Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility

42 views
Skip to first unread message

Casseti

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 11:47:46 AM6/19/03
to
Whedon, of course, famously observed that he would rather give the
audience what they needed instead of what they wanted. Which begs the
questions: Does he really think we needed two seasons that audiences
didn't seem to want? What does that say about him and/or us?

I'd love to know what he thinks of the level of hostility directed
towards the last two seasons. I'd also like to know whether it
reflects badly on the fans resistant to their Buffy tonics (more like
enemas, but hey..)

EGK

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 12:03:28 PM6/19/03
to

Joss and the writers at ME tend to use the same tactic that some posters
here do. They claim that the same dislike was always evident as far back as
season 2.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

email: egk-n...@hotmail.com

Rose

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 12:31:20 PM6/19/03
to
>Subject: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: idol...@hotmail.com (Casseti)
>Date: 6/19/2003 8:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5d73f5c8.03061...@posting.google.com>

Whedon has not given me the impression in his interviews that he thinks
audiences didn't like S7. His explanation for the reaction to S6 tends to be
that audiences felt the season was too dark but oh well, that's what he wanted
to do. Last summer he conceded that they hit the same note too many times in
S6. Another producer, I don't recall who (maybe Espenson) said they didn't
realize when crafting the storylines how grim it would all seem when these
storylines overlapped. Then when it played out, they said to themselves,
"oops, this is more depressing than we meant it to be."

But as far as Joss goes, I think he just feels he wanted to give us some tough
meat and we just couldn't take it.

Rose

Jason E. Vines

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 3:26:29 PM6/19/03
to

"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20030619123120...@mb-m21.aol.com...

And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about season
six being "too dark" or "too depressing." Never mind that Buffy's boyfriend
turning evil in season two was hardly a gay romp.


George Grattan

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 3:38:50 PM6/19/03
to
on 6/19/03 3:26 PM, Jason E. Vines at jason...@charter.net wrote:


>
> And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about season
> six being "too dark" or "too depressing." Never mind that Buffy's boyfriend
> turning evil in season two was hardly a gay romp.

Despite thousands of fanfic slash stories that claim otherwise, I'm sure.
:-)

I didn't (mostly) dislike S6 and S7 because they were "dark" or "depressing"
(whatever those terms mean), but rather because, in comparison to the very
"dark" and "depressing" S2 and S3, they were more poorly plotted, more
poorly paced, more poorly acted (in spots). The ideas were often fine; the
execution was often weak as compared to other seasons. S4 and S5 were mixed
bags for me, but with more to like about them than dislike.


I *like* dark and depressing.


--
Shalom, Peace, Salaam

George Grattan

(This post is intended for a Usenet newsgroup only. Its appearance in any
other forum that does not clearly identify it as originally posted to Usenet
is therefore a misrepresentation, is done against my wishes, and may
indicate other unauthorized distortions of content and/or context. Correctly
attributed and/or unedited copies of this post in other forums do not
necessarily indicate my willing participation in them.)


Rose

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 4:55:08 PM6/19/03
to
>
> And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about season
>six being "too dark" or "too depressing."

People have a right to like what they like.

I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only dark,
or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless." Especially when I don't get the feeling
they're trying to send a hopeless message. Maybe Joss was trying to send a
hopeless message but he always says he likes to balance darkness with hope.

That said, a *lot* of people online objected to the season in terms of its
quality, not just its mood. Such as the criticism of the Crack Addict Willow
storyline (which many deemed just plain silly), or having Buffy have violent
sex with soulless Spike (which many deemed to be out of character), etc. A lot
of people thought too many episodes (like Wrecked, Doublemeat Palace and As You
Were) were just plain bad, forget about the depressing angle. If Joss ignores
those criticisms and tells himself it was all negative reaction to things being
too depressing, then he's not facing reality.

> Never mind that Buffy's boyfriend
>turning evil in season two was hardly a gay romp.
>

No, but there was a far better balance of light and dark in S2 than in S6; and
in the opinion of some, S2 was better in quality than S6.

Rose

OkieDohkiePokie

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 4:58:24 PM6/19/03
to
>Never mind that Buffy's boyfriend
>> turning evil in season two was hardly a gay romp.
>
>Despite thousands of fanfic slash stories that claim otherwise, I'm sure.
>:-)

Hey! I wrote about 2,069 of those slashfics!

I absolutely LOVED season 7. To me, the weakest seasons were seasons 1 and 2,
and I know everyone completely freaks out on me because I didn't adore season
2, but I think season 3 was when Buffy hit it's stride and that it continued to
get even better as it went on. Season 6 hit some rough spots when it became
campy soap opera, but some of the BEST episodes ever came from Season 7.


Jason E. Vines

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 6:11:34 PM6/19/03
to

"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20030619165508...@mb-m19.aol.com...

> >
> > And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about
season
> >six being "too dark" or "too depressing."
>
> People have a right to like what they like.

Well, duh.

> I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only
dark,
> or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless." Especially when I don't get the
feeling
> they're trying to send a hopeless message. Maybe Joss was trying to send a
> hopeless message but he always says he likes to balance darkness with
hope.

I thought the end of "Grave" was very hopeful.

> That said, a *lot* of people online objected to the season in terms of its
> quality, not just its mood. Such as the criticism of the Crack Addict
Willow
> storyline (which many deemed just plain silly), or having Buffy have
violent
> sex with soulless Spike (which many deemed to be out of character), etc.

I thought the power-as-drug metaphor was apt, and I wish ME would've
done more with it. And the whole point of violent Spuffy sex was to show
how unlike her normal self Buffy felt.

> A lot
> of people thought too many episodes (like Wrecked, Doublemeat Palace and
As You
> Were) were just plain bad, forget about the depressing angle.

I never understood why. Maybe the drug metaphors and jibes at fast food
restaurants struck a little too close to home for some people.

> If Joss ignores
> those criticisms and tells himself it was all negative reaction to things
being
> too depressing, then he's not facing reality.

I'm not facing reality, then, either, because I just don't see what
you're talking about. Often, I can put myself into the shoes of people with
whom I disagree, and see their points of view, but I just can't here.

> > Never mind that Buffy's boyfriend
> >turning evil in season two was hardly a gay romp.
> >
>
> No, but there was a far better balance of light and dark in S2 than in S6;
and
> in the opinion of some, S2 was better in quality than S6.
>
> Rose

Season two was more directionless and chaotic than anyone could portray
season six to be. Consider the Angelus story; excepting a few episodes, the
writers clearly had no clue what to do with him, they just thought turning
him evil would be cool.


CC Zona

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 7:30:09 PM6/19/03
to
In article <vf43j75...@corp.supernews.com>,

"Jason E. Vines" <jason...@charter.net> wrote:

> > But as far as Joss goes, I think he just feels he wanted to give us some
> tough
> > meat and we just couldn't take it.
> >
> > Rose
>
> And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about season
> six being "too dark" or "too depressing."

Interesting that you have that impression. Mine has been that the primary
objections have been devoted to rants about:

* Amount of time devoted to sleazy sex between Buffy and Spike (and/or and
how the sleazy sex degrades one or both of them)

* The sudden and chickenshit way the writers backed out of Willow's control
issues/abuse-of-power storyline and how that was transformed into an
heavy-handed, overly-literal (and not-particularly well matched with canon)
"magic addiction" storyline.

* Not dealing fairly with the audience during Spike's
chipectomy-er-we-meant-soul quest.

* The unusually long run of mediocre or plain old bad episodes wedged into
the middle of the season.

* The painful amount of character history, logic, and opportunities that
the writers continually ignored in order to manufacture circumstances in
which Buffy (and to some extent, also Xander and Willow) could be made/kept
miserable.

* Outrage over the AR anvil.

* Outrage over The Dead Lesbian Stereotype.

* Too little of DarthWillow

* Too little of Giles

* Underwhelming villain of The Trio.

* Infantilization of Dawn and further stagnation of her story development

* Anti-climatic resolution to the "Buffy came back wrong" issue.

"Too depressing" comes upsomewhere low in that list too, but frankly I've
seen/heard that criticism raised more frequently by ME folks than between
fans. I feel like it's developed into Joss's strawman: convince himself
that the only distinguishing characteristic of S6 is its "darkness" so that
he can comfortably dismiss anyone who has a problem with that season as
being too shallow to appreciate the artistic merits of its darkness.
--
CC

"Has Cordy been a bad, bad girl?" -Lorne

"All I'm saying is soulles Spike would have had me upside down and
halfway to happyland by now!" - Anya

Dawn: "I feel safe with you..." Spike: "TAKE THAT BACK!"

William George Ferguson

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 7:07:44 PM6/19/03
to
>"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote

>> That said, a *lot* of people online objected to the season in terms of
>> its quality, not just its mood. Such as the criticism of the Crack
>> Addict Willow storyline (which many deemed just plain silly), or
>> having Buffy have violent sex with soulless Spike (which many deemed
>> to be out of character), etc.

"Jason E. Vines" <jason...@charter.net> wrote:
> I thought the power-as-drug metaphor was apt, and I wish ME would've
>done more with it.

Everybody I've seen comment on it, in every forum, has wished that they
elected to do more with the power-as-drug metaphor rather than the
magic-as-drug text they went with.

>And the whole point of violent Spuffy sex was to show
>how unlike her normal self Buffy felt.

The point of spuffy sex was to show how Buffy felt about herself and how
detached she felt ('this isn't really real, I just want to feel').


--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 8:01:48 PM6/19/03
to
fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in
news:20030619123120...@mb-m21.aol.com:

> Whedon has not given me the impression in his interviews that he
> thinks audiences didn't like S7. His explanation for the reaction to
> S6 tends to be that audiences felt the season was too dark but oh
> well, that's what he wanted to do. Last summer he conceded that they
> hit the same note too many times in S6. Another producer, I don't
> recall who (maybe Espenson) said they didn't realize when crafting the
> storylines how grim it would all seem when these storylines
> overlapped. Then when it played out, they said to themselves, "oops,
> this is more depressing than we meant it to be."
>
> But as far as Joss goes, I think he just feels he wanted to give us
> some tough meat and we just couldn't take it.

That's what he *says*. But I don't believe for one second that it's what he
actually feels.

No matter what ME wants us to think, the fact remains that season 6 did
*not* go according to Joss's Brilliant Plan. For whatever reason, the most
important arc of the season, to which the first nine episodes were clearly
leading up, *did not happen*, and instead lame filler episodes and crappy
replacement arcs were shoehorned in at the last minute.

Joss knows that's what happened, and he must know that's why most people
found the season lacking. So I find it incredibly disingenuous for him to
fault *us* for not appreciating his last-minute chickenshit act -- in
effect insulting the judgment of the people who most understood and
appreciated what he was doing in the first place!

--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

Jason E. Vines

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 8:44:21 PM6/19/03
to

"William George Ferguson" <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
wrote in message news:gof4fvgs9gdbdsgel...@4ax.com...

> >"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote
> >> That said, a *lot* of people online objected to the season in terms of
> >> its quality, not just its mood. Such as the criticism of the Crack
> >> Addict Willow storyline (which many deemed just plain silly), or
> >> having Buffy have violent sex with soulless Spike (which many deemed
> >> to be out of character), etc.
>
> "Jason E. Vines" <jason...@charter.net> wrote:
> > I thought the power-as-drug metaphor was apt, and I wish ME would've
> >done more with it.
>
> Everybody I've seen comment on it, in every forum, has wished that they
> elected to do more with the power-as-drug metaphor rather than the
> magic-as-drug text they went with.

Distinction without a difference. Magic=power. Magic=drug. Therefore,
power=drug.

> >And the whole point of violent Spuffy sex was to show
> >how unlike her normal self Buffy felt.
>
> The point of spuffy sex was to show how Buffy felt about herself and how
> detached she felt ('this isn't really real, I just want to feel').

And how much is that like how Buffy normally feels? Not at all like how
Buffy normally feels. My original contention stands; you just elaborated on
it.


Jason E. Vines

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 9:02:56 PM6/19/03
to

"CC Zona" <ccz...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cczona-B5FD6E....@netnews.attbi.com...

> In article <vf43j75...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Jason E. Vines" <jason...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > But as far as Joss goes, I think he just feels he wanted to give us
some
> > tough
> > > meat and we just couldn't take it.
> > >
> > > Rose
> >
> > And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about
season
> > six being "too dark" or "too depressing."
>
> Interesting that you have that impression. Mine has been that the primary
> objections have been devoted to rants about:
>
> * Amount of time devoted to sleazy sex between Buffy and Spike (and/or and
> how the sleazy sex degrades one or both of them)

And the problem is...?

> * The sudden and chickenshit way the writers backed out of Willow's
control
> issues/abuse-of-power storyline and how that was transformed into an
> heavy-handed, overly-literal (and not-particularly well matched with
canon)
> "magic addiction" storyline.

As I said in another post, that's a distinction without a difference.

> * Not dealing fairly with the audience during Spike's
> chipectomy-er-we-meant-soul quest.

If you don't like misleads, you're watching the wrong show, anyway.

> * The unusually long run of mediocre or plain old bad episodes wedged into
> the middle of the season.

As opposed to such episodes in seasons one, two, and four. (Three and
five did not have bad episodes.)

> * The painful amount of character history, logic, and opportunities that
> the writers continually ignored in order to manufacture circumstances in
> which Buffy (and to some extent, also Xander and Willow) could be
made/kept
> miserable.

I just don't see that. I'm sorry, I don't. A certain amount of
emotional turmoil would be natural, for Buffy because she'd wrenched from
Heaven into relative Hell, and for everyone else because they did the
wrenching.
And no one complained when Buffy kept on moping over Angel between
"Innocence" and "Beauty and the Beasts."

> * Outrage over the AR anvil.

AR?

> * Outrage over The Dead Lesbian Stereotype.

That's the dumbest criticism of any show I've ever heard. Shitty things
happen to everyone on Buffy; hell, both Buffy's and Xander's heterosexual
first bones tried to kill them! Expecting that somehow the lesbians would
fare differently was... unwise.

> * Too little of DarthWillow

Better than having a Big Bad with whom ME hasn't a fucking clue what to
do, a la season one's Master, season two's Angelus, and season four's Adam.

> * Too little of Giles

Blame ASH.

> * Underwhelming villain of The Trio.

Hysterical villain of The Trio. (They're not exactly The Mayor, but
he's hard to rival.)

> * Infantilization of Dawn and further stagnation of her story development

If I were Dawn, and I had lost my mom, and then lost my sister, only to
regain her as a hollow, uncaring shell of her former self, I'd have issues,
too.

> * Anti-climatic resolution to the "Buffy came back wrong" issue.

That's the one legitimate criticism I've ever heard of season six. And
it's a small one, which the greatness of Willow and Spuffy far overshadows.

> "Too depressing" comes upsomewhere low in that list too, but frankly I've
> seen/heard that criticism raised more frequently by ME folks than between
> fans. I feel like it's developed into Joss's strawman: convince himself
> that the only distinguishing characteristic of S6 is its "darkness" so
that
> he can comfortably dismiss anyone who has a problem with that season as
> being too shallow to appreciate the artistic merits of its darkness.
> --
> CC

I guess I'm using a straw man, too.


George Grattan

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 10:06:18 PM6/19/03
to
on 6/19/03 9:02 PM, Jason E. Vines at jason...@charter.net wrote:

>
>
>>
>> Interesting that you have that impression. Mine has been that the primary
>> objections have been devoted to rants about:
>>
>> * Amount of time devoted to sleazy sex between Buffy and Spike (and/or and
>> how the sleazy sex degrades one or both of them)
>
> And the problem is...?

It was a question of pacing and needless repetition of the same emotional
and dramatic beats for the characters and the story again and again and
again and again. We got it the first time, we got it driven home the second.
The idea was fine-- the execution of the idea was very poor and ultimately
frustrating.


>
>> * The sudden and chickenshit way the writers backed out of Willow's
> control
>> issues/abuse-of-power storyline and how that was transformed into an
>> heavy-handed, overly-literal (and not-particularly well matched with
> canon)
>> "magic addiction" storyline.
>
> As I said in another post, that's a distinction without a difference.

