Is TV-Fan Posting Counterproductive? 5:30 AM Musings..
Mrs. Poet
I've been trying to make sense of recent interviews, this season of the show,
etc. I read an article on a website (sorry, I don't have the link) about being
a spoiler-maven and a TV-show enthusiast on the internet. The article referred
to some apparent bitter feelings between a producer of West Wing and some
people who run a fan website about that show. Apparently an episode of West
Wing was written which cast these sorts of people in a very bad light.
I wonder if being an enthusiastic internet fan about a TV show, posting about
it a lot, writing critiques of episodes, coming up with slogans like
"Joyce/Xander in 2000!" etc. is ultimately counterproductive for the fan. Only
a relative handful of fans say things like "Writer X is a talentless boob" or
"producer G should be fired, fired, fired" but perhaps even those few fans are
enough to deeply hurt the feelings of the writers/producers, causing them to
become peeved with 'net fans in general.
I also wonder if they get irritated even with the fans who aren't insulting but
are just noisy about what they like/don't like and what they want/don't want to
see. I wonder if they feel that they are the writers and producers after all,
and the netizens are trying to write the show for them. And I wonder if this
could cause them to make decisions which they wouldn't have made absent these
criticisms and demands, even perhaps as a reaction against the statements.
As much as I enjoy critiquing episodes and expressing opinions about what I'd
like to see (such as "put Wesley on BtVS as a new Watcher figure!) I am very
hesitant now to express any such desires because I have found out what can
happen when you "kind of" get what you asked for.
Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
good-spirited way? Is it arrogant? Is it insulting to the writers and
producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they do? Is
it inherently offensive and therefore, would it be better for us to just keep
our shipping, character-supporting or other opinions on the future direction of
the show, to ourselves?
If I, and others, were being arrogant so-and-so's to campaign for Spike/Buffy
and/or Spike's redemption, if Angel/Buffy shippers are wrong to beg for the
eternal love between these two to stay eternal, if Xander fans who wanted
Xander to stop being the butt-monkey were wrong to say so vociferously, I would
really like to know. I'm not being sarcastic. These thoughts come after a
couple of years of seeing articles about internet fans and interviews with
producers and writers reacting to fans' reactions, sometimes with some
annoyance.
Rose
"I would never hurt Xander." -- Anya
"I just can't bring myself to care." -- Angel
Alane Sue
>From: fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet)
>Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
>good-spirited way? Is it arrogant? Is it insulting to the writers and
>producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they
>do? Is
>it inherently offensive and therefore, would it be better for us to just
>keep
>our shipping, character-supporting or other opinions on the future direction
>of
>the show, to ourselves?
My feeling is that if they didn't want to know what
the fans had to say, they should never have
established contacts with fans on places like The
Bronze board or posted on public forums as Tim
Minear has.
When you invite praise, you also must expect
criticism and suggestions as well. That's just the
nature of the beast.
--
Alane
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bloody_Awful/
We believe that Spike's humanity will one day become dominant
over his demon soul in the same way that some people's
inhumanity is dominant over their human soul.
Peter Meilinger
: My feeling is that if they didn't want to know what
: the fans had to say, they should never have
: established contacts with fans on places like The
: Bronze board or posted on public forums as Tim
: Minear has.
Exactly. For that matter, if they don't want to have to deal
with the opinions of fans, they really shouldn't be in
show business. They produce a weekly TV show in the
hope that lots and lots of people will watch it. To
then say "Watch it but don't tell us how you feel about
it!" doesn't strike me as all that bright.
: When you invite praise, you also must expect
: criticism and suggestions as well. That's just the
: nature of the beast.
Absolutely. Honestly, Rose, the biggest feeling I got from
your post was that fans should censor their own feelings.
I don't like that idea at all, for a whole lot of reasons.
Do I think the rants here can get out of hand? Absolutely.
I've been guilty of that myself, I'm sure. Everyone who
posts here should remember that we're talking about the
product of lots of hard work by people who are doing
their best. Beyond that, though, I think just about
anything we want to say is fair game. If I don't like
a certain episode, why shouldn't I say so?
Pete
him...@no-spam.com
<fyl...@aol.comspam> writes:
>
>I wonder if being an enthusiastic internet fan about a TV show, posting
about
>it a lot, writing critiques of episodes, coming up with slogans like
>"Joyce/Xander in 2000!" etc. is ultimately counterproductive for the fan.
Only
>a relative handful of fans say things like "Writer X is a talentless boob"
or
>"producer G should be fired, fired, fired" but perhaps even those few fans
are
>enough to deeply hurt the feelings of the writers/producers, causing them to
>become peeved with 'net fans in general.
>I also wonder if they get irritated even with the fans who aren't insulting
but
>are just noisy about what they like/don't like and what they want/don't want
to
>see. I wonder if they feel that they are the writers and producers after
all,
>and the netizens are trying to write the show for them. And I wonder if
this
>could cause them to make decisions which they wouldn't have made absent
these
>criticisms and demands, even perhaps as a reaction against the statements.
I think your concern is valid but overstated. The Internet has greatly
increased the "interactive" nature of fandom, but it didn't invent it. Fans
always talked to each other, critiqued, campaigned for stuff they wanted and
let the writers, producers, et al know if they did or didn't like what they
saw. Such response took the form of (often mimeographed for those who
remember the purple sheets) newsletters, cons, and snail mail. Writers et al
never have liked it that much; I think they do have the feeling that it's
*their* show, but the smart ones realize that decoding is as important as
encoding.
(Cultural Studies term for anyone who doesn't know: encoding refers to the
story the creators think they are telling while decoding refers to what the
majority of viewers actually see. This is different from
deconstructing/constructing which are forms of analyzing. The first study of
this was done on Dallas. Feminist scholarship deconstructed it as a prime
example of capitalist, patriarchal propaganda. The creators said it was a
formula story. Finally someone asked the fans and found out they were seeing
a totally different story. In fact, quite a few different stories and it
varied by culture. She also found that far from being patriarchal, many
female viewers regarded "Dallas time" as "their time" away from traditional
female duties to family. It was a quiet form of rebellion. The same turned
out to be true of soaps, romance and mystery novels, and a lot of other girly
stuff.)
Unfortunately, the Internet is such a rich source of instant feedback, that I
think some execs and even some of the artists have gone a bit overboard in
using it. They often over-react in both directions to things that appear on
posting boards like this one. This is because they haven't yet figured out
how to use it, but they will and I think that in the long run, TV will
improve because of this interaction.
My own suggestion is that they should hire English majors who are not fans of
the show to read the posting boards and provide a report of the major points
being discussed...not necessarily even what fans want to see done about these
concerns, but just what fans see as issues within the story. Probably also
any specific complaints that start to appear beyond a certain expected
number. What that number is and how you define an issue is, however,
something that still needs to be worked out. Also sold. Management and
marketing types like statistical evidence and are very mistrustful of
narrative stuff which is exactly the approach they'll need to use here. May
take time.
>
>As much as I enjoy critiquing episodes and expressing opinions about what
I'd
>like to see (such as "put Wesley on BtVS as a new Watcher figure!) I am very
>hesitant now to express any such desires because I have found out what can
>happen when you "kind of" get what you asked for.
Wait and see how it plays out. It may indeed be a passive-aggressive response
by the writers to what they see as unwarranted interference, or it may be a
misreading of fan desires, or ME may legitimately be moving toward a story
that you will like once it's played out.
>
>Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
>good-spirited way? Is it arrogant? Is it insulting to the writers and
>producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they do?
Is
>it inherently offensive and therefore, would it be better for us to just
keep
>our shipping, character-supporting or other opinions on the future direction
of
>the show, to ourselves?
Maybe. But fans have always done it. Even before TV. In Shakespeare's day,
they expressed they're feelings with rotten fruit so we have gotten a bit
more polite and also more specific. But theater is not a one way street and
never has been, and anyone who wants to do that kind of writing should go
into another field...like obscure self-published novels that no one ever
reads. (Hey, if you don't care and write only for yourself, it's also a
valid lifestyle choice.) But with most writers, getting feedback is expected
and desired. A script/book/article is really only one side of the dialogue.
They may get cranky now and then, but they know this.
>
>If I, and others, were being arrogant so-and-so's to campaign for
Spike/Buffy
>and/or Spike's redemption, if Angel/Buffy shippers are wrong to beg for the
>eternal love between these two to stay eternal, if Xander fans who wanted
>Xander to stop being the butt-monkey were wrong to say so vociferously, I
would
>really like to know.
It depends. Just letting the writers know how you feel is not wrong at all
provided you did it fairly. There have been cases (none on BTVS that I know
of), however, where a very few fans mounted real campaigns to make their
preferences seem more widespread than they really were. You know, people
with more than a thousand e-personas all writing letters. That muddies the
waters and makes it very hard for the writers to get a clear idea of how
their work is being received, which really doesn't benefit anyone.
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
PJ Browning
part of that group. In fact, they seem to love the attention that the
show gets.
that said, don't believe for a second that anything that you post is
going to have an effect on the direction that the show takes. cause
several of the producers have stated publicly that it doesn't. and when
it seems to, it's just that the fans have seen the big picture (not that
they said something and the writers stole it. they aren't crazy enough
to push that line)
Jason E. Vines
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20020406084856...@mb-mt.aol.com...
> Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
> good-spirited way? Is it arrogant? Is it insulting to the writers and
> producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they
do? Is
> it inherently offensive and therefore, would it be better for us to just
keep
> our shipping, character-supporting or other opinions on the future
direction of
> the show, to ourselves?
People shouldn't keep their opinions to themselves, but campaigning for
specific changes is quite arrogant, IMO. Quite frankly, if a person thinks
he or she knows as much about television writing as the producers of a show,
if not more, then that person should become a screenwriter and put his or
her talents to use. If people think they could do a better job than the
writers about whom they complain, then they should prove it.
> If I, and others, were being arrogant so-and-so's to campaign for
Spike/Buffy
> and/or Spike's redemption, if Angel/Buffy shippers are wrong to beg for
the
> eternal love between these two to stay eternal, if Xander fans who wanted
> Xander to stop being the butt-monkey were wrong to say so vociferously, I
would
> really like to know. I'm not being sarcastic. These thoughts come after a
> couple of years of seeing articles about internet fans and interviews with
> producers and writers reacting to fans' reactions, sometimes with some
> annoyance.
You should say your piece, but don't shove what you think down everyone
else's throats. Don't act as if your interpretations are the only valid
ones. And let the writers of the show WRITE THEIR SHOW without your
incessant whining. (This isn't directed specifically at you, Mrs. Poet, but
at fandom in general.)
Jason E. Vines
<him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message news:a8n6t3$mke$1...@news.netmar.com...
Can you say "Bring Back Kirk"?
Mrs. Poet
<snip>
>
>Absolutely. Honestly, Rose, the biggest feeling I got from
>your post was that fans should censor their own feelings.
>I don't like that idea at all, for a whole lot of reasons.
>
I wasn't saying what people should do. I am just questioning what we've been
doing, not saying it's wrong. I could be wrong, but I've gotten the impression
from recent interviews of Marti Noxon and David Fury that some fan commentary
has been unwelcome...and after reading an article from which I got the
impression that producers of other TV shows have felt the same way, I find
myself wondering if the more we comment, the more resented we will be, and
perhaps the practice of commenting will backfire.
As I said, I was musing, not stating what is right or wrong.
Mrs. Poet
<snippage>
>
>(Cultural Studies term for anyone who doesn't know: encoding refers to the
>story the creators think they are telling while decoding refers to what the
>majority of viewers actually see.
That's interesting. Where did you learn about this? Are there books I could
read which elaborate?
>
>Unfortunately, the Internet is such a rich source of instant feedback, that I
>think some execs and even some of the artists have gone a bit overboard in
>using it. They often over-react in both directions to things that appear on
>posting boards like this one. This is because they haven't yet figured out
>how to use it, but they will and I think that in the long run, TV will
>improve because of this interaction.
That makes a lot of sense.
NightBaron
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20020406084856...@mb-mt.aol.com...
<I would have snipped some stuff, but it was all relevant... :)>
I think it IS arrogant for some fans to try and make our opinions known a
bit too strongly. All that comes back to my mind is Bart's comment to Comic
Book Guy in the Simpsons episode where Poochie makes his appearance.
Paraphrasing strongly :
Comic Book Guy - That was the Worst Episode Ever of Itchy and Scratchy. I
was on the internet minutes later expressing my discontent.
Bart - What right do YOU have to complain ?
Comic Book Guy - As a loyal fan, i feel they owe me.
Bart - Owe you ? They provide you with thousands of hours of entertainment
for free, if anything YOU owe THEM !
Comic Book Guy - .... Worst Episode Ever....
