MN puts foot in mouth again (spoilers)
him...@no-spam.com
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Briefly she says:
1. That NA was not intended to discredit the entire series as a fantasy. If
it had been, they would have made it the final episode of the final season.
Pretty much what I thought.
2. B/A shippers can forget it. This is a teen romance that Buffy will always
treasure, but it's not a lasting love and it won't go any further. MN then
goes out of her way to diss B/A shippers suggesting they are hopeless nerds
who are still mooning over their own high school sweethearts. Honestly! MN
is more given to gratuitous personal attacks than anyone on this group!
3. B/S shippers can also forget it. In a less direct personal attack on
fans, MN notes that we seem to have forgotten that Spike is bad, bad, bad!
And that he tried to kill Willow. I think we're going to see him dirtied up
a bit more...or maybe just trash-mouthed further by the other characters; MN
doesn't seem to grasp that this does them more damage than him.
4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships. This
runs a bit contrary to the idea that she can't have anything with Spike
because he is bad...which would make her bad by defining her as such through
her relationship rather than her own life if you ask me...but MN didn't ask
me.
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Mrs. Poet
>From: him...@no-spam.com
>Date: 3/28/2002 8:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com>
Well, Wanda confronted Marti with the fans' criticism of the season. And she
conceded that she knows about the fans' criticism. She can't be happy about
how some people feel and about their comments. So she was a little defensive
in this interview.
I don't think her statement about B/A fans was *that* harsh even if it was not
accurate.
>4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
>This
>runs a bit contrary to the idea that she can't have anything with Spike
>because he is bad...which would make her bad by defining her as such through
>her relationship rather than her own life if you ask me...but MN didn't ask
>me.
>
It's interesting that Marti said that sometimes things don't go how you intend,
that they thought it was obvious that Spike and Buffy were wrong together and
that fans who want them together have forgotten about S4 Spike. That lends
credence to the theory that some of us hold that they felt they had to go out
of their way to present Spike in a more negative light because some people
felt, based on S5 and early S6, that he was much farther along on the road to
redemption than ME intended.
OTOH, I wonder why Joss Whedon changed Hells Bells so that S/B's ugly
confrontation was made civil and conciliatory. It makes me wonder a little if
he disagrees with the rest of the production staff, or if he just wanted to
yank shippers' chains by making things nice before he makes them even more
ugly.
I don't think Noxon put the last nail in the coffin of S/B. There's still the
possibility for Spike to transform himself. Of course, I have think Spike and
Buffy should not be together if Spike is redeemed or humanized because then
good Spike will be stuck with a boyfriend-beater, but I don't think ME agrees
with me.
Rose
"If I go crazy then will you still call me Superman?"
NightBaron
<him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message news:a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com...
Good :) I hope this reassures all the people who got freaked out over that.
> 2. B/A shippers can forget it. This is a teen romance that Buffy will
always
> treasure, but it's not a lasting love and it won't go any further. MN
then
> goes out of her way to diss B/A shippers suggesting they are hopeless
nerds
> who are still mooning over their own high school sweethearts. Honestly!
MN
> is more given to gratuitous personal attacks than anyone on this group!
I don't know if she was dissing so much as trying to get a point. B/A HAS
been over for a while, now, and Buffy moved on, Angel moved on, the only
people still in that relationship are the fans. She could have put it in
better terms, but essentially, she was right.
> 3. B/S shippers can also forget it. In a less direct personal attack on
> fans, MN notes that we seem to have forgotten that Spike is bad, bad, bad!
> And that he tried to kill Willow. I think we're going to see him dirtied
up
> a bit more...or maybe just trash-mouthed further by the other characters;
MN
> doesn't seem to grasp that this does them more damage than him.
She pretty much made her opinion known here. I guess this can comfort the
people who didn't want them together. She didn't quite emphasize on the bad
part, she just seemed amazed that fans latched on to Spike this much.
> 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
This
> runs a bit contrary to the idea that she can't have anything with Spike
> because he is bad...which would make her bad by defining her as such
through
> her relationship rather than her own life if you ask me...but MN didn't
ask
> me.
She just seems to want to stop the shipping. She wants people to not focus
on the relationship, more on the character. Which is surprising,
considering her Party of Five comment earlier, a show which was based on
relationships. Anyway. I thought that was a good thing.
You also left out the good parts of the interview.
5. The show will lighten up. They're bringing Buffy back into a heroic
stance.
6. Joss Whedon is still very involved in Buffy. As stated by Marti, he is
the one laying out the storylines. So maybe the blame, if there is any to
cast, should not all go to her, as a lot of people like to do.
Carmikl
especially about that Asylum nonsense:
> Noxon: We never meant for it to be a statement of the show. If so, it would
> have been the very last episode of Buffy. We just wanted to have a little
> fun and say: "Could it have all been her hallucination?" It was a brain
> teaser. We believe in the world of Buffy. Wholeheartedly.
>
> We didn't want to invalidate her whole journey. It was just kind of a
> what-if, not a thesis statement, and we're not going to have asylum shows
> from now on.
Carmikl
Seems like she's been getting the message from someone that a change is
direction is much needed.
NightBaron
"Carmikl" <Car...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3CA40189...@rcn.com...
Actually, from the interview, i felt that it was the plan all along, that
after the deaths, it was inevitable for Buffy and co. to go depressive, but
that they would come back up, and balance things up.
Lord Usher
> MN talked with Wanda on line:
>
> http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
>
> No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
>
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> 0
> 9
> 8
> 7
> 6
> 5
> 4
> 3
> 2
> 1
>
> Briefly she says:
>
> 1. That NA was not intended to discredit the entire series as a fantasy.
[snip]
> 2. B/A shippers can forget it.
[snip]
> 3. B/S shippers can also forget it.
[snip]
> 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
[snip]
Wow. She really isn't mincing words, is she?
Frankly, I'm a little bit torn, here. On the one hand, from my perspective,
she's delivering good news and smart sentiments right down the list. A
relief, certainly, for those of us who aren't enthralled with B/S or B/A or
pointless, mythology-busting revelations posing as postmodern commentaries
on the nature of reality.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the implication that it's all the
*viewers'* fault if they don't see things the way she describes them. If a
large portion of the fanbase believes that the asylumverse might be real,
or that B/A are Eternal Soulmates, or that Spike is perfectly worthy of
Buffy's love, maybe ME should consider the possibility that their writing
is in part to blame.
I suppose there's some admission of responsibility in Marti's statement
that "we need to get in there and show people the difference between loving
someone who is good to be around and loving someone who is good." But her
displeasure still seems a little too focused on what the viewers have
failed to understand, instead of on what the writers have failed to convey.
Expecially since she can't control the viewers' reactions, but she *can*
control what she writes for them.
(For example, she marvels that people have forgotten that Spike tried to
kill Buffy just a couple of years ago. Well, maybe that's because none of
the characters have mentioned said murder attempt in almost as long. If she
honestly wants us to remember all the horrible things Spike has done, maybe
it would help to bring those actions up every once in a while.)
--
Lord Usher
"Don't we kill 'em any more?"
Carmikl
I think that's more of a face saving approach. She's not about to say
Oops. Creating a series of bad episodes just to recover with what may be
a couple of good episodes just doesn't make any sense, but if she can
get people to think it was planned that way, then.....
BTR1701
wrote:
> NightBaron wrote:
> >
> > <him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com...
> > She just seems to want to stop the shipping. She wants people to not
> > focus on the relationship, more on the character. Which is surprising,
> > considering her Party of Five comment earlier, a show which was based
> > on relationships. Anyway. I thought that was a good thing.
>
> > You also left out the good parts of the interview.
> >
> > 5. The show will lighten up. They're bringing Buffy back into a
> > heroic stance.
> >
> Seems like she's been getting the message from someone that a change is
> direction is much needed
Well, considering Angel is a much more compelling show now, they should
look across the street for pointers on how to find their way back.
One of things that bothers me about the disparity between the two shows
is that Angel is a champion but is nevertheless allowed to charge his
clients money for his services without violating any ethical boundaries.
Yet when Anya suggests Buffy do exactly the same thing, everyone looks
at her like she's either nuts or Adolf Hitler.
So Buffy is reduced to wearing a humiliating chicken costume and working
for minimum wage to pay the bills while Angel gets briefcases full of
cash and lives in his own opulent hotel.
NightBaron
"Lord Usher" <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c1d6ec$4fec59c0$bc096c40@house-of-usher...
Good point. Seems like Willow has forgotten too, she's the one who invited
him to Buffy's birthday party for example...
him...@no-spam.com
>>
>> 5. The show will lighten up. They're bringing Buffy back into a heroic
>> stance.
I didn't really believe it. Bringing Buffy back into a heroic stance or
"throwing her a couple of bones" as MN put it isn't nearly enough at this
stage of the game. Heroism, in fact, is not the opposite of darkness. You
can have very dark heroes. We have had one all season...which would be OK if
the rest of the show wasn't also so dark. In short, I didn't get the feeling
that MN really gets what the complaints actually are.
And they only have four more episodes. Now, I'm not saying they can't turn
things around with those. I hope they do. But it's been left awfully late.
Mark Jones
<lord_...@hotmail.com> did utter the following:
But she admits they did it to fuck with the fans' minds.
>[snip]
>
>> 2. B/A shippers can forget it.
Not news to me, but it's good to have it said out loud.
>> 3. B/S shippers can also forget it.
Also not a surprise.
>> 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
And yet...since she started with Angel, there's hardly been an
episode where she _wasn't_ pining over one boyfriend or
ex-boyfriend, or Parker.
>Wow. She really isn't mincing words, is she?
>
>Frankly, I'm a little bit torn, here. On the one hand, from my perspective,
>she's delivering good news and smart sentiments right down the list. A
>relief, certainly, for those of us who aren't enthralled with B/S or B/A or
>pointless, mythology-busting revelations posing as postmodern commentaries
>on the nature of reality.
>On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the implication that it's all the
>*viewers'* fault if they don't see things the way she describes them. If a
>large portion of the fanbase believes that the asylumverse might be real,
>or that B/A are Eternal Soulmates, or that Spike is perfectly worthy of
>Buffy's love, maybe ME should consider the possibility that their writing
>is in part to blame.
I'm sure. I don't like it. "It's a poor workman that blames his
tools" and a poor artist who blames his audience for not _getting_
it instead of considering that perhaps his art isn't the work of
genius he assumes it to be.
>I suppose there's some admission of responsibility in Marti's statement
>that "we need to get in there and show people the difference between loving
>someone who is good to be around and loving someone who is good." But her
>displeasure still seems a little too focused on what the viewers have
>failed to understand, instead of on what the writers have failed to convey.
>Expecially since she can't control the viewers' reactions, but she *can*
>control what she writes for them.
>
>(For example, she marvels that people have forgotten that Spike tried to
>kill Buffy just a couple of years ago. Well, maybe that's because none of
>the characters have mentioned said murder attempt in almost as long. If she
>honestly wants us to remember all the horrible things Spike has done, maybe
>it would help to bring those actions up every once in a while.)
There've been plenty of threads dropped along the way, and we've
learned by experience that most of the time, those threads are
_never_ going to be picked up again. Even when they scream to be
exmained again. So if ME gives us what was essentially a throw-away
scene of Spike trying to kill Willow, which turns into an
(admittedly amusing) thinly disguised impotence scene, ME should not
be surprised when two season later we ascribe little importance to
it. After all, nobody on the _show_ seemed to care. (They've had
plenty of chances to stake Spike for it and never did.)
--
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
--Tuco, _The Good the Bad and the Ugly_
Mrs. Poet
>
>5. The show will lighten up. They're bringing Buffy back into a heroic
>stance.
>
She didn't exactly say the show will lighten up. I thought she was going to
based on her lead-in, but she didn't.
Mrs. Poet
>From: BTR1701 BTR...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 3/29/2002 12:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <BTR1702-7D797C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
<snip>
>Yet when Anya suggests Buffy do exactly the same thing, everyone looks
>at her like she's either nuts or Adolf Hitler.
>
To be 100% fair, Buffy backtracked from her out-of-hand rejection of Anya's
idea.
>So Buffy is reduced to wearing a humiliating chicken costume and working
>for minimum wage to pay the bills while Angel gets briefcases full of
>cash and lives in his own opulent hotel.
But...he's a guy!
Enkil
Well, that's reassuring, we haven't all just been mind-comshucked like
we thought.
> 2. B/A shippers can forget it. This is a teen romance that Buffy will always
> treasure, but it's not a lasting love and it won't go any further. MN then
> goes out of her way to diss B/A shippers suggesting they are hopeless nerds
> who are still mooning over their own high school sweethearts. Honestly! MN
> is more given to gratuitous personal attacks than anyone on this group!
Over ? Nothing is over until both series's die and the crossover
movie comes out. Was it over when Buffy died ? Or when Angel went to
Hell ? I'll believe it when it never happens. ;)
>
> 3. B/S shippers can also forget it. In a less direct personal attack on
> fans, MN notes that we seem to have forgotten that Spike is bad, bad, bad!
> And that he tried to kill Willow. I think we're going to see him dirtied up
> a bit more...or maybe just trash-mouthed further by the other characters; MN
> doesn't seem to grasp that this does them more damage than him.
Ummm... is she forgetting that the poor little victim of Hell's Belles
is an ex and now current mass murduring, torturing, regretless
Vengence Bitch ? Methinks I smell a ME double standard. Spike saved
little miss Slayer's life several times, was the designated guarding
of both little bit and Mom, and generally has become a better person
than Anyanka ever was or ever will be. Yeah, he's still evil... and
Xander wasn't perfectly safe for Willow and Buffy to be around. Not
sure of the ep, but early on Xander was worried that Buffy felt too
safe around him, cuz he was just one of the girls. Spike feels the
same way...safe, but in no way any less terrifying
> 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships. This
> runs a bit contrary to the idea that she can't have anything with Spike
> because he is bad...which would make her bad by defining her as such through
> her relationship rather than her own life if you ask me...but MN didn't ask
> me.