Not necessarily. Magic=drug is a lot less subtle than the "power corrupts"
storyline they seemed to be heading into. What started as a possible
meditation on the various ways any of us might be tempted to use power in
our possession merely to make our lives "easier" without thought for the
consequences involved became a story about some one particular person simply
not being able to handle too much of a given "substance" in her life. (And,
of course, they made things worse when they went back on that somewhat in S7
by showing that it wasn't the amount so much as the kind that was the
problem. It was a bit like telling a story about a woman who's an alcoholic
when she drinks scotch and finds out that she really needn't worry that much
if she simply sticks to vodka. )


>
>> * Not dealing fairly with the audience during Spike's
>> chipectomy-er-we-meant-soul quest.
>
> If you don't like misleads, you're watching the wrong show, anyway.

Ah-ah-- but there's a fine line between artful misleads and dodging issues
that have been raised that one simply doesn't want to deal with. They wrote
themselves into a corner with that one and then moved the room. No
reasonable viewer minds surprises and changes in direction that grow
organically from previous directions--but no reasonable viewers likes
bait-and-switch, either.
>
(Snip)

> And no one complained when Buffy kept on moping over Angel between
> "Innocence" and "Beauty and the Beasts."

Well, some of us did. :-)

But I also cut her a great deal of slack at that point given her age and the
fact that it was the *first* time she'd gone through amazingly trauma like
that. By S6 and S7, the "Buffy has a crisis of confidence" plot had
thoroughly worn out its welcome, having been earlier dealt with in S1, S2,
S4, and S5.
>
>
(snip)


>
>> * Underwhelming villain of The Trio.
>
> Hysterical villain of The Trio. (They're not exactly The Mayor, but
> he's hard to rival.)

Not nearly hysterical enough, actually. If they'd wanted to make these guys
truly funny, they missed the mark. What came across was pathos, not comedy.
(And in Jonothan's case, it was all wrong for a long time anyway, though
they finally turned him back on course as a character.)


>
>> * Infantilization of Dawn and further stagnation of her story development
>
> If I were Dawn, and I had lost my mom, and then lost my sister, only to
> regain her as a hollow, uncaring shell of her former self, I'd have issues,
> too.

Sure. The problem was the stagnation--the fact that those issues never
really *went* anywhere beyond a vague "I'm unhappy and whiny" vibe. I love
Dawn as a character, and hated the way she stalled out, with occasional
vacillations back into being interesting here and there.


>
>> * Anti-climatic resolution to the "Buffy came back wrong" issue.
>
> That's the one legitimate criticism I've ever heard of season six. And
> it's a small one, which the greatness of Willow and Spuffy far overshadows.

Ah, that's assuming one thinks what was done with Willow and Spuffy in S7
was great. :-)

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 11:06:35 PM6/19/03
to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:44:21 -0500, "Jason E. Vines"
<jason...@charter.net> wrote:
>"William George Ferguson" <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
>wrote in message news:gof4fvgs9gdbdsgel...@4ax.com...
[snip]

>> Everybody I've seen comment on it, in every forum, has wished that they
>> elected to do more with the power-as-drug metaphor rather than the
>> magic-as-drug text they went with.

> Distinction without a difference. Magic=power. Magic=drug. Therefore,
>power=drug.

Not to mention the fact that this was only the case in 1 episode,
Wrecked, and then it was only what Rack did to her.

Between Wrecked and Seeing Red Willow acted like all magic was a drug,
but we never saw it operating that way even in those episodes because
Willow didn't do any magic, ie. it was a bait and switch affecting the
characters as well as the audience, allowing Willow to avoid her true
problems. The episodes early in S7 also make it clear that it was all
about power.

[snip]

--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@removeozonline.com.au

"Life has meaning only in the struggle. Triumph or defeat are in the
hands of the Gods, so let us celebrate the struggle."
Swahili war chant

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 19, 2003, 11:06:37 PM6/19/03
to
On 19 Jun 2003 19:01:48 -0500, Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>No matter what ME wants us to think, the fact remains that season 6 did
>*not* go according to Joss's Brilliant Plan. For whatever reason, the most
>important arc of the season, to which the first nine episodes were clearly
>leading up, *did not happen*, and instead lame filler episodes and crappy
>replacement arcs were shoehorned in at the last minute.

It did happen, in the last 4 episodes instead of the last 11. Sure
they didn't go as far as they could have, but IMHO they did enough
while still leaving room for Willow to come back as a sympathetic
character in S7. I think that this last point was the big issue for ME
in the whole storyline.

Her loss of control after Tara's death arose out of her issues in
grappling with the power of magic, and in not coming to terms with the
consequences of its use. I guess the metaphor is that the power ended
up controlling her not the other way around.

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 12:22:11 AM6/20/03
to
Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in
news:djr4fv4bdk84cioj8...@4ax.com:

> On 19 Jun 2003 19:01:48 -0500, Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>No matter what ME wants us to think, the fact remains that season 6
>>did *not* go according to Joss's Brilliant Plan. For whatever reason,
>>the most important arc of the season, to which the first nine episodes
>>were clearly leading up, *did not happen*, and instead lame filler
>>episodes and crappy replacement arcs were shoehorned in at the last
>>minute.
>
> It did happen, in the last 4 episodes instead of the last 11.

Yes, which still means that for seven episodes or more the season was *not*
going according to Joss's plan -- but was in fact going rather
spectacularly off the rails as his writers scrambled to compensate for a
storyline that had suddenly dropped out from under them.

Rose

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 2:26:38 AM6/20/03
to
Jason wrote:

>
>
> I guess I'm using a straw man, too.
>

I think the problem Jason is that because you disagree with people's issues
with S6, you're drawing the conclusion that these people are lying to
themselves and are just upset because it was too depressing. I think it's more
accurate that we simply disagree with you as to whether S/B or the Willow arc
were well done, whether the quality of the S6 episodes was lower, etc.
I don't see why you'd think people who disagree with you must really be
thinking or feeling something other than what they are saying.


Rose

Tomi Lindberg

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 9:40:47 AM6/20/03
to
Rose wrote:

> People have a right to like what they like.

Yes...

> I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only dark,
> or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless."

...and all this made season 6 one of the best Buffy seasons ever IMO. That's how
tastes differ ;)

--
Tomi Lindberg
-----
"I am the Pagan Man--I speak for all my kind,
When I criticise your point of view--your hollow state of mind.
You say that I'm an animal--well this at least is true,
I'm a thinking breathing human being--what the hell are you?"

Skyclad - Pagan Man


EGK

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 10:19:05 AM6/20/03
to
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:40:47 GMT, Tomi Lindberg
<tomi.l...@auriamail.net> wrote:

>Rose wrote:
>
>> People have a right to like what they like.
>
>Yes...
>
>> I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only dark,
>> or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless."
>
>...and all this made season 6 one of the best Buffy seasons ever IMO. That's how
>tastes differ ;)

I think a lot has to do with what you're looking for. If you're looking for
good escapist entertainment such as the high school years, season 6 was just
awful. The characters were all unlikeable and practically unrecognizable
from their earlier incarnations. It was like a completely different show.

If you enjoy watching other people's misery as a form of catharsis then
season 6 is for you. I think writing some of that was even cathartic for
the writers or at least Marti Noxon. She admitted basing quite a bit on her
own life experiences. A lot of people who get caught up in daytime soap
operas are like this. They enjoy watching other people with lives much
worse (though exciting) then their own. They even end up caring more deeply
for the characters because of it.

It's still a form of escapist entertainment. Personally, I found no
redeeming value in the tone of season 6 at all. I missed the humor and
really missed being able to like the characters I'd watched for so long.
I don't begrudge those who did like it though.

Peter Meilinger

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 10:19:59 AM6/20/03
to

That is exactly what I was going to say, except you said it better.

Jason - a lot of people have a lot of different reasons for
not liking season six. Just because you don't feel the same
way doesn't make those reasons invalid.

Pete

Jason E. Vines

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 10:30:45 AM6/20/03
to

"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:bcv56f$og3$3...@news3.bu.edu...

What are you talking about? This is Usenet; no opinion contrary to mine
is valid. :-)


Rose

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 10:37:11 AM6/20/03
to
>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: Tomi Lindberg tomi.l...@auriamail.net
>Date: 6/20/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3EF30EEC...@auriamail.net>

>
>Rose wrote:
>
>> People have a right to like what they like.
>
>Yes...
>
>> I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only
>dark,
>> or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless."
>
>...and all this made season 6 one of the best Buffy seasons ever IMO. That's
>how
>tastes differ ;)
>

That interests me. What is it about hopelessness in a story that makes that
kind of impression on you?

BTW, if hopelessness is your thing, may I recommend the movie "Safe" with
Julianne Moore, perhaps the most hopeless film I have ever seen.


Rose

William George Ferguson

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 10:57:32 AM6/20/03
to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:44:21 -0500, "Jason E. Vines"
<jason...@charter.net> wrote:

>
>"William George Ferguson" <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
>wrote in message news:gof4fvgs9gdbdsgel...@4ax.com...
>> >"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote
>> >> That said, a *lot* of people online objected to the season in terms of
>> >> its quality, not just its mood. Such as the criticism of the Crack
>> >> Addict Willow storyline (which many deemed just plain silly), or
>> >> having Buffy have violent sex with soulless Spike (which many deemed
>> >> to be out of character), etc.
>>
>> "Jason E. Vines" <jason...@charter.net> wrote:
>> > I thought the power-as-drug metaphor was apt, and I wish ME would've
>> >done more with it.
>>
>> Everybody I've seen comment on it, in every forum, has wished that they
>> elected to do more with the power-as-drug metaphor rather than the
>> magic-as-drug text they went with.
>
> Distinction without a difference. Magic=power. Magic=drug. Therefore,
>power=drug.

You missed my point. It wasn't magic=power versus magic=drug, it was
'magic is a metaphor for' versus 'magic is text as'. In Wrecked, they
lost the metaphor, and they didn't get it back until Villains.


--
DAWN: ... and my sister is a vampire slayer, her best friend is a witch
who went bonkers and tried to destroy the world, um, I actually used to
be a little ball of energy until about two years ago when some monks
changed the past and made me Buffy's sister and for some reason, a big
klepto. My best friends are Leticia Jones, who moved to San Diego
because this town is evil, and a floppy eared demon named Clem.
(deleted scene from the shooting script of BtVS:Lessons)

NightBaron

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 11:53:20 AM6/20/03
to
idol...@hotmail.com (Casseti) wrote in message news:<5d73f5c8.03061...@posting.google.com>...

Joss HAS commented on the hostility directed towards both Season 4 (in
the DVD featurette) and Season 6.

As far as the hostility for Season 7 goes, I didn't find it as
widespread as it was last year, even in this newsgroup. Most if not
all my friends loved it (as I did) and even around the web the opinion
was distributed. Joss probably will not find that Season 7 was badly
regarded.

Peter Meilinger

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 12:11:09 PM6/20/03
to
Jason E. Vines <jason...@charter.net> wrote:
>"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
>news:bcv56f$og3$3...@news3.bu.edu...

>> Jason - a lot of people have a lot of different reasons for


>> not liking season six. Just because you don't feel the same
>> way doesn't make those reasons invalid.

> What are you talking about? This is Usenet; no opinion contrary to mine
>is valid. :-)

Nuh-uh, man. Your "Welcome To Usenet" brochure must have a typo,
'cause mine clearly states that only MY opinions are valid!

Pete

Yuk Tang

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 1:55:50 PM6/20/03
to
Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>
> BTW, if hopelessness is your thing, may I recommend the movie "Safe"
> with Julianne Moore, perhaps the most hopeless film I have ever seen.

Or you could go for a number of Brit films starring Ray Winstone: Scum (Alan
Clarke), Nil By Mouth (Gary Oldman), The War Zone (Tim Roth). Ray Winstone:
the first-time British actor-director's choice of hard-man.

Strangely, he's also in a rather entertaining episode of One Foot In the
Grave in which Victor Meldrew caused havoc with a lawnmower, in which one of
Margaret's friends was sketched doing embarrassing things with a dog.

Cheers, ymt.

Sharpe Fan

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 3:49:57 PM6/20/03
to

"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@violet.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:bcu57q$nm$2...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <gof4fvgs9gdbdsgel...@4ax.com>,
> William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
wrote:

> >Everybody I've seen comment on it, in every forum, has wished that they
> >elected to do more with the power-as-drug metaphor rather than the
> >magic-as-drug text they went with.
>
> I wish they'd have done neither. The power version wasn't quite as
horrid,
> but it still seemed to be the wrong metaphor. It seemed anti-science,
just
> like the Initiative, except that it was a little metaphorical. Willow
wasn't
> literally doing science, but the moral "there are some things it's best
that
> man not meddle with" is pretty similar in both cases, and there's far too
much
> of that in pop sci-fi already.
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>

I don't think the message was "there are some things it's best that man not
meddle with", but rather that there can be bad reasons for doing things.

The problem wasn't that Willow was doing magic or even a lot of magic (I
thought the criticism of Willow using magic to decorate the Magic Box was
wrong). The problem was she was using magic to control others, including
her friends.

Sharpe Fan


Rose

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 4:48:47 PM6/20/03
to
>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: Peter Meilinger mell...@bu.edu
>Date: 6/20/2003 9:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bcvbms$pa2$4...@news3.bu.edu>

Yes it does say "only my opinions are valid" because I wrote the brochure. ;p

Rose

Rose

unread,
Jun 20, 2003, 4:49:32 PM6/20/03
to
>The War Zone (Tim Roth).

I didn't find The War Zone hopeless. Grim, yes, but not hopeless. Things did
change after all.


Rose

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 8:47:17 AM6/21/03
to
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:57:32 -0700, William George Ferguson
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:44:21 -0500, "Jason E. Vines"
><jason...@charter.net> wrote:

[snip]

>> Distinction without a difference. Magic=power. Magic=drug. Therefore,
>>power=drug.

>You missed my point. It wasn't magic=power versus magic=drug, it was
>'magic is a metaphor for' versus 'magic is text as'. In Wrecked, they
>lost the metaphor, and they didn't get it back until Villains.

Or it was a bait and switch with the metaphor being hidden.

Growltiger

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 11:27:17 AM6/21/03
to
Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, igalb...@ozonline.com.au wrote in
article <n5i7fvo4ag9ui1ne9...@4ax.com>...

In his commentary to "Wild at Heart" on the season four DVD set, Joss
Whedon makes light of his abandoning metaphor in season six.
--
Be seeing you,
Growltiger

apocalipstick

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 2:13:56 PM6/21/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns939FED64C40...@216.40.28.71>...

Perhaps ME fell victim to hubris. After all, Angel was only supposed
to appear in a handful of episodes; Spike and Drusilla likewise. All
three roles were expanded due to cast chemistry and level of writer
comfort. Most spectacularly, Faith was only scheduled to be a minor
character until K. Todd Freeman's scheduling difficulties prevented
Mr. Trick from being S3's main villain. Since the on-the-fly rewrite
of S3 worked so well, ME may have felt they could just do it again.
After all, it couldn't be so hard, could it? Could it?

Kent

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 2:34:50 PM6/21/03
to
> For whatever reason, the most important arc of
> the season, to which the first nine episodes were
> clearly leading up, *did not happen*, and instead
> lame filler episodes and crappy replacement arcs
> were shoehorned in at the last minute.

In the interest of clarity, could you explain what you believe *did not
happen*.

Thanks.


Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 3:08:34 PM6/21/03
to
"Kent" <kent@> wrote in news:bd28fs$l4g$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net:

Oh, sorry about not making that clear. Here's the story:

Dark Will was supposed to be the Big Bad of the entire season, not just
the last three episodes. At some point shortly before "Wrecked" was
scheduled to go into production, the writers got cold feet, wussed out
on the extended Dark Will arc, and shoehorned in the Crack Magick arc as
an excuse to delay it.

As for my reasons for believing this, let me quote an earlier post of
mine:

----------

Jane Espenson confirmed the "Willow was supposed to go evil much
earlier" part in one of her interviews at the Succubus Club. The rest
comes from a combination of anonymous "my friend knows a guy who knows a
guy" sources and speculation.

Though the evidence behind the speculation is pretty strong: that first
arc summary from AICN in the summer before season 6, which was dead-on
accurate except for the "Willow is the season's Big Bad" part; the early
word that Tara was doomed, odd if it wasn't supposed to happen until the
very end of the season; the mysterious rescheduling of the episode
"Asylum"/"Normal Again" from early in the season to near the end; the
way so many episodes between "Wrecked" and "Seeing Red," especially the
crucial February sweeps eps, seem rushed and half-assed...

Peter Meilinger

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 3:28:36 PM6/21/03
to

I didn't write that, but I feel the same way, and maybe
my thoughts on the matter mirror his.

To me, it went from power to drugs. That's as simple as I
can make it, and probably too simple. Willow started out
using too much magic, but it wasn't the magic itself she
liked, it was the power it gave her. She could create things
with a wave of her hand. She could make an entire room full
of people disappear for a second, just to make it easier
to search the place. She could make her argument with Tara
go away by wiping Tara's memory of it.

Magic was the tool she used to achieve all those things.
It wasn't the magic she liked, it was what she could do
with it. Does that make sense? I'm not asking if anyone
agrees, I'm just trying to explain how I feel.

Later on, after Tara left Willow, it stopped being
about power. She got high with Amy and Rack in what
had to be the most ridiculously obvious so-called
metaphor I've ever seen. Magic went from being a
tool she used to being exactly the same as heroin
or crack. It wasn't that Willow was doing bad things
with magic, it was that magic was doing bad things
to her. She was addicted to it, when she hadn't been
before.

To me, that's a bait and switch. I thought the writers
were going to deal with Willow's power issues during
season six. Instead, they made her addicted to magic
and had her go cold turkey, and then they and the
characters on the show seemed to think everything
was fine and dandy again.

It wasn't, though - Willow never dealt with what
I thought was her underlying problem, which was her
tendency to use whatever means she had to make the
world do what she wanted it to. Just because she was
no longer using magic didn't mean she had atoned for
what she'd done to Tara, for example. The heroin/magic
hadn't made her do that, she'd done it of her own free
will. But by the end of the season, that had been
forgotten.

Personally, I think a story arc dealing with Willow's
power issues would have been much more interesting than
what we actually got.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Pete

George Grattan

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 4:21:10 PM6/21/03
to
on 6/21/03 3:28 PM, Peter Meilinger at mell...@bu.edu wrote:


>
> Does that make sense to anyone?

It makes perfect sense to me, and I think the analysis of the switched
metaphors is dead-on. Nicely summarized.

I, too, felt a long arc about power/responsibility issues would have been
far, far more interesting than what we got. The problem was in the user, not
the tool, and that problem was consistent with Willow's characterization and
backstory from day one, combining both her admirable and less-than-admirable
qualities. The drug/addiction riff could have been interesting, yes, on its
own merits, but it was a switch, so always felt awkward. Beyond that, it
became increasingly muddled: the problem was explained away by saying the
she'd simply gotten addicted to the wrong *kind* of magic (as in: she's a
mean drunk on gin/Dark Magic, but on vodka/White Magic she's fine), and that
hollowed it all out.

Kent

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 5:07:10 PM6/21/03
to
> Personally, I think a story arc dealing with Willow's
> power issues would have been much more interesting than
> what we actually got.

Without being completely flip, let me say that anything would have been more
interesting than what we actually got. I agree with you that from the
little we saw at the end of the season, focusing on Willow would have been a
more interesting story. She came on like gangbusters at the end there and
grabbed your attention. The show finally had some energy again at that
point.

But, probably along the lines of what you were saying, they never really
sold me on how she got to that point and that did take something away from
it for me. It seemed just sort of stuck on the end there and somewhat
unsatisfying.

And on a slightly different topic, I never much liked Warren shooting people
with a gun (which is the vehicle that set Willow off). It really didn't
seem to fit the show very well and I'm not sure it fit him very well either.
It was too "realistic" in an unnatural way for the show. By that time I was
so sick of Warren that I was extremely disappointed to see that he just
wouldn't "die". He kept coming back in Season 7 long after his welcome was
worn out with me. (Yes, I know he was dead, but that didn't seem to keep
him off the show.)

Kent


Kent

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 5:09:21 PM6/21/03
to

"Lord Usher" <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93A18EB4CF0...@216.40.28.70...

Thanks for the quick reply. I appreciate hearing the details. To my mind,
this is one of the best threads I've ever read on this news group -
interesting, helpful, thoughtful, well-argued and well-reasoned. I didn't
want to miss anything or assume anything.

Kent


Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 10:53:42 PM6/21/03
to
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:27:17 GMT, Growltiger <ty...@never.invalid>
wrote:

>Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, igalb...@ozonline.com.au wrote in
>article <n5i7fvo4ag9ui1ne9...@4ax.com>...

[snip]

>> Or it was a bait and switch with the metaphor being hidden.

>In his commentary to "Wild at Heart" on the season four DVD set, Joss
>Whedon makes light of his abandoning metaphor in season six.

Do you have a quote?

Plus I would say that the fact that they got back to the power
metaphor in the last 4 episodes makes a bait and switch likely.

Peter Meilinger

unread,
Jun 21, 2003, 11:07:30 PM6/21/03
to
Kent <kent@> wrote:
>> Personally, I think a story arc dealing with Willow's
>> power issues would have been much more interesting than
>> what we actually got.

>Without being completely flip, let me say that anything would have been more
>interesting than what we actually got.

Maybe not anything. I shudder to think of what would be worse, but
I'm sure they could have managed.

> I agree with you that from the
>little we saw at the end of the season, focusing on Willow would have been a
>more interesting story. She came on like gangbusters at the end there and
>grabbed your attention. The show finally had some energy again at that
>point.

Definitely.

>But, probably along the lines of what you were saying, they never really
>sold me on how she got to that point and that did take something away from
>it for me. It seemed just sort of stuck on the end there and somewhat
>unsatisfying.

Right. Tara shows up and forgives Willow, just because they had to
be back together for Willow to go insane when Tara dies. That was
some of the worst characterization I've ever seen on the show,
in my opinion. For Tara to go from sticking to her guns and
leaving Willow despite the fact that she loved her to saying
"Can't you just be kissing me now?" was horrible.

>And on a slightly different topic, I never much liked Warren shooting people
>with a gun (which is the vehicle that set Willow off). It really didn't
>seem to fit the show very well and I'm not sure it fit him very well either.
>It was too "realistic" in an unnatural way for the show.

I know what you mean, but I didn't have a problem with it. It was
jarring, yeah, but in a way that I appreciated. For years we'd
been asking, "Why doesn't someone just get a damned gun and kill
Buffy?"

> By that time I was
>so sick of Warren that I was extremely disappointed to see that he just
>wouldn't "die". He kept coming back in Season 7 long after his welcome was
>worn out with me. (Yes, I know he was dead, but that didn't seem to keep
>him off the show.)

There I agree with you. I thought he was a mediocre villain at
best, and I was annoyed to see the First make use of him early
in season 7, too.

Pete


Growltiger

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 3:04:20 AM6/22/03
to
Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, igalb...@ozonline.com.au wrote in
article <j06afvcpcp8rrp27u...@4ax.com>...

> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:27:17 GMT, Growltiger <ty...@never.invalid>
> wrote:
[elided]
> >In his commentary to "Wild at Heart" on the season four DVD set, Joss
> >Whedon makes light of his abandoning metaphor in season six.
>
> Do you have a quote?
>
[elided]

This is almost an exact quote: "Aurevoir Mssr Metaphor." - Joss Whedon

There is, of course, much more to it. The context was a discussion of
season six that somehow crept into the Noxon, Whedon, & Green banter.
Just listen to it yourself for the exact and perfect quote.

LunaLu

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 3:34:34 AM6/22/03
to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:11:34 -0500, "Jason E. Vines"
<jason...@charter.net> wrote:

>
>"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
>news:20030619165508...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>> >
>> > And he's right. The criticisms mostly consist of rantings about
>season
>> >six being "too dark" or "too depressing."


>>
>> People have a right to like what they like.
>

> Well, duh.===>Jason


>
>> I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only
>dark,

>> or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless." Especially when I don't get the
>feeling
>> they're trying to send a hopeless message. Maybe Joss was trying to send a
>> hopeless message but he always says he likes to balance darkness with
>hope.
>
> I thought the end of "Grave" was very hopeful.=====>Jason


>
>> That said, a *lot* of people online objected to the season in terms of its
>> quality, not just its mood. Such as the criticism of the Crack Addict
>Willow
>> storyline (which many deemed just plain silly), or having Buffy have
>violent
>> sex with soulless Spike (which many deemed to be out of character), etc.
>

> I thought the power-as-drug metaphor was apt, and I wish ME would've

>done more with it. And the whole point of violent Spuffy sex was to show
>how unlike her normal self Buffy felt. =========>>Jason
>
>> A lot
>> of people thought too many episodes (like Wrecked, Doublemeat Palace and
>As You
>> Were) were just plain bad, forget about the depressing angle.
>
> I never understood why. Maybe the drug metaphors and jibes at fast food
>restaurants struck a little too close to home for some people. ===>Jason
>
>> If Joss ignores
>> those criticisms and tells himself it was all negative reaction to things
>being
>> too depressing, then he's not facing reality.
>
> I'm not facing reality, then, either, because I just don't see what
>you're talking about. Often, I can put myself into the shoes of people with
>whom I disagree, and see their points of view, but I just can't here.==>Jason
>
>> > Never mind that Buffy's boyfriend
>> >turning evil in season two was hardly a gay romp.===>Jason?
>> >
>>
>> No, but there was a far better balance of light and dark in S2 than in S6;
>and
>> in the opinion of some, S2 was better in quality than S6.
>>
>> Rose
>
> Season two was more directionless and chaotic than anyone could portray
>season six to be. Consider the Angelus story; excepting a few episodes, the
>writers clearly had no clue what to do with him, they just thought turning
>him evil would be cool. ========>>Jason
==============================
I couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks Jason! And I'll be
commenting on one more down the way.... It's really too bad that JW
has to justify any of the brilliant work he has done due to his
audience response to damn near everything he has written.. and I mean
**Everything** .. to me, it was quite evident in Season 7 by alot of
Anya's remarks... they were directed at all the people and their
questions and complaints about things that have happened in the past
that were continually bitched about... have to say, i got a real kick
out of it....

And to stir up another hornet's nest... i really believe he kept
Willow gay this year, due to the lesbian community and their outrage
over Tara's death... Actually, in season 5, Willow explained that she
had been in love with one man and one woman... and told Tara that this
was not just some school girl phase she would grow out of... She also
told Oz in Season 4 that someday, even if they were old and gray, she
wouldn't be surprised to meet up with him again and be right there
with him.... They made a big deal out of it in S7.... how many times
did Willow say, "Gay now"... to appease a group of fans... I just wish
JW and fans would have ignored all the mail and just did their
story.... At least we would have been able to witness some Spuffy sex
this last and final year.. instead of the inuendo that yes, it is
happening,,, but you all were so offended last year, we're not going
to show you any more Spuffy sex... ever.... And yes, Willow stayed
gay, despite the fact that it felt forced and phony when she hooked up
with Kennedy... I felt that when she told Tara that it wasn't a phase
that she would grow out of , she meant that she was not going to stop
loving Tara... not that she was now gay forever... In my eyes, Willow
would follow her heart... whether that meant a woman or a man...

But got to the point where no matter what was written, it was
critiqued and mostly negatively... no matter what he did with any of
his characters... this group and others would give him no kudos...
just alot of bitching and complaining...

Season 6 was mostly brilliant.. Grave was the sweet release and hope
for all...

Have you never walked on the dark side? Felt so alone and numb that
you went out and had crazy demented sex with the wrong person that
really was the right person, but you were so self-absorbed in your own
hatred and anger that you couldn't see what was being offered to you?

Have you never had to work at a job that you knew was killing you
because you had to figure out a way to make money... and you knew you
could easily make more money maybe as a drug dealer or a topless
dancer, but your sense of morality, already unsteady by life events
tells you at least this is an honest job?

Or you've always been sweet, innocent, walk-on-me Willow who finds the
allure of drug=magic=power to be so addicting that you ruin every good
thing in your life and you fight like hell to come back to that world
you trashed only to lose the one person you truly love to some freak
with a vendetta and all that control goes out the window and you end
up darker than ever... ready to destroy everything around you, but you
are saved because there's still something alive in that heart and your
oldest and dearest friend finds that spot and helps bring you back to
the light?

Or you find that woman that every man dreams of who thinks you are a
king and you leave her standing at the altar because of old demons
haunting you, even though you still love her and want her?? And in
her pain and agony and at a weak moment, she reverts back to her
former self, filled with revenge at the world?

And Dawn.. totally alone and doing what teenagers do when they're left
alone... well, actually, she could have done even more, but just ended
up being a klepto.. It's really too bad she was so trashed here and
elsewhere... I would have to say that this year showed that she is a
star to be reckoned with and could easily carry a show with the right
cast and story line... After all.. look back at season 1.. could Buffy
carry Buffy alone? or Xander, Willow, Giles...don't think so ... it
was the right combination of the right people.. it was a network
willing to give a show a chance to develop... it was fans begging for
more.. And more we got... and it's too bad that the more we got, the
more complaints and as the above thread says disappointment/hostility
over seasons six and seven.. i really feel sorry for those who feel
that way... and yes, if JW says it was dark and others think it was
more than dark... then yeah.. i have to agree... they just don't get
it... some never willl... maybe you're the lucky ones... but some of
us did... and to us, it may be one of the best seasons.. To each his
own...guess it's just too bad, those of us that appreciated it, didn't
write more or call more.. or whatever it is that gets heard...

And Season 7?? I think it had more stand out episodes that were truly
exceptional than any season of all.... maybe two that made my skin
crawl, but a good ending for an exceptional run... many things tied
up, yet many things left open for the future...

Cheers to the actors, writers, directors.. to everybody involved in
giving us one hell of a ride... one, i'll never forget...
~Luna

LunaLu

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 4:48:10 AM6/22/03
to
On 20 Jun 2003 14:37:11 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>>From: Tomi Lindberg tomi.l...@auriamail.net
>>Date: 6/20/2003 6:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3EF30EEC...@auriamail.net>
>>
>>Rose wrote:
>>
>>> People have a right to like what they like.
>>
>>Yes...
>>
>>> I criticize something for being too depressing when something is not only
>>dark,
>>> or grim, or sad, but is "hopeless."
>>
>>...and all this made season 6 one of the best Buffy seasons ever IMO. That's
>>how
>>tastes differ ;)
>>
>
>That interests me. What is it about hopelessness in a story that makes that
>kind of impression on you?

>Rose
===================================
But it's NOT hopeless... it has been something that has been building
since Season 2.... and finally... at the end... there is great hope...
metaphorically think of Buffy and Dawn climbing out of the pit...
Xander holding a weeping Willow as she finally cries in her grief over
the loss of Tara... Anya, already regretting that she allowed
D'Hoffryn to manipulate her in her grief and anger into becoming a
vengeance demon again and still trying to help the scoobies... and
Spike being zapped with his soul... And Giles willing to take it all
the way was so brave... has any other season ended on such a note of
hope? Sorry, Rose... but i think Torri said "all this"... i don't
think she felt it was hopeless either... If anything... it showed we
can and will survive.... and we will always "hope" for a better
tomorrow... Brilliant...simply brilliant!

And i sure wish everyone would quit picking on Jason for giving his
point of view... isn't that what everyone else is doing that hated or
disliked or gave an unfavorable critique of the show? So people that
liked it are the underdogs.... most people that write here aren't real
happy about the show... they may have liked the earlier seasons, but
life isn't like that... it's not always peppy and pretty and full of
fun... it can get rather dark and depressing sometimes...

but to leave us with "HOPE"..... that's what counts when all is said
and done... and that's what I will remember most about Season 6... and
Spike saving Buffy... no one.... not even dear boy Angel could do that
for her... I'll tell ya one thing... in 20 years... when Buffy is
turning gray, it's going to be Spike she thinks about... Like Scarlett
and Rhett and Ashley... Too late, will she realize who she really
loved...

Willow to Kennedy in Chosen "ya know Buffy? sweet girl...not that
bright"

~Luna

LunaLu

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 4:48:09 AM6/22/03
to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:02:56 -0500, "Jason E. Vines"
<jason...@charter.net> wrote:

>> * Anti-climatic resolution to the "Buffy came back wrong" issue.
>
> That's the one legitimate criticism I've ever heard of season six. And
>it's a small one, which the greatness of Willow and Spuffy far overshadows.
>
>> "Too depressing" comes upsomewhere low in that list too, but frankly I've
>> seen/heard that criticism raised more frequently by ME folks than between
>> fans. I feel like it's developed into Joss's strawman: convince himself
>> that the only distinguishing characteristic of S6 is its "darkness" so
>that
>> he can comfortably dismiss anyone who has a problem with that season as
>> being too shallow to appreciate the artistic merits of its darkness.
>> --
>> CC


>
> I guess I'm using a straw man, too.

==================================
I'm with ya there... I hope JW can dismiss "anyone who has a problem
with that season-6- as being too shallow to appreciate the artistic
merits of its darkness".... I do..

don't know what a straw man is.. but guss i'm using one too.
~Luna
>

Rose

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 5:07:45 AM6/22/03
to
Luna wrote:

>But it's NOT hopeless...

Many of the episodes were hopeless. Some found Grave to be hopeful, but I did
not, I found the "hopeful message" in the last 30 seconds before Spike's
ensoulment to be so forced and phony that I didn't believe Joss believed it for
one second, I felt he only tacked it on because he felt obligated somehow not
to end on a hopeless note. It actually seemed to me like a thinly veiled
mockery of optimism. But even if I HAD found hope in Grave, I'd be critical of
the number of hopeless episodes throughout the season. Buffy smiling and
looking at tree blossoms for a few seconds and Xander talking about yellow
crayons does very little to balance out months of nihilistic agonizing.

Life Serial, Wrecked, Doublemeat Palace, Dead Things, Older and Far Away,
Hell's Bells, Normal Again and Seeing Red reeked of despair, of a writer's
romantic view of futility of the human condition.

>So people that liked it are the >underdogs...

Hmm, I figured people who didn't like it were underdogs and people who liked it
were people for whom things were pretty peachy and therefore, couldn't be
easily dragged down. Qui sabe.

>they may have liked the earlier seasons, >but life isn't like that... it's not
always >peppy and pretty and full of
>fun...

Neither are the earlier seasons.

> it can get rather dark and >depressing >sometimes...

So could the earlier seasons.

(PS can I just say that typing a long paragraph with a lot of elipses makes
your post harder to read and to follow, at least to me. I hope you'll consider
using periods and semi colons instead, thanks. :) )

Rose

Rose

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 5:09:41 AM6/22/03
to
Luna wrote:

>I'm with ya there... I hope JW can dismiss "anyone who has a problem
>with that season-6- as being too shallow to appreciate the artistic
>merits of its darkness".... I do..

It's too bad you'd want to dismiss people as shallow just because they didn't
like a season that you liked. I can't imagine dismissing people who didn't
like S2 as shallow.


Rose

LunaLu

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 5:26:21 AM6/22/03
to
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:21:10 -0400, George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com>
wrote:

>on 6/21/03 3:28 PM, Peter Meilinger at mell...@bu.edu wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Does that make sense to anyone?
>
>It makes perfect sense to me, and I think the analysis of the switched
>metaphors is dead-on. Nicely summarized.
>
>I, too, felt a long arc about power/responsibility issues would have been
>far, far more interesting than what we got. The problem was in the user, not
>the tool, and that problem was consistent with Willow's characterization and
>backstory from day one, combining both her admirable and less-than-admirable
>qualities. The drug/addiction riff could have been interesting, yes, on its
>own merits, but it was a switch, so always felt awkward. Beyond that, it
>became increasingly muddled: the problem was explained away by saying the
>she'd simply gotten addicted to the wrong *kind* of magic (as in: she's a
>mean drunk on gin/Dark Magic, but on vodka/White Magic she's fine), and that
>hollowed it all out.

=======================================
No, actually they didn't think she should use any magic... thus , the
cold turkey... the kind of thing that really does happen in drug use..
the thinking that you've got it under control... you've quit cold
turkey... but failing to realize that you haven't dealt with the
"why's" of how you got there in the first place and how not to go
there again... So in that sense, the story played out well.... she was
off the magicks completely... until Tara was shot... then it all came
back full force.. akin to an alcoholic or drug addict who has not
dealt with the "user" and had only gotten rid of the "tool"...

They only got around to the fact that she WAS the power in Season 7
and that it wasn't something she could pretend wasn't there, but had
to learn how to deal with it in a constructive manner... Don't know..
makes sense to me... not really a drug thing at all... just seemed to
be at the time, not understanding what the magicks could do to her
entire life and those around her... as when First Cassie told her she
had to stop, never do magic again and she said that Giles and the
Coven had told her that was more dangerous..

And personally.... i'm glad all of season 6 was not about Willow being
the big bad... that would have not only been too damaging to her
character, but also would have become boring... i think the way it was
done with the starting and the stopping and the blowing up was much
more effective, both in reality and in storytelling.. And the "Evil
Troika" boys was a good change...not literal monsters, but a bunch of
boys that got carried away and carnage ensued... They were just young,
smart gurys that wanted to get girls, money and power... and got in
over their heads... for the first half of the season, they were just a
nuisance... killing of Katrina changed things...

And i don't see how the writers got it muddled... I think the
Scoobies, themselves had it muddled... They just thought she had to
stop... It wasn't just explained away as mean drunk on gin/dark magic
and vodka/white magic fine... She had to go to the Coven in England
and learn how to use her powers correctly... She had the power, she
was the power, too late to turn back... there is dark magic and white
magic (i gues.. don't know, not a witch)... She would have stayed
there at the Coven if she could have, but she was needed in Sunnydale
and had to go... Giles trusted that she could do it or he wouldn't
have let her go, needed or not.. She truly didn't know until Chosen
which way it would go... as she said to Kennedy.. the darkest place
she's been, this is what lies after that... and found that what lies
after that is the Light... the good...

I think it was great this year... Buffy made sure that Spike, Willow
and Xander knew that she "believed in them"... way to go Buffy. (now
this has been muddied since season 4... they have made truces, but the
doubt was always lingering as they learned their adult roles and use
and mis-use of those powers... It all came together in Season 7....
~Luna

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 6:28:03 AM6/22/03
to
On 21 Jun 2003 19:28:36 GMT, Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>Later on, after Tara left Willow, it stopped being
>about power. She got high with Amy and Rack in what
>had to be the most ridiculously obvious so-called
>metaphor I've ever seen. Magic went from being a
>tool she used to being exactly the same as heroin
>or crack. It wasn't that Willow was doing bad things
>with magic, it was that magic was doing bad things
>to her. She was addicted to it, when she hadn't been
>before.

She was addicted to what Rack did to her. She extrapolated this to all
magic which was wrong, although her abuse of power was an addiction,
but a psychological one rather than the physical one that Rack's was.
As a result she didn't deal with her true problems which lay within
herself, thus when she lost control she turned to the only thing she
knew.

>To me, that's a bait and switch. I thought the writers
>were going to deal with Willow's power issues during
>season six. Instead, they made her addicted to magic
>and had her go cold turkey, and then they and the
>characters on the show seemed to think everything
>was fine and dandy again.

And the last 4 episodes showed this was wrong (plus the first few in
S7). Thus its a bait and switch just not the type you're postulating.

>It wasn't, though - Willow never dealt with what
>I thought was her underlying problem, which was her
>tendency to use whatever means she had to make the
>world do what she wanted it to. Just because she was
>no longer using magic didn't mean she had atoned for
>what she'd done to Tara, for example. The heroin/magic
>hadn't made her do that, she'd done it of her own free
>will. But by the end of the season, that had been
>forgotten.

She clearly had regrets about her actions in S6 early on in S7, that
they couldn't deal with the Tara issues from S6 is more to do with the
fact that Tara was dead. Perhaps if it was Tara who appeared to Willow
in CWDP they may have been able to work through those issues.

Personally I think TKIM and GID showed Willow to be a work in progress
as far as dealing with magic goes. She still hadn't come to terms with
the small abuses of power that magic afforded her, because her moral
system is skewed away from an abstract understanding of moral
behaviour. Chosen showed her one possible answer.

[snip]

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 6:28:06 AM6/22/03
to
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:07:10 -0400, "Kent" <kent@> wrote:

>> Personally, I think a story arc dealing with Willow's
>> power issues would have been much more interesting than
>> what we actually got.

>Without being completely flip, let me say that anything would have been more
>interesting than what we actually got. I agree with you that from the
>little we saw at the end of the season, focusing on Willow would have been a
>more interesting story. She came on like gangbusters at the end there and
>grabbed your attention. The show finally had some energy again at that
>point.

>But, probably along the lines of what you were saying, they never really
>sold me on how she got to that point and that did take something away from
>it for me. It seemed just sort of stuck on the end there and somewhat
>unsatisfying.

It was fast but IMHO by Smashed she was at the point where a big
explosion was going to happen, look at what she and Amy did in The
Bronze. The death of Tara and Willow's subsequent explosion was
supposed to happen in Wrecked.

IMHO they didn't do it at that time because they wanted to be able to
bring Willow back as a sympathetic character in S7 (listening to
Whedon's commentaries on the DVDs its blatantly obvious that she is
regarded as being the sympathetic core of the show by Whedon) and they
realized it would be a lot harder if she was evil for a longer time
and actively opposing Buffy et al for half a season. Plus they may
have liked the nerds and wanted to keep them around for longer. Plus
the conclusion with Xander saving the world would be a lot harder to
swallow. Note this is all speculation on my part.

It would have been a better story to show a slow descent into
corruption by Willow rather than having her be set off by Tara's death
but there were timing constraints, and the above speculation applies
here as well.

Another piece of speculation: having decided not to turn Willow evil
in Wrecked they had a problem in that Willow was at the point where
she was so powerful that she could beat any villain that came along
easily, so they had to temporarily depower her, hence they have her go
cold turkey but not realize her true problems.

[snip]

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Jun 22, 2003, 10:29:13 AM6/22/03
to

"Rose" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20030622050745...@mb-m04.aol.com...
<snip>

> Hmm, I figured people who didn't like it were underdogs and people who
liked it
> were people for whom things were pretty peachy and therefore, couldn't be
> easily dragged down. Qui sabe.
>

Sorry. I liked Season 6 in general (there were a few things I'd have
preferred done differently, but I could say that about anything I've ever
seen,) and applying that description to me would have people who know me IRL
in hysterics.


> >they may have liked the earlier seasons, >but life isn't like that...
it's not
> always >peppy and pretty and full of
> >fun...
>
> Neither are the earlier seasons.
>
> > it can get rather dark and >depressing >sometimes...
>
> So could the earlier seasons.
>

But both these statements I agree with.

--
Rowan Hawthorn


Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 1:54:09 AM6/23/03
to
apocal...@lycos.com (apocalipstick) wrote in
news:526b2ec8.03062...@posting.google.com:

>> Yes, which still means that for seven episodes or more the season was
>> *not* going according to Joss's plan -- but was in fact going rather
>> spectacularly off the rails as his writers scrambled to compensate
>> for a storyline that had suddenly dropped out from under them.
>
> Perhaps ME fell victim to hubris. After all, Angel was only supposed
> to appear in a handful of episodes; Spike and Drusilla likewise. All
> three roles were expanded due to cast chemistry and level of writer
> comfort. Most spectacularly, Faith was only scheduled to be a minor
> character until K. Todd Freeman's scheduling difficulties prevented
> Mr. Trick from being S3's main villain. Since the on-the-fly rewrite
> of S3 worked so well, ME may have felt they could just do it again.
> After all, it couldn't be so hard, could it? Could it?

The difference, though, was that in those cases the decision was largely
artistic in nature -- XX is working very well, so let's expand it; YY is
not working well, so let's phase it out.

In the case of Dark Will the decision seems to be not one of art
overriding previously laid plans, but of practical concerns and
cowardice overriding art. That is, they chickened out not because
Willow's descent into darkness wasn't working out, but because it was
working *too well*, because it was going completely according to plan
and was absolutely convincing, and for some reason that terrified them.

It's one thing to replace Mr. Trick with Faith because you think she
makes a more compelling villain. It's another thing to replace Dark Will
with Crack Magick because the idea of Dark Will is too daring and, oh,
we've got to stick something else in there to pad the storyline, and
Crack Magick is the best we can come up with on short notice this late
in the game...

I can't imagine the ME writers would think the success of the former
suggests that the latter would be at all successful. Especially since
their last big "Oh, crap..." replacement story was the Adam arc of
season 4, and even they admit that wasn't one of their finest hours.

Nick Cassaro

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:09:23 AM6/23/03
to
> It did happen, in the last 4 episodes instead of the last 11. Sure
> they didn't go as far as they could have, but IMHO they did enough
> while still leaving room for Willow to come back as a sympathetic
> character in S7. I think that this last point was the big issue for ME
> in the whole storyline.


But as an alternative to EvilWillow, we were given endless Spuffy
which resulted in BitchBuffy. They would rather salvage Willow as a
sympathetic character than Buffy? Whose show is it?

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:17:41 AM6/23/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Dark Will was supposed to be the Big Bad of the entire season, not just

: the last three episodes. At some point shortly before "Wrecked" was
: scheduled to go into production, the writers got cold feet, wussed out
: on the extended Dark Will arc, and shoehorned in the Crack Magick arc as
: an excuse to delay it.

I'm not sure I buy the getting cold feet. They've seemed all too-willing
to jump off cliffs before. Some step in the creative process told them
this (the crack magick angle) was good; what was it, and why? Did they
think, if Willow blew up early in the season, they'd have nowhere to go
later on? Delaying tactics are a big part of any sequentially told story,
always have been. And part of ME's creativity is the
making-it-up-on-the-fly thing; responding to revelations and inspirations
they uncover as they go along, mining lucky accidents and surprises for
later story. Certainly planning everything in advance doesn't gaurantee
excellent execution, as Bab5 showed us.

Can we blame it on the writer of Wrecked?

: As for my reasons for believing this, let me quote an earlier post of
: mine:

: Jane Espenson confirmed the "Willow was supposed to go evil much

: earlier" part in one of her interviews at the Succubus Club. The rest
: comes from a combination of anonymous "my friend knows a guy who knows a
: guy" sources and speculation.

Good of you to concede that.

: word that Tara was doomed, odd if it wasn't supposed to happen until the

: very end of the season; the mysterious rescheduling of the episode
: "Asylum"/"Normal Again" from early in the season to near the end; the
: way so many episodes between "Wrecked" and "Seeing Red," especially the
: crucial February sweeps eps, seem rushed and half-assed...

I'll have to review those and see if I agree, but I do agree that SR, 2TG
and Grave all far outshone what came before. So, does this mean that,
rather than Warren, it was originally going to have been Willow who killed
Tara?

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:09:19 AM6/23/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in
: news:djr4fv4bdk84cioj8...@4ax.com:

:> On 19 Jun 2003 19:01:48 -0500, Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com>
:> wrote:
:>
:> [snip]
:>
:>>No matter what ME wants us to think, the fact remains that season 6

:>>did *not* go according to Joss's Brilliant Plan. For whatever reason,


:>>the most important arc of the season, to which the first nine episodes
:>>were clearly leading up, *did not happen*, and instead lame filler
:>>episodes and crappy replacement arcs were shoehorned in at the last
:>>minute.

:>
:> It did happen, in the last 4 episodes instead of the last 11.

: Yes, which still means that for seven episodes or more the season was *not*

: going according to Joss's plan -- but was in fact going rather
: spectacularly off the rails as his writers scrambled to compensate for a
: storyline that had suddenly dropped out from under them.

But ... why? What caused the train to jump the track? Joss not being
around, and the under-staff choking? Actor unavailability and demands, as
in the CC situation on Angel?

shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:27:56 AM6/23/03
to
Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:

:>But, probably along the lines of what you were saying, they never really


:>sold me on how she got to that point and that did take something away from
:>it for me. It seemed just sort of stuck on the end there and somewhat
:>unsatisfying.

: Right. Tara shows up and forgives Willow, just because they had to
: be back together for Willow to go insane when Tara dies. That was
: some of the worst characterization I've ever seen on the show,
: in my opinion. For Tara to go from sticking to her guns and
: leaving Willow despite the fact that she loved her to saying
: "Can't you just be kissing me now?" was horrible.

It was a sexy moment. You really felt the connection these two women had.
Willow had done all she, at the time, new how to do to make amends. Tara
was giving her A for effort, perhaps being too indulgent but, then, that
was Tara, perfectly in character. She nurtured and forgave, not just
Willow but Buffy and Dawn, too.

Shawn


Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:25:39 AM6/23/03
to
Kent <kent@> wrote:

: And on a slightly different topic, I never much liked Warren shooting people


: with a gun (which is the vehicle that set Willow off). It really didn't
: seem to fit the show very well and I'm not sure it fit him very well either.
: It was too "realistic" in an unnatural way for the show. By that time I was
: so sick of Warren that I was extremely disappointed to see that he just
: wouldn't "die". He kept coming back in Season 7 long after his welcome was
: worn out with me. (Yes, I know he was dead, but that didn't seem to keep
: him off the show.)

It was jarring and perhaps heavy-handed, but it fit in with the overall
concepts of the show. Warren is thwarted or warped phallo-centrism, he
uses a bottle (also a vessel, but he used it as a club) to kill one girl
and a gun to kill another. He wants to be understood and perfectly
worshippped, but real girls don't do that so he gets violent and
fantasizes a new world more to his liking. His rampage worked as another
example of the dangerous male abuse Buffy exists to resist, not to
mention because the actor did a good job going insane.

Shawn


Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:19:58 AM6/23/03
to
Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:

: Personally, I think a story arc dealing with Willow's


: power issues would have been much more interesting than
: what we actually got.

: Does that make sense to anyone?

Does to me, and I think you're right. They did ultimately deal with some
of these issues in S7, with Willow realizing she could be powerful and not
be bad. But it took awhile.

Shawn

EGK

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 12:01:37 PM6/23/03
to
On 23 Jun 2003 15:17:41 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>: word that Tara was doomed, odd if it wasn't supposed to happen until the
>: very end of the season; the mysterious rescheduling of the episode
>: "Asylum"/"Normal Again" from early in the season to near the end; the
>: way so many episodes between "Wrecked" and "Seeing Red," especially the
>: crucial February sweeps eps, seem rushed and half-assed...
>
>I'll have to review those and see if I agree, but I do agree that SR, 2TG
>and Grave all far outshone what came before. So, does this mean that,
>rather than Warren, it was originally going to have been Willow who killed
>Tara?

I'd heard that about Willow being the one to kill Tara but not that it was
some official plotline. I assumed it was just fans guessing. It sure would
have made for a better story though and given Willow a reason to go mad.

The idea I read was that Willow was going to kill Tara accidently from her
ever increasing reliance on magic and not being able to control it's use.
Perhaps while aiming a spell at someone else and Tara getting in the way of
it. Of course that could have then driven her insane and would have
definitely been dark.

If you look back, you can even make a case for them having foreshadowed
something of that nature with Tara mentioning in season 5 that she was
afraid of where Willow was heading. Then all the scenes in season 6 of
Willow's increasing hubris. Her needing to pay consequences for bringing
Buffy back, her argument with Giles, her continuous inability to swear off
magic (even before Rack).

I agree with Usher that the magic as crack was a cop-out. I'd like to
believe they had better ideas then that cooking on the stove and for
whatever reason they chose not to use them.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

email: egk-n...@hotmail.com

Snuggles

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 12:30:09 PM6/23/03
to
In article <bd765j$8vd$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

Interesting how Warren killed both of those women by accident yet Willow
purposely killed two men.

Snuggles

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 12:33:38 PM6/23/03
to
In article <db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com>,
wtfa...@yahoo.com (Nick Cassaro) wrote:

You have to understand.... Buffy is the girl who wouldn't go out with
Joss when he was in high school.... Willow is the cute girl who most
likely gave him head. Hence Buffy is made to act like a bitch and Willow
becomes a goddess.

Rose

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 12:37:45 PM6/23/03
to
>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 6/23/2003 8:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bd769s$8vd$5...@news.fas.harvard.edu>

>
>Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>:>But, probably along the lines of what you were saying, they never really
>:>sold me on how she got to that point and that did take something away from
>:>it for me. It seemed just sort of stuck on the end there and somewhat
>:>unsatisfying.
>
>: Right. Tara shows up and forgives Willow, just because they had to
>: be back together for Willow to go insane when Tara dies. That was
>: some of the worst characterization I've ever seen on the show,
>: in my opinion. For Tara to go from sticking to her guns and
>: leaving Willow despite the fact that she loved her to saying
>: "Can't you just be kissing me now?" was horrible.
>
>It was a sexy moment.

Mileage varies. I found it pathetic and annoying, not sexy at all.

Rose

Rose

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 12:47:34 PM6/23/03
to
>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 6/23/2003 8:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bd765j$8vd$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>

The one weakness with Warren (not enough to spoil him as a villain imo) and the
big weakness with Caleb (in his case, enough to spoil him as a villain imo) is
that that these two men do not represent a threat to women. A loony,
misogynistic, devil-worshipping loner who wants to destroy the world is a
terrorist threat to the world but specifically to women's power and equality.
Hardly anyone pays attention to lone nutballs. Note that he didn't have a
flock or following of any kind. Similarly, I don't feel an unpopular coward
with poor social skills is a threat to women as a category, anymore than a
female stalkers are threats to men as a category. People like Warren and Glenn
Close's character from Fatal Attraction merely threaten the individuals they go
after.

That's why Seeing Red didn't work for me as a feminist protest against male
violence. A woman could have shot Tara just as easily as Warren did. Spike was
not part of a power structure which undermines women, he was one guy who
flipped out on his love object.

A much better example of true patriarchal power would be Mayor Wilkins.
Another example would be Angelus, Warren, or Soulless Spike getting away with
what they did due to a justice system which would sympathize with them.

In general, Buffy's world is not one in which men have a lot of power, so she
doesn't really have a whole lot of male power to struggle against. BtVS is
more about personal demons than it is about women's problems in male-dominated
society. That's why ME deciding to have Buffy's big one on one battle being
with the lone-nut misogynist rather than an image of herself (their original
plan) was such a weak choice. Buffy is a worse enemy to Buffy than any man has
ever been.


>Shawn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Rose

Rose

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 12:50:00 PM6/23/03
to
Shuggie wrote:

>Interesting how Warren killed both of those women by accident yet Willow
>purposely killed two men.

The fact that Warren intended to kill Buffy and the wrong woman died really
doesn't make it an accident in my book. Warren intended to kill someone and he
did.

Even the killing of Katrina, while not an intentional "murder" was not an
accident. He intentionally went after Katrina with extreme force to prevent her
from ratting him out.

That said, Dark Willow was more dangerous than Warren could hope to be.

Rose

AE Jabbour

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 1:34:41 PM6/23/03
to
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> But ... why? What caused the train to jump the track? Joss not being
> around, and the under-staff choking? Actor unavailability and demands, as
> in the CC situation on Angel?
>
> shawn

My conviction? The staff sat around a table, drank huge amounts
of jello shots and, once the novelty of that wore off, they just
popped the Cuervo and did it straight, and said things like:

"Oh .... My ... GOD! Wouldn't it just be [hiccup] absolu-[hiccup]
fucgriging hilarious if we had a loan shark who actually was
dressed up in a palalastic shark suit?!"

"Yeah!

"Cool!"

"Pass the damned cuervo you tequila skank!"


That's what I think happened. It's the only explanation
I can come up with.

--
A.E. Jabbour

"Oh! I know this one: Slaying entails certain
sacrifices ... blah blah bitty blah, I'm so
stuffy, give me a scone."
Buffy, "Inca Mummy Girl"

Shuggie

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 1:14:44 PM6/23/03
to
In article <20030623125000...@mb-m25.aol.com>, fyl...@aol.comspam
says...
>
>Shuggie wrote:
>

Nope not me. It was Snuggles - completely different person.

AE Jabbour

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 1:35:57 PM6/23/03
to
Snuggles <postm...@spamcop.net> wrote:

Now, see, that's comedy. Why didn't we get more of that in the
last two seasons?

AE Jabbour

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 1:39:21 PM6/23/03
to
Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
> Shuggie wrote:
>
>>Interesting how Warren killed both of those women by accident yet Willow
>>purposely killed two men.
>
> The fact that Warren intended to kill Buffy and the wrong woman died really
> doesn't make it an accident in my book. Warren intended to kill someone and he
> did.

Exactly. Which is why the "felony murder" statute exists. I may not
agree with it completely, but that is why it exists: because most of
society agrees with the concept.

> Even the killing of Katrina, while not an intentional "murder" was not an
> accident. He intentionally went after Katrina with extreme force to prevent her
> from ratting him out.

That's not even a close one.

> That said, Dark Willow was more dangerous than Warren could hope to be.
>
> Rose

Dark Willow was more dangerous than Glory could hope to be.

Snuggles

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 2:12:10 PM6/23/03
to
In article <bd7ci...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Damn straight! :)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 2:38:34 PM6/23/03
to
AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:

: Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
:> Shuggie wrote:
:>
:>>Interesting how Warren killed both of those women by accident yet Willow
:>>purposely killed two men.
:>
:> The fact that Warren intended to kill Buffy and the wrong woman died really
:> doesn't make it an accident in my book. Warren intended to kill someone and he
:> did.

: Exactly. Which is why the "felony murder" statute exists. I may not
: agree with it completely, but that is why it exists: because most of
: society agrees with the concept.

:> Even the killing of Katrina, while not an intentional "murder" was not an
:> accident. He intentionally went after Katrina with extreme force to prevent her
:> from ratting him out.

: That's not even a close one.

:> That said, Dark Willow was more dangerous than Warren could hope to be.
:>
:> Rose

: Dark Willow was more dangerous than Glory could hope to be.

And Light!Willow now is, apparently, on the way to God-hood.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 2:33:28 PM6/23/03
to
AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

:> But ... why? What caused the train to jump the track? Joss not being
:> around, and the under-staff choking? Actor unavailability and demands, as
:> in the CC situation on Angel?
:>
:> shawn

: "Oh .... My ... GOD! Wouldn't it just be [hiccup] absolu-[hiccup]


: fucgriging hilarious if we had a loan shark who actually was
: dressed up in a palalastic shark suit?!"

: That's what I think happened. It's the only explanation


: I can come up with.

That was a good episode, one of the best of S6.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 2:34:14 PM6/23/03
to
AE Jabbour <aej17D...@comcast.net> wrote:
: Snuggles <postm...@spamcop.net> wrote:

:> In article <db8f5127.03062...@posting.google.com>,
:> wtfa...@yahoo.com (Nick Cassaro) wrote:

:>> But as an alternative to EvilWillow, we were given endless Spuffy
:>> which resulted in BitchBuffy. They would rather salvage Willow as a
:>> sympathetic character than Buffy? Whose show is it?
:>
:> You have to understand.... Buffy is the girl who wouldn't go out with
:> Joss when he was in high school.... Willow is the cute girl who most
:> likely gave him head. Hence Buffy is made to act like a bitch and Willow
:> becomes a goddess.

: Now, see, that's comedy. Why didn't we get more of that in the
: last two seasons?

Good taste?

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 2:36:43 PM6/23/03
to
Snuggles <postm...@spamcop.net> wrote:
: In article <bd765j$8vd$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

:> Kent <kent@> wrote:
:>
:> worshippped, but real girls don't do that so he gets violent and


:> fantasizes a new world more to his liking. His rampage worked as another
:> example of the dangerous male abuse Buffy exists to resist, not to
:> mention because the actor did a good job going insane.

: Interesting how Warren killed both of those women by accident yet Willow
: purposely killed two men.

Carelessly wielding weapons even without intending to kill doesn't exactly
absolve one of responsibility. And Willow killed, in both cases, villains.
That's almost allowed in super-hero shoes.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 3:11:22 PM6/23/03
to
Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:

:>fantasizes a new world more to his liking. His rampage worked as another


:>example of the dangerous male abuse Buffy exists to resist, not to
:>mention because the actor did a good job going insane.

: The one weakness with Warren (not enough to spoil him as a villain imo) and the
: big weakness with Caleb (in his case, enough to spoil him as a villain imo) is
: that that these two men do not represent a threat to women. A loony,
: misogynistic, devil-worshipping loner who wants to destroy the world is a
: terrorist threat to the world but specifically to women's power and equality.

They left that up to dialogue and Nathan's acting skills, ie, they gave
him enough to hint at least at his motivations, which were misogynistic.

: Hardly anyone pays attention to lone nutballs. Note that he didn't have a


: flock or following of any kind. Similarly, I don't feel an unpopular coward
: with poor social skills is a threat to women as a category, anymore than a
: female stalkers are threats to men as a category. People like Warren and Glenn
: Close's character from Fatal Attraction merely threaten the individuals they go
: after.

So you didn't find Fatal Attraction (with it's "bad" woman a career woman
driven mad by loneliness and childlessness, and it's "good" woman a more
traditional homebody and mother) anti-feminist? It's all okay because
she's clearly a nut, and stands for no-one?

: That's why Seeing Red didn't work for me as a feminist protest against male


: violence. A woman could have shot Tara just as easily as Warren did. Spike was
: not part of a power structure which undermines women, he was one guy who
: flipped out on his love object.

Does it have to come back to Spike? Weren't we all just happily focusing
on Warren for a moment? Rhetorical question, I know.

Warren worked because he and los amigoes tres were those familiar high
school D&D freaks gone mad, channeling their (largely, not completely)
male psyches into avenues which undermine rather than strengthen society.
It was complex, with Andrew lusting after Warren, and Warren being smart
enough to know that and use it, but Warren clearly broke down when it came
to the relating to the ladies front. He couldn't even muster a That 70's
Show kind of bluster to Katrina. He (perhaps moreso than the insane Caleb)
was a symbol of frustrated, impeded maturation; stuck as a boy, he became
an evil man.

: A much better example of true patriarchal power would be Mayor Wilkins.

: Another example would be Angelus, Warren, or Soulless Spike getting away with
: what they did due to a justice system which would sympathize with them.

Andrew and Jonathan did try to retreat to the authorities for protection,
the little good it did them.

: In general, Buffy's world is not one in which men have a lot of power, so she
: doesn't really have a whole lot of male power to struggle against. BtVS is

Master, Adam, the military, Riley (before he caught on), all the absent
dads, the largely male CoW; it's ironic to read this because I just had a
long argument with someone about all the different ways men are trashed on
the show, and how they greatly outnumber women as Buffy's antagonists.

: more about personal demons than it is about women's problems in male-dominated


: society. That's why ME deciding to have Buffy's big one on one battle being

But where do those personal demons come from, Rose? What situation finds
Buffy in a situation where she has to do the bidding of men regardless of
her own needs and goals?

: with the lone-nut misogynist rather than an image of herself (their original


: plan) was such a weak choice. Buffy is a worse enemy to Buffy than any man has
: ever been.

I was so relieved that the FE as Buffy (whom I always preferred in any
other guise; I wish it could have been Cassie all season, really; she
scared me in CWDP) was as underplayed as it was. I think it's beyond tired
to have Buffy fight with her evil self, when that's all Buffy already ever
does as far as her emotions and life choices go. It's redudant. Moreso,
it's symbolically counter-productive and self-destructive, to have your
symbol of rebellion and loving protection also be your symbol of evil and
world-conquering will-imposition.

Externalizing it and refocusing the attention on a guy who's not
anti-Buffy, but anti-grrrll was a good move, if rather awkwardly tipped in
at a late point and absurdly over the top at times. The idea was good, but
the writing (and dividing the FE into FE + Caleb) difused most of it in
the execution. He was, in the end, like Rac, like crack magic, another
delaying tactic until the real big battle, which was (just as you seemed
to expect) Buffy really against herself. Like the rest of the series,
though, she hardly needed an external doppleganger to dramatize that
dilemma.

Shawn


apocalipstick

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 4:35:53 PM6/23/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93A38BC14A...@216.40.28.74>...

> apocal...@lycos.com (apocalipstick) wrote in
> news:526b2ec8.03062...@posting.google.com:
>
> >> Yes, which still means that for seven episodes or more the season was
> >> *not* going according to Joss's plan -- but was in fact going rather
> >> spectacularly off the rails as his writers scrambled to compensate
> >> for a storyline that had suddenly dropped out from under them.
> >
> > Perhaps ME fell victim to hubris. After all, Angel was only supposed
> > to appear in a handful of episodes; Spike and Drusilla likewise. All
> > three roles were expanded due to cast chemistry and level of writer
> > comfort. Most spectacularly, Faith was only scheduled to be a minor
> > character until K. Todd Freeman's scheduling difficulties prevented
> > Mr. Trick from being S3's main villain. Since the on-the-fly rewrite
> > of S3 worked so well, ME may have felt they could just do it again.
> > After all, it couldn't be so hard, could it? Could it?
>
> The difference, though, was that in those cases the decision was largely
> artistic in nature -- XX is working very well, so let's expand it; YY is
> not working well, so let's phase it out.

Boreanaz, yes. Spike and Dru, yes. Mr. Trick, Faith, and the Mayor
not so much. I will expand and expound below.

>
> In the case of Dark Will the decision seems to be not one of art
> overriding previously laid plans, but of practical concerns and
> cowardice overriding art. That is, they chickened out not because
> Willow's descent into darkness wasn't working out, but because it was
> working *too well*, because it was going completely according to plan
> and was absolutely convincing, and for some reason that terrified them.

I'm just gassing here, but I think that this sort of reasoning (on
ME's part, not LU's) gives lie to the idea that ME is in touch with
their fans. I think most of the show's base would have happily
followed them down the DarkWill path.

>
> It's one thing to replace Mr. Trick with Faith because you think she
> makes a more compelling villain.

From what I've read, that wasn't the case. They simply *couldn't* use
Mr. Trick because Freeman's schedule just wouldn't work. They were
pretty under the gun. Granted, this is coming from ME and they
haven't been exactly the most trustworthy sources over the years, so
you could be 100% right.


> It's another thing to replace Dark Will
> with Crack Magick because the idea of Dark Will is too daring and, oh,
> we've got to stick something else in there to pad the storyline, and
> Crack Magick is the best we can come up with on short notice this late
> in the game...
>
> I can't imagine the ME writers would think the success of the former
> suggests that the latter would be at all successful. Especially since
> their last big "Oh, crap..." replacement story was the Adam arc of
> season 4, and even they admit that wasn't one of their finest hours.

That's true, but isn't that the nature of hubris, to assume that past
failures just might one-off stumbles, rather than warnings to *not do
it again*?

LunaLu

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 4:38:28 PM6/23/03
to
On 22 Jun 2003 09:07:45 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote:


>(PS can I just say that typing a long paragraph with a lot of elipses makes
>your post harder to read and to follow, at least to me. I hope you'll consider
>using periods and semi colons instead, thanks. :) )
====================================
You're post was great... I'll reply as soon as possible. . . I just
wanted to say I'm sorry for the way i write... I've got a short
circuit in the brain and it is the only way I can get my thoughts out.
To me, it's very hard to follow and see and think about the posts I
read or write here (or anywhere for that matter)
~Luna

Rose

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 6:59:04 PM6/23/03
to
>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 6/23/2003 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bd7jcq$fsq$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>

>
>Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:
>
>:>fantasizes a new world more to his liking. His rampage worked as another
>:>example of the dangerous male abuse Buffy exists to resist, not to
>:>mention because the actor did a good job going insane.
>
>: The one weakness with Warren (not enough to spoil him as a villain imo) and
>the
>: big weakness with Caleb (in his case, enough to spoil him as a villain imo)
>is
>: that that these two men do not represent a threat to women. A loony,
>: misogynistic, devil-worshipping loner who wants to destroy the world is a
>: terrorist threat to the world but specifically to women's power and
>equality.
>

Um, er, make that "NOT specifically to women's power." Sorry.

>They left that up to dialogue and Nathan's acting skills, ie, they gave
>him enough to hint at least at his motivations, which were misogynistic.
>

I didn't get that his motive was misgynistic. I got that he was a guy who sold
his soul to the Devil in order to achieve mucho power, who just "happened" to
be misogynistic. If his problem was with Swedish people and one or two of the
Slayers were Swedish, he'd have ranted on about Swedes while snapping proto
slayers' necks. But I missed half an ep here or there so I can't say for sure.


Speaking of Swedes, did you know that our word "suede" comes from the French
word for Swede? I guess they got their brushed leather from Sweden.

>: Hardly anyone pays attention to lone nutballs. Note that he didn't have a
>: flock or following of any kind. Similarly, I don't feel an unpopular
>coward
>: with poor social skills is a threat to women as a category, anymore than a
>: female stalkers are threats to men as a category. People like Warren and
>Glenn
>: Close's character from Fatal Attraction merely threaten the individuals
>they go
>: after.
>
>So you didn't find Fatal Attraction (with it's "bad" woman a career woman
>driven mad by loneliness and childlessness, and it's "good" woman a more
>traditional homebody and mother) anti-feminist? It's all okay because
>she's clearly a nut, and stands for no-one?
>

I think the movie may have been anti-feminist (it's been eons since I saw it)
but I don't think the behavior displayed by character GC played represents much
of a threat to male power.
OTOH, Demi Moore's character in that movie with Michael Douglas in which she is
a higher-up who sexually harasses him, does depict a woman who is a potential
threat to male power. In an evil way, not a positive, "grrl power!" way.


>: That's why Seeing Red didn't work for me as a feminist protest against male
>: violence. A woman could have shot Tara just as easily as Warren did. Spike
>was
>: not part of a power structure which undermines women, he was one guy who
>: flipped out on his love object.
>
>Does it have to come back to Spike?

It didn't "come back to Spike" imo. I mentioned him in passing. Because he's
a prominent character on the show (indeed some say he Took Over [tm]),
sometimes his name will come up in conversation without the thread or topic
being "about" him. Actually, you may not have noticed but I've been bending
over backwards to talk about Other Than Spike because I've totally OD'd on
debating Spike related issues.

>Weren't we all just happily focusing
>on Warren for a moment? Rhetorical >question, I know.
>

I want to smooch Willow-Warren, I envy Kennedy. I dig guys with noses like
Warren's. They're sexy. But Warren was so mean that I couldn't fantasize about
him. Unlike Spike who was "this evil guy is fun!" evil, Warren was "put a
bullet in this guy's brain!" evil. Not that Warren wasn't fun in his own way.
But I never warmed up to him.

>Warren worked because he and los amigoes tres were those familiar high
>school D&D freaks gone mad,

ITA that the three nerds worked. As much as I attacked S6 I always trumpeted
my love for the Trio. Total trio supporter, here.

>channeling their (largely, not completely)
>male psyches into avenues which undermine rather than strengthen society.
>It was complex, with Andrew lusting after Warren, and Warren being smart
>enough to know that and use it, but Warren clearly broke down when it came
>to the relating to the ladies front. He couldn't even muster a That 70's
>Show kind of bluster to Katrina. He (perhaps moreso than the insane Caleb)
>was a symbol of frustrated, impeded maturation; stuck as a boy, he became
>an evil man.
>

It was such a waste, because Warren was a smart, witty and attractive guy.
(You don't have to be classically handsome to be attractive.) The fact that
Katrina, an independent and attractive young woman herself, liked him before
she found out his true character, is testimony to this. If Warren had truly
realized he had stuff going for him, he might have been a happy person.

What's a little scary about the Warren/Katrina story is I look at Katrina and
think, that could be me. In my 20s I dated a few guys who, though they had
evolved into smart, attractive, funny men, could not get past the fact that
girls didn't like them in high school. Lucky for me, the angry ex-nerds I
dated weren't homicidal, though a couple were pointlessly mean to me after the
first couple of dates. I dumped 'em early on. Don't be mean to me just
because cheerleaders didn't date you in high school dude.

>: A much better example of true patriarchal power would be Mayor Wilkins.
>: Another example would be Angelus, Warren, or Soulless Spike getting away
>with
>: what they did due to a justice system which would sympathize with them.
>
>Andrew and Jonathan did try to retreat to the authorities for protection,
>the little good it did them.
>

Heh, but if Andrew and Jonathan are symbols of male power in America then the
women better take over quick or the US of A will be overrun and conquered in a
matter of minutes. ;)

>: In general, Buffy's world is not one in which men have a lot of power, so
>she
>: doesn't really have a whole lot of male power to struggle against. BtVS is
>
>Master, Adam, the military, Riley (before >he caught on),

Even after he caught on, in a way. "Yeah I cheated, now you better shape up or
I'm splitting because you have not doted on me sufficiently" seems to fit that
category. I will concede that there was a lot more organized, male power to
fight in the earlier seasons. Still, with characters like The Master and Adam
it was about power, chaos, the group not in power wanting to seize it, more
than it was about men keeping women down.

>all the absent
>dads,

Which depicts men as weak and irresponsible, not as powerful. Is making dads
absentee jerks anti-male? Sure. Is it about male power? Not on its face.
Running away from your kids like a rabbit isn't very threatening, it's just
craven.

>the largely male CoW;

OK, here is where you have an issue of Buffy vs. antagonistic, oppressive "male
power." Strangely, the show didn't explore it a whole lot. Buffy managed to
get out from under their yoke early and fairly easily.

it's ironic to read this because I just had a
>long argument with someone about all the different ways men are trashed on
>the show, and how they greatly outnumber women as Buffy's antagonists.
>

As antagonists, yes, trashed, yes, but I still contend that I don't see Buffy
continually being threatened by male-dominated social structures. If the
social worker in S6 had been a man saying "I am going to try to force Dawn to
live with your dad because when a single woman heads a household, the kids go
bad", that would have been a good example of Buffy vs. patriarchal attitudes.

>: more about personal demons than it is about women's problems in
>male-dominated
>: society. That's why ME deciding to have Buffy's big one on one battle
>being
>
>But where do those personal demons >come from, Rose?

The "personal" demons come from Buffy. The pain of growing up. The pain of
life.

>What situation finds
>Buffy in a situation where she has to do the bidding of men regardless of
>her own needs and goals?
>

Slaying, of course. But the final battle with a human wasn't with a Shadowman
or a Watcher who wanted the system to continue as One Girl. It was with a lone
nut who didn't even want Buffy to be a Slayer anymore.


>: with the lone-nut misogynist rather than an image of herself (their
>original
>: plan) was such a weak choice. Buffy is a worse enemy to Buffy than any man
>has
>: ever been.
>
>I was so relieved that the FE as Buffy (whom I always preferred in any
>other guise; I wish it could have been Cassie all season, really; she
>scared me in CWDP) was as underplayed as it was. I think it's beyond tired
>to have Buffy fight with her evil self, when that's all Buffy already ever
>does as far as her emotions and life choices go. It's redudant. Moreso,
>it's symbolically counter-productive and self-destructive, to have your
>symbol of rebellion and loving protection also be your symbol of evil and
>world-conquering will-imposition.
>
>Externalizing it and refocusing the attention on a guy who's not
>anti-Buffy, but anti-grrrll was a good move, if rather awkwardly tipped in
>at a late point and absurdly over the top at times. The idea was good, but
>the writing (and dividing the FE into FE + Caleb) difused most of it in
>the execution. He was, in the end, like Rac, like crack magic, another
>delaying tactic until the real big battle, which was (just as you seemed
>to expect) Buffy really against herself. Like the rest of the series,
>though, she hardly needed an external doppleganger to dramatize that
>dilemma.
>
>Shawn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Rose

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 9:02:23 PM6/23/03
to
Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:

: Um, er, make that "NOT specifically to women's power." Sorry.

I think we got it anyway.

:>They left that up to dialogue and Nathan's acting skills, ie, they gave

:>him enough to hint at least at his motivations, which were misogynistic.
:>

: I didn't get that his motive was misgynistic. I got that he was a guy who sold
: his soul to the Devil in order to achieve mucho power, who just "happened" to
: be misogynistic. If his problem was with Swedish people and one or two of the
: Slayers were Swedish, he'd have ranted on about Swedes while snapping proto
: slayers' necks. But I missed half an ep here or there so I can't say for sure.

But why did he want the power? His fetish was destroying little girls. He
seemed to see a systemic problem where their uppitiness was concerned. He
was, basically, an arch-conservative wishing for a return to old time
chauvinism.

: Speaking of Swedes, did you know that our word "suede" comes from the French


: word for Swede? I guess they got their brushed leather from Sweden.

Funny fact.

:>So you didn't find Fatal Attraction (with it's "bad" woman a career woman

:>driven mad by loneliness and childlessness, and it's "good" woman a more
:>traditional homebody and mother) anti-feminist? It's all okay because
:>she's clearly a nut, and stands for no-one?

: I think the movie may have been anti-feminist (it's been eons since I saw it)
: but I don't think the behavior displayed by character GC played represents much
: of a threat to male power.
: OTOH, Demi Moore's character in that movie with Michael Douglas in which she is
: a higher-up who sexually harasses him, does depict a woman who is a potential
: threat to male power. In an evil way, not a positive, "grrl power!" way.

Disclosure. Very much so.

:>Does it have to come back to Spike?

: It didn't "come back to Spike" imo. I mentioned him in passing. Because he's
: a prominent character on the show (indeed some say he Took Over [tm]),
: sometimes his name will come up in conversation without the thread or topic
: being "about" him. Actually, you may not have noticed but I've been bending
: over backwards to talk about Other Than Spike because I've totally OD'd on
: debating Spike related issues.

Glad to hear it. Nope, haven't noticed it.

: I want to smooch Willow-Warren, I envy Kennedy. I dig guys with noses like


: Warren's. They're sexy. But Warren was so mean that I couldn't fantasize about
: him. Unlike Spike who was "this evil guy is fun!" evil, Warren was "put a
: bullet in this guy's brain!" evil. Not that Warren wasn't fun in his own way.
: But I never warmed up to him.

It would have been really creepy if you had.

:>Warren worked because he and los amigoes tres were those familiar high


:>school D&D freaks gone mad,

: ITA that the three nerds worked. As much as I attacked S6 I always trumpeted
: my love for the Trio. Total trio supporter, here.

ITA = I too acknowledge?

:>to the relating to the ladies front. He couldn't even muster a That 70's


:>Show kind of bluster to Katrina. He (perhaps moreso than the insane Caleb)
:>was a symbol of frustrated, impeded maturation; stuck as a boy, he became
:>an evil man.

: It was such a waste, because Warren was a smart, witty and attractive guy.
: (You don't have to be classically handsome to be attractive.) The fact that

Please, that fur-field of a chest alone was super-hot! That's Willow's
real crime when she skinned him: the hair came, too! [uh oh, Shawn's
fetishes now becoming apparent]

: Katrina, an independent and attractive young woman herself, liked him before


: she found out his true character, is testimony to this. If Warren had truly
: realized he had stuff going for him, he might have been a happy person.