But in the end, i think writers, producers, actors HAVE to expect reaction,
good and bad, for anything they put out. If any of them go on a newsgroup
to read praise, they have to expect the opposite as well. It is
understandable that they could get upset over it, but really, they
shouldn't. Comments like "Marti Noxon sucks" are often made by people who
just want to vent, not even understanding why they express such thought,
just putting it all on a convenient scapegoat.
Also, whether or not the internet community would be strong about it, there
are always letter campaigns and such. Sure, the internet accomplishes does
it much faster and easier, but in the olden days, cast/crew still had to
endure the same treatment through other means of communications. I'm
certain in the older days, actors in a play had to expect getting booed off
the stage at one point in their life. It is the bad side of the medal they
have to wear.
Finally, i think it is most counterproductive for a fan. Whether it is to
look up spoilers, to discuss shows, i feel that your opinion and enjoyment
of the show can get obstructed when you start to dissect episodes too much.
I realized that when after months of reading how much season 6 sucked, i
felt bad about BtVS this year, until i took two days off to rewatch the
whole thing and found out how much i liked it. I had let the negative
feelings of the group seep into me, when they really shouldn't have. And i
hate spoilers, and as much as i try to avoid them, they always get to you,
and that's disappointing. Two of the major spoilers i've learned, i would
have LOVED to be surprised by, but it's too late. But anyway.
Just my two cents.
PJ Browning
> Can you say "Bring Back Kirk"?
>
>
>
can you say "Kill Wesley" or "bring back Doyle" (to put it closer to home).
PJ Browning
>
but I've gotten the impression
> from recent interviews of Marti Noxon and David Fury that some fan commentary
> has been unwelcome
I imagine that it would be. there's been a ton of bitching about how
awful this season is, how awful the writing has been and all the writers
need to be shot (firing is too good for them) and so on. I wouldn't
welcome that either. especially with the lack of positive comments to
balance it.
--
PJ
Shuggie
>A bit sleepless this early morning so I'm posting some thoughts.
>
>I've been trying to make sense of recent interviews, this season of the show,
>etc. I read an article on a website (sorry, I don't have the link)
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063235&device=
> about being
>a spoiler-maven and a TV-show enthusiast on the internet.
Interesting article.
>The article referred
>to some apparent bitter feelings between a producer of West Wing and some
>people who run a fan website about that show. Apparently an episode of West
>Wing was written which cast these sorts of people in a very bad light.
>
Yeah I surprised by that. As a West Wing fan I look forward to seeing
that ep when it gets shown over here (UK) - should be interesting to
see what they did.
>I wonder if being an enthusiastic internet fan about a TV show, posting about
>it a lot, writing critiques of episodes, coming up with slogans like
>"Joyce/Xander in 2000!" etc. is ultimately counterproductive for the fan. Only
>a relative handful of fans say things like "Writer X is a talentless boob" or
>"producer G should be fired, fired, fired" but perhaps even those few fans are
>enough to deeply hurt the feelings of the writers/producers, causing them to
>become peeved with 'net fans in general.
Maybe. But if they are good writers in the first place they'll have
some insight into human behaviour. In particular they'll realise that
not all net fans are the same.
>I also wonder if they get irritated even with the fans who aren't insulting but
>are just noisy about what they like/don't like and what they want/don't want to
>see. I wonder if they feel that they are the writers and producers after all,
>and the netizens are trying to write the show for them. And I wonder if this
>could cause them to make decisions which they wouldn't have made absent these
>criticisms and demands, even perhaps as a reaction against the statements.
>
Well people have always been vocal about what they do/don't like. The
difference now is that the net makes that more immediate and more of
it gets back to the writers/producers.
At the end of the day I think as creatives it's their decision to what
extent they let their work be influenced by this. And to some extent -
the mark of a really good writer would be to be able to allow such
influences in but still produce excellent material. More on that in a
moment.
>As much as I enjoy critiquing episodes and expressing opinions about what I'd
>like to see (such as "put Wesley on BtVS as a new Watcher figure!) I am very
>hesitant now to express any such desires because I have found out what can
>happen when you "kind of" get what you asked for.
>
>Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
>good-spirited way? Is it arrogant? Is it insulting to the writers and
>producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they do? Is
>it inherently offensive and therefore, would it be better for us to just keep
>our shipping, character-supporting or other opinions on the future direction of
>the show, to ourselves?
>
I think as long as it's done in a good-spirited way then it's not
wrong. And it's not arrogant or insulting unless you deliberately make
it that way.
Plus it's one thing to say "I'd like to see X happen" as a discussion
with other fans. Starting a petition to actual get that to happen
(didn't this happen with Stargate?) is quite another.
I wouldn't want to participate in something like that. I'm not a
writer - although it's fun to speculate what could happen.
>If I, and others, were being arrogant so-and-so's to campaign for Spike/Buffy
>and/or Spike's redemption, if Angel/Buffy shippers are wrong to beg for the
>eternal love between these two to stay eternal, if Xander fans who wanted
>Xander to stop being the butt-monkey were wrong to say so vociferously, I would
>really like to know. I'm not being sarcastic. These thoughts come after a
>couple of years of seeing articles about internet fans and interviews with
>producers and writers reacting to fans' reactions, sometimes with some
>annoyance.
This would be a good point to explain why I'm not a shipper. I used to
be a Xander/Willow shipper - I wanted to see them get together and in
S3 I got my wish - for about 4 episodes. But I knew when I saw "The
Wish" that they were never going to get together permanently. The
symbolism was too strong. The only time we ever saw Xander and Willow
as a real couple was in an evil alternate reality.
When I watch S2/3 now I always enjoy the Xander/Cordelia chemistry -
much more than I did at the time because I was so focussed on hoping
they'd split up and allow Xander/Willow a chance.
Now I sort of feel that I was being a bit naive in the first place. In
an on-going drama the writers are always going to want to change
things around eventually. That's why it's pointless to get too
attached to a particular relationship - because sooner or later it'll
change.
The alternative is that we go back to the kind of TV that we had 10-15
years ago - where it's monster of the week but all the relationships
are basically static. Static in the sense that there's a big reset at
the end of very episode. That's fine in one way but I watch Buffy more
for the character interaction than the monsters.
Interestingly a lot of people seem to have the exact opposite view -
any episode focussing too much on relationships is criticised for
being too 'soap-opera'. Still it's not for me to criticize another fan
for enjoying something in a different way to me.
Anyway the reason I'm not a shipper is because I want the writers to
be free to make changes that might turn out to be interesting and
entertaining. And for the same reason I don't want to dictate to the
writers what they should and shouldn't do.
But as I said that doesn't stop me saying I think such-and-such a
thing might be good, and discussing why with other fans - I'm just not
going to 'campaign' for it.
The thing that gives me hope is that I think Joss knows how to respond
to fans' wishes. In some cases he will give us what we want and in
some cases he will make us want what he is giving us. I've got a
couple of examples of this but they come from the S2 DVD commentary
tracks. Since this is not out in the US yet I figure some spoiler
space may be in order -
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
F
O
R
D
V
D
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
OK so here's my two examples - both highlighted in the S2 DVD
commentaries (one by Joss, one by Marti).
1. Spike was originally supposed to die in What's My Line pt2 - but by
the time they filmed it Spike was already so popular that they decided
to keep him. Here's Marti -
"Here we are with Drusilla and Spike. One of the fun things about
these characters is that we introduced them thinking that they would
sort of be season-long villains and as you well know if you're a fan
of the show Spike is now a regular and Drusilla will pop in and out
from time to time. But they were sort of larger than life and became
very popular and stayed longer with the series than we ever imagined
they would. "
Also Tony Head in one of the featurette interviews says -
"I believe Spike was supposed to be killed off. But we loved him far
too much for that"
2. The other example is the scene in the van between Willow and Oz in
Innocence - the one where Oz talks about 'Willow-kissage' :) let me
quote Joss
"Willow and Oz in the van. Another very important scene. And I've
talked about this before but people not loving Oz, people very angry
that Willow was not with Xander because she was so clearly into him.
We introduced the character of Oz who was based on an actual guy I
knew in college. Somebody just so cool that he would just see how cool
Willow was, even if she was wearing a big Eskimo outfit, in fact
*because* she was wearing a big Eskimo outfit.
People not responding and so I wrote this scene very specifically as
the scene that would make them love Oz, because it's the scene that
makes Willow love Oz, where he turns her down and refuses to kiss her.
Again, you know kinda guaging the audience reaction is a very big part
of the show, making things not just work, making you not just accept a
plot twist or a character, but making need them, making you feel about
them the way your character is supposed to is the most difficult and
the most important thing.
And of course Seth is so beautifully restrained and so completely
charming and look at Aly ... fall in love with him ... right now."
--
Shug
hootenanny, well, it's chock full of hoot, just a little bit of nanny.
DarkMagic
Internet groups posting about television and movies has got to be the
greatest thing since the Neilson box. If I were a television writer or
producer I would be glued to the newsgroups. Newsgroups reveal who watches
the show, what they think about it, what they want to see and if they'll
watch again. Plus, what kind of shows viewers might enjoy watching in the
future. I'd call it a bonanza (not the kind with Little Joe, obviously).
For example, I read that the demographic group who watches Buffy is 18-35
and female. Most of the posters in this group are in their middle thirties
or older, and good number of them are male. If I was Marti Noxon, I would
find that to be interesting, and possibly valuable info.
I think the West Wing producer is a poor sport and not very bright. Making
fun of your fans isn't a very good idea.
If I was writing for Buffy and working my butt off to create a good show
(which I'm sure they do) I might get a little cranky if I saw "my
name_sucks_!" as a header. That doesn't mean that there isn't valuable info
in that post. If the poster is intelligent enough to elaborate on what they
like or don't and what might make it better, it's actually constructive
criticism and worth 100 "Buffy Rocks!" posts.
With the miracle of the internet ME has discovered (if they're smart enough
to look and I think they probably are) that one demographic thinks Dawn is
the most annoying character on television. That might actually have been
their intention, but somehow I doubt it. They've invested a lot of story
time on this character and it turns out that a whole lot of viewers don't
even like her. A smart producer would start making some changes. But, to
the point of your post, how would they even know if it weren't for fans on
the internet?
Shannon
Peter Meilinger
: Peter wrote:
:>Absolutely. Honestly, Rose, the biggest feeling I got from
:>your post was that fans should censor their own feelings.
:>I don't like that idea at all, for a whole lot of reasons.
: I wasn't saying what people should do.
I know. That was just my first, knee-jerk reaction, which persisted
even though I knew that's not what you intended.
: I am just questioning what we've been
: doing, not saying it's wrong. I could be wrong, but I've gotten the
: impression from recent interviews of Marti Noxon and David Fury that
: some fan commentary
: has been unwelcome...and after reading an article from which I got the
: impression that producers of other TV shows have felt the same way, I find
Almost makes you wonder why they're in show business, really. Which
isn't completely fair, but I also don't think it's completely unfair.
: myself wondering if the more we comment, the more resented we will be, and
: perhaps the practice of commenting will backfire.
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with the concept of
going into a given forum (be it online or via fanzine or whatever)
and stating your opinion and discussing what you think is right
and wrong about the show.
I do agree that the WAY people go about doing that could come
back and bite all of fandom on the ass, though. It's a fine
line, I guess. If I think a given episode of Buffy just plain
isn't very good, I'm going to feel free to discuss it here.
I might conceivably even write a letter to the writers and
producers of the show explaining my views, though I've never
done that before and don't foresee myself doing it in the
future.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that up to that
point. If I'm rude and obnoxious and generally just an
asshole, either here or in other online forums or in a
personal letter to whoever, that's crossing the line.
I have the right to be as much an asshole as I can make
myself, of course, this being America, but what's the
point? If I somehow manage to piss off the people
who put out Buffy so much that they notice me, there's
no way anything good will come of it even if they
shrug it off.
And I might just poison the well for everyone involved.
I've seen it happen on comics newsgroups. A smallish
number of comics writers contribute to them regularly,
and they're great to have around for all sorts of reasons.
Other writers have come in to see what all the fuss is
about but gone away after having to deal with too many
"YOU SUCK!" posts. I don't think any of them thought they'd
get only adulation online, and I don't think any of them
are so thin-skinned they can't handle criticism. They
most likely just thought about it and realized the benefits
of being online with fans were outweighed by the negatives
of having to deal with assholes. One asshole can spoil it
for everyone.
: As I said, I was musing, not stating what is right or wrong.
I know. And I'm just typing whatever comes to mind, so I
make no guarantees it'll make any sense.
Pete
Carmikl
>
> Mrs. Poet wrote:
> >
>
> but I've gotten the impression
> > from recent interviews of Marti Noxon and David Fury that some fan commentary
> > has been unwelcome
>
> I imagine that it would be. there's been a ton of bitching about how
> awful this season is, how awful the writing has been and all the writers
> need to be shot (firing is too good for them)
Are you talking about firing squad?
millernate
> A bit sleepless this early morning so I'm posting some thoughts.
>
> I've been trying to make sense of recent interviews, this season of the show,
> etc. I read an article on a website (sorry, I don't have the link) about being
> a spoiler-maven and a TV-show enthusiast on the internet. The article referred
> to some apparent bitter feelings between a producer of West Wing and some
> people who run a fan website about that show. Apparently an episode of West
> Wing was written which cast these sorts of people in a very bad light.
>
Actually the comments regarding WEst Wing are not really accurate.
The incident that you refer to happened at the Mighty Big
TV/Television Without Pity forums and MBT/TWP is (technically at
least) a review site. The fact that Sorkin wrote an episode to give
them the finger says more about his lack of professionalism regarding
critics than it does about internet fandom.
> I wonder if being an enthusiastic internet fan about a TV show, posting about
> it a lot, writing critiques of episodes, coming up with slogans like
> "Joyce/Xander in 2000!" etc. is ultimately counterproductive for the fan. Only
> a relative handful of fans say things like "Writer X is a talentless boob" or
> "producer G should be fired, fired, fired" but perhaps even those few fans are
> enough to deeply hurt the feelings of the writers/producers, causing them to
> become peeved with 'net fans in general.
> I also wonder if they get irritated even with the fans who aren't insulting but
> are just noisy about what they like/don't like and what they want/don't want to
> see. I wonder if they feel that they are the writers and producers after all,
> and the netizens are trying to write the show for them. And I wonder if this
> could cause them to make decisions which they wouldn't have made absent these
> criticisms and demands, even perhaps as a reaction against the statements.
>
> As much as I enjoy critiquing episodes and expressing opinions about what I'd
> like to see (such as "put Wesley on BtVS as a new Watcher figure!) I am very
> hesitant now to express any such desires because I have found out what can
> happen when you "kind of" get what you asked for.
>
> Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
> good-spirited way? Is it arrogant? Is it insulting to the writers and
> producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they do?
I don't view it as arrogant, especially when you consider that most of
them wouldn't have these jobs if it weren't for the viewers. For the
most part I don't suggest that I know better than they do except in
cases of massive incompetence.
> Is
> it inherently offensive and therefore, would it be better for us to just keep
> our shipping, character-supporting or other opinions on the future direction of
> the show, to ourselves?
>
I don't think so. Heck if it wasn't for widespread negative fan
reactions than the idiots who ran L.A. Law temporarily into the ground
would still have their jobs instead of getting fired and the show
going out on a good level in its 8th season (its worth noting that the
actors hated the producers of that season as much as the fans did so
it wasn't just a case of not liking change or anything).
> If I, and others, were being arrogant so-and-so's to campaign for Spike/Buffy
> and/or Spike's redemption, if Angel/Buffy shippers are wrong to beg for the
> eternal love between these two to stay eternal, if Xander fans who wanted
> Xander to stop being the butt-monkey were wrong to say so vociferously, I would
> really like to know. I'm not being sarcastic. These thoughts come after a
> couple of years of seeing articles about internet fans and interviews with
> producers and writers reacting to fans' reactions, sometimes with some
> annoyance.
>
>
Generally if you are actually doing good work 99% of the intelligent
net fans are on your side (witness the widespread effort among some
Chronicle fans to try to get the show back). Its only when you put
your product out in a completely incompetent manner that these fans
are going to turn on you. In that case the 'net fans reactions are
not your biggest problem.
>
>
>
>
> Rose
> "I would never hurt Xander." -- Anya
> "I just can't bring myself to care." -- Angel
Nathan
"It's appropriate that television is considered a medium, since it's
rare if it's ever well done." - Ernie Kovacs
Shuggie
You make some excellent points but you are kinda assuming that the
fans of the show who post on the net are representative of people who
watch the show in general.
It's an old dilemma - are you making the show for the hard-core fans
or just the general viewer?
--
Shug
Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into to her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane
Franklin
news:20020406084856...@mb-mt.aol.com...
insulting but
> are just noisy about what they like/don't like and what they want/don't
want to
> see. I wonder if they feel that they are the writers and producers after
all,
> and the netizens are trying to write the show for them. And I wonder if
this
> could cause them to make decisions which they wouldn't have made absent
these
> criticisms and demands, even perhaps as a reaction against the statements.
Fan chatter is a sign of success, and anyway it's all a big "convergent"
cultural interaction. So there's more than one way for the production staff
to react to fan discussions on the Internet, and it doesn't have to turn out
the way that The West Wing did (or for that matter, the way that it did for
Babylon 5 or Twin Peaks--two pathfinders in this issue landscape).
Some of the other things I've seen done relating to Internet fans:
- Shoutouts ("Council of Trombli")
- Shutdowns ("That'll be all, Franklin"*)
- Notes in the shooting scripts ("Unfortunately for our female fans, we only
see Angel from the waist up."**)
I'm sure you can come up with more. That's in addition to conventions,
parties, fundraisers, signings, interviews, and all the traditional
fan-related activities.
Henry Jenkins of MIT has been writing about the relationship between media
and its audience for a long time, including television and Usenet. Most of
what I've seen him write about your specific question has been about the
intellectual property and marketing aspects of production, where overactive
fandom is either a minor influence or a downright problem for producers.
One shouldn't ignore the importance of other influences like advertisers,
non-fans, industry trends, etc... A steady paycheck seems to be a really
good way to get Marti Noxon to ignore the pleas of plenty of fans...
-- Franklin
*OK, that might not have been all about me ;-)
** From Psyche's shooting script for First Impressions
Shorty
vindictive rant. When people get on here saying Marti Noxon should
burn in hell it doesnt really paint a positive image for the rest of
us. Now i can say that i think season six's production values seem
more haphazard than previous seasons and i think that Marti Noxon
might partially be to blame........but i didnt say die bitch die, burn
in hell spawn of satan. Its a fine subtle line than many miss i
think.
Campaigning on a board about future plot points is also a pretty
useless idea. Now saying what you might like to have happen and
cheerfully debating it with other people is perfectly acceptable.
Shipping is pointless.
Decrying an episode as the worst piece of garbage you have ever had to
sit through and then calling the writer/director/actor a no talent
hack is not very useful. Carefully describing the scenes or lines you
did not like and providing well thought out fixes or commentary is
more helpful.
Playing mock NCAA tourneys with you favorite characters is not
pointless.....unless both Willow and Vamp Willow are eliminated :(
Whining about cast members is pointless. They are not going to remove
Dawn or bring back Oz and Doyle.
Trying to understand exactly what it is Joss Whedon is saying when he
puts sentences together in Whedon Speak(tm) is pointless.
Debating the size of Nick Brendons cumber bun this season is pointless
and needlessly cruel. Debating Amber Bensons dress size is even more
pointless and needlessly cruel. Thinking that SMG has lost a lot of
weight since season 1 is not pointless and cruel, but it is fact.
Pure unadulterated praise of a writer/actor/director is pointless.
Pointing out what you found so appealing in a certain
episode/scene/monologue is helpful.
Finally, unless you're me or think exactly like me this post is
pointless as it is my opinion and not yours.
Ken
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
That's because some fan commentary is unwelcomed. Considering the immediate
nature of the internet, often the ill-considered, nonsequitor, and sometimes
personal attacks are made about an episode, questioning not only the
writers', actors' and directors' choices in making an episode but their
talent in general and sometimes their family heritage in particular.
In short, there's a world a difference between CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and
DESTRUCTIVE criticism; between trying to HELP and trying to HURT.
Besides, it's real easy to criticize any change from the same ole same ole.
Look at some of the X-FILES fans who NEVER wanted the lead characters to
have a romantic relationship--no matter how illogical it was considering the
history between the two, no matter how stagnant it made the relationship,
and the show.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jason E. Vines
"Shuggie" <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g7luaukhkcjj0p9gp...@4ax.com...
Well, Joss Whedon said, "Screw the casual viewer..."
Ken
"DarkMagic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LjHr8.257588$Gf.23...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Was he making fun of fans in general or just the obsessive nutty fans?
-- Ken from Chicago
him...@no-spam.com
I wouldn't welcome it either, but unless they're fools, they're listening.
Fans always complain. That goes without saying. But the level of complaints
and the consistency of the things being complained about is extraordinarily
high this year. Worse than it was in S4 even. They do need to listen or at
least listen to someone else who listens and sums up; actually listening to
this group in person might be a bit much to ask.
I certainly do this in my work. I teach and every quarter I pass out student
evaluations. Now, if one or two students complain, I say big deal. But if
over the half the class is grousing and what's worse, grousing over the same
things, I change stuff accordingly. Sometimes I make it worse; I don't
always read my fans correctly either, but I do try and I think ME does too.
bruce ostrom
> Alane Sue <alan...@aol.com> wrote:
> Do I think the rants here can get out of hand? Absolutely.
> I've been guilty of that myself, I'm sure. Everyone who
> posts here should remember that we're talking about the
> product of lots of hard work by people who are doing
> their best. Beyond that, though, I think just about
> anything we want to say is fair game. If I don't like
> a certain episode, why shouldn't I say so?
>
> Pete
I couldn't agree more, Pete. I've been taken to task a couple of times
here for my opinions on a couple of past eps, seemingly because some
people don't agree with me. That's fine; you don't have to agree with
me. I don't expect everyone to, nor should I. But, and this is the
important issue here, you should at least respect my right to do so. I
respect everyone else's even if I don't like what he or she posted.
Bruce
Carmikl
>
> Peter wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >Absolutely. Honestly, Rose, the biggest feeling I got from
> >your post was that fans should censor their own feelings.
> >I don't like that idea at all, for a whole lot of reasons.
> >
>
> I wasn't saying what people should do. I am just questioning what we've been
> doing, not saying it's wrong. I could be wrong, but I've gotten the impression
> from recent interviews of Marti Noxon and David Fury that some fan commentary
> has been unwelcome...and after reading an article from which I got the
> impression that producers of other TV shows have felt the same way, I find
> myself wondering if the more we comment, the more resented we will be, and
> perhaps the practice of commenting will backfire.
>
> As I said, I was musing, not stating what is right or wrong.
>
the screen. They make their living writing for TV and if fan displeasure
results in lower ratings, then they lose their meal ticket. Ultimately
the fans hold the power.
Feedback is important to any commercial enterprise. It would be far
worse if fans do nothing more than stroke the writers egos on the
internet, but quietly start watching a show on another network. One of
the problems could be that too many fans use the word genius far too
much, and the writers never take a serious look at what they're doing.
Why should they if they're geniuses?
Mrs. Poet
<snip>
>
>Feedback is important to any commercial enterprise. It would be far
>worse if fans do nothing more than stroke the writers egos on the
>internet, but quietly start watching a show on another network. One of
>the problems could be that too many fans use the word genius far too
>much, and the writers never take a serious look at what they're doing.
>Why should they if they're geniuses?
>
That reminds me of something I read while working as a cashier when I was in
college. It was called "I'm a Nice Customer." It's a fake essay in which the
customer says he doesn't complain, never makes a fuss when he doesn't like the
service at a store. He's always nice about it no matter what happens. He then
goes on to say that he is the customer who never comes back.
Of course, the moral of the story was that salespeople shouldn't resent it when
customers complain, because they are the ones who want to come back and will if
they are treated well.
Mrs. Poet
>From: him...@no-spam.com
>Date: 4/6/2002 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a8nt1g$tke$1...@news.netmar.com>
>
>In article <3CAF3929...@crosswinds.net>, PJ Browning
><arcad...@crosswinds.net> writes:
>>Mrs. Poet wrote:
>> >
>>
>>but I've gotten the impression
>>> from recent interviews of Marti Noxon and David Fury that some fan
>commentary
>>> has been unwelcome
>>
>>
>>I imagine that it would be. there's been a ton of bitching about how
>>awful this season is, how awful the writing has been and all the writers
>>need to be shot (firing is too good for them) and so on. I wouldn't
>>welcome that either. especially with the lack of positive comments to
>>balance it.
>
>I wouldn't welcome it either, but unless they're fools, they're listening.
>Fans always complain. That goes without saying. But the level of complaints
>and the consistency of the things being complained about is extraordinarily
>high this year. Worse than it was in S4 even. They do need to listen or at
>least listen to someone else who listens and sums up; actually listening to
>this group in person might be a bit much to ask.
>
I also want to clear something up. Of course they're going to be annoyed if
people say "So-and-So Writer is Evil Hell Spawn!" However, I got the
impression from Marti Noxon's latest interview and David Fury's Dreamwatch
interview that there is annoyance at the B/S and B/A shippers. They weren't
complaining about rude people who call them names.
