![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Nicholas Brendan according to the SlayAlive post does not like the Dawn/Xander pairing.
In related news, at Hallowhedon, Brendan revealed that he and Gellar talked about Xander and Buffy getting together and pitched it. Whedon said no. And apparently Whedon had planned on killing Xander off in S7, but the other writers talked him out of it - stating the fans would be *really* upset, *vehementally* upset.
They weren't wrong about that - but it does bring up a question that I'd like to throw out there: Should fans have a say in the plotting, etc of a story? Should the writers have convinced Whedon to cater to their fans? Should it matter that it would upset the fans if a character was killed or a beloved character did a horrible thing? Should a writer EVER cater to his or her fans? And if so, when? And to what extent would catering hurt the story? And what extent does this kill the reality of the story - after all people we love do die, and people we love do horrible things - to what extent should writing reflect that reality and to what extent should it merely entertain and comfort?
Okay that's a lot of questions. I don't know what I think on this right now. I really don't. I know that I wish sometimes the writer would ignore the fans, but other times, I don't. I can argue it both ways to be honest. So feel free to persuade, discuss, etc!
As a sub-thread of that question - to what extent has the internet changed how fans can affect the writing/plot of a tv show, novel, or movie? Is this a good thing, bad thing, or neutral thing??
2. James Marsters on youtube did a really interesting bit on kissing on camera - how difficult it is to do well, how awkward, and how much you have to trust your partner. He said if you do it for pleasure - it looks horrible. So you never enjoy it. And if he had to choose anyone to do it with again it would be John Barrowman - who went out of his way to make Marsters comfortable. Marsters also gives some great hints on how to keep a guy from mauling you - which I already knew but are quite useful - sneeze, step on his foot, elbow him in the gut.
3. Apparently Caprica has three cameras, a bit budget, and is scarey - with great scripts.
Marsters plays a terrorist that everyone is terrified of, and he's been told he's doing rather well. Hmm. Okay, that and the trailer and Eric Stolz is making me really look forward to Caprica. (Of course it helps that I love Espenson's tv writing, and adored BSG).
4. Apparently Georges Jeanty is better at drawing Joss Whedon than Sarah Michelle Gellar, who knew? (Brad Metzler's blog has a picture of Whedon and Buffy together drawn by Jeanty.)
In related news, at Hallowhedon, Brendan revealed that he and Gellar talked about Xander and Buffy getting together and pitched it. Whedon said no. And apparently Whedon had planned on killing Xander off in S7, but the other writers talked him out of it - stating the fans would be *really* upset, *vehementally* upset.
They weren't wrong about that - but it does bring up a question that I'd like to throw out there: Should fans have a say in the plotting, etc of a story? Should the writers have convinced Whedon to cater to their fans? Should it matter that it would upset the fans if a character was killed or a beloved character did a horrible thing? Should a writer EVER cater to his or her fans? And if so, when? And to what extent would catering hurt the story? And what extent does this kill the reality of the story - after all people we love do die, and people we love do horrible things - to what extent should writing reflect that reality and to what extent should it merely entertain and comfort?
Okay that's a lot of questions. I don't know what I think on this right now. I really don't. I know that I wish sometimes the writer would ignore the fans, but other times, I don't. I can argue it both ways to be honest. So feel free to persuade, discuss, etc!
As a sub-thread of that question - to what extent has the internet changed how fans can affect the writing/plot of a tv show, novel, or movie? Is this a good thing, bad thing, or neutral thing??
2. James Marsters on youtube did a really interesting bit on kissing on camera - how difficult it is to do well, how awkward, and how much you have to trust your partner. He said if you do it for pleasure - it looks horrible. So you never enjoy it. And if he had to choose anyone to do it with again it would be John Barrowman - who went out of his way to make Marsters comfortable. Marsters also gives some great hints on how to keep a guy from mauling you - which I already knew but are quite useful - sneeze, step on his foot, elbow him in the gut.