>
> himiko
>
And the stock ME feminist BS comes out again. Can't have the strong
able heroine depending on a male, cuz that would make her seem less
strong and able. A relationship is a blending of two people, both of
whom give and take much more than 50/50 at times. Independence is
much overrated...its sometimes a wonderfull thing to have someone to
depend on, say like when you're busy beating the hell out a god, and
someone needs to run up the tower to save little sis... or when a
psycho Frankenstein wanna-be is about to kick your ass, and you need
to do the "by our powers combined" thing. Depend already, spank the
inner moppet and get over it.
Peter Meilinger
: MN talked with Wanda on line:
: http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
: No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
: 1
: 2
: 3
: 4
: 5
: 6
: 7
: 8
: 9
: 0
: 9
: 8
: 7
: 6
: 5
: 4
: 3
: 2
: 1
: Briefly she says:
: 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
Since when? Buffy has almost always been defined by her relationships,
at least to a large degree. For the first three seasons it was her
doomed relationship with Angel or her attempts to escape it. Fourth
season was her moving away from Angel with first Parker and then
Riley. Fifth season started with the disintegration of her relationship
with Riley and ended with the beginning of her relationship with
Spike. This season, pretty much all she's actually done is either
screw Spike or beat him up, both physically and verbally.
Do the writers even watch their own damned show?
Pete
Amanda
> able heroine depending on a male, cuz that would make her seem less
> strong and able. A relationship is a blending of two people, both of
> whom give and take much more than 50/50 at times. Independence is
> much overrated...its sometimes a wonderfull thing to have someone to
> depend on, say like when you're busy beating the hell out a god, and
> someone needs to run up the tower to save little sis... or when a
> psycho Frankenstein wanna-be is about to kick your ass, and you need
> to do the "by our powers combined" thing. Depend already, spank the
> inner moppet and get over it.
Hey, not that I am disagreeing with you. But I think it's unfair to accuse
feminism of wanting people to be independent. Last time I checked feminism
was about equality, not destroying relationships. And I say that as a
feminist and a devoted wife to an equally devoted husband. But you are
right about independence being overrated. But if it's what jiggles your
jello, be independent. But don't say that feminism is about destroying
relationships, cause it's not.
Amanda
"What a day, eh, Milhouse? The sun is out, birds are singing, bees are
trying to have sex with them---as is my understanding..." --Bart Simpson
"No decision like this is wholly without flaws, but at the same time there
exists a universal morality that demands that we relieve human suffering
when we can." --Ségolčne Royal
"Thank the Lord? Thank the Lord?!? That sounded like a prayer. A prayer.
A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls just like
facts have no place within organized religion. Simpson, you get your wish.
Flanders is history!" --Superintendent Chalmers
"Above the titles of wife and mother, which, although dear, are transitory
and accidental, there is the title human being, which precedes and out-ranks
every other." --Mary Ashton Livermore
"If wishes were horses, I could make a killing in glue and hot dogs." --
Josh Penn
Sine
"Lord Usher" <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c1d6ec$4fec59c0$bc096c40@house-of-usher...
> > MN talked with Wanda on line:
> >
> > http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
> >
>
I don't like writers having to tell me through interviews how I should be
interpreting the show. The fact that they even feel the need to do so
should tell them that there's a problem with the writing. Unfortunately,
the rest of her comments make it pretty clear she thinks there's something
wrong with the fans. This woman strikes me as so limited and banal. Does
she even have a clue how condescending she sounds?
Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike could
actually sit down and watch television together, then it would help if you
don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
Lesson the second - You can write whatever the hell you want from here on,
but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human foibles, and
sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can erase his pre-chip
attempt to kill Willow. Any future character development that doesn't take
into account the WHOLE picture you've already put on the screen just won't
work!!!!!
Ian
> > No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
> > Briefly she says:
> >
> > 1. That NA was not intended to discredit the entire series as a fantasy.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > 2. B/A shippers can forget it.
>
> [snip]
>
> > 3. B/S shippers can also forget it.
>
> [snip]
>
> > 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Wow. She really isn't mincing words, is she?
>
> Frankly, I'm a little bit torn, here. On the one hand, from my perspective,
> she's delivering good news and smart sentiments right down the list. A
> relief, certainly, for those of us who aren't enthralled with B/S or B/A or
> pointless, mythology-busting revelations posing as postmodern commentaries
> on the nature of reality.
Yes, although it's a pretty big dollop of "reality". A lot of people
seem to be watching the show because of B/S and the possibility of a
future incarnation of B/S. Makes you wonder when a producer steps up
and says "it ain't gonna happen". Maybe MN thinks they have too many
people watching or something. I'm not a shipper, but I did enjoy
watching the series in the knowledge that some form of B/S might
happen.
> On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the implication that it's all the
> *viewers'* fault if they don't see things the way she describes them. If a
> large portion of the fanbase believes that the asylumverse might be real,
> or that B/A are Eternal Soulmates, or that Spike is perfectly worthy of
> Buffy's love, maybe ME should consider the possibility that their writing
> is in part to blame.
I didn't take her comment so much as that she was blaming the viewers
so much as she was simply surprised that they would come to that
particular conclusion. There's always a difference between what a
writer (or any other artist) intends to portray and what an audience
perceives.
> (For example, she marvels that people have forgotten that Spike tried to
> kill Buffy just a couple of years ago. Well, maybe that's because none of
> the characters have mentioned said murder attempt in almost as long. If she
> honestly wants us to remember all the horrible things Spike has done, maybe
> it would help to bring those actions up every once in a while.)
I agree with that. However, do you honestly think that there is
anything ME could do now which would dissuade Spike's supporters from
their views in that respect?
Amanda
turn
> things around with those. I hope they do. But it's been left awfully
late.
Am I nuts? I count five left. Normal Again was s6e17, so that leaves
s6e18, s6e19, s6e20, s6e21, s6e22. Unless there are only going to be 21
episodes this season. Do you know something I don't?
This is not meant to be confrontational. Love me.
Mrs. Poet
>From: igs6...@yahoo.com (Ian)
>Date: 3/29/2002 8:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5aa58763.02032...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Lord Usher" <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<01c1d6ec$4fec59c0$bc096c40@house-of-usher>...
>
>> > No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
>
>> > Briefly she says:
>> >
>> > 1. That NA was not intended to discredit the entire series as a fantasy.
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > 2. B/A shippers can forget it.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > 3. B/S shippers can also forget it.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Wow. She really isn't mincing words, is she?
>>
>> Frankly, I'm a little bit torn, here. On the one hand, from my perspective,
>> she's delivering good news and smart sentiments right down the list. A
>> relief, certainly, for those of us who aren't enthralled with B/S or B/A or
>> pointless, mythology-busting revelations posing as postmodern commentaries
>> on the nature of reality.
>
>Yes, although it's a pretty big dollop of "reality". A lot of people
>seem to be watching the show because of B/S and the possibility of a
>future incarnation of B/S. Makes you wonder when a producer steps up
>and says "it ain't gonna happen".
But she didn't say that. Wendy interpreted it that way. I think Marti is
leaving open the possibility of Buffy with a redeemed Spike.
I'm not saying that because I hope it, btw. It's how I interpret her comments.
him...@no-spam.com
<YB...@optonline.net> writes:
>> And the stock ME feminist BS comes out again. Can't have the strong
>> able heroine depending on a male, cuz that would make her seem less
>> strong and able. A relationship is a blending of two people, both of
>> whom give and take much more than 50/50 at times. Independence is
>> much overrated...its sometimes a wonderfull thing to have someone to
>> depend on, say like when you're busy beating the hell out a god, and
>> someone needs to run up the tower to save little sis... or when a
>> psycho Frankenstein wanna-be is about to kick your ass, and you need
>> to do the "by our powers combined" thing. Depend already, spank the
>> inner moppet and get over it.
>
>Hey, not that I am disagreeing with you. But I think it's unfair to accuse
>feminism of wanting people to be independent. Last time I checked feminism
>was about equality, not destroying relationships. And I say that as a
>feminist and a devoted wife to an equally devoted husband. But you are
>right about independence being overrated. But if it's what jiggles your
>jello, be independent. But don't say that feminism is about destroying
>relationships, cause it's not.
Very far from it. One thing that has come out of having female heroes like
Buffy is that they have to be written a bit differently from male heroes to
be believable. And the main way is that they are defined to a greater degree
by their relationships, not just their romantic relationships, all their
relationships. This, in turn, is slowly changing how male heroes are
portrayed; the totally independent male hero was never believable either as a
person, but he was so prevalent as a myth that most people accepted him
anyway.
The fact is that all healthy human beings are defined by their relationships.
If you want a good example of someone who isn't, check out Angelus. Now,
there's a guy who was not defined by his relationships...and also, there's a
real sociopath. Even at his worst, Spike retained much of his humanity
because he still was defined by his relationships. With Buffy and the
Scoobs, it's the relationships that keep them all alive.
To be fair to MN, I think what she meant was that Buffy should not take her
values or her status from her romantic interest. She should not become Mrs.
Him. Fair enough. She shouldn't. But if that's the case, why does she need
to wait for Mr. Right? Or more accurately, Mr. Her. Why can't she have a
boyfriend who is very different from her in both values and status? He won't
define her anyway, right MN?
himiko
BTR1701
fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
I think we may be missing the most important factor here: Angel has
Cordelia.
If Willow had moved to LA and Cordelia had stayed behind as Buffy's
right hand "man", I think Buffy would be living in Glory's penthouse
apartment with the Prada shoes and the Gucci handbags and Angel would
working out of a rented storefront in Pacoima.
Mrs. Poet
>Message-id: <BTR1702-EAE562...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
You're right. With Cord moving to L.A., Buffy didn't stand a chance.
Carmikl
It's even simpler than that, if Buffy let Anya be her business manager
rather listening to Willow or even Tara, I'm sure she wouldn't be having
financial problems.
DarkMagic
"NightBaron" <g_ber...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:nVSo8.14090$Li5.3...@weber.videotron.net...
>
> <him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message news:a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com...
> > MN talked with Wanda on line:
> >
> > http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
> >
> > No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
> >
> > 1
> > 2
> > 3
> > 4
> > 5
> > 6
> > 7
> > 8
> > 9
> > 0
> > 9
> > 8
> > 7
> > 6
> > 5
> > 4
> > 3
> > 2
> > 1
> >
> always
> > treasure, but it's not a lasting love and it won't go any further. MN
> then
> > goes out of her way to diss B/A shippers suggesting they are hopeless
> nerds
> > who are still mooning over their own high school sweethearts. Honestly!
> MN
> > is more given to gratuitous personal attacks than anyone on this group!
>
> I don't know if she was dissing so much as trying to get a point. B/A HAS
> been over for a while, now, and Buffy moved on, Angel moved on, the only
> people still in that relationship are the fans. She could have put it in
> better terms, but essentially, she was right.
I don't believe this is true. Just last spring Buffy and Angel were making
with the big smoochies in the graveyard and he was ready to abandon
everything he's started in L.A. to stay and help her for as long as she
wanted. In Buffy's own words "Forever." She wants him to stay, forever.
She knows he can't and he knows he can't, so she sighs and then back pedals
enough to let Angel off the hook "I'm a little needy right now." Then early
this season Buffy pops out of the coffin and one of the first things she
does is high tail it as fast as she can to a rendezvous with the brooding
one. If I'm supposed to pick up the message that B/A are through, and it's
all history, ME better start sending different signals.
> > 3. B/S shippers can also forget it. In a less direct personal attack
on
> > fans, MN notes that we seem to have forgotten that Spike is bad, bad,
bad!
> > And that he tried to kill Willow. I think we're going to see him
dirtied
> up
> > a bit more...or maybe just trash-mouthed further by the other
characters;
> MN
> > doesn't seem to grasp that this does them more damage than him.
>
> She pretty much made her opinion known here. I guess this can comfort the
> people who didn't want them together. She didn't quite emphasize on the
bad
> part, she just seemed amazed that fans latched on to Spike this much.
My feeling is that Marti is the one who is yanking some chains here. I'd
bet my bottom dollar that B/S aren't through yet.
> > 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
> This
> > runs a bit contrary to the idea that she can't have anything with Spike
> > because he is bad...which would make her bad by defining her as such
> through
> > her relationship rather than her own life if you ask me...but MN didn't
> ask
> > me.
>
> She just seems to want to stop the shipping. She wants people to not
focus
> on the relationship, more on the character. Which is surprising,
> considering her Party of Five comment earlier, a show which was based on
> relationships. Anyway. I thought that was a good thing.
I think that would be a great thing. Buffy declared that to be her
intention way back in the middle of last season. So, go to it already. If
Marti wants us to focus on the characters development she should concentrate
less on the intricacies of their sexual activity.
>
Shannon
DarkMagic
"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:a81u1n$p4o$1...@news3.bu.edu...
You know how ME loves dragging things out. Buffy declared her intentions to
fly solo in the middle of last season. Of course, it would take them a
whole year to actually get her to that point. Marti might be a great
executive producer and good writer, but she is the lousiest spokesperson for
this show possible. Every time she opens her mouth I get an image of JW
staking her. As others, who posted before me, have already noted, the fans
see in the show what the writers write into the show. If Marti wants the
fans to know that B&A are history she should stop showing them (or implying)
that they are meeting clandestinely and engaging in romantic embraces
(witness Forever). If she wants fans to see Spike as being hideously evil,
quit showing him as Dawn's freaking babysitter for crying out loud. And if
Buffy is independent, let her go a season with out showing her in some hot
and heavy sexual embrace.
Shannon
Keith F. Goodnight
<blu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1. That NA was not intended to discredit the entire series as a fantasy.
> > If
> > it had been, they would have made it the final episode of the final season.
> > Pretty much what I thought.
>
> Well, that's reassuring, we haven't all just been mind-comshucked like
> we thought.
>
Speak for yourself. I never thought it, and have been vocal about
the fact.
--
**************************************************************
* Keith F. Goodnight, Anime Fan kgoo...@mail.smu.edu *
* Keeper of Annapuma's Script Crypt *
* http://gsoft.smu.edu/ScriptCrypt/crypt.html *
**************************************************************
Enkil
> > And the stock ME feminist BS comes out again. Can't have the strong
> > able heroine depending on a male, cuz that would make her seem less
> > strong and able. A relationship is a blending of two people, both of
> > whom give and take much more than 50/50 at times. Independence is
> > much overrated...its sometimes a wonderfull thing to have someone to
> > depend on, say like when you're busy beating the hell out a god, and
> > someone needs to run up the tower to save little sis... or when a
> > psycho Frankenstein wanna-be is about to kick your ass, and you need
> > to do the "by our powers combined" thing. Depend already, spank the
> > inner moppet and get over it.
>
> Hey, not that I am disagreeing with you. But I think it's unfair to accuse
> feminism of wanting people to be independent. Last time I checked feminism
> was about equality, not destroying relationships. And I say that as a
> feminist and a devoted wife to an equally devoted husband. But you are
> right about independence being overrated. But if it's what jiggles your
> jello, be independent. But don't say that feminism is about destroying
> relationships, cause it's not.
>
> Amanda
Well put. I tend to forget the silent majority sometimes, but that is
the way of group images. Most muslims are non-violent, but some idiot
in an Israeli motel screams about Arab indignation, blows himself up,
and becomes the face of Islam for the world. Southern pride is not
about white or black, simply courtesy and "home", but some idiot in a
sheet burns a cross and uses the "N" word, and my Georgia flag gets
changed in the name of progress and good will. Feminism in its best
form was all about empowering women to be the strong, smart,
understanding backbone of our country that they are, but some
extremist starts talking about the evil of a woman working in the
home, letting herself become "domesticated" (heard that line recently
?) and feminism takes it on the chin. Not fair perhaps, but the way
of the world. Modern Feminism, as espoused by the so called "leaders"
of the movement has all but destroyed the family unit with its
promotion of independance and love of self above all else...it would
be nice if they would check in with the little people and discover
that the masses want devotion and mutual dependance, not independance
and disposability.
btw, thank you for your thoughful and polite response, it has been a
pleasure.
him...@no-spam.com
<YB...@optonline.net> writes:
>> And they only have four more episodes. Now, I'm not saying they can't
>turn
>> things around with those. I hope they do. But it's been left awfully
>late.
>
>Am I nuts? I count five left. Normal Again was s6e17, so that leaves
>s6e18, s6e19, s6e20, s6e21, s6e22. Unless there are only going to be 21
>episodes this season. Do you know something I don't?
>
>This is not meant to be confrontational. Love me.
I love you, Amanda. I just can't count. But even 5 is going to take some
turning on a dime. I actually don't hate S6 as some do, but I do think it's
been a weak season and one big reason for me is the excess doom and gloom
factor dominating over more active horror and humor. (The other big reason
is the lack of strong story arc to unite the characters.)
him...@no-spam.com
>
>I think we may be missing the most important factor here: Angel has
>Cordelia.
>
>If Willow had moved to LA and Cordelia had stayed behind as Buffy's
>right hand "man", I think Buffy would be living in Glory's penthouse
>apartment with the Prada shoes and the Gucci handbags and Angel would
>working out of a rented storefront in Pacoima.
Buffy has Anya and pit her against Cordy any day in the "let's make a buck"
dept. Admittedly, Anya isn't as good at selling the idea to the gang.
Cordy's argument that people actually feel better if they pay and therefore
don't have to feel forever grateful was inspired. Also true; it's one major
way in which a money society weakens community bonds. But Anya hasn't fully
learned to do that yet.
Still, Buffy's actual need for money is far more acute than Angel's and I
found the reasons why she couldn't just ask Anya to find some way to make her
slayage pay (for a reasonable percentage), just plain crap.
Tom Breton
> >Subject: Re: MN puts foot in mouth again (spoilers)
> >From: BTR1701 BTR...@ix.netcom.com
> >Date: 3/29/2002 12:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <BTR1702-7D797C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
> >
> >In article <3CA40189...@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Car...@rcn.com>
> >wrote:
>
>
> >So Buffy is reduced to wearing a humiliating chicken costume and working
> >for minimum wage to pay the bills while Angel gets briefcases full of
> >cash and lives in his own opulent hotel.
>
> But...he's a guy!
I agree, it's a double standard. When it's a guy, his effort is taken
for granted. His effort is invisible even within the story logic. As
far as the writers are concerned Angel just found some of his old
money, or robot chipmunks gave it to AI because they think Fred's
smart.
Whereas when it's Buffy, a girl, we're invited to sympathize with
every little bit of effort earning it.
Even when the writers know Giles is going to simply give her the
money, there are whole episodes about her search for money, and how
she feels (Flooded, Life Serial, ATW). Then there are more episodes
(2MP) about how she has to take a job and how depressed he feels about
it. It's like it's the end of the world if she has to earn her own
money.
And it's not just because it's Angel. Xander's work is taken for
granted too. How many jobs has he held totally off-camera? More than
he's held on-camera. We rarely see him at work, and only once (The
Replacement) does it have anything to do with Xander working to earn
money. Usually it's in a dream (Restless), to get injured/attacked by
the MOTW (Pangs), or because Buffy's story goes there (Life Serial)
So yes, I can see a dichotomy in how the sexes are treated.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
BTVS geek code, http://panix.com/~tehom/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- 5- 6++? W--- Bbot+++ F+ Dar++ J+? W&Moloch+++
B&S+++ XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- SR-! JM++ JW---- TM--- DF--- JE+
Tom Breton
> > And the stock ME feminist BS comes out again. Can't have the strong
> > able heroine depending on a male, cuz that would make her seem less
> > strong and able. A relationship is a blending of two people, both of
> > whom give and take much more than 50/50 at times. Independence is
> > much overrated...its sometimes a wonderfull thing to have someone to
> > depend on, say like when you're busy beating the hell out a god, and
> > someone needs to run up the tower to save little sis... or when a
> > psycho Frankenstein wanna-be is about to kick your ass, and you need
> > to do the "by our powers combined" thing. Depend already, spank the
> > inner moppet and get over it.
>
> Hey, not that I am disagreeing with you. But I think it's unfair to accuse
> feminism of wanting people to be independent. Last time I checked feminism
> was about equality, not destroying relationships.
Bzzzt, wrong. I know Feminism far better than you do - you don't even
seem to know it's anti-male - and last I checked, about 30 minutes
ago, it was about misandry and advancing women at all costs.
Why can't you just admit it?
Stephen Robinson
>
> Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
> Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike could
> actually sit down and watch television together, then it would help if you
> don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
>
> Lesson the second - You can write whatever the hell you want from here on,
> but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human foibles, and
> sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can erase his pre-chip
> attempt to kill Willow. Any future character development that doesn't take
> into account the WHOLE picture you've already put on the screen just won't
> work!!!!!
Why should we hold Spike's attempt on Willow's life against him when
Willow apparently doesn't? Willow invites Spike to Buffy's party;
Spike calls Willow "Red" -- affectionately so -- and defends her from
Anya's insults in "Older and Far Away."
Spike, in many ways, is more interesting than Angel in that we can see
his slowly dealing with his actions rather than the whole
"Angel/Angelus" evil twin nonsense that allows Buffy and others to
forget that Angel tried to kill Willow himself, as well as offing
Jenny Calender. Still, that was "another person." Narratively, it
isn't that fascinating.
SER
HH
> <him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message news:a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com...
If you believe that.
> As stated by Marti, he is
> the one laying out the storylines. So maybe the blame, if there is any to
> cast, should not all go to her, as a lot of people like to do.
As soon as she is demoted to focus puller we'll stop critizing her
incomptence as a writer.
Sine
"Stephen Robinson" <blacks...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e93b592a.02032...@posting.google.com...
Actually, I completely agree with you. In fact, I would say that Willow
seems the most trusting of Spike, other than Dawn. From WotW onward, the
Scoobies have dealt with Spike as though they'd put the past behind him,
which I interpret as a tacit admission that he has, in fact, changed enough
to win their trust. I'm not saying there are *no* issues, only that he is
perceived as a real member of the team. My frustrated rant earlier was in
reply to one of Marti's comments. That woman does get me riled up every
time she gives one of her damned interviews!
Jason E. Vines
"Carmikl" <Car...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3CA4057C...@rcn.com...
> NightBaron wrote:
> >
> > "Carmikl" <Car...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CA40189...@rcn.com...
> > > NightBaron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
> > > > >
> > > > > No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
> > > > >
> > > > > 1
> > > > > 2
> > > > > 3
> > > > > 4
> > > > > 5
> > > > > 6
> > > > > 7
> > > > > 8
> > > > > 9
> > > > > 0
> > > > > 9
> > > > > 8
> > > > > 7
> > > > > 6
> > > > > 5
> > > > > 4
> > > > > 3
> > > > > 2
> > > > > 1
> > > > >
> > > > > Briefly she says:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
not
> > focus
> > > > on the relationship, more on the character. Which is surprising,
> > > > considering her Party of Five comment earlier, a show which was
based on
> > > > relationships. Anyway. I thought that was a good thing.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 5. The show will lighten up. They're bringing Buffy back into a
heroic
> > > > stance.
> > > >
is
> > > direction is much needed.
> >
> > Actually, from the interview, i felt that it was the plan all along,
that
> > after the deaths, it was inevitable for Buffy and co. to go depressive,
but
> > that they would come back up, and balance things up.
>
> I think that's more of a face saving approach. She's not about to say
> Oops. Creating a series of bad episodes just to recover with what may be
> a couple of good episodes just doesn't make any sense, but if she can
> get people to think it was planned that way, then.....
Why does everyone equate "depressing" with "bad"?
Chris L.
>
> "Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<Jb0p8.14012$ra.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> >
> > Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
> > Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike could
> > actually sit down and watch television together, then it would help if you
> > don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
> >
> > Lesson the second - You can write whatever the hell you want from here on,
> > but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human foibles, and
> > sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can erase his pre-chip
> > attempt to kill Willow. Any future character development that doesn't take
> > into account the WHOLE picture you've already put on the screen just won't
> > work!!!!!
>
> Why should we hold Spike's attempt on Willow's life against him when
> Willow apparently doesn't? Willow invites Spike to Buffy's party;
> Spike calls Willow "Red" -- affectionately so -- and defends her from
> Anya's insults in "Older and Far Away."
Good point. I guess the viewer should "hold it against Spike" in the
sense of remembering that that's what Spike was like before the
chip/interaction with humans/loving Buffy started to change his
behavior. But it is sort of funny to see MN fretting that they've made
Spike *too good* since then.
> Spike, in many ways, is more interesting than Angel in that we can see
> his slowly dealing with his actions rather than the whole
> "Angel/Angelus" evil twin nonsense that allows Buffy and others to
> forget that Angel tried to kill Willow himself, as well as offing
> Jenny Calender. Still, that was "another person." Narratively, it
> isn't that fascinating.
Agreed. When the writers needed him to be bad, they zapped away his
soul; when they needed him to be good, they zapped his soul back in. ME
is attempting something much more ambitious with Spike -- they have to
provide consistent, internal motivations for his change of behavior,
rather than magic tricks -- but I'm starting to get the sense that they
either can't decide or can't agree where they ultimately want to go with
the story.
--
Chris
"Evil used to lurk. Now it posts."
chev
Peter Meilinger wrote in message ...
Of course they do. If we, the viewers, don't see that Buffy as
independent and not defined by her relationships, it is solely because
we, the viewers, are inattentive or dimwitted or both.
(Marti appears to have been taking lessons from Chris Carter and Frank
Spotnitz.)
chev
-----------------------------
When did ignorance become a point of view? -- "Dilbert"
Mark Jones
> In article <BTR1702-EAE562...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701
> <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>I think we may be missing the most important factor here: Angel has
>>Cordelia.
>>
>>If Willow had moved to LA and Cordelia had stayed behind as Buffy's
>>right hand "man", I think Buffy would be living in Glory's penthouse
>>apartment with the Prada shoes and the Gucci handbags and Angel would
>>working out of a rented storefront in Pacoima.
>
>
> Buffy has Anya and pit her against Cordy any day in the "let's make a buck"
> dept. Admittedly, Anya isn't as good at selling the idea to the gang.
Exactly. It was Cordy who suggested that Angel start a business. It
was Cordy who _insisted_ that it be a business with paychecks and
clients and money coming in, and everything. Anya did make the
suggestion, but she backed down when glared at--unlike Cordelia, who
brushed aside all resistance in her Borg-like march to victory.
Anya's instincts were good, but she's still a babe in the woods compared
to Cordelia. (And Cordelia is way hotter.)
> Still, Buffy's actual need for money is far more acute than Angel's and I
> found the reasons why she couldn't just ask Anya to find some way to make her
> slayage pay (for a reasonable percentage), just plain crap.
But Marti and/or Joss _wanted_ Buffy working a humiliating wage-slave
job in a stupid costume. Therefore, she is.
NickTheLemming
>Date: 3/29/2002 12:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <m3bsd7r...@panix.com>
>
>Bzzzt, wrong. I know Feminism far better than you do - you don't even
>seem to know it's anti-male - and last I checked, about 30 minutes
>ago, it was about misandry and advancing women at all costs.
>
Idiot. Why not try reading about feminism sometime? Start with the history of
feminism, wand what the women's rights movement was and remains all about. Find
out the inequalities that existed when the feminism movement started. Have a
look today at the inequalities that still exist. Then after you know what the
fuck you're talking about, come back and apologise for being a twat.
Nick the Lemming, irritated by sexist wankers.
Another Happy VHEMT Volunteer!
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Silveragent
Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> him...@no-spam.com wrote:
> > Still, Buffy's actual need for money is far more acute than Angel's and I
> > found the reasons why she couldn't just ask Anya to find some way to make
> > her
> > slayage pay (for a reasonable percentage), just plain crap.
>
> But Marti and/or Joss _wanted_ Buffy working a humiliating wage-slave
> job in a stupid costume. Therefore, she is.
>
This is essentially the Perez arc on Wonder Woman (comic book) several
years ago --
Plot:
Wonder Woman's been out in space for a year, presumed dead.
Her bank account is frozen, she has no money, Paradise Island is missing
so she cannot go back there ....
So Wonder Woman takes a job in a fast food restuarant -- and there are a
lot of covers with her serving up a plate of fast food in her costume.
Wonder Woman's challenged by the day to day boredom of working in a fast
food joint, etc.
A lot of people suspected the main reason for the arc was the visual
jokes of covers with Wonder Woman looking like the gal on the "Ruby's"
Diner.
I suspect a great deal of the fast food arc had to do with the visual
pun of putting Buffy in that ridiculous and hideous outfit.
Cheers.
Ian
> >> Frankly, I'm a little bit torn, here. On the one hand, from my perspective,
> >> she's delivering good news and smart sentiments right down the list. A
> >> relief, certainly, for those of us who aren't enthralled with B/S or B/A or
> >> pointless, mythology-busting revelations posing as postmodern commentaries
> >> on the nature of reality.
> >
> >Yes, although it's a pretty big dollop of "reality". A lot of people
> >seem to be watching the show because of B/S and the possibility of a
> >future incarnation of B/S. Makes you wonder when a producer steps up
> >and says "it ain't gonna happen".
>
> But she didn't say that. Wendy interpreted it that way. I think Marti is
> leaving open the possibility of Buffy with a redeemed Spike.
>
> I'm not saying that because I hope it, btw. It's how I interpret her comments.
I hope your interpretation is correct. Regardless of whether or not
ME will bring B/S back together in one form or another, I'd rather
proceed on the basis that such an outcome is a possibility.
Dave Paisley
Well, *some* viewers, anyway.
dave
Deacon
that artsy is good? most of the time what we get
is sophmore-college-film-student existentialist crap, which sadly is what Buffy
has been all season. Note to Marti Noxon: depictions of human misery are not
inherently "deep" - sometimes they are just boring. Go smoke your long
cigarettes, drink black coffee, and debate the meaning of ennui with your film
school buddies, and leave the TV-action-show producing to the pros!
In article <ua9mbep...@corp.supernews.com>, jason...@charter.net says...
Mark Jones
Counselor Troi: I'm sensing bitterness....
Captain Picard: No shit?
Okay, I grok Carter--but who is Spotnitz and what did/does he produce?
Mrs. Poet
>
>
> Why does everyone equate "depressing" with "bad"?
>
>
>
Because depression is a bad thing. :)
I think if dark is done well, it's not depressing.
Chris L.
>
> chev wrote:
> > (Marti appears to have been taking lessons from Chris Carter and Frank
> > Spotnitz.)
>
> Counselor Troi: I'm sensing bitterness....
> Captain Picard: No shit?
>
> Okay, I grok Carter--but who is Spotnitz and what did/does he produce?
Mostly he produces laughably dense interviews on Carter's behalf, to the
effect that (1) if XF fans haven't figured out all the "answers" yet,
it's because they haven't been paying attention, and (2) the XF
producers/writers have no idea why their audience has dropped by almost
half, but they're certain it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with the quality of the scripts, the crappy characterization, or the
loss of David Duchovny.
IMO, Marti has a ways to go to achieve Spotnitz' gold standard.
him...@nospam.com
Robinson <blacks...@aol.com> writes:
>"Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<Jb0p8.14012$ra.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
>>
>> Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
>> Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike could
>> actually sit down and watch television together, then it would help if you
>> don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
With Dawn, no less. And earlier on with Joyce. And, off screen, with Giles:
"I watched Passions with Spike; let us never speak of it again." Buffy
seldom watches TV with anyone.
>>
>> Lesson the second - You can write whatever the hell you want from here on,
>> but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human foibles, and
>> sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can erase his pre-chip
>> attempt to kill Willow. Any future character development that doesn't
take
>> into account the WHOLE picture you've already put on the screen just won't
>> work!!!!!
>
>Why should we hold Spike's attempt on Willow's life against him when
>Willow apparently doesn't? Willow invites Spike to Buffy's party;
>Spike calls Willow "Red" -- affectionately so -- and defends her from
>Anya's insults in "Older and Far Away."
Exactly. And this is what makes Willow so endearing too, despite her many
unpleasant traits. She is an extraordinarily open-minded and forgiving
soul...which, in turn, is why I'm willing to be open-minded and forgiving
toward her. Buffy used to be this way, and has become far less likeable this
season because of her seeming inability to get over what's past, esp. re.
Spike.
>
>Spike, in many ways, is more interesting than Angel in that we can see
>his slowly dealing with his actions rather than the whole
>"Angel/Angelus" evil twin nonsense that allows Buffy and others to
>forget that Angel tried to kill Willow himself, as well as offing
>Jenny Calender. Still, that was "another person." Narratively, it
>isn't that fascinating.
>
I think this is the story they realize they should have told with Angel. The
slow restoration of humanity in a creature who has lost most of it. In fact,
they are sort of retelling that same story with Angel on AtS after
backtracking him a bit so they could. A reformed character isn't nearly as
interesting as one in the process.
From what I've read, neither Joss nor anyone else initially realized that the
vampires themselves were going to be such popular characters. Angel was
supposed to be a much less prominent role in BTVS. Spike was supposed to
have been dusted halfway through S2.
ME *does* respond to fans, you know. Not always as much as we'd like or in
the way we'd like, but they do respond.
him...@nospam.com
writes:
I take your point, but would like to point out that in the race for most
unfortunate PR last name, Noxon and Spotnitz are pretty evenly matched.
Laz
news:e93b592a.02032...@posting.google.com:
> "Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Jb0p8.14012$ra.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
>>
>> Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
>> Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike
>> could actually sit down and watch television together, then it would
>> help if you don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
>>
>> Lesson the second - You can write whatever the hell you want from
>> here on, but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human
>> foibles, and sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can
>> erase his pre-chip attempt to kill Willow. Any future character
>> development that doesn't take into account the WHOLE picture you've
>> already put on the screen just won't work!!!!!
>
> Why should we hold Spike's attempt on Willow's life against him when
> Willow apparently doesn't? Willow invites Spike to Buffy's party;
> Spike calls Willow "Red" -- affectionately so -- and defends her from
> Anya's insults in "Older and Far Away."
I'm very much an anti-B/S shipper, but I agree. However, I don't think
it's only the writing that's to "blame." The biggest reason there are so
many Spike fanatics is that James Marsters is extremely charismatic in the
role. I've never seen him in anything else, but as Spike he is James Dean.
Because of this, if they had wanted everyone to consider Spike to be
irredeemably evil, they needed some much stronger scenes than they've had
so far.
I did notice something about Marsters' performance in Normal Again, though.
<<<Normal Again spoiler space>>>
JM somehow toned down his likeability and charisma a bit. For some reason
I can't really explain, I got the feeling that this was calculated and that
he was told to do so by MN (and maybe JW himself).
He was also *written* to be a bit less likeable in this episode. For
example, when Buffy told him about the failed wedding and how much pain it
caused Anya, his reaction made it clear that he couldn't have cared less.
If the same thing had happened in a prior episode, the way they *have* been
writing him, I think he would have shown concern and even a hint of sadness
for Xander and Anya.
I believe they're backing away from redemption for Spike, at least for now.
I'm not really sure they meant to head in that direction in the first
place, but it looks like they've finally recognized that fans have
perceived it that way.
Spike also made a very explicit statement to Buffy which looked like it
could have been a direct reply to several threads on this newsgroup a few
weeks ago: "You're not drawn to the dark like I thought: you're addicted
to the misery." I think B/S shippers took some comfort in the idea that
Buffy is "drawn to the darkside," and now ME is pulling back from that,
too.
Lots of signs in NA that Spike is going to be showing a bit more of his
evil nature in episodes to come.
--
Laz
Cats are like Baptists -- they raise hell but you can't catch them at it.
- Unknown
Lord Usher
<20020329112147...@mb-fl.aol.com>...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> >Yes, although it's a pretty big dollop of "reality". A lot of people
> >seem to be watching the show because of B/S and the possibility of a
> >future incarnation of B/S. Makes you wonder when a producer steps up
> >and says "it ain't gonna happen".
>
> But she didn't say that. Wendy interpreted it that way. I think Marti
> is leaving open the possibility of Buffy with a redeemed Spike.
What was it you said to me that time, Rose? "You cling to hope even when
despair is handed to you on a silver platter." :)
--
Lord Usher
"Don't we kill 'em any more?"
Silveragent
> In article <e93b592a.02032...@posting.google.com>, Stephen
> Robinson <blacks...@aol.com> writes:
> >"Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Jb0p8.14012$ra.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
> >> Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike could
> >> actually sit down and watch television together, then it would help if you
> >> don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
>
> With Dawn, no less. And earlier on with Joyce. And, off screen, with Giles:
> "I watched Passions with Spike; let us never speak of it again." Buffy
> seldom watches TV with anyone.
I believe ME is caught on the horns of a dilemma -- change Spike to
"nice" and you lose his comic/nasty "edge" that makes him funny in a
nihilistic way in the first place and the perfect outsider and
ready-made source of conflict. Make him too nasty and you turn fans off
...
I don't think ME themselves have resolved how they want to handle the
character, resulting in such inconsistencies.
> >>
> >> Lesson the second - You can write whatever the hell you want from here on,
> >> but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human foibles, and
> >> sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can erase his pre-chip
> >> attempt to kill Willow. Any future character development that doesn't
> take
> >> into account the WHOLE picture you've already put on the screen just won't
> >> work!!!!!
> >
> >Why should we hold Spike's attempt on Willow's life against him when
> >Willow apparently doesn't? Willow invites Spike to Buffy's party;
> >Spike calls Willow "Red" -- affectionately so -- and defends her from
> >Anya's insults in "Older and Far Away."
>
> Exactly. And this is what makes Willow so endearing too, despite her many
> unpleasant traits. She is an extraordinarily open-minded and forgiving
> soul...which, in turn, is why I'm willing to be open-minded and forgiving
> toward her. Buffy used to be this way, and has become far less likeable this
> season because of her seeming inability to get over what's past, esp. re.
> Spike.
This is also clearly seen as a character flaw as well as strength-- as
in PANGS and Spike's rather snarky reminders that "you won" so get on
with the task of eliminating the Indian spirits. And in Spiral where
Willow asks Giles not hurt "the horsies" and Buffy sotto voce tells
Giles "aim for the horsies".
And Willow is clearly NOT forgiving for some folks -- i.e. FAITH she
hates quite a bit in This Year's Girl and Who Are You; probably mostly
for having sex with Xander (hence the Willow crying in the bathroom
scene in IIRC "Bad Girls"). Heck she hated Faith nearly from the first
time she laid eyes on her (mostly b/c of jealousy over Faith's taking
the buddy role away from her with Buffy and Xander's obvious slayer
attraction).
Willow (if spoilers are correct) will be entirely UNFORGIVING of Warren
in a very nasty way, and is likely to meet out some rather rough
punishment on Anya if or when she thinks of it ... it's no accident that
Willow views the Spankya! antics before she goes bonkers .
So I'd say that Willow is no more or less open minded or forgiving than
any character, including Xander or Buffy. She's forgiving and open
minded in some respects and closed and unforgiving in others. That's
what makes her such a ... human character IMHO.
-- not trying to beat on himiko, whom I often agree with ... which
scares me ... but just trying to give my props to a rather complex and
beautiful characterization by the talented ME writers and a gifted
actress.
Carmikl
>
> In article <m37knvr...@panix.com>,
> Tom Breton <te...@panNOSPAMix.com> wrote:
> >Whereas when it's Buffy, a girl, we're invited to sympathize with
> >every little bit of effort earning it.
>
> opera. Angel solves his money problems in one episode because the writers
> don't think the Angel audience really cares to watch 5 episodes of a
> character angsting over money problems while ignoring all the reasonable
> solutions.
Exactly!
Riff Randall
>>Subject: Re: MN puts foot in mouth again (spoilers)
><snip>
>>Yet when Anya suggests Buffy do exactly the same thing, everyone looks
>>at her like she's either nuts or Adolf Hitler.
>To be 100% fair, Buffy backtracked from her out-of-hand rejection of Anya's
>idea.
>>So Buffy is reduced to wearing a humiliating chicken costume and working
>>for minimum wage to pay the bills while Angel gets briefcases full of
>>cash and lives in his own opulent hotel.
>But...he's a guy!
Angel doesn't charge everyone he helps. Some cases are done pro bono (sp?). Depends mostly if the case is the result
of somebody coming to them with a problem or if the AI team find them thru CordyVision. The people in trouble that
Cordelia sees in her visions are the real 'mission', the folks walking thru the door asking for parapsychologist
detective work because of their zombie ex boyfriend or minor household demon infestation are the ones that pay the
bills.
Anne
> him...@no-spam.com wrote:
>>
>> MN talked with Wanda on line:
>>
>> http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
>>
>> No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
>>
>> 1
>> 2
>> 3
>> 4
>> 5
>> 6
>> 7
>> 8
>> 9
>> 0
>> 9
>> 8
>> 7
>> 6
>> 5
>> 4
>> 3
>> 2
>> 1
>> 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
I find this statement to be incredibly hypocritical, given that Noxon pushed
the Buffy/Riley pairing, gave us the demeaning helicopter-chasing scene
in ITW and let us deluded fans know in no uncertain terms (via Xander's
pep talk to Buffy) that Riley was a great guy and Buffy was crazy to
let him get away!. Sure, some independent woman. Yuck.
Rina J.
>example, when Buffy told him about the failed wedding and how much pain it
>caused Anya, his reaction made it clear that he couldn't have cared less.
Well, this I disagree with. He seemed genuinely surprised and taken aback at
the non-wedding. Plus, I think he genuinely was pissed at Xander for leaving
Anya in the lurch like that.
~~Pete Sampras: In a class all his own~~
"and he thought he heard the echoes of a pennywhistle band, and the laughter
from a distant caravan"
CC Zona
dayd...@aol.comandgetit (Rina J. ) wrote:
> >He was also *written* to be a bit less likeable in this episode. For
> >example, when Buffy told him about the failed wedding and how much pain it
> >caused Anya, his reaction made it clear that he couldn't have cared less.
>
> Well, this I disagree with. He seemed genuinely surprised and taken aback at
> the non-wedding. Plus, I think he genuinely was pissed at Xander for leaving
> Anya in the lurch like that.
Yes, that he had a reaction was evident. Though I got the impression that
it was more because Spike was over-identifying with Anya: there's another
@#$ human leaving us demons because they're too scared to love us as
completely as we love them, blah blah. Later, in the graveyard scene
between Spike & Xander, Spike again seemed to be harboring a resentment of
Xander's treatment of Anya that looked like it was actually
thinly-disguised resentment over his own breakup. The breakup was clearly
very much on his mind during "NA"--first he was hurt to discover that
accepting the breakup gracefully hadn't earned him the right to be treated
as a friend again, then he let that comment slip in front of Xander, and
later issued the big ultimatum to Buffy.
--
CC
Dawn: "I feel safe with you..." Spike: "TAKE THAT BACK!"
Sam
Sure. Spike's evil now. He's an irredeemable demon.
Doesn't mean they don't still plan to give him a soul, one way or another.
him...@no-spam.com
<silveragent99-C6A...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
I don't feel beaten on. I agree with you. Now that I think about it, Willow
has 3 rather separate reactions on the forgiveness front:
1. The forgiveness she offers those she genuinely likes, her friends, family
and lovers.
2. An easy forgiveness she offers total strangers or abstractions, E.G. the
shumash tribe.
3. The rage and probable vengeance she offers those who seriously harm her
and/or those she loves, E.G. Glory after the brainsuck incident and,
according to spoilers, Warren.
We have also seen that the first trait can negate the third. For example,
Xander hurt Willow very badly from time to time, especially in the first few
seasons, but she forgive him freely and has never held that against him. Oz
hurt her too, but she couldn't go through with that spell.
So, what does that say about Spike? He's tried to kill her, he's hurt her,
and he's hurt Xander (LW) and certainly Buffy. Yet, up until now, Willow's
always forgiven him too. I think she likes him. Enough to forgive whatever
he might do if he gets that chip out? Who knows? A lot will probably depend
on what Spike is doing at the time Tara goes down.
him...@no-spam.com
>>He was also *written* to be a bit less likeable in this episode. For
>>example, when Buffy told him about the failed wedding and how much pain it
>>caused Anya, his reaction made it clear that he couldn't have cared less.
>
>Well, this I disagree with. He seemed genuinely surprised and taken aback
at
>the non-wedding. Plus, I think he genuinely was pissed at Xander for
leaving
>Anya in the lurch like that.
I agree. He clearly identified with Anya in that situation, fellow dumped
demon and all. He was ready to try to fight through the pain to pound on
Xander.
Mrs. Poet
>From: "Lord Usher" lord_...@hotmail.com
>Date: 3/29/2002 4:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <01c1d787$f59dc980$0ab16d40@house-of-usher>
Sorry, Usher, but it's not a question of hope. I don't get any pleasure out of
the idea of Buffy and Spike together at this point except that who knows, there
might be an erotic bed scene (in an actual bed) with no punching, which would
provide some eye candy for me. But as for any potential love between these
two, this season killed it dead for me. The only way I could be enthusiastic
about a relationship between these two is if not only does Spike change his
ways but Buffy realizes she has a problem and takes steps to address it.
Otherwise, I'll be seeing a batterer with who got back together with her her
batter-ee. :p
However, I have a feeling Buffy and Spike will get back together at some point
at least for a short time. ::shrug::
blusilva
> >> 4. Buffy is independent and should not be defined by her relationships.
>
> I find this statement to be incredibly hypocritical, given that Noxon pushed
> the Buffy/Riley pairing, gave us the demeaning helicopter-chasing scene
> in ITW and let us deluded fans know in no uncertain terms (via Xander's
> pep talk to Buffy) that Riley was a great guy and Buffy was crazy to
> let him get away!. Sure, some independent woman. Yuck.
Not only that, but to bring Riley back in S6 as the husband of the
"ideal mate" is just heinous. To rub Riley's wife in Buffy's face -
the wife who can fight by the side of her husband, be empathetic to
Willow's and Dawn's pain, and who is totally and completely in awe of
her husband's ex, is a total and complete insult to Buffy.
It's as if Buffy never idolized Riley enough to be the perfect Sam.
Gag.
Sandra S.
"Silveragent" <silver...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:silveragent99-C6A...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> And Willow is clearly NOT forgiving for some folks -- i.e. FAITH she
> hates quite a bit in This Year's Girl and Who Are You; probably mostly
> for having sex with Xander (hence the Willow crying in the bathroom
> scene in IIRC "Bad Girls"). Heck she hated Faith nearly from the first
> time she laid eyes on her (mostly b/c of jealousy over Faith's taking
> the buddy role away from her with Buffy and Xander's obvious slayer
> attraction).
>
> Willow (if spoilers are correct) will be entirely UNFORGIVING of Warren
> in a very nasty way, and is likely to meet out some rather rough
> punishment on Anya if or when she thinks of it ... it's no accident that
> Willow views the Spankya! antics before she goes bonkers .
>
> So I'd say that Willow is no more or less open minded or forgiving than
> any character, including Xander or Buffy. She's forgiving and open
> minded in some respects and closed and unforgiving in others. That's
> what makes her such a ... human character IMHO.
>
>
Willow seems to find it easier to forgive something done against her rather
than against someone she loves. Therefore she is able to forgive Spike for
threatening her, but not to forgive someone who hurts a person she loves.
She didn't much like Faith; but I wouldn''t say she hated her until Faith
tried to put the blame for Finch's killing on Buffy.
And then tried to strangle Xander! And she doesn't like Anya, but mostly
because she is fearful that Anya will one day cause Xander harm.
Sandra
elodie
wrote on 3/29/02 9:35 PM:
Spoilers....perhaps....
> I find this statement to be incredibly hypocritical, given that Noxon pushed
> the Buffy/Riley pairing, gave us the demeaning helicopter-chasing scene
> in ITW and let us deluded fans know in no uncertain terms (via Xander's
> pep talk to Buffy) that Riley was a great guy and Buffy was crazy to
> let him get away!. Sure, some independent woman. Yuck.
I agree - her statement was confusing, considering we have Buffy who went
through two seasons of mental anguish over Angel; then danger boy/foppish
poet Owen who Buffy had to give up for his own good; then Scott Hope, who
dumped her right before Homecoming/Prom; Parker, who used her; and then
Riley - two seasons of Riley "She doesn't love me enough" guilt.
She agonized over each one of them (a lesser extent with Owen & Scott) to
the point that the doomed romance took precedence over good slaying
decisions. And that is Buffy, the independent Slayer that Noxon is waxing
about? Can we say CYA in an interview?
I know that this has been said ad nauseum, but Marti's personal issues
(past, present, whatever) seem to be driving the writing focus, and I'm a
bit sad that Joss' seeming inattention to the series.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Peter Meilinger
:> I think that's more of a face saving approach. She's not about to say
:> Oops. Creating a series of bad episodes just to recover with what may be
:> a couple of good episodes just doesn't make any sense, but if she can
:> get people to think it was planned that way, then.....
: Why does everyone equate "depressing" with "bad"?
I don't. I equate "bad" with "bad."
Pete
Tom Breton
Well, true, that is a difference in how BTVS and Angel work. But I
don't think that takes anything away from what I said.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
BTVS geek code, http://panix.com/~tehom/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- 5- 6++? W--- Bbot+++ F+ Dar++ J+? W&Moloch+++
B&S+++ XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- SR-! JM++ JW---- TM--- DF--- JE+
Paul Hammond
>
> "Stephen Robinson" <blacks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:e93b592a.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Sine" <ja...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Jb0p8.14012$ra.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Some notes to Marti on writing Spike:
> > > Lesson the first - If you don't want us to imagine Buffy and Spike
> could
> > > actually sit down and watch television together, then it would help if
> you
> > > don't show him watching t.v. all the time! Duh.
> > >
> on,
> > > but you cannot erase "funny, endearing, full-of-human foibles, and
> > > sometimes-downright-noble" Spike any more than you can erase his
> pre-chip
> > > attempt to kill Willow. Any future character development that doesn't
> take
> > > into account the WHOLE picture you've already put on the screen just
> won't
> > > work!!!!!
> >
> > Why should we hold Spike's attempt on Willow's life against him when
> > Willow apparently doesn't? Willow invites Spike to Buffy's party;
> > Spike calls Willow "Red" -- affectionately so -- and defends her from
> > Anya's insults in "Older and Far Away."
> >
> > his slowly dealing with his actions rather than the whole
> > "Angel/Angelus" evil twin nonsense that allows Buffy and others to
> > forget that Angel tried to kill Willow himself, as well as offing
> > Jenny Calender. Still, that was "another person." Narratively, it
> > isn't that fascinating.
> >
>
> Actually, I completely agree with you. In fact, I would say that Willow
> seems the most trusting of Spike, other than Dawn. From WotW onward, the
> Scoobies have dealt with Spike as though they'd put the past behind him,
> which I interpret as a tacit admission that he has, in fact, changed
enough
> to win their trust. I'm not saying there are *no* issues, only that he is
> perceived as a real member of the team. My frustrated rant earlier was in
> reply to one of Marti's comments. That woman does get me riled up every
> time she gives one of her damned interviews!
>
>
This is the retcon stuff which I agree with. When fighting Glory, it
was "Spike is our best fighter", and only Giles seemed disappointed
that he was going to be helping them out.
While Buffy was dead, he was patrolling with them, doing Dawn-sitting
duties, and in many ways acting as a leader of the Scoobies. Clearly,
he used to attend scoobie meetings.
However, later in the season, he has gone back to "stalk" mode,
and loner mode, and none of the scoobies seem to know him
any more.
Now, Marti wants us to forget the Knight!Spike stuff which
ME put there themselves in S5.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Jason E. Vines <jason...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ua9mbep...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Carmikl" <Car...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3CA4057C...@rcn.com...
> > NightBaron wrote:
> > >
> > > "Carmikl" <Car...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3CA40189...@rcn.com...
> > > > NightBaron wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com...
> > > > > > MN talked with Wanda on line:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > > 4
> > > > > > 5
> > > > > > 6
> > > > > > 7
> > > > > > 8
> > > > > > 9
> > > > > > 0
> > > > > > 9
> > > > > > 8
> > > > > > 7
> > > > > > 6
> > > > > > 5
> > > > > > 4
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > She just seems to want to stop the shipping. She wants people to
> not
> > > focus
> > > > > on the relationship, more on the character. Which is surprising,
> > > > > considering her Party of Five comment earlier, a show which was
> based on
> > > > > relationships. Anyway. I thought that was a good thing.
> > > >
> > > > > You also left out the good parts of the interview.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. The show will lighten up. They're bringing Buffy back into a
> heroic
> > > > > stance.
> > > > >
> > > > Seems like she's been getting the message from someone that a change
> is
> > > > direction is much needed.
> > >
> > > Actually, from the interview, i felt that it was the plan all along,
> that
> > > after the deaths, it was inevitable for Buffy and co. to go
depressive,
> but
> > > that they would come back up, and balance things up.
> >
> > I think that's more of a face saving approach. She's not about to say
> > Oops. Creating a series of bad episodes just to recover with what may be
> > a couple of good episodes just doesn't make any sense, but if she can
> > get people to think it was planned that way, then.....
>
> Why does everyone equate "depressing" with "bad"?
>
Who just did that? No-one I saw.
Paul Hammond
Tom Breton <te...@panNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m3bsd7r...@panix.com...
> "Amanda" <YB...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > > And the stock ME feminist BS comes out again. Can't have the strong
> > > able heroine depending on a male, cuz that would make her seem less
> > > strong and able. A relationship is a blending of two people, both of
> > > whom give and take much more than 50/50 at times. Independence is
> > > much overrated...its sometimes a wonderfull thing to have someone to
> > > depend on, say like when you're busy beating the hell out a god, and
> > > someone needs to run up the tower to save little sis... or when a
> > > psycho Frankenstein wanna-be is about to kick your ass, and you need
> > > to do the "by our powers combined" thing. Depend already, spank the
> > > inner moppet and get over it.
> >
> > Hey, not that I am disagreeing with you. But I think it's unfair to
accuse
> > feminism of wanting people to be independent. Last time I checked
feminism
> > was about equality, not destroying relationships.
>
> Bzzzt, wrong. I know Feminism far better than you do - you don't even
> seem to know it's anti-male - and last I checked, about 30 minutes
> ago, it was about misandry and advancing women at all costs.
>
> Why can't you just admit it?
>
Bzzt. "I know feminism more than a woman who says she is a
feminist, and I want to turn this into an argument about my
obessession with repeating the slogan 'feminism is anti-men,
nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyahhh, nyahhh'"
Yeah, right. BULLSHIT!
Paul
Paul Hammond
DarkMagic <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_P2p8.468085$pN4.32...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
And if
> Buffy is independent, let her go a season with out showing her in some hot
> and heavy sexual embrace.
>
>
Or, alternatively, show her picking up a few different men in clubs, for
a little sexual fun, and not angst about it for a month the next day, or
get told that she *has* to have a relationship if she wants sex.
Paul
Sine
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3ca6...@212.67.96.135...
Her comments are just so frustrating. However, if we judge merely by what
we've seen onscreen, I assume we're meant to believe that the links formed
between Spike and the Scoobies during the last struggles with Glory, and
solidified over the summer, are still pretty much intact. Granted that we
haven't seen a lot of interaction between Spike and the Scoobies in recent
episodes, but what we have seen would seem to support that assumption.
No one seems freaked (except Buffy) when he turns up at the house in Gone.
Xander makes a crack about him hitting on Buffy, but isn't freaked to see
him there. Xander goes to him later in that ep, but had also suggested
calling on him for help in Smashed. In ATW, once Dawn was safe there was no
real need for Spike to go back to the Summers, but he did. It wouldn't be a
wild stretch to assume he went back to wish Xander and Anya luck after
hearing of their engagement. He seems to have been invited to the wedding,
and no one was surprised to see him at Buffy's birthday party (except Buffy,
of course). Willow obviously had a chat with him at some point as that's
how he learned about the birthday party. All just little things, but they
support the fact that there hadn't been any significant change offscreen
between Bargaining and NA. In NA, Xander and Spike were both emotionally
raw, for their own reasons, so their accustomed snarkiness escalated to
something unpleasant. They worked together fine as a team later on, though
they reminded me of a couple of small boys still trying to get one over on
the other guy after a fight, e.g. the way Spike knocked the demon right into
Xander. Willow was very pleasant to Spike when he went upstairs to check on
Buffy.
The only one who hasn't been able to consistently give Spike the space in
the group that he seems to have earned is Buffy herself. She still seems to
see him as a "thing", a convenience. She made an effort in HB, even
conceding "You deserve to be here." but in NA, she's embarassed to be seen
talking to him when Xander and Willow show up at the cemetery.
Spoilers indicate that we'll soon see an end to the secrecy. Can't be too
soon for me, as I'm very curious to see how the Scoobies will react to Spike
once they know that Buffy had a "thing" with him for awhile.
Frank Swarbrick
>
> fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) writes:
>
> > >Subject: Re: MN puts foot in mouth again (spoilers)
> > >From: BTR1701 BTR...@ix.netcom.com
> > >Message-id: <BTR1702-7D797C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
> > >
> > >In article <3CA40189...@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Car...@rcn.com>
> > >wrote:
> >
> >
> > >So Buffy is reduced to wearing a humiliating chicken costume and working
> > >for minimum wage to pay the bills while Angel gets briefcases full of
> > >cash and lives in his own opulent hotel.
> >
> > But...he's a guy!
>
> for granted. His effort is invisible even within the story logic. As
> far as the writers are concerned Angel just found some of his old
> money, or robot chipmunks gave it to AI because they think Fred's
> smart.
>
> Whereas when it's Buffy, a girl, we're invited to sympathize with
> every little bit of effort earning it.
>
> money, there are whole episodes about her search for money, and how
> she feels (Flooded, Life Serial, ATW). Then there are more episodes
> (2MP) about how she has to take a job and how depressed he feels about
> it. It's like it's the end of the world if she has to earn her own
> money.
>
> And it's not just because it's Angel. Xander's work is taken for
> granted too. How many jobs has he held totally off-camera? More than
> he's held on-camera. We rarely see him at work, and only once (The
> Replacement) does it have anything to do with Xander working to earn
> money. Usually it's in a dream (Restless), to get injured/attacked by
> the MOTW (Pangs), or because Buffy's story goes there (Life Serial)
>
> So yes, I can see a dichotomy in how the sexes are treated.
The Tom Breton Conundrum: The white male as victim.
--
Frank Swarbrick -- now powered by SuSE Linux 7.2
"I'm very seldom naughty" --Willow Rosenberg, 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'
Cyclone
I agree completely. Willow hasn't seemed to have had any problem with Spike
being around since IWMTLY. Some people seem to think that Xander's hatred
of Spike has continued unabated since that time right through NA, but for
the reasons you cite, I don't think that's the case. They're always snarky
toward each other, but that's just the nature of their relationship. Some
male friendships are like that. Even the tenor of their physical
confrontation outside Buffy's house in "Afterlife" seemed like "I thought
we were friends. How could you not tell me?"
>
> The only one who hasn't been able to consistently give Spike the space in
> the group that he seems to have earned is Buffy herself. She still seems
> to
> see him as a "thing", a convenience. She made an effort in HB, even
> conceding "You deserve to be here." but in NA, she's embarassed to be seen
> talking to him when Xander and Willow show up at the cemetery.
Since "Smashed", Spike has been Buffy's "dirty little secret", and every
time Spike is around her friends, she's reminded of that.
millernate
Then again the women's leaders who are front and center when it comes
to getting respect from intellectual circles *are* anti-men. These
would be women like Andrea "All heterosexual sex is rape" Dworkin and
Cynthia McKinnon (who teaches at U of M law school in my home state).
It is women like these who are taking over the leadership positions
(and the reason why Christina Hoffe-Sommer would probably never get a
teaching job if she tried to go back to the Academic universe). I'm
not saying it is right but in the last 10 years the lunatics have been
taking over the asylum.
> Paul
Nathan - who, having seen the experiences of his mother belongs to the
"reasonable" feminist theory.
Sleeper
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c1d6ec$4fec59c0$bc096c40@house-of-usher...
> him...@no-spam.com wrote in article <a80rrg$76p$1...@news.netmar.com>...
> > MN talked with Wanda on line:
> >
> > http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329b.html
> >
> > No specific spoilers, but some major directional ones, so...
> >
> > 1
> > 2
> > 3
> > 4
> > 5
> > 6
> > 7
> > 8
> > 9
> > 0
> >
>
> kill Buffy just a couple of years ago. Well, maybe that's because none of
> the characters have mentioned said murder attempt in almost as long. If
> she honestly wants us to remember all the horrible things Spike has done,
> maybe it would help to bring those actions up every once in a while.)
Now what's really annoying is not only don't they bring these things up but
we're expected to judge characters by their past performance in the
Buffyverse conveniently forgetting their own mythology busting activities
with the Monks and Dawn. Nothing previous to Season 5 can be said for
certain to have occurred in the Dawnverse in the same way it did in the
Buffyverse. The Monks didn't change previous reality but they did change
everybody's memories of it. Which for the Scoobies is in effect the same
thing.
By changing their memories they change the people. You can't do one without
the other happening. So we are dealing with different people here. Maybe
only subtly different but we can't really tell. We know for sure that
certain events that they remember didn't happen. Dawns's Birthday
merry-go-round party for example. Nothing like this event can have actually
happened. So whatever was going on in Buffy's life at the time has been
wiped. Which basically means we have to give everybody the benefit of the
doubt for their actions from Seasons 1 to 4.
The writers had to know that this would be one of the problems with the
Monks spell. It seems strange that they forget about such a large change in
the premise of the show. Looks like they want to have it both ways; Dawn's
always been there but her presence didn't affect anything.
Sleeper
--
'It's a library; only the stupid and the evil are afraid of those.'
The Bridge, Iain Banks
Regertz
noble, loving Spike...With sweet Will the lovable poet as his counterpart...You
or those people you now oppose, made us care about Spike...
To revert Spike to cardboard evil would toss all his S5 development in the
wastebin...A wonderfully complex character thrown away?...
But then look what you people did to Willow...Made her so powerful she had to
either become evil or lose her power, else the show becomes "Willow the
Wiccan"...
I realize you likewise don't want "Spike the Vampire" as series title but
surely you can do better than toss all the good work of S5...
I don't care if he and Buf don't get under the covers again, but I would like
to see her grow by offering him some help and support...A little compassion,
for someone she obviously cares for facing a rather heavy burden...Which Angel
never fought off...(he got his soul back on a platter...And almost rejected the
gift)
As for your, (Ms. N's), smug comment about attempting to kill Willow...The
writers created the scenario for us to sympathize with the human elements of
William in Spike...Besides, hell, Angel tried to destroy the world in evil
mode...Even in the "Spike tries to kill Willow" scene he ended up rather
charmingly trying to reassure Wil that she was beautiful and desirable...A
human bonding and something old Angelus would never have done...
And after all from the Spikean demon pov he was going to give her eternal
life...Unless thrall was all he had in mind...
If you wanted tiresomely evil "I'll get you next week, Slayer" Spike it seems
to me you should not have given him complexity...
Silveragent
blus...@Yahoo.com (blusilva) wrote:
Nope -- the whole point of Riley in AYW was that he had *RESOLVED* his
conflicts, and had moved on to adulthood by acting in a mature manner
to get directly to what he wanted.
The Riley/Sam interaction, as badly written as it was, at least showed
Xanya the model of a successful relationship -- i.e. each partner
supports the other fully in their endeavor, and balances the personal
and professional life.
With a few minor adjustments you could have substituted OZ or Giles into
this role and gotten the same kinda results.
What was cool about Riley S4-5 was how the role was played in the
traditional female side -- i.e. it's usually the gal saying "oh he
doesn't love me like I love him, if only he could communicate better."
There is a key scene in S5 where Riley tells Buffy how much he loves
her, even her bizarre ice skating movie obsessions, and Buffy basically
does not respond. Riley later tells Xander that he knows Buffy doesn't
love him. A very nicely written and acted bit IMHO.
ME rather cleverly IMHO put that into Riley's mouth in a clever gender
role reversal.
With Angel and then Spike, Buffy is clearly in the traditional female
role acting in a rather emotionally (although not physically)
subservient role. I.E. Angel and later Spike manipulate her emotions
(hence the Bronze scene in Dead Things where Spike's possesive rant
intentionally mirrors Warren's). It's Angel who decides to end their
relationship; the whole Angel/Angelus arc as the boyfriend (literally)
from hell ...
Buffy has only recently regained her emotional ground lost to Spike in
her regression to a vampire relationship by symbolically walking into
the sunlight at the end of AYW.
This rejection of emotional dependency (catalyzed by Riley) is what
Noxon is referring to.
Some fans may or may not like this storyline, and may or may have issues
with the general artfulness with which it was presented, but it seems
clear this was the intent.
As a side note, Riley haters will always hate Riley no matter how he is
presented and his actions depicted, because of what he represents ...
the "average" all-around American nice guy/hero like Gary Cooper (whom
JW intentionally compared him to).
Spike lovers will always love Spike no matter how he is presented and
his actions depicted, because of what Spike as a character represents
... the nihilistic seductive side of evil and amorality that is at the
core of the character.
Daniel Solomon
Her hypocricy goes even further back than that when you consider that one
of her earliest scripts was IOHEFY, which was merely a means to get some
more Buffy/Angel smoochies during the Angelus period.
--
Daniel Solomon, dsol...@enteract.com
"No amount of planning will ever replace dumb luck."
Anne
In article <20020330192058...@mb-ml.aol.com>, reg...@aol.com
(Regertz) wrote:
> To revert Spike to cardboard evil would toss all his S5 development in the
> wastebin...A wonderfully complex character thrown away?...
>
There *is* no character development as long as the chip is in place
and working. Spike does not have a free choice about what he does,
so we really have no way of knowing what actual "development" has
or hasn't taken place. If they ever decide to write the chip out
of his head, then we'll see.
ANIM8Rfsk
He has a free choice about everything except injuring humans, and humans other
than Buffy at that. I don't really have a free choice about injuring humans
either, as there would be penalties.
EGK
Ahh, nice to see someone who agrees with what i've been saying for so long.
All the arguing about possible redemption for Spike or other ways his
character has changed doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless and until he
gets rid of the chip.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
EGK
But that's what Spike did. That was his whole reason for being. The chip
has affected what Spike is. Until that's removed we have no way of knowing
what, if anything, has changed about his character.
ANIM8Rfsk
Nonsense. He caroused, he drank and smoke and loved and was loved. He still
does all that.
ANIM8Rfsk
All the arguing about possible redemption for Spike or other ways his
character has changed doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless and until he
gets rid of the chip. >>
We already KNOW he'd bite somebody if you pulled the chip; he tried, quite
recently.
EGK
You'll get a lot of argument from some people on here as to whether he'd
have gone through with it or not.
EGK
I like how you snipped the rest of what i said. You say he still does all
that? We weren't talking about what he still does. We were talking about
how he's changed and we have no way of knowing whether he has or not until
the chip is removed.
And the demon's whole reason for being is still to suck the blood of the
living or did you forget that?
Mrs. Poet
>
>As a side note, Riley haters will always hate Riley no matter how he is
>presented and his actions depicted, because of what he represents ...
>the "average" all-around American nice guy/hero like Gary Cooper (whom
>JW intentionally compared him to).
Wrong-o.
IMO, Riley was not a nice guy. Oz was the nice guy, the "perfect boyfriend."
Rose
"If I go crazy then will you still call me Superman?"
Darcy
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:17:47 -0800, "Anne" <an...@intergate.ca> wrote:
>
> >----------
> >In article <20020330192058...@mb-ml.aol.com>, reg...@aol.com
> >(Regertz) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> To revert Spike to cardboard evil would toss all his S5 development in the
> >> wastebin...A wonderfully complex character thrown away?...
> >>
> >There *is* no character development as long as the chip is in place
> >and working. Spike does not have a free choice about what he does,
> >so we really have no way of knowing what actual "development" has
> >or hasn't taken place. If they ever decide to write the chip out
> >of his head, then we'll see.
>
> Ahh, nice to see someone who agrees with what i've been saying for so long.
> All the arguing about possible redemption for Spike or other ways his
> character has changed doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless and until he
> gets rid of the chip.
Why not? The Buffyverse has been playing with the concept of free
choice and good/evil. Apparently this was an accident on the writers
part, but a lot of fans saw it.
We know that a typical vampire is going to kill for food and pleasure.
As far as we've seen, that only changes when a vampire is re-souled
-- a vampire doesn't have free will so there's no way it could be
redeemed without the presence of an outside force like a soul. The
chip is like a man-made soul, attempting to use behavioral
conditioning to change a vampire's nature.
Spike's actions have and are changing, and the fact that he can't kill
for food and pleasure anymore means his identity is in flux (as we've
seen by his frequent references to the big bad he *used* to be). He
still has the desire to kill, but if his character continues to
develop we could plausibly see him "embracing his inner chip" because
he no longer wants to be the big bad.
I see this as sort of analagous to a potentially violent mentally ill
person taking his medication. Does the medication take away his free
choice? Or has he made a choice by taking his medication to be a good
person?
To put it in terms of the Buffyverse, if Spike can't be redeemed via
successful behavioral conditioning, then Angel is not redeemed because
all he has is a soul and that can be removed at any time, making him
evil once again.
Jennifer
EGK
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, everyone would have a Merry
Christmas. The point i'm making is that you can argue this from now till
doomsday but we can't ever know whether you're right or not. It's not that
I'm saying you're wrong. It's that we have no way to know the answer to
these questions so it's all a moot point until the chip is removed.
It may be fun to argue about Spike's character but in my opinon they've
dragged the "Spike and chip" plot on for so long now it's hurt the show.
I'm simply bored with it and wish they'd move the hell on. I see quite a
few posts from people saying Spike's character is so interesting now. I
find Spike and chip to be as boring as Angel's ongoing angst ever was. The
chip has only succeeded in placing Spike's character into a writer's
enforced limbo so they could keep the actor on the show.
Ebi
>
>What was cool about Riley S4-5 was how the role was played in the
>traditional female side -- i.e. it's usually the gal saying "oh he
>doesn't love me like I love him, if only he could communicate better."
[...]
>
>ME rather cleverly IMHO put that into Riley's mouth in a clever gender
>role reversal.
I wondered what role-reversal you meant in the previous mentions of
this. I might gently suggest hanging out with more women -- lots of us
have big difficulty fessing up to what we feel. It's only on tv that
we are completely in touch with our emotions and yet are eternally
paired with some inarticulate man-child.
>With Angel and then Spike, Buffy is clearly in the traditional female
>role acting in a rather emotionally (although not physically)
>subservient role.
Angel's a separate case, but Spike has the same dynamic with Buffy
that you just cited. He's continually trying to get Buffy to admit
that she feels anything toward him. "Do you even like me?", he asked.
If Riley is a role-reversal, then so is Spike.
>I.E. Angel and later Spike manipulate her emotions
>(hence the Bronze scene in Dead Things where Spike's possesive rant
>intentionally mirrors Warren's).
Spike's "rant" is his attempt at vampire-style seduction. "Come-a over
the dark side, it's quite posh..." I'll watch again, but I didn't see
the mirror of Warren's speech to Katrina, beyond the superficial one
of the male characters taking the sexual initiative (no pun intended).
More than once BtVS has presented what look like similar dynamics
between two characters or pairs of characters -- look in "Wrecked" at
Willow's magic addiction shown to us at the same time as Buffy's
"Spike addiction". But what usually happens isn't a simple mirroring,
it's usually the technique my high-school English teacher called
"Compare And Contrast" -- and any parallelism is there in order to
point up the *differences*.
>It's Angel who decides to end their
>relationship; the whole Angel/Angelus arc as the boyfriend (literally)
>from hell ...
Buffy's relationship with Angel *was* much more the traditional "high
school girl in love". But I thought the Angelus arc was a really funny
riff on the also-traditional "he changed after I slept with him".
>Buffy has only recently regained her emotional ground lost to Spike in
>her regression to a vampire relationship by symbolically walking into
>the sunlight at the end of AYW.
Jeez, ME, anvil much?
>
>This rejection of emotional dependency (catalyzed by Riley) is what
>Noxon is referring to.
>
>Some fans may or may not like this storyline, and may or may have issues
>with the general artfulness with which it was presented, but it seems
>clear this was the intent.
I think you're right in that Riley was supposed to be The One Who Got
Away. But there was more than a little satire involved in the
portrayal -- married to Mrs. Perfect (at least she wasn't actually
*named* Mary Sue), and ascending into a Ray of Light in his exit while
the Scoobies waved bon voyage. Whether or not ME wanted us to, I found
it impossible to take this 100% seriously.
>
>As a side note, Riley haters will always hate Riley no matter how he is
>presented and his actions depicted, because of what he represents ...
>the "average" all-around American nice guy/hero like Gary Cooper (whom
>JW intentionally compared him to).
>
>Spike lovers will always love Spike no matter how he is presented and
>his actions depicted, because of what Spike as a character represents
>... the nihilistic seductive side of evil and amorality that is at the
>core of the character.
I think you've got it wrong.
Riley's boring not because he's a nice guy; he's boring because he's
exactly what he appears to be: a corn-fed boy from Iowa who became a
loyal soldier. And the only complications ever presented in his
character -- jealousy of/insecurity due to Buffy's powers -- made him
into someone less empathetic rather than moreso.
The overwhelming majority of Spike-supportive screeds I read focus not
on the Glamour of Evil but rather on his contradictions and quirks --
that he demonstrates love and devotion; that he likes Onion Blossoms;
that he decorates his crypt; and that in life he was a Bloody Awful
Poet. The whole idea of "Spike's Redemption" is posited on an
acknowledgement that he is An Evil Vampire, but that he seems to
transcend that state by being as complex as he is. Gosh darn it,
people like him.
Anne
----------
In article <20020331003037...@mb-mq.aol.com>,
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
But penalties alone don't constitute an ethical choice about not injuring
humans. Knowing and believing that it's wrong kill people is very different
from just not doing it because you might get caught and punished.
him...@no-spam.com
<jed...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I see this as sort of analagous to a potentially violent mentally ill
>person taking his medication. Does the medication take away his free
>choice? Or has he made a choice by taking his medication to be a good
>person?
>
>To put it in terms of the Buffyverse, if Spike can't be redeemed via
>successful behavioral conditioning, then Angel is not redeemed because
>all he has is a soul and that can be removed at any time, making him
>evil once again.
Two analogies, really, which is what makes it confusing. One side of Spike's
"evil" is hard-wiring: DNA. He is a vampire and thus naturally prone to be
evil...rather like a schizophrenic is prone to hear voices. Medication
(chip) can control that, but take it away and the hard-wiring reasserts
itself.
The other side of Spike is conditioning: environment. The chip lets him be
around people in way he couldn't be before...sort of a halfway house.
Indeed, it pretty much requires him to be around people as a survival tactic
at first. And so he has been affected by living among humans, and good
humans at that, for almost three years. He has acted as a hero on several
occasions and, apparently, it made him feel good, something his evil
hard-wiring would never have let him imagine.
All this is character development. Spike's chip is different from Angel's
soul in that it has no impact on his personality. He didn't feel any
different about killing, torturing and mayhem after getting it than he did
before; he just couldn't do it any more. Angel felt a whole new personality
with a whole new ethical code assert itself within him...against his will.
Spike's more slowly changing attitudes toward killing, torture and mayhem,
are the results of his experiences as far as we can tell. Whether this is
strong enough to last when/if the chip comes out and the voices come back is
another topic. But it can't be dismissed as no character development just
because it might not last.
Of course, it is possible that ME will blow it all off and have it turn out
that all the changes in Spike are the result of that stupid chip which does
much more than has been apparent for 3 years. That would be retelling
Angel's story as SF rather than fantasy which would be tired and I doubt
they'd do that, but anything is possible. Possible, however, is not
probable. It's also possible that Spike will simply choose to keep the chip
or be unable to get rid of it, and we'll never know. That would be a real
cop-out and I think/hope they won't do that either.
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Darcy
> BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > In article <20020329043437...@mb-cr.aol.com>,
> > fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
> >
> > > >Subject: Re: MN puts foot in mouth again (spoilers)
> > > >From: BTR1701 BTR...@ix.netcom.com
> > > >Date: 3/29/2002 12:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: <BTR1702-7D797C...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
> > > >
> > > >In article <3CA40189...@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Car...@rcn.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Yet when Anya suggests Buffy do exactly the same thing, everyone looks
> > > >at her like she's either nuts or Adolf Hitler.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To be 100% fair, Buffy backtracked from her out-of-hand rejection of
> > > Anya's
> > > idea.
> > >
> > > >So Buffy is reduced to wearing a humiliating chicken costume and working
> > > >for minimum wage to pay the bills while Angel gets briefcases full of
> > > >cash and lives in his own opulent hotel.
> > >
> > > But...he's a guy!
> >
> > Cordelia.
> >
> > If Willow had moved to LA and Cordelia had stayed behind as Buffy's
> > right hand "man", I think Buffy would be living in Glory's penthouse
> > apartment with the Prada shoes and the Gucci handbags and Angel would
> > working out of a rented storefront in Pacoima.
>
> It's even simpler than that, if Buffy let Anya be her business manager
> rather listening to Willow or even Tara, I'm sure she wouldn't be having
> financial problems.
Agreed. And besides Buffy's personal finances, it's just HIGHLY
inefficient to have one Chosen One to defend the entire world. Anya
should set the Scoobies up and then expand the elite demon-fighting
team concept globally. ;-)
Jennifer
DE McGhee
> I think you're right in that Riley was supposed to be The One Who Got
> Away. But there was more than a little satire involved in the
> portrayal -- married to Mrs. Perfect (at least she wasn't actually
> *named* Mary Sue), and ascending into a Ray of Light in his exit while
> the Scoobies waved bon voyage. Whether or not ME wanted us to, I found
> it impossible to take this 100% seriously.
Me too. OTOH, this was the same ep that featured Buffy walking into
the sunlight. Therefore, I found it hard to figure how much was
self-satire and how much was supposed to be taken seriously. And
why make the story of Buffy's Big Turning Point satirical anyway?
Was 'As You Were' Petrie's 2nd directorial effort? Ya know, I'm all
for writers (and actors) spreading their wings, but the S6 staff
really ought to have stuck with writing. They tried, bless their
hearts, but Fury and Petrie just did not get the job done.
DEM
Silveragent
Ebi <sybi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thus spake Silveragent <silver...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >
> >What was cool about Riley S4-5 was how the role was played in the
> >traditional female side -- i.e. it's usually the gal saying "oh he
> >doesn't love me like I love him, if only he could communicate better."
> [...]
> >
> >ME rather cleverly IMHO put that into Riley's mouth in a clever gender
> >role reversal.
>
> I wondered what role-reversal you meant in the previous mentions of
> this. I might gently suggest hanging out with more women -- lots of us
> have big difficulty fessing up to what we feel. It's only on tv that
> we are completely in touch with our emotions and yet are eternally
> paired with some inarticulate man-child.
>
Role reversal as pertains to classic TV/Movie conventions -- i.e. the
taciturn male hero and the "emotional" communicative girlfriend. And my
comments relate to the STORY STRUCTURE only -- b/c that's how I feel we
need to view the dynamics of the relationship.
YMMV.
>
> >With Angel and then Spike, Buffy is clearly in the traditional female
> >role acting in a rather emotionally (although not physically)
> >subservient role.
>
> Angel's a separate case, but Spike has the same dynamic with Buffy
> that you just cited. He's continually trying to get Buffy to admit
> that she feels anything toward him. "Do you even like me?", he asked.
> If Riley is a role-reversal, then so is Spike.
>
Hey, Good point -- I'd forgotten about that. That's what bugs me about
Spike's depiction -- it seems that everytime ME wants to go definitively
one way with Spike (possesive) they paint him in another way.
>
> >I.E. Angel and later Spike manipulate her emotions
> >(hence the Bronze scene in Dead Things where Spike's possesive rant
> >intentionally mirrors Warren's).
>
> Spike's "rant" is his attempt at vampire-style seduction. "Come-a over
> the dark side, it's quite posh..." I'll watch again, but I didn't see
> the mirror of Warren's speech to Katrina, beyond the superficial one
> of the male characters taking the sexual initiative (no pun intended).
>
Hmmm .... what I thought was the point of Spike's and Warren's rantings
was that they viewed their S/O's -- exes as belongings and not people,
IIRC both Spike and Warren are made to say that "... you should never
have left ..." when it was their own behaviours that drove away their
S/O's. At least, that's what I got out of it.
> More than once BtVS has presented what look like similar dynamics
> between two characters or pairs of characters -- look in "Wrecked" at
> Willow's magic addiction shown to us at the same time as Buffy's
> "Spike addiction". But what usually happens isn't a simple mirroring,
> it's usually the technique my high-school English teacher called
> "Compare And Contrast" -- and any parallelism is there in order to
> point up the *differences*.
>
Agreed -- but it seemed clear to me at least that Spike was supposed to
be in the same class (if not weight) of the "bad boyfriend fighting
division" set up by ME this year. So far I'd say Warren is clearly the
heavyweight champ.
>
>
> >It's Angel who decides to end their
> >relationship; the whole Angel/Angelus arc as the boyfriend (literally)
> >from hell ...
>
> Buffy's relationship with Angel *was* much more the traditional "high
> school girl in love". But I thought the Angelus arc was a really funny
> riff on the also-traditional "he changed after I slept with him".
>
>
>
> >Buffy has only recently regained her emotional ground lost to Spike in
> >her regression to a vampire relationship by symbolically walking into
> >the sunlight at the end of AYW.
>
> Jeez, ME, anvil much?
>
Yep -- but at least it gets us out of the soporific dynamic of Spike
does Buffy, Buffy does Spike, etc. with nothing else going on.
> >
> >This rejection of emotional dependency (catalyzed by Riley) is what
> >Noxon is referring to.
> >
> >Some fans may or may not like this storyline, and may or may have issues
> >with the general artfulness with which it was presented, but it seems
> >clear this was the intent.
>
> I think you're right in that Riley was supposed to be The One Who Got
> Away. But there was more than a little satire involved in the
> portrayal -- married to Mrs. Perfect (at least she wasn't actually
> *named* Mary Sue), and ascending into a Ray of Light in his exit while
> the Scoobies waved bon voyage. Whether or not ME wanted us to, I found
> it impossible to take this 100% seriously.
>
Agreed -- I kinda thought it was Marti's middle finger extended to the
fans who really hated Riley.
> >
> >As a side note, Riley haters will always hate Riley no matter how he is
> >presented and his actions depicted, because of what he represents ...
> >the "average" all-around American nice guy/hero like Gary Cooper (whom
> >JW intentionally compared him to).
> >
> >Spike lovers will always love Spike no matter how he is presented and
> >his actions depicted, because of what Spike as a character represents
> >... the nihilistic seductive side of evil and amorality that is at the
> >core of the character.
>
> I think you've got it wrong.
>
> Riley's boring not because he's a nice guy; he's boring because he's
> exactly what he appears to be: a corn-fed boy from Iowa who became a
> loyal soldier. And the only complications ever presented in his
> character -- jealousy of/insecurity due to Buffy's powers -- made him
> into someone less empathetic rather than moreso.
>
Doesn't explain the rather visceral hatred of the character and all
sorts of things "projected" on the character from what I've observed. My
own view is that something really primal is going on here to drive that
surprising level of hatred -- which btw I feel only a small portion of
fans feel.
> The overwhelming majority of Spike-supportive screeds I read focus not
> on the Glamour of Evil but rather on his contradictions and quirks --
> that he demonstrates love and devotion; that he likes Onion Blossoms;
> that he decorates his crypt; and that in life he was a Bloody Awful
> Poet. The whole idea of "Spike's Redemption" is posited on an
> acknowledgement that he is An Evil Vampire, but that he seems to
> transcend that state by being as complex as he is. Gosh darn it,
> people like him.
>
Just have to disagree here -- Spike can never be redeemed on a certain
level b/c then he will no longer be Spike -- the whole character is
described as "the Sid Vicious of vampires" and although he is capable of
the odd bits of compassion (unlike say Angelus) and honor he is at his
core pure nihilistic violence (from which he derives his own sense of
self worth and validation that he "matters" in the world). Spike's
ultimate tragedy is that even though he might want to change in certain
minor ways the very core of his being will never permit him to be either
Buffy's loved and accepted boyfriend and/or an accepted member of the
scooby gang.
Spike at his core (as we saw in "Family") is incapable of helping
strangers or near-strangers. Riley is (we saw that with Oz whom he
barely knew). That to me is the fundamental difference between the two
characters, and may explain why one character is loved and the other
hated by a smal minority of fans.
I suspect we will see more of Spike's "scorpion on the frog" nature at
the end of the season.
Cheers.
>
>
Silveragent
<Pine.A41.4.44.020331...@dante07.u.washington.edu>,
DE McGhee <demc...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
Perhaps the budget was blown out by the musical?? It would explain the
rather strained and static pace of most of the season.
Just a thought -- maybe having Petrie and Fury direct and write saved a
few bucks.
cheers
Silveragent
fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
And yet Oz was the one who was actually "physically" unfaithful with
Werewolf (and implied human) sex. And left. Leaving his ex a basket
case. Just like Riley.
Guess we will have a difference of opinion here -- which is OK since it
makes free markets and horse races.
Cheers.
Ebi
>In article <ppgeau4hh53u4ugb9...@4ax.com>,
> Ebi <sybi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Silveragent <silver...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >What was cool about Riley S4-5 was how the role was played in the
>> >traditional female side -- i.e. it's usually the gal saying "oh he
>> >doesn't love me like I love him, if only he could communicate better."
>>
>> I might gently suggest hanging out with more women -- lots of us
>> have big difficulty fessing up to what we feel. It's only on tv that
>> we are completely in touch with our emotions and yet are eternally
>> paired with some inarticulate man-child.
>>
>Role reversal as pertains to classic TV/Movie conventions -- i.e. the
>taciturn male hero and the "emotional" communicative girlfriend. And my
>comments relate to the STORY STRUCTURE only -- b/c that's how I feel we
>need to view the dynamics of the relationship.
No, I get it, I'm approaching this from a structural standpoint too
despite a momentary lapse into an analysis of your character flaws :)
But "classic" conventions have very little to do with this show -- its
premise is built on standing them on their head. So within a series
that's all about overturning the revered standards, what's one more
reversal? Answer: hardly noticeable as such.
>> Angel's a separate case, but Spike has the same dynamic with Buffy
>> that you just cited. He's continually trying to get Buffy to admit
>> that she feels anything toward him. "Do you even like me?", he asked.
>> If Riley is a role-reversal, then so is Spike.
>>
>Hey, Good point -- I'd forgotten about that. That's what bugs me about
>Spike's depiction -- it seems that everytime ME wants to go definitively
>one way with Spike (possesive) they paint him in another way.
<nods> They're going to have to come down off the fence sooner or
later. Spike's story has to take him to an extreme -- of either
goodness or badness. If the spoilers are right, they'll take us to one
of those extremes before the end of the season.
>> >I.E. Angel and later Spike manipulate her emotions
>> >(hence the Bronze scene in Dead Things where Spike's possesive rant
>> >intentionally mirrors Warren's).
>>
>> Spike's "rant" is his attempt at vampire-style seduction. "Come-a over
>> the dark side, it's quite posh..." I'll watch again, but I didn't see
>> the mirror of Warren's speech to Katrina, beyond the superficial one
>> of the male characters taking the sexual initiative (no pun intended).
>>
>Hmmm .... what I thought was the point of Spike's and Warren's rantings
>was that they viewed their S/O's -- exes as belongings and not people,
>IIRC both Spike and Warren are made to say that "... you should never
>have left ..." when it was their own behaviours that drove away their
>S/O's. At least, that's what I got out of it.
As I said, Compare and Contrast -- the parallels only serve to point
up the differences. Warren definitely viewed Katrina as a possession
and (in as emphatic a way as possible) ignored and overrode her
personal will.
Spike, in contrast, was being forceful in an attempt to seduce Buffy
to the dark side, saying that she "belonged" there *with* him -- but
not that she was his "belonging". He tried to get her to do his will
-- but Buffy had a choice in the matter, unlike Katrina.
>>
>> >Buffy has only recently regained her emotional ground lost to Spike in
>> >her regression to a vampire relationship by symbolically walking into
>> >the sunlight at the end of AYW.
>>
>> Jeez, ME, anvil much?
>>
>Yep -- but at least it gets us out of the soporific dynamic of Spike
>does Buffy, Buffy does Spike, etc. with nothing else going on.
I agree, there's been too much Spike-centricity this season. Other
stories have been shunted to the side.
>> I think you're right in that Riley was supposed to be The One Who Got
>> Away. But there was more than a little satire involved in the
>> portrayal
>>
>Agreed -- I kinda thought it was Marti's middle finger extended to the
>fans who really hated Riley.
If true, that's really adult, eh? Only going to make the Riley haters
hate him more. You can't tell people how to react to your character --
if you create a character that doesn't get the reaction you wanted
it's emphatically not the fans' collective fault.
>> Riley's boring not because he's a nice guy; he's boring because he's
>> exactly what he appears to be: a corn-fed boy from Iowa who became a
>> loyal soldier. And the only complications ever presented in his
>> character -- jealousy of/insecurity due to Buffy's powers -- made him
>> into someone less empathetic rather than moreso.
>>
>Doesn't explain the rather visceral hatred of the character and all
>sorts of things "projected" on the character from what I've observed. My
>own view is that something really primal is going on here to drive that
>surprising level of hatred -- which btw I feel only a small portion of
>fans feel.
The word I read most often in connection with Agent Finn is "boring".
People don't hate nice guys just for being nice guys; people hate
characters that aren't compelling. And they especially hate a boring
character paired with a favored and compelling one.
An explanation of "they hate him because he's like Gary Cooper"
doesn't explain the anti-Riley zeal. To some degree, people sense ME
trying to cram Riley down their throats. "You MUST love him," sez the
producer. Putting out fire with gasoline...
>> The overwhelming majority of Spike-supportive screeds I read focus not
>> on the Glamour of Evil but rather on his contradictions and quirks --
>> [...] The whole idea of "Spike's Redemption" is posited on an
>> acknowledgement that he is An Evil Vampire, but that he seems to
>> transcend that state by being as complex as he is.
>Just have to disagree here -- Spike can never be redeemed on a certain
>level b/c then he will no longer be Spike -- the whole character is
>described as "the Sid Vicious of vampires" and although he is capable of
>the odd bits of compassion (unlike say Angelus) and honor he is at his
>core pure nihilistic violence (from which he derives his own sense of
>self worth and validation that he "matters" in the world).
I think you missed the point -- I'm not arguing for Spike's
redemption, I was using the fact that Redemptionistas exist to
demonstrate how even the Spike supporters tacitly acknowledge his
underlying evilness -- but his evilness is the *last* thing they're
drawn to.
You said that people are drawn to Spike's representation of the
"nihilistic seductive side of evil and amorality". I'm saying that has
absolutely nothing to do with it. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to
find many posts from the BAPS which glorify his evil nature. People
are drawn to the contradictory good characteristics he displays.
Spike isn't popular because he represents the Glamor of Evil. He's a
popular character because he's got *depth*, and because he has
passion, and demonstrates his love -- those are traits people want to
identify with, traits which make him an empathetic character.
>Spike's
>ultimate tragedy is that even though he might want to change in certain
>minor ways the very core of his being will never permit him to be either
>Buffy's loved and accepted boyfriend and/or an accepted member of the
>scooby gang.
The neat thing about this show is that the core of a character can
change, via good ol' Magick. Spike will only be tragic if he stays
exactly the way he is now. Make him evil, make him good, make him A
Real Boy, return him to Season 2 levels of villainy, I don't care. As
long as they give us good stories, y'know?
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
>> Was 'As You Were' Petrie's 2nd directorial effort? Ya know, I'm all
>> for writers (and actors) spreading their wings, but the S6 staff
>> really ought to have stuck with writing. They tried, bless their
>> hearts, but Fury and Petrie just did not get the job done.
>>
>> DEM
That may have been a part of it, but really, AYW was a pretty good
episode. If you take out everything involving Riley and his wife. Leaving
aproxomately 5 minutes of reinforcing the current plot (the wedding
anxiety, Dawn's life, Willow's recovery), 3 minutes of Spike plot (standing
sex/make out at the beginning, breakup at the end), and 3 minutes of humor
(the goofy coworker applying Machiavelli to Doublemeat Palace).
Maybe 11 minutes. Maybe. And it was okay - Buffy's deep in her
depression, she's sinking, doesn't go out, laundry and dishes are piling
up. Okay. We don't like Buffy like this, so let's swing that story arc...
...but the story arc probably has to run all season. Sorry, folks,
Buffy's gonna be down in the dumps until the end of S6. So... let's inject
a completely unrelated story that jumps in and jumps out. Sure, it shows
Buffy how her life had gone, but it really sits on the ongoing plot like a
railroad car on top of a tree - it just doesn't work there.
Bad writing? Bad direction? Riley and wife just didn't fit. Period.
Sure, they *could* have - the whole "compare and contrast" made sense, but
it's not a Buffyesque move. A similar concept was explored in Normal
Again, but in NA, it *was* Buffyesque, and melded into the plot much more
completely. She was shown an alternate life, but it wasn't just an "ex
with a wife", it was a demon-venom brain twist. And the fact that it was
so depressing (being insane for six years?) *and* more attractive than her
current life builds on just how down in the hole Buffy is right now.
But my point is, AYW feels like a "we need one more episode this
season, and we got Marc Blucas' agent to go for one episode. Wadda we do
with Riley for one episode in this season? Ummm... he shows up? Yeah.
Ummm... Buffy's all depressed, and he's married? Yeah. With a perfect
wife? Yeah! Similar to Buffy, so she can feels even more like crap? YEAH!
Oh, and we need to hit plot point 6 on the Spike/Buffy arc... toss it in at
the end, but reinforce their relationship with a scene at the beginning.
Oh, and Hell's Bells is next, so show how the stress is realling eating at
Xander so we can foreshadow it.
In other words, plot by committee, made to showcase "Hey, we got Marc
back for an episode!!!".
Other than 2 or three minutes at the end, there was no real content to
this episode. The foreshadowing was done in previous eps, and the rest was
"Buffy runs into an ex and feels bad". This was a stinker to the core, and
I'm a big fan of Season 6.
--
Evan "JabberWokky" E. jw...@timewarp.org
Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.