desiring machines" I go straight to Baudrillard. But
even within postmodernism he's considered radical. Anyways, I've
been out of the game for a long time now, and you very likely
are coming from somewhere else. I would be interested in some
further bibliographical information on the essay you cite.
SK, I hope this 2nd draft is bearable. I trashed the first one.
I am always interested in people's views on postmodernism, or
postmodern thought applied to Buffy. I just see postmodernism
as optimistic rather than cynical.
[> [> Feminine Empowerment
-- Caroline, 08:09:48 07/03/03 Thu
Finally, I'm not sure the message of Buffy is female empowerment.
Its empowering of the feminine. While it is significant that our
spiritual experience (of which Buffy is a metaphor) is gendered
feminine, it is not of great significance that Buffy is sexed
female.
Exactly.
[> [> [> Kinda OT
(to Caroline) -- Rahael, 09:04:45 07/03/03 Thu
I missed your concluding post to the Feminism femininity/masculinity
thread. I thought it was a pretty gracious end to the discussion,
which I have to say I made me think a lot.
Hope I didn't seem to imply you were not a feminist. I am well
aware of the huge variety of thought that exists in the feminist
movement!
And you were right, I think we were just using such different
world views - I mean, I can see what you are Manwitch are trying
to say about the feminine and masculine, but it's almost as if
they were words that I don't 'understand' or don't exist in my
vocabulary.
I can see that it's different from the essentialism I was trying
to grapple with. I actually think that Joss was indeed trying
to talk about integrating the masculine and feminine within us
- I just didn't agree about the values he seemed to ascribe to
these energies, as you put it. Perhaps whether the values I think
I saw are arguable - though I am reasonably convinced at the moment.
[> [> [> [> not
being caroline, i hope you don't mind my answering here --
anom, 12:37:22 07/04/03 Fri
"I can see what you are Manwitch are trying to say about
the feminine and masculine, but it's almost as if they were words
that I don't 'understand' or don't exist in my vocabulary."
I have a lot of trouble w/these words too. They seem to be used
prescriptively more often than descriptively, in terms of what's
"supposed" to be characteristic of women or men. If
each sex has both "masculine" & "feminine"
traits, how is it decided which traits are feminine & which are
masculine? Of course, it's based not on what's inherent in each
sex (which, given the complexity of the "nature/nurture"
interaction, we may never know for sure) but on what society has
historically assigned to each gender.
I have a pretty good idea of which characteristics the society
I grew up in considers feminine & masculine. I'm mostly not interested
in conforming to those ideas. At least, I don't want to be, but
there's still this part of me that thinks I "should"--& this
other part that rebels against that. This is not how I want to
make my decisions about who & how I am, but it's hard to free
my thinking from it.
manwitch said, "While it is significant that our spiritual
experience (of which Buffy is a metaphor) is gendered feminine,
it is not of great significance that Buffy is sexed female."
I think I understand this (I'm not entirely sure--why is there
any need for spiritual experience to be gendered at all?), but
could the show have worked w/a male hero? If the one-per-generation
Slayer were male, he'd have been equally alone, but his Slayer-ness
would have been perceived as consistent w/his sex, not in conflict
w/it. Would anyone ever have said to him, "But...you're just
a boy/a man," or even "just human"? Could spiritual
experience gendered as feminine have been effectively represented
by a character who was male--would viewers have been able to identify
a "feminine" spirituality w/a character represented
as male?
Then there's the whole question of how male & female/masculine
& feminine are valued. Leaving earning power aside, there's still
a widespread (I'm not saying universal) tendency to see the male/masculine
as "better" than the female/feminine (can't help picturing
Caleb here!). It's accepted for women to wear pants but not for
men to wear skirts. It's OK for a girl to ride a boy's bike, but
a boy wouldn't be caught dead riding a girl's bike. So is it really
not significant that Buffy is female, when it's not a question
of Buffy's sex per se but of how it's seen in the context both
of the show & of the society (I know, there's not just 1) its
audience belongs to?
[> [> [> [> [>
Then use different words -- lunasea, 17:40:06 07/04/03
Fri
Yin/Yang, active/receptive. It really doesn't matter. Both sides
of the equation need to exist, in the individual and in society.
This is not an easy thing to do, so society "assigned"
(for lack of a better word) part to one gender and part to another.
This allows society as a whole to function. When society values
one over the other and doesn't treat each properly, that society
becomes unstable and it requires a lot of energy to maintain it.
Eventually, that society will not be able to do this and change
will occur.
Same thing happens on an individual level. When society starts
labeling things feminine and masculine, individuals buy into it.
This causes tremendous imbalance in the individual and fuels the
spiritual journey that Manwitch writes so eloquently about.
(I'm not entirely sure--why is there any need for spiritual
experience to be gendered at all?)
Because the journey which Joss is writing about is the sharing
of power, not the forceful exercising of it. That is yin, receptive,
feminine. Whatever word you want to use. It is just a frame of
reference that people tend to have in common.
could the show have worked w/a male hero?
Angel seems to be working quite well. The stories to Jesus and
Buddha are both spirtual experiences that would be gendered feminine.
So are pretty much any story in the Communion of Saints. It doesn't
get much more feminine than the Prayer of St Francis (if you are
unaware of what this is, it was the lyrics to the song at the
end of "Grave").
Don't get caught up on the sex/genitalia/XY Chromosomes. Gender
doesn't have to refer to that. When we start talking about abstract
concepts, it is a more abstract term that is just piggy backing
its physical cousin in order to be understood. If this piggy backing
is not helping, then separate them. Many words have more than
one meaning. Feminine and Masculine are two such words.
[> [> A concurring opinion
-- Sophist, 08:22:32 07/03/03 Thu
I dissent from the second sentence, but concur with the rest of
manwitch's post. Let me add 2 points about post-modernism.
First, I think it's a mistake to refer to "postmodernism"
as if it were a unified doctrine. We all do this, of course. I
have done it myself many times with the equally diffuse concept
of existentialism. But a great part of postmodernism is its resolutely
anti-doctrinal stance; it's much too anarchical for us to say
"postmodernists think X". Some do, some don't. And if
some do, those who don't will subvert those who do; postmoderns
tend to be corruscatingly skeptical. (The last sentence was intentionally
ironic. Unless you think it wasn't.)
Characterizing postmodernism as a unified set of beliefs or doctrines
tends to be a precursor to blaming it for the perceived ills of
the modern world. I never bought such explanations when applied
to Catholics or Jews or homosexuals, and I don't see that shoe
fitting postmodernism either. Maybe the Republican party.
signs have no signifieds whatever
My understanding is slightly different. Not that signs have no
signifieds, but that they have no universally agreed signifieds.
That is, words can and do mean different things to different people.
I should add that I do not identify myself as a postmodernist.
I'm still stuck in the Enlightenment, though mostly in what some
would call the Radical Enlightenment. You should therefore exhibit
a healthy skepticism of everything I said above. Except my first
sentence.
[> [> [> a clarificaton
-- manwtich, 10:14:00 07/03/03 Thu
My understanding is slightly different. Not that signs have
no signifieds, but that they have no universally agreed
signifieds. That is, words can and do mean different things to
different people.
Ah yes. This is correct in terms of the general relativistic stance
of postmodernism, which, as you correctly point out, is not a
coherent or universal theory.
My point about the sign having no signified was in relation to
the specific term of "simulation." Simulation takes
this idea to the extreme and argues that not only is the signified
indeterminate, but that it is irrelevant and does not need to
exist. For example, a product is advertised. The important thing
is not the product itself, but the signs that circulate around
it. The meanings that are attched to it. In fact, it is only the
meaning that exists. The signified referred to is completely immaterial.
When you consume the thing advertised you are transferring those
signs to yourself, not consuming a real object or its use value.
The referent of the signs is completely non-existant. Only meaning
in the signs themselves matters. The signs and messages that used
to be attached to the thing are now attached to you as the consumer
of the thing. But there is no thing in itself.