3. Apparently Caprica has three cameras, a bit budget, and is scarey - with great scripts.
Marsters plays a terrorist that everyone is terrified of, and he's been told he's doing rather well. Hmm. Okay, that and the trailer and Eric Stolz is making me really look forward to Caprica. (Of course it helps that I love Espenson's tv writing, and adored BSG).
4. Apparently Georges Jeanty is better at drawing Joss Whedon than Sarah Michelle Gellar, who knew? (Brad Metzler's blog has a picture of Whedon and Buffy together drawn by Jeanty.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 06:39 am (UTC)So I'd say the more original creativity the better but catering to the fans once in a while doesn't spoil the whole thing, even if only doing so does.
I'm avoidig spoilers for caprica, but i'm so excited about JM on it!
And it's easy to believe the part about the kissing. Tv acting s so weird to do, because you can barely move your face, because it will look all scrunched up. It's the world of understatement when on a stage you usually overexpress.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:36 pm (UTC)Agreed. It isn't. And what you describe above is one of the many reasons - I would hate writing for television. Too many people to please. It's a miracle it does come out good.
So I'd say the more original creativity the better but catering to the fans once in a while doesn't spoil the whole thing, even if only doing so does.
I think as stormwreath points out below this is a balancing act. Go too far one way, and we end up with a mess. Go too far the other, you end up losing your audience.
You can't please all fans after all, so who do you please? And if you go with the majority...do you become sterile and stale?
(shrugs) I think it depends on how you are catering..
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 10:52 am (UTC)I tend to think that fans should not have a say in the plotting either.
Speaking of Caprica, you should try to watch the pilot because I've been told that the episode they will show in January 22 is a cut version (the pilot was 90 minutes on DVD). As for the series, I wonder if James got to play in front of Eric...
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:44 pm (UTC)Agreed. Also, it would mean that Xander had made out with or had sex with 85% of the female cast. Brendan says in the youtube blurb he didn't get the girl - and I'm thinking - okay, what was Anya, chopped liver? Or Faith. Or Cordelia. Or your fling with Willow? Xander got more action than Faith, Anya, Tara, Willow, OZ, Angel, Giles, or Spike did. LOL!
Speaking of Caprica, you should try to watch the pilot because I've been told that the episode they will show in January 22 is a cut version (the pilot was 90 minutes on DVD).
Thanks for the tip! Adding to netflix queue.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 12:48 pm (UTC)General fan responses: well, there are good and bad results. I think Pixar have been consciously responding to reactions to their films: Ratatouille seemed to me to be repeating the respect for talent in The Incredibles while overtly rejecting the creepy subtexts about the natural superiority of blood aristocracy, and the sympathetic fatness of the scout in Up might be a response to the attacks on perceived mockery and demonisation of fat people in WALL-E. On the other hand, the Supernatural scriptwriters seem to me to have at times achieved a horrific fusion of fanboy sexism and slash fangirl female-character hate through listening to their fanbase too much, and I thought much of the Spike characterisation in S7 of Buffy failed through trying to keep too many strands of fandom happy.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 06:12 pm (UTC)Agreed. That and I agree with what Whedon stated which is that it would mean making Xander more of a ladies man than he'd ever intended. If you think about it, Xander has dated or made out with 65% of the female cast of that series, more people than anyone else, including Buffy. (Faith, Willow, Anya, Cordelia, and in the comics, Dawn and Renee.) Didn't get the girl, my foot.
And I think part of the problem with Cordy/Angel was the actors were resistent to it and not skilled/experienced enough to hide it. (85% of the time you are forced to be with someone you don't like on these things) But even if they'd been better, I still felt that much like Xander/Buffy, Cordy/Angel should have stayed friends. Angel/Wes actually had more chemistry. (grins)
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 02:23 pm (UTC)But on the other hand, a writer who ignores the audience completely and follows his or her muse wherever it may lead runs the risk of completely alienating the audience, or even offending them. If you're only producing art for art's sake, you might be willing to do that anyway, even if only one person in a thousand appreciates what you're doing. But people like Joss aren't artists, they're entertainers. They're being paid by a TV network or publishing company to produce work that will attract a large audience and bring in revenue; and they have other people - actors, film crew, writers, artists, adminstrative staff - whose own employment depends on them succeeding in their task. So completely ignoring fan opinion is self-indulgent and irresponsible.
Regarding Xander/Dawn - I think part of that might be the age difference. In May 2003 Michelle Trachtenberg was 17 and Nicholas Brendon was 32, almost twice her age (a 15-year gap). However in May 2003 Dawn Summers was 16 and Xander Harris was 22, only a 6-year difference. It's not surprising that Nick would personally feel more icky about a relationship with Michelle than Xander would about Dawn...
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:30 pm (UTC)Agreed. This happens a lot in regards to daytime soap operas in the US. (that and the fact that they set up dreaded focus groups.) It often kills storylines.
And is why soaps get a bad name - because everyone knows that writers cater a bit to the fans, more so than in primetime or night time series.
Re: a writer who ignores the audience completely and follows his or her muse wherever it may lead runs the risk of completely alienating the audience, or even offending them. If you're only producing art for art's sake, you might be willing to do that anyway, even if only one person in a thousand appreciates what you're doing. But people like Joss aren't artists, they're entertainers....
Excellent point and well articulated. There is a huge difference between a TV series and a book.
To a degree, much of this is dictated by networks, advertisers, and ratings. For example there was an episode in Angel that the network instructed Whedon and Greenwalt to rewrite and change, because it contained "objectionable" material. In S7 - the network told Whedon no more digs at fast food jobs, they were losing advertisers. Also ratings dictated
the break-up of B/A (when they were happy the ratings dived, when they were split up and angsty, the ratings climbed.) Ratings also to a degree saved characters such as Angel and Spike, who would have been killed in S2 permanently.
Fans affected the Spike/Buffy story in part by their vehement protest of any sexual relationship after Seeing Red (made the writers ambivalent as a result)
and the Willow arc - the writers had intended to make Willow bi-sexual, but the fan protest regarding Tara's death, alterred that. Fans and ratings are the reason we got the Buffy/Angel cross-overs, particularly in the last season - when the writers saw the shows as completely separate. And fans kept Xander alive.
Regarding Xander/Dawn - I think part of that might be the age difference. In May 2003 Michelle Trachtenberg was 17 and Nicholas Brendon was 32, almost twice her age (a 15-year gap).
This is interesting...because Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) and Vincent Karthesier (Connor) had similar issues. Carpenter was 32 at the time, Karthesier 17.
She was also pregnant. In reality - Cordelia was Xander's age - 21/22 and Connor was well 16. Their age difference was no different than Xander's and Dawn's.
Same deal with Dawn and Spike - they separated the two characters b/c the writers were squicked by the on-screen chemistry. Marsters was 38 or 39 at the time, while Trachenburg was close to 17. Technically speaking it was no different than Angel and Buffy.
Except DB was 26, when Gellar was 17.
Xander/Dawn doesn't bother me in that way. But I can see why it would bug Brendan - it's amusing that it bugs him for the same reasons Connor/Cordy bugged Charisma, and Dawn/Spike bugged the writers.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 07:50 pm (UTC)As for whether a writer should ever cater to his/her fans, where TV is concerned I think it's inevitable. TV shows rely on ratings so when a very recognisable trend appears among the fans (you mention the hostility to re-Spuffy after the AR, which I still can't for the life of me believe Joss hadn't even thought of)then the writers/producers/whatever would be foolish to ignore it completely.
Unless the show is ending and it doesn't matter any more.
4. Apparently Georges Jeanty is better at drawing Joss Whedon than Sarah Michelle Gellar, who knew? (Brad Metzler's blog has a picture of Whedon and Buffy together drawn by Jeanty.)
:Snort: So true.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 08:40 pm (UTC)I think Nick Brendon said he found the idea of Xander/Dawn squicky at the Hallowhedon convention last weekend.
Hee. He should count himself lucky, at least he didn't have to perform it on screen like Charisma did with VK, she had the same reaction. (CC was 32 and VK 17). That and VK apparently disgusted her. LOL!
As for whether a writer should ever cater to his/her fans, where TV is concerned I think it's inevitable. TV shows rely on ratings so when a very recognisable trend appears among the fans (you mention the hostility to re-Spuffy after the AR, which I still can't for the life of me believe Joss hadn't even thought of)then the writers/producers/whatever would be foolish to ignore it completely.
I've been trying to skirt around the AR topic, because it tends incite strong emotions in people but, this brings up an interesting point. There's a group of fans that believes Spike's story was screwed up by catering to Spike fans or differing views amongst Spike fans, and that the story would have been better if Spike/Buffy had not been a couple at all in S7 after the AR. They believe they are b/c of fandom.
There's another group that believes the opposite.
I can actually understand why it didn't occur to Whedon that the AR would be huge problem.
1. From all reports - the filming went differently than planned. They planned it to be less violent and more humilating, more like Lilah throwing herself on Wesley.
2. Whedon was watching and had watched American daytime soap operas, specifically Passions, which went a lot further than the AR scene (and I mean a lot!) yet the couple got together and had no issues. (What he failed to understand/recognize is a) he had a different audience, or an audience that held him to a higher standard than daytime soaps, primetime is usually, and you can get away with stuff on soaps, you can't do in primetime or couldn't for years. b)and that the soaps took much much longer to put the couple back together and redeem the rapist/attempted rapist than Whedon did. Often years longer. Holly didn't forgive Roger in GL ntil 25 years had passed for example. And Luke didn't get Laura until almost two years later. (And since soaps are on every day of the week - we see all the nuances, all the angles, and all the moral issues from every single perspective. You just can't do that in a primetime series.) c) Whedon in his head was writing a horror show a la Terminator, while his fandom was watching a supernatural gothic horror romance/soap opera/adventure series a la Twilight. In horror - the AR scene works beautifully.
As does the fact that she goes back there - because it's horror, scarey, squicky. But in romantic/gothic it doesn't so much. The disconnect probably comes from the fact that the writer was writing one thing, and the fans were watching something else. Which is why people got so upset and the writer got confused. He's thinking - hey, I'm writing a horror series, nothing ends happy. They are thinking - no, you are writing a fun horror comedy/romantic series - with cool quips, and angsty romance - which to be fair was what the network and marketing people thought he was writing as well - they saw Buffy as Twilight, Whedon saw Buffy as Terminator.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 10:48 am (UTC)Yes, I think I read somewhere that she said he didn't wash enough. Or was it that he smoked? I can't remember.
Re: your point 1) I had never heard that before. I thought they set it up very deliberately to be exactly what it was, hence the lack of music and the stark lighting. Can you tell me where you heard this? If true, of course, it makes me even more angry that they did this to Spike. Why didn't someone tell James he was doing it wrong?
Mind you, it wouldn't be the only time such a thing happened to him. I definitely remember Fury saying the the Spike/Harmony desk-hump in Destiny came across as much harsher than he meant it to.
I'm also a little puzzled by your 2). Of course, I know about the Luke/Laura thing. Could hardly miss it, especially as Jane E said that Joss and co had cited it to her as a reason why it would be okay to do the AR and still have Spuffy only for Joss after BtVS ended to say that Luke/Laura was the reason why they didn't do proper re-Spuffy in season 7.
However, I've not ever had the impression that he thought BtVS was a completely different beast, as it were, to what the audience thought they were watching. I thought he was always fairly clear that it was a sort of supernatural soap.
As for fans arguing about whether or not Spike's arc in season 7 was down to fan pressure, I've seen it said many times that pretty much everything to do with Spike in the whole show after season 4 is 'fan service.'
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 10:47 pm (UTC)Anyhow..regard VK/CC - CC said that he had bad breath, smoked, and his toenails were disgusting - apparently they had fungus or something. (I found it amusing, b/c VK's career has taken off and CC's has more or less stalled. CC was a huge problem on Angel, apparently she didn't just act Cordy, she was Cordy, of course that's why they hired her.)
[Some people find the personal lives of people interesting, me? I'm fascinated by what people do for a living. So I went nuts over the interviews about how people were cast, how they made the show, what caused problems, and the disconnect between script to screen. The process fascinates me - that's why I know all this stuff. I literally read or listened to every frigging interview I could get my hands on and talked to fans who had inside info back in 2002-2007.]
RE the A/R - uh...there are contradictory interviews online regarding what happened, many of the links are dead now. Everyone involved says something different, the only two who have not spoken at length regarding what happened are the two who matter and made the decisions: the guy who directed the episode (it was not Deknight) and Whedon (who edited it). What a lot of people don't know is they do numerous takes for every scene. The bathroom scene probably took an entire day. It takes a week to film 43 minutes. They probably did at least 20 different takes, 20 different ways. The actors didn't know by the end of the day which take would make it to air. Also every script submitted is edited by Whedon and Marti. I would not be at all surprised if Whedon wrote the dialogue between Spike and Clem, or Marti did all the Willow/Tara scenes.
As a result, we don't know what the decision process contained. What I do know is Marti pitched a humilation scene based on her experience. Whedon listened to it and decided to turn it into horror, he
said that an attempted rape would be more effective -
in convincing the character that he needed to get a soul, it also fit with the vampire biting metaphor - which is a rape metaphor, that he had dropped. It also had the same impact that Angelus killing Jenny did.
And it was about power - and it fit the theme of his season and episode. So rightly or wrongly, Whedon chose the story. People blamed Marti, but it was Whedon's choice and he has said very little about it, outside of the fact that he wanted to show that an act does not demonize you, it does not condemn you forever, it is what you choose to do afterwards that..well we are works in progress, each new choice changes who we are and what we become. That's all he said, leaving the rest open to interpretation.
And we all interpreted it differently. Mileage varies a great deal on this.
I think Whedon saw Buffy as many things, part supernatural soap opera, part horror tale. He's a horror writer, horror fan not a romance one. He's studied mostly horror films and critiques them. The film he watched the most in college was Terminator.
He's not a romantic. So I think he saw Buffy as a horror soap opera, emphasis on horror, with a bit of the X-men thrown in. Horror is not easy to watch.
I've always struggled with it. And in horror - you don't ride off into the sunset with your lover. Especially not in noir horror. Anyone who thought Buffy was going to end up with Xander, Riley, Angel or Spike was going to be really disappointed. Whedon would have never done that. He planned on ending the series - with Buffy dying, Xander being killed for housing Glory, and Willow being killed by Buffy for going all dark and veiny. (or rumor had it). And the Frayverse exists because Buffy took the demons into another dimension and closed the door after her - dying to save the world. Whedon's a lot of things, but not a romance writer.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-16 09:54 am (UTC)Yes, I had heard the same. I know she was second choice after SMG for a guest appearance on You're Welcome too, but am very, very glad SMG couldn't make it.
I know the origin of the AR scene in something Marti did to a boyfriend she wanted to get back with. I also know that Joss had to have signed off on it. Of course, I did know they must have done multiple takes (I believe there are AR dailies around on the 'net, or used to be). It's kind of squicky to imagine Joss poring over them and choosing which ones to use. I would like to know his criteria, but I suppose we never will.
I've also read his interview about how the AR and Spike's subsequent soul quest (that plot line was so botched, I just hate it) was supposed to show that such a crime doesn't make you irredeemable, which is undoubtedly true in some cases. However, since one rarely hears of RL rapists admitting their guilt, let alone changing themselves into completely different people in order to atone, I can only say again that I think Joss made a wrong choice, not a brave one (or maybe brave in the foolhardy sense) and that I much preferred the way he deal with rape more recently in Dollhouse, even if it was more simplistic. That suggests to me that even Whedon may now regret what he did to Spike and feel it was a step too far, though of course he's going to stand by his story, which is why we'll never learn what really went on during the process that led up to that decision.
And I take your point about Joss not being a romantic. Anything but. When he tries to do romantic - notably in Amends, Family and IWRY it always veers into cheesiness.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-16 06:09 pm (UTC)Agreed. I'm glad she couldn't do Girl in Question either. Not sure I'd have liked it - I think it would have been a repeat of what happened at the beginning of Chosen.
On the other hand, I'm admittedly curious.
The thing about Seeing Red and the whole AR? I knew they were going to do it as far back as Dead Things, maybe before that. And no, not through spoilers. I was hunting spoilers in the hopes that I was wrong. (got the opposite of course.) When I say the AR and what followed afterwards is a trope in romantic fiction, I'm not kidding. Laurie McBain, Rosemary Rodgers (particularly Rodgers and particularly her modern romances) and Katheleen Woodwiss - did what many call the bodice ripper romance. It was very similar to the S/B relationship in S6. I'd also seen it done in every daytime soap opera in the US. Todd Manning ended up in a romantic relationship with Marty Saybroke 15 years after he gang-raped her, he'd redeemed himself, admitted guilt, felt deep remorse. The storyline played out this past year on One Life to Live. Whedon wasn't reinventing the wheel - he was commenting on a trope in female romantic fiction - written by women.
Although - it does actually happen in real life - there are men who do what Spike did, regret it, and work hard through counseling to win back their wives.
Dollhouse is doing the other version - which is also quite popular and I've seen done to death.
Interestingly enough the people who had troubles with the AR and Spike after the AR, also could not watch Dollhouse.
Anywho..I knew they were going to do it, just as I pretty much knew he would either get a soul or turn human or something that would make him more man than demon - because the A/R was a demonic crime committed by men which causes us to demonize the man forever, so Whedon did the opposite, he had the vampire attempt to comit the demonic crime and seek to become human to demonstrate he hated that "demonic crime"and to separate himself from that crime. It's laced with layers and layers of irony that continue to fascinate.
I wish he hadn't done it - because I was online and had to deal with people who could not appreciate the layers of irony, but if I were writing it? I probably would have done something similar - I would have gone for biting her, stuck with the metaphor, but in retrospect it would not have been as effective (if you think about what I said above regarding that layer.).
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 06:58 pm (UTC)Yes, me too, though if it had to happen, I would preferred it to be in TGiQ, simply because YW being AtS's 100th episode, Spike was bound to be shortchanged in it, being the new kid on the block. At least TGiQ was set up to be a silly Spangel romp rather than a landmark episode of the entire show.
As for the AR, I also knew about it around the time of Dead Things. As you can imagine, it did not go down well on the Spike redemptionist boards where I mostly posted. People kept hoping to the day the wild feed broke that there might be some kind of mitigating circumstances, or that Spike would stop himself (I so wish he'd been allowed that) or that he was being mind-controlled by Warren. But no.
Interestingly enough the people who had troubles with the AR and Spike after the AR, also could not watch Dollhouse.
Yes, I've observed this too. Different triggers, I suppose. My own trigger moment is in Entropy. I find it very hard to watch the end of that episode.
I know there are many people who will never forgive Spike because of the AR, and that's why I can't quite forgive Joss for doing it, no matter what comment he was trying to make about soap opera tropes or about rapists not being irredeemable or whatever. I would find it easier to forgive him, though, if the soul quest had been less ambiguous. I know Joss is all about the layers and the ambiguity and the plot twists, but I think in this one instance he was wrong. It needed to be made absolutely clear that Spike went to get his soul back because of remorse. I like the character and I can fanwank what we actually got to explain the way we see him behave in the last three episodes, but those who don't like him aren't going to bother and that's why I wish it had been unambiguous.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 08:04 pm (UTC)Yep me too. I sort of went to the spoilerboards after Wrecked - because I was worried they'd go in that direction. (I'd seen too many soaps in my life time and knew the trope far too well - could see the AR from a mile away and really didn't want it, for the reasons you mentioned.)
Yes, I've observed this too. Different triggers, I suppose. My own trigger moment is in Entropy. I find it very hard to watch the end of that episode.
Hee. Definitely. And I think We may have the same trigger. Haven't found many who do. Dollhouse and AR don't bug me, but the last scene of Entropy and the Xander/Buffy scene in Seeing Red where he goes on about the whole soul bit - makes me wince. As does a good portion of Hells Bells.
People online had troubles with Spike - for me, Xander, Riley and Angel pushed my buttons. Riley in AYW (an episode I still have troubles watching and still yell at the tv set during), Xander in Entropy,
and Angel in IWRY (which pushed my buttons).
I know Joss is all about the layers and the ambiguity and the plot twists, but I think in this one instance he was wrong. It needed to be made absolutely clear that Spike went to get his soul back because of remorse. I like the character and I can fanwank what we actually got to explain the way we see him behave in the last three episodes, but those who don't like him aren't going to bother and that's why I wish it had been unambiguous.
I agree. I think as with Dollhouse that Whedon often "overestimated" his viewers. People are very literal minded and aren't usually aware of nuance nor can be bothered with it. What "they" see is all there is. And in regards to button-pushing or trigger pushing issues or emotional volatile or politically volatile issues - ambiguity is often not the best choice. Because with those issues, people aren't willing to think, so much as react. And they keep on reacting. And as with anything highly emotional or with an intense emotional reaction - Rational thought has left the building.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-17 09:38 pm (UTC)I only know of one other person on my flist, in fact, and haven't met anyone else in all my years in fandom.
I think as with Dollhouse that Whedon often "overestimated" his viewers.
Well, of course, he's playing to all 'levels' as it were. However, that works better in some cases than in others. In this one, it really doesn't work at all. He really couldn't have done anything more damaging to the character of Spike, except perhaps for having the AR be premeditated.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-18 02:28 am (UTC)I think Whedon is a little oblivious to his fanbase or viewer sometimes. He's interested in plot twists and shocking the viewer - surprising them. He wants that gotcha moment. To not be predictable.
But the AR scene from my perspective was predictable and possibly the most cliche thing he'd done. I understood why he did it. I adore what came afterwards - Beneath Me is amongst my favorite episodes, as is Sleeper, Lies, and Never Leave Me.
But, I think he could have gotten there in another way.
A way that would have made it easier for fans of the character to deal with the fans who...for whatever reason decided they could not handle what happened in the scene and wrote the character off as forever irredeemable after that, which I still think is the height of hypocrisy. I well remember defending myself and my love of the character to two women fans at a fanboard in person meeting...it was uncomfortable and awkward. I changed the topic.
Fandom. Sigh. Sometimes, I think I'd have enjoyed the show and still would enjoy it more if I didn't know what some fans thought of it. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 12:48 pm (UTC)Yes, for me too. That scene has very unpleasant RL connotations for me and echoes my own experience.
I well remember defending myself and my love of the character to two women fans at a fanboard in person meeting...it was uncomfortable and awkward. I changed the topic.
God, I'm so glad I've never had to do that. I hate that Joss has put us in the position of having to defend what is basically indefensible if a person persists in seeing it in RL terms and outside the context of the show.
Of course, there are plenty of other moments like that too, but none arouse the same level of fury among fans if you try to defent the character or persist in liking him or liking Spuffy.
There was another outbreak just last week. It makes me so tired.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 05:29 pm (UTC)Me as well.
I hate that Joss has put us in the position of having to defend what is basically indefensible if a person persists in seeing it in RL terms and outside the context of the show.
We did have a rather engaging debate about it on the atpo board once.
The hypocrisy is what annoys me. I don't think they realize it. They can't see that their favorite character has also done indefensible things. They can't see - the other point of view, all they see is their own and any other view is well, wrong. ;-)
It's hard to write for that type of audience. I used to say online that they were watching the wrong show, and to check out Seventh Heaven.
There was another outbreak just last week. It makes me so tired.
Sigh. It is tiring. And you feel when you engage the person in a discussion that you might as well push the same rock up the same cliff. It's futile.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 09:49 pm (UTC)But he had a lot of different plot points going on with Buffy's Season 7 and I don't think that Xander needed to die to fulfill any of them.
Who knows where he is going w/Season 8?! I don't expect Xander & Dawn to get married...
frankly I'm half expecting confusion and conflict with over-lapping romantic triangles.
4. Apparently Georges Jeanty is better at drawing Joss Whedon than Sarah Michelle Gellar, who knew? (Brad Metzler's blog has a picture of Whedon and Buffy together drawn by Jeanty.)
wait...what? Do you have a link? I so want to see that!
Like you I feel that the artwork has been weaker than usual lately... it does make the story harder to follow when you are guessing at who is who.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 12:13 am (UTC)Here you go: http://www.bradmeltzer.com/2009/11/first-look-at-brad-on-buffy-vampire.html
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 10:23 am (UTC)It it had been up to me, Buffy and Xander would've been together from the get go. Then we wouldn't have had the Angel, Riley and Spike goodness that followed, so listening to me would've been a really bad move. I think authors should have the freedom to take us on a journey that we're not always comfortable with but I have to draw the line with getting involved with someone you used to baby-sit. And I also don't see the emotional reality of the pairing either.
Maybe someone has some ideas on that?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 05:44 pm (UTC)Just finished reading the latest Buffy comic and gotta agree with Nick Brendon - D/X is squick-ville. Isn't she still underage? While I like the fact that Joss messes around with us and doesn't cater to what we want, that just goes too far for me.
There's actually a bit of discussion regarding it in the thread of comments regarding my review of the comic - several posts ago. But I won't make you thread through all of it.
The gist is that there really is only 5 years between the two of them, if that. Buffy was about 21 in Season 6 and Dawn turned 16 that same year. She says she's 16 in S7, in S6 - she's 15, and in Season 4, 14 on the verge of 15. (Of course in reality, Nicholas Brendan was not 21 but 32 when the series ended and Michelle Trachenburg was 17...but that was similar to Cordy and Connor - who were 32 and 17 respectively.) On the Tv show - Dawn is in some respects following in big sis's footsteps. All of Buffy's boyfriends were much older. Angel - 247 years (turned at 26), Spike (129 years or turned at 26/29), Riley at least five years, Wood at least 10 years. Also actor wise - there was an age gap - Gellar was 17/18 when the show began, Brendan was 25/26, Boreanze 26/27, Marsters 32...
Is she of age? Well, assuming this is taking place after Angel S5 or a year after Chosen. I'd say Dawn is probably 18.
And Xander is 23. Basically the same age difference between Buffy and Riley, when Buffy was dating/boinking him.
On a more interesting meta level - or why is Whedon doing this?
My guess is Daddy issues. Both women have been abandoned by their father. Dawn earlier than Buffy, and Dawn to our knowledge has never really had the stable male role model outside of maybe Xander. (hence the squick - because in some respects Dawn saw Xander, Giles and Spike as her fathers...depending on the Season. Xander was of the three the most consistent and present.) It's why Buffy gravitated towards Angel (Angel falls for and pursues Buffy when she is 15. She falls for him at 16. She sleeps with him when she's turning 17.)
And when Angel leaves -she gravitates towards men who are older, with few exceptions (Scott Hope and Owen).
I think Joss went there with Xander/Dawn for much the same reasons he goes there with Cordy/Connor and Angel/Buffy's reaction is similar. I think we are supposed to be horrified in somewhat the same way Buffy is horrified. But it is also, like it was with Cordelia and Connor - a mirror to Buffy's own behavior and Angel's. Angel can't really complain about Cordy with Connor - considering he went after Buffy. Anymore than Buffy can chastise Dawn for going after Xander. It feels very ironic to me and Whedon excells at irony.
It it had been up to me, Buffy and Xander would've been together from the get go. Then we wouldn't have had the Angel, Riley and Spike goodness that followed, so listening to me would've been a really bad move.
Not to mention Xander/Cordelia or Anya. ;-) Hee. No, as I tried to explain to people online at the time: fiction writing rule of thumb - particularly when it comes to horror stories like Buffy, with just four lead characters and everyone else as romantic supporting - do not put the leads together in a romantic relationship - it limits your writing options, and can make your story formulaic and predictable. Unless of course you are planning on killing one of them - which is what Whedon did in Serenity and would have done here. If he put Xander and Buffy together - Xander would have died or been turned into a vampire - much like he did to Cordy once he put her and Angel together, she'd have had more longevity if she had just stayed Angel's friend. Whedon is definitely not a romance writer. ;-)