Why was Sarah Michelle Gellar known as the 'Duchess'?
POSTED BY: rkwalsh
UPDATED: Thursday, January 22, 2004 07:44
VIEWED: 33796
PAGE 5 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevetextor:
I imagine that she is justly afraid of being typecast.
I would be if I played the same role for 7 years on a popular cult show with a dedicated fandom.
But don't you feel she already is at this point, but no need to beat a dead horse deader, I would just really love to see her do a last dance on Angel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice discussion going on here. Let me offer some thoughts:
1. SMG has NO "duty" regarding Buffy. She got paid to do a job. On the one hand, she got money and fame, on the other, she runs the risk of typecasting. Her fