BUFFY: "New Moon Rising" (Hines's SPOILER review)
David Hines
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
"New Moon Rising," by Marti Noxon
review by David Hines
rating: ***
"New Moon Rising" left an odd impression on me. It's not what I'd call a
bad episode. Sure, it's a little slow in some places, a little rushed in
others, a little unfinished elsewhere -- nothing fatal. But my biggest
problem is that I really don't find the main subject interesting. It's
an episode geared to people who really are interested and invested in the
characters' romantic lives, about which I personally don't give a rat's
ass.
That said, it's a pretty good specimen of a kind of television I find
eminently uninteresting. Like "Wild at Heart," the Willow/Oz breakup
episode (another relationshippy piece, also by Noxon), "New Moon Rising"
is well-structured and, for the most part, well-paced -- especially in the
beginning; Noxon actually begins her story in the teaser, a pleasant
novelty this season. But "New Moon Rising" improves somewhat on its
predecessor. Its individual scenes are generally better paced; they're
not overlong, for the most part, and there are even a couple that go by
too fast. Noxon's dialogue has a couple of eye-rolling bits, but it's
much better and smoother than usual.
The writing flubs, thankfully few, are generally a matter of focus: so
much time is spent on the love angst that the conflict with the Initiative
and Adam's plot are both pretty much glossed over, and don't get the depth
they really deserve -- it's not quite clear what exactly Adam was up to
with all those doodads attached to him, or why Rex Hardshove never brings
up the fact that he's being threatened with court-martial for disobeying
an illegal-as-all-hell order, or what the deal was with the attack on
Graham's patrol (especially after "Wild at Heart," you'd think Oz would
get involved in a way beyond just being mistaken for the other fuzzy guy
-- but this isn't that kind of show, so it'll slide for now). And the
parallels between Buffy's and Brute Hamfist's respective reactions to
Willow's various relationships are well-meant, but they're a bit clumsily
drawn. To make it work, Buffy has to leap straight to calling him a
bigot, instead of explaining the distinction between the werewolf and Oz.
(The leap is especially weak, since she herself draws a similar
distinction between Angel and his demon.)
That's about as bad as the episode itself gets, though. It's a pretty
good bit of relationship angst; it's acted and directed mostly very well,
and even if it's not the kind of writing I find terribly interesting, I
think it's the best relationship angst that Marti Noxon has ever writte.
So I don't like the angst, but I don't really have a major problem with
it. The episode is for the most part very well-acted and well-directed.
"New Moon Rising" isn't the kind of episode I'd like a regular, or even
occasional, diet of, but it's miles better than the comparable fare dished
out by FELICITY, DAWSON'S CREEK, and ROSWELL, and if you're in the market
for it I see no reason why it shouldn't be your cup of tea.
+++
Addendum:
--------
That said, there is something else that bugs me. It's not solely Marti
Noxon's fault; the entire writing staff is to blame, which is why I'm
writing this as an addendum to my review. I have a problem, you see, with
the Willow/Tara relationship. No, it's not with the couple themselves.
It's with the way they've been presented. I don't have a problem with
homosexuality; I have a major problem with cowardice.
The NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, in an article devoted to "New Moon Rising"
(somebody posted it to the newsgroup, and it ought to be available on the
web), called the show "a landmark episode in TV history" because of its
treatment of sexuality.
Well.
I don't know what the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS is smoking, but maybe they just
think landmarks are made pretty easily these days. The relationship
between Willow and Tara has the potential to be the first interesting
romance on the show since Jenny Calendar hooked up with Giles, but it is
not in any sense a landmark. Landmarks are not made, especially on
television, by wussing out at every turn. And if you don't think the
Willow/Tara relationship has been wussing out, I've got a question for
you:
When did Willow and Tara start going out?
We know the *exact* moment at which every single couple in the history of
the show got their start as a couple. What's that moment for Willow and
Tara?
Good question. Wish I knew the answer.
They could be just starting now. It's possible that the two of them have
been wobbling toward a relationship for some time, and that Oz showed up
to throw a wrench in the works just as they were starting to come to terms
with their feelings and attraction for each other. Tara might have blown
out the candle just before their first kiss. Or it might have come at
some point earlier in the episode -- possibly offscreen, just before Oz
confronted Tara and smelled Willow "all over" her. Was that from the hug,
or did the two of them have a more impulsive form of close bodily contact?
They could have started going out just recently. In the Buffyverse, it's
been just over a week (going by ANGEL's timeline) since "Who Are You,"
when Willow hadn't yet introduced Tara to the Slayerettes, Tara told
Willow she was hers, and Tara freaked when Buffy commented about Willow
not driving stick. Maybe the two hadn't settled on what they had. Or
Tara just wasn't prepared for it to come out (so to speak) so soon.
Or maybe they'd been dating for a while, and Tara was worried Willow was
just using her. Tara did use the pronoun "we" when she talked about
getting a cat -- that's pretty possessive; maybe the two have been
together for a good while. Or even a fairly long time: when Tara told
Willow she should be with the one she loves, Willow's response was "I am."
That's a pretty substantial depth of feeling -- heck, maybe they go back
to that first "all-night spell," back in "The I in Team." Willow did lie
to Buffy about where she was that night. She could have just wanted to
keep Buffy out of the loop about her magickal activities -- or she didn't
want to come to terms, yet, with the wild monkey sex she and Tara had had.
But no -- she and Tara didn't act like people who'd boinked, or even made
out, the next day ("Goodbye, Iowa").
Well, gee, our options are just wide open, aren't they? We don't know
when Willow and Tara started dating; all we know is that they're dating
now. And I'm sorry to have to break this to the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, but
that does not a landmark make.
It is just another shuck.
This is not a bold stride forward for series television and for the
depiction of gays in the media. It is a baby step, and like most baby
steps it is a stumble. It cannot in any conscience be called bold, or a
landmark, or even sort of daring, unless the person who calls it any of
those things has an incredibly low threshold for being impressed. Maybe
they can be stunned or amazed by this bold new direction. I cannot bring
myself to stand up and applaud the remarkable bravery and even-handedness
of a show on which the heterosexual pairings get detailed coverage from
their first date onward, and the queer relationships get to slink onstage
so furtively that we're not even sure when their relationship actually
began.
How very *daring.*
How very *brave.*
How very *progressive.*
What a shuck.
--
David Hines
Elianne
In article <XH1Q4.3174$f5.2...@typhoon1.san.rr.com>, hra...@mib.org (David
Hines) wrote:
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
> That said, there is something else that bugs me. It's not solely Marti
> Noxon's fault; the entire writing staff is to blame, which is why I'm
> writing this as an addendum to my review. I have a problem, you see, with
> the Willow/Tara relationship. No, it's not with the couple themselves.
> It's with the way they've been presented. I don't have a problem with
> homosexuality; I have a major problem with cowardice.
>
(if not the boinking itself) with Willor & Oz, Buffy & Angel, Buffy
& Riley (retch), Cordy and Mr. Impregnator, implied boinking with Giles and
Olivia, as well as Joyce and who am I missing? Oh right, Xander and
Anya, Xander and Faith. With Willow and Tara we get a blown-out candle -
that's supposed to imply everything? This is just nuts. Do these people
think that lesbians feel no lust for each other? This is so pure and
nicey-nice as to be unrealistic. (Don't get me wrong, I already think
there's far to much boinking on the show anyway). When you fall in love,
sparks fly. I get no sense of this with W/T. I think either Joss & Co. or
the network copped out royally on this one. It's too bad, because it
does a real disservice to the gay community, IMO. Great review as usual,
even if I like the relationship angsty stuff more that you do. Hope you
never run out of nicknames for Rigid Starchpants, which seems to be his
primary role in Buffy's life, if you get my drift.
tommyk
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> "New Moon Rising," by Marti Noxon
>
> review by David Hines
> rating: ***
>
>
So, you didn't like the content at all, or at least it didn't interst
you, but you thought it was done well for what it was.
Huh.
Of course, also, you were sick of waiting for it to end.
Interesting. I also feel relief that it's over, although I'll confess
to being interested in anything to do with Willow...
--
"Actually, in my killfile, you tend to
know a lot of the people."
LrdLeoLido
>I cannot bring
>myself to stand up and applaud the remarkable bravery and even-handedness
>of a show on which the heterosexual pairings get detailed coverage from
>their first date onward, and the queer relationships get to slink onstage
>so furtively that we're not even sure when their relationship actually
>began.
>
>How very *daring.*
>
>How very *brave.*
>
>How very *progressive.*
>
>What a shuck.
>
Get a life, get a clue, take a chill pill and LOOK at what has been done, not
as propoganda, but as literature.
"New Moon Rising" is a television landmark because it is the first time on
television that a regular series character--and a popular one at that--has come
out of the closet and continued on with it. Okay, well, there was that
business with Ivanova and Talia on Bab5, but that was almost immediately
followed by Talia going evil and being taken off to be dissected, so it doesn't
exactly count.
But as for the relationships, all of the het ones have been slow to start too.
Xander and Cordelia--longstanding hatred building up to a kiss of passion,
followed by denial, followed by more kisses of passion, followed by finally
coming out about it. And have to say that whole relationship was pretty
furtive at first, much more closeted than most gay ones. Then Xander and
Anya--took a while, but went on when Anya asked the question. And Cordelia and
Wesley, which went for months of slinking furtive flirtation before finally the
kiss--which revealed that it wasn't really what either of them wanted.
So now we've got Tara, who's not only lesbian-or-bi, but also painfully shy and
insecure, plus Willow, who's also shy and insecure. (Willow longed for Xander
for years, but lost out because she never had the guts to say so; Willow then
had Oz make the first move, but only after they'd been exchanging glances for a
long time). Willow, who still uses the word "smoochies" and took her time
about ever doing anything with Oz, holding hands for months before they finally
ended up in the sack.
How is this new relationship any different from any of the het relationships on
the show so far? How is this, in fact, significantly different from any of the
Willow relationships? The only whirlwind courtship she ever had was with
Moloch, the cyber-demon, and that turned out pretty badly. Willow is shy, and
cautious, and Tara is even more so. Their relationship is perfectly in
character.
What makes this plot development a bold step is because, unlike ELLEN, they
have not gone out and rented a brass band, gone on the cover of Time magazine,
or done a Chinese menu sampling of "Gay politics item of the week." They've
also done this with one of the characters with the strongest het male
followings--despite Ellen's announcement, or even Roseanne's big kiss scene,
neither of those women had many men fantasizing about them to begin with. The
Willow-Tara relationship is hardly a ratings stunt, but it is a big and
imporatant turning point for the character.
It also progresses the Buffy-Riley relationship. After all, it's going to be
pretty common for Willow to be spending the night in Tara's room while Riley
(who's now homeless) takes over Willow's side of the Buffy-Willow room.
One of the most marvelous things about BUFFY as a show is the incredible
attention to realism so far as the relationships go. If Willow and Tara's
relationship is not trumpeted by either of them, how is that different from
most such similar relationships on campuses? Sure, I'd love to see Larry come
back as the head of the Gay Student Union--which would make sense, besides
being funny, because he's always been loud and brash no matter what he's
done--but I think Willow and Tara are more into the love than into the
politics, and would rather hang out and hold hands than buy lavender sweaters
for each other.
That way lies the path of the Really Empowering Lemon Bundt, and they've both
already laughed at that and gone off by themselves. Should they really take
gay rights activists any more seriously than they do women's rights activists
and the neo-pagans, at least the type you find at your average college campus?
Kevin
Shadowy Moon
news:20000503195800...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> "New Moon Rising" is a television landmark because it is the first time on
> television that a regular series character--and a popular one at that--has
come
> out of the closet and continued on with it.
Leaving Ellen aside [even though, despite the heavy-handed political tack
her coming out on the show took, the character and series were quite popular
with audiences], Willow's hardly the first. Just off the top of my head,
there was Tim Bayliss on Homicide, Tobias Beecher on Oz [not to mention
several other openly gay characters, such as Richie Hanlon and Jason Cramer,
plus the characters that have homosexual relationships/alliances for
convenience and/or to establish a protection/power dynamic, such as Vern
Schillinger, Chris Keller, and Simon Adebisi], Jack McPhee on Dawson's
Creek, and Lily Esposito on Popular [to a much lesser extent].
I applaud what Joss and company are trying to, but what they've done so far
is hardly ground-breaking. However, I'm going to finish griping about it
until the season wraps up and I see if the Willow/Tara relationship is
developed more.
--
Keller: "At first I wanted unconditional surrender, then I wanted
unconditional love. But Beecher don't love me."
Sister Pete: "And that's killing you inside."
Keller: "Yeah."
---*Oz*
Christopher Rickey
lrdle...@aol.com (LrdLeoLido) wrote:
> <snip very long review ending with:
> >I cannot bring
> >myself to stand up and applaud the remarkable bravery and even-handedness
> >of a show on which the heterosexual pairings get detailed coverage from
> >their first date onward, and the queer relationships get to slink onstage
> >so furtively that we're not even sure when their relationship actually
> >began.
> >
> >How very *daring.*
> >
> >How very *brave.*
> >
> >How very *progressive.*
> >
> >What a shuck.
> >
>
> Get a life, get a clue, take a chill pill and LOOK at what has been done, not
> as propoganda, but as literature.
>
> "New Moon Rising" is a television landmark because it is the first time on
> television that a regular series character--and a popular one at
that--has come
> out of the closet and continued on with it.
Will and Grace? Spin City?
>
> But as for the relationships, all of the het ones have been slow to
start too.
> Xander and Cordelia--longstanding hatred building up to a kiss of passion,
> followed by denial, followed by more kisses of passion, followed by finally
> coming out about it. And have to say that whole relationship was pretty
> furtive at first, much more closeted than most gay ones. Then Xander and
> Anya--took a while, but went on when Anya asked the question. And
Cordelia and
> Wesley, which went for months of slinking furtive flirtation before
finally the
> kiss--which revealed that it wasn't really what either of them wanted.
You are misunderstanding David's point. His point was not that the
characters might be having a discrete relationship that they didn't
announce to the other characters immediately. Rather, his point was that
we the audience had front-row seats to the first moments of erupting
passion in each instance. Except Willow and Tara (did we see Jenny and
Giles?). Just think about your detailed description of how Xander and
Cordelia first locked lips. We could add Willow/Oz, Willow/Xander,
Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Parker, Buffy/Riley...
ME is tiptoeing around the subject rather than treating it like they treat
every other passionate relationship. Landmark, unfortunately, would be if
they treated it as if it were any other relationship.
Now, it wouldn't bother me in the least if they took a cue from this and
discretely hinted at all the other relationships.
--
Blow up the outside
Blow up the outside
Blow up the outside world
Christopher Rickey
lrdle...@aol.com (LrdLeoLido) wrote:
> >You are misunderstanding David's point. His point was not that the
> >characters might be having a discrete relationship that they didn't
> >announce to the other characters immediately. Rather, his point was that
> >we the audience had front-row seats to the first moments of erupting
> >passion in each instance. Except Willow and Tara (did we see Jenny and
> >Giles?). Just think about your detailed description of how Xander and
> >Cordelia first locked lips. We could add Willow/Oz, Willow/Xander,
> >Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Parker, Buffy/Riley...
> >
> >ME is tiptoeing around the subject rather than treating it like they treat
> >every other passionate relationship. Landmark, unfortunately, would be if
> >they treated it as if it were any other relationship.
> >
> >Now, it wouldn't bother me in the least if they took a cue from this and
> >discretely hinted at all the other relationships.
>
> What I hear is that you want to see a clench, not just a candle being blown
> out. I'm of a different mind here. Less is more. The darkness will keep the
> fans guessing, and speculating, far more than getting to see the "big kiss."
> And judging by the complaints about the Buffy-Riley kisses this season,
there'd
> be so much bitching about the quality and quantity of the smoochies that it's
> smart for them to not do it yet.
Funny, I thought my last line said that I could do without all the
on-screen sex. I guess you hear what you want to hear. I can also assure
you that David can do without it as well.
His central point is still valid, though. There is nothing to mark this
off as a "landmark" in tv history. ME is playing a very cautious game.
Joss said earlier this season that he and his staff were trying to handle
Willow's lesbianism without seeming to handle it. It's tricky, to be sure,
but their hands are all over it. What gives it away is that the other
passions are treated naturally and right there for all of us to see; that
is to say, they wouldn't have seemed to being handling it if they hadn't
already set a precedent in all their earlier presentations of
relationships.
> Besides which, the kisses we've really watched have been the "inflamed
passion"
> ones--Xander and Cordy, Cordy and Wesley, Spike and Dru, etc.
And Willow's and Tara's wasn't?
> The important turning point here was Willow choosing Tara over Oz, as well as
> accepting her own sexuality, and Tara accepting that choice. Their first
> moments together are not going to be wild weasel passion, and even if they
> were, we don't have to see them. Remember Xander and Anya? We didn't
see them
> kiss. We saw her drop her clothes from the back and Xander stare and squirt
> his juicy drink all over. We assume they had wild hot monkey sex the same as
> we assume that Willow and Tara had a shy and beautiful bit of touching and
> personal exploration, but we don't need to see it UNLESS IF FURTHER'S THE
> PLOTLINE.
I'm all for that. (Okay, not all; there's a part of me that wants a shower
scene, but for the most part, I can do without it.) I thought that blowing
out the candle was kinda cute.
You are, of course, presuming precisely what David questioned, that is,
that the blowing candle is Willow and Tara's first time, and that this
episode is the first time they've explicitly talked about it with each
other. We simply have no idea, since almost all of their relationship has
taken place off camera or through subtexty innuendo.
Rose
President Chester A. Arthur
>From: lrdle...@aol.com (LrdLeoLido)
>Date: 5/3/00 7:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000503195800...@ng-cu1.aol.com>
>
<snip "Buffy did it first">
Homicide? Tim Bayliss? How soon we forget...
And, frankly, bisexual females are the least threatening to the mass
audience...that's why the Bayliss thing impressed me.
AOL Users:
Keyword: Simming
Push button for Simming
FBI Paranormal.
For fun evenings, for a good time, go! Please! =)
Ian J. Ball
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> "New Moon Rising," by Marti Noxon
>
> review by David Hines
> rating: ***
So much for your credibility! If last week was disjoined and incoherent,
then so was this week. I can't for the life of me see any difference
between those two episodes in terms of plot, pacing or coherence.
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Len Mascaro
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
IMHO this episode is symptomatic of the problem with this year's episodes.
The basic plot was that Willow was torn between an old love and a new love
and had to make a decision. This certainly is not a genre type of story.
Such a plot could have appeared on a wide variety of evening soap operas
such as 90210, Felicity, or Dynasty. As such, Buffy this year is making a
transition from being an fantasy, action-adventure show with strong,
consistent character development into a soap opera like Dark Shadows. Like
most soaps, the characters are becoming cartoons who are manipulated for
sake of plot. How the characters behave is inconsistent (Willow in Pangs
for example) and the audience is in danger of loosing interest as they are
manipulated for soap opera plot purposes.
In the past, character development was icing on the cake of the individual
episodic plots where the main characters worked as a team to overcome evil
through solving a problem. I miss becoming involved in how Buffy and team
worked together to identify and solve a problem while in peril. Episodes
this year often do not seem to have the old sense of evil or peril for the
characters and solutions just seem to happen. Opening the door last week
was a real disappointment.
Lets hope that in Season 5 Buffy will return to its root with a reappearance
of the Scooby Gang versus a strong villain. Such puzzle box episodes are
more difficult to write but this series needs to return to its roots or be
in danger of having the same loss of credibility that 90210 suffered as it
became more soap operish after leaving high school.
LJM
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote in message
news:XH1Q4.3174$f5.2...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
> David Hines
>
Justin Koury
[snip]
> And the
> parallels between Buffy's and Brute Hamfist's respective reactions to
> Willow's various relationships are well-meant, but they're a bit clumsily
> drawn. To make it work, Buffy has to leap straight to calling him a
> bigot, instead of explaining the distinction between the werewolf and Oz.
> (The leap is especially weak, since she herself draws a similar
> distinction between Angel and his demon.)
I sensed the attempt of parallel between Willow's relationships to Oz and
Tara, but it seemed muddled. Perhaps that's because Oz wasn't always a
werewolf, but we really don't know why Tara has done those weird things she
does. If it's protection, sending Willow over to the astral plane doesn't
quite jive.
> That's about as bad as the episode itself gets, though. It's a pretty
> good bit of relationship angst; it's acted and directed mostly very well,
> and even if it's not the kind of writing I find terribly interesting, I
> think it's the best relationship angst that Marti Noxon has ever writte.
Maybe that is so...but as the story came across, I just didn't get the sense
that Willow chose anything. She couldn't go back to Oz now, but later they'll
be lovey-dovey? Wishy-washiness aplenty. The not wanting to hurt
anyone...which made the hurt more intense. Oz deciding to leave once again
allowing Willow to get by without deciding. We don't get to see what she does
with Tara, spells or more or less or whatever, but then her good friend Buffy
just now got kinda sorta informed that something goes on.
[snip]
> Addendum:
> --------
[snip]
> Well, gee, our options are just wide open, aren't they? We don't know
> when Willow and Tara started dating; all we know is that they're dating
> now. And I'm sorry to have to break this to the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, but
> that does not a landmark make.
>
> It is just another shuck.
>
> This is not a bold stride forward for series television and for the
> depiction of gays in the media. It is a baby step, and like most baby
> steps it is a stumble. It cannot in any conscience be called bold, or a
> landmark, or even sort of daring, unless the person who calls it any of
> those things has an incredibly low threshold for being impressed. Maybe
> they can be stunned or amazed by this bold new direction. I cannot bring
> myself to stand up and applaud the remarkable bravery and even-handedness
> of a show on which the heterosexual pairings get detailed coverage from
> their first date onward, and the queer relationships get to slink onstage
> so furtively that we're not even sure when their relationship actually
> began.
It doesn't matter.
None of it.
I had a problem with the article you cite because it uses events from
'Doppelgangland' as foreshadowing, and its use as such, in my opinion is still
quite weak. One lick and drain by an other-reality vampire indicates something
about sexual proclivity. Right. I'm sure Liam tortured the women he had sex
with too. Willow is still pretty much a wimp, and her vampire counterpart was
just the opposite. It's kind of odd that the character developments that could
have been went by the wayside. The strength could have lead to a closer
relationship to Buffy, but instead we get the "highschool friends grow apart"
plot. Willow and Buffy were roommates, but they are still growing apart and it
just can't be stopped!
As to the relationship being a bold step, what I want to see is how the
relationship crashes and burns. That's the reality. Divorce and breakup are
out there for heterosexual couples, but homosexual relationships are
characterized as either non-existent/one-night stands or deeply loving. What
about bumpy? Although all the other relationships on Buffy are everchanging,
writers have said that this relationship will work. In the Buffyverse, that is
so incredibly unrealistic.
I don't know about developing any acceptance or tolerance, but for the sake of
_recognition_, it might be a good idea to show that people are people
regardless of who they are sleeping with. For that reason Willow/Tara should
be treated in the same way as Xander/Anya. Instead of making that a case of
lessening Willow/Tara, maybe it should be the case that Xander/Anya is better
developed.
So Willow/Tara may not make sense, but then it doesn't have to, because the
outcome is predetermined.
Justin
LrdLeoLido
>characters might be having a discrete relationship that they didn't
>announce to the other characters immediately. Rather, his point was that
>we the audience had front-row seats to the first moments of erupting
>passion in each instance. Except Willow and Tara (did we see Jenny and
>Giles?). Just think about your detailed description of how Xander and
>Cordelia first locked lips. We could add Willow/Oz, Willow/Xander,
>Buffy/Angel, Buffy/Parker, Buffy/Riley...
>
>ME is tiptoeing around the subject rather than treating it like they treat
>every other passionate relationship. Landmark, unfortunately, would be if
>they treated it as if it were any other relationship.
>
>Now, it wouldn't bother me in the least if they took a cue from this and
>discretely hinted at all the other relationships.
What I hear is that you want to see a clench, not just a candle being blown
out. I'm of a different mind here. Less is more. The darkness will keep the
fans guessing, and speculating, far more than getting to see the "big kiss."
And judging by the complaints about the Buffy-Riley kisses this season, there'd
be so much bitching about the quality and quantity of the smoochies that it's
smart for them to not do it yet.
Besides which, the kisses we've really watched have been the "inflamed passion"
ones--Xander and Cordy, Cordy and Wesley, Spike and Dru, etc.
The important turning point here was Willow choosing Tara over Oz, as well as
accepting her own sexuality, and Tara accepting that choice. Their first
moments together are not going to be wild weasel passion, and even if they
were, we don't have to see them. Remember Xander and Anya? We didn't see them
kiss. We saw her drop her clothes from the back and Xander stare and squirt
his juicy drink all over. We assume they had wild hot monkey sex the same as
we assume that Willow and Tara had a shy and beautiful bit of touching and
personal exploration, but we don't need to see it UNLESS IF FURTHER'S THE
PLOTLINE.
Riley and Buffy, last week, had passionate sex that acted as a battery for the
whole plot of the episode. Likewise with Buffy and Angel, their first and only
time (not counting that little time-loop on Angel).
I'll predict that we'll see LOTS of hand holding between Willow and Tara and
occasional kisses, and a couple wake-up-in-bed shots, but nothing in the way of
actual on screen sex until they need to raise the power of a Great Rite for
Drawing Down the Moon or something similar. Or until one of them has just
narrowly escaped from death and the sexual passion will double as a metaphor
for reaffirmation of life. Anything else will be slash fiction.
After all, have we watched Xander and Anya get it on? No, even though they do
it every night, which is more than Buffy did with Parker. Why don't we see it?
Because Anya's comments about "I like the spanking" are far more entertaining
than actually seeing it. But more than that, it wouldn't further the plot.
Xander and Anya have wild monkey sex. Watching it will not reveal anything we
don't already know, or advance the plot.
Willow and Tara are just starting a shy exploratory relationship. Do we need
to know who touches whose cheek first or which girl has the first breast to be
fondled? No. Yeah, it would be sexy, but we don't get to see it until it does
something other than please the "Show it! Show it!" crowd.
Besides which, there's also the problem of regular TV. With a het couple, you
at least get to show the guys bare chest, whereas with two women, all you can
show are heads, backs and suggestive sheets.
Kevin
Dave
<XH1Q4.3174$f5.2...@typhoon1.san.rr.com>:
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> "New Moon Rising," by Marti Noxon
>
> review by David Hines
> rating: ***
>
>
>"New Moon Rising" left an odd impression on me. It's not what I'd call
>a bad episode.
Come on say it, you'll feel better. :) It was a bad episode. There
I feel better! This episode (along with last weeks), is prime MST3K
fodder. Oz scenes alone are good for a lot of Hulk riffs.
<snip>
>The episode is for the most part very well-acted
>and well-directed. "New Moon Rising" isn't the kind of episode I'd like
>a regular, or even occasional, diet of, but it's miles better than the
>comparable fare dished out by FELICITY, DAWSON'S CREEK, and ROSWELL, and
>if you're in the market for it I see no reason why it shouldn't be your
>cup of tea.
So it was a bad episode of BtVS, but a good episode of FELICITY,
If that isn't damning with faint praise I don't know what is.
I am curious as to why you gave it 3 stars....
>
>That said, there is something else that bugs me. It's not solely Marti
>Noxon's fault; the entire writing staff is to blame, which is why I'm
>writing this as an addendum to my review. I have a problem, you see,
>with the Willow/Tara relationship. No, it's not with the couple
>themselves.
I have a problem with the relationship. For one, Willow turned
lesbian by writer fiat. There was no reason for her to fall in love with
Tara except that the writers liked the fan reaction Lesbian Vampire Willow
got. Secondly, Tara as a character has all the personallity of lint.
Does anyone care if she lives, dies or spontaneously combusts? Would
anyone miss her? If they got rid of her, maybe her 5 lines per episode
could go to Xander and he would have twice as many per episode!
---Dave
Crazy Cat
<8eqhi7$rn7$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
>"LrdLeoLido" <lrdle...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000503195800...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
>> "New Moon Rising" is a television landmark because it is the first
>> time on television that a regular series character--and a popular one
>> at that--has
>come
>> out of the closet and continued on with it.
>[snip]
>
>Leaving Ellen aside [even though, despite the heavy-handed political
>tack her coming out on the show took, the character and series were
>quite popular with audiences], Willow's hardly the first. Just off the
>top of my head, there was Tim Bayliss on Homicide, Tobias Beecher on Oz
>[not to mention several other openly gay characters, such as Richie
>Hanlon and Jason Cramer, plus the characters that have homosexual
>relationships/alliances for convenience and/or to establish a
>protection/power dynamic, such as Vern Schillinger, Chris Keller, and
>Simon Adebisi], Jack McPhee on Dawson's Creek, and Lily Esposito on
>Popular [to a much lesser extent].
>
>I applaud what Joss and company are trying to, but what they've done so
>far is hardly ground-breaking. However, I'm going to finish griping
>about it until the season wraps up and I see if the Willow/Tara
>relationship is developed more.
>
And don't forget SOAP (the character was played bo Billy Crystal) -- one
of the all time great comedies!
>--
>Keller: "At first I wanted unconditional surrender, then I wanted
>unconditional love. But Beecher don't love me."
>Sister Pete: "And that's killing you inside."
>Keller: "Yeah."
>---*Oz*
>
>
>
>
>
--
Who needs a sig?
David Hines
Christopher Rickey <cri...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>You are misunderstanding David's point. His point was not that the
>characters might be having a discrete relationship that they didn't
>announce to the other characters immediately. Rather, his point was that
>we the audience had front-row seats to the first moments of erupting
>passion in each instance.
Not even "erupting passion," quite -- but at bare minimum we know when the
relationships got started and grew into couplehood. I don't think we saw
Giles and Jenny's first kiss, but we saw their early flirtations, were
there when Giles started really getting interested in her and considered
asking her out, and even went on their first date (football game, "Some
Assembly Required") and heard about a second (monster trucks, "Lie to
Me"), as well as their aborted plans for a weekend of debauchery ("The
Dark Age"). We saw their brief break-up and briefer reconciliation.
Even though their relationship was never the major focus of an episode, we
were abreast of the major developments and knew what was going on.
For the relationships between the younger cast, we've seen flirtation,
rising interest, beginning of romance -- and in the strictly physical
department, we've seen every first kiss, and have been there for every
new couple's first boink, no matter how badly we wished we weren't. I'm
not saying that I want to be apprised of every single tentative caress
between Willow and Tara; but this is the first relationship where we
haven't been apprised of what emotionally has been going on.
But yeah, you've pretty much got it.
--
David Hines
David Hines
Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>What is a shuck?
Short form of "shuck'n'jive."
In his Glass Teat columns, Harlan Ellison christened the 1968-69
television season "The Year of the Shuck." That was the year that the
networks started to show how hip and down with it they were by starting to
cast some black actors, and young actors, and that sort of thing -- and
made darn sure all the young folks and the black folks talked an awful lot
like The Man and kowtowed to the system. That way, they looked
progressive without actually being progressive.
Intentionally or unintentionally, that's how the launching of the
Willow/Tara relationship has turned out.
--
David Hines
LrdLeoLido
>
>In his Glass Teat columns, Harlan Ellison christened the 1968-69
>television season "The Year of the Shuck." That was the year that the
>networks started to show how hip and down with it they were by starting to
>cast some black actors, and young actors, and that sort of thing -- and
>made darn sure all the young folks and the black folks talked an awful lot
>like The Man and kowtowed to the system. That way, they looked
>progressive without actually being progressive.
>
>Intentionally or unintentionally, that's how the launching of the
>Willow/Tara relationship has turned out.
Somehow I don't see the Willow/Tara thing as looking like "The Man," if he's
even alive anymore. It's been subtle and deftly written, and has now been
spelled out in boldface print, and still deftly written. Are you objecting
because the characters are not wearing GAYLA T-shirts and spouting activist
buzzwords, or because we're not getting to see wild hot lesbian monkey sex
right now when you want to see it instead of later, when it might actually
advance a plot?
There are, unfortunately, some television realities to deal with. One is that
you only get to see bare tit if it's on a man, which is why all the
morning-after shots alway have the sheet covering the woman over the armpits
while the man is covered up only below the waist. And if you see a sex scene,
you get to see a lot of kissing and a lot of the guy's chest. With two women,
while you can have them topless, all you get to show are back-shots. In short,
lesbian sex and television censorship requirements play hell with the
cinematography.
However, I seriously doubt the writers said, "Lesbians are cool. Let's do
lesbians." Rather, they did a "How have we not tortured the characters yet?
And what makes a good metaphor for alienation and otherness?"
Wait till Xander finds out. Imagine the confrontation, especially when Willow
points out that he's dating an ex-demon and she used to date a werewolf, so
why's he getting freaked about a woman? Plus note Buffy's freaking and how
nicely played that was.
The relationship was introduced, not because lesbians were cool this week, of
from desire to be progressive and have "equal time" (and has there ever been a
lamer excuse to put anything on television?) but because it's a story arc they
have not done yet, it serves the needs of the plot, and it provides ample
opportunities for angst and torture. Plus a new damsel figure now that
Cordelia's gone. If you've noticed, Tara has been menaced by a good share of
monsters (the Gentlemen, Oz the werewolf, the Anti-Jonathan demon) and has
taken the "needs to be rescued, or at least comforted after she escapes" role
that Cordy and Willow used to alternate. That her hero/protector is Willow
makes Willow all the stronger as a character, and moves her away from the Buffy
sidekick role.
All I'm hearing, honestly, is a lot of bitching. There's always bitching of
the "There's not enough of X-- on TV" and then when it's there, it's not being
given equal time, or it's a ratings stunt, or X-- is not shown in the most
positive light it could be, or.....
Yadayadayada. If you don't like it, write something better, go out, get the
backers, get the investors, produce it and put it on TV. But don't be
surprised if you hear Sam Goldwyn's old line, "If you want to send a message,
use Western Union."
Joss and crew are not sending a message. They're telling a story. And all
other things are secondary to the needs of that story. Including whatever pet
political cause you might have, no matter how laudable or underrepresented.
Kevin
LrdLeoLido
>rising interest, beginning of romance -- and in the strictly physical
>department, we've seen every first kiss, and have been there for every
>new couple's first boink, no matter how badly we wished we weren't. I'm
>not saying that I want to be apprised of every single tentative caress
>between Willow and Tara; but this is the first relationship where we
>haven't been apprised of what emotionally has been going on.
We've seen the handholding. We've heard the words. We've seen the glances.
And both girls/women are the shy flirtatious type.
Emotionally? Who are they going to tell it to? Tara has no other friends or
confidants, being so shy, and Willow has been wanting for there to be something
"Just Willow's." Ergo, no heart-to-heart talks with Xander or Buffy, who are
the only two she'd trust, and not even that because she knew they'd wig. When
she finally told Buffy, Buffy wigged out. We know Xander is going to wig,
because we saw what happened between him and Larry. And while Spike and Anya
might understand, that would be in the accademic sense, not the personal one,
and they aren't the type to get tea and sympathy from.
Now here's a thought, however: Since Anya was the patron demoness of scorned
women, how many times over the centuries has she been called by a woman against
another woman? I think it would have happened at least once.
Kevin
Rose
>Intentionally or unintentionally, that's how the launching of the
>Willow/Tara relationship has turned out.
>
Actually, after reading what Joss said on the posting board -- he implied that
the sex has been "happening all along" -- I am leaning toward agreeing with
you. I figured this episode marked the first time Willow and Tara truly came
out to each other, in a way, confessed their love and made love. Apparently I
was wrong.
************************************************
ROSE, just stopping to smell the corpses
Fanfic stored under penname Rosa Seravo, http://www.fanfiction.net
Gothic movie page, http://www.expage.com/page/roazgothic
Lord Usher
hra...@mib.org (David Hines) wrote:
> For the relationships between the younger cast, we've seen flirtation,
> rising interest, beginning of romance -- and in the strictly physical
> department, we've seen every first kiss, and have been there for every
> new couple's first boink, no matter how badly we wished we weren't.
> I'm not saying that I want to be apprised of every single tentative
> caress between Willow and Tara; but this is the first relationship
> where we haven't been apprised of what emotionally has been going on.
You've hit the nail on the head, David. While I think NMR was well-done
(if not always well-scripted), I think the series did a *huge*
disservice by being as coy as it was up till now. Subtext is fine, and
I can see why it might be necessary to avoid WB censorship. But subtext
so vague and symbolic you can't tell who's feeling what when is not
okay.
My problem is this--at some point prior to NMR, Willow admitted to
herself that she had feelings for Tara. "Omigod! I *am* kinda gay!" is
a major, life-changing realization for a girl who presumably thought
she was exclusively heterosexual--or at least convinced herself that
she was. And yet, this moment happens *off screen*, and some point in
time that we can't even localize.
That's more than a little annoying. BUFFY is a coming-of-age drama, a
story of young people searching for and defining their identities. And
for this coming-of-age story not to show one of its young characters'
most important and earth-shattering self-revelations is a major, major
disappointment.
--
Lord Usher
"You haven't killed anybody lately? Let's be best pals!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Hines
LrdLeoLido <lrdle...@aol.com> wrote:
>We've seen the handholding. We've heard the words. We've seen the glances.
>And both girls/women are the shy flirtatious type.
When did they decide that they were going out? Was it before or during
this episode? If before, when? Where was the clear, unambiguous
demarcation between the stages of their relationship?
It's not that I want them to blab about their issues to everyone who'll
stand still long enough. (As anyone who's read my comments on Buffy's
love life can testify.) I just think that if the writers are trying to
present a gay relationship, they shouldn't go about hiding and hinting at
it. If it's not a big deal, as Whedon seems to be interested in
conveying, then what the photon were the writers being so squirrelly
about?
--
David Hines
David Hines
LrdLeoLido <lrdle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Somehow I don't see the Willow/Tara thing as looking like "The Man," if he's
>even alive anymore.
As I wrote: "That way, they looked progressive without actually being
progressive." "The Man" is specific to a case; the illusion of
progress is not.
> Are you objecting
>because the characters are not wearing GAYLA T-shirts and spouting activist
>buzzwords, or because we're not getting to see wild hot lesbian monkey sex
>right now when you want to see it instead of later, when it might actually
>advance a plot?
No. If you go back and read my review, you will see a clear, coherent
explanation of exactly what I'm objecting to. If I'm in the mood for
preachy political activism, I can watch THE WEST WING. If I'm in the mood
for hot lesbian monkey sex, I can turn on Cinemax late Friday night or go
to the UCSL site to hunt up an epic girl-girl-girl-girl orgy story,
assuming that a certain someone gets around to updating it. That isn't my
problem. My problem is this:
>Joss and crew are not sending a message. They're telling a story.
No, that's just it. They're not *telling* a story.
I think "not sending a message, just telling a story" is probably what
they want to do, and maybe even what they think they are doing. But if
they're telling a story, it behooves them to come out and tell it,
directly and forthrightly, without hiding behind ambiguous scenes and
glances. That isn't what they've done: they've played coy, hinted a
little, run ambiguously for a long stretch of time, to the point that "New
Moon Rising" could have been written about Tara's declaring her attraction
to a surprised Willow *without contradicting anything we'd seen earlier of
the relationship between the two.*
That's not telling a story.
That's sending, however unwittingly, a message.
It's a message that says that gay love is different from the kind that
develops between straight people. That gay relationships are such a
touchy subject that where straight love can develop unambiguously onstage,
gay love has to develop mysteriously in the wings and be quietly sprung on
the audience. That, however much Whedon et al. *say* that the Willow/Tara
relationship is no big deal, nothing special, absolutely nothing to worry
about -- they still treat it as if it were.
And that, my man, is a shuck.
--
David Hines
Molly Moloney
<ljma...@home.com> writes:
> Like
>most soaps, the characters are becoming cartoons who are manipulated for
>sake of plot. How the characters behave is inconsistent (Willow in Pangs
>for example) and the audience is in danger of loosing interest as they are
>manipulated for soap opera plot purposes.
Like most primetime soaps, maybe (I don't know enough about PT soaps to say one
way or the other). But this description is basically the opposite of the
conventions for daytime soaps which tend to be immensely character driven.
(I know I've brought this up before, so sorry if I sound like a broken record.
I'm just continually perplexed by this characterization of soap operas which
are the most character driven tv genre that I know of).
--
Molly Moloney
Molly Moloney
<iball***death-to-SPAM***-FBE7AC.175...@news-server.socal.rr.com>, "Ian
J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> writes:
>So much for your credibility! If last week was disjoined and incoherent,
>then so was this week. I can't for the life of me see any difference
>between those two episodes in terms of plot, pacing or coherence.
Ian,
You don't think that your dislike of Willow is a bigger source of your
displeasure about this episode than pacing, coherence, etc.? I can definitely
see why as a non-Willow fan this episode would not go on to the favorites list,
or whatever. But, beyond that issue, I thought the episode had a lot to offer
and it turned a number of different corners that made me pleased. Angel
offered the better episode of the evening, I think. But BtVS did not
disappoint me.
--
Molly Moloney
Molly Moloney
>How very *daring.*
>
>How very *brave.*
>
>How very *progressive.*
>
>What a shuck.
I agree that there was nothing particulalry daring or landmarky about the W/T
thing and that NY Daily News article did seem a bit odd to me because of it.
And I do think that there are some valid criticisms of the very different way
that this romance has been treated on the show as compared to all of the other
het romances (and particularly with this year's romances which are heavy on the
sex). That said, though, there's something really endearing about the slow,
gradual build up of W/T. If they keep being coy about what happens off screen,
as with the end of NMR, though, I will be quite annoyed.
--
Molly Moloney
Molly Moloney
>"New Moon Rising" is a television landmark because it is the first time on
>television that a regular series character--and a popular one at that--has
>come
>out of the closet and continued on with it. Okay, well, there was that
>business with Ivanova and Talia on Bab5, but that was almost immediately
>followed by Talia going evil and being taken off to be dissected, so it
>doesn't
>exactly count.
I don't watch Dawson's Creek anymore, but I'm pretty sure that Jack being gay
hasn't disappeared on that show.
--
Molly Moloney
jen...@my-deja.com
>I cannot bring myself to stand up and applaud the remarkable bravery
>and even-handedness of a show on which the heterosexual pairings get
>detailed coverage from their first date onward, and the queer
>relationships get to slink onstage so furtively that we're not even
>sure when their relationship actually began.
>
>
>How very *brave.*
>
>How very *progressive.*
A couple reasons why I disagree with the complaints on how
W/T has been handled:
(I should mention that I saw NMR as the *start* of W/T
officially dating, and assume that the two of them have
never really had much conversation about how they feel
about each other...just kind of going with the flow. I
get this mostly from Tara's continued insecurity around
Willow...if they've really *started* anything off-screen,
the two gals would've had much more to work out when
Oz came back than just Tara slinking back to "just friends"
as soon as he arrives.)
1) I think it's counterproductive to compare W/T with the
other sexual relationships on the show, since this is a
*WILLOW* relationship. Compare the blown-out candle to
the equally discrete fade outs / ins the few times we've
seen Willow & Oz getting close, and there's not that
much difference. (The "spell" from a few eps' back was
more graphic, even metaphorically, than anything we saw
between Willow and Oz).
I think this is caused by two things...first, Willow's the
"sweet" one, so relationships are created for her that are
pure and more about love than lust. Likewise, this perhaps
gives the audience a contrast between "real" romantic
feelings and whatever the heck is going on between Buffy and
Riley (assuming that Joss is actually going anywhere with
this season's sex-sex-sex-and-more-sex motif.)
2) It isn't as if *any* character-relationships besides
Buffy/Riley have been that deeply explored this season...
so I don't see why it should be "cowardice" on their part
for not exploring Willow/Tara's more. Incorrect priorities,
maybe, and poor time management, but we at least know more
about what makes W/T click as a couple than we do for
X/A.
3) I think the 'boldness' of W/T comes about because of
the fact that sexual orientation is not dealt with as an
"ISSUE" in this episode. In making her choice, we don't
see Willow agonizing over her sexuality or reaching any
heavy moral conclusions. Buffy is momentarily wigged, but
seems to make a conscious decision that Willow is her
friend, and whatever is right for her friend should be
right for Buffy as well.
IMO, the episode is 'bold' and 'groundbreaking' not
because it takes on the "ISSUE" of homosexuality, but
because it treats it as a NON-Issue. W/T could have
developed the same exact way if "T" stood for Tom.
Isn't that what an "enlightened" society would be like?
No labels of "lesbian" or "bisexual" or "straight", but
just PEOPLE connecting with other PEOPLE who make them
feel loved.
4) What I say above notwithstanding, the Buffyverse
obviously *does* have homophobia and labels (seen
in the Xander & Larry bits), so I'm sure that Willow
*has* done some soul-searching off-screen about this
new relationship, but I for one am glad that the show
*DIDN'T* show us those bits...the fact that they've
gotten up to knee-touching and hand-holding by the
time Oz shows up demonstrates what her decision was,
without the pointless agonizing over rights and wrongs
that only apply to people who think homosexuality *is*
wrong.
Jen.
Jeremy Billones
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <XH1Q4.3174$f5.2...@typhoon1.san.rr.com>, hra...@mib.org
>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> "New Moon Rising," by Marti Noxon
>>
>> review by David Hines
>> rating: ***
>
>
>then so was this week. I can't for the life of me see any difference
>between those two episodes in terms of plot, pacing or coherence.
I'm giving David the benefit of the doubt that he's giving Noxon and Contner
the benefit of the doubt. We all know he hates this style of story,
so he's bending over backwards to be "fair" and give it a good rating on
the supposed quality of execution.
I think David's overcompensating. *I* think the episode was poorly written,
poorly directed, and to top if off I think Aly Hannigan turned in her
worst perfomance of the series. I blame the latter on Contner, though.
(Seth Green was so busy acting laps around everyone else on the set, it
wasn't even funny.)
But as long as he gets around to reviewing Sanctuary, he's forgiven :)
--
Jeremy Billones
"Don't give me all that sabermetric crap.... It gives me a headache."
- Brian Sabean, Giants GM
LrdLeoLido
>I don't watch Dawson's Creek anymore, but I'm pretty sure that Jack being gay
>hasn't disappeared on that show.
>--
Jack's not one of the core male characters. The core of Buffy has always been
Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles. Cordelia was a regular part of the cast, but
not core to the plot until second season. Likewise with Angel, making them
both the easiest to spin off to their own show.
Kevin
Rose
>
>I think "not sending a message, just telling a story" is probably what
>they want to do, and maybe even what they think they are doing. But if
>they're telling a story, it behooves them to come out and tell it,
>directly and forthrightly, without hiding behind ambiguous scenes and
>glances. That isn't what they've done: they've played coy, hinted a
>little, run ambiguously for a long stretch of time, to the point that "New
>Moon Rising" could have been written about Tara's declaring her attraction
>to a surprised Willow *without contradicting anything we'd seen earlier of
>the relationship between the two.*
>
>That's not telling a story.
>
>That's sending, however unwittingly, a message.
>
>It's a message that says that gay love is different from the kind that
>develops between straight people. That gay relationships are such a
>touchy subject that where straight love can develop unambiguously onstage,
>gay love has to develop mysteriously in the wings and be quietly sprung on
>the audience. That, however much Whedon et al. *say* that the Willow/Tara
>relationship is no big deal, nothing special, absolutely nothing to worry
>about -- they still treat it as if it were.
>
>And that, my man, is a shuck.
>
Based on what Joss Whedon said on the PB, you are totally right. I disagreed
with you before because I thought that Willow didn't fully realize until this
episode that she loved Tara and that their relationship was romantic. Tara's
surprise at Willow's declarations back me up, I think. But Joss strongly
implied that they've been a couple for some time and if that's supposedly
true... you are correct in your evaluation of ME's approach. It's not
reprehensible, but it's not straightforward story telling either.
And it's so dang close to CC's waffling on the Mulder/Scully business.
>--
>David Hines
Daryl McCullough
>When did they decide that they were going out? Was it before or during
>this episode? If before, when? Where was the clear, unambiguous
>demarcation between the stages of their relationship?
The impression I got was that Willow's relationship
with Tara wasn't clear to *Willow* before this episode.
Tara knew that she was in love with Willow, but Willow
didn't realize that they were in a romantic relationship
until now.
Some relationships *do* happen that way. Rather than "I have
the hots for you, let's go out", some relationships sneak up
on those involved, and the moment where they move from
friends to lovers isn't clear.
I know a lesbian couple in which the two were
friends for several *years* before they realized they
were in love. At least one of them says she didn't know
she was gay (or maybe she *wasn't*---I don't think these
things are so cut and dried) for most of that time. The
Tara-Willow thing seems perfectly realistic to me.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
William George Ferguson
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> "New Moon Rising," by Marti Noxon
>
> review by David Hines
> rating: ***
>
[snip the review, he's not emotionally invested in this type of story,
but feels it was reasonably well done, and should be enjoyable if one
is emotionally invested in this type of story]
>Addendum:
>--------
[I'm only going to quote pieces where I need to to make a specific
response, but the overall thrust is that Mutant Enemy wimped out by
pussyfooting around the relationship, right up through the candle
blowing]
Before responding to pieces, first let me point out the history of
Willow, and Willow/Oz (I'm at work, so I may misremember an order of
events, or count, along the way). Willow has been there since day
one, Oz since Halloween in season 2. Oz was interested in Willow from
the beginning, but they didn't even talk to each other for 4 eps, and
didn't even go out on a tentative date for 3 more eps. They arguably
weren't Really an item until Phases, and first had sex in Graduation
Day Pt. 1. In the some 38 (more or less) episodes in which they were
a couple, they were shown in bed together three times. One of them,
Amends, was months before they first had sex, and in the other two
they were only shown talking to each other. In those 34 episodes, and
about two years Buffyverse time, they only had an on-screen kiss about
3 times.
Those of us around back in season 2 and 3 (hi, David) may remember the
'have they or haven't they' threads that ran through the group,
especially after the scene in Willow's bedroom in Amends, but we
didn't know for sure until GD1 that that was their first time.
How they have handled Willow (and Willow/Oz) in the past is that
Willow has never articulated her feelings well (and has gone massively
dissacciative when she has tried to), and the details don't get shown.
Off the top of my head, I can't remember Willow once saying to Oz, 'I
love you' (or saying to anyone else 'I love Oz')
>When did Willow and Tara start going out?
>
>We know the *exact* moment at which every single couple in the history of
>the show got their start as a couple. What's that moment for Willow and
>Tara?
>
>Good question. Wish I knew the answer.
I think the answer is likely to clear in retrospect, like it was with
Oz/Willow in GD1.
>heck, maybe they go back
>to that first "all-night spell," back in "The I in Team." Willow did lie
>to Buffy about where she was that night. She could have just wanted to
>keep Buffy out of the loop about her magickal activities -- or she didn't
>want to come to terms, yet, with the wild monkey sex she and Tara had had.
>But no -- she and Tara didn't act like people who'd boinked, or even made
>out, the next day ("Goodbye, Iowa").
Definitely not that time, in a later private conversation Tara and
Willow talk about their having stayed up all night then, studying
spells.
>Well, gee, our options are just wide open, aren't they? We don't know
>when Willow and Tara started dating; all we know is that they're dating
>now. And I'm sorry to have to break this to the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, but
>that does not a landmark make.
It's true to how they have handled Willow. Little if anything is ever
overt about her.
Interesting bit of trivia, there have been exactly three episodes in
the entire series (maybe I'm misremembering and it's 4, but I don't
think so), where we have seen more Willow-skin than just head, neck
and arms.
Dennis
> Actually, after reading what Joss said on the posting board -- he implied that
> the sex has been "happening all along" -- I am leaning toward agreeing with
> you. I figured this episode marked the first time Willow and Tara truly came
> out to each other, in a way, confessed their love and made love. Apparently I
> was wrong.
As loath as I am to disagree with you, Rose, I'm gonna hafta. Here's
an excerpt of the relevant bit of Joss' post:
Joss> Okay, let's do this.
Joss> For real: how @#$%&ing
Joss> disappointed was I in the
Joss> American public after tuesday
Joss> night? Of course I realize the
Joss> rabidly homophobic posting
Joss> contingent represents a smaller
Joss> percentage of americans than the
Joss> EVIL GAYS they were posting
Joss> about, but that's not it. It's
Joss> the fact that everyone went nuts
Joss> about it THIS WEEK, when this has
Joss> clearly been going on for MONTHS?
Joss> Did anyone see the spell scene in
Joss> episode 16? Hello? It's the not
Joss> the bigotry that offends me, it's
Joss> the lack of filmic insight.
That really looks more a lame joke (sorry, Joss) than a disturbing
revelation, to me. He's not saying they've been humping like bunnies
all along, he's saying that the people complaining about this episode
really should have been complaining at *least* since "Who Are You", if
they're so offended by the implication that it might be okay for a girl
to like another girl. Y'know. If they'd been paying attention. =)
--Dennis, experienced in the failure potential of jokes...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dennis Nedblake n e d b l a k e d @ u m k c . e d u
Network Support Specialist University Of Missouri - Kansas City
"No, but this would be a *sneaky* cat!"
--Tara, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Kenneth A. McIsaac
> Actually, after reading what Joss said on the posting board -- he implied that
> the sex has been "happening all along" -- I am leaning toward agreeing with
> you. I figured this episode marked the first time Willow and Tara truly came
> out to each other, in a way, confessed their love and made love. Apparently I
> was wrong.
What is "the posting board" and where can I find these statements?
Sarah Trombley
Daryl McCullough <da...@cogentex.com> wrote:
>hra...@mib.org says...
>
>>When did they decide that they were going out? Was it before or during
>>this episode? If before, when? Where was the clear, unambiguous
>>demarcation between the stages of their relationship?
>
>The impression I got was that Willow's relationship
>with Tara wasn't clear to *Willow* before this episode.
>Tara knew that she was in love with Willow, but Willow
>didn't realize that they were in a romantic relationship
>until now.
What tipped her off enough that she could tell Buffy that she and
Tara were an item halfway through the episode? The conversation about
the cat? My trips to the pet store will never be the same.
>Some relationships *do* happen that way. Rather than "I have
>the hots for you, let's go out", some relationships sneak up
>on those involved, and the moment where they move from
>friends to lovers isn't clear.
Of course they do. However, sooner or later they do have to talk
about it (or act on it). That generally happens _before_ they
go around coming out to their friends and rejecting their former
lovers.
We never saw Willow and Tara declare their love for the first time,
despite the fact that Willow's conversations with Buffy and with
Oz indicate that they _already were a couple_ at that point and
despite the fact that the degree of Willow's feelings for Tara
was essential information to understand this episode. _That_
is unnecessary coyness. No other "Buffy" couple, except for
Giles/Olivia (which was clearly skipped because it was so damned
impluasible) missed _that_ key moment.
I don't think you can blame ME for what the media says about it, but
it wasn't groundbreaking, and it was a touch disappointing.
--Sarah T.
Don Sample
<kamc...@grip.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
It's a chat set up on the official web site. Some of the people
associated with the show are regular's there.
President Chester A. Arthur
>From: lrdle...@aol.com (LrdLeoLido)
>Date: 5/4/00 1:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000504132801...@ng-da1.aol.com>
Tim Bayliss. Homicide. Bisexual. Main character.
AOL Users:
Keyword: Simming
Push button for Simming
FBI Paranormal.
For fun evenings, for a good time, go! Please! =)
Ian J. Ball
moll...@aol.com (Molly Moloney) wrote:
> In article
> <iball***death-to-SPAM***-FBE7AC.175...@news-server.socal.rr.com>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> writes:
>
> >So much for your credibility! If last week was disjoined and incoherent,
> >then so was this week. I can't for the life of me see any difference
> >between those two episodes in terms of plot, pacing or coherence.
>
> You don't think that your dislike of Willow is a bigger source of your
> displeasure about this episode than pacing, coherence, etc.? I can
> definitely see why as a non-Willow fan this episode would not go on to the
> favorites list,or whatever.
Yeah, it's more than the Willow thing. This episode simply continued all
of the pacing and story problems I've had with pretty much every episode
since "Something Blue". This season just isn't "gelling", and part of it
has to do with the disjointedness of the individual episodes. IMHO, NMR
was simply another in a long line of substandard episodes.
Of course, I did subjectively *hate* NMR much more than WtWTA, because the
former is a "Willow" episode and the latter was a "Xander/Anya" episode.
But, objectively, both episodes shared many of the same problems...
Ian (still not even sure whether I will be watching next week's "Buffy"
or not...)
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Rose
>Date: 5/4/2000 1:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><iball***death-to-SPAM***-0405001...@pool0526.cvx4-bradley.dialup.e
arthlink.net>
>
>In article <20000504124523...@nso-fx.aol.com>,
>moll...@aol.com (Molly Moloney) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <iball***death-to-SPAM***-FBE7AC.175...@news-server.socal.rr.com>,
>> "Ian J. Ball" <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> >So much for your credibility! If last week was disjoined and incoherent,
>> >then so was this week. I can't for the life of me see any difference
>> >between those two episodes in terms of plot, pacing or coherence.
>>
>> You don't think that your dislike of Willow is a bigger source of your
>> displeasure about this episode than pacing, coherence, etc.? I can
>> definitely see why as a non-Willow fan this episode would not go on to the
>> favorites list,or whatever.
>
>Yeah, it's more than the Willow thing. This episode simply continued all
>of the pacing and story problems I've had with pretty much every episode
>since "Something Blue". This season just isn't "gelling", and part of it
>has to do with the disjointedness of the individual episodes. IMHO, NMR
>was simply another in a long line of substandard episodes.
>
>Of course, I did subjectively *hate* NMR much more than WtWTA, because the
>former is a "Willow" episode and the latter was a "Xander/Anya" episode.
>But, objectively, both episodes shared many of the same problems...
>
Hi, Ian. Would I sound mean if I asked you to give an example of how the
episode didn't gell? I know what you mean re many of the episodes from
January-April, but to me, NMR seemed to come together pretty well. Which is
why I am interested in what you found was a problem in terms of story, plot,
etc.
I'll do the same for you re Wild Things. I felt that last week's made no sense.
The story was convoluted. By the end of the episode I still didn't understand
what actually was happening in that house. It was so chaotic I couldn't follow
it.
William George Ferguson
>You've hit the nail on the head, David. While I think NMR was well-done
>(if not always well-scripted), I think the series did a *huge*
>disservice by being as coy as it was up till now. Subtext is fine, and
>I can see why it might be necessary to avoid WB censorship. But subtext
>so vague and symbolic you can't tell who's feeling what when is not
>okay.
>My problem is this--at some point prior to NMR, Willow admitted to
>herself that she had feelings for Tara. "Omigod! I *am* kinda gay!" is
>a major, life-changing realization for a girl who presumably thought
>she was exclusively heterosexual--or at least convinced herself that
>she was. And yet, this moment happens *off screen*, and some point in
>time that we can't even localize.
>
>That's more than a little annoying. BUFFY is a coming-of-age drama, a
>story of young people searching for and defining their identities. And
>for this coming-of-age story not to show one of its young characters'
>most important and earth-shattering self-revelations is a major, major
>disappointment.
Ummm, David? Lord Usher just made a more convincing argument than you
did.
I don't care so much if they don't emblazon the 'they're a couple'
motif in neon in the sky (actually, I think they kind have been doing
that over the last several eps, just not whether Willow realizes it).
But the girl who was freaked because "I'm so evil. And skanky. And I
think I'm kind of gay." should have had a dealing-with-it moment along
the way. Something about it should have been shown also (even without
her coming out and saying that's why she a little freaked at whatever
moment, maybe a wrinkled brow and troubled expression when she's not
where Tara can see her after 'I am, you know').
The end of the world is nigh. Someone convinced me of something on
usenet.
Keenan Clay Wilkie
>In article <VV6Q4.26$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>,
> hra...@mib.org (David Hines) wrote:
>> For the relationships between the younger cast, we've seen flirtation,
>> rising interest, beginning of romance -- and in the strictly physical
>> department, we've seen every first kiss, and have been there for every
>> new couple's first boink, no matter how badly we wished we weren't.
>> I'm not saying that I want to be apprised of every single tentative
>> caress between Willow and Tara; but this is the first relationship
>> where we haven't been apprised of what emotionally has been going on.
>You've hit the nail on the head, David. While I think NMR was well-done
>(if not always well-scripted), I think the series did a *huge*
>disservice by being as coy as it was up till now. Subtext is fine, and
>I can see why it might be necessary to avoid WB censorship. But subtext
>so vague and symbolic you can't tell who's feeling what when is not
>okay.
>My problem is this--at some point prior to NMR, Willow admitted to
>herself that she had feelings for Tara. "Omigod! I *am* kinda gay!" is
>a major, life-changing realization for a girl who presumably thought
>she was exclusively heterosexual--or at least convinced herself that
>she was. And yet, this moment happens *off screen*, and some point in
>time that we can't even localize.
>That's more than a little annoying. BUFFY is a coming-of-age drama, a
>story of young people searching for and defining their identities. And
>for this coming-of-age story not to show one of its young characters'
>most important and earth-shattering self-revelations is a major, major
>disappointment.
Except that coming out, both to others and to yourself, isn't exactly
something that happens overnight in a startling revelation. Yes, it isn't
clear exactly when Willow and Tara realised their full feelings for each
other, or when they started acting out on these feelings (I kind of
suspected something the second time Tara appeared on the show, when Willow
spent the entire night with her), but it is likely that Willow didn't just
decide at one moment "Gee, I guess I'm bi". In fact, bisexuals can have a
harder time coming to terms with their sexuality, not knowing if their
attraction to the same gender is normal for a homosexual, or something
that all heterosexuals experience, or what.
Additionally, I think that the only reason that Joss has tiptoed around
the issues as much as he has so far is so that critics don't attack the
relationship as a PC stunt. Personally I think that the characters work
well together and that it is just another relationship that Joss has
decided to introduce. Unfortunately, with a relatively 'unconventional'
relationship (but one that does mirror relationships in the real world,
as opposed to relationships with vampires and werewolves) some narrow
minded individuals cannot see it as anything but a moral suppository
from the left-wing liberal media no matter how it is handled.
--
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
"You're a group of Christian-based, conservative organizations with
several million dollars to spend. Do you: feed the hungry? Clothe the
poor? Don't be so naieve! You blow the millions on a series of slickly-
worded, logic-bending ads espousing a widely-discredited theory that one
can be 'cured' of homosexuality through counseling and prayer."
-- MAD Magazine #337, p. 32
LARESNICK
>a major, life-changing realization for a girl who presumably thought
>she was exclusively heterosexual--or at least convinced herself that
>she was. And yet, this moment happens *off screen*, and some point in
Yes, this is a pretty big moment, and I think Willow spent more time
soul-searching her choice of Homecoming dress last year.
Laura
Rose
>We know Xander is going to wig,
>because we saw what happened between him and Larry.
I can't make up my mind whether X is likely to wig out or just get really
horny.
************************************************
ROSE
Smack your bitch up?
John Baker
trom...@is05.fas.harvard.edu says...
> What tipped her off enough that she could tell Buffy that she and
> Tara were an item halfway through the episode? The conversation about
> the cat? My trips to the pet store will never be the same.
Well, duh (sorry), it was the realization that Oz had come back and she
was involved with someone else. At that point she said "waitaminit, I'm
*involved*?"
Ian J. Ball
fyl...@aol.compliant (Rose) wrote:
> Hi, Ian. Would I sound mean if I asked you to give an example of how the
> episode didn't gell? I know what you mean re many of the episodes from
> January-April, but to me, NMR seemed to come together pretty well. Which is
> why I am interested in what you found was a problem in terms of story, plot,
> etc.
They just seem disjointed. One scene does not flow to the next. It's like
a random assortment of vingetes(sp?) thrown together.
> I'll do the same for you re Wild Things. I felt that last week's made no
> sense.The story was convoluted. By the end of the episode I still didn't
> understand what actually was happening in that house. It was so chaotic I
> couldn't follow it.
Ditto me for this. Why was Oz changing all of a sudden? Why did the
Initiative guys act the way they did? Why did Riley act the way he did?
Why do Willow and Tara *still* act the way they do (i.e. obliquely)?!
The whole thing just doesn't make much sense to me anymore. I'm starting
to get the same feeling during episodes of "Buffy" that I get during
episodes of "Popular"...
Jeremy Billones
In article <AacROWELSZRYHk...@4ax.com>,
William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu> wrote:
>Before responding to pieces, first let me point out the history of
>Willow, and Willow/Oz (I'm at work, so I may misremember an order of
>events, or count, along the way). Willow has been there since day
>one, Oz since Halloween in season 2.
Blasphemer! His debut was in "Inca Mumy Girl," which was so notable because
he fell for Willow in the Eskimo suit. As opposed to "Halloween," where
he'd have been falling for her in her birthday suit.
>Those of us around back in season 2 and 3 (hi, David) may remember the
>'have they or haven't they' threads that ran through the group,
>especially after the scene in Willow's bedroom in Amends, but we
>didn't know for sure until GD1 that that was their first time.
The folks who thought they did anything in Amends were on monkey crack.
He said no, *on screen*. Furrfu.
>Interesting bit of trivia, there have been exactly three episodes in
>the entire series (maybe I'm misremembering and it's 4, but I don't
>think so), where we have seen more Willow-skin than just head, neck
>and arms.
She has taste?
Carla Pettigrew
(Jeremy Billones) wrote:
> Spoilers for Oz's history.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <AacROWELSZRYHk...@4ax.com>,
> William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
> wrote:
> >Before responding to pieces, first let me point out the history of
> >Willow, and Willow/Oz (I'm at work, so I may misremember an order of
> >events, or count, along the way). Willow has been there since day
> >one, Oz since Halloween in season 2.
>
> Blasphemer! His debut was in "Inca Mumy Girl," which was so notable
> because
> he fell for Willow in the Eskimo suit. As opposed to "Halloween," where
> he'd have been falling for her in her birthday suit.
Erm, IMG took place on Halloween, hence the Eskimo costume. Perhaps this
is what WGF meant.
> >Those of us around back in season 2 and 3 (hi, David) may remember the
> >'have they or haven't they' threads that ran through the group,
> >especially after the scene in Willow's bedroom in Amends, but we
> >didn't know for sure until GD1 that that was their first time.
>
> The folks who thought they did anything in Amends were on monkey crack.
Ah, the old "see it my way or you're smoking something" argument".
> He said no, *on screen*. Furrfu.
Ugh, I hate that expression, "furrfu". RMTA, *shudder*. No offense.
> >Interesting bit of trivia, there have been exactly three episodes in
> >the entire series (maybe I'm misremembering and it's 4, but I don't
> >think so), where we have seen more Willow-skin than just head, neck
> >and arms.
>
> She has taste?
Not if you go by the clothing covering that skin--"birthday cake" outfit
in Wild at Heart, anyone?
O:) Carla
--
"Look it up under "Slayer, comma, The".--Buffy
BTVS Geek Code, short and sweet:
R---Dru+++J--Amy+++S&Dru+++B&R---XL+
Want your very own?: http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
Jeremy Billones
Carla Pettigrew <grimoi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <8euqv7$moo$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, bill...@Radix.Net
>(Jeremy Billones) wrote:
>
>> Spoilers for Oz's history.
>> In article <AacROWELSZRYHk...@4ax.com>,
>> William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Before responding to pieces, first let me point out the history of
>> >Willow, and Willow/Oz (I'm at work, so I may misremember an order of
>> >events, or count, along the way). Willow has been there since day
>> >one, Oz since Halloween in season 2.
>>
>> Blasphemer! His debut was in "Inca Mumy Girl," which was so notable
>> because he fell for Willow in the Eskimo suit. As opposed to "Halloween,"
>> where he'd have been falling for her in her birthday suit.
>
>Erm, IMG took place on Halloween, hence the Eskimo costume. Perhaps this
>is what WGF meant.
No, it didn't. The Eskimo costume was because the dance was part of
the cultural exchange program. *Not* because of Halloween. Halloween
was two episodes later.
(I tend not to post facts without the facts on my side :)
>> >Those of us around back in season 2 and 3 (hi, David) may remember the
>> >'have they or haven't they' threads that ran through the group,
>> >especially after the scene in Willow's bedroom in Amends, but we
>> >didn't know for sure until GD1 that that was their first time.
>>
>> The folks who thought they did anything in Amends were on monkey crack.
>
>Ah, the old "see it my way or you're smoking something" argument".
When somebody watches an episode, hears a character say they aren't going
to do something, and claims they did it anyway, even though the fact that they
didn't do it is the FREAKIN' POINT OF THE EPISODE, then I think an accusation
of chemical influence is not only proper, but mandatory.
>> She has taste?
>
>Not if you go by the clothing covering that skin--"birthday cake" outfit
>in Wild at Heart, anyone?
Never said she had style :)
Carla Pettigrew
(Jeremy Billones) wrote:
> In article <grimoire_1998-CCE...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Carla Pettigrew <grimoi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <8euqv7$moo$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, bill...@Radix.Net
> >(Jeremy Billones) wrote:
> >
> >> Spoilers for Oz's history.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In article <AacROWELSZRYHk...@4ax.com>,
> >> William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >Before responding to pieces, first let me point out the history of
> >> >Willow, and Willow/Oz (I'm at work, so I may misremember an order of
> >> >events, or count, along the way). Willow has been there since day
> >> >one, Oz since Halloween in season 2.
> >>
> >> Blasphemer! His debut was in "Inca Mumy Girl," which was so notable
> >> because he fell for Willow in the Eskimo suit. As opposed to
> >> "Halloween,"
> >> where he'd have been falling for her in her birthday suit.
> >
> >Erm, IMG took place on Halloween, hence the Eskimo costume. Perhaps this
> >is what WGF meant.
>
> No, it didn't. The Eskimo costume was because the dance was part of
> the cultural exchange program. *Not* because of Halloween. Halloween
> was two episodes later.
Okay.
> >Ah, the old "see it my way or you're smoking something" argument".
>
> When somebody watches an episode, hears a character say they aren't
> going to do something, and claims they did it anyway, even though the
> fact that they didn't do it is the FREAKIN' POINT OF THE EPISODE,
> then I think an accusation of chemical influence is not only proper,
> but mandatory.
But rude.
> >> She has taste?
> >
> >Not if you go by the clothing covering that skin--"birthday cake" outfit
> >in Wild at Heart, anyone?
>
> Never said she had style :)
Granted.
Jeremy Billones
Carla Pettigrew <grimoi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <8eusqj$s0m$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, bill...@Radix.Net
>(Jeremy Billones) wrote:
>> When somebody watches an episode, hears a character say they aren't
>> going to do something, and claims they did it anyway, even though the
>> fact that they didn't do it is the FREAKIN' POINT OF THE EPISODE,
>> then I think an accusation of chemical influence is not only proper,
>> but mandatory.
>
>But rude.
Of course. This is Usenet :)
--
Jeremy Billones
"Dru is insane; today she dates demons, next week it might be kelp." - Steven J.
Don Sample
Carla Pettigrew <grimoi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <8euqv7$moo$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, bill...@Radix.Net
> (Jeremy Billones) wrote:
>
> > Spoilers for Oz's history.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <AacROWELSZRYHk...@4ax.com>,
> > William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Before responding to pieces, first let me point out the history of
> > >Willow, and Willow/Oz (I'm at work, so I may misremember an order of
> > >events, or count, along the way). Willow has been there since day
> > >one, Oz since Halloween in season 2.
> >
> > Blasphemer! His debut was in "Inca Mumy Girl," which was so notable
> > because
> > he fell for Willow in the Eskimo suit. As opposed to "Halloween," where
> > he'd have been falling for her in her birthday suit.
>
> Erm, IMG took place on Halloween, hence the Eskimo costume. Perhaps this
> is what WGF meant.
No. The costumes in IMG were not related to Halloween. It was part of
the whole cultural exchange deal. IMG took place in late September, or
early November. (In the next episode, Reptile Boy, the attempted
sacrifice of the girls to Machita takes place on October 10th.)
Shawn Hill
: Lord Usher makes the very good point: <<"Omigod! I *am* kinda gay!" is
I for one don't need a big landmark moment to make it real. I've loved
the subtle way they've handled the whole thing. It was there to be
decoded or ignored until "New Moon," and then the coming out scene WAS
when Willow told Buffy, her best friend. That's very true to the nature
of coming out.
Yes, Willow had to articulate it to herself before she told anyone
else. But doesn't she have a right to keep such pivotal and personal
decisions to herself? I could see her treading delicately, being careful
with herself and Tara as she figured out what it meant over the last
several episodes. It's why Tara needed to be something that was "just
hers" at first, and why she also eventually needed to be introduced to
the gang.
Willow has been recovering from Oz's betrayal and abandonment, and then
Spike's attack, for most of the season. Tara is part of the structure she
used to rebuild her life and her happiness. I don't see her verbalizing
that to anyone till she's ready.
And Buffy, as we saw in WTWTA, hasn't been paying much attention lately,
either.
It's landmark because it's NOT a plot device, it's NOT an event episoded,
and it's not a dayplayer brought on and then forgotten about. Willow is a
core character who now, because she wants to, has a female lover. That
is unique and something gay rights advocates have been clamouring for for
years.
It's not a "shuck" in any way. My standards are not that limited. It's a
long-term story that's about love and acceptance (at this point), not
about guilt or fear or blame. Not that I think the course of their love
will run smooth, but I'm betting the problems will come out of external
forces or the supernatural, not out of the mere fact that Willow and Tara
are lesbian lovers.
Shawn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Leo: "All paths lead to Vanessa ... ?"
Roger: "Exactly."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++sh...@husc.harvard.edu
Shawn Hill
: In article <20000504021634...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
: LrdLeoLido <lrdle...@aol.com> wrote:
:>We've seen the handholding. We've heard the words. We've seen the glances.
:>And both girls/women are the shy flirtatious type.
: When did they decide that they were going out? Was it before or during
: this episode? If before, when? Where was the clear, unambiguous
: demarcation between the stages of their relationship?
David, maybe there just WASN'T one to show. How would you define it,
anyway? When they realized they were in love? When they made love? When
one of them said the words to another? This episode, for all intents and
purposes, WAS the demaraccation.
Lesbian/gay relationships don't always evolve, begin or continue along
the same lines as straight ones.
: It's not that I want them to blab about their issues to everyone who'll
: stand still long enough. (As anyone who's read my comments on Buffy's
: love life can testify.) I just think that if the writers are trying to
: present a gay relationship, they shouldn't go about hiding and hinting at
: it. If it's not a big deal, as Whedon seems to be interested in
: conveying, then what the photon were the writers being so squirrelly
: about?
Testing the wates for the WB, more like, as Buffy has sparked
controversies before.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Of course they do. However, sooner or later they do have to talk
: about it (or act on it). That generally happens _before_ they
: go around coming out to their friends and rejecting their former
: lovers.
does it? Willow herself had been scared to give her tie with Tara a name,
it seemed. The situation with Oz forced her to. She still didn't tell him
until after she told Buffy.
: Oz indicate that they _already were a couple_ at that point and
: despite the fact that the degree of Willow's feelings for Tara
: was essential information to understand this episode. _That_
: is unnecessary coyness. No other "Buffy" couple, except for
: Giles/Olivia (which was clearly skipped because it was so damned
: impluasible) missed _that_ key moment.
and did you thus somehow not understand the episode? Because it seems
like you did, regardless of your reservations.
: I don't think you can blame ME for what the media says about it, but
: it wasn't groundbreaking, and it was a touch disappointing.
for you; for me it was warm, sensitive, and affirming.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: In article <20000503195800...@ng-cu1.aol.com>, lrdle...@aol.com
: (LrdLeoLido) writes:
:>"New Moon Rising" is a television landmark because it is the first time on
:>television that a regular series character--and a popular one at that--has
:>come
:>out of the closet and continued on with it. Okay, well, there was that
:>business with Ivanova and Talia on Bab5, but that was almost immediately
:>followed by Talia going evil and being taken off to be dissected, so it
:>doesn't
:>exactly count.
: I don't watch Dawson's Creek anymore, but I'm pretty sure that Jack being gay
: hasn't disappeared on that show.
It comes and goes. Sometimes Jack himself disappears, just like Matt on
Melrose Place.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Tim Bayliss. Homicide. Bisexual. Main character.
Touched on. Ridiculed. Overshadowed by Micheal Michelle. Dropped. Like a
hot potato.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: No, that's just it. They're not *telling* a story.
: I think "not sending a message, just telling a story" is probably what
: they want to do, and maybe even what they think they are doing. But if
: they're telling a story, it behooves them to come out and tell it,
: directly and forthrightly, without hiding behind ambiguous scenes and
: glances. That isn't what they've done: they've played coy, hinted a
: little, run ambiguously for a long stretch of time, to the point that "New
: Moon Rising" could have been written about Tara's declaring her attraction
: to a surprised Willow *without contradicting anything we'd seen earlier of
: the relationship between the two.*
: That's not telling a story.
: That's sending, however unwittingly, a message.
: It's a message that says that gay love is different from the kind that
: develops between straight people. That gay relationships are such a
: touchy subject that where straight love can develop unambiguously onstage,
: gay love has to develop mysteriously in the wings and be quietly sprung on
: the audience. That, however much Whedon et al. *say* that the Willow/Tara
: relationship is no big deal, nothing special, absolutely nothing to worry
: about -- they still treat it as if it were.
That's because it is. Gay love is special. It is different. It should be
treated carefully. It is equal to straight love, but not identical. The
same issues are not always at stake. The costs and benefits are not the
same. It is a minority affair that runs counter to mainstream concerns in
this country, still, and involves the acknowledgment of that fact from
those who take a lover of the same sex.
And Tara and Willow are having their story, which this very episode
finally stopped being ambiguous about. The writers are not behooved
to state it in they way you'd prefer.
Shawn
President Chester A. Arthur
>Date: 5/5/00 2:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8ev44i$do4$5...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
Don't worry, imitating my style of typing doesn't make you look like an idiot.
Robert A. Barr
>
>
> : That's not telling a story.
>
> : That's sending, however unwittingly, a message.
>
> : It's a message that says that gay love is different from the kind that
> : develops between straight people. That gay relationships are such a
> : touchy subject that where straight love can develop unambiguously onstage,
> : gay love has to develop mysteriously in the wings and be quietly sprung on
> : the audience.
Gosh, that would be an OUTRAGE. Wouldn't it?
Isn't there an OUTRAGE database somewhere, to keep us up to date on whatever the
hypersensitive Left is upset about on an hourly basis?
See, here you're describing a storytelling technique that was perfected by
Alfred Hitchcock (and certainly others) in not slamming you in the face with
storyline, but rather introducing it subtly -- and affording you credit for
commanding some IQ.
I really wish you MPS'ers would make up your minds about what you're OUTRAGED
about, though; here's my take on it:
It is brutally unfair and HOMOPHOBIC to show HeteroInOut, but not GayInOut --
despite the fact that the show has already cast one gay character (Larry) in a
pretty favorable light, and with an easygoing and matter-of-fact demeanor about
his Gayness.
Accurate? Is that the gist of the whine?
It also occurs to me that if no approach, no matter how thoughtful or
reasonable, is considered TOLERABLE by the MPS, then there's no use expending
effort trying. Thus, the only rational approach would be to take the tack that
Whedon agrees with and feels OK about, and to hell with the hypersensitive; let
them buy their own damned sedatives.
David Hines
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>David, maybe there just WASN'T one to show. How would you define it,
>anyway? When they realized they were in love? When they made love? When
>one of them said the words to another? This episode, for all intents and
>purposes, WAS the demaraccation.
For the audience. Let's put it this way: before Oz and Willow started
dating, Oz noticed her from afar several times. When somebody sees a
stranger and wonders, "Who *is* that girl," it's pretty clear what kind of
relationship this is, or what that person wants it to be. When two people
who have yet to have an actual date (see "Innocence") discuss the
possibility of their making out, it's clear.
This, to be blunt, was mud.
--
David Hines
David Hines
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Gay love is special. It is different. It should be
>treated carefully. It is equal to straight love, but not identical. The
>same issues are not always at stake. The costs and benefits are not the
>same. It is a minority affair that runs counter to mainstream concerns in
>this country, still, and involves the acknowledgment of that fact from
>those who take a lover of the same sex.
Um... not to be rude, here, but how many gay or bi people do you know?
("...involves the acknowledgment of that fact from >those who take a lover
of the same sex." So, what, you're saying it makes perfect sense for
Willow and Tara to be closeted not only to the world at large, but *to the
audience and each other* until they get their act together?)
--
David Hines
David Hines
Robert A. Barr <rba...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Isn't there an OUTRAGE database somewhere, to keep us up to date on
>whatever the hypersensitive Left is upset about on an hourly basis?
"Hypersensitive Left?"
Um... (how to put this kindly)... "No." (Neither one, actually.)
>See, here you're describing a storytelling technique that was perfected by
>Alfred Hitchcock (and certainly others) in not slamming you in the face with
>storyline, but rather introducing it subtly -- and affording you credit for
>commanding some IQ.
I hate to break it to you, but this is not artistic subtlety. Billy
Wilder, for instance, knows subtle. Preston Sturges knew subtle. Much as
I have loved the show on occasion, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER has pretty
clearly demonstrated that it would not know subtlety if subtlety clubbed
the writing staff on the head with a solid gold brick.
>I really wish you MPS'ers would make up your minds about what you're OUTRAGED
>about, though; here's my take on it:
MPS'ers? How many meters per second?
>It is brutally unfair and HOMOPHOBIC to show HeteroInOut, but not GayInOut --
>despite the fact that the show has already cast one gay character (Larry) in a
>pretty favorable light, and with an easygoing and matter-of-fact demeanor about
>his Gayness.
>
>Accurate? Is that the gist of the whine?
No. I actually think that they're meaning well. (Whedon's comments about
the network not letting them show a kiss indicate that some of this is on
the WB, too.) What I'm saying that if the writers are trying to show a
gay relationship as No Big Deal, then it is a wuss-out of them to tip-toe
around the subject, because then they're tacitly acknowledging that it
*is* a big deal and needs to be tip-toed around. And then it is a laugh
for THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, among others, to call the treatment bold.
One boldly strides; one does not boldly tip-toe.
--
David Hines
Robert A. Barr
D
>
> MPS'ers? How many meters per second?
Movement of the Perpetually Slighted.
>
>
> One boldly strides; one does not boldly tip-toe.
Damn. I have to agree with that. DAMN. This is frustrating.
>
>
> --
> David Hines
Shawn Hill
: In article <8ev3lk$do4$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>David, maybe there just WASN'T one to show. How would you define it,
:>anyway? When they realized they were in love? When they made love? When
:>one of them said the words to another? This episode, for all intents and
:>purposes, WAS the demaraccation.
: For the audience. Let's put it this way: before Oz and Willow started
: dating, Oz noticed her from afar several times. When somebody sees a
: stranger and wonders, "Who *is* that girl," it's pretty clear what kind of
: relationship this is, or what that person wants it to be. When two people
: who have yet to have an actual date (see "Innocence") discuss the
: possibility of their making out, it's clear.
: This, to be blunt, was mud.
Tara's longing glances told a similar story to me. What would be the
possible motive of "shucking," as you described it during Civil Rights as
a tokenistic sop to minority groups. Is Joss trying to please/pass off a
gay viewership? Surely he's more concerned with not triggering the
homophobes than with pleasing the homophiles, who AFAIK like his show
already, with or without Lesbo-willow.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: around the subject, because then they're tacitly acknowledging that it
: *is* a big deal and needs to be tip-toed around. And then it is a laugh
: for THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, among others, to call the treatment bold.
: One boldly strides; one does not boldly tip-toe.
sure one does. you need to look up the word "camp" and think about boldly
tiptoeing where no man has gone before a bit, I think. as long as the job
gets done, I don't mind the style in which it's delivered.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: In article <8ev4g4$do4$6...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>Gay love is special. It is different. It should be
:>treated carefully. It is equal to straight love, but not identical. The
:>same issues are not always at stake. The costs and benefits are not the
:>same. It is a minority affair that runs counter to mainstream concerns in
:>this country, still, and involves the acknowledgment of that fact from
:>those who take a lover of the same sex.
: Um... not to be rude, here, but how many gay or bi people do you know?
well, me and my boyfriend, for two. plus many of our friends. and some of
my family members. and teachers. and doctors. etc.
: ("...involves the acknowledgment of that fact from >those who take a lover
: of the same sex." So, what, you're saying it makes perfect sense for
: Willow and Tara to be closeted not only to the world at large, but *to the
: audience and each other* until they get their act together?)
that's exactly what I'm saying. coming out ain't easy.
David Hines
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Surely he's more concerned with not triggering the
>homophobes than with pleasing the homophiles, who AFAIK like his show
>already, with or without Lesbo-willow.
Bingo. "Pleasing the homophiles" aside as a consideration, you really
don't think the first part is a problem?
--
David Hines
David Hines
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
>: One boldly strides; one does not boldly tip-toe.
>
>sure one does. you need to look up the word "camp" and think about boldly
>tiptoeing where no man has gone before a bit, I think. as long as the job
>gets done, I don't mind the style in which it's delivered.
Oh, I know the history of "camp." And as for "where no man has gone
before" -- you do know where that came from, right? The impetus behind
Roddenberry's telling social stories through allegory, and Serling's doing
the same on occasion on THE TWILIGHT ZONE, came about because these were
stories that could not be told in any other way. Literally. The network
would not air them, or the sponsor would object.
For instance, though masturbation jokes are de rigeur on prime time now,
did you know that Reginald Rose's classic television play THUNDER ON
SYCAMORE STREET, about a black family moving into an all-white
neighborhood, was not permitted to go ahead until the black family was
written out and turned white? Rose had to turn the father into an ex-con,
instead. Gene Roddenberry produced a series called THE LIEUTENANT, sort
of a precursor to JAG, that got a good deal of support from the Marines --
who threatened constantly to drop the show if the script contents did not
meet with their criteria... naturally, criteria that showed the military
as a harmonious utopia. The Marines outright refused a script that saw a
black recruit attack a white one because, when they were civilians, the
white one led a racist gang that tortured the black one: the grounds were
"we don't have racial problems in the military." Rod Serling wrote a
script, the title of which I can't remember, which was set in the Senate.
He found that he had to have his legislators speaking in goofy doubletalk
about "Bill 44H3R111" or something of the sort, because, he wrote in his
1957 essay "About Writing For Television" (this is from memory, but it's
pretty close) "... to talk of tariffs was to ally oneself with the
Republicans; to talk of welfare was to ally oneself with the Democrats.
In retrospect, I could have had a more adult drama had I set the whole
thing in 2050 and peopled the Senate with robots."
And when you read that, you can almost see Serling at his typewriter
having just written those words, with a little light bulb going on over
his head...
But that doesn't have to be done any more.
We think of the social-issue shows of the fifties and sixties as
tiptoeing. Sure they are. *NOW.* Then, cloaking things in fantasy guise,
or watering them down until they were mild as milk, was the only way to
make bold strides on television. For theater, they weren't bold; for
film, they weren't groundbreaking -- But in the late sixties, actual
discussion of The Pill on TV was still an incredibly controversial
subject, on those occasions when it happened. Television was, especially
in those days, an *incredibly* different and far more censored animal.
Today a lot more can be gotten away with. Today a lot more ground has
been laid. But one thing hasn't changed: the only way to make a bold
stride, at any time, is *to make a bold stride for that time.* And since
we've had over twenty years of precedent with gay characters, regular and
recurring, on prime-time television, with an outright *explosion* in the
last several years, it's safe to say that two people of the same sex
hanging out a lot ambiguously, then mysteriously having metamorphosed into
a dating couple along the way, does not constitute a bold stride.
If the WB precludes showing an actual kiss, or ghod forbid, a tasteful
shower scene, then there are ways to play around that. But if the WB has
no objections to letting Willow and Tara date, then why is their road to
dating so mysterious? (Hey, maybe the WB's thinking on this is like their
rationale on "Graduation 2." If impressionable youths see the way a gay
couple actually starts up a relationship, then the next thing you know
they'll be running out and starting up gay affairs of their own, left and
right!)
--
David Hines
David Hines
>: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>:>Gay love is special. It is different. It should be
>:>treated carefully. It is equal to straight love, but not identical.
>
>well, me and my boyfriend, for two.
Color me absolutely boggled. (It's a shade below mauve, and just above
rose-magenta, with a dash of aquamarine thrown in for spice.) In which
case, I really don't understand why:
>: So, what, you're saying it makes perfect sense for
>: Willow and Tara to be closeted not only to the world at large, but *to the
>: audience and each other* until they get their act together?)
>
>that's exactly what I'm saying. coming out ain't easy.
All the more reason that we should see some of it, don't you think? I
realize that they may want to keep their emerging relationship quiet to
their friends until they're ready (or until the desire to remain silent is
outweighed by the need to talk), but it seems more than a little extreme
for them to consider the impression they might make on an audience
that neither character even knows exists. You're certainly comfortable
with your identity as a gay man -- what is it that makes the
with-kid-gloves handling of this particular relationship work for you?
(Not trying to be rude; I'm honestly curious.)
--
David Hines
Lyle Craver
<william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu> wrote:
>Interesting bit of trivia, there have been exactly three episodes in
>the entire series (maybe I'm misremembering and it's 4, but I don't
>think so), where we have seen more Willow-skin than just head, neck
>and arms.
Well that's clearly wrong since she's worn midriff baring outfits
numerous times. Nothing extraordinarily revealing though.
Willow's never been portrayed as a 'babe' the way Buffy or
Cordelia has. Similarly Amber Benson's publicity shots show a FAR
more attractive woman than she portrays as Tara. That's
Hollywood!
------------------------------------
To reply to me remove 1 from address
Shawn Hill
: In article <8evikh$hto$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:> Surely he's more concerned with not triggering the
:>homophobes than with pleasing the homophiles, who AFAIK like his show
:>already, with or without Lesbo-willow.
: Bingo. "Pleasing the homophiles" aside as a consideration, you really
: don't think the first part is a problem?
No, I actually like it when we do things that fly to low for their radar. I
like that Will and Grace can just continue without becoming a media-blitz of
controversy. I felt really bad for what happened to Ellen. She was funny
before she came out. Why wasn't she still funny, afterward?
I still don't see it as a "shuck" like you describe, ie, a sop to liberal
interests and oppressed groups. I see it more along the lines of when Kirk
kissed Uhura on Star Trek. Did we see tongue, or even both of their
faces? No. But it still ranks as one of the first interracial kisses on tv,
and the world still got to see a spark of sexuality between a beautiful
black woman and a white supposed sex stud.
Baby steps, tiptoeing boldly forth, are sometimes what it takes. Now, if it
was a movie, I might be complaining more. But, it's a weekly serial tv
show. People have very intimate relationships with those, and get upset
by even slight surprises. And Tara and Willow are not being defined as evil,
freakish, confused or self-destructive. That's good enough for now.
Shawn
* . * . * . * .
Q: "Am I still your woman?"
A: "You're the captain's woman...until he says you're not."
. * . * . *sh...@fas.harvard.edu
Shawn Hill
: And when you read that, you can almost see Serling at his typewriter
: having just written those words, with a little light bulb going on over
: his head...
bingo, indeed!
: But that doesn't have to be done any more.
I wish that were true. I don't believe it is, though.
: we've had over twenty years of precedent with gay characters, regular and
: recurring, on prime-time television, with an outright *explosion* in the
: last several years, it's safe to say that two people of the same sex
: hanging out a lot ambiguously, then mysteriously having metamorphosed into
: a dating couple along the way, does not constitute a bold stride.
well, and I loved your informative history by the way, wonderful context, to
my mind, it's gone like this:
1) flamers getting thrown in jail on Barney Miller
2) Waylon Flowers and Madame, Liberace on Merv Griffin
3) Jack Tripper "pretending" to be gay so he could live with hot chicks.
4) TV movies of the week about slightly perfect men dying sadly of AIDS
5) Star Trek doing a really twisted episode where lesbos are evil and loving
Riker is a rebellious act
6) Dax being of variable gender
7) Ross's ex-wife on Friends being an actual person
8) the occasional short term lesbian or gay man on soaps: if a gay man,
usually dying of AIDS. If a woman dying of AIDS, usually not gay.
9) Matt on Melrose place: "Hello,everybody! Well, gotta go!"
10) David Duchovny flirting with Gary Schandling at every opportunity.
11) Cross-dressing on SNL and Kids in the Hall (actually, Scott Thompson is
someone that does what he wants as you suggest, screw the consequences; but,
he doesn't work much)
12) Ellen and now Will and Grace.
I guess I forgot Dynasty and Love Sidney and a very special cowboy on Dallas
for one episode, but you get the gist......
in 30 years tv has still only taken baby steps, and have we ever yet even
seen two men kiss who weren't Joey and Chandler?
: If the WB precludes showing an actual kiss, or ghod forbid, a tasteful
: shower scene, then there are ways to play around that. But if the WB has
: no objections to letting Willow and Tara date, then why is their road to
: dating so mysterious? (Hey, maybe the WB's thinking on this is like their
: rationale on "Graduation 2." If impressionable youths see the way a gay
: couple actually starts up a relationship, then the next thing you know
: they'll be running out and starting up gay affairs of their own, left and
: right!)
I think that's exactly what the WB thinks. Or, fears they'll be accused of.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: realize that they may want to keep their emerging relationship quiet to
: their friends until they're ready (or until the desire to remain silent is
: outweighed by the need to talk), but it seems more than a little extreme
: for them to consider the impression they might make on an audience
: that neither character even knows exists. You're certainly comfortable
as someone else said, you can be entering into a relationship with someone
without even knowing what it really constitutes, or at least not admitting
it to yourself. I think this is more common with women than with men. "my
beautiful laundrette" was on Bravo last night, and I think it explores this
hesitance very well with the two main characters that take the whole movie
to realize they're in love.
: with your identity as a gay man -- what is it that makes the
: with-kid-gloves handling of this particular relationship work for you?
: (Not trying to be rude; I'm honestly curious.)
I guess I could say this: I'm 34. I came out as gay when I was 20. But it
took me about 8 years after that to get over the self-hate and self-doubt
this culture inculcates in young men about what they're *supposed* to
do/signify/stand for/think. To be gay is not just an "alternative
lifestyle." It's also a rebellion against some pretty basic rules. Those
little voices in your head are pernicious, and unrelenting.
So, for Willow, as articulate as she is, to be a little unsure of what
it all means in her freshmen year in college.....not a stretch for me.
William George Ferguson
>>Interesting bit of trivia, there have been exactly three episodes in
>>the entire series (maybe I'm misremembering and it's 4, but I don't
>>think so), where we have seen more Willow-skin than just head, neck
>>and arms.
lcr...@home1.com (Lyle Craver) wrote:
>Well that's clearly wrong since she's worn midriff baring outfits
>numerous times. Nothing extraordinarily revealing though.
>Willow's never been portrayed as a 'babe' the way Buffy or
>Cordelia has. Similarly Amber Benson's publicity shots show a FAR
>more attractive woman than she portrays as Tara. That's
>Hollywood!
Willow has been seen in a midriff baring outfit exactly once
(Halloween). She has been seen in a shoulder baring dress exactly once
(The Prom) [that's the one I forgot in my original count]. she has
been shown in bed, with a sheet drawn up, bare shouldered, exactly
twice (GD1 and WAH). She has been shown bare legged or barefoot
exactly zero times (even when she and Oz got up to look at the snow in
Amends, and in the lead-up to the fluke in Homecoming, she was wearing
opaque stockings).
A very integral, though not much talked about except in Halloween,
part of Willow's character is her extreme body modesty.
Not that I pay careful attention to Willow or anything.
--
atbvs GC:
W&VW+++F&B++B&G-ewwwSlyr-DOA25++RiG++X&EvGrls++
X&B---JS++W&T?!?Ar&Snshne!!!Ha&MrPty-hehehe
Ciroce
Similarly Amber Benson's publicity shots show a FAR
>more attractive woman than she portrays as Tara. That's
>Hollywood!
>
>
Are the publicity shots on the web somewhere?
Mike Zeares
>(Hey, maybe the WB's thinking on this is like their
>rationale on "Graduation 2." If impressionable youths see the way a gay
>couple actually starts up a relationship, then the next thing you know
>they'll be running out and starting up gay affairs of their own, left and
>right!)
As you no doubt already know, this is *exactly* what the anti-gay crowd thinks.
It's the primary argument against any positive portrayal of homosexuals.
I don't have that much of a problem with the way the W/T relationship has been
presented, since the show is still nominally about Buffy. However, now that the
cat is out of the bag, I expect to see them more openly "coupley." A
conversation between Willow and Buffy about just when Willow and Tara started
going out would be nice, but probably too much to hope for.
-- Mike Zeares
David Hines
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>"my
>beautiful laundrette" was on Bravo last night, and I think it explores this
>hesitance very well with the two main characters that take the whole movie
>to realize they're in love.
A heterosexual take on the same sort of thing (albeit in a one-sided
relationship): the film of REMAINS OF THE DAY.
>I guess I could say this: I'm 34. I came out as gay when I was 20. But it
>took me about 8 years after that to get over the self-hate and self-doubt
>this culture inculcates in young men about what they're *supposed* to
>do/signify/stand for/think. To be gay is not just an "alternative
>lifestyle." It's also a rebellion against some pretty basic rules. Those
>little voices in your head are pernicious, and unrelenting.
Okay. What I wasn't sure was whether you were saying that gay love is a)
*innately* different from straight love, and thus requires a different
handling, or b) requires different handling because the culture at large
still isn't quite comfortable with homosexuality, and so has complexities
for the people coming to terms with their own heterosexuality as well as
for the public-at-large to whom it's being dramatized.
--
David Hines
Christopher Rickey
> I guess I could say this: I'm 34. I came out as gay when I was 20. But it
> took me about 8 years after that to get over the self-hate and self-doubt
> this culture inculcates in young men about what they're *supposed* to
> do/signify/stand for/think. To be gay is not just an "alternative
> lifestyle." It's also a rebellion against some pretty basic rules. Those
> little voices in your head are pernicious, and unrelenting.
>
> So, for Willow, as articulate as she is, to be a little unsure of what
> it all means in her freshmen year in college.....not a stretch for me.
But we return to David's original point. To show Willow as hesitating is
quite natural, but they didn't really show it at all. It would have been
nice to see the relationship develop, in all its fits, starts,
embarassments, and blushes (okay, maybe not all), rather than through
teasing metaphors (hey, Joe, didja catch that rose spell?)
You could argue that the show stylistically mirrors Willow's self-evasions
through its own evasion of the matter, that there is really nothing to
present except evasions until Willow comes out to Buffy in this last
episode. In fact, I think you have to make that argument to redeem ME.
David's point is simply that the show has to this point not been so coy
about presenting relationships.
--
Blow up the outside
Blow up the outside
Blow up the outside world
Ian J. Ball
<mze...@swbell.net> wrote:
> In article <SEPQ4.4875$Y4.3...@typhoon2.san.rr.com>, hra...@mib.org
> says...
>
> >(Hey, maybe the WB's thinking on this is like their
> >rationale on "Graduation 2." If impressionable youths see the way a gay
> >couple actually starts up a relationship, then the next thing you know
> >they'll be running out and starting up gay affairs of their own, left and
> >right!)
>
> As you no doubt already know, this is *exactly* what the anti-gay crowd
> thinks. It's the primary argument against any positive portrayal of
> homosexuals.
It's the primary argument against virtually *any* depiction, whether it be
guns, violence, rape, racism, etc. It's also one of principles of modern
advertising (that a depicition or a portrayal can lead to a positive, or
negative, response to something like a product).
Personally, I think there's a grain of truth in the argument that
depicitions *do* influence individuals and societies (as does nearly every
modern artist, thus the implicit and explicit "messages" attached to
nearly all works of art, including Joss'), in both forseen and unforseen
ways.
But, then again, there's probably a grain of truth in every argument...
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Lisa nor Jeff
> depicitions *do* influence individuals and societies (as does nearly every
> modern artist, thus the implicit and explicit "messages" attached to
> nearly all works of art, including Joss'), in both forseen and unforseen
> ways.
They definitely do.
Movies and movie stars greatly influence clothing fashions. Songs
that get exposure by being aired on TV shows can sell better.
Societal "propaganda" influences people and their decisions.
Seeing a particular type of behavior in the media can make that behavior
seem legitimate in the eyes of viewers, especially if that behavior represents
a changing social trend.
Many government officials and private activists urged "safe sex" practices
(or at least the use of a condom) be included in TV/film depictions of
sexual intercourse, so as to encourage the general public to use condoms.
I remember when seat belt usage was first being urged, TV shows made a
point of showing people buckling up when they first got in the car.
Of course, one argument Hollywood counters with is that it is not
_encouraging_ behaviors, but rather _reflecting_ behaviors already
existing.
The extent of the influence is debatable. Our Buffy had sex and
lost her virginity on her 17th birthday.
I wonder how many 16-17 year old girls who watched that who were
undecided if they were ready to have sex or to wait a little longer;
and decided to go ahead "well if Buffy did it, so can I."
Some groups would argue Hollywood has a great and adverse influence
on that kind of decision, Hollywood would argue it has no influence
at all. I think the answer is in between, but there IS some influence.
(One could also wonder what influence the Buffy-Parker sex experience
had on people as well.)
Sarah Trombley
Lisa nor Jeff <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>The extent of the influence is debatable. Our Buffy had sex and
>lost her virginity on her 17th birthday.
>
>I wonder how many 16-17 year old girls who watched that who were
>undecided if they were ready to have sex or to wait a little longer;
>and decided to go ahead "well if Buffy did it, so can I."
Only those who missed the rest of the second season! If I were
basing my sexual choices on Buffy's experiences, I'd retire to a
convent!
--Sarah T.
Shawn Hill
: In article <8f1jci$t6b$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>"my
:>beautiful laundrette" was on Bravo last night, and I think it explores this
:>hesitance very well with the two main characters that take the whole movie
:>to realize they're in love.
: A heterosexual take on the same sort of thing (albeit in a one-sided
: relationship): the film of REMAINS OF THE DAY.
the tragedy there was when the moment came for the Hopkins character to
break with stultifying conviction (in his case, class rather than race or
gender) he didn't take it.
: Okay. What I wasn't sure was whether you were saying that gay love is a)
: *innately* different from straight love, and thus requires a different
: handling, or b) requires different handling because the culture at large
: still isn't quite comfortable with homosexuality, and so has complexities
: for the people coming to terms with their own heterosexuality as well as
: for the public-at-large to whom it's being dramatized.
I think you mixed some words up there, or else I'm very sleepy....what?
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>
:> So, for Willow, as articulate as she is, to be a little unsure of what
:> it all means in her freshmen year in college.....not a stretch for me.
: But we return to David's original point. To show Willow as hesitating is
: quite natural, but they didn't really show it at all. It would have been
didn't they? I saw Willow deal with Tara's questions about her friends,
and express she wasn't ready for that meeting yet. I saw Willow hide the
relationship through evasion and subject-changing. I saw her care when
Tara was hurt, and seek revenge. And, in this episode, I saw her spell
things out to Buffy and to Oz.
: nice to see the relationship develop, in all its fits, starts,
: embarassments, and blushes (okay, maybe not all), rather than through
: teasing metaphors (hey, Joe, didja catch that rose spell?)
: You could argue that the show stylistically mirrors Willow's self-evasions
: through its own evasion of the matter, that there is really nothing to
: present except evasions until Willow comes out to Buffy in this last
: episode. In fact, I think you have to make that argument to redeem ME.
: David's point is simply that the show has to this point not been so coy
: about presenting relationships.
I'd say it's presented a variety of relationships:
Buffy's self-destructive attachment to Angel.
Xander's love-hate w/Cordy.
Giles' attraction to Jennifer.
Willow and Oz's mutual short-people lovin'.
Spike's domination by the smarter, meaner Drusilla.
Xander and Willow's affair.
Cordy and Wesley's unfullfilling flirtation.
Faith's fling w/Xander.
Anya's fixation on Xander as a nonthreatening mate.
Buffy's mistreatment by Parker.
Giles love for ... I've forgotten her name.
Spike and Harmony's twisted affair.
Buffy's appreciation of semi-normal guy Riley.
and, now, Willow's choice of another young woman for a partner. They've
all been different, unique unto themselves.
Shawn
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
he used to do surgery/ for girls in the 80s/
but gravity always wins
--radiohead
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@fas.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Shawn Hill
: (One could also wonder what influence the Buffy-Parker sex experience
: had on people as well.)
It made everybody hate Parker.
Shawn
Rose
>
>I remember when seat belt usage was first being urged, TV shows made a
>point of showing people buckling up when they first got in the car.
It is interesting that TV people claim they can have a good influence on
people, but totally poo poo the idea that they can have a bad influence. I
don't know, and don't know if I CAN know, if TV can influence people one way or
the other, but it seems to me you can't have it both ways.
************************************************
ROSE: 5-ft-5 inches and 133 pounds of salty goodness!
Fanfic stored under penname Rosa Seravo, http://www.fanfiction.net
Gothic movie page, http://www.expage.com/page/roazgothic
Christopher Rickey
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Christopher Rickey <cri...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> :>
> :> So, for Willow, as articulate as she is, to be a little unsure of what
> :> it all means in her freshmen year in college.....not a stretch for me.
>
> : But we return to David's original point. To show Willow as hesitating is
> : quite natural, but they didn't really show it at all. It would have been
>
> didn't they? I saw Willow deal with Tara's questions about her friends,
> and express she wasn't ready for that meeting yet. I saw Willow hide the
> relationship through evasion and subject-changing. I saw her care when
> Tara was hurt, and seek revenge. And, in this episode, I saw her spell
> things out to Buffy and to Oz.
We also saw her spell things out to Tara afterwards, which is really the
first time we the audience have seen Tara and Willow spell it out to each
other. Don't you think that chronology is rather strange?
> : nice to see the relationship develop, in all its fits, starts,
> : embarassments, and blushes (okay, maybe not all), rather than through
> : teasing metaphors (hey, Joe, didja catch that rose spell?)
>
> : You could argue that the show stylistically mirrors Willow's self-evasions
> : through its own evasion of the matter, that there is really nothing to
> : present except evasions until Willow comes out to Buffy in this last
> : episode. In fact, I think you have to make that argument to redeem ME.
> : David's point is simply that the show has to this point not been so coy
> : about presenting relationships.
>
> I'd say it's presented a variety of relationships:
>
> Buffy's self-destructive attachment to Angel.
> Xander's love-hate w/Cordy.
> Giles' attraction to Jennifer.
> Willow and Oz's mutual short-people lovin'.
> Spike's domination by the smarter, meaner Drusilla.
> Xander and Willow's affair.
> Cordy and Wesley's unfullfilling flirtation.
As flirtation it was fulfilling; as consummation it was completely unfulfilling.
> Faith's fling w/Xander.
> Anya's fixation on Xander as a nonthreatening mate.
> Buffy's mistreatment by Parker.
> Giles love for ... I've forgotten her name.
> Spike and Harmony's twisted affair.
> Buffy's appreciation of semi-normal guy Riley.
>
> and, now, Willow's choice of another young woman for a partner. They've
> all been different, unique unto themselves.
Again, it's not the kinds or varieties of relationships at issue; it's the
manner of presenting them. The rest of them took place by virtue of a
"surveillence camera" approach, where we the audience see the action
unfold as if we are invisible spectators. With Willow and Tara, we weren't
present for even the most significant moment, whenever they had the
meaningful talk with each other (to say nothing about what Joss apparently
said, that they've been having sex for some time now).
Joss said earlier this season that they were working hard to "handle" the
lesbian issue without appearing to handle it. I recognize that this is
immensely difficult to pull off, particularly with the WB paying close
attention. Nonetheless, the signs that they have handled it carefully are
obvious.
My personal view is that the show could use that kind of discretion with
other couples. Something like, showing Xander and Anya out shopping for
household goods to indicate that their relationship is domestic.
vicpusateri
> David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
>
[....]
13) Tim Bayliss, bisexual Zen homicide detective on Homicide
Why do people keep forgetting this? I thought one of the better things they
did was *not* make a fanfare [in the media] about Tim's sexual preferences,
and one of the most heartbreaking things I ever saw was when, in the
episode, "Truth Will Out", Bayliss goes to see the guy he went out with, and
the guy repudiates him... But I digress...
I agree with Hines. I don't think anything in NMR was groundbreaking, and I
do think we need to see Tara and Willow explicitly be a couple - I don't
need a tasteful shower scene, I'd be happy with hello kissing,
Anya-eye-rolling about their cuddling, or something.
victoria p.
Miss July
--
Peabody: "God does not always play fair."
Emerson: "That is why I don't believe in him. A decent deity would have
better manners than the creatures he created out of dirt."
_Falcon at the Portal_, Elizabeth Peters
Ian J. Ball
"vicpusateri" <vicpu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I agree with Hines. I don't think anything in NMR was groundbreaking, and I
> do think we need to see Tara and Willow explicitly be a couple - I don't
> need a tasteful shower scene, I'd be happy with hello kissing,
> Anya-eye-rolling about their cuddling, or something.
But that would require Anya to view the relationship negatively (as well
as actually require Anya character development), and I doubt they let
either of those two things happen.
The more likely spin is that Anya will be releaved Willow has a new
"orgasm friend" as it is one less potential rival for Xander's affections.
vicpusateri
> "vicpusateri" <vicpu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Hines. I don't think anything in NMR was groundbreaking,
and I
> > do think we need to see Tara and Willow explicitly be a couple - I don't
> > need a tasteful shower scene, I'd be happy with hello kissing,
> > Anya-eye-rolling about their cuddling, or something.
>
> But that would require Anya to view the relationship negatively (as well
> as actually require Anya character development), and I doubt they let
> either of those two things happen.
I disagree with your first point. I don't view the Xander/Anya relationship
negatively, but I roll my eyes at the continuous sex talk. Anya could just
find Willow/Tara cuddles to be too cutesy for her taste or, more likely, not
be interested in any public displays of affection that don't involve herself
and Xander.
That wouldn't necessitate Anya character development, which, I'm sorry to
say, I do agree is unlikely to happen.
> The more likely spin is that Anya will be releaved Willow has a new
> "orgasm friend" as it is one less potential rival for Xander's affections.
That's a good reaction, but I can see her getting bored with W/T gushiness
and being like, "Get on with it already, just not while I'm here."
victoria p.
Miss July
only 1030 messages to go <sigh>
Ian J. Ball
"vicpusateri" <vicpu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Ian J. Ball wrote...
>
> > "vicpusateri" <vicpu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Hines. I don't think anything in NMR was groundbreaking,
> > > and I do think we need to see Tara and Willow explicitly be a couple -
> > > I don't need a tasteful shower scene, I'd be happy with hello kissing,
> > > Anya-eye-rolling about their cuddling, or something.
> >
> > But that would require Anya to view the relationship negatively (as well
> > as actually require Anya character development), and I doubt they let
> > either of those two things happen.
>
> I disagree with your first point. I don't view the Xander/Anya relationship
> negatively...
Actually, I meant that it would require that Anya view the *Willow/Tara*
relationship negatively, but Joss has already as much as said that this
won't be allowed to happen.
> That wouldn't necessitate Anya character development, which, I'm sorry to
> say, I do agree is unlikely to happen.
*Very* unlikely! ;)
> > The more likely spin is that Anya will be releaved Willow has a new
> > "orgasm friend" as it is one less potential rival for Xander's affections.
>
> That's a good reaction, but I can see her getting bored with W/T gushiness
> and being like, "Get on with it already, just not while I'm here."
See my above point. Anya will probably just ignore them, as she does
Buffy/Riley (who are also too cutesy for my tastes... oh Hell! *every*
couple is too "cutesy" for my tastes!).
vicpusateri
> "vicpusateri" <vicpu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Ian J. Ball wrote...
> >
> > > "vicpusateri" <vicpu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Hines. I don't think anything in NMR was
groundbreaking,
> > > > and I do think we need to see Tara and Willow explicitly be a
couple -
> > > > I don't need a tasteful shower scene, I'd be happy with hello
kissing,
> > > > Anya-eye-rolling about their cuddling, or something.
> > >
> > > But that would require Anya to view the relationship negatively (as
well
> > > as actually require Anya character development), and I doubt they let
> > > either of those two things happen.
> >
> > I disagree with your first point. I don't view the Xander/Anya
relationship
> > negatively...
>
> Actually, I meant that it would require that Anya view the *Willow/Tara*
> relationship negatively, but Joss has already as much as said that this
> won't be allowed to happen.
I know what you meant. I was using my feelings about Xander/Anya as an
example. I don't view it negatively, but I do roll my eyes when Anya makes
yet another sex joke. I could see Anya have the same reaction to W/T being
overly affectionate.
>
> > That wouldn't necessitate Anya character development, which, I'm sorry
to
> > say, I do agree is unlikely to happen.
>
> *Very* unlikely! ;)
>
> > > The more likely spin is that Anya will be releaved Willow has a new
> > > "orgasm friend" as it is one less potential rival for Xander's
affections.
> >
> > That's a good reaction, but I can see her getting bored with W/T
gushiness
> > and being like, "Get on with it already, just not while I'm here."
>
> See my above point. Anya will probably just ignore them, as she does
> Buffy/Riley (who are also too cutesy for my tastes... oh Hell! *every*
> couple is too "cutesy" for my tastes!).
I agree that Buffy/Riley are too cutesy.
victoria p.
Miss July
Christopher Rickey
igalb...@ozonline.com.au (Ian Galbraith) wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 15:08:10 -0500, Christopher Rickey wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
> :meaningful talk with each other (to say nothing about what Joss apparently
> :said, that they've been having sex for some time now).
>
> Which is a misinterpretation of what he said.
That's why I said "apparently," since I was citing a second-hand source. I
would be interested to know what he actually said.
> :Joss said earlier this season that they were working hard to "handle" the
> :lesbian issue without appearing to handle it. I recognize that this is
> :immensely difficult to pull off, particularly with the WB paying close
> :attention. Nonetheless, the signs that they have handled it carefully are
> :obvious.
>
> IMHO they're damned if they do damned if they don't. Handle it with care
> and they get accused of pussyfooting around the issue, even after it is
> revealed that the WB did not want them doing anything controversial. Do it
> in a more full blown manner and they get accused of sensationalising it.
That's why I said it was immensely difficult to pull off. I don't know how
much the final output deviated from what Joss and Co. wanted due to WB
interference. I do know that what I saw failed to match the standard they
were aiming for.
And to return to the original comment, pussyfootin' around the matter
doesn't make for a landmark tv event, which probably wasn't Joss' intent
anyway, but the non-landmark quality of the actual product and what I
think was Joss' intentions is different.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:meaningful talk with each other (to say nothing about what Joss apparently
:said, that they've been having sex for some time now).
Which is a misinterpretation of what he said.
:Joss said earlier this season that they were working hard to "handle" the
:lesbian issue without appearing to handle it. I recognize that this is
:immensely difficult to pull off, particularly with the WB paying close
:attention. Nonetheless, the signs that they have handled it carefully are
:obvious.
IMHO they're damned if they do damned if they don't. Handle it with care
and they get accused of pussyfooting around the issue, even after it is
revealed that the WB did not want them doing anything controversial. Do it
in a more full blown manner and they get accused of sensationalising it.
[snip]
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"Mm, I wouldn't dream of interfering." Mark made for
the door. "Though I'm not at all sure I'd choose to
structure my most intimate relationship as a war.
Is she the enemy, then?"
- A Civil Campaign - Lois McMaster Bujold
Shawn Hill
: Lisa wrote:
:>
:>I remember when seat belt usage was first being urged, TV shows made a
:>point of showing people buckling up when they first got in the car.
: It is interesting that TV people claim they can have a good influence on
: people, but totally poo poo the idea that they can have a bad influence. I
: don't know, and don't know if I CAN know, if TV can influence people one way or
: the other, but it seems to me you can't have it both ways.
Why? Just because of the symmetry of it sounding illogical? Being
influenced to do good things is (presumably) a lot easier to have happen
than influencing people to be bad.
As in
"Oh, Buffy got her mom some candy for mother's day, that reminds me...."
compared to,
"Oh, Willow is lying to her friends and hiding something, think I'll try
that...."
Shawn
.... .**.....*.. . **. * ....*.... . . * . . ** .
Matt: "You're not a square peg."
Dinah: "It's a metaphor, Matt.
sh...@fas.harvard.edu
...... . . . .* ... . . . . * ..... .** .. .* ......*
David Adrien Tanguay
> She has been shown bare legged or barefoot
> exactly zero times (even when she and Oz got up to look at the snow in
> Amends, and in the lead-up to the fluke in Homecoming, she was wearing
> opaque stockings).
Doesn't Hannigan have a tattoo on her ankle(s)? That might explain the
legs, to date. Willow getting a tattoo now wouldn't be out of character.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.ca http://www.thinkage.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Rose
>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 5/7/00 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8f5njf$l4g$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
>
>Rose <fyl...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>: Lisa wrote:
>
>:>
>:>I remember when seat belt usage was first being urged, TV shows made a
>:>point of showing people buckling up when they first got in the car.
>
>: It is interesting that TV people claim they can have a good influence on
>: people, but totally poo poo the idea that they can have a bad influence. I
>: don't know, and don't know if I CAN know, if TV can influence people one
>way or
>: the other, but it seems to me you can't have it both ways.
>
>Why? Just because of the symmetry of it sounding illogical? Being
>influenced to do good things is (presumably) a lot easier to have happen
>than influencing people to be bad.
>
Good and bad are relative. Some think that ceasing to be ashamed of being gay
is a good thing, some think it's a bad thing. A person who is extremely
unstable may think doing violence is a good thing. Some young people view
smoking as cool, and refuse to believe it's harmful to one's health. Etc.
Don Sample
Ferguson <fr...@primenet.com> wrote:
> She has been shown bare legged or barefoot
> exactly zero times (even when she and Oz got up to look at the snow in
> Amends, and in the lead-up to the fluke in Homecoming, she was wearing
> opaque stockings).
What about when she got out of Xander's bed in BBB?
Tom Breton
>
> IMHO they're damned if they do damned if they don't. Handle it with care
> and they get accused of pussyfooting around the issue, even after it is
> revealed that the WB did not want them doing anything
> controversial.
They could have been clear while still obeying the WB's timidity. How
hard would it have been to write one line, 'round about the time we
are to understand that Willow & Tara became lovers, to the effect that
they had made love the nite before?
> Do it
> in a more full blown manner and they get accused of sensationalising it.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Not using "gh" since 1997. http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
BTVS geek code, http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- W--- R@ F+ A- Dar++ J+ A&B--- W&Moloch+++ T&O++ X&C+
X&Ay--- XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- JW- SMG++++ ED+ MN- DF- DP@ JE+
David Hines
<blu...@caddroid.com> wrote:
>
>Were "subtlety" a personal being, Subtlety probably wouldn't use a
>solid gold brick to convey subtlety. But I digress ..
Er, yeah, dude. Like, you know, that's kind of the point...
--
David Hines