And for the record, I've never made demands like "Redeem Spike or else! Get
Spike and Buffy together or else!" I've always thought the #1 priority should
be a good story. My disappointment in this season is not that Spike hasn't
been redeemed or that Buffy and Spike haven't had a sweet and beautiful
romance, it's that Spike's character development thru the musical was suddenly
scrapped, and they chose to create a Spike/Buffy relationship that was a
combination of ugly and titillating (which is why I call it a Red Shoe Diary
from Hell). It's meant to turn us on and disgust us at the same time (one
writer said it's supposed to be revolting AND erotically disturbing). I feel
that if the only way they could get S and B together was to degrade both
characters and turn Buffy into an unrepentant batterer and Spike into a
Svengali, and maybe worse later this season, it would have been better not to
do it at all.
Lisa nor Jeff
As others have mentioned, there are a lot of methods of feedback other
than the mere Internet. Lots of people still write letters.
First of all, we must remember that we really do NOT know what the
producers/writers/actors are really thinking, despite whatever is quoted
in published interviews. Hollywood long ago mastered the art of "the
spin" as well as the "stunt". A lot of things actors say and do are not
their true feelings, but rather mere publicity stunts to get attention
to themselves and their shows. [It amazes me how many people thought Dean
Martin was really a drunk when he was not, it was just an act.]
Second of all, interviewers are notoriously lousy for conveying the
wrong idea. That is, an actor might make an aside comment without much
conviction, yet that will be blared in a headline as the actor's principal
feeling. Also, interviews get recycled over and over again. [A current
magazine has an interview with Emma C. which was published once before
at least a year ago.]
I say all of this because often writers/actors will talk about fan
reactions, and may mention even what they've heard on the Internet.
Don't take it too seriously.
Despite the claims of computer enthusiasts that we're in the "e-world",
we are not. Chat rooms, Usenet, etc., are used by only a small proportion
of the fans. Think about it--B/VS has about four million viewers, I
seriously doubt more than 1/10 of 1% of them (4,000) discuss the show
online, if even that. The vast majority of viewers watch the show, maybe
discuss it a bit at the water cooler, and that's their involvement.
> to some apparent bitter feelings between a producer of West Wing and some
> people who run a fan website about that show.
I'd be really, really surprised if the producers cared as claimed.
I would think producers would care a lot more about what is said about
their show in major magazine reviews; they are read by a lot more people
and more influential than some amateur website.
> "producer G should be fired, fired, fired" but perhaps even those few fans are
> enough to deeply hurt the feelings of the writers/producers, causing them to
> become peeved with 'net fans in general.
I strongly doubt this. If it were true, those people are in the wrong
line of work. Any Hollywood production is gonna get criticized by the
critics, the networks, and lots of other people even if it's a major
success. Many times producers/actors do get upset at some criticism
and lash out. But the Internet is no more doing this than any other
medium.
> Is it wrong for us to campaign for what we want, even if we do so in a
> good-spirited way?
No.
> Is it arrogant?
No.
> Is it insulting to the writers and
> producers ... do we seem to be suggesting that we know better than they do?
It could be, but that's their problem.
It is up to the producers to understand and analyze the feedback.
Some feedback may likely be NOT representative from the majority
of viewers. It's a tough call---if they turn off the public too much,
the show will fail.
In any event, feedback comes from many sources, such as letters, and
not just the Internet, and has always been there.
Sarah Owen
"Jason E. Vines" <jason...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uau9fmn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> You should say your piece, but don't shove what you think down
everyone
> else's throats. Don't act as if your interpretations are the only valid
> ones. And let the writers of the show WRITE THEIR SHOW without your
> incessant whining. (This isn't directed specifically at you, Mrs. Poet,
but
> at fandom in general.)
>
>
Is it really 'their show' though?
Reeves, Rodgers and Epstein's chapter on 'Rewriting Popularity' in 'Deny All
Knowledge: Reading The X-Files' talks about avid fans and how a TV show can
become "a major source of self-definition, a kind of quasi-religious
experience".
IMO, the creators of Buffy strongly encourage this kind of engagement with
the show - the constant multi-episode arcs, the never-ending character
development, and the presence of the creators themselves on some discussion
boards all 'reward' a much higher level of involvement with the show than
just watching each episode and forgetting it.
It's not like it's done out of the goodness of their hearts either (although
we all know Joss and Marti have plenty of that :). Reeves, Rodgers and
Epstein also talk about how The X-Files could get away with lower ratings,
since so much money was being made from merchandise sales and
cross-promotions. According to an article in 'The Australian', sales of
Buffy merchandise have over-taken both The X-Files and Star Trek here!
So, not advocating a total pandering to fans' whims, but maybe encouraging
fans to obsess over their show should be seen as entering into a contract,
where TV show creators agree to know what their obsessed fans get from the
show (beyond an hour's entertainment) and make at least a little effort to
provide it?
Or we get to pass on all that merchandise and let them work on ratings alone
:)
Sarah
ZOE
>
> You make some excellent points but you are kinda assuming that the
> fans of the show who post on the net are representative of people who
> watch the show in general.
>
> It's an old dilemma - are you making the show for the hard-core fans
> or just the general viewer?
I agree and disagree.
1.I agree that one should never assume that the fans who post on the
net represent the general group of people that watches the show. I
know for a fact that it's not true. the online-fans aren't only a very
small group, but they have different characteristics than the general
population of btvs fans. No, I haven't conducted an academic survey or
anything, but it's just the feeling I get.
here is what I see as the main difference: the "online-fans" seem to
be people who generally like the sci-fi/fantasy genres. I don't think
that's true for the millions who watch BTVS but don't discuss it on
the net. I can only speak for myself: *all* of the people I know who
watch BTVS regularly are *not* sci-fi/fantasy fans. They see BTVS as a
metaphor, and that's why they are willing to sit through all of the
monsters/demons/whatever. I am actually one of these people. I've been
watching BTVS obsessively since "welcome to the hellmouth", but I only
became part of the internet fandom about a year ago. So I was quite
surprised to see people complaining "why is Buffy not slaying vampires
anymore? it's in the *title* for god's sake!" , while I've always said
"it's a great show, but if they could just get rid of the vampires and
become more realistic...".
2. you seem to suggest that the "hard core fans" are "people who post
on the net", and all the others are "general viewers" (please correct
me if I misunderstood your intention).
again, I know many people who are addicted to the show, but have never
posted on an internet forum or visited a fan website. it doesn't mean
they're not "hard core fans" - they either don't have the time, don't
like the net, afraid of getting spoiled for future eps, etc.
Shuggie
>> >snip<
>>
>> You make some excellent points but you are kinda assuming that the
>> fans of the show who post on the net are representative of people who
>> watch the show in general.
>>
>> It's an old dilemma - are you making the show for the hard-core fans
>> or just the general viewer?
>
>I agree and disagree.
>
<SNIP point of agreement>
>
>2. you seem to suggest that the "hard core fans" are "people who post
>on the net", and all the others are "general viewers" (please correct
>me if I misunderstood your intention).
>again, I know many people who are addicted to the show, but have never
>posted on an internet forum or visited a fan website. it doesn't mean
>they're not "hard core fans" - they either don't have the time, don't
>like the net, afraid of getting spoiled for future eps, etc.
To borrow your phrase I agree and disagree. Of course there are very
devoted fans who never post on the net. However the proportion of
"hard-core" fans is higher in a group like this than in the general
population. Which is just another way of saying that this group is not
necessarily representative.
--
Shug
Snyder: There're some things I can just smell. It's
like a sixth sense.
Giles: No, actually that would be one of the five.
Shuggie
I haven't read the Dreamwatch interview but I read Marti's interview.
I thought she was a little harsh to B/A shippers but I agree with her
overall sentiments i.e.
1) B/A was a passionate, first love - but it's over, both characters
have moved on.
2) B/S is not a viable long term relationship because they've never
backed away from the idea that Spike is still evil. They've made him
more sympathetic - but they've gone out of their way to keep reminding
us that he is evil.
I just wonder if I could be as restrained in venting my frustrations
if some of the vitriol that has been directed at her came my way.
>And for the record, I've never made demands like "Redeem Spike or else! Get
>Spike and Buffy together or else!" I've always thought the #1 priority should
>be a good story.
I couldn't agree more. And while I'm quite happy to discuss my
opinions - it's fun - I don't want to campaign for a particular
plot-twist or relationship. I don't want to dictate to the writers how
to write. I do appreciate it however if they take note of things we
like and don't like.
>My disappointment in this season is not that Spike hasn't
>been redeemed or that Buffy and Spike haven't had a sweet and beautiful
>romance, it's that Spike's character development thru the musical was suddenly
>scrapped,
I don't see that - could you explain?
> and they chose to create a Spike/Buffy relationship that was a
>combination of ugly and titillating (which is why I call it a Red Shoe Diary
>from Hell). It's meant to turn us on and disgust us at the same time (one
>writer said it's supposed to be revolting AND erotically disturbing). I feel
>that if the only way they could get S and B together was to degrade both
>characters and turn Buffy into an unrepentant batterer and Spike into a
>Svengali, and maybe worse later this season, it would have been better not to
>do it at all.
I can see how you would see it this way and it's a valid view. I tend
to agree with Doug Petrie when he said that they were never going to
walk off into the sunset together, to do so would be to "sell out"
both characters.
I agree that Buffy is in a messed up place to be doing what she is
doing with Spike, and I think we've started to see her bring herself
out of that by breaking up with Spike. I suppose that is degrading to
the character - but this drama - I don't want whiter-than-white
characters and neat and tidy resolutions.
As for Spike - I'm not sure making him a Svengali is any more
degrading than being a murdering soulless fiend. Spike's evil by
nature and until they give him a soul he'll always be evil. Which is
why I think it's appropriate that if you want to see a "sweet and
beautiful romance" that you should also be asking for Spike to be
redeemed.
But if they are going redeem Spike then it'd be such a major
plot-twist that I'd doubt they'd give it away. I think they'd talk as
they have been talking.
--
Shug
Cordelia: I'm the dip.
Xander: Uh, you gotta admire the purity of it.
PJ Browning
>>
I feel
> that if the only way they could get S and B together was to degrade both
> characters and turn Buffy into an unrepentant batterer and Spike into a
> Svengali, and maybe worse later this season, it would have been better not to
> do it at all.
marti has said that there is a bigger picture to all of us. Part of it
is that the Buffy and Spike thing could never work. But it takes making
that mistake to see it. Sure they could be friends, but not lovers.
this is the kind of thing that fans don't always take the time to thing
about (the idea that writers have a bigger picture they are working on).
they just bitch. Like those Buffy/Angel shippers that can't get over it
and move on.
--
PJ
Arcadia Gallery
http://arcadiaprod.crosswinds.net
Video List
http://arcadiaprod.crosswinds.net/list/index.html
Mrs. Poet
>Reeves, Rodgers and Epstein's chapter on 'Rewriting Popularity' in 'Deny All
>Knowledge: Reading The X-Files' talks about avid fans and how a TV show can
>become "a major source of self-definition, a kind of quasi-religious
>experience".
>IMO, the creators of Buffy strongly encourage this kind of engagement with
>the show - the constant multi-episode arcs, the never-ending character
>development, and the presence of the creators themselves on some discussion
>boards all 'reward' a much higher
>level of involvement with the show than
>just watching each episode and forgetting it.
It's funny you say this, because I just read an interview with Joss Whedon in
which he says pretty much the same thing. BtVS is a kind of religion, and the
fans and he are all just worshipping the same thing. When people adulate him,
he doesn't take it personally, because he believes people are really adulating
the show for whicht he feels the same adulation. He said he designed the show
to be passionately loved more than other shows, to inspire that kind of caring
and devotion.
Rose
All-Evil Scoobies in S7?
Mrs. Poet
>
>I can see how you would see it this way and it's a valid view. I tend
>to agree with Doug Petrie when he said that they were never going to
>walk off into the sunset together, to do so would be to "sell out"
>both characters.
It's not necessary to have them walk off into the sunset together. It's also
not necessary to have them beat each other's lights out before they have sex.
And it's not necessary to get Spike and Buffy together at all.
>I agree that Buffy is in a messed up place to be doing what she is
>doing with Spike, and I think we've started to see her bring herself
>out of that by breaking up with Spike. I suppose that is degrading to
>the character - but this drama - I don't want whiter-than-white
>characters and neat and tidy resolutions.
Neither do I. The show has never been like that.
>
>As for Spike - I'm not sure making him a Svengali is any more
>degrading than being a murdering soulless fiend.
It degrades him from where he was at near the beginning of S6.
>But if they are going redeem Spike then it'd be such a major
>plot-twist that I'd doubt they'd give it away. I think they'd talk as
>they have been talking.
At at this point, I don't see much point in redeeming him. I don't want to
see a redeemed Spike with Buffy, because I'm fairly certain BtVS won't do what
is necessary to redeem *her* as they don't seem to think she has much of
anything to apologize for. To see a now-worthy Spike get back together with
his abuser would be sickening.