I agree completely. That's the tragedy of his character, one the writing
(mostly) supports and that the actor definitely portrayed.

: What's a little scary about the Warren/Katrina story is I look at Katrina and


: think, that could be me. In my 20s I dated a few guys who, though they had
: evolved into smart, attractive, funny men, could not get past the fact that
: girls didn't like them in high school. Lucky for me, the angry ex-nerds I
: dated weren't homicidal, though a couple were pointlessly mean to me after the
: first couple of dates. I dumped 'em early on. Don't be mean to me just
: because cheerleaders didn't date you in high school dude.

A very fair request. That's exactly the sort of insecurity I think Warren
was meant to portray, and not recover from.

:>Andrew and Jonathan did try to retreat to the authorities for protection,

:>the little good it did them.

: Heh, but if Andrew and Jonathan are symbols of male power in America then the
: women better take over quick or the US of A will be overrun and conquered in a
: matter of minutes. ;)

More like they're symbols of a need for male power, or a lack of a true
power base. All the dysfunctional kids in Buffy w/no dads or bad daddies.
If the show wasn't about demonizing men (and I wouldn't really say that
it was, despite the message of feminism and the hysterical response the
very topic engenders in some viewers), it was certainly about the
problematic nature of modern-day manhood.

:>: In general, Buffy's world is not one in which men have a lot of power, so


:>she
:>: doesn't really have a whole lot of male power to struggle against. BtVS is
:>
:>Master, Adam, the military, Riley (before >he caught on),

: Even after he caught on, in a way. "Yeah I cheated, now you better shape up or
: I'm splitting because you have not doted on me sufficiently" seems to fit that
: category. I will concede that there was a lot more organized, male power to
: fight in the earlier seasons. Still, with characters like The Master and Adam
: it was about power, chaos, the group not in power wanting to seize it, more
: than it was about men keeping women down.

But the fact that it was men leading those pushes towards power is
significant in itself, whether or not the text overtly examined that
stance.

:>all the absent
:>dads,

: Which depicts men as weak and irresponsible, not as powerful. Is making dads
: absentee jerks anti-male? Sure. Is it about male power? Not on its face.
: Running away from your kids like a rabbit isn't very threatening, it's just
: craven.

A power vaccuum caused by absent dads can still be a statement about male
power and privelege.

:>the largely male CoW;

: OK, here is where you have an issue of Buffy vs. antagonistic, oppressive "male
: power." Strangely, the show didn't explore it a whole lot. Buffy managed to
: get out from under their yoke early and fairly easily.

After being almost killed (along with her family), and quitting, and
causing Giles to be fired, and dealing with their mistakes, and
rebelling, and grudgingly allowing them back in on her terms, and
witnessing their demise. The statement was, yes, Buffy wins vs. the CoW,
but enough of the tradition of patriarchal dominance was brought into
question to generate scads of debate here (about just how much more
powerful they should be, usually, and interestingly) every time they
showed up.

: it's ironic to read this because I just had a

:>long argument with someone about all the different ways men are trashed on
:>the show, and how they greatly outnumber women as Buffy's antagonists.

: As antagonists, yes, trashed, yes, but I still contend that I don't see Buffy
: continually being threatened by male-dominated social structures. If the
: social worker in S6 had been a man saying "I am going to try to force Dawn to
: live with your dad because when a single woman heads a household, the kids go
: bad", that would have been a good example of Buffy vs. patriarchal attitudes.

Rather, I think it would have been an anachronistic and unlikely slap in
the face and an extremist stance on gender in the opposite direction of
the one the show usually took. I mean, even in TRW, the kids often go to
the moms, not the dads.

And that social worker had a male boss, did she not?

:>: more about personal demons than it is about women's problems in


:>male-dominated
:>: society. That's why ME deciding to have Buffy's big one on one battle
:>being
:>
:>But where do those personal demons >come from, Rose?

: The "personal" demons come from Buffy. The pain of growing up. The pain of
: life.

What causes that pain? Why isn't growing up just shiny and happy and
wish-fulfilling at every point?

:>What situation finds

:>Buffy in a situation where she has to do the bidding of men regardless of
:>her own needs and goals?

: Slaying, of course. But the final battle with a human wasn't with a Shadowman
: or a Watcher who wanted the system to continue as One Girl. It was with a lone
: nut who didn't even want Buffy to be a Slayer anymore.

The final battle was the one where Willow got to live long enough to do a
spell to empower all potentials.

Shawn

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:02:58 PM6/23/03
to
On 23 Jun 2003 08:09:23 -0700, wtfa...@yahoo.com (Nick Cassaro)
wrote:

>> It did happen, in the last 4 episodes instead of the last 11. Sure
>> they didn't go as far as they could have, but IMHO they did enough
>> while still leaving room for Willow to come back as a sympathetic
>> character in S7. I think that this last point was the big issue for ME
>> in the whole storyline.

>But as an alternative to EvilWillow, we were given endless Spuffy
>which resulted in BitchBuffy.

It wasn't endless, people tend to inflate these things over time.

>They would rather salvage Willow as a
>sympathetic character than Buffy? Whose show is it?

Listen to Whedon's commentaries on the DVDs is all I'll say. Plus I
found Buffy to be plenty sympathetic. And we still did get Willow
going evil as the climax to her characterization and power issues.

Unfortunately the commentaries for S6 are pretty thin on details of
what went on behind the scenes in S6. The S6 set has more commentaries
than the other sets but on the whole they are worse than for previous
seasons. Fury and Noxon on Bargaining are pretty good as are the 2 on
Normal Again but thats about it.

--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@removeozonline.com.au

"Life has meaning only in the struggle. Triumph or defeat are in the
hands of the Gods, so let us celebrate the struggle."
Swahili war chant

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:02:59 PM6/23/03
to
On 23 Jun 2003 15:17:41 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>: Dark Will was supposed to be the Big Bad of the entire season, not just
>: the last three episodes. At some point shortly before "Wrecked" was
>: scheduled to go into production, the writers got cold feet, wussed out
>: on the extended Dark Will arc, and shoehorned in the Crack Magick arc as
>: an excuse to delay it.

>I'm not sure I buy the getting cold feet. They've seemed all too-willing
>to jump off cliffs before. Some step in the creative process told them
>this (the crack magick angle) was good; what was it, and why? Did they
>think, if Willow blew up early in the season, they'd have nowhere to go
>later on?

Perhaps, I can easily see it ending up like the Angelus arc in S2. As
far as Willow's characterization goes the interesting stuff was in the
lead up to her becoming evil, why she became evil, which we did see.
Once she's evil where were they going to go? Delaying tactics like
with Angelus? If thats what was going to happen then IMHO what we got
was better because we still did see her going bad as the ultimate
climax to her power issues.

Plus I do wonder what would have happened to the nerds if Willow went
bad in Wrecked, we may not have got the development in Dead Things and
afterward as they became darker. The writers wanting to do more with
the nerds may have been a factor in changing the storyline.

[snip]

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:03:00 PM6/23/03
to
On 23 Jun 2003 13:35:53 -0700, apocal...@lycos.com (apocalipstick)
wrote:

>Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93A38BC14A...@216.40.28.74>...

[snip]

>I'm just gassing here, but I think that this sort of reasoning (on
>ME's part, not LU's) gives lie to the idea that ME is in touch with
>their fans. I think most of the show's base would have happily
>followed them down the DarkWill path.

Some fans perhaps, but we got people protesting about Willow not being
punished enough as it was. How many more people would have protested
if she was evil for longer and if she was the one who killed Tara?
IMHO they would have had to kill her off and they didn't want to do
that.

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:12:24 AM6/24/03
to

>> In the case of Dark Will the decision seems to be not one of art

>> overriding previously laid plans, but of practical concerns and
>> cowardice overriding art. That is, they chickened out not because
>> Willow's descent into darkness wasn't working out, but because it was
>> working *too well*, because it was going completely according to plan
>> and was absolutely convincing, and for some reason that terrified
>> them.
>
> I'm just gassing here, but I think that this sort of reasoning (on
> ME's part, not LU's) gives lie to the idea that ME is in touch with
> their fans. I think most of the show's base would have happily
> followed them down the DarkWill path.

I would've. I was. And IIRC, the buzz around here about the possibility
of Big Bad Willow was overwhelmingly positive.

Besides, since when does Joss "Give 'Em What They Need, Not What They
Want" Whedon care what the fans are clamoring for? He's supposed to be
Mr. Uncompromising Artiste, not Mr. Lowest Common Denominator.

No, I don't think this was a "Omigod! The fans hate this!" kind of
decision. Joss and his writers have always been the sort of writers who
barrel right through fan objections, not the kind of folks who screech
to a halt and find another way around...

Funny how it's so much easier to figure out what probably *didn't*
motivate the big S6 copout than to figure out what probably *did*...

>> It's one thing to replace Mr. Trick with Faith because you think she
>> makes a more compelling villain.
>
> From what I've read, that wasn't the case. They simply *couldn't* use
> Mr. Trick because Freeman's schedule just wouldn't work. They were
> pretty under the gun. Granted, this is coming from ME and they
> haven't been exactly the most trustworthy sources over the years, so
> you could be 100% right.

The word I always heard from ME was that they didn't think Mr. Trick was
working out as a character. His unavailability for several early-mid-
season episodes was always presented as a secondary factor.

Now, that could all be spin, too, like you said. But I don't find it
hard to believe that Joss was simply more in love with Faith than Mr.
Trick.

>> I can't imagine the ME writers would think the success of the former
>> suggests that the latter would be at all successful. Especially since
>> their last big "Oh, crap..." replacement story was the Adam arc of
>> season 4, and even they admit that wasn't one of their finest hours.
>
> That's true, but isn't that the nature of hubris, to assume that past
> failures just might one-off stumbles, rather than warnings to *not do
> it again*?

You're right, of course. There's no accounting for hubris.

The thing is, though, I simply don't see hubris in the big Crack Magick
retcon. I see nothing but sheer terror, blind panic. When you take
something as subtle, ballsy, and downright mythic as Dark Will and turn
it into the anvilicious, ambitionless, and dreadfully banal travesty
that was the Crack Magick arc, that's not a big hubristic dream that
went wrong; that's the utter lack of a dream, the complete failure of
imagination.

Just compare Crack Magick with some of the other less-successful last-
minute changes of plan that have plagued the Buffyverse from time to
time. Adam and the Initiative 2.0. Pylea. Caleb. These sorts of arcs
*do* smack of overweening ambition -- they're loud, wild,
unapologetically over-the-top. Crack Magick, OTOH, doesn't feel anything
like that. It's got an unpleasantly self-conscious and timid character
to it that's unlike any other foolish mistake ME has ever made -- and
certainly unlike any product of hubris that I've ever seen.

--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:38:48 AM6/24/03
to
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
news:bd87uv$675$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

>: Heh, but if Andrew and Jonathan are symbols of male power in America
>: then the women better take over quick or the US of A will be overrun
>: and conquered in a matter of minutes. ;)
>
> More like they're symbols of a need for male power, or a lack of a
> true power base.

I don't think it's about power so much as responsibility. I don't think
Warren was interested in power *per se*, as much as he was interested in
enjoying the fruits of a fairly ordinary successful life -- without
having to do anything to *earn* those rewards.

For example, Warren didn't want to build a mind-control sphere so he
could build a harem of the most beautiful women in the world to service
his every desire. In his own sick, twisted way, all he really wanted was
his college sweetheart back -- he just didn't want to have to beg and
plead for her forgiveness, because why should a man have to beg for the
one stupid little woman he deserves?

In that sense Warren wasn't really about notions of masculine authority;
he was about notions of masculine entitlement and normativeness. His bag
wasn't, "I'm a big strong superior man, so I should be the one in charge
of everything, not you stupid, uppity wimminfolk." Instead it was, "I'm
a normal red-blooded man, so I should have all the things a normal red-
blooded man takes for granted, and if I don't get them it's because you
damned girls are trying to emasculate me."

IOW, Warren doesn't want to be the Man; he just wants to be a happy
little cog in the Man's great machine. It's a subtle distinction,
perhaps, but I think it's an important one.

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:30:36 AM6/24/03
to
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
news:bd756v$8vd$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

>: Yes, which still means that for seven episodes or more the season was
>: *not* going according to Joss's plan -- but was in fact going rather
>: spectacularly off the rails as his writers scrambled to compensate
>: for a storyline that had suddenly dropped out from under them.
>

> But ... why? What caused the train to jump the track?

God, I wish I knew...

> Joss not being around, and the under-staff choking?

Nah. This isn't the kind of retcon the under-staff could make unless Joss
was absolutely on board with it. It's not like they could decide not to
continue with the major storyline of the season and Joss wouldn't notice!

> Actor unavailability and demands, as in the CC situation on Angel?

Well, if Alyson Hannigan got herself pregnant, they did a damn good job
covering it up. ;)

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:33:22 AM6/24/03
to
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
news:bd7h5o$agm$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

>: "Oh .... My ... GOD! Wouldn't it just be [hiccup] absolu-[hiccup]
>: fucgriging hilarious if we had a loan shark who actually was
>: dressed up in a palalastic shark suit?!"
>
>: That's what I think happened. It's the only explanation
>: I can come up with.
>
> That was a good episode, one of the best of S6.

One of the most overrated episodes of S6 is more like it. Great opening
act, killer closing sequence -- meaningless piffle in between.

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:33:46 AM6/24/03
to
"Kent" <kent@> wrote in news:bd2hhj$ph8$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net:

> Thanks for the quick reply. I appreciate hearing the details.

You're welcome. I enjoy bitching about this particular ME decision, so it
was my pleasure. :)

Lord Usher

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:41:44 AM6/24/03
to
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
news:bd75ml$8vd$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: Dark Will was supposed to be the Big Bad of the entire season, not
>: just the last three episodes. At some point shortly before "Wrecked"
>: was scheduled to go into production, the writers got cold feet,
>: wussed out on the extended Dark Will arc, and shoehorned in the Crack
>: Magick arc as an excuse to delay it.
>
> I'm not sure I buy the getting cold feet. They've seemed all
> too-willing to jump off cliffs before. Some step in the creative
> process told them this (the crack magick angle) was good; what was it,
> and why? Did they think, if Willow blew up early in the season, they'd
> have nowhere to go later on?

I can't believe they got all the way to episode ten before they realized
that they had nowhere to take Willow once she turned evil. Surely by
that point they had at least *some* idea what they'd be doing with her
for half the season!

> Delaying tactics are a big part of any sequentially told story, always
> have been. And part of ME's creativity is the making-it-up-on-the-fly
> thing; responding to revelations and inspirations they uncover as they
> go along, mining lucky accidents and surprises for later story.

Which makes it seem all the more strange that this particular retcon was
so artless. It didn't involve any of the "surprise discovery" elements
that frequently help make ME's last-minute alterations seem dynamic and
organic. Instead of taking some small element and running with it, it's
like they dropped every single thread they'd been carrying -- some that
they'd been following for *years* -- and pulled this insulting notion of
magic-as-drug metaphor out of their collective ass.

> Can we blame it on the writer of Wrecked?

Hey, I'm often the first person to blame Marti when something goes awry.
But this is bigger than her one episode. It's a problem with the
conceptualization of the entire arc, and I can't imagine Marti is solely
responsible for that.

>: word that Tara was doomed, odd if it wasn't supposed to happen until
>: the very end of the season; the mysterious rescheduling of the
>: episode "Asylum"/"Normal Again" from early in the season to near the
>: end; the way so many episodes between "Wrecked" and "Seeing Red,"
>: especially the crucial February sweeps eps, seem rushed and
>: half-assed...
>
> I'll have to review those and see if I agree, but I do agree that SR,
> 2TG and Grave all far outshone what came before. So, does this mean
> that, rather than Warren, it was originally going to have been Willow
> who killed Tara?

My suspicion is that the Troika arc was expanded to fill more space, but
that the basic outline of their arc was there from the beginning --
goofball kids experiment with supervillainy, goofball kids go too far
and turn to genuine evil, goofball kids kill Tara, Willow turns dark. I
just think it was all supposed to happen by episode 13 or so...