So "simulation" suggests that sign production has become
so advanced that signifieds are no longer required to produce
the appropriate response in the viewer/victim. Again, I don't
think even Baudrillard argues for simulation. I believe
he simply observes it. He suggests that the response is passivity.
To be impervious to manipulation by signs. To simply absorb without
response.
I think he offers some interesting critical tools, but I never
got quite comfortable with that idea. I can see it has a place,
but it just isn't quite for me. Like I said, he is, or was at
anyrate, considered radical even in postmodernism.
But I don't think this postmodern idea of simulation is transferrable
to what morgain described in Season 7.
[> [> [> [> Thanks.
-- Sophist, 10:52:53 07/03/03 Thu
I hadn't seen the concept taken to that extreme. I see the point,
but would not agree with anyone arguing it. Nor do I think that
"simulation" as you explain it would apply to S7. However,
others have commented that JW occasionally will sacrifice plot
and logic to achieve a simile, and that may be similar to "simulation".
[> [> Worked for me.
Good post. -- s'kat, 09:50:20 07/03/03 Thu
SK, I hope this 2nd draft is bearable. I trashed the first
one. I am always interested in people's views on postmodernism,
or postmodern thought applied to Buffy. I just see postmodernism
as optimistic rather than cynical.
Very well written. I hope morgain had a chance to read it and
is checking the board - never can tell. Because I like the points
you raised and would like to see s/he argue them.
I'm afraid I can't add much myself, having not read Kearney
or Baudillard or being overly familar with the philosophy.
But I'm enjoying reading what others have to say on the topic.
From what you've stated above? I would tend to agree - I think
the story really is about Buffy's spiritual journey.
My difficulties with Season 7, I've begun to realize, aren't with
the nature of theme so much as how it was executed.
Someone, 3Strikes, on another board mentioned this. He said that
the way the story was executed the writers may have ended up with
a inersion of the theme they intended. Interesting idea. While
I did have difficulties with the execution - I'm not sure I'd
go so far as to state it was inverted. (ie. Potentials enslaved
instead of released.)
[> [> Word and labels
-- lunasea, 07:11:46 07/04/03 Fri
I agree with your assessment of the series. The aspect of the
series that I enjoy and the reason that I watch it is this spiritual
journey. I would love to know how much of it was consciously written
and how much was Joss' transcendent function. I would venture
that the conscious story that Joss wanted to tell was underwritten
by this spiritual journey unconsciously.
It is this spiritual journey that causes me to be so reluctant
to post lately. Many of the posts seem to be an attempt to give
form to the formless. That is almost sacreligious to me (at the
very least it is incredibly un or counter-productive). Now that
Buffy's journey has concluded this turn of the wheel, to say that
is was X or Y or any other word seems to me to miss the whole
point.
In Buddhism we have lots of words (mostly in Sanskrit/Pali or
Japanese), tons of stories (the sutras make the Bible look like
Cliff Notes), and a plethora of fun koans. There is something
that is misunderstood, koans. They aren't designed to get us to
think or figure out some deep complexity. The whole purpose of
working the koans is to reach a state where you go "I really
just don't know."
Scary place, especially to modern man who has to know everything.
Interesting place for Joss to open with for the dream sequences
of "Restless."
I like the coats the vampires wear. It reminds me of one of the
multitude of sayings we have in Buddhism that try to explain the
process and goal. Ego is like a coat. We don't try to destroy
it, but merely discard it when we don't need it any more. Spike
still needs his. We will have to see how Angel dresses next season,
but I have a feeling he will just trade one for another. As vampires
they really have no physical need for it, though.
At one point all those words, stories, metaphors, etc form the
raft to get us across the stream. Joss took us across that stream.
To continue to carrry the raft is counter-productive. At some
point, they have to be discarded.
Yeah, Buffy. What are we gonna do now?
I was thinking about looking back on the last 7 years of my life
and seeing what it all meant was not her response.
[> Simulation in S7
-- Valheru, 01:49:46 07/03/03 Thu
While I certainly see some post-modernist ideas throughout S7,
I don't believe that simulation was something that was intentional
on the part of the writers. I see it more as a series of dropped
ideas.
Each season, BtVS starts out with a redefinition of its
characters, establishing the "base" of each character
from where all explorations will stem. As with previous seasons,
S7 did a great job of setting everything up in the early episodes,
in anticipation of the midseason crisis-point. Every season, it's
like, "Okay, this is S2 Willow. See S2 Willow? These are
the good things. These are the bad things. Got all that? Oh, episode
13...now let's put S2 Willow to the test." Except...S7 never
really did this. Lots of things were established early, but then
there was no big exploration of the themes.
Take Xander, for example. Early on, we see Responsible Xander
acting as Father Scooby. That's the good part. But with Anya,
we see him sort of sidestepping all of their relationship issues.
So there's the setup: is Xander going to be Father Scooby or Baby
Scooby? So enter Andrew to be Xander's dark mirror, to tempt him
toward irresponsibility and juvenillity (is that even a word?)
and to contrast any adult-leaning actions on Xander's part.
The problem with Andrew (in relation to Xander) is that he never
really became the dark mirror. Instead, he became his own character
with his own growth. Well, if the mirror character grows, the
other must shrink or else the comparison falls apart. In this
case, the comparison fell apart, leaving Xander with an almost
non-existant arc.
IMO, S7 started out setting up a bunch of golf balls on easy tees.
The story and characters walked up to the tees, addressed the
balls with their clubs, and then they decided to play football
instead. By the time they got back to playing golf, the balls
had already rolled off.
I don't think the simulations were set up for their own amusement,
but rather to serve actual purposes. But then they were never
actually used for those purposes (or at least, they weren't used
well), so they just seemed empty. What should have been self-parody
for construction instead became self-parody for exhibition.
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Due to extreme sleepiness and hand-crampiness,
this post has been condensed from the unabriged version in my
head. Any confusion is that solely of the author, so readers should
take care not to look too deeply for hidden meaning in the ill
musings (unless there are hidden meanings, in which case I take
all the cr><). And no, reading this post backwards is not
a cure for night-blindness (I already tried it). Please direct
any further complaints to: Voy N. Ack, Wolfram & Hart Customer
Service, 666 S. 666th Street, Los Angeles, Jasminifornia 31417
or e-mail at: imgonnaeatyourpost@voy.com ]
[> [> LOL -- Sophist,
08:04:34 07/03/03 Thu
[> [> LMAO!! Agreed....
-- s'kat, 09:37:09 07/03/03 Thu
Whether intended or not - I love the idea that they intended to
play golf - and went off to play football instead, then when they
returned to play golf, all the golf balls rolled off the course
- this seems to fit the writers interviews to a "t".
Also explains my general grumpiness with the season (in case no
one noticed ;-) ).
LOL! Great post.
[> Post-Modernism and Season
7 -- Darby, 08:36:06 07/03/03 Thu
I think that one of the problems is that post-modernism has taken
to mean many different things to many different groups (which
is really ironic), and as manwitch pointed out, doesn't cross-pollinate
well.
In science, post-modernism basically says that the product is
always hugely influenced by the producer, even in cold, supposedly
impartial research. It has a big part of my introductory lectures,
as I think it helps to humanize science as a creative pursuit
that has unexpected pitfalls. One tries to recognize their own
personal biases and remark on them, even if you can't completely
overcome them. Joss sort of does this, but like many scientists
he seems to focus on the obvious ones and rationalize away many
of the others. Sometimes it's the classic, "I meant to do
that," or, "I didn't mean to do that, so it doesn't
matter, and it's mean for you to point it out to me!"
From that standpoint, the post-modern aspects of season 7 are
many: too much time addressing concerns from the internet crowd,
making Giles not touch things for episode after episode because
they thought it was "cool," backing off the core characters
because they felt that they had run out of things to say with
them, avoiding a real Buffy vs. First-Buffy because they feared
the message it might carry, making Caleb a caricature, doing a
slam-bang CGI finale, squeezing the finale into one hour, bringing
Angel back even though there really was no way to comfortably
wedge him into the plot, etc, etc, etc... (Many of these are based
upon creator interviews, including the recent one with Joss).
I'm really not sure how this all relates to the Post-Modernism
of the essay.
[> [> Re: Post-Modernism
and Season 7 -- Yellow Bear, 11:52:26 07/03/03 Thu
Would you care to elaborate on 'too much time addressing concerns
from the internet crowd'? Curious as to what you mean by this
exactly?
[> [> [> Re: Post-Modernism
and Season 7 -- Miss 12:14:03 07/03/03 Thu
Andrew say "Jonathon/The First" which was an inside
joke for internet fans directly lifted from an internet posting
board from what I heard. Andrew often seemed to be the voice of
the audience when commenting on events. I liked Andrew, but I
did feel the writers tended to get self-indulgent with him. There
was a tendency to take us out of the story so that Andrew could
make a witty comment about what we were supposed to be emotionally
invested in. I found that a problem in season 7, the writers were
striving a little too hard to appear in the voice of the character
Andrew. He was such a fanboy, and I believe most ME writers acknowledged
that a lot of the nerds discussion in season 6 was based on conversations
lifted from the writers room.
[> [> [> Re: Post-Modernism
and Season 7 -- Darby, 13:06:10 07/03/03 Thu
I'm having trouble pulling too many examples (I know that, for
a while, they were weekly and sometimes multiple) out of my head,
but the red herring about Dawn being a Potential comes to mind
(or whether there are aspects of Faith in Dawn), and the "is
Giles the First?" seemed too juicy for them to let go of,
despite it covering what, over a month of realworld time and a
decent chunk of Buffyverse time? Many of the plots and asides
seemed aimed at the speculators at boards like this ones - questions
too esoteric to be important to the viewers-at-large and too specific
to concern the ME staff, who don't really care all that much about
the minutiae.
The opening sequence of the articulate-at-emergence vampire, something
never seen before, is straight out of a series of threads (most
notably one by cjl) from last summer, and it seemed that many
of the gray areas endlessly debated here kept getting addressed
in very familiar ways during the season.
But maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist...
[> [> [> [> Re:
Post-Modernism and Season 7 -- Yellow Bear, 13:35:43 07/03/03
Thu
I actually think the Giles-as-First plotline played better with
people not plugged into the fan community as this group (even
excluding spoiler people) would probably disect it to death. I
suspect that the power of BTVS internet community is overrated,
certainly the power this community seems ot think it has over
Whedon. On average, BTVS has four million (American) viewers per
episode and if ever 10% of that group is in chat rooms or reading
spoiler sites weekly, I'd be surprised. Also, I think taking the
viewpoint of this community as gospel on the show is dangerous.
The fans here tend to far more obsessive & Fannish (to specific
characters) than a traditional viewer and as such, the tend to
see alot of things in the text & out side of it that others do
not.
[> [> [> [> [>
Darby's right about the fanboards influence -- s'kat, 14:45:42
07/03/03 Thu
In the Official Buffy Magazine Issue #8, pp.14-15, the writers
reveal a few things. The article is called Writer Revelations
and no, I'm not going to transcribe all of it for you, so don't
ask. ;-)
"Sometimes a phrase from the BronzeBeta - for example, Andrew
calling an apparition 'Jonathan-slash-The-First' will turn up
in an episode. "This isn't just synchronicity, Mere Smith
says: "That's us paying attention and it's also a sort of
a shout-out, an appreciation of the fans and their perspective."
"Then again sometimes the writers can't resist teasing. If
you were worried that Giles was really the First when he didn't
touch anything for several episodes, you may wonder if this was
calculated to drive you crazy. 'Pretty much,'
Drew Greenberg confirms with a grin."
Whedon states in other interviews (can't remember which ones -
but check slayage archives for 2002) that he has always checked
the internet for fan response, he ignores the ratings. The writers
of these shows are "geeks" they are into the internet.
They have websites. David Fury has gotten into posting battles
with people on boards. Minear posts on Angel's Soul. Check the
VIP Board on Bronze Beta.
So - while the general audience may not care, ME (like it or not)
does. I used to think they didn't - but you don't go to the Posting
Board Party held by Bronze Beta every year and you don't post
online - if you don't care.
They care and yes, it found it's way into the shows this year
and last year.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Darby's right about the fanboards influence --
Yellow bear, 20:57:01 07/03/03 Thu
Actually, I have that magazine & have read that interview so you
don't have to worry about:). I tend to believe that they oversell
this aspect of the show in interviews. They know who are reading
these interviews, and it's flattering to the community that ME
pays attention to them.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Darby's right about the fanboards influence
-- Yellow Bear, 21:46:11 07/03/03 Thu
I really wanted to clarify what I mean by the influence that fan
boards have on Whedon & Co. First, Whedon & Co. clearly read the
boards and often have shout-outs to the posters through dialogue
on the shows (Mere Smith has confirmed this several times as have
other writers). Also, Whedon & Co. read the boards to take the
tempature of the audience in regards to plotlines & characters.
If something isn't working, Whedon & Co. may tweak it or create
a sequence to get the audience where the want them to be (the
Oz speech in 'Innocence' being the classic example).
Now, I don't belive that Whedon & Co. are reading the boards and
trying to craft a narrative that's going to mirror the audience.
To use some examples from above, I thougth Spike's relationship
with his mother would be much like we saw in LMPTM (based on FFL,
primarily). I never read or posted anything on a board about it.
It seems to be an example of a creative team being in sync with
their audience. I don't believe that 'Potential' was created to
tweak audience speculation about Dawn. This may play a part in
the episode but this speculation went way beyond the boaards and
was popping up in reviews & articles about the show for the last
year.'Potential' is the natural illustration of Dawn's emotional
reaction to both the potentials & to her desire to please/be Buffy.
As for my statement abut Giles-as-first being enjoyed by non-plugged
in fans, this is based primarily by talking to several friends
who do nothing but watch the show on Tuesday night. They had a
great time with the plot and didn't let it become the burr under
the saddle that so many on-line did (although most found the explanation
was lame, they let it go and moved on).
Obviously, Whedon & Co. pay attention to these boards (as artist,
how could you not with the instant feedback that they give you).
I just think that the fan community has a tendency to overinflate
it's importance and that Whedon encourages it because he knows
that it's good for business. Whedon has to try to please a much
wider audience than is on these boards as well as satisfy his
own artistic impulses. It's a huge order especially with a community
this possesive of the text.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I'm gonna say it right here... -- Rob,
08:32:16 07/04/03 Fri
I liked the Giles-as-First tease. I liked the mystery, I liked
the set-up, and I thought the anti-climactic explanation ("his
shoe squeaked") was very funny because of its mundane-ness,
kind of a parody of the other anti-climactic explanations the
show has given to mysteries, like when the revelation about Tara
was that she wasn't a demon and when the revelation about
Buffy was that she didn't come back wrong. Part of me was
a bit disappointed (even though I love Giles) that he wasn't The
First or some other kind of spirit, because when I saw the ax
come down, I was shocked, horrified, but also loved how many risks
the show was taking, in literally dismantling its own mythology
in the final season. Killing characters we didn't think would
die, destroying the institution that has always been lurking in
the background...this show has balls! So, yes, I did feel a bit
of anticlimax with the explanation, and wasn't happy that not
much more explanation was given as to Giles' behavior this year.
Yes, I think it was because of a mixture of depression and shock
as he sees his whole world and everything he's believed in or
fought for crashing down around him. But I wish they actually
addressed it on the show. Either way, though, I had fun with the
Giles-as-First plot. It kept me suspicious for a few months, and
had a very funny pay-off both when the Scoobies all jumped Giles
and when Spike did the next episode. I may be just easy to please,
and I do definitely think that S7 had problems. It's just that
I think that some of the other problems were far more important
than this red herring.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm gonna say it right here...
-- Yellow Bear, 10:25:46 07/04/03 Fri
I agree, Rob. I went with the storyline and had fun with it. Mostly
though, I don't really think it's that big a deal in the long
run but people have really seized on to it as a key problem in
S7. I retrospect (the best kind of spect), I do wish they had
dropped this little gambit if it allowed them some more time to
explore Giles emotions which were, sadly, underdramatized last
season.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Agreed. In the best kind of 'spect...
-- Rob, 11:02:32 07/04/03 Fri
I could have lived without it for the sake of more Giles character
explanation. The problem I think was that the writers got so psyched
about the fake-out that they forgot to later explain just why
Giles had behaved weirdly in the first place. Then it would have
worked on two levels the second time we watched it: why we think
Giles is The First, and why Giles really was behaving the way
he was. Instead, we really only had the first part explained.
I don't begrudge the writers their fun. I had some fun without
it too. But people wouldn't be so annoyed by this if they had
followed through better.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Darby's right about the fanboards influence
-- s'kat, 13:12:13 07/04/03 Fri
Actually most of the people I know who watch the show and aren't
into the internet boards? Hated that sub-plot. While several people
who are into the internet boards? Loved it.
So there's really no formula. It comes down to just another generalization
being made based on the circle of people you or I know. (shrug)Not
a good barometer. Unless you are claiming to have over a hundred
friends who watch the show and never come to the internet? I know
I don't. ;-) Four or five doesn't make a good sampling.
I wasn't stating that Whedon and ME write the show based on what
the boards think. Heck if they did? We wouldn't have had S6 or
S7. Tara wouldn't have died. Spike would not have gotten a soul.
And Buffy and Angel would have a kid by now. ;-) But like all
tv shows they do use ratings and fan reactions as a sort of barometer
to see what is working and what isn't working. It's the nature
of the beast so to speak. The same thing is true about books in
the publishing industry. I would not be the least bit surprised
if Charles Dickens didn't tweak certain characters based on his
audiences responses to the segments he released in magazines.
(Dickens novels were released in chapters in journals at the time
- not in complete form - sort of like an on-going print serial.)
In the documentary I saw on comics - they admitted that they changed
things based on comic book sales. And fan reactions. Wonder Woman
was literally changed based on fan reactions.
So how do you gauge the audience's reaction to your show?
What barometer do you use?
Obviously they can't read your mind and unless your friends are
tv critics, own a Neilsen box, or post on Bronze Beta,
chances are ME has no clue they exist or even watch BTVS. They
don't register on ME's barometer. (This is the source of Whedon's
comments in his interview about having just 48 fans - he's only
really aware of the fans that he has barometer for...while he
may assume there are others - he can't worry about them, since
there's no way of judging them. I wasn't on the internet until
2002, so he didn't know or cared I existed. (probably still doesn't).And
my brother, his girlfriend, my friend, mother, brothers friends,
never went on the internet or have Neilsen's etc on this. They
just watch. But ME can't figure out why or what's working with
that bunch.
So what they use is:
1. The Network and Kuzuis and Fox - look at Neilsen Ratings and
demographic ratings: these are taken from randomly selected people
across the country who agree to keep a journal and have a box
that tracks what they watch on a weekly/monthly basis - data is
grabbed during sweeps months.
I know a little about this because my Grandmother was selected
to do it.
2. Television Critics - salon, tv guide, slayage, E! Online, Entertainment
Weekly, New York Times, City of Angels, Dreamwatch, TV Zone, the
list is endless.
3. Internet posting boards: bronze beta, Buffy Cross and Stake,
Angel's Soul Board, Succubus Club, Television Without Pity, UPN
posting board, WB posting board
4. Fan mail
These are their barometers. This is how they know what works and
what doesn't work. And how they keep the show from getting cancelled.
Most of it is just gut reaction, to be honest, they really aren't
that scientific. The science is to justify the millions of dollars
they spend on these series and to convince advertisers to invest
money in the series by putting ads with them.
So yep, ME is trying to get general audience - but they have to
some way of knowing/judging what that audience likes. And yes,
they cater to that audience - because that's
the audience that keeps them on air. At the same time, they are
more than willing to take risks with the audience - b/c they realize
this audience expects the risks. (Although some of those risks
have back-fired. Example Tara's death.)
That was all I was trying to point out. Hopefully this makes it
a little clearer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Darby's right about the fanboards
influence -- Yellow Bear, 15:52:31 07/04/03 Fri
You are right about my generalization on the Giles situation.
Until Rob, I had read no one on this board (or any other) who
had a positive thing to say about the Giles red herring which
was not the general perception of the (or to be precise, my) outside
world.
For the most part, I agree with what you've posted above. In the
end, we may just be splitting hairs on this issue. My main point
was that clearly Whedon is not just trying to mirror the fan desires
with his storylines (was going to use many of the same examples
you use to validate my point). As I said in my post, it would
be nearly impossible for an artist not to use the internet for
feedback about his work.
The Dickens comparision is intriguing because I was thinking just
the other day that the method used to publish his works may be
the closest model we have to modern TV production & the internet
in terms of a mass audience judging not a completed work but pieces
of it. However, I doubt Dickens could get the anywhere near the
amount of specific (I saw someone here review 'Chosen' pretty
much line-by-line) that Whedon has. In the end, I remain very
conflicted about how good or bad this might be for the nature
of the storytelling.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I think, to a certain extent,
they're also able to predict fan reactions -- Finn Mac Cool,
17:21:14 07/04/03 Fri
For instance, after "End of Days" aired, lots of people
were comparing Buffy, Spike, and Angel to "Dawson's Creek"
and saying the writers were falling into that cliche. But, in
"Chosen", Buffy actually references Dawson when describing
how Angel is reacting to Spike. "Chosen" was written
and filmed long before they could have gotten a fan reaction to
"End of Days", so, at least in one case, the writers
predicted how fans would react to a particular story developement.
Though, it doesn't always work. ME knew they were gonna get fan
backlash for killing Tara, but underestimated the degree.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Post-Modernism and Season 7 -- Alison, 13:37:49 07/03/03
Thu
and..Spike's "mommy issues"- often discussed online,
and they played out on the show just as most of the internet spec
had...which was a bit of a disapointment. So, if this means I'm
a conspiracy theorist too, well...call me paranoid.
Completely
off-topic, but Willow likes Google -- lunasea, 08:22:47
07/03/03 Thu
Do the following.
1. Go to google.
2. Type in weapons of mass destruction
3. Hit "I Feel Lucky"
4. Read
5. Laugh
[> Heheheh...that's great!
Thanks, lunasea. -- Random, 08:47:52 07/03/03 Thu
[> [> Oh, if you click
on the about link at the bottom, it leads to a page where...
-- Random, 08:56:20 07/03/03 Thu
You can access this page: http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/blair.html
[> [> [> Ditto on
the thanks for posting. That was hilarious!! -- Rob, 10:03:24
07/03/03 Thu
And if you click on "Bomb," you get to Amazon, to buy
a copy of Dr. Strangelove! LOL!
Rob
[> OT to Lunasea --
Rahael, 08:58:09 07/03/03 Thu
Lunasea, missed replying to your very kind post about S7. Actually,
your post did make me think. And, why should Joss Whedon stop
me enjoying a season? I'll just have to work a little extra harder!
Maybe I'll succeed when the DVDs get released.
Anyway, I appreciated it!
[> [> You're so welcome
-- lunasea, 09:56:52 07/03/03 Thu
There have been several posts lately by various posters who I
really respect that have said things about such and such being
depowering or similar statements. It really caused me to stop
responding to things for a while.
A story has a beginning, a middle and an end. The message is at
the END, usually refered to as a moral. The beginning and the
middle are just steps to this end. Joss creates his own universe,
but if it doesn't relate to the real world, it loses its relevancy.
The real world sucks. Patriarch rules and women are raped. What
would be a more powerful story, a utopian world where such things
don't happen or a world where they do and the heroes rise above
this? In order to rise above this, they have to happen in the
story.
I'm sure that you will enjoy season 7 better upon reviewing. It
is much better when seen back-to-back. Just keep the theme in
mind and all the negative stuff will appear as just that, negative,
what Joss will ultimately speak out against.
[> [> Another O/T to
Rahael-Spoilers for Home -- Arethusa, 12:01:57 07/03/03
Thu
Darn that Voy. Now I feel like I'm hunting you down to reply to
your posts, as well as interrupting lunasea.
I did exactly the same thing your describe-I gave up my
power. And it took a very long time to realize what I had done,
and the effect it had on me. Very similar to effect it
had on you. Which is why I wanted to respond, even though I have
little to add. I'm learning to use my power to connect, instead
of protect myself from the world.
Do you remember Chief Seattle's assessment of Angel in Spin the
Bottle? He said Angel still saw himself as a victim, despite the
hundred of years that had passed since his mistreatment. It was
keeping him from taking control over his actions, instead of being
controlled by fate. (No wonder I identify with Angel.) And now
next year he'll be the one in control, with no one else to blame
for his actions. I wonder how he'll handle it.
[> [> [> Yes! - Angel,
his soul, and Jasmine (Spoilers, S4) -- Rahael, 09:49:20
07/04/03 Fri
Good point about Angel. I was also thinking once again about Jasmine
as metaphor. Here is the person who promises Bliss, happiness,
and Angel rejects it. Is it in one sense another playing out of
his 'soul/perfect happiness/Angelus' storyline? Angel clearly
signals that life is complex, it is screwing up, it is living
without 'perfect happiness'. The perfect happiness which releases
his soul this season is fake, not real, a fantasy.
He also speaks for humanity's right to make the wrong choice and
makes it.
Everything darkens in Home. The Soul metaphor just got more complex.
(Oh, and once again you make me feel not-alone, Arethusa. It is
amazing how many times you have made the odd, strange, alien part
of me feel human and un-odd and un-strange. What it is to feel
understood!)
last bit for
Rob (sneaking round Voy very quietly) -- MsGiles, 08:48:45
07/03/03 Thu
These are a bit jumbled, so sorry about that.
Still getting over being an 'annotaty celebrity' btw!
Trick: Kill the Slayer, yeah. Still, big picture...
A bit of a teaser .. we don't yet know that Buffy is not the Slayer
in question, this time.
Clucking continued (I keep thinking about clucking, now)
Another contemporary scenario when clucking might be heard: picture
a group of middle-aged English people, at a bus-stop, say. Over
the road, a group of teenagers start doing something socially
unacceptable, like vandalising a phone box. The people turn to
each other. As each catches the others eye, they cluck. A brief
spate of clucking establishes a disapproving consensus, then everyone
goes back to waiting for the bus..
It's funny when you suddenly realise that some behaviour you take
for granted may in fact be really weird.. now I'm cluck watching!
Buffy: Giles, contain yourself. Yes, I'm back in school, but
you know how it embarrasses me when you gush so.
Buffy hasn't spotted that Giles is deliberately overplaying his
diffidence here, because he's trying to gently trick her into
talking about what went on when Acathla came back, and why it
upset her so much.
Willow: (sounding hurt) Oh! Who's more sensitive than me?
'Sensitive' Willow hasn't picked up on Giles' ruse either - tellingly,
she's far to eager to be involved in another spell.
They see Buffy just inside the park. She has laid out a blanket
in the shade of a palm tree by a bench, and is setting out serving
plates of food and bottles of drinks. The group begins to walk
toward her.
The picnic theme, introduced here, is picked up much later on
in S4. Buffy and Riley's first date is a picnic, and then Faith,
in a coma, dreams of picnicking with the Mayor in what is (as
has been pointed out elsewhere) a very Garden of Eden-esque scene.
Picnics in themselves seem to symbolise a partial return to nature,
perhaps to Eden, perhaps to a Rousseau-like state of innocence.
There is a well-known C19 Impressionist painting, 'le Dejeuner
sur l'Herbe' (Manet 1863)(see it at http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/)
in which two clothed French gentlemen converse with a naked female
bather over a picnic lunch. The picture caused an outcry when
first exhibited, not because of the female nudity (common in art)
but because of the way this was represented in a contemporary,
outdoor setting, without the normal guise of a classical metaphor.
Another impressionist, Monet, repeated the picnic theme, but without
any naked people, in 1866 (http://www.abcgallery.com/M/monet/monet7.html),
contrasting the natural setting with the elaborate clothing of
a Parisian group of socialites.
Buffy, in laying out a picnic for her friends, is perhaps demonstrating
her wish to return to a state of innocence, to make a fresh start.
She is also offering a shared meal, to re-unite the group after
her rejection of it over the summer, and perhaps by way of apology
for that rejection.
But since then, you know, small stuff: floating feather, fire
out of ice, which next time I won't do on
the bedspread.
yet another example of Willow's magic going awry. Perhaps her
biggest problem to overcome is not her mistakes, but her inability
to acknowledge the potential real danger in the forces she is
using: something of which Giles is much more aware (for reasons
we already know).
It's interesting that Willow *expects* Giles to be mad at her
here, even though he isn't that worried. it's almost as if she's
beginning to test him, test the boundaries. They are all finding,
as they grow older, that the restrictions on them from authority
are decreasing, and they will come to find that the rules are
replaced by responsibilities. Of the group, Buffy finds the rules
most irksome, and easiest to leave behind, as she already carries
Slaying responsibilities. Willow on the other hand clings to the
safety of rules, and will be the slowest to realise the level
of responsibility that her increasing power lays on her.
Cordelia: What is it with you and Slayers? (Xander jerks around
to face her) Maybe I should dress up as one and put a stake to
your throat.
In S5 Buffy-obsessed Spike gets Harmony to do that exact thing.
Maybe over a cup of coffee, or maybe at the Buster Keaton festival
playing on State Street all this weekend.
Everyone has pretty much summed up Keaton. He was almost the Jackie
Chan of the 20's cinema, with a fantastic gift for inventive acrobatic
comedy, grounded in a childhood of being hurled around the vaudeville
stage by his father. His early success was followed by disastrous
middle years, when he fell out with MGM, his marriage to screen
star Natalie Talmadge failed, and he became an alcoholic. In later
life he remarried happily and enjoyed the revived popularity of
his silent films. As well as the trademark stoicism, his screen
persona was possessed of an intense romanticism: his plots usually
had him motivated to transcend his shyness by the power of unrequited
love. Suggests that Scott may be something of a romantic too.
Faith: (quickly grabs her bag) It's what I did to him, all
right?
Faith's bravado now starts to unravel. It becomes clear that far
from being a confident extrovert on top of her game, as she has
made out, she is on the run - and in a last desperate attempt
to escape her trouble, she's brought it to Buffy. What's more,
she was hoping to leave Buffy to fight Kakistos, without explaining
the situation.
Trick: There's a reason these vengeance crusades are out of
style. It's the modern vampire who sees the big picture.
Trick and Spike share a ruthless pragmatism, as well as a liking
for new technology.
[> Re: last bit for Rob
(sneaking round Voy very quietly) -- Kenny,
09:01:59 07/03/03 Thu
Trick and Spike share a ruthless pragmatism, as well as a liking
for new technology.
Although Spike's relationship with technology is bittersweet,
to say the least.
[> [> bittersweet
-- MsGiles, 14:19:32 07/03/03 Thu
Hmm.. well, when he started getting into video recorders and stuff,
he couldn't have predicted quite how ..intimate.. his relationship
with technology would end up becoming. That could apply to the
chip and the Bot, I guess.
[> be voy-wy, voy-wy quiet--i'm
pwesewving thweads -- anom, 11:34:17 07/03/03 Thu
And, heehee!--cwuck, I mean cluck watching!
"But since then, you know, small stuff: floating feather,
fire out of ice, which next time I won't do on the bedspread.
yet another example of Willow's magic going awry. Perhaps her
biggest problem to overcome is not her mistakes, but her inability
to acknowledge the potential real danger in the forces she is
using...."
But here, as in some other cases, it's not that the magic itself
goes wrong (Willow's talking about the stuff she can do)
but that Willow didn't think ahead to the most elementary logical
consequences & take precautions. Someone once listed her spells,
looking at which ones worked & which went wrong; it might be interesting
to look at which went wrong because of the magic itself & which
because she didn't think about what the consequences might be.
I think it's safe to say that even if Willow learned the specific
not-on-the-bedspread lesson, she didn't go on to apply it as a
general principle.
One thing about Trick & his D.C. origins: Washington became known
in the 1970s as "Chocolate City" because its population
had become predominantly black--an additional contrast w/Sunnydale's
"Caucasian persuasion." Hmm...I wonder if his pragmatism
is at all related to his origins in the city whose primary business
is the U.S. federal government?
[> [> HEY, ANOM, WHATCHA
DO...umm, oops, sorry, was that too loud? -- Random, 13:02:44
07/03/03 Thu
[> [> You are a brave
woman!--Rob, who laughs in the face of danger... -- ...then
hides till it goes away, 22:50:18 07/03/03 Thu
[> ice from fire --
Anneth, 14:50:06 07/03/03 Thu
fire out of ice is one of the spells Willow claims to have
been practicing. In the first X-men movie, two young men flirt
with the novice Rouge; one, Pyro, generates a little ball of fire
in his cupped hand; the other, Bobby (Iceman) extinguishes it
with an icy blast. This 'ice out of fire' is an inversion of Willow's
spell, and may or may not have any relation to the fact that Joss
penned the original script for X-men.
[> [> fire and ice always
makes me think of Dead Things/crypt scene also -- MsGiles,
02:38:31 07/04/03 Fri
Would a season
of "Restless" have worked? -- Darby, 11:47:08
07/03/03 Thu
As I've stated many times, early in Season 7, when the Big Bad
was obviously the First Evil, I salivated like a Pavlovian canine.
Forget that the First of Amends was a bit lame - the strength
of this BB was in its ability to delve into the innermost guilts
of the characters, to manipulate them like the Ghost of Christmas
Present to face their own Evil, and it seemed the perfect metaphor
for the point in our lives when we really come to grips (or don't)
with the "us" that will be gliding through the rest
of our lifetimes with the idealized personae in tow. How do we
see ourselves, and how well do we both accept and battle our shortcomings?
Since Joss had touted this as a "Back to the Beginning"
season, I expected bouts of the core characters dealing with their
considerable baggage, spaced with some interesting stand-alones.
We would really get a better feel for Ripper, for the Harris family
curse, for Dark Willow, leading up to Buffy's ability to deal
with the Darkness inside that's just...Buffy. As Restless
gave us brief glimpses into the fears of our group, this season
would really force them to accept or deny their inner selves.
And we got a little of this. Selfless, Conversations With Dead
People, Storyteller, Lies My Parents Told Me all fell into
this thematic zone, but were mostly external to the core group.
The Killer in Me came close as well, although the guilt
issue about "leaving" a deceased loved one put it a
bit on the fringe.
Could this not have been done without just rehashing familiar,
boring ground? Was I expecting too much? Would it have been just
Restless-type vignettes expanded to full episodes? Could
the Conversations storylines have supported full episodes,
with a new "B" storyline in each?
Yeah, yeah, we shouldn't rewrite the show with our preferences,
we should deal with what we got, but am I wrong that they teased
us with apparently this exact storyline and went to a more battly
place? Did they have to? Would a more cerebral and less kick-in-the-noogies
final season, driven more by character and less by plot, have
driven even more viewers away?
[> This viewer would have
been thrilled. -- dream, 12:58:00 07/03/03 Thu
[> What I hoped for too.
Wish they'd done it. -- s'kat, 14:30:56 07/03/03 Thu
Since Joss had touted this as a "Back to the Beginning"
season, I expected bouts of the core characters dealing with their
considerable baggage, spaced with some interesting stand-alones.
We would really get a better feel for Ripper, for the Harris family
curse, for Dark Willow, leading up to Buffy's ability to deal
with the Darkness inside that's just...Buffy. As Restless gave
us brief glimpses into the fears of our group, this season would
really force them to accept or deny their inner selves.
So did I. After BoTN that was my expectation from Buffy's speech
about rooting out and facing their fears. I expected more episodes
like CwDP, Selfless, STSP, Beneath You,
The Killer in Me, Lies...but noooo. Instead we got Caleb.
And lots of Andrew metanarration.
Forget that the First of Amends was a bit lame - the strength
of this BB was in its ability to delve into the innermost guilts
of the characters, to manipulate them like the Ghost of Christmas
Present to face their own Evil, and it seemed the perfect metaphor
for the point in our lives when we really come to grips (or don't)
with the "us" that will be gliding through the rest
of our lifetimes with the idealized personae in tow. How do we
see ourselves, and how well do we both accept and battle our shortcomings?
I wish they'd gone this route, I think the FE had the potential
of being the best of the BB's as opposed to the weakest. I don't
understand why they didn't - it certainly looked like that was
the direction they were going up to Dirty Girls.
Perhaps they thought it was too boring?? Don't know.
Disappointed me that they didn't.
[> [> hmmm -- Nino, 15:22:27 07/03/03
Thu
I have to say, I liked that Caleb showed up...but I am totally
with you other then that...all season I was waiting for the First
to really launch a psychological attack on the Scoobs, and with
a few exceptions, this did not happen....
[> [> I suspect..who
voices an opinion -- solo spinout, 09:44:55 07/04/03 Fri
ITA that BOTN (adding Restless) was certainly exposition. And
I think UPN and FOX squared off on the plot. I have a difficult
time matching up anything from Action in BOTN to future episodes.
At the start of BOTN Dru had Spike physically Raped by the super
strong Uber Vamp ("we will have our way with this one"....
scream/blackout). The rape theme that started in Season six continued
per MN was resurfacing. UPN saw how much that did not work, and
they *likely said no*
The idea suggested by Dru saying *tearing girls like pink paper*
was so not happening, and soon the ubervamps became weak enough
for said little girls to defeat them. Caleb being able to cut
a non corpreal SMG FE thru the womb was as close as they got (and
the FE healed, bouncing right up).
Also around this time the WB was switching Angel around on
nights and increasing spans in presentation dates of New eps.
There can be a case made that Jasmine was intended to show up
on Buffy, to counter act the Evil that was anticipated to arrive
in SD on the moon per (the New Man/Prince Barvain)BOTN. In an
early episode of Buffy, Buffy in white sweater reaching over to
a huddling SPike, speaking of Dru, was a representation of Jasmine.
I can remember a lot of board talk about just who was White Buffy...and
I think it was Jasmine. Representing Caleb was JM; a rat hunting
Spike, one who said it was not time yet, and who said the scoobies
lack etiquette (sp), a defacto Caleb *who later told Buffy she
lacked Manners in her office; just before he threw her thru a
window*
I suspect that Angel needed a plot past the *made out to be dumb
Beast* to show the WB that Angel could be made interesting at
the end, and hold chance for being renewed.
No one will ever come forward with this. Restless, when seen as
Plot, has AH see a squiggle of black Yarn among the chaos of actors
in a mix of movements (chaos in story lines of season seven).
No one else does. My view of Restless is that this is Spike seeing
Jasmine as something to be concerned with. JW, in mho, changed
AH/Spike to Fred, and took a Buffy plot over to Angel to save
his season five there.
ONe great professional writer here said it best. I am sorry I
can not give the exact quote.
It was like the characters in the end were showing the stress
of presenting a plot that they were ill suited for, after 6 plus
seasons of character developement and plots of fantasy.
Caleb was the plot planned long ago...and I can tell, imho, by
seeing how the scythe is represented. In Restless it is the *props*
held in your hand, In Tabula Rasa, the stake Buffy picks up from
the floor, and moves back and forth (an action repeated in Chosen
w/scythe), is the same *Props*; the scythe; and last in HIM, the
Bazoka the extention of the weapon, as Buffy carries it on her
arm. When you see JM carry the weapon across his chest, that is
the Amulet (and is why, in TR, ASH has trouble hugging Randy)
The weapon was there for Caleb.........who was in the works since
Restless. The Cheesesman, the subtle shift, was telling Xander
in Restless that the *Plot* would not protect him. And indeed,
the Sits, did not prevent Caleb from harming Xander.
This Plot, one on the surface, was always planned for, and was
indeed an Anvil, again.
ALL MY OPINION.
[> Re: Would a season of
"Restless" have worked? -- Corwin of Amber, 17:42:23
07/03/03 Thu
Honestly, I think that the final scene of the season opener (Lessons?),
written by the master himself, kind of set the bar too high for
the rest of the season. The morph through all the big bads in
reverse order got us all salivating too much for our own good.
Unfortunately, they couldn't really go that way, due to budget
constraints and the facts of life in series tv. To do the big
bad right, they would have needed Tara to torment Willow, either
Buffy or Jesse to torment Xander, Jenny to hassle Giles , and
possibly Angel or Spike to bother Buffy. (More than they already
do!). But the budgets, contracts or whatever weren't there. It
could have been a season where it would have been VERY hard to
tell which character was which, because any of the characters
who have been or are dead...Buffy...Spike...Angel...could have
been used by the FE to sow dissent. The sense of desperation they
tried to achieve would have been total, if the FE can show up
at any time as your nominal leaders...
[> [> Actually for Tara
they needed... -- lunasea, 08:15:58 07/04/03 Fri
to do what Joss wanted, to bring her back to reunite her with
Willow as Willow's true love. That would have been much more powerful
and tear-worthy than Willow moving onto the anti-Tara.
The First isn't about tormenting. Tormenting is a vehicle to something.
That something was accomplished without the First needing to do
much, so why would it torment? To get its jolies?
[> Not the story that Joss
is telling -- lunasea, 08:08:57 07/04/03 Fri
What you describe is but one part of that story. Dealing with
our fears does not take us to the formless. Often it just solidifies
our ego. Buffy's ego was at that point at the beginning of the
season. It isn't so much about the "real us" as it was
how to relate to this world.
"Empty Places" really had to be earned and most of the
season was dedicated to that. I might have set it in earlier in
the season, but it also had to be timed with Faith and the Angelus
arc over on AtS. From "Sleeper" to "Get it Done"
could have been condensed to fewer episodes (though they are much
better when they are seen back-to-back)
Also, how does what you say about the First fit with the theme
of either "Amends" or this season? You are taking what
you think is the First and saying that the season should follow
along with that. Instead the Bad, big and otherwise, fits the
theme of the season or episode. As we get to the series finale,
that theme is going to be what the series has been working up
to. Buffy dealing with her fears isn't that theme. Angel dealing
with his isn't the theme to "Amends" or it would have
a different title and sub-storylines.
What you describe, dealing with their inner thems, was dealt with
S6. None of them particularly liked themselves and didn't want
to be themselves. What more did you want? Talk about Restless-style
vignettes expanded-- that's all the season was.
I'm sorry that you didn't get the season you wanted. Personally,
I wish Spike had been left in the basement and Dawn and Willow
had used the screen time that went to him. Or Giles. Season 5
was heart. Season 6 was spirit. Season 7 should have been more
Giles since it was wisdom. I was glad that they could use AtS
to develop Willow more. Then again, they are probably saving both
Willow and Giles for the future. Hopefully Watcher, Jr will show
up on Ripper.
I think it was a wonderful back to the beginning. Buffy didn't
want to be Slayer. That season was about her accepting her calling.
This is the first season where in the premier Buffy didn't have
to reassert her identity as Slayer. She has accepted that. She
is the only one. In "Empty Places" she gives up her
place to Faith and later she shares the Scythe. At the end, she
is no longer the only one. It was a wonderful revisit to the beginning.
It is about a lot more than just accepting yourself.
[> [> Don't agree with
everything, but... -- Rob, 08:51:40 07/04/03 Fri
...I do agree with these parts:
"Empty Places" really had to be earned and most of
the season was dedicated to that.
From "Sleeper" to "Get it Done" could have
been condensed to fewer episodes (though they are much better
when they are seen back-to-back)
What you describe, dealing with their inner thems, was dealt with
S6. None of them particularly liked themselves and didn't want
to be themselves. What more did you want? Talk about Restless-style
vignettes expanded-- that's all the season was.
That's exactly how I saw the sixth season. Every nightmare from
"Restless" was explored that year, to the point that
many viewers complained that it was too focused on the
characters, with no external dramatic force stirring things up
and moving the plot along. I didn't want this season to be a season
where the Scoobies confront their fears, but what it was, a year
where they finally begin to become the people they are going to
be.
I think it was a wonderful back to the beginning. Buffy didn't
want to be Slayer. That season was about her accepting her calling.
This is the first season where in the premier Buffy didn't have
to reassert her identity as Slayer. She has accepted that. She
is the only one. In "Empty Places" she gives up her
place to Faith and later she shares the Scythe. At the end, she
is no longer the only one. It was a wonderful revisit to the beginning.
More agreement.
Rob
Really cool
Buffy quiz -- HonorH, 10:01:43 07/04/03 Fri
Go here: Which
Buffy Archetype are You?
Me? I'm a Zeppo! Couldn't be happier.
[> awesome....Im a Witch!
-- Nino, 10:21:23
07/04/03 Fri
[> And I'm a vampire!
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:39:30 07/04/03 Fri
Although, I must admit, I have no clue how these questions are
relevant.
[> [> Me too! Also don't
totally get why, but...woo hoo! -- Rob, with the fangs and
the blood, 10:57:04 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> Finn - this quiz
is internationally replacing all college admission tests.
-- WickedGRE, 12:22:54 07/04/03 Fri
]
[> [> [> That does
sound like something they would do . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
23:53:31 07/04/03 Fri
[> Another Witch here
-- LadyStarlight, 10:47:50 07/04/03 Fri
[> Yet another Witch here.
There was no test for white or black, though. };> -- WickedBuffy,
11:22:58 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> Re: I'm a vamp?
Must be that star thing -- Brian, 11:54:21 07/04/03 Fri
[> Re: Really cool Buffy
quiz -- Rendyl, 11:54:05 07/04/03 Fri
Ooookay. I don't get why the difference between Slayer and Vampire
is a Jag...cough...since none of them seemed to drive...but it
appears I am a Slayer.
Ren - maybe I should have picked the Mustang -
[> [> I answered that
car question based on environmental guilt. -- WIckedBuffy
(not on what my evil part would love to drive), 12:25:37 07/04/03
Fri
[> I'm a Watcher!?!
-- deeva, 11:58:49 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> Me too, Deeva...just
call us Voy Voyeurs -- dub ;o), 18:00:18 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> I like that!
Voy Voyeurs. It has a je n'ai sais quoi. -- deeva, 18:18:41
07/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> Re: Me three,
I think it was the car... -- Just George, 22:38:04 07/04/03
Fri
[> [> [> [> I thought
it was the history books that did me in but it might be the car.
-- deeva, 09:59:31 07/05/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
It was DEFINITELY the car, LOL!! -- dub ;o), 12:07:20
07/05/03 Sat
[> [> I too would seem
to like books more than people - hmmm -- fresne, 11:24:39
07/05/03 Sat
[> Zeppo too! -- Sara,
with no complaints given my love for donuts, 12:31:47 07/04/03
Fri
[> I'm a Witch...strangely
enough! -- O'Cailleagh, 13:07:50 07/04/03 Fri
Although how the quiz knew that, I don't know....spooky!
O'Cailleagh
[> Neat........I'm a Slayer......;)
-- Rufus, 13:20:19 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> I can train you,
prepare you... -- manwitch, 06:37:59 07/05/03 Sat
I took it twice, because in each category there was my first response,
but their was also one that I really really really wanted to anser.
Each time I came out another watcher.
But interstingly enough, there seems to be only one slayer.
[> [> [> ...and torture
and manipulate you because I'm an evil MAN!!!! -- KdS, 09:42:30
07/05/03 Sat
[> I'm a vampire...of course.
-- Rochefort, 14:35:11 07/04/03 Fri
[> "You're a demon.
Good? Evil? Or somewhere in between." could they be anymore
vague? -- VR, 17:30:22 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> Or any more accurate?
;-) -- O'Cailleagh, 11:46:07 07/05/03 Sat
[> Yay...I'm a vampire-
wait..does this mean drinking actual blood? -- Alison, 19:47:40
07/04/03 Fri
[> Zeppo here! amazingly
true... -- jane, 21:36:10 07/04/03 Fri
[> Re: I'm a Zeppo!
-- Purple Tulip, 22:41:41 07/04/03 Fri
[> A demon? A demon?!? Gotta
work on my moral insurrectitude, heh -- Random, 09:36:35
07/05/03 Sat
"Villains
I wish Buffy had gone up against" -- WickedBored, 12:20:03
07/04/03 Fri
The show is over. ::sigh::
But the essence of it will never die. Nor the plot ideas.
There were so many villains I would have loved to see The Scoobies
go up against. How they'd handle it - what special twists and
turns would make it intriguing. Her closest brush with the literary
world was Dracula.
Who or where would you have loved to see Buffy and Gang in actionwith/at/whatever?
First - fighting VampBuffy would be entertaining, especially if
the entire Scooby gang had Vamp dopplegangers. Though I'm not
sure if that would be scary or hilarious. It'd probably turn out
like a Marx Bros. movie.
Buffy fighting "Chimera" a character from an Anita Blake
book that had a mutiple-personality problem complete with different
monster faces for each personality.
Buffy fighting Jasmine (from Angel). Why do I believe that everyone
but Giles and Anya would side with Jasmine?
The Scoobies are trapped in a series of Ed Wood movies including
"Plan 9 From Outer Space", "Glen or Genda"
and "Night of the Ghouls". Escaping those they land
in a series of Troma movies beginning with "Toxic Avenger"
and ending with "Cannibal! The Musical".
Agent Smith from The Matrix movies.
Damian from all those Damian movies - Satans son in a suit.
The Langoliers from Stephan Kings book/tv movie.
The Gang tranported to an alternate dimension exactly like George
Orwell's "1984".
Dr. Hannibal Lecter teamed up with The Fluke Man from the X Files.
Locked in the reality show 'Big Brother" house with all the
participants AND "Simon", that guy from American Idol.
[> Buffy vs. FOX Network
Executives -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:00:28 07/04/03 Fri
[> a few -- MsGiles,
15:51:14 07/04/03 Fri
The big guys .. King Kong. Godzilla. The Beast from 200.000 Fathoms.
Ebirah Terror of the Deep!
Darth Vader and the Empire .. Leia needed a bit of a hand with
all those macho guys, and Yoda could have some tips to Giles passed
on
Dune - they all needed to lighten up a bit in there, some giant
worm jokes wouldn't have gone amiss, and I always found Paul a
bit weedy. Buffy v Sting would have been much better action.
Then there's all the original inspirations of the bads in the
series .. the actual monster from the black lagoon (AND Brooke
Shields). Freddy Krueger. The Living Dead. The People in the Television
from Poltergeist.
Anne Rice's vampires. Candles, lace and lust. Some serious frock-coat
action.
[> [> Re: a few --
LadyStarlight, 16:57:19 07/04/03 Fri
Anne Rice's vampires. Candles, lace and lust. Some serious
frock-coat action.
hehe, now I have this vision of Angel swirling his coat, saying
"No, mine's swirlier!"
Is that what you had in mind, or is the heat getting to me?
[> [> [> Yeah! My
cuffs are floppier! My embroidered waistcoat -- MsGiles, 05:24:49
07/05/03 Sat
is more embroidererier. Let me toss my hair out of my eyes so
I can see to bite you ..
Angel and Spike up against an army of LeStats? I think they might
be a little freaked out by the campvamp factor. (Spike has issues
in this area, indicated by his frequently calling Angel a poufter).
I could see the macho guys running like .. girls
Buffy I think would be puzzled but not phased.
If however we got Buffy against Xena, or perhaps Callisto ...
[> Here's one to start:
Gaviel -- Doug, 19:48:24 07/04/03 Fri
I should be able to think of a lot more but this guy was the first
one to leap to mind. He's a Demon: the Fallen signature
character who appeared in the Trilogy of the Fallen novels as
well as the anthology Lucifer's Shadow.
To get to the short story focusing on him go to this URL:
http://www.white-wolf.com/demon/
and then scroll down and click on "Devil's Sugar", or
go straight to here:
http://www.white-wolf.com/demon/devilssugar.pdf
Gavial is a manipulative bastard on a scale that puts any other
to shame. He's a Namaru, a Devil; a honey-tounged liar who can
only deceive with lies, but can (and most often does) deceive
with the truth. When I read the books I found myself torn between
wanting him to finally get the beating that's coming to him and
loving the character for being such a slick, smart, and hilarious
bastard.
His chances against the gang: Gavial doesn't have alotof brute
force, but he has control over fire, ability to control the minds
and acquire the loyalties of human beings (his specialty), and
(after the final battle of wreckage of paradise ) he had
gained some level of power over Earth. As for his mundane abilities
his host Noah is a tall, fairly well muscled man without alot
of combat knowledge. Gaviel/Noah is very intelligentand well-educated,
and is good a getting people to do what he wants and getting them
to like him even without using mystical power. In his other form
he appears as a radiant Angel with wings of fire (and yes he can
fly).
All in all I think this guy could cause the gang some serious
trouble, poarticularly if he can Yoko Factor them.
Any thoughts on this Potential Vilain?
[> [> Oops forgot something
-- Doug, 19:52:45 07/04/03 Fri
Spoiler space for "Devils Sugar"
After the events of the short stroy Gavial gains the ability to
predict probable future events from his cannibalizing Edasul.
[> Sarah Michelle Gellar
as Buffy vs. Krsity Swanson as Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:25:35
07/04/03 Fri
[> Re: "Villains I
wish Buffy had gone up against" -- Sgamer82, 22:03:25
07/04/03 Fri
Well, I'd had two ideas once for possible fanfic villains. I never
followed through though. One got taken in a BuffyBook and S7's
story made the second idea pointless. Anyway...
1. A vampire who was once a Slayer. Vamp power on top of Slayer
skill, a real force to be reckoned which. The Buffy novel "Tempted
Champions" deals with this idea, though to be honest I'm
not totally thrilled with how they did it. It's currently my least
favorite BuffyBook.
2. A Potential Slayer who was tired of waiting for her call. I
could imagine a Potential taking a shot at Buffy (possibly using
some Trio-esque technology to give her an upper hand) to try and
kill Buffy to get herself called. Could even have been a crossover
to Angel if the "Wannabe" got the impression killing
Buffy wouldn't call a new Slayer. She'd have gone to L.A. seeking
Faith.
[> [> Re: least favorite
BuffyBook -- Just George, 22:32:44 07/04/03 Fri
Sgamer82: "The Buffy novel "Tempted Champions"
deals with this idea, though to be honest I'm not totally thrilled
with how they did it. It's currently my least favorite BuffyBook."
I haven't read any of the Buffy books. Which are among your favorites?
-JG
[> OK, getting serious this
time . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 00:00:06 07/05/03 Sat
1) Buffy vs. Any One of the Scoobies Turned Into a Vampire (surprisingly,
this is a storyline that's never been done (unless you count Jesse),
but it seems like such a clear opportunity).
2) Buffy vs. The Legions of Hell (I'd like to see the Buffster
whip out that Scythe and start hacking the Old Ones to pieces).
3) Buffy vs. Batman (it's just cool; need I say more?)
4) Buffy vs. Darla (they never got to have a hand-to-hand fight;
how cool would it be to have the two blondes who have most governed
Angel's existence in a chick fight?)
5) Buffy vs. Cameron Diaz (*drooling at the mental image*)
More July 2003 | Current
board