What other purpose would there be to redeem him? As a conclusion of his hero's
journey? That would have made sense if they'd kept the S5 to early S6 story
going; if Spike had been presented as a being capable of great good but
battling tremendous evil inside of him, always conflicted and tempted, the
audience wondering if he will revert to his old ways or make it to the finish
line (if not via being redeemed without a soul, then by making a choice to get
one, which would semi-redeem the vampire without messing with mythology).
However, Spike's internal struggle abruptly halted after Tabula Rasa. His only
conflict was "To screw Buffy or not to screw Buffy, that is the question." He
coasted along as the Diet Coke of Evil, his only purpose to be f**k buddy and
punching bag. So I don't see much dramatic impact in redeeming him now, unless
they start all over again with his hero's journey next year. If they, for
instance, give him a soul in ep 22, it's going to be sort of out of the blue
after months of stagnation. With no buildup, it'll just be a yawner.
What other reason would there be to redeem him? I suppose it would be the new
and improved way to keep him around for another season. If he is redeemed and
becomes Buffy's lover without Buffy doing something big and major to redeem
herself, it'll just make Redeemed Spike a pathetic puppy. If he's not Buffy's
lover, what will he be? Muscle Guy?
Pseudo-watcher? Will ME allow him to get another girlfriend or will he be
obliged to pine after Buffy because she's the star?
If ME works on redeeming Buffy, and doesn't let certain other Scoobies off the
hook for certain things that may be happening in S6 eps to come, a Spike
redemption story *could* work, but based on this series tendency to shrug and
move on after the main characters do bad things, I doubt that this scenario
will happen.
Mrs. Poet
>Date: 4/7/2002 8:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3CB071F5...@crosswinds.net>
>
>Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
>>>
>
>
>I feel
>> that if the only way they could get S and B together was to degrade both
>> characters and turn Buffy into an unrepentant batterer and Spike into a
>> Svengali, and maybe worse later this season, it would have been better not
>to
>> do it at all.
>
>
>marti has said that there is a bigger picture to all of us. Part of it
>is that the Buffy and Spike thing could never work. But it takes making
>that mistake to see it. Sure they could be friends, but not lovers.
>
Buffy had to have sex with Spike to find out she shouldn't have sex with Spike?
PJ Browning
> Buffy had to have sex with Spike to find out she shouldn't have sex with Spike?
>
No, she had to try to have a nice, normal, healthy relationship in order
to discover that they couldn't.
the thing is that Buffy had something of a normal relationship with
Angel. For awhile. If it could happen once, then it ought to be able to
happen again. right? Not.
If you think about it, Buffy isn't treating Spike any differently than
she does any other vamp (excluding Angel). She meets up with a vamp, she
beats the shit out of it. And what has Spike done to every other slayer
that he's met? tried to kill her. the trouble is that their natures are
conflicting with their brains. The brain says that they ought to be able
to have a relationship, but their natures go against that belief. In the
end, it becomes just sex. Which is nice in its own way, but not the
sweet, normal, "I love you forever" relationship that they could
hopefully have if they were just two normal humans not living on a
hellmouth.
DarkMagic
"Shuggie" <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g7luaukhkcjj0p9gp...@4ax.com...
that care enough to take the time to share thoughts about the show with
others is, imo, a pretty valuable source of information you wouldn't get
otherwise. If I were a producer scanning a few fan newsgroups and I kept
seeing "such and such character is annoying" or "so and so writer sucks" I
wouldn't alert the presses, but I would take a closer look at those posts
and see if there wasn't some real issues to contend with behind them.>
> --
Shannon
DarkMagic
"Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:7cKr8.4230$d7.13...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >
> >
>
> Was he making fun of fans in general or just the obsessive nutty fans?
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
would be running the risk of calling any fan that didn't like what I was
writing obsessive and/or nutty. Certainly, my friends and family think that
watching endless re-runs of BtVS and posting about it on the internet is a
little obsessive and nutty. I would just call myself a fan.
Shannon
>
Shuggie
>Shuggie wrote:
>
>>
>>I can see how you would see it this way and it's a valid view. I tend
>>to agree with Doug Petrie when he said that they were never going to
>>walk off into the sunset together, to do so would be to "sell out"
>>both characters.
>
>It's not necessary to have them walk off into the sunset together. It's also
>not necessary to have them beat each other's lights out before they have sex.
>And it's not necessary to get Spike and Buffy together at all.
>
Not necessary but interesting.
>
>>I agree that Buffy is in a messed up place to be doing what she is
>>doing with Spike, and I think we've started to see her bring herself
>>out of that by breaking up with Spike. I suppose that is degrading to
>>the character - but this drama - I don't want whiter-than-white
>>characters and neat and tidy resolutions.
>
>Neither do I. The show has never been like that.
>
>>
>>As for Spike - I'm not sure making him a Svengali is any more
>>degrading than being a murdering soulless fiend.
>
>It degrades him from where he was at near the beginning of S6.
>
This, I think is where we disagree. I don't see a difference between
Spike then and Spike now. Spike is a vampire, a creature without a
soul, inclined to evil. He is clearly capable of love, and that love
can motivate him to do certain things he might not otherwise. His love
for Dru caused him to make a deal with Buffy. His love for Buffy has
caused him to try to help her. But his underlying nature is unchanged.
>
>>But if they are going redeem Spike then it'd be such a major
>>plot-twist that I'd doubt they'd give it away. I think they'd talk as
>>they have been talking.
>
>At at this point, I don't see much point in redeeming him. I don't want to
>see a redeemed Spike with Buffy, because I'm fairly certain BtVS won't do what
>is necessary to redeem *her* as they don't seem to think she has much of
>anything to apologize for. To see a now-worthy Spike get back together with
>his abuser would be sickening.
>
Firstly I want to make it clear I'm not suggesting they should or
shouldn't redeem Spike. I merely think that an unredeemed Spike is not
someone Buffy's going to have a real relationship with.
As for Buffy being an abuser I think that's a harsh judgement. The
majority of scenes where Buffy has hit Spike - it's been merely rough
foreplay. The one disturbing scene was where she beat him up in Dead
Things. In that scene he was metaphorically and literally her personal
demon - trying to stop her from doing the right thing about Katrina.
Now I'm not saying beating up Spike was heroic or even right - but
it's not abuse in the sense it would have been if Spike had been
human.
>
>What other purpose would there be to redeem him? As a conclusion of his hero's
>journey? That would have made sense if they'd kept the S5 to early S6 story
>going; if Spike had been presented as a being capable of great good but
>battling tremendous evil inside of him, always conflicted and tempted, the
>audience wondering if he will revert to his old ways or make it to the finish
>line (if not via being redeemed without a soul, then by making a choice to get
>one, which would semi-redeem the vampire without messing with mythology).
Spike's not a hero - he's an anti-hero. There's no hero's journey.
>However, Spike's internal struggle abruptly halted after Tabula Rasa.
That's because what you saw as a struggle to be good, I saw as a
conflict that comes from his feelings for Buffy. So once he has the
object of his affection - the struggle to a large degree is over.
>His only
>conflict was "To screw Buffy or not to screw Buffy, that is the question." He
>coasted along as the Diet Coke of Evil, his only purpose to be f**k buddy and
>punching bag. So I don't see much dramatic impact in redeeming him now, unless
>they start all over again with his hero's journey next year. If they, for
>instance, give him a soul in ep 22, it's going to be sort of out of the blue
>after months of stagnation. With no buildup, it'll just be a yawner.
>
>What other reason would there be to redeem him? I suppose it would be the new
>and improved way to keep him around for another season. If he is redeemed and
>becomes Buffy's lover without Buffy doing something big and major to redeem
>herself, it'll just make Redeemed Spike a pathetic puppy. If he's not Buffy's
>lover, what will he be? Muscle Guy?
>Pseudo-watcher? Will ME allow him to get another girlfriend or will he be
>obliged to pine after Buffy because she's the star?
>
I don't know. As I said I'm not campaigning for Spike to be redeemed.
I think if they do redeem him - it'll be tough to keep him
interesting. Spike's appeal comes from being on the edge of the group
and a bit dangerous. If we end up with William the fop - that'll lose
him a lot of fans.
>If ME works on redeeming Buffy, and doesn't let certain other Scoobies off the
>hook for certain things that may be happening in S6 eps to come, a Spike
>redemption story *could* work, but based on this series tendency to shrug and
>move on after the main characters do bad things, I doubt that this scenario
>will happen.
>
You say you don't want neat resolutions and white-than-white
characters - but you want the show to always punish the bad guys and
reward the good? That's just a little too tidy for me.
PJ Browning
> You take what you can get. A little information from a core group of fans
> that care enough to take the time to share thoughts about the show with
> others is, imo, a pretty valuable source of information you wouldn't get
> otherwise.
yes but a core group of fans doesn't equal the ratings that the
advertisers want in order to decide to give their money to a particular
network, which is in turned given to particular studios (in relationship
to the amount of money that each studios shows brings in). thus paying
for the production of the shows.
the fact is, the hard core fans are frequently too set in their ways
regarding what they want to see. after all this time, there are still
folks out there that are demanding that Buffy and Angel be reunited.
Until that happens, they won't be happy. but guess what. it's not going
to happen. And no amount of statements from those fans is going to
change the fact.
its great to see what folks like or don't like. but don't expect them
to use it as a guide for what they do. because frequently they have
everything mapped out before they start episode one. at least in general
terms
Ken
Ah, but is the difference between a "fan" and a "fanatic"?
-- Ken from Chicago
Cyclone
> Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
>
>> Buffy had to have sex with Spike to find out she shouldn't have sex with
>> Spike?
>>
>
> No, she had to try to have a nice, normal, healthy relationship in order
> to discover that they couldn't.
>
Buffy tried a lot of things with Spike, but that wasn't one of them :)
In fact, that seems like what she was trying to avoid the most.
Smaug69
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> mumbled incoherently:
There isn't a difference. Fan is just short for fanatic. It was
shortened so people wouldn't have to deal with the stigma attached to
the word "fanatic." There is no such thing as a casual fan, IMHO.
-------
"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Mrs. Poet
>From: Shuggie shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk
>Date: 4/7/2002 12:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <lu51buo0r48o3tned...@4ax.com>
I know.
>
>As for Buffy being an abuser I think that's >a harsh judgement.
It is indeed, and one I believe she richly deserves.
>The
>majority of scenes where Buffy has hit Spike - it's been merely rough
>foreplay.
The only time I saw rough foreplay between them was in Smashed, and even then
Buffy was hitting him (and Spike was hitting her) in anger, not in play, which
is what made that sequence so creepy. Furthermore, Buffy punched Spike in
anger, not foreplay, in Smashed after he grabbed her arm. She punched him in
anger, not foreplay, in Wrecked, when he teased her about her panties. She
assaulted him in Gone, then started coming onto him, but when she first
assaulted him he didn't know who or what she was so there was no element of
consent. She punched him in anger, not foreplay, in Dead Things. She punched
him in anger, not foreplay, in As You Were. Out of eight episodes that
followed their first kiss, Buffy punched Spike in four of them. Spike punched
her in only one of them, though some don't consider that pre-sex fight to be
inappropriate. And after the first kiss, Buffy ALWAYS initiated the hitting.
I define that as battery. Some people disagree with me. We all have our
differences of opinion. But if ME doesn't consider Buffy's behavior to be
battery, then I have a serious problem with the show.
>The one disturbing scene was where she beat him up in Dead
>Things.
I found it disturbing every time Spike and Buffy hit or grabbed each other
violently in anger or without the consent of the other. So for me, there were
many disturbing scenes.
>In that scene he was metaphorically and literally her personal
>demon - trying to stop her from doing the right thing about Katrina.
>Now I'm not saying beating up Spike was heroic or even right - but
>it's not abuse in the sense it would have been if Spike had been
>human.
>
I hope that's not what ME meant to say. It comes dangerously close to saying
that hitting one's sex partner is relatively acceptable if one's sex partner is
bad and "has it coming."
<snip>
>
>Spike's not a hero - he's an anti-hero. There's no hero's journey.
>
I'll drop a line to James Marsters and tell him. He said Spike was on a hero's
journey. :)
<snip>
>
>>If ME works on redeeming Buffy, and doesn't let certain other Scoobies off
>the
>>hook for certain things that may be happening in S6 eps to come, a Spike
>>redemption story *could* work, but based on this series tendency to shrug
>and
>>move on after the main characters do bad things, I doubt that this scenario
>>will happen.
>>
>
>You say you don't want neat resolutions and white-than-white
>characters - but you want the show to >always punish the bad guys and
>reward the good?
I didn't MEAN to say anything even close to that. I'm not inclined to root for
people who get away with doing evil things and don't give a damn about it, and
at the same time are presented by the show as "good." It's one thing to be a
naughty viewer by rooting for a bad or anti-heroic guy you find sympathetic in
some way, but when the show presents characters as good guys despite the fact
that they do evil shit with a clean conscience, I can't get on board with those
characters. That's why I didn't like Riley. I kept getting this "Riley is a
Great Guy!" message from the show even while they depicted him acting in
despicable ways.
Mrs. Poet
>Date: 4/7/2002 2:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <eh3s8.193051$BX5.2...@news.easynews.com>
Spike was the one who tried to have a real relationship, though I wouldn't say
he was after a nice, normal one.
Mave
> <him...@no-spam.com> wrote in message news:a8n6t3$mke$1...@news.netmar.com...
> > In article <20020406084856...@mb-mt.aol.com>, Mrs. Poet
> > <fyl...@aol.comspam> writes:
>
> > There have been cases (none on BTVS that I know
> > of), however, where a very few fans mounted real campaigns to make their
> > preferences seem more widespread than they really were. You know, people
> > with more than a thousand e-personas all writing letters. That muddies
> the
> > waters and makes it very hard for the writers to get a clear idea of how
> > their work is being received, which really doesn't benefit anyone.
> >
> > himiko
>
> Can you say "Bring Back Kirk"?
Nope, that's a real one. No multiple personas involved.
Paul Hammond
PJ Browning <arcad...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3CB090AF...@crosswinds.net...
> Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
>
> > Buffy had to have sex with Spike to find out she shouldn't have sex with
Spike?
> >
>
>
> No, she had to try to have a nice, normal, healthy relationship in order
> to discover that they couldn't.
>
When did she try that?
> the thing is that Buffy had something of a normal relationship with
> Angel. For awhile. If it could happen once, then it ought to be able to
> happen again. right? Not.
>
I'm not at all sure Buffy was thinking "Spike is like Angel" at any
point.
Paul Hammond
Smaug69 <smau...@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote in message
news:g2a2bu01pu220j6vk...@4ax.com...
Nope, sorry - etymology is not destiny. The word "fan" is a shortened
form of "fanatic" - but since that speciation, the two words have
evolved separately.
English now has two seperate words with two seperate meanings,
"fan" now means "a person who likes something" - hence,
a "Christina Aguillera fan" might just mean someone who
likes her music, and has bought one album, while a "fanatic"
would have to be more obsessive than that.
All fanatics are fans, but not all fans are fanatics.
Similarly, our word "deer" used to mean "an animal" - now
it means one particular type of animal. But, the original
meaning has been preserved in German "Tier = animal",
"Tiergarten = zoo", and in Shakespear, but "deer hunter"
is *not* someone who hunts elephants.
Like I say, etymology is not destiny - usage defines
a word's meaning, *not* history.
And, therefore, there *is* such a thing as a casual fan.
Paul
Shuggie
<SNIP>
>>The
>>majority of scenes where Buffy has hit Spike - it's been merely rough
>>foreplay.
>
>The only time I saw rough foreplay between them was in Smashed, and even then
>Buffy was hitting him (and Spike was hitting her) in anger, not in play, which
>is what made that sequence so creepy. Furthermore, Buffy punched Spike in
>anger, not foreplay, in Smashed after he grabbed her arm. She punched him in
>anger, not foreplay, in Wrecked, when he teased her about her panties. She
>assaulted him in Gone, then started coming onto him, but when she first
>assaulted him he didn't know who or what she was so there was no element of
>consent. She punched him in anger, not foreplay, in Dead Things. She punched
>him in anger, not foreplay, in As You Were. Out of eight episodes that
>followed their first kiss, Buffy punched Spike in four of them. Spike punched
>her in only one of them, though some don't consider that pre-sex fight to be
>inappropriate. And after the first kiss, Buffy ALWAYS initiated the hitting.
>
OK I've really never been through it blow by blow like that. I could
go back and re-watch those scenes, but really I can't be bothered. I'm
prepared to concede that it wasn't all foreplay. But it wasn't
battery.
You have to consider who and what Spike is. You have to scale down the
violence accordingly. Is an angry slapping her lover in the face
battery? Because that's probably a fair comparison.
>I define that as battery. Some people disagree with me. We all have our
>differences of opinion. But if ME doesn't consider Buffy's behavior to be
>battery, then I have a serious problem with the show.
>
Then I think you have a problem with a show because if they consider
it battery they certainly don't portray it that way.
>>The one disturbing scene was where she beat him up in Dead
>>Things.
>
>I found it disturbing every time Spike and Buffy hit or grabbed each other
>violently in anger or without the consent of the other. So for me, there were
>many disturbing scenes.
>
>>In that scene he was metaphorically and literally her personal
>>demon - trying to stop her from doing the right thing about Katrina.
>>Now I'm not saying beating up Spike was heroic or even right - but
>>it's not abuse in the sense it would have been if Spike had been
>>human.
>>
>
>I hope that's not what ME meant to say. It comes dangerously close to saying
>that hitting one's sex partner is relatively acceptable if one's sex partner is
>bad and "has it coming."
>
I didn't mean that. It's not Spike's evil nature that lessens the
significance but the fact that his body will can take punishment with
less effect that a human's could.
I don't think Buffy's outburst was acceptable either - but I think it
was understandable given her state of mind.
><snip>
>
>>
>>Spike's not a hero - he's an anti-hero. There's no hero's journey.
>>
>
>I'll drop a line to James Marsters and tell him. He said Spike was on a hero's
>journey. :)
>
I can only think that means one of two things -
1) He's speaking from the actor's point of view. A good actor has to
be sympathetic to the character he plays. Objectively the character
may be unsympathetic but that's probably not the way that character
feels about themselves and it's that mindset the actor has to get
into.
Not that I think Spike thinks he's on a hero's journey but I could see
how James - speaking with much more of a sympathetic view of Spike -
might feel that.
2) He's talking in part influenced by things we haven't seen yet.
Maybe he does get redeemed or re-souled or he sacrifices himself for
Buffy or the Scoobs. And maybe that grows out of what we've seen
already in some clever way. I have to say though that it'll need to be
darn clever because so far I've seen no journey. Or at least the
journey I've seen is him fall in love with Buffy. But I've seen Spike
in love with Dru. This is not significantly different in the way it
affects him.
Finally on this - I reminded of an interview I saw with Gabriel Byrne
about the Usual Suspects in which he said he still thinks that maybe
he was Keyser Soze. Byrne's a great actor but he was too involved in
the process somehow to see what's obvious to even the ordinary viewer.
><snip>
>
>>
>>>If ME works on redeeming Buffy, and doesn't let certain other Scoobies off
>>the
>>>hook for certain things that may be happening in S6 eps to come, a Spike
>>>redemption story *could* work, but based on this series tendency to shrug
>>and
>>>move on after the main characters do bad things, I doubt that this scenario
>>>will happen.
>>>
>>
>>You say you don't want neat resolutions and white-than-white
>>characters - but you want the show to >always punish the bad guys and
>>reward the good?
>
>I didn't MEAN to say anything even close to that.
And yet what you're about to say sounds remarkably similar to my ears.
>I'm not inclined to root for
>people who get away with doing evil things and don't give a damn about it, and
>at the same time are presented by the show as "good."
Does the show present them as good or does it just refuse to depict
them as bad for every misdeed? What would constitute dealing with this
properly in your view? I'm guessing either the character themselves
showing remorse or other characters rebuking/judging them or bad
consequences?
>It's one thing to be a
>naughty viewer by rooting for a bad or anti-heroic guy you find sympathetic in
>some way, but when the show presents characters as good guys despite the fact
>that they do evil shit with a clean conscience, I can't get on board with those
>characters.
1) Some otherwise good people do do dubious stuff with a clena
conscience.
2) Obviously I'm not as bothered about this because I don't see this
stuff as 'evil'. It's bad but not evil.
>That's why I didn't like Riley. I kept getting this "Riley is a
>Great Guy!" message from the show even while they depicted him acting in
>despicable ways.
>
I'm not going to get into that. I remember Riley being a bit of an
idiot - I don't remember him being despicable.
Mrs. Poet
>
>Does the show present them as good or does it just refuse to depict
>them as bad for every misdeed?
That's a fair question and an important distinction. The former. I'm talking
about the "show don't tell" thing. If Cordelia is a great hero, show me she's
a hero, don't just tell me she is via other character saying "Cordie is a
hero!", heroic music playing when she comes along, writers and producers saying
in interviews that she is a great hero and a fine role model. Luckily, on AtS
they've done both...called her a hero and shown us via her actions why she is a
hero.
I kept hearing from Xander and Willow and Buffy and Joss Whedon how nice,
dependable, and apple pie Riley was, but his actions too often did not fit what
they were saying.
OTOH, the characterization of Xander is usually pretty good, because they show
us he's a brave, loyal guy, and they show us when he acts like a jerk, and they
seem to be indicating that he's a mixed character. A good man, but flawed and
sometimes annoying.
However, don't get me into the Xander/Anya Buffy/Spike double standard.
Pweeze.
Rose
"My goal is to become hopeless. When you're hopeless, you don't care." George,
"Seinfeld." ;)
Ken
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20020409012818...@mb-bk.aol.com...
Why bother to redeem Spike? because the Spike in S5's season finale, "Weight
of the World" was worthy of redemption, because the heart of the show has
been about choosing to fight against impossible odds (overcoming them is not
always guaranteed, as demonstrated by B/A shippiness, or the lack thereof),
because it makes for a dramatic story, because if you really hate Spike then
giving him an eternity of regret and sorrow and guilt over his actions with
the irony being that the even the least of the humans who used to prey upon
can beat him up with impunity seems a far worse punishment that a simple
stake in the heart.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3cb1...@212.67.96.135...
Agreed. PEOPLE define words, not dictionaries. Dictionaries merely list the
most popular definitions.
"Fan" may have started out as an abbreviation of ''fanatic'', but PEOPLE
have given it another meaning by repeated usage. Just as "unique" started
out meaning "one of a kind" but by repeated usage (e.g., "very unique",
"kinda unique", etc.) PEOPLE have given it another meaning: "distinctive".
Of course saying the West Wing episode was ONLY against "fanatics" instead
of the more casual "fan" gives Aaron an out (the same kind of out Joss could
use): "What? No, I was referring to nutcases. You're not saying YOU'RE a
'nutcase' are you?"
-- Ken from Chicago
Don Sample
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Agreed. PEOPLE define words, not dictionaries. Dictionaries merely list the
> most popular definitions.
Depends on the dictionary.
Most dictionaries are descriptive. Some dictionaries are proscriptive
("This is what this word means, we don't care how people use it, this
meaning is correct, all other meanings are wrong")
Proscriptive dictionaries tend to be used by lawyers.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Smaug69
<snip>
> > >Ah, but is the difference between a "fan" and a "fanatic"?
> >
> > There isn't a difference. Fan is just short for fanatic. It was
> > shortened so people wouldn't have to deal with the stigma attached to
> > the word "fanatic." There is no such thing as a casual fan, IMHO.
> >
> >
>
> Nope, sorry - etymology is not destiny. The word "fan" is a shortened
> form of "fanatic" - but since that speciation, the two words have
> evolved separately.
>
> English now has two seperate words with two seperate meanings,
> "fan" now means "a person who likes something" - hence,
> a "Christina Aguillera fan" might just mean someone who
> likes her music, and has bought one album, while a "fanatic"
> would have to be more obsessive than that.
>
> All fanatics are fans, but not all fans are fanatics.
>
> Similarly, our word "deer" used to mean "an animal" - now
> it means one particular type of animal. But, the original
> meaning has been preserved in German "Tier = animal",
> "Tiergarten = zoo", and in Shakespear, but "deer hunter"
> is *not* someone who hunts elephants.
Well, I'm not German. ;-)
> Like I say, etymology is not destiny - usage defines
> a word's meaning, *not* history.
And why was the change made in the first place? Because of the stigma
attached to the word fanatic. Stuff like that happens all the time.
And while present usage may define a word for most people one must not
forget where that word came from. In this age of political correctness
it more important than ever.
> And, therefore, there *is* such a thing as a casual fan.
Boy, people can convince themselves of anything, can't they?
Smaug69
Shuggie
>Shuggie wrote;
>
>>
>>Does the show present them as good or does it just refuse to depict
>>them as bad for every misdeed?
>
<SNIP explanation of "show don't tell">
>
>I kept hearing from Xander and Willow and Buffy and Joss Whedon how nice,
>dependable, and apple pie Riley was, but his actions too often did not fit what
>they were saying.
>
I don't remember it that way but then I never hated Riley - I was just
bored by him.
>OTOH, the characterization of Xander is usually pretty good, because they show
>us he's a brave, loyal guy, and they show us when he acts like a jerk, and they
>seem to be indicating that he's a mixed character. A good man, but flawed and
>sometimes annoying.
>
I'd go along with that. Out of curiousity though how do you respond to
people who say Xander should have been 'called' on these issues -
- lying to Buffy in Becoming II
- effectively sending Faith after Angel in Revelations
- summoning a killer demon in OMWF
I don't have a problem with these but I'd be very interested on your
take on them ;)
>However, don't get me into the Xander/Anya Buffy/Spike double standard.
>Pweeze.
>
I think it's a soul/no-soul thing.
Mrs. Poet
>Message-id: <tkb6bu8a9hit6r0n6...@4ax.com>
>
>
>
>I'd go along with that. Out of curiousity though how do you respond to
>people who say Xander should have been 'called' on these issues -
>
> - lying to Buffy in Becoming II
That wasn't wrong.
> - effectively sending Faith after Angel in >Revelations
He admitted he leaned toward the postal at the end of Revelations, and decided
to trust Buffy. Though Xander was wrong, it was understandable that he
overreacted. And he admitted he overreacted. So it's over AFAIAC.
> - summoning a killer demon in OMWF
>
That was an accident, but what was cowardly and despicable was not owning up to
it as soon as he realized it might be having dangerous consequences. It
doesn't make him evil, but he should be held accountable. And since he has not
admitted how wrong he was to remain silent, I've lost respect for him.
Shuggie
>>Subject: Re: Why Bother Redeeming Spike
>>From: Shuggie shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk
>>Date: 4/9/2002 11:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <tkb6bu8a9hit6r0n6...@4ax.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>I'd go along with that. Out of curiousity though how do you respond to
>>people who say Xander should have been 'called' on these issues -
>>
>> - lying to Buffy in Becoming II
>
>That wasn't wrong.
>
Why not?
Paul Hammond
Well, in that case, why don't you think that "deer" still means
"animal". It used to - how long ago does the meaning of a word
have to have changed for its old meaning to be irrelevant, in
your view?
Paul
Laurie
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:090420020936246181%dsa...@synapse.net...
Speaking of dictionaries & new groups posters- are they mutually exclusive
:-o
Laurie
**************************
Mrs. Poet
>>That wasn't wrong.
>>
>
>Why not?
>--
>Shug
Because she needed to see Angel as completely gone in order to have the fire in
her belly to kill him.
Ken
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
That wasn't a "relationship", that was a "fling" and "affair", in secret, a
relationship is out in the open--at least to your family and friends.
-- Ken from Chicago
Smaug69
<snip>
> > > And, therefore, there *is* such a thing as a casual fan.
> >
> > Boy, people can convince themselves of anything, can't they?[***]
> >
>
> Well, in that case, why don't you think that "deer" still means
> "animal". It used to - how long ago does the meaning of a word
> have to have changed for its old meaning to be irrelevant, in
> your view?
I'm not talking about deer. :-)
And a word's old meaning is never irrelevant. Do you know what is the
original meaning(or the origin) of chauvinist? Talk about a weird
evolution. I use it's original meaning all the time now in normal
conversation. And even though I get strange looks I refuse to let the
original meaning die.
Smaug69
[***] BTW, this line was a joke. I just thought you were clever enough
to not need a winking emoticon.
Shuggie
>>>
>>>That wasn't wrong.
>>>
>>
>>Why not?
>>--
>>Shug
>
>Because she needed to see Angel as completely gone in order to have the fire in
>her belly to kill him.
>
And she *had* to kill him? She couldn't just keep him distracted until
the Spell kicked in?
Paul Hammond
Mrs. Poet <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
> >>
> >>That wasn't wrong.
> >>
> >
> >Why not?
> >--
> >Shug
>
> Because she needed to see Angel as completely gone in order to have the
fire in
> her belly to kill him.
>
Agreed.
(Shug, for more information on this - do a google search on
"Xander lied")
Paul
him...@no-spam.com
<emp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >snip<
>>
>> You make some excellent points but you are kinda assuming that the
>> fans of the show who post on the net are representative of people who
>> watch the show in general.
>>
>> It's an old dilemma - are you making the show for the hard-core fans
>> or just the general viewer?
>
>I agree and disagree.
>
>1.I agree that one should never assume that the fans who post on the
>net represent the general group of people that watches the show. I
>know for a fact that it's not true. the online-fans aren't only a very
>small group, but they have different characteristics than the general
>population of btvs fans. No, I haven't conducted an academic survey or
>anything, but it's just the feeling I get.
Well, I haven't conducted a survey either, so we're both talking through our
hats but my feeling is the opposite. I know that when I talk to fans of
shows I watch only casually, I often find that I do understand what they're
talking about. I see the same main issues, themes, and problems they do...I
just don't care enough to work out the reasons or history of them. And when
I talk to casual Buffy viewers, I find the same thing.
One of my colleagues who just started watching current shows and FX reruns (he
sees about half of them since he's not at the set the VCR stage...yet)
because of our conversations just wandered in to remark that a) he really
likes that "that Spike guy" seems to be using love like Angel used his
soul...to be good, and b) that Willow's problems with magic seemed more like
a slow degeneration of her soul rather than a drug addiction and what gives?
He's not obessessed with these issues, but he has noticed them.
> here is what I see as the main difference: the "online-fans" seem to
>be people who generally like the sci-fi/fantasy genres. I don't think
>that's true for the millions who watch BTVS but don't discuss it on
>the net. I can only speak for myself: *all* of the people I know who
>watch BTVS regularly are *not* sci-fi/fantasy fans. They see BTVS as a
>metaphor, and that's why they are willing to sit through all of the
>monsters/demons/whatever. I am actually one of these people. I've been
>watching BTVS obsessively since "welcome to the hellmouth", but I only
>became part of the internet fandom about a year ago. So I was quite
>surprised to see people complaining "why is Buffy not slaying vampires
>anymore? it's in the *title* for god's sake!" , while I've always said
>"it's a great show, but if they could just get rid of the vampires and
>become more realistic...".
Also an issue that comes up regularly on this and other posting boards and at
cons. Once again, fanatic fans and casual viewers are not on separate pages;
it's just that one group is skimming and the other is taking voluminous
notes.
>
>2. you seem to suggest that the "hard core fans" are "people who post
>on the net", and all the others are "general viewers" (please correct
>me if I misunderstood your intention).
>again, I know many people who are addicted to the show, but have never
>posted on an internet forum or visited a fan website. it doesn't mean
>they're not "hard core fans" - they either don't have the time, don't
>like the net, afraid of getting spoiled for future eps, etc.
I agree, but since these folks don't register their views, there's no way of
knowing how they fit in any more than there is to know how casual viewers see
the show. It's a matter of personal experience.
Note to self: could I possibly get a grant to study this?
himiko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
> Buffy had to have sex with Spike to find out she shouldn't have sex with
> Spike?
Simplistically, yes.
You have to make all the dumb mistakes - the same mistakes that
everybody else make.
Lord knows I've been in my share of disfunctional relationships, many of
which I couldn't see were so horribly wrong. I'd imagine that just about
everybody in this group above the age of, say 25, can say the same thing.
It's how you eventually get to the good relationships - you keep
slamming into the stupid mistakes and idealistic assumptions (in this case
the "I can just have sex with him and not develop feelings"). Hopefully
you learn from at least a few of them.
She's 20 years old. A 20 year old thinks they know what they are doing
when it comes to relationships, and it takes many years before they realize
they knew nothing and have some mature perspective to see all their
horrific mistakes.
--
Evan "JabberWokky" E. jw...@timewarp.org
"I think it's a mandate: Don't give people what they want, give them what
they need. [...] People want the easy path, a happy resolution, but in the
end, they're more interested in... No one's going to go see the story of
Othello going to get a peaceful divorce. People want the tragedy. They
need things to go wrong, they need the tension. " -- Joss Whedon
Mrs. Poet
>Date: 4/14/2002 8:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <TGru8.89546$gA5.7...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>
>
>Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
>> Buffy had to have sex with Spike to find out she shouldn't have sex with
>> Spike?
>
> Simplistically, yes.
>
OK. I'm gonna go stick a fork in a plugged in toaster to see if what they say
about electrocution is true. ;p
Rose
"Oh I wonder if he's gonna show us what 'bad' is." -- _Spike_, Tom Petty and
the Heartbreakers
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
> Feedback is important to any commercial enterprise. It would be far
> worse if fans do nothing more than stroke the writers egos on the
> internet, but quietly start watching a show on another network. One of
I for one don't give a damn about feedback. I've been a Trekker who is
a fan of the original series. I'll chat all day with interesting and
interested fans about who was the sexiest guest star. Every week I go to
the Rocky Horror Picture Show - for the past 15 or so years. It's not
about the movie, and it's certainly not about feedback to improve it. It's
about interacting with the fans.
The show's been shot. Do you think that 50 people talking about it will
change where Spike is going? 500? 5000? 50,000? No. Do we still enjoy
batting the issue back and forth? Sure. Does it get old for some? Yeah -
they drop out of that thread.
Fandom is not about the show. It's never been about the show. It's
about what Willow and Xander do in our minds after the credits roll. And
that takes place within the fans. Fandom springs up around anything that
has a strong enough universe so that the characters are alive after the
show ends, the last page is read, or the last issue comes out. The
writers, actors and crew all create a strong, powerful universe - one that
captures us. But to be a fan, to care enough to type up a post here, to
write a letter, or even to chat around the water cooler about last night's
episode, you have to care about the show, to have invested emotionally and
mentally in the universe they created.
Screw feedback - I just wanna be entertained an hour each week, and come
here and debate whether or not Tara's hair was dyed slightly darker, or
rant about how Nicholas's slight pause before Xander walked out of the room
made that scene my favorite in the episode.
Because that's what fans do.
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
>> And, therefore, there is such a thing as a casual fan.
>
> Boy, people can convince themselves of anything, can't they?
If people use the term "causal fan", then there is such a thing.
Ask somebody if they like the Lakers, and if they follow them when they
think to turn on the TV, don't own any clothing or other stuff with the
team's logo and colors, they can easily say "Yeah, but I'm a casual fan".
I know several people who like Trek, but don't watch it every week.
They are casual fans.
We in Fandom use completely different terms for Fen and Mundanes. Of
course, we get a bit more towards the "fanatic" derived form. ;-P
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
> Shuggie wrote:
>>I can see how you would see it this way and it's a valid view. I tend
>>to agree with Doug Petrie when he said that they were never going to
>>walk off into the sunset together, to do so would be to "sell out"
>>both characters.
> It's not necessary to have them walk off into the sunset together. It's
> also not necessary to have them beat each other's lights out before they
> have sex. And it's not necessary to get Spike and Buffy together at all.
Okay, then what *is* necessary in Buffy? Seriously - how was Angel and
Buffy any more "necessary" than Spike and Buffy? Which was more
"necessary", Willow and Tara or Willow and Oz?
What is necessary?
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
>>In that scene he was metaphorically and literally her personal
>>demon - trying to stop her from doing the right thing about Katrina.
>>Now I'm not saying beating up Spike was heroic or even right - but
>>it's not abuse in the sense it would have been if Spike had been
>>human.
> I hope that's not what ME meant to say. It comes dangerously close to
> saying that hitting one's sex partner is relatively acceptable if one's
> sex partner is bad and "has it coming."
Since when did ME have to have something to say? Sure, they do at
times, but often it's just a good, interesting story.
Why do they have to be "saying" something?
Mrs. Poet
>Message-id: <7Ahv8.97667$VM5.60...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>
>
>Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
>> Shuggie wrote:
>
>>>I can see how you would see it this way and it's a valid view. I tend
>>>to agree with Doug Petrie when he said that they were never going to
>>>walk off into the sunset together, to do so would be to "sell out"
>>>both characters.
>
>> It's not necessary to have them walk off into the sunset together. It's
>> also not necessary to have them beat each other's lights out before they
>> have sex. And it's not necessary to get Spike and Buffy together at all.
>
> Okay, then what *is* necessary in Buffy? Seriously - how was Angel and
>Buffy any more "necessary" than Spike and Buffy? Which was more
>"necessary", Willow and Tara or Willow and Oz?
>
I think I need to recap. I said I'd like Spike & Buffy to get together in some
way. Then I complained about how they did it. Then someone said "it would
betray the characters to have them ride into the sunset together." My point is
you can refrain from having Spike and Buffy ride off into the sunset together
WITHOUT having them in the kind of scenes that were shown earlier this season.
You could do a different type of relationship between Spike and Buffy (not
necessarily a sweet relationship, just different), or you could refrain from
having any relationship between them at all.
> What is necessary?
>
Nothing is necessary, but I'm sorry they didn't stick with the original vision
of this show. I don't mean keeping everything the same, I don't mean keeping
them all in high school, I don't mean telling the exact same jokes. But
abandoning hope in place of despair, sacrificing all beauty to ugliness,
seeming to take the stand that adult life is a bad thing...that I'm sorry to
see.
Rose, overgrown schoolchild with a computer
DarkMagic
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
> Nothing is necessary, but I'm sorry they didn't stick with the original
vision
> of this show. I don't mean keeping everything the same, I don't mean
keeping
> them all in high school, I don't mean telling the exact same jokes. But
> abandoning hope in place of despair, sacrificing all beauty to ugliness,
> seeming to take the stand that adult life is a bad thing...that I'm sorry
to
> see.
>
>
stereotypes? Whedon wanted to tell a story about a petite little blonde
girl who _didn't_ succumb to the monsters. Who didn't fit the ditzy,
blonde, cheerleader bill. And yet, Buffy is plunged, again and again, into
stereotypical relationship roles. The innocent first love that will never
work but won't wane, the one night stand turned humilating encounter, the
"perfect guy" she just can't bring herself to love, and now "the bad boy"
that she knows is wrong but just can't shake the attraction too. Ugg! I
know ME is more creative than this. And if they aren't, just let Buffy be
single.
Shannon
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
> Nothing is necessary, but I'm sorry they didn't stick with the original
> vision
> of this show. I don't mean keeping everything the same, I don't mean
> keeping
> them all in high school, I don't mean telling the exact same jokes. But
> abandoning hope in place of despair, sacrificing all beauty to ugliness,
> seeming to take the stand that adult life is a bad thing...that I'm sorry
> to see.
High School rejected her, she had to kill her first love, Jenny got
killed, Willow and Xander's best friend got killed in the first few
episodes.
When have the character *ever* been happy and stayed there?
From the beginning, the show has been about hope losing to reality.
Just not always. And I don't think all hope will be lost in S6 either.
There will be victories.
Mrs. Poet
>Message-id: <FChv8.97669$VM5.60...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>
>
>Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
>>>In that scene he was metaphorically and literally her personal
>>>demon - trying to stop her from doing the right thing about Katrina.
>>>Now I'm not saying beating up Spike was heroic or even right - but
>>>it's not abuse in the sense it would have been if Spike had been
>>>human.
>
>> I hope that's not what ME meant to say. It comes dangerously close to
>> saying that hitting one's sex partner is relatively acceptable if one's
>> sex partner is bad and "has it coming."
>
> Since when did ME have to have >something to say?
Since always.
Sure, they do at
>times, but often it's just a good, interesting story.
>
> Why do they have to be "saying" something?
>
When one tells a story, one says something.
Edith Ann
"Evan "JabberWokky" E." <jw...@timewarp.org> wrote in message
news:eLkv8.98701$VM5.61...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Delurking for a minute to say how much I enjoy reading your posts. I can't
say that I'm quite as optimistic as you are about the rest of this season.
I know I'm not the dumbest person watching this show, and frankly I haven't
got a clue what the writers have been trying to do in the last half dozen
episodes or so. However, I've enjoyed the show so much, and for so many
years, I'm willing to ride it out and hope for the best. Even if the second
half of this season ends up making no sense to me, I can always hope for
better next year.
Ken
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
Evan, I think what Rose is saying at that ME, like anyone, is always a role
model--whether they intend to be or not. Lessons can be drawn from
stories--whether the author intended any particular lesson to be drawn. It's
like leaving ripples in the water, no matter what we do, even if it's a
choice not to do anything, there are repercussions.
Rose, I think what Evan is saying ME may not INTEND to be "saying" anything
more profound than the entertaining story of a vampire slayer who defies
stereotypical concepts of a "hero". ME may only INTEND to create
"entertainment" and not "art".
Where:
"Entertainment" is a diversion, recreation, a relaxing or thrilling way to
pass time
As opposed to
"Art" is a metaphor. It's a symbolic way of communicating ideas.
Also neither are mutually exclusive.
Those are my definitions, your mileage may vary.
In other words, Evan is saying ME may be only trying to create entertainment
while Rose is saying that ME can't help but to create art in the process
(whether it's good or bad "art", that's up to debate).
-- Ambassador Ken from Chicago
Smaug69
> Smaug69 wrote:
>
> >> And, therefore, there is such a thing as a casual fan.
> >
> > Boy, people can convince themselves of anything, can't they?
>
> If people use the term "causal fan", then there is such a thing.
>
> Ask somebody if they like the Lakers, and if they follow them when they
> think to turn on the TV, don't own any clothing or other stuff with the
> team's logo and colors, they can easily say "Yeah, but I'm a casual fan".
>
> I know several people who like Trek, but don't watch it every week.
> They are casual fans.
>
> We in Fandom use completely different terms for Fen and Mundanes. Of
> course, we get a bit more towards the "fanatic" derived form. ;-P
People say all sorts of things. Whether they mean them or believe them
or even know what the hell they are talking about is another matter
entirely- maybe several matters. :-)
Smaug69
Mrs. Poet
>
>Rose, I think what Evan is saying ME may not INTEND to be "saying" anything
>more profound than the entertaining story of a vampire slayer who defies
>stereotypical concepts of a "hero". ME may only INTEND to create
>"entertainment" and not "art"
Fair enough, but the producers of Buffy have always talked about the messages
they are sending...about strong female characters, about the heroism of making
it through high school, about how it's okay to be gay. BtVS used to not hit
you over the head with morals, but it always took a stand on right and wrong,
on how to act with good character, on retaining hope and persevering. It's not
Seinfeld, which almost always avoided messages until the finale.
Remember Joyce's speech at the end of School Hard? "He said you're a
troublemaker. And I could care less. I have a daughter who can take care of
herself, who is resourceful and thinks of others in a crisis." Remember the
cheerleader mom trapped in the statue in The Witch? Remember Earshot?
Wrecked? All of these eps had messages.
Evan "JabberWokky" E.
> I know I'm not the dumbest person watching this show, and frankly I
> haven't got a clue what the writers have been trying to do in the last
> half dozen episodes or so.
Pretty much sums up my opinion too. I think they are fragmented behind
the scenes, and I'm willing to give them some slack on minor points. But
at the same time, I *do* think they know what they are doing and will
deliver an ending.
No promises as to if it'll be a popular ending, but they seem to know
their craft. The only two criticizable problems with S6 seem to be
dialogue (which, IMO, has suffered somewhat, but there are still gems. I
think Joss backing off caused that - OMWF is full of good stuff), and
technical issues such as editing and fight scenes. Other than that, it's a
matter of taste (which, while criticizable, are decidedly debatable).
> However, I've enjoyed the show so much, and for so many
> years, I'm willing to ride it out and hope for the best. Even if the
> second half of this season ends up making no sense to me, I can always
> hope for better next year.
Pretty much my feeling. There are some lone stinkers in the season, but
there have been some really fun ones. It seems to me that some people are
so anti-S6, they can't see the good stuff. I also have no problems with
the themes (I'm enjoying them), so I have no overall problems.
Reading the above, you can probably tag that to just about every season
- there are some stinkers, but the majority are good. Some people just
don't like the theme, and that colors the whole season.
There's a third group, incidently, and I feel sorry for them because
they are just going to be more and more frustrated with the show. They are
people who honestly *like* Buffy, Xander and Willow. They may not be
childish about it, but that's part of their (possibly unconsious)
attraction to the show. They find them nice people. Unfortuantly, they
are characters, not people, and their job is not to be nice. Their job is
to be entertaining. And if that means that Xander does some really nasty
things to Anya, or Willow becomes nasty and abusive, then that's fine.
That third group says "I like Willow", and means that they like Willow
herself. They hate it when Willow turns nasty, and take it personally that
the writers changed their friend. When I say "I like Willow", I mean that
I like the character. I also like Warren, Angelus, the Judge and the Gorch
brothers. For that matter, I like Nazi Germany... the History Channel is
full of nifty documentaries. Doesn't mean I think they are "good",
whatever that means.
For this third group, this season is very upsetting. And I think
there's a little bit of that third group in everybody.
himiko
> Mrs. Poet wrote:
>
> > Nothing is necessary, but I'm sorry they didn't stick with the original
> > vision
> > of this show. I don't mean keeping everything the same, I don't mean
> > keeping
> > them all in high school, I don't mean telling the exact same jokes. But
> > abandoning hope in place of despair, sacrificing all beauty to ugliness,
> > seeming to take the stand that adult life is a bad thing...that I'm sorry
> > to see.
>
> High School rejected her, she had to kill her first love, Jenny got
> killed, Willow and Xander's best friend got killed in the first few
> episodes.
>
> When have the character *ever* been happy and stayed there?
> From the beginning, the show has been about hope losing to reality.
>
> Just not always. And I don't think all hope will be lost in S6 either.
> There will be victories.
I hope so. The show has not been about hope losing out to
reality...at least not to me. It has been about hope AND gallantry
winning out over reality without that reality being trimmed down or
deus-ex-machinaed to allow hope and gallantry to win. When it wins,
and it always does because the Scoobs always emerge victorious and
bloodied but unbowed...eventually. It may take them time to get over
things, but they do it. Just to take your examples:
High School rejected her. She created her own group with the Scoobs
so successfully that Cordy was, according to her own statement in the
Wish, fooled into thinking Xander might be marginally cool. And the
Scoobs started seeing themselves as, if not cool, at least having a
purpose beyond h.s. popularity which, in turn, gave them
self-confidence.
She had to kill her first love, true, and it took her a whole summer
to get sane again after that, but she did it. And when he came back,
she had the courage to a) encourage him in his own recovery, and b)
say good-bye...tearfully and with a bit of backsliding it's true...but
finally while still preserving a relationship. The first love went on
to become a hero for good in his own right.
Jenny got killed, true. But not until after Buffy had made things
right with her and Giles, sinking her own understandable rage to do
so, which is greatly to her credit. And Giles eventually forgave
Angel to the point where he was willing to work with him...which is
even more to his credit.
Jesse was just a redshirt.
Redemption, not easy redemption, but eventual, temporary (ya gotta
keep working on it) redemption, which I define as the triumph of hope
and gallantry over reality, is what makes BTVS such a joy to watch
despite its down moments. Angel found his kind of redemption...or at
least had until recently. Even Darla managed it. Why not Spike?
He's trying harder than Angel or Darla ever did, and with less
encouragement from others.
Seeing him fail, especially because of, or even partly because of,
lack of support from our heroes would, IMO, end the whole show on a
very sour note. It would betray the whole mood of the show.
This is quite separate from whether or not he and Buffy ever get
together.
himiko
Mrs. Poet
>Counterproductive? 5:30 AM Musings..
>Message-id: <driw8.121665$VM5.74...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>
>
>Edith Ann wrote:
>
>> I know I'm not the dumbest person watching this show, and frankly I
>> haven't got a clue what the writers have been trying to do in the last
>> half dozen episodes or so.
>
> Pretty much sums up my opinion too. I think they are fragmented behind
>the scenes, and I'm willing to give them some slack on minor points. But
>at the same time, I *do* think they know what they are doing and will
>deliver an ending.
>
> No promises as to if it'll be a popular ending, but they seem to know
>their craft. The only two criticizable problems with S6 seem to be
>dialogue (which, IMO, has suffered somewhat, but there are still gems. I
>think Joss backing off caused that - OMWF is full of good stuff), and
>technical issues such as editing and fight scenes. Other than that, it's a
>matter of taste (which, while criticizable, are decidedly debatable).
>
I think it's more than a matter of taste, it's a matter of mindset. I guess
taste would be "I prefer comedy to tragedy." Mindset is more like "This used
to be a show about a strong woman fighting evil and now it's a show about a
screwed up chick and her even more screwed up chick's sex life." The very
core, the very message, the underlying theme of the show seems to have been
turned on its head.
>
>> However, I've enjoyed the show so much, and for so many
>> years, I'm willing to ride it out and hope for the best. Even if the
>> second half of this season ends up making no sense to me, I can always
>> hope for better next year.
>
> Pretty much my feeling. There are some lone stinkers in the season, but
>there have been some really fun ones. It seems to me that some people are
>so anti-S6, they can't see the good stuff.
I think there was some very good stuff before Smashed, and even some sorta okay
stuff (the occasional scene here and there) after Smashed.
Rose
The Wicked Witch of the West = Aunt Em
Ken
"Mrs. Poet" <fyl...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
Hey, this aint Ally McBuffy or Sex and the Sunnydale.
> >> However, I've enjoyed the show so much, and for so many
> >> years, I'm willing to ride it out and hope for the best. Even if the
> >> second half of this season ends up making no sense to me, I can always
> >> hope for better next year.
> >
> > Pretty much my feeling. There are some lone stinkers in the season,
but
> >there have been some really fun ones. It seems to me that some people
are
> >so anti-S6, they can't see the good stuff.
>
> I think there was some very good stuff before Smashed, and even some sorta
okay
> stuff (the occasional scene here and there) after Smashed.
>
>
>
> Rose
> The Wicked Witch of the West = Aunt Em
>
Psst, "Normal, Again".
-- Ken from Chicago
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
: No promises as to if it'll be a popular ending, but they seem to know
:their craft. The only two criticizable problems with S6 seem to be
:dialogue (which, IMO, has suffered somewhat, but there are still gems. I
:think Joss backing off caused that - OMWF is full of good stuff), and
What backing off?
[snip]
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"Oft 'tis startling to reveal, what the murky depths conceal."
-Steven Brust