September 2002 posts
AMC "backstory" on "Buffy"
the movie -- Quentin Collins, 21:54:44 09/22/02 Sun
I don't know if anyone else has seen it, but today I caught an
edition of the American Movie Classics show "backstory"
on "Buffy" the movie. I rarely watch the channel. It
makes me cringe what they classify as "American movie classics".
But I got a kick out of this episode. I highly recommend that
any fan of "BtVS" check it out if it airs again. It
was so funny to watch the ditzy Fran Rubel Kuzui talk about her
movie like it was bloody "Citizen Kane". If I had been
the person responsible for turning Whedon's vision into a campy
crapfest, I would hide my head in shame. Or maybe shove it in
a gas oven. I get the impression that other than FRK, nobody involved
was happy with the way that the film turned out. The suits at
Fox kept nagging her to make it scarier. In the end the only scary
thing about the film was how far under projections its boxoffice
gross was.
[> I'm too scared to ever
watch that film -- Slain, 08:03:16 09/23/02 Mon
...And according to the below NY Times articles, Joss cried in
the cinema when he watched it. So, in a way, it is kind of terrifying.
[> [> Be scared, be very....
-- cjc36, 09:44:45 09/23/02 Mon
My best friend was showing off his new DirectTV system a few months
ago, scanning the zillion channels he gets, when we came across
the last 1/4 of B:TVS movie. He isn't a fan of the show, but thinks
Swanson is hot, so we stopped. I sat there, curious, not having
seen the movie since 92 or 93, thinking, "Hey, man, it can't
be all that bad, Joss is sort of unique and takes getting used
to his style, so maybe now I'm more ready for this!"
Man, was I a fool. This movie was so awful, some rip in space-time
must have occurred to convince any network/studio suit anywhere
to greenlight a TV version of it. Yeah, I know, the video rentals
for the movie were good, Joss's star had risen by '97, the Kuzui's
were blamed for the movie's faults (and rightly so), but gosh
darn, this thing was a train wreck. Nothing worked, nothing was
funny to me. I could *hear* Joss-esque dialog, but the delivery
by nearly all the actors was so off-key actor-wise that every
pun or joke landed as groaners rather than knee-slappers or even
chucklers. Batman the 60s series looks cool by comparison.
In seeing the movie again I realize just how lucky we BtVS fans
are to have a thing to be fans of.
[> [> [> Can anyone
who understands how TV production works -- Vickie, 10:03:43
09/23/02 Mon
please explain why the Kuzui name is still on BtVS? If they ruined
the film, why do they still participate in the television show?
I think they are on Angel, too. Confusing, perplexing. Not having
a business head, here.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Can anyone who understands how TV production works -- Darby,
11:59:37 09/23/02 Mon
They have ownership rights as the original producers (Joss may
have written it, but he doesn't really own it as the rights link
to the actual movie production, sort of - shadowkat would probably
know more about that than I do). As the story goes, they decided
to develop a tv show based on the movie and invited Joss on board,
figuring he'd pass - then he'd have a "created by" credit
but not much else. But he came on as producer, which gave him
lots of control, and the rest, as they say, is history.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Can anyone who understands how TV production works -- Dochawk,
12:31:28 09/23/02 Mon
the Kuzui's own the name "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
and have rights to all the spinoffs. After the movie they haven't
really done much of anything, but collect money. Gail Berman is
really the person responisble for bringing Buffy to television
and recognizing Joss' brilliance. its one of the reasons why she
now runs Fox Television (and why Firefly is a Fox show)
[> [> [> [> There
must be a friendly relationship between Joss and the Kuzuis
-- CW, 12:48:20 09/23/02 Mon
Why on Earth, would the monks who created Dawn speak in Czech,
otherwise. It would be a fairly odd coincidence.
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, all -- Vickie, 23:21:15 09/23/02 Mon
Did You Hear
the Calling? - Dawn the Vampire Slayer (Spoilers thru Grave and
the Graphic Novels) -- Dochawk, 01:14:08 09/23/02 Mon
This is the first time I have written an essay in 20 years, but
I have been encouraged by many writers recently (there has been
as much Dawn as there has been that nameless blond-maned vamp
with a soul) having similar thoughts, but this essay has been
percolating in my head for awhile.
From Grave (all quotes by psyche unless otherwise noted):
DAWN makes the coolest dive into a roll past MONSTER #3, grabbing
her dropped sword. As the MONSTER turns on her she thrusts the
sword into the creature's mid-section, twisting the blade for
maximum damage...
BUFFY, stands stunned, watching...
In a fluid move, Dawn draws out the sword and swings it again,
DECAPITATING Monster #3. Its headless body drops to the ground
with a thud.
REVERSE ON DAWN, breathing hard, taking it all in herself. Then
sensing her sister's eyes on her, turns and looks at an incredulous
Buffy.
DAWN(after a beat) ìWhat? You think I never watched you?î
Like Buffy, the viewer is stunned by Dawnís sudden fighting
ability. She had just fought with moves that would make Buffy
or Faith proud. And they arenít abilities that come with
just watching. Even in All The Way, 16 weeks earlier, Dawn seen
in her first fight with a vampire is not a particularly better
fighter than you would expect from an untrained fifteen year old
girl. In fact, ME had made a point of presenting Dawn as a klutz,
the non-slayer Summers (for a longer discussion on this point
see Shadowkatís fascinating essay Is Dawn Buffy's Other
Half?). As we get to meet Dawn at the beginning of Season 5, her
one of her obvious personality traits is her awkwardness.
From: No Place Like Home:
WILLOW:
I can't help it. I just have all this involuntary empathy for
Dawn. 'Cause she's, you know, a big spaz
Ö.
BUFFY Dawn doesn't care what my mom... (beat) You just have no
idea how much
I wish I were an only child these days.
The crash of breaking glass comes from the rear of the store.
DAWN(o.s.)Oops!
She is constantly running into things, dropping things, her physicality
is almost slapstick in presentation. So how does this teenager
suddenly develop slayer-like fighting skills and what does it
mean? My supposition is that Dawn is already a vampire slayer
and as Mr. Trick tells us about two slayers, ìNot quite
sure how that happenedî, but we have some ideas.
Where Do Slayers Come From
Considering the depth of the mythology that Joss has created,
we have been given tantalizing few details of the origins of the
slayers (it is my hope that Season 7 will once again come back
to exploring this issue, which was relatively absent in Season
6). In Welcome to the Hellmouth, Giles gives us an introduction
to slayer lore ìInto every generation, a Slayer is born.
One girl in all the world, a Chosen One.î But how is she
chosen? What does this particular girl have that makes her a slayer?
We are actually given tantalizing few details. During the course
of the 6 seasons two girls have been called, Kendra and Faith,
but we get no details of what happens to them. Kendra, we learn
was detected as a potential slayer at an early age and trained
in the ways of the slayer handbook prior to being called upon
Buffyís first death. But she does not inform us of what
changed in her, so that she was now the slayer. In Faith, Hope
and Trick, Faith regales us with tales of conquests, but it is
unclear if these occurred before or after she was called (if they
were all true and they occurred after her calling which was only
5 months before we meet her she had quite the travels and adventures).
But something changes in girls when they become the slayer. The
most obvious changes are physical. Girls become powerful, quick,
resourceful. They have fighting abilities and tactics that at
least in Buffyís case appear immediately. In Becoming I,
we get to watch with Angel as Merrick, Buffyís first watcher,
takes her to a cemetery for the first time. With no training,
Buffy is able to fight off a vampire with ease and has obvious
moves (watching it and then immediately watching the scene from
Grave there is a similar rhythm, first hesitancy on Buffy/Dawnís
part, then getting used to the weapon and then sudden skill with
it). Whatís more amazing, the girls gain significant strength
without adding musculature. Somehow these skills are associated
with the tiny bodies. As an endocrinologist, I have a fascination
with the physiology involved in slayerdom, but I think understanding
what we can is important in understanding how Dawn could be a
slayer. In Helpless, Giles injects Buffy with a concoction which
removes her strength. ìGiles: (with a shaky voice) It's
an organic compound... of muscle relaxants and adrenal suppressers.
The effect is temporary. You'll be yourself again in a few daysî.
[As an aside, if the watcherís council had knowledge of
hypodermic needles and adrenal suppressers for the centuries that
the Cruciamentum has been conducted and withheld the information
from the general public, they owe humanity an explanation. I find
this evidence that the WC may not really be on anyoneís
side but their own, like the PTB]. Buffy must depend on her wits
and slayer knowledge to defeat Kralick. She has lost her slayer
strength. This drought is able to totally reverse the physical
effects of slayerdom. The adrenal gland is responsible for making
multiple hormones, but two are of specific interest. One, epinephrine,
better known as adrenalin or the fight or flight hormone, is probably
responsible for the unnatural feats of human strength that you
sometimes hear about. Among other things, adrenalin allows your
muscles to maximize your ability in a threatening situation. Although
a certain amount is always present in your body, when threatened
the level of adrenalin rises dramatically. You feel it as a pounding
heart, a maximal alertness, sometimes a greater strength than
you knew you had. A second adrenal hormone, cortisol, is also
involved in the human response to stress. Among other things,
cortisol acts at muscles to maximize their abilities. Cortisol
acts over a longer time than adrenalin. It seems obvious that
somehow slayerness acts on the adrenal gland to maximize these
effects. (It should be noted that an excess of either of these
hormones causes diseases that are quite harmful to a normal human
body, so like the rapid healing, which can also be related to
cortisol, there must be some protective effect for the body of
a slayer when their adrenal gland is over-stimulated).
There is another aspect to slayerdom though. The visions. When
Giles is trying to remind Buffy of her responsibilities as slayer
in Welcome to the Hellmouth, he asks/tells her ìItís
not as though youíve been having the nightmaresî.
Through many episodes we see that Buffy has visions and nightmares,
especially of other slayers. It seems to be a fundamental feature
of slayerdom. In fact, while comatose, Faith and Buffy share a
vision in Graduation Day II. Fray is a graphic novel written by
Joss Whedon about a slayer of the future. Importantly, in interviews
including one at the DarkHorse site, Joss states that Fray is
based on the mythology of the slayer. I take him at his word,
that Fray is canon. Maleka Fray is a young woman who becomes the
first slayer in several centuries (implying that a slayer in the
21st century rid the world at least temporarily of all demons).
But, she is not a complete slayer because she gets a slayerís
power, but not the slayers visions. Her watcher, Urkonn, even
questions whether she is the slayer because she doesnít
have the visions. In fact, her twin brother received them. Where
do the visions come from? We are really given little idea. In
another graphic novel, Tales of the Slayers, also written by Joss
and writers of the show (including a story by Amber Benson) [of
note, I have never seen an interview or other evidence that states
unequivocally that TotS is canon, so I consider it semi-canonical],
Joss writes a story about the first slayer (her visage is the
same as the character on the show), a young woman from the first
slayerís village comes to see her. She tells the slayer
ìThey say the shadowmen made you born with demon inside
and that is how you are able to fight the vampires. Thatís
why they fear you. Why they ch-chose only one. They say that when
you die, there will be another girl chosen. And then another,
for always. And you will be in them. And they in each other and
you will never die.î So the origins of the visions come
from the first slayer and every slayer since. And the visions
are an intrinsic part of being a slayer.
The Genetics of Slayerdom
We have seen that there is strong evidence that slayerness is
a biochemical phenomenon. Yet, how does a girl become a slayer?
And why is it always a girl? A gender specification and a biochemical
explanation for slayerness suggest that slayerness is an inherited
phenomenon. There are at least two ways that a specific genetic
trait may be passed only in the female line. The Y chromosome
(the sex determinant, its presence defines maleness) could carry
information that combined with the biochemical changes result
in the death of male embryos or fetuses (or the Y chromosome may
deactivate the slayer powers or it may take two X genes to turn
them on). In addition, there is a type of maternal inheritance
(therefore only in women) called mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria
are involved in creating energy in cells. They are also one place
where cortisol has an affect. Changes in the level of cortisol
can change the production of energy products from mitochondria
(ok I am getting a little off the topic here). One interesting
hypothesis suggests that the actual source of slayerness is the
pituitary gland (the hormone control center in the middle of your
head. Cortisol levels can be controlled from here. In addition
we know other hormones are stimulated at puberty to change the
amounts which would be consistent with the age a slayer comes
into her power). In fact, Joyceís brain tumor could have
been a pituitary tumor, some of which are inherited. Further evidence
for a genetic source of slayerness comes from Fray. Although Maleka
Fray has inherited a slayerís power, she has not inherited
the visions. Instead those visions were inherited by her twin
brother (who has been lurked [or vamped in our parlance]). This
suggests that it is the power that may be fatal to boys. But,
more importantly I believe it is meant to suggest that slayerness
is genetic. (Of course, this is poor genetics, fraternal twins,
which a boy and a girl must be, do not share an original cell
as identical twins do. But I am imagining some type of mystical
crossover between the two).
The Origins of Dawn
As fascinating as the above discussion may be (well its interesting
to me at least) what the heck does it have to do with Dawn and
being a slayer. To answer this we must look at where Dawn comes
from. We first meet Dawn for a few moments in Buffy vs. Dracula.
In Thereís No Place Like Home we learn that Dawn is not
Buffyís natural sister:
BUFFY Dawn...
MONK She's the Key.
BUFFY You put that in my house?
MONK We knew the Slayer would protect.
BUFFY My memories... my mom's?
MONK We built them.
But, in fact she is Buffyís sister. She is more than that.
She is made of Buffyís DNA. In The Gift, Buffy and Giles
talk: GILES: (whispers) She's not your sister.
BUFFY: (pause) No. She's not. She's more than that. She's me.
The monks made her out of me. I hold her ... and I feel closer
to her than ... (looks down, sighs) It's not just the memories
they built. It's physical. Dawn ... is a part of me. In Blood
Ties Buffy puts her hand to her wound and then raises it up to
Dawnís bloody hand. She states: It's Summers blood. It's
just like mine. Later in the episode we truly test that theory.
Buffy decides to jump in place of Dawn. In a sort of mystical
DNA matching test, Buffy dives into the mystical portal. With
Buffyís death, the portal accepts the supposition that
their blood is the same. Dawn is made flesh out of Buffy. She
carries her DNA (they arenít twins the DNA match canít
be exact). Does the part of Buffy that was used to make Dawn contain
the slayer DNA? I think the scene in Grave answers this question.
Dawn didnít go from klutz to swordbearer without intervention.
We donít know what power chooses slayers and ìcallsî
them. What makes a slayer-in-training a slayer. But it doesnít
take a great deal of imagination to believe a green ball of energy
has mystical transforming power. We know that the energy of the
Key opens portals. Isnít the transition from s-i-t to slayer
a form of a portal. Dawn has inherited a slayerís power,
but does Dawn have the visions? We have seen in Fray that though
most slayers inherit both, they donít necessarily come
in the same package. Genetically speaking, they arenít
found on the same locus. It is my speculation (or my hope, I love
Dawn) that season 7 will be about Dawn coming into her power as
much as Buffy learning about the truth of what a slayer is (I
believe Buffy will be actualized to use a somewhat archaic psychologic
term). [By the way, I donít find it hard to believe that
a pre-slayer Buffy would have been very popular with the fans
either.}. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how Season
7 explores these issues.
[> Great essay! -- Slain,
05:47:56 09/23/02 Mon
I agree that Dawn is a possible Slayer, and have thought this
ever since we found out she was 'made out of Buffy'. The scientifc
aspects are interesting, though I'm more inclined to "it's
magic" side of things. However I do think Joss intends to
make his world plausible, rather than completely fantastic. Although
it has to be said that science is one field where (in terms of
the science fiction elements of the show) he hasn't seemed concerned
about making the show plausibile; whereas the systems of magic
and demons seem usually watertight, though not restrictive.
I don't really understand why many fans seem to be so closed-minded
on the subject of Dawn becoming a slayer, or even just a vampire-hunter,
calling it 'silly'. Buffy. The. Vampire. Slayer. The show is
silly. I find it curious that there seems to be resistance to
female characters (Dawn, Cordy) learning slaying skills, whereas
it's taken for granted that Xander or Wesley should be able to
weild an axe, despite them both having been, in the past, big
sissies [sissys?]. If the root of it is that fans don't want to
see Dawn replace Buffy as the star of the show, then I could understand
that to an extent, as I don't think any character continuing
the show after Sarah has left is a good idea.
[> Half Identical Twins
(Polar body twinning) -- Scroll, 08:01:12 09/23/02 Mon
Wow, great essay, Dochawk! I've always subscribed to Slayerness
as being entirely mystical and not physiological, but I think
you've made a reasonable case for slayer powers/visions being
genetically inherited. I guess I've been resisting Dawn becoming
a Slayer simply because I've wondered at the statistical probability
that the next Slayer called would be a current Slayer's sister
and not one of the many girls under the Council of Watchers' care.
But if Dawn is an aberration, a Slayer called because of genetic
similarity and not because the "spirit of the First Slayer"
has chosen her (or whatever), I think this would make for an interesting
story. Because I still think the line runs through Faith, and
that Buffy's Chosen-ness won't pass on to Dawn if Buffy dies.
Only if Faith dies (which I hope won't happen) will the next Real
Slayer be called.
But, more importantly I believe it is meant to suggest that
slayerness is genetic. (Of course, this is poor genetics, fraternal
twins, which a boy and a girl must be, do not share an original
cell as identical twins do. But I am imagining some type of mystical
crossover between the two).
I don't know if Joss intended Melaka Fray and her twin brother
to be fraternal twins or Half Identical Twins which I've read
is a new twin catagory (that most scientists have yet to make
offical.) Half Identical Twins or Polar body twinning suggests
that boy-girl twins can be nearly identical. "Polar body
twinning occurs when a egg splits prior to fertilization and each
half receives a separate sperm. The twins share 75% of their DNA."
(http://www.gen.umn.edu/faculty_staff/jensen/1135/example_student_projects/Sum2000/Twins/twins.html)
I'm sure there are better resources out there explaining it, I
just found this one on my first Google attempt so I can't really
say whether this is accurate. But if Dawn has some of Buffy's
DNA, and puberty is one of the triggers for Slayerness, then Dawn
could receive Slayer powers without ever being "called"
the way Buffy, Kendra, and Faith were called. I'm really looking
forward to Buffy/Dawn/First Slayer/slayerness, and hoping Joss
will explore this subject. Would also love to see some more prophetic
dreams. We haven't had one of those in a while!
Scroll
[> [> Re: Half Identical
Twins (Polar body twinning) - Brief Season 7 Premiere Spoiler
below -- Dochawk, 08:28:12 09/23/02 Mon
I've never heard of Half-Identical Twins before, will have to
ask some of my genetics buddies.
As for more of the prophetic dreams, My understanding of the opening
sequence of tomorrow nights episode is of Buffy dreaming about
a girl with some slayer skills being attacked and killed. I am
only slightly spoiled, so I am not too sure of the details of
this, its one of the reasons I wanted to get this up before the
episode.
[> [> Dawn as Ninja Girl
-- Malandanza, 09:40:23 09/23/02 Mon
"But if Dawn is an aberration, a Slayer called because
of genetic similarity and not because the "spirit of the
First Slayer" has chosen her (or whatever), I think this
would make for an interesting story."
For me, a more interesting story would be to have Dawn be the
perfect candidate for slaying (genetics, training, her apprenticeship
as Buffy's sister) and yet not be chosen -- watching other, less
qualified girls being called and dying and wondering why she isn't
good enough.
But I also don't think that Dawn showing skill in slaying is necessarily
an indication that she's anything more than a normal girl. We
have seen regular humans toss around vampires before (Giles, Xander,
Riley) and take blows that ought to have crippled them with no
ill effects. Everybody eventually gets to be a hero on Buffy.
[> [> It's always the
blood -- Cleanthes,
12:50:43 09/23/02 Mon
Wow, great essay, Dochawk! I've always subscribed to Slayerness
as being entirely mystical and not physiological, but I think
you've made a reasonable case for slayer powers/visions being
genetically inherited.
I agree, great essay.
I think that looking very hard at the science will miss the sui
generis aspect of Slayers. Science is about repeatable results,
but Slayers are a genetic line only in the way that a royal house
is genetic - even though out-and-out "frauds" are snuck
into the game and the royal rules change if the politics requires.
For politics, substitute "mystical forces" (the teleological
needs of a good story, especially), and that's Slayer descent.
Nonetheless, bloodlines are called bloodlines for a reason and
there's loads of mythical baggage carried with this. Dawn DOES
have blood, and DNA does encode a mathematical formula for the
creation of blood and those mathematical concepts do (well to
a Platonist) come from the anamnesis plenum, where everyone exists
prior to birth.
So, Dawn had to have been created from there if she's "fully
human", which I think has been pretty much established.
[> Wonderful job, Doc
-- Sophist, 08:44:45 09/23/02 Mon
[> Slayer Genetics --
LittleBit, 09:29:43 09/23/02 Mon
Terrific essay, doc --- I knew you could do it.
It occurred to me while I was reading it that your theory could
also cover one of the aspects of the Watchers' Council and the
Slayer that had puzzled me for some time. How did they know to
find girls who had Slayer potential? If, as you propose, slayerness
is an inherited phenomenon, then they would be tracking the bloodlines
of every Slayer, and may possibly have a method of testing genetically
for the potential. That could explain why Kendra was found so
early, and even possibly why her family was willing to give her
over to the training. From the description she gives they are
clearly aware of the Slayer calling:
Kendra: My parents, dey sent me to my Watcher
when I was very young.
Buffy: How young?
Kendra: I don't remember dem, actually. I've seen pictures.
But, uh, dat's how seriously de calling is taken by my people.
My modder and fadder gave me to my Watcher because dey believed
dat dey were doing de right ting for me, and for de world. (puts
down the stake and gets a sympathetic look from Buffy) Please,
I don't feel sorry for meself. Why should you?
This would be consistent if a Slayer had been in the family prior
to Kendra, possibly even a family legend.
Is it also possible that the Slayer gene(s) could occur spontaneously?
That could help to explain why all potential slayers are not located
by the council.
In regard to Dawn and her initial klutziness, I find myself thinking
some of that may be because, regardless of anything else, her
body was still very new. The Key energy had never before been
contained in such a manner. And it is also possible that the (somewhat
misguided) monks added that as an initial characteristic, possibly
thinking that an awkward teenager would be more endearing. [Tangential
note: I say 'misguided' because, given the circumstances, I tend
to think creating her with a little more common sense and a little
less rebelliousness would have been wise. :)] Buffy, on the other
hand, was a cheerleader as a Freshman, which would be indicative
of an innate control of her physical abilities.
Thanks for making me think ... again!
[Quote from Psyche]
[> [> Buffy as a klutz
-- Scroll, 11:32:20 09/23/02 Mon
I'm not sure if Dawn's klutziness can be assigned to her newly-human
status, or to the monks. There are some instances of Buffy being
extremely klutzy (The Witch, The Freshman, The Initiative), especially
when she is feeling emotionally unstable or when she underestimates
her slayer strength. Of course, most of these times are being
played up for comedy value and Buffy is clearly very coordinated
when fighting. But if Dawn has the same traits as Buffy, then
perhaps klutziness just runs in the family. For all we know, Joyce
was as much of a klutz when she was a teen. (And since Dawn is
a teenager, one of the klutziest stages a kid goes through, perhaps
there's nothing more to it than growth spurts.) I really wish
we could have flashbacks of Buffy and Dawn as little kids, with
Joyce and Hank still together. That would be neat, and one way
of seeing Kristine Sutherland again...
[> Re: Did You Hear the
Calling? ñ Dawn the Vampire Slayer (Spoilers thru Grave
and the Graphic Novels) -- Rattletrap, 17:21:26 09/23/02
Mon
Well done doc! As an outspoken fan of any Dawn-slayer centered
plotline, I applaud your work.
'trap
[> Great essay, Doc. - growing
up metaphors -- shadowkat, 06:41:15 09/24/02 Tue
Sorry wasn't able to respond until now, but didn't get around
to reading it until last night.
In the essay you mention how it's interesting that Buffy and now
Dawn seem to show coordination and fighting skills at the age
of 15 and 1/2. Also why the slayer is small, not a large girl.
Been thinking about this a lot, I think it's a metaphor. In the
article in the NYTimes Magazine - Joss Whedon says it was important
to him to show a teenage girl become a superhero. He liked the
idea that a girl who can survive adolescence is a superhero.
I'm no expert, but I belive the female pituary gland and maturation
rate is faster than the male. I think most women stop growing
at the age of 15. Some stop earlier than that. I stopped at 15.
Usually it's a few days maybe a year after the menstruation cycle
begins. Once you stop, hello acne, hello hormones, hello adrenaline.
Also when you stop growing - you get a bit more coordinated and
more sure of yourself on some things and very very confused on
others.
In the old horror movies - the small/petit blond teenage girl
is the first to get slaughtered. In Scream 1 - it's Drew Barrymore,
in Scream 2 - SMG gets it. In the old ones..well you get the picture.
Whedon who has a degree in film and women studies - wondered what
would happen if the small blond girl was in reality the most powerful
person in the room? Because truthfully? IT isn't about size. Flip
the stereotype.
By doing this - you have an interesting series of metaphors.
Buffy gets her slayer abilites and is called the moment she reaches
adolescence - so she can slay her teenage demons.
The demons come in all shapes and sizes but consistently represent
the fears of adolescence - vampires = fear or sex, death, the
idea of growing older (they are repressed and young forever) -
sort of evil peter pans. Each time she slays these demons, she
gets stronger. Each time she dies, it's like part of her childhood,
her innocence is stripped away.
Up until Dawn appears - Buffy is still the adolescent. Slaying
the teenage demons. Having the nice clear black and white teenage
world. Dracula brings it to her attention that things may not
be as black and white as she thinks.
Buffy whether she wants to or not is growing up. She's no longer
an adolescent. Dawn's presence is part of that push.
When she jumps in the Gift - she literally leaves her adolescence
behind passing the torch to Dawn. So Dawn can now be the adolescent
girl. Buffy has become a woman.
Notice the Gift is the last time the writers refer to Buffy as
a "girl"? After that she is referred to as a young "woman".
Dawn is now the girl. The one who needs to be protected. Who is
klutzy. Dawn turns fifteen. Mentions wanting to go and slay with
big sis. But Buffy becomes more and more Joyce-like in wanting
to protect Dawn from her life. We are actually seeing Dawn primarily
through Buffy's eyes - which is why she appears such a pain in
the rear.
She is - to Buffy. Imagine what you would have thought of Buffy,
if we had been in Joyce's pov? Instead we're in Buffy's, so Joyce
bugs us. If we had been in Dawn's last year, Buffy would have
bugged us.
As season 6 rolls onward - Dawn grows older and like Buffy before
her begins to grow into the slayer abilites.
In Entropy she asks to go slaying with Buffy. Buffy says no.
Dawn says - you did when you were my age. Buffy says - no I was
a little older. Buffy started to get her abilities towards the
end of her freshman year of high school - as we see in flashbacks.
She was 15 and a half - the age a girl begins to become a woman,
when the girl reaches adolescence.
And that damn pituary gland takes off. Notice how much MT who
plays Dawn has changed from 14 year old to 15 year old?
In Season 5, she's shorter than Buffy, in Season 6, she's suddenly
taller and she carries herself differently.
The reason men aren't slayers - to expand on the metaphor - is
quite simple. They don't have the same maturity hormones.
The pituary gland on the guy happens later. My brother was shorter
than me when he graduated high school. Three years later? He was
five inches taller. He didn't stop growing until he was close
to 21/22. See the difference? Me at 15.
Him at 21. Spike and Dawn are so wonderful together partly because
- they are the same age still. Spike arrested at 19,
he never developed, never became the man - still the adolescent
and acts like one. Most vampires do.
But Dawn, unlike soulless Spike - has moved past that stage now.
This explains why she seems a little more mature as we reach the
end of the year and he less so. It expands on the theme of growing
up.
In the open Grave - Dawn is killing death, literal death. She's
slaying the earth that threatens to take back her and her sister,
gray and deathlike. And at the end she and Buffy emerge together
- hand in hand so to speak into the bright Spring - spring is
the time of renewal, or rebirth, the start of life again. Flowering
trees, etc. Dawn when she emerges from the Grave with Buffy has
come into her adolescence into the first major stage of growing
up and as she enters high school as her sister did, she also takes
on her sisters skills - because in order to survive a hell school
and adolescence - she needs them.
I think on a real life metaphorical level - Dawn coming into the
skills of the slayer works. It also forces Buffy to grow more
in her journey , because now Buffy is looking at herself through
her mother's eyes. She's on the other end of the periscope so
to speak, which happens to all of us when he leave adolescence
- we find ourselves suddenly looking back on it with foggy memories,
wondering were we ever that obnoxious? rebellious? no, impossible.
And most importantly, how did we ever manage to survive it? I
think that's where Buffy and her friends are right now and hence
the reason Dawn is so important here and why Dawn has taken on
Buffy's skills and will most likely carry on Buffy's calling.
Just my ten cents. Hope it added something.
Again cool essay.
SK
Question about
Marti's interview with Wanda -- Tamara, 10:21:43 09/23/02 Mon
One of the questions asked was whether Buffy would ever take responsibility
for the beating in Dead Things and feel remorse. The beating was
dropped completely in the next episode Older And Far Away. Buffy
and Spike are no longer a twisted psycho couple who get off on
beatings, Spike becomes the bad boyfriend teasing Buffy cutely
about Richard "can I get you a soda pop I think I'n in lurve".
The beating was only brought uo once by Spike and even though
his face was still battered Buffy showed no remorse at all which
has bothered a lot of fans as we want a heroine we can respect,
not an abuser. Buffy was the same in All The Way when she punched
Spike in the nose because she can't get him to shut up. Isn't
that the exact excuse abusers use to justify them themselves?
Disturbingly I think the punches to hte face in All The Way were
meant to be seen as amusing. Did the writers not watch Dead Things
and realise that using punches for comedy value would not be right?
Where is the continuity?
Anyway according to Marti the slate will be wiped clean and neither
character will be offering any big apologies. Guesss that was
why they decided to give Spike a soul. I know Buffy had an epithamy
in the finale and started wondering thorugh the daises with Dawn.
Is that it then? Will Buffy not address her dark side at all in
the new season? I thought there was a point to Buffy being so
cruel to Spike but here is the exact quote from Marti:
"they both did bad things, apologies aren't necessery".
In the moral universe I live in you take responsibility for your
behaviour and dont copout by saying the other guy later tried
to rape you so you beating the crap out of him doesn't matter.
What so the posters here think?
[> I've had enough of Buffy's
dark side. -- Apophis, 11:01:18 09/23/02 Mon
And I think the attempted rape evened things up.
[> [> Re: I've had enough
of Buffy's dark side. -- Miss Edith, 16:24:43 09/23/02
Mon
Spike expressed remorse for the attempted rape. He realised he
was in the wrong and sought a change. Buffy has yet to reach such
a realisation as far as I'm concerned. She began to do so in AYW
and behaved with respect towards Spike in HB and he returned the
favour. But any compassion was sadly lacking in NA when she treated
Spike as beneath her and unworthy of holding a conversation with.
Whether that was because of lack of continuity or a deliberate
choice it certainly told me that Buffy's epithany was not all
that effective. Being almost raped is traumatic sure, but it does
not cancel out the behaviour that led to the attempted rape. I
am not saying Buffy in any way deserved what happened to her.
Spike did a very wrong thing. All I am saying is that Buffy herself
hardly behaved well in the relationship and the attempted rape
does not justify or "even things up" in my worldview.
[> [> [> Re: I've
had enough of Buffy's dark side. -- meritaten, 18:32:29
09/23/02 Mon
I have to agree with you. I think Buffy's treatment of Spike is
why I didn't care for S6. Spike may have been evil, but Buffy
is supposed to be our heroine. It wouldn't be a good story if
she didn't make mistakes, but she has to deal with them.
In S6, she used Spike and treated him as less than dirt. It was
hard to like and respect her. As much as I want a lighter season,
I'll be very disappointed if we don't see her dealing with her
previous actions.
[> [> [> [> Re:
I've had enough of Buffy's dark side. -- Tamara, 19:02:06
09/23/02 Mon
Well there was a big ratings drop last year and ME have gone as
far as to say that the show lost its way to try and win back viewers.
Marti got a lot of crap form angry fans over the attempted rape
and my guess is she wants to put it behind her. Heres another
quote for you courtesy of Marti:
"He'd do a bad thing, she'd do another bad thing". Basically
the argument of quit pro quo. The question was about the beating
of Spike in Dead Things and it was Marti who felt the need to
bring up the attempted rape and say Spike was just as bad so we
mustn't be too hard on Buffy. Make of that what you will.
[> [> [> [> [>
There's another way of looking at it. -- Arethusa, 07:17:31
09/24/02 Tue
Sometimes, so much goes on between two people that they go beyond
the point of apologies and quid pro quo. Buffy and Spike were
enemies for years, than reluctant allies, than lovers. Spike was
part of bringing Buffy back to life, and Buffy was part of Spike's
journey to self-awareness. Buffy is not one to discuss her feelings,
and Spike did not understand his. They undoubtedly will come to
some sort of understanding, but don't forget that while Buffy
has a beating and unloving sex to answer for, Spike spent years
trying to kill her!
It's very understandable that Noxon wants to put the discussion
of S6 behind her, since she has received a lot of flack for it,
but she has definitely said that there will be repercussions this
year for Buffy. The story isn't over yet. And Whedon obviously
thinks Noxon is a good writer, and good for the show, or he wouldn't
have her stay, and keep promoting her. My motto is "In Joss
I Trust," so although I had a few problems with S6 too, I'll
wait and see.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Agree, well said. And much better than my post. --
shadowkat, 11:40:41 09/24/02 Tue
[> [> [> Beating up
Spike -- Apophis, 19:27:55 09/23/02 Mon
Far be it for me to champion the beating of a helpless subject,
but it occurs to me that Spike, for all the good he's done, has
120 years of murder and torture on his rap sheet. Perhaps being
rendered helpless and being rejected and beaten by the woman he
loves was some sort of karmic cumupance. As for Buffy and her
culpability, perhaps it's just that she's beaten Spike up so many
times in the past (and been justified) that she doesn't really
see much difference in this case. Anyway, I really don't see her
saying sorry to Spike after Seeing Red and I really don't care
to, at that. Personally, I agree whith whoever said that the writers
are trying to put certain parts of Season 6 behind them and move
on. Godspeed, I say.
[> [> [> [> I'm
on your side on the "Dead Hors"--er, excuse me, "Things"
beating. -- HonorH, 20:08:05 09/23/02 Mon
After a certain number of events have transpired, like, say, an
attempted rape, a re-souling, and a few months, an apology becomes
a bit superfluous. Besides, Spike never held it against her. It
was when Buffy was at her lowest point that she did it, and she
was horrified at herself afterward. It's not like the it's a huge
indicator of her personality in general. I, for one, would like
to see the whole thing drop and see if Buffy and Spike can come
to some sort of peace with their past behind them.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm on your side on the "Dead Hors"--er, excuse
me, "Things" beating. -- Angelina, 07:10:43 09/24/02
Tue
EXCUSE ME, I don't get it!!!! What, I ask, is the point of having
Spike regain his soul if Buffy and Spike are going to put their
past behind them??????? Is everyone out there under the impression
that Spike and Buffy are just going to move on now that Spike
is "human"....we still haven't ruled that possibility
out either, right?
[> [> [> [> Re:
Beating up Spike -- Miss Edith, 07:53:45 09/24/02 Tue
I wasn't arguing that Buffy necesserily owed Spike an apology.
I just feel that her behaviour last year does need addressing.
If the writers do try and sweep it under the rug I will lose respect
for Buffy, that's all I'm saying. Regardless of whether the beating
was deserved, Buffy was still in the wrong. There is a difference
in Buffy fighting vampires to protect the human race, and using
a vampire to get her frustrations out on. In Faith Hope and Trick
look how concerned Buffy was when Faith used a vampire as a punching
bag. Buffy points out that beating the vampire into a bloody pulp
was unnessesery and Faith simply sneers that causing violence
to vampires is part of the job. We were later shown that Faith
was damaging herself and becoming harder because of it.
I didn't agree with Buffy smacking a helpless Spike in the nose
during season 5 when Dawnw as kidnapped or she was under some
stress. Why? Because I cannot respect a bully who takes her frustrations
out on others, regardless of whehter Buffy tells herself Spike
deserves it. Bullies will tell themselves the same thing and use
that worldview to dehumunise others and feel justified in their
attitudes.
I cannot approve of her beating Spike in the way that she did.
It was morally wrong IMHO. Buffy may not owe Spike any apologies,
but if the only remorse we get from her is thee utter lack that
she expressed in OAFA I for one will feel disapointed. I feel
as an audience we deserve to have the heroines morally wrong behaviour
addressed and dealt with.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Beating up Spike -- Tamara, 08:33:53 09/24/02 Tue
Well Marti would agree with you. She said in an interview that
Spike fnas just dont get that Buffy is a strong women who is trying
to domesticate her boyfriend and just making some wrong choices
along the way. And youre right Spike deserved what he got so never
mind about the way Buffy behaves. Its allright for her to beat
up anyone she likes just as long as they really deserve it!
[> [> [> [> I'm
with the dead, false god on this one (sorry...Stargate joke)
-- cjl, 10:15:57 09/24/02 Tue
(Scene: the Summers living room. Spike and Buffy are dramatically
Sharing Their Feelings, while Xander and Willow look on.)
SPIKE: Look--you got nothin' to be sorry about. Me being what
I was...didn't give you a lot of choice most of the time.
BUFFY: That's the point. You didn't have a soul. YOU didn't have
a choice. I had a soul, and I did those horrible things to you...
SPIKE: I deserved it.
BUFFY: NO! Nobody deserves to be beaten to a pulp because he cares
about another person. I'm the Slayer. I have all this strength,
and all this power, and I can't make excuses for myself when I
abuse other people. Plain and simple, I can't do it--
WILLOW: Here it comes...
BUFFY: Because it's wrong.
XANDER: Will?
WILLOW: Hm?
XANDER: Does Buffy keep a hammer around here?
WILLOW: Sure. I think I could find one. Why?
XANDER: 'Cause if this conversation continues for about...oh,
two more minutes? I want you to take that hammer and smash in
my eardrums.
WILLOW: Sure thing. Always willing to help out, Snoopykins.
XANDER: That's my girl.
(Buffy and Spike look at each other.)
SPIKE: I think we've covered this topic pretty thoroughly. Wanna
patrol?
BUFFY: Works for me.
[> [> [> [> [>
yep, me too... -- shadowkat, 12:59:50 09/24/02 Tue
"SPIKE: I think we've covered this topic pretty thoroughly.
Wanna patrol?
BUFFY: Works for me."
Says it all perfectly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I third the motion. -- HonorH, 13:45:22 09/24/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> (Gavel bangs.) Motion carried! -- Arethusa,
14:10:57 09/24/02 Tue
[> [> [> I've had
enough of MARTI !! -- Spike Lover, 12:14:01 09/24/02 Tue
[> If I abuse a "souless
thing", does that damage my soul? -- Thomas the Skeptic,
12:16:33 09/23/02 Mon
In accord with the general murkiness of last season (season six
defenders, heel!), I believe the writers were striving for a sense
of ambivalence on Buffy's part as to the morality of having sex
with/loving/ physically abusing (pick one) a "souless thing".
I think they wanted us to feel this ambivalence as well. On the
one hand, you have the Buffyverse mythos that dictates that beings
without souls are capable of only limited, if any, moral development
BUT on the other, you have Spike, acting all chivalrous and noble,
protecting Dawn and loving Buffy, all "without the whiff
of a soul". What were we to make of this? In the end, the
writers seemed unsure about where all of this was going and, hence,
Spike gains a soul and the moral ambiguities are tabled. Don't
expect any resolution to any of those pesky questions this year.
They simply don't know and, with Spike's soul restored, don't
think they are important anymore.
[> [> If you really want
to know about a person's character... -- Vickie, 13:10:51
09/23/02 Mon
Look at how they treat people they consider "beneath"
them. How does the lord treat his serfs? How does the customer
treat the clerk? How does the supervisor treat the worker?
By this standard, Buffy fell short regardless of whether Spike
qualifies as a person. She may not have damaged her soul, but
the beating was wrong. She did wrong.
I can cut her some slack because of her situation. I can understand
how she can have done wrong under the circumstances. But it was
still wrong. The AR doesn't excuse it, as two wrongs never cancel
each other out.
As always, YMMV.
MN's comment is rather weird, as only between friends (in my limited
experience) do two wrongs cancel one another and leave the two
people in equilibrium. This only seems to happen between long
time friends with a deep understanding and commitment to one another.
Not how I'd describe Buffy and Spike.
[> [> [> Re: If you
really want to know about a person's character... -- Can I
be Anne?, 14:30:53 09/23/02 Mon
Thanks for eloquently expressing what I felt. I can offer one
more example: My mother was on a church committee with a tempermental
and possesive woman who once snapped at her "If I didn't
know you were a good christian woman, I would simply write you
off for what you did". This happened after she percieved
my mother to have peered into a bag of hers(she was mistaken).
My mother responded that as christians, it was their responsibility
to treat everyone with compassion and to withold judgement on
christians and non-christians alike.
I am agnostic but I believe I have the same moral responsibility.
I judge the character of my friends and lovers based on how they
treat service workers, homeless people, and others whom they don't
see to benefit by treating with respect.
MN's comment is dissatisfying. It makes things convienient but
it doesn't ring true to my experience, either.
CIBA
[> [> [> [> For
another example... -- alcibiades, 15:12:06 09/24/02 Tue
...Willow beat the crap out of Buffy after Buffy tried to kill
Willow. Before that, Willow brought Buffy back to live against
her will then wiped her memory clean because it got Willow off
the hook.
So, do we think that Willow is not going to apologize to Buffy?
Or because they both acted terribly to each other last year, that's
all right then. No further comments are necessary.
I'd say, uh, not very likely. Nor would I be satisfied if that
is what happens.
Despite the fact she had time to frame it, to my mind, Marti's
answer is not a good answer since it is deeply unsatisfying. She
should have not answered that one and gone for another one instead.
Not for a minute do I believe that Spike will not be openly repentant
to Buffy's face ad nauseum, hating himself and beating himself
up over it. Even as a demon he knew he crossed a boundary line
he couldn't go back over.
However, I am not at all sure that Buffy will ever perceive herself
at fault.
So I am fairly sure that I do not believe at least the surface
meaning of half of Marti's post. It it has another meaning, a
more subtle or interesting one, I haven't figured that out yet.
OTOH, since Buffy is supposed to be Greek tragedy, it could be
that this is one of Buffy's faults of hubris. In that case, the
fact that she is absolutely blind to the ethics of what she did
that night, since it was just Spike, her demon lover she is ashamed
of that she beat up, then it begins to become more interesting.
In that case, I believe that Buffy won't apologize, but that there
will be some additional exegesis of that side of her character
-- so she ends up with more self-understanding. After all, Buffy
is not just projecting her darkside into Spike and beating him
senseless. She does the same thing with the First Slayer -- until,
in her dream, she wakes up in the bosom of her family, the place
where she feels safe being the Buffy her friends know, and then
the Slayer cannot get at her.
In point of fact, she does the same thing to Spike in the beginning
of NA. After hearing about Willow's pretense of encountering Tara
at school, she pretends to encounter Spike in the graveyard and
when he calls her on it, she gets all huffy and walks away virtue
fluttering, until he re-engages her on a point less sensitive
between the two of them -- what happened at the wedding. And then
Buffy has her excuse to be able to talk to him again without it
looking like she was seeking him out. She gets drawn into the
conversation, feels drawn into her attraction to him again, and
then her friends find her immediately afterward, so that she is
rescued from any effect he might have on her again because she
is too scared of what will happen to her or all of them if she
ever stops pretending the part they have set out for her in their
minds.
It is intersting, that of all of them, Willow who was the most
afraid of being exposed is seen absolutely brazenly at the end
of the year -- everything nasty about her utterly exposed. Willow's
going to have to spend the year dealing with the hubris that was
last year's power trip.
But Buffy is also going to have to come to terms with some more
ugly self knowledge and grow if the year is going to be a satisfying
one, IMO.
[> [> Re: If I abuse
a "souless thing", does that damage my soul? --
Tamara, 17:24:29 09/23/02 Mon
To be fair I do think the writers were planning on a dark season
7 to explores the themes they had previously set up. But I think
UPN read them the riot act and told them to lighten up. Check
out the promos dissing season 6 "back to school back to cool".
Even Joss has been quoted recently as saying season 6 wasn't exactly
a success. ME are being forced to resort to spin doctoring and
backing away from stories they had set up. Hence sweeping Buffy's
abusive tendencies under the rug with yet another unconvincing
epithany about how Buffy is glad she's alive.
[> [> [> Re: If I
abuse a "souless thing", does that damage my soul?
-- Tamara, 18:23:07 09/23/02 Mon
Joss never said season 6 wasn't a success, sorry got that wrong.
But he did admit the season had got off-track. And its known that
the UPN are looking for a younger feel for their network which
is why Buffy needs to be more accessable to young viewers in season
7. Just a theory of mine about why Buffy's mean streak won't materilise
again. It wont even be addressed but be like it enver happened.
The writers are so desperate to ignore it. Jane Epsenson was asked
about the beating too and immediately said Spike tried to rape
Buffy which was worse. My cynical view is that the beating was
planned in DT and the balcony scene was meant to make Spike look
just as abusive. But the beating from the heroine caused the biggst
uproar so Marit panicked and told Steven that sympathy was needed
for Buffy so have an attempted rape just to show the viewers once
and for all that Buffy is the victim. The hate expressed towards
Buffy just wasn't expected as the writers thought viewers would
get that she was coming from a messed up place and figured viewers
would understand and not want consequences. Spike was getting
a soul so Marti must have just decided the rape wouldnt effect
his characters popularity in the long run. And it has come out
that Spikes scene with Clem was a late addition to fill time as
the episode ran short. A rape scene planned with the most popular
character and no scenes were originally going to be given to his
remorse or guilt! Shows how well it was thought through.
I am sure you will all say the writers have some great plan and
give really good reasons about the direction the writers are planning
to go in etc. But if you read the interviews you will see that
is just not the case and the writers are a lot more simplistic
than you give them credit for. Far be it for me to say you read
more into the show than the writers intended but well that is
what I think anyway.
[> Re: Question about Marti's
interview with Wanda -- Miss Edith, 15:30:49 09/23/02 Mon
That quote does seem a little strange. I have never seen either
Buffy or Spike as primary abusers in the relationship. They both
came across as victims to me who screwed each other over. E.g
in DT Buffy did behave badly when she beat Spike but the writers
counterbalanced this with the scene in the Bronze in which Spike
is shown to be manipulating Buffy and telling her she belongs
in darkness. The beating followed the balcony scene and whilst
I am not saying Spike necesserily deserved the beating you do
reap what you sow and Spike did encourage Buffy to embrace her
inner darkness.
As for your other example ATW neither character came out of that
episode well. Leaving aside Spike suddenly becoming an international
arms dealer, he was also quite frankly a jerk towards Buffy when
Riley caught them. The way he was swaggering and treating Buffy
like a possession never rang true to me personally, but nevertheless
in Buffy's place I would have probably punched him myself. I agree
that it was also disturbing the way Riley and Buffy treated Spike.
Maybe I'm too much of a softie but the poor guy was almost in
tears and the way Buffy punched him and talked to Riley as if
Spike didn't exist made me cringe inwardly and was admittedly
a low point for the character. But Buffy does at the end of the
episode aknowledge that she is not proud of her treatment of Spike,
"I'm using you and it's killing me". Therefore she does
recognise Spike as more than a thing and take the first step towards
addressing the damage she is doing to her character.
I don't necessarily want to see any more of Buffy's dark side
next season. But I do expect Spike to express remorse for his
past mistakes and I don't expect any less of the heroine. Abusing
a sentinet creature is morally wrong in my eyes. If Willow had
kept Warren chained up in the basement and tortured him with electric
shocks would he deserve that fate? I am a huge Tara fan so I would
say that yes he does deserve that and more. That does not change
the fact that Willow would be morally wrong to abuse him in that
way. Using others as a punching bag will cause inner damage and
strip away humunity. Faith's fall into darkness may have seemed
sudden but it always came across as a gradual process to me. In
her first episode she was getting off on beating a vampire and
causing him pain. She later progressed to torturing Wesley, precisely
because she had taught herself to dehuminise others. Buffy may
not necessarily owe Spike an apology. But she does owe it to herself
to recognise her previous behaviour as wrong, otherwise it may
well reoccur. No offence to Mari but it is the height of moral
cowardence to say we are free to hurt others without regret if
they have hurt us. Spike causing damage back does not absolve
Buffy of her own mistakes.
If in season 7 Spike does feel any guilt owing to his soul, it
would not be a great message if the heroine of the show does not
likewise express remorse.
[> Re: Question about Marti's
interview with Wanda -- Rufus, 02:04:13 09/24/02 Tue
In the moral universe I live in you take responsibility for
your behaviour and dont copout by saying the other guy later tried
to rape you so you beating the crap out of him doesn't matter.
What so the posters here think?
If you isolate that one beating from all the actions of Buffy
as a person then it does look bad....but there are two people
in that relationship and if we are supposed to get ready to stone
Buffy to death for that one beating then we have to mention Spikes
history with not only Buffy, but his history as a monster. If
you do that he doesn't look so innocent or helpless. Both characters
did things wrong to each other last year, and if they apologize
that's fine, but sometimes an apology will be evident in actions
not fancy words...that sometimes are meaningless. As Spike isn't
exactly the cuddly "boo" that Harmony called him, we
have to factor his actions next to all of Buffy's ......I don't
feel particularly sorry for him.
Now to responsibility, many would and have said Buffy has shirked
her responsibility in not making a pile of ashes of Spike...sure
she beat the shit out of him...but he also killed his way across
a continent, well actually two. So if they want to call it even
between the two of them, I say it's up to them.
[> [> Re: Question about
Marti's interview with Wanda -- Tamara, 09:10:52 09/24/02
Tue
Who said anything about stoning Buffy to death? My post is saying
that Buffy should feel bad about what she did if the vampire without
a soul felt bad about the attempted rape. I know the relationship
was off and they both hurt each other. In Smashed they get off
on the kink and also the handcuffs in Dead Things. Buffy was the
one who wanted to use Spike as her sex kitten. Treating a vampire
as a dildo is not nice and Buffy should tell Spike that she want
fair to him either. Like when Riley came back and Buffy said sorry
and he didnt that bugged me. If Spike does feel guilt from his
soul and apologises which was surely the reason he got it than
Buffy will look cold to me if she doesnt say she wasnt exactly
fair to him either and she wants them both to give each other
a fresh start. To have it be all about how terrible Spike was
isnt fair. Buffy should not get off scotfree because shes a scoobie.
I guess its the case of some of us are more equal than others.
[> Re: Question about Marti's
interview with Wanda -- shadowkat, 07:36:34 09/24/02 Tue
Was going to avoid responding here..because find this a frustrating
and endless debate. No one agrees. There's the camp that believes
Spike is an evil thing and deserves it. (This camp has a very
odd double standard and often leads to character bashing.) There's
the camp who thinks he's a sweetie and Buffy is a monster for
doing it. (Also leads to character bashing and makes me sympathetic
to the evil camp.) There's the camp who thinks it is irrelevant
what Spike is - you don't beat up someone who doesn't fight you
back. (this camp I tend to agree with, but whatever) And there's
the camp who quotes what the quote says - they were both horrible
to each other, but his action was far worse.
(And well..no both actions were equally bad. But will have to
say, if I had to choose between someone trying to rape me and
someone beating me to a pulp? I'd probably choose the later, but
that's just me.)
My take for what it's worth - is all of the above is irrelevant
and not really the point. The writers were trying to explore an
unhealthy abusive relationship between two diametrically opposed
people who were incredibly drawn to each other and cared for one
another. And showing all the pitfalls of that. Ambitious as heck.
Not sure they completely pulled it off. (A friend of mine thought
about doing a post about what might have happened if the writers
tried it with Angelus/Buffy instead of Spike/Buffy and did it
in Season 2 or 3..., interesting concept. Don't think it would
have worked as well but who knows.)
How do you know Buffy never apologized to him? Or discussed it?
Just because they didn't refer to it on screen or show it, does
not mean it never happened. My take was they had discussed it
on some level because of how she related to him in OAFA and his
line about being beat up again and her flinch. Also he appears
to have forgiven her. I've had no proof that S/B never discussed
this or did. The show often has things happen off-stage. Buffy's
handling of Giles after Helpless was largely off-screen. The writers
don't show us everything - does not mean it didn't happen. It
is after all only 43 minutes and they have seven characters -
not a lot of time to show everything and I respect them a great
deal for not giving into the temptation to make it the Buffy/Spike
show or the Willow the Wicked Witch show.
It's a tough juggling act, but they pulled it off better than
most.
Also we don't know how ME is going to handle the B/S relationship
next year. (If you're spoiled - remember spoilers only say so
much and please don't tell me, I'm off spoilers.) As for Spike?
He has a heck of a lot more to feel remorseful for than an attempted
rape.
Actually the attempted rape pales in comparison to his evil past
as depicted in flashbacks and in Season 2, Season 3, and Season
4. A friend of mine had just watched Season 4 for the first time
and they said - "ohhh now I understand what you meant when
you said you didn't always like Spike..that he was evil.."
(Well, that's going a bit far. I loved to hate Spike in season
4, it was fun. I liked him better in Season 5 -6, more complex
and interesting, and can't wait for Season 7 - sooo glad ME is
writing this and not us!).
Spike has sold the SG down the river numerous times. Every time
they started to trust him in Season 4 - wham! Same is true in
most of Season 5. (Crush, IWMTLY - ordering the bot, OOMM,) We
never knew which way he'd turn.
One episode he decides to help, the next he turns on them.
His mercurial nature is enough for anyone to take a step back.
IF he's confusing to us, think how confusing he seems to poor
Buffy. Who is attracted and repelled at the same time. I mean
in one episode the guy takes her out on an awkward date, stuns
her with a cattle prod, chains her up, threatens to have his ex-girlfriend
torture her, then saves her. Then in another episode - he orders
a robot copy of her to boink, allows robot to meet her friends,
yet undergoes torture not to let Glory know about her sister.
It's endless. Spike is a mass of paradoxes and contradictions
which is why he's such a blast to watch.
Spike has also killed quite a few people (not half of Europe,
actually I think Angelus and Darla have that honor - they were
around longer ;-) but let's be reasonable.), but he has killed
more than a thousand, I'd think. No one has really said how many
these vamps have killed. Spike is after all a vampire. "We
still kill people you know. Vampires. Sort of our raison d'etre"
(Spike to Angelus in Innocence).
So it would not surprise me in the least if the AR scene, becomes
a footnote to a soul overwhelmed with 100 years of mayhem. Also
if Buffy did apologize about the beating, Spike would probably
say something snarky to get her to do another one - because ensouled,
he'll probably believe he deserves it.
Debating about Spike as if he is a normal human being, who doesn't
heal quickly...is well, very odd to me. He's a vampire.
Sentient yes. Charming? Very. But forget he is a vampire at your
own peril.
just my ten cents -SK
[> [> Re: Question about
Marti's interview with Wanda -- Tamara, 08:19:30 09/24/02
Tue
The thing is I dont care if Buffy does stake Spike. Well I mean
I would care but if Buffy felt in season 5 it was her duty and
he deserved it Im cool with that. Its using Spike as a scapegoat
that I dont like. Either kill him or leave him alone. Especially
after the way he protected Dawn all summer.
Buffy was really mad at the scoobies for bringing her back. All
Spike tried to do was help her find her place. Maybe he was misguided
thinking shed be happier in the dark than with her friends who
were making her miserable but that never gave Buffy the right
to hit Spike and use his feelings. When Riley came to town she
treated Spike worse than he treated the robat. Look at how happy
he was when she made him say he loved her but it was only to feed
her ego.
And people saying they abused each other are missing the point.
Yes when they were hunters on opposite sides they were both getting
into fights with each other. But in season 6 it was Buffy who
choose to make the relationship all about sex. Spike wanted them
to talk and be affectionate. In Smashed he says "we need
to talk" and she disses him calling him a thing and punches
him to the ground. In Dead Things Spike was so glad they were
having a conversation but joked that Buffy usually just hits him
in the head at that point virtue fluttering. Spike was thrilled
when Buffy wanted him to say he loved her because that was what
he wanted. Buffy was the one that freaked and wanted to see Spike
as a thing again to be used at her convienience. That happended
after the kiss that she started.
Spike was wrong but so was Buffy. And as for the rape attempt
Spike was confused. The only time Buffy ever responded to him
was when they slept together. He was trying to make a connection.
He should have backed off when she said no. But he was having
a nervous breakdown I think. He seemed really out of it and only
caught on to what he was doing after Buffy threw him off. "God
Buffy I didn't mean to ". It was an attempted rape and I
am not saying Buffy asked for it. But Spike did not set out to
rape her. People talking about Spike trying to rape her like it
was awful. He made a mistake, noones saying he didn't. At least
he felt bad about it. Look at all the flashbacks he had when he
started crying "what have i done". Buffy never flinched
in Older and Far Away in the scene I watched. She only looked
pissed off that Spike had the audacity to bring up the beating
in the first place. And I dont think it was talked about off screen.
When Spike says "what are you gonna do beat me up again"
it didnt sound to me like Buffy had apologiesd. Why would she
she thought it was all Spikes fault. Like she tells Tara Spike
is doing terrible things to her. That is not taking responsibility
for your behaviour at all. Maybe what she should of said was "why
did I beat the lving hell out of my boyfriend and leave him crawling
helpless in an alley". Demons dont like Spike so they could
have attacked him when was helpess and Buffy didnt even bother
to check. What a nice person!
[> [> [> Re: Question
about Marti's interview with Wanda -- Arethusa, 09:52:47
09/24/02 Tue
"People talking about Spike trying to rape her like it was
awful."
Do you mean someone trying to rape someone else isn't awful? Or
do you just mean attempted rape isn't awful because it was Spike
who did it?
[> [> [> [> Re:
Question about Marti's interview with Wanda -- Tamara, 10:35:21
09/24/02 Tue
What I am saying is that a lot of Buffy fans are saying Spike
is a rapist and Buffy shouldnt have looked sad in Villians when
he was gone. She should only have been sad that she couldnt burn
him to death and his stupid coat too. Loads of fans are really
hating Spike right now because he was made a rapist and they call
his fans lovers of a rapist. I am just saying that Spike was wrong
to try to rape Buffy but he was confused because of all the rough
sex in the past. Even Buffy didnt know what she wanted as she
was always saying stop and Spike would say make me and she would
just go with it. Sometimes she would whisper no like in the balcony
sex just because she didnt want it to look like she actually enjoyed
public sex. She had issues with her sexuality and screwed Spike
up with the way she handled the relationship.
Spike was desperate to make Buffy love him and was losing it so
badly he didnt realise Buffy meant no that time. He just figured
she could stop him if she wasnt happy with it as she was stronger
than him. He was totally wrong and I get that. Its just the way
that some Buffy fans act like now Spike tried to rape Buffy he
is the most awful person in the world and doesnt deserve to live.
And now the writers are saying Buffy wont need to apologise because
Spike tried to rape her and that was just the most terribe thing
you could do ever. If anything should be focused on its the times
Spike tried to kill her. That is what I think anyway.
I didnt meant to come across as if attempted rape isnt awful and
I do think Spike owes Buffy an apology and he should keep feeling
guilty about it. I just meant people talk like Spike trying to
rape Buffy was the most awful thing he could do ever and proves
he was evil. I just think people need to look at the scene and
they will realise yes Spike screwed up badly but the attempted
rape did not make him the monster that a lot of fans are seeing
him as.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Question about Marti's interview with Wanda -- Arethusa,
12:07:32 09/24/02 Tue
(The following is from memory, but is probably pretty accurate.
Sorry, can't remember the episode.)
Spike: I'm not a monster!
Xander: Yes, you are. They even make monster movies about you.
Spike: Point taken, but....
Almost all the BtVS fans on this site are very reasonable, and
don't advocate killing Spike, or excuse Buffy's behavior. Thank
goodness Spuffy is dead and buried, and we won't have to rehash
this argument any more. (Although on BtVS, "dead and buried"
has a much broader definition!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Intervention -- shadowkat, 12:52:14 09/24/02 Tue
Favorite quote and pretty close:
Spike: I'm not a monster.
Xander: Yes you are. Vampires are monsters, they make monster
movies about them.
Spike: Well you got me there.
(Intervention, Season 5, Btvs) - yep it's gotten to the point
I can recite most Btvs quotes by heart, scarey but true. But I
can't remember the names of Angel episodes, so there's hope.
Also I wouldn't put the nails in the coffin of S/B or X/A
for that matter just yet. Only thing we can safely assume is the
unhealthy relationships of last year? Not this year.
Different journey. ME tries very hard not to repeat any of it's
characters arcs. So while we may not have Spuffy (good I hated
that word...although I loved B/S and what it stood for. sigh.)
We could very well have Wuffy or Wiffy or Billy or ...well ship
names are stupid. eek. LOL!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Intervention -- Arethusa, 14:06:29 09/24/02
Tue
Thanks for the quote. I'm hoping we get to see Buffy start dating.
I can picture the date sitting on the Summers living room couch,
being grilled by the Scoobies:
Xander: What do you do for a living, and how much do you make?
Willow: Are you now or have you ever been addicted to alcohol,
drugs, sex, or black magic?
Dawn: (with big, puppy dog eyes) Are you going to make my sister
fall in love with you and than leave us?
Two hours and 55 minutes until the premier....
[> [> [> [> Re:
Question about Marti's interview with Wanda -- Tamara, 10:37:13
09/24/02 Tue
What I am saying is that a lot of Buffy fans are saying Spike
is a rapist and Buffy shouldnt have looked sad in Villians when
he was gone. She should only have been sad that she couldnt burn
him to death and his stupid coat too. Loads of fans are really
hating Spike right now because he was made a rapist and they call
his fans lovers of a rapist. I am just saying that Spike was wrong
to try to rape Buffy but he was confused because of all the rough
sex in the past. Even Buffy didnt know what she wanted as she
was always saying stop and Spike would say make me and she would
just go with it. Sometimes she would whisper no like in the balcony
sex just because she didnt want it to look like she actually enjoyed
public sex. She had issues with her sexuality and screwed Spike
up with the way she handled the relationship.
Spike was desperate to make Buffy love him and was losing it so
badly he didnt realise Buffy meant no that time. He just figured
she could stop him if she wasnt happy with it as she was stronger
than him. He was totally wrong and I get that. Its just the way
that some Buffy fans act like now Spike tried to rape Buffy he
is the most awful person in the world and doesnt deserve to live.
And now the writers are saying Buffy wont need to apologise because
Spike tried to rape her and that was just the most terribe thing
you could do ever. If anything should be focused on its the times
Spike tried to kill her. That is what I think anyway.
I didnt meant to come across as if attempted rape isnt awful and
I do think Spike owes Buffy an apology and he should keep feeling
guilty about it. I just meant people talk like Spike trying to
rape Buffy was the most awful thing he could do ever and proves
he was evil. I just think people need to look at the scene and
they will realise yes Spike screwed up badly but the attempted
rape did not make him the monster that a lot of fans are seeing
him as.
[> Actually, Marti said
that... -- Dariel, 11:15:50 09/24/02 Tue
Nobody owes anyone any big apologies. That "nobody"
includes both Buffy and Spike. I think Marti's point is that,
like many people who've been in a screwed-up relationship, they're
not going to spend a lot of time in handwringing, apologies, and
going over the damn thing. It doesn't really help in RL, so why
should it on BtVS?
[> [> Re: Marti says
what? -- pr10n, 11:29:56 09/24/02 Tue
To restate something I read above:
Not apologizing and moving on may work in short-term relationships,
ones without skin-in-the-game (irony intended), but if ME were
crafting a long-term relationship for Spuffy, I would expect mutual
apologies and remorse, and efforts to rebuild trust.
Note to Self: real relationships do not equal fictional relationships;
manufactured drama does not equal adult complexity; real life
is not punctuated by commercials.
[> [> [> Lol-what
a pity. -- Arethusa, 12:39:39 09/24/02 Tue
You mean we can't solve all our problems in one hour, or always
be perfectly groomed, or live well beyond our supposed means?
Not to mention every bad act being punished, and every wrong redressed.
That would be messy and unfair!
[> [> [> [> And
there are times when I could have used a commercial break to get
the hell out of Dodge. -- cjl, 14:08:31 09/24/02 Tue
tara in "the
body" & buffy in s6 -- anom, 23:04:25 09/23/02 Mon
I've been thinking about this for a while. (I wouldn't have posted
so close to the s7 premiere, but Psyche's site was down for a
while & I need to quote!)
In the hospital, after Joyce dies, Tara tells Buffy about her
own mother's death & her reaction:
"I'm only telling you this because ... I know it's not m-my
place, but ... (pauses) There's things ... thoughts and reactions
I had that ... I couldn't ... understand ... or even try to explain
to anyone else. (Buffy looks down, pensive) Thoughts that ...
made me feel like I was losing it ... or, like I was some kind
of ho-horrible person. I know it's different for you ... because
it's always different, but ... if you ever need...."
Sounds like what Buffy was going through in s7, in a nutshell.
OK, a very small nutshell. And Buffy eventually does take Tara
up on her implied offer of help.
It's late, & I'm not going to take this any further for now. But
I'm sure plenty of you will...if you can spare any attention from
the season opener. @>)
[> Re: tara in "the
body" & buffy in s6 -- luvthistle1,
23:35:27 09/23/02 Mon
Buffy did seem like she was having a delayed reaction to Joyce's
death. she didn't have much time to really grieve,becuase of Glory.
I often wonder how did Tara mother die? how old was Tara when
her mom died. Tara has been a wicca since age 5,yet she never
really do black magic. I think something happen in her past to
put her off dark magic for good.
[> [> Re: tara in "the
body" & buffy in s6 -- anom, 10:53:43 09/24/02 Tue
"Buffy did seem like she was having a delayed reaction to
Joyce's death. she didn't have much time to really grieve,becuase
of Glory."
And how much more so to her own death & resurrection? Her reaction
in s6 must have been Tara's to the nth power (that's not
just an expression; I have no idea what the actual number might
be, if it could even be quantified).
"I often wonder how did Tara mother die? how old was Tara
when her mom died. Tara has been a wicca since age 5,yet she never
really do black magic. I think something happen in her past to
put her off dark magic for good."
Tara says she was 17. She doesn't specify what her mother died
of, but when Buffy asks if it was sudden, she says "No"
at first, & then "Yes....It's always sudden." I understand
this to mean that her mother's death wasn't unexpected. She may
have had a disease that they knew would kill her, but even if
you know it's going to happen, it still comes as a shock when
it does happen.
And I think you're right about her being put off dark magic. One
of the things I didn't have time to write (OK, to remember) in
my earlier post was that I wonder if some of the "thoughts
& reactions" Tara had that she couldn't understand might
have led her to use dark magic. Maybe she found out the hard way
that dark magic can be addictive, whether she first used it to
try to regain a sense of control of her world or to try to make
herself feel better (like Willow in Something Blue). I didn't
like the overly literal metaphor for drug/alcohol addiction, but
given that ME used it, this idea could fit in w/it. It might have
been like going on a binge after a traumatic experience. So when
Tara tells Willow she's using too much magic, maybe she's speaking
from experience.
[> [> [> Re: tara
in "the body" & buffy in s6 -- Vickie, 11:27:46
09/24/02 Tue
When talking with Willow (can't remember the episode, early in
their friendship), Tara says her mother was "powerful, like
you." It's possible she watched her mother struggle with
the temptations and consequences that Willow has--let's hope she
was more successful in her struggle.
What's With
Faith? Possible Spoiler -- Angelina, 06:36:12 09/24/02 Tue
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF ELIZA D.
IS GOING TO REPRISE HER ROLE AS FAITH? I KNOW THERE WAS SOME SPECULATION
ABOUT HER RETURNING TO BUFFY OR ANGEL AND SHE WAS GOING TO SPILL
THE BEANS ON A LETTERMAN SHOW, BUT I NEVER DID SEE THE SHOW SO
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW. I STILL THINK A FAITH/ANGEL PAIRING WOULD
BE SUPER SPECTACULAR AND ANYTHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN ANGEL/CORDY.
I HOPE CORDY JUST KEEPS ON FLOATING UP UP AND AWAY, I SIMPLY HATE
THE ANGEL/CORDY THING. AWFUL TO WATCH. THANKS FOR HELPING ME OUT.
[> Re: What's With Faith?
Spoilers for S7 and S4 -- Scroll, 07:20:28 09/24/02 Tue
Yes, Faith will be returning to both "Buffy" and "Angel".
I'm not sure how or why, but she'll be back near the end of the
year--first on "Angel" and then on "Buffy".
I doubt that an Angel/Faith pairing will ever happen (though it
would be interesting). I have no idea what Joss will do with Angel/Cordy,
but hopefully he'll be able to salvage it from Kye-rumption.
Scroll
btw, please make sure your Caps Lock isn't on when you type. It's
kinda hard to read otherwise.
[> [> Re: What's With
Faith? Spoilers for S7 and S4 -- Angelina, 09:24:04 09/24/02
Tue
Thanks for the info Scroll. I appreciate it and I will watch the
Cap Locks in the future! I am looking forward to seeing Faith
again. She was one of my all time favorites.
[> Re: What's With Faith?
Possible Spoiler -- luvthistle1, 11:22:36 09/24/02 Tue
I heard Faith will be back at the end of the season,but what I
would like to know,will she come back as a redeem slayer who wants
to help,or a evil slayer who want to harm?
The last time she was in sunnydale she tried to kill Xander and
buffy chase her to L.A to trie and kill her,and buffy would have,until
Angel step in. So, since she was given a chance to turn her life
around, did she actually take it?
How will Buffy and Xander react upon seeing Faith?
Will Faith remember Dawn? (i know they never met,but would she
have the memory?
I hear Joss'
voice... (pre-premiere OT) -- Darby, 06:38:16 09/24/02 Tue
I was watching Die Hard the other day, and I'd be willing
to bet that Joss script doctored on that - the regular cop that
talks to Bruce Willis from outside seems a very Jossian addition,
and the villain has way too many Whedonesque qualities. Also,
to be a bit Holmesian, Jan De Bont worked on that, and Joss is
famous for having punched up Speed for him - they must
have met somewhere...
Here's what I know - Joss was a well-known and highly paid script
doctor, with a reputation for dialogue and being able to "pull
together" disparate story elements, often through use of
peripheral characters. What other movies do we think he may have
worked on? What else have we watched and had a "feeling"
about a certain turn of phrase?
Several reviews have accused Firefly of showing a future
predicated on Pretty Woman. Could Joss have worked on that?
Is it too old?
[> From the mouth of Joss,
via the BronzeBeta -- ponygirl, 08:58:41 09/24/02 Tue
Actually Joss has some stuff to say on Die Hard, I don't think
he worked on it but the following quote is a really interesting
one on the responsbility of the artist and such, in fact I have
it up on my bulletin board.
Cut and pasted from the BronzeBeta archives, typos are Joss' own
(and kinda cute!):
"All right, you get the "kept Joss From Sleeping"
award. (The ceremony is televised oct 11th). Your question is
well put, and it's one I've asked since the only things I was
writing were for my own 14 year old self to read. What is my responsiblity?
How dark should I get, how much should every one of my characters
represent an ideal or a reality? How far can you delve into evil
before you are actually propagating it? Is propagating a real
word? These are questions that must be confronted every time out
to bat, and every time the decision is different. We have to delve
into unconfortable and even awful places to find the heart of
our stories (especially with the horror). These are fairy tales,
not driving manuals. However, I have a mass audience, I have to
show them something besides horror, I have to have values....
And so on. The fact is, if you are worried about these issues,
you're probably worried enough. Too much of our culture today
is controlled by people who don't give a rat's *** about their
message, who just churn out crap. I don't like most slasher films
because they don't like people -- they're just kill fodder. Now
there's also people preaching one thing while glorifying another,
there's what Robin Wood calls the "Incoherent Text"
of so many seventies movies, where peace and understanding may
be the underlying desire, but horror and violence is the structure
-- or the fun. My favorite example of the incoherent text is DIE
HARD, where Buce Willis must learn to e more supportive of his
wife -- while systematically stripping away everything (her boss,
her workplace, her watch, her NAME) that she has. The decency
running alongide the misogyny there is evident. I guess the point
is, the best texts are incoherent. They EMBODY the struggle you
describe. Horror is reactionary. I'm liberal. But we get along.
And DIE HARD is a great damn flick.
Did that make any sense?"
[> [> Re: From the mouth
of Joss, via the BronzeBeta -- Darby, 09:49:50 09/24/02
Tue
Could go either way - he kinda sounds to me like someone who was
involved but had limited effect on the product, but I'm probably
projecting. At any rate, he's put a lot of thought into deconstructing
it. I wonder if he did work on it, and had put some sort of ironic
observation along those lines into the final scene, only to have
it not be used...
We know that he can get testy under those circumstances.
[> [> [> Re: Die Hard
-- ponygirl, 10:18:53 09/24/02 Tue
In any case, I find his take on Die Hard really interesting. Articualated
something that had always bugged me about a movie that I do enjoy.
And the incoherent text theory can certainly apply to a lot of
other movies-- that professing of a value while simultaneously
undermining it. One of these days I may dig up my old film theory
textbooks, it seems far more engaging now than when I was being
tested on this stuff.
[> Re: I hear Joss' voice...
(pre-premiere OT) -- Arethusa, 16:20:53 09/24/02 Tue
Whedon talks about his script doctoring in this article:
http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3731/avfeature_3731.html
It's excellent, but mostly stuff we've read before 'cause it's
a year old. Favorite snippets:
O: Are you ever surprised by your fans' passion for the show?
"I wanted there to be dolls, Barbie with kung-fu grip. I
wanted people to embrace it in a way that exists beyond, 'Oh,
that was a wonderful show about lawyers, let's have dinner.'"
JW: No. I designed the show to create that strong reaction. I
designed Buffy to be an icon, to be an emotional experience, to
be loved in a way that other shows can't be loved. Because it's
about adolescence, which is the most important thing people go
through in their development, becoming an adult. And it mythologizes
it in such a way, such a romantic wayóit basically says,
"Everybody who made it through adolescence is a hero."
And I think that's very personal, that people get something from
that that's very real. And I don't think I could be more pompous.
But I mean every word of it. I wanted her to be a cultural phenomenon.
I wanted there to be dolls, Barbie with kung-fu grip. I wanted
people to embrace it in a way that exists beyond, "Oh, that
was a wonderful show about lawyers, let's have dinner." I
wanted people to internalize it, and make up fantasies where they
were in the story, to take it home with them, for it to exist
beyond the TV show. And we've done exactly that.
a writer has a responsibility to tell stories that are dark and
sexy and violent, where characters that you love do stupid, wrong
things and get away with it, that we explore these parts of people's
lives, because that's what makes stories into fairy tales instead
of polemics. That's what makes stories resonate, that thing, that
dark place that we all want to go to on some level or another.
It's very important. People are like, [whining] "Well, your
characters have sex, and those costumes, and blah blah..."
And I'm like, "You're in adolescence, and you're thinking
about what besides sex?" I feel that we're showing something
that is true, that people can relate to and say, "Oh, I made
that bad choice," or "Oh, there's a better way to do
that." But as long as it's real, then however politically
correct, or incorrect, or whatever, bizarre, or dark, or funny,
or stupidóanything you can get, as long as it's real, I
don't mind.
We learned early on, the scariest thing on that show was people
behaving badly, or in peril, morally speaking, or just people
getting weird on youówhich, by the way, is the scariest
thing in life. In terms of not giving people what they want, I
think it's a mandate: Don't give people what they want, give them
what they need. What they want is for Sam and Diane to get together.
[Whispers.] Don't give it to them. Trust me. [Normal voice.] You
know? People want the easy path, a happy resolution, but in the
end, they're more interested in... No one's going to go see the
story of Othello going to get a peaceful divorce. People want
the tragedy. They need things to go wrong, they need the tension.
In my characters, there's a core of trust and love that I'm very
committed to. These guys would die for each other, and it's very
beautiful. But at the same time, you can't keep that safety. Things
have to go wrong, bad things have to happen.
I've spent five years culling the most extraordinary staff, which
I trust to share my vision and my experience.
O: What would you like to be doing just in general that you don't
have time for?
JW: Well, everything. The things that people do when they don't
write. Playing games, sports maybe. Drinking and sex are things
I've heard a lot about.
(Me again) I think Whedon considers himself a feminist; he studied
women's studies at Weselyan, as well as film. (IIRC) I doubt he
worked on Pretty Woman.
Dawn's origins
-- Portia, 13:45:12 09/24/02 Tue
Hi, this is my first time posting. There has been something about
Dawn that has been bugging me for some time. Does Dawn have a
soul? The monks couldn't have the power to create a soul. I don't
know if this has been dicussed here before. The show hasn't addressed
this issue.
[> My theory: -- HonorH,
13:48:59 09/24/02 Tue
Dawn is human. Although she wasn't born through normal human reproduction,
she was created out of another human being--Buffy. She has a sense
of right and wrong. All evidence points to her having a soul.
The reason the show hasn't addressed it, I think, is because it's
not even an issue to the writers. They take it for granted that
she does. Still, it would be interesting to have Dawn herself
raise the issue.
Welcome aboard, Portia!
[> [> Re: My theory:
-- DEN, 14:18:36 09/24/02 Tue
I STILL fail to understand some aspects of Dawn's creation, and
will deeply appreciate information, or referral to appropriate
archives.
1. Was there ANY foreshadowing of the "clone" aspect
of Dawn prior to "The Gift?" I saw, and continue to
regard, the "Summers blood" references as clearly indicating
a sibling connection, enhanced by the actual mixing of blood in
the hospital. Apart from those I remain unable to find any indicators
supporting Buffy's insistence in "The Gift" that "the
monks made her out of me."
2. If Dawn was in fact "made" from Buffy directly, then
WHEN and HOW? Again, are there any foreshadowings--a missing hair
brush or a brief loss of consciousness? I can find none, and without
them I remain confused.
I remember Rah making an eloquent case for "The Gift"
as requiring an act of faith to understand. But damnit, I'd still
like to know if Joss really did hang us out that far, and hope
I get some help in these final hours before s7.
[> [> [> Re: My theory:
-- Portia, 14:52:21 09/24/02 Tue
You're right, there was no foreshadowing. If you want a theory
about Dawn you should read cjl's post in the archive from 7/03/02.
It's cjl's own opion and theory but it's interesting as a possibility.
[> For WAY too much information
on the topic, check out my 7/03/02 post in the archive. --
cjl, 14:04:52 09/24/02 Tue
[> [> Re: For WAY too
much information on the topic, check out my 7/03/02 post in the
archive. -- Portia, 14:55:30 09/24/02 Tue
Thanks cjl. That really took a lot of thought and hard work. Very
interesting food for thought.
[> [> [> Re: For WAY
too much information on the topic, check out my 7/03/02 post in
the archive. -- DEN, 20:06:58 09/24/02 Tue
Thanks a lot; the posting is a big help.
[> [> How the frick do
you use the archives? -- HonorH, 16:24:01 09/24/02 Tue
Feeling dumb here. Tried searching for your post, cjl, and came
up empty.
[> [> [> Re: How the
frick do you use the archives? -- Portia, 18:21:03 09/24/02
Tue
Go to the ATPoBtVS&AtS Home page and click on "Board Archives".
Look under 2002 and click on July. I just scrolled down a little
bit until I saw the post for July 3 and saw the one by cjl. Hope
that helps.
[> Is River the original
Dawn? -- oboemaboe, 14:11:55 09/24/02 Tue
For some reason, this post reminds me of the summer after S4,
when the casting of Michelle Trachtenberg was announced. The rumor
was that Dawn was supposed to be a very troubled orphan with psychic
powers that the Summers took in. Obviously, she didn't turn out
that way, so I wonder if Joss has resurrected that idea in the
form of River.
That doesn't answer your question, but I thought it was interesting.
You could ask the same about Ben, who was created by the hellgods
as a prison for Glory. How do you know that whatever metaphysical
process or entity bestows souls upon normally-born humans can't
also be triggered or supplicated using magical means? Until the
show contradicts me, I tend to agree with Spike's "it doesn't
matter how you got here."
(Speaking of hellgods, I don't think crossovers or parallels between
Buffy/Firefly are terribly OT, so don't smite me!)
[> [> Talking to myself
-- oboemaboe, 14:29:15 09/24/02 Tue
Hate to reply to my own post, but I just remembered that on 2.5
occasions, people have used magic to transfer souls into and out
of bodies. The original gypsy curse, Jenny's thesulan orb, and
the Mage from Enemies. If someone as powerful and in-the-know
as the Mayor believes it possible the "the deadliest magics"
can rob Angel of his soul, then I take that to mean that such
an act is not entirely outside the realm of possibility in the
Buffyverse. Who knows, maybe the mage was even telling the truth
and it was just lucky her was on our side.
If magic can transfer Angel's soul into and out of the ether,
maybe the monks and hellgods simply chose two unused souls that
were floating around and stuck them into the human bodies. Is
there reincarnation in the Bverse or can souls be created ex nihilo?
[> [> [> Re: Talking
to myself -- meritaten, 15:37:17 09/24/02 Tue
I believe that in the instances you referred to, a soul was not
created, only transferred. For example, Liam's soul was retrieved
from some mystical ethos and restored to Angelus. I too, have
wondered about using magic to create a soul. If the writers
want that to happen, I would prefer some explanation, some incorporation
into the mythology.
I think Dawn is supposed to have a soul, but how it was
created has not been sufficiently explained
[> [> [> [> How
is a soul *usually* created? -- HonorH, 16:16:01 09/24/02
Tue
Just sayin'.
[> [> [> [> [>
vaild point -- meritaten, 20:37:59 09/24/02 Tue
but I would still like to see the writers address the issue.
[> [> [> I thought
Ben was a newborn male -- Vickie, 18:14:16 09/24/02 Tue
that the hellgods used for Glory's prison. No making of souls
required, he came fully equipped.
[> [> [> [> Re:
I thought Ben was a newborn male -- oboemaboe, 20:19:37
09/24/02 Tue
"She was cast out. Banished to this lower plane of existence,
forced to live and eventually die trapped within the body of a
mortal ... a newborn male, created as her prison."
This doesn't sound like they picked an already-existing baby who
had been born to human parents. If magic can create a fourteen-year-old
body, why not a newborn body?
[> [> [> [> [>
How do we know... -- meritaten, 20:48:59 09/24/02 Tue
that Ben did have a soul?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ben had a soul -- Scroll, 07:03:35 09/25/02 Wed
Because when the mystical barrier separating Glory's identity
from Ben's, Glory began to feel remorse for killing people and
she hesitated at sacrificing Dawn - while Ben began to lose his
soul, and began to take on Glory's selfish and egotistical attitude.
Perhaps not the best evidence of a soul, but Glory makes several
references to Ben's humanity which is what kept her from killing
Buffy the first few times they met.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Ben had a soul -- meritaten, 17:09:56
09/25/02 Wed
So, a soul = conscience and ability to feel remorse?
[> her soul is implied but
not explicitly mentioned... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 14:16:23
09/24/02 Tue
This topic has been discussed here before but I missed out on
most of that discussion so the following is primarily my opinion,
uninformed by (most of) the views expressed at that time: since
Buffy had her epiphany of intuition in "The Gift" and
realized that the monks had made Dawn out of her, the strong implication
has been that, since the two of them share "one flesh"
she has a soul in the same way Buffy does although this has never
been explicitly spelled out or mentioned. My own view is that,
whatever type of consciousness or identity The Key possessed before,
now that she is totally immersed in the Dawn persona and body,
she has a soul. I could be wrong.
[> one possibility...
-- anom, 21:08:48 09/24/02 Tue
...is that the Key energy functions as Dawn's soul.
[> [> Re: one possibility...
-- Portia, 14:55:58 09/25/02 Wed
I like that idea. It seems more logical to me. I really liked
HonorH's fanfic about the Key becoming Dawn. You sould read it
if you haven't already. It does not address how she got a soul
though so I still buy your idea.
[> [> [> Re: one possibility...
-- anom, 20:49:30 09/25/02 Wed
I did read HonorH's fanfic, & it's great! But even if it had addressed
the question of Dawn's soul, that wouldn't be canon, just 1 possibility.
If my speculation is right & the Key energy serves as Dawn's soul,
what might the implications be for Dawn's humanity & moral compass,
given the definition of the soul in the Jossverse? Dawn told Spike
she didn't think she could be good, but her behavior, aside from
the stealing & what looks like normal teenage rebelliousness,
& especially the things she cares about have never shown her to
be anything else. What does this imply about the Key energy & its
potential if it "is" her soul?
This also raises questions about what would have happened to Dawn
if Willow had carried out her threat to "turn her back"
into her original form in Two to Go. Would her body have disappeared,
converted into a ball of green energy? Or is that energy contained
in her body, & would its release, like the release of the soul
in an ordinary person's death, have left a dead body? Or a catatonic
one, living but vacant? No way to know, of course, since it didn't
happen, but it's interesting to speculate.
[> Portia--my own pet theory
-- HonorH, 00:31:49 09/25/02 Wed
Best summed up in my story Aurora.
It's my theory as to the Key and Dawn's origins. Hope you like!
Current board
| More September 2002