That would explain why the major Troika episodes -- "Dead Things,"
"Normal Again," and "Seeing Red" -- are the most polished of the mid-
season episodes. Because they're the episodes that were always supposed
to happen more or less as they did, whether Willow turned evil earlier
or later. They were just separated by lame last-minute filler shows like
OaFA or AYW instead of running all in a row, to make sure it happened
later rather than earlier.

Snuggles

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 2:02:03 AM6/24/03
to
In article <Xns93A428CE61...@216.40.28.72>,
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Damn it, you got me thinking about this mess again! Why did ME do
it?!?!? Maybe it was pressure from UPN? They didn't like the fact that
Willow was goign to get trashed? Maybe Alyson was orginally going to be
written out but then she decided to stay and suddenly ME had to figure
out a way to soften Dark Willow so as to allow her to stay? Please, I
need answers!!!!!

Shuggie

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 4:17:08 AM6/24/03
to
In article <Xns93A3EA4E44...@216.40.28.72>, Lord says...

>
>apocal...@lycos.com (apocalipstick) wrote in
>news:526b2ec8.03062...@posting.google.com:
>
>>> In the case of Dark Will the decision seems to be not one of art
>>> overriding previously laid plans, but of practical concerns and
>>> cowardice overriding art. That is, they chickened out not because
>>> Willow's descent into darkness wasn't working out, but because it was
>>> working *too well*, because it was going completely according to plan
>>> and was absolutely convincing, and for some reason that terrified
>>> them.
>>
>> I'm just gassing here, but I think that this sort of reasoning (on
>> ME's part, not LU's) gives lie to the idea that ME is in touch with
>> their fans. I think most of the show's base would have happily
>> followed them down the DarkWill path.
>
>I would've. I was. And IIRC, the buzz around here about the possibility
>of Big Bad Willow was overwhelmingly positive.
>
>Besides, since when does Joss "Give 'Em What They Need, Not What They
>Want" Whedon care what the fans are clamoring for? He's supposed to be
>Mr. Uncompromising Artiste, not Mr. Lowest Common Denominator.
>
>No, I don't think this was a "Omigod! The fans hate this!" kind of
>decision. Joss and his writers have always been the sort of writers who
>barrel right through fan objections, not the kind of folks who screech
>to a halt and find another way around...
>
>Funny how it's so much easier to figure out what probably *didn't*
>motivate the big S6 copout than to figure out what probably *did*...
>

My own personal theory is that too many fans saw it coming. Joss is all about
the surprise - when he does it well he's slyly subverting genre cliches, when he
does it badly - it's plot-twist for plot-twist's sake. I don't find it too much
of a stretch that Joss would delay DarkWill just to throw us all off.

Rowan Hawthorn

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 9:23:02 AM6/24/03
to

"Snuggles" <postm...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-8E0B8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...

I'd say you're probably not far off there, one way or another. From early
in Season 6 it seemed to me that Willow's direction was to a point where
she'd be killed off. Now, whether that was because Alyson wanted to leave
(if she did, she never said it publicly, as far as I know, every interview
I've read from her seems to indicate that she loved the role) or because
someone at ME thought it would be a *really Cool Thing* is anybody's guess.

--
Rowan Hawthorn


Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:26:07 PM6/24/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:bd87uv$675$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

:>: Heh, but if Andrew and Jonathan are symbols of male power in America
:>: then the women better take over quick or the US of A will be overrun
:>: and conquered in a matter of minutes. ;)
:>
:> More like they're symbols of a need for male power, or a lack of a
:> true power base.

: I don't think it's about power so much as responsibility. I don't think
: Warren was interested in power *per se*, as much as he was interested in
: enjoying the fruits of a fairly ordinary successful life -- without
: having to do anything to *earn* those rewards.

I buy that.

: For example, Warren didn't want to build a mind-control sphere so he

: could build a harem of the most beautiful women in the world to service
: his every desire. In his own sick, twisted way, all he really wanted was
: his college sweetheart back -- he just didn't want to have to beg and
: plead for her forgiveness, because why should a man have to beg for the
: one stupid little woman he deserves?

Both of your examples sound equal on the evil front to me. Which is why I
thought Warren's descent into actual murder was a fascinating story arc.

: In that sense Warren wasn't really about notions of masculine authority;

: he was about notions of masculine entitlement and normativeness. His bag
: wasn't, "I'm a big strong superior man, so I should be the one in charge
: of everything, not you stupid, uppity wimminfolk." Instead it was, "I'm

I guess that was Caleb instead?

: a normal red-blooded man, so I should have all the things a normal red-


: blooded man takes for granted, and if I don't get them it's because you
: damned girls are trying to emasculate me."

: IOW, Warren doesn't want to be the Man; he just wants to be a happy
: little cog in the Man's great machine. It's a subtle distinction,
: perhaps, but I think it's an important one.

I think it's a valid insight; but to the girl or girls he dominates it
would still translate as masculine authority. Certainly he tried very hard
to deprive Katrina of her voice. Authority with a little "a" perhaps, but
just as insidious (and perhaps even moreso, because this was Warren's
confused conception of love and intimacy and trust; all one way).

Which is why it was poignant and apt as a Buffy story, because it all
comes back to personal relationships to her.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:20:19 PM6/24/03
to
Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote:

: On 23 Jun 2003 15:17:41 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

:>Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

:>: Dark Will was supposed to be the Big Bad of the entire season, not just
:>: the last three episodes. At some point shortly before "Wrecked" was
:>: scheduled to go into production, the writers got cold feet, wussed out
:>: on the extended Dark Will arc, and shoehorned in the Crack Magick arc as
:>: an excuse to delay it.

:>I'm not sure I buy the getting cold feet. They've seemed all too-willing
:>to jump off cliffs before. Some step in the creative process told them
:>this (the crack magick angle) was good; what was it, and why? Did they
:>think, if Willow blew up early in the season, they'd have nowhere to go
:>later on?

: Perhaps, I can easily see it ending up like the Angelus arc in S2. As
: far as Willow's characterization goes the interesting stuff was in the
: lead up to her becoming evil, why she became evil, which we did see.

But the Angelus comparison is why I don't buy the wary of making Willow
irredeemable explanation. Angelus killed Jenny and was the final Big Bad
of S2, after all the very careful work they'd done seducing us to DB's
many charms; and the still brought him back for S3 to general fan approval
and ultimately his own show! Willow killing Tara (hardly ever the number
one popular character) shouldn't have been much worse, and why couldn't
they have redeemed her over time in S6 (as they did in S7). At least here,
a lot of people were ALREADY alienated from Willow, and had been since S3.

: Once she's evil where were they going to go? Delaying tactics like


: with Angelus? If thats what was going to happen then IMHO what we got
: was better because we still did see her going bad as the ultimate
: climax to her power issues.

There would always have been delaying tactics and filler episodes, that's
the nature of the beast. But could they have happened in a better array,
and would they have had to blow up something else really big instead of
the excellent finale we did receive? I do agree it would have been worse
had they just puttered out like Angel seasons tend to do (where all the
big climaxes frequently are in all the wrong places).

And I don't really agree that we got nothing but crap episodes between
Wrecked and Seeing Red. Gone was hilarious and wistful (a telling look at
Buffy's tortured psyche), Dead Things was amazing and creative, DMP was
funny (and still has its supporters, finally coming out of the wordwork)
if confused, Older and Far Away felt like old school magic-dilemma Buffy,
and Normal Again is one of the classic and definitive episodes of the
show.

Which leaves the mediocre As You Were (which at least did me the favor of
having Riley respect Buffy for once), the maudlin Hell's Bells (the ugly
dresses were clever), and Entropy (which was emotionally complex if a bit
redundant on the angst by that point).

That's not really a run of badness. More like just a lot of choppy
uneveness. A mini S4 in the midst of S6.

: Plus I do wonder what would have happened to the nerds if Willow went


: bad in Wrecked, we may not have got the development in Dead Things and
: afterward as they became darker. The writers wanting to do more with
: the nerds may have been a factor in changing the storyline.

Interesting theory. I did feel the writers meant to handle the nerds only
in the first part of the season, but maybe they begin to find things there
they didn't expect. Since it led to the excellent finale, not to mention
TKIM and Storyteller, two of my favorite episodes from this season, I
can't say as I mind.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:06:28 PM6/24/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:bd756v$8vd$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

:>: Yes, which still means that for seven episodes or more the season was
:>: *not* going according to Joss's plan -- but was in fact going rather
:>: spectacularly off the rails as his writers scrambled to compensate
:>: for a storyline that had suddenly dropped out from under them.
:>
:> But ... why? What caused the train to jump the track?

: God, I wish I knew...

:> Joss not being around, and the under-staff choking?

: Nah. This isn't the kind of retcon the under-staff could make unless Joss
: was absolutely on board with it. It's not like they could decide not to
: continue with the major storyline of the season and Joss wouldn't notice!

Good point. So, basically, you're pinpointing a really poor creative
decision.

:> Actor unavailability and demands, as in the CC situation on Angel?

: Well, if Alyson Hannigan got herself pregnant, they did a damn good job
: covering it up. ;)

It's the magicks!!

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:05:21 PM6/24/03
to
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:bd7h5o$agm$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu:

Randy and Joan were SO not meaningless!! It was really funny (and almost
pivotal, certainly revealing) character work for both Spike and Buffy.

And Anya and her over-confidence has always been endearing to me.

Shawn

Mark Jones

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:40:33 PM6/24/03
to
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2003 15:17:41 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>>I'm not sure I buy the getting cold feet. They've seemed all too-willing
>>to jump off cliffs before. Some step in the creative process told them
>>this (the crack magick angle) was good; what was it, and why? Did they
>>think, if Willow blew up early in the season, they'd have nowhere to go
>>later on?
>
> Perhaps, I can easily see it ending up like the Angelus arc in S2. As
> far as Willow's characterization goes the interesting stuff was in the
> lead up to her becoming evil, why she became evil, which we did see.
> Once she's evil where were they going to go? Delaying tactics like
> with Angelus? If thats what was going to happen then IMHO what we got
> was better because we still did see her going bad as the ultimate
> climax to her power issues.

I think it would have worked. But my idea was that the Scooby Gang
would face a series of smaller monsters--no Big Bad--throughout the
season, and it would be while dealing with _those_ that Willow's fall
would take place. Willow would get progressiver more arrogant. She'd
argue for using magic at every turn ("when all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail") even it isn't really necessary or
appropriate; she'd start ignoring the warnings or suggestions of the
others; she'd act unilaterally without waiting for their agreement, or
even despite their objections. Always, of course, with the best of
intentions, but filtered thru a growing belief that she could (and
would) do what was best for everyone, whether they liked it or agreed or
not.

Thru all of this Willow is still doing (or thinks she's doing) what
she's always done--fighting the good fight. She just comes to believe
that she can do it faster, easier and better her way, and that her
friends are frightened/jealous by her power and prominence. The more
arrogant she gets, the more her friends try to persuade her to back
off--and just confirm her belief.

Growing tension between Willow and the Scooby Gang would eventually lead
to a parting between as they decide they can't work with her anymore.
Lots of potential there for trauma. What if Tara agrees with the SG and
breaks it off with Willow? What if Willow won't accept that and tampers
with her memory, as in the original storyline? You can even throw in
the Nerds of Doom as a pseudo-Big Bad. Willow stifles their plans,
Warren gets pissed off at her arrogant, mocking, belittling attitude
(and her casual crushing of his schemes) and tries to shoot her. He
kills Tara and Willow goes ballistic.

Maybe she kills Warren. Maybe Buffy and company prevent it this time,
saving her from having actually done anything truly irreversible (if the
writers are worried about making her likeable again after this is over).
We can still get the climactic scene between Willow and Xander. But
it all springs from her long-standing cockiness about being able to
handle magic...not some asinine "magic is crack" storyline.

Mark Jones

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:45:40 PM6/24/03
to
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2003 13:35:53 -0700, apocal...@lycos.com (apocalipstick)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93A38BC14A...@216.40.28.74>...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I'm just gassing here, but I think that this sort of reasoning (on
>>ME's part, not LU's) gives lie to the idea that ME is in touch with
>>their fans. I think most of the show's base would have happily
>>followed them down the DarkWill path.
>
>
> Some fans perhaps, but we got people protesting about Willow not being
> punished enough as it was. How many more people would have protested
> if she was evil for longer and if she was the one who killed Tara?
> IMHO they would have had to kill her off and they didn't want to do
> that.

But Willow didn't _have_ to be evil. She just had to be misled.
Arrogant, abusive, dismissive of everyone else's fears and
feelings...while still fighting the forces of evil. It wouldn't be
until Tara gets killed that she kicks over into full-out badass mode.
At which point the battle is not "defeat Willow before she destroys the
world". It's "SAVE Willow before she does something horrible and
irreversible."

And that's a battle that can't be won with pointy sticks and high kicks.
It might require...oh, say, XANDER to have a bigger role in her rescue
than he's generally had.

Oh...no wonder they couldn't do that.

Don Sample

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:48:12 PM6/24/03
to
In article <bd9ss1$4a7$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

Except it totally undermined everything theyd been telling us about
vampires for five years. Without his memories Spike should have been
going for all their throats.

--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/
Quando omni flunkus moritati

Rose

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:52:43 PM6/24/03
to
>Subject: Re: What would Whedon Make of Season 6/7 disappointment/hostility
>From: Don Sample dsa...@synapse.net
>Date: 6/24/2003 9:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <240620031248124058%dsa...@synapse.net>

>
>In article <bd9ss1$4a7$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
><sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> : Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
>> : news:bd7h5o$agm$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu:
>>
>> :>: "Oh .... My ... GOD! Wouldn't it just be [hiccup] absolu-[hiccup]
>> :>: fucgriging hilarious if we had a loan shark who actually was
>> :>: dressed up in a palalastic shark suit?!"
>> :>
>> :>: That's what I think happened. It's the only explanation
>> :>: I can come up with.
>> :>
>> :> That was a good episode, one of the best of S6.
>>
>> : One of the most overrated episodes of S6 is more like it. Great opening
>> : act, killer closing sequence -- meaningless piffle in between.
>>
>> Randy and Joan were SO not meaningless!! It was really funny (and almost
>> pivotal, certainly revealing) character work for both Spike and Buffy.
>
>Except it totally undermined everything theyd been telling us about
>vampires for five years.

And another reason so called "delusional obsessed serial killer loving" Spike
fans had good reasont to think Spike wasn't evil anymore, and why so many felt
that the ensuing evil behavior by Spike was out of character. Randy wasn't a
pillar of morality, seeming to be more motivated by self-preservation and
admiration for Joan than anything else, but he was not evil.
It seemed to many that ME was sending a message about S6 Spike with Tabula
Rasa, but that all went out the window with Smashed.

Rose

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 2:20:08 PM6/24/03
to
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:

:> : One of the most overrated episodes of S6 is more like it. Great opening

:> : act, killer closing sequence -- meaningless piffle in between.
:>
:> Randy and Joan were SO not meaningless!! It was really funny (and almost
:> pivotal, certainly revealing) character work for both Spike and Buffy.

: Except it totally undermined everything theyd been telling us about
: vampires for five years. Without his memories Spike should have been
: going for all their throats.

That's what undermined the depicition of vampires for you? Not Crushed
(where apparently they are really ruthless, except when they're sort of
indifferent and cowardly) or LMPTM (where Spike is always William is
always Spike is always William)?

He didn't remember he was vamp; neither has Angel on certain occasions.

Shawn

Shawn Hill

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 2:21:29 PM6/24/03
to
Rose <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote:

: pillar of morality, seeming to be more motivated by self-preservation and


: admiration for Joan than anything else, but he was not evil.
: It seemed to many that ME was sending a message about S6 Spike with Tabula
: Rasa, but that all went out the window with Smashed.

I took it as more wistful, even tragic commentary. Randy was what William
might have been, had he lived, and been more fortunate in his upbringing.

Shawn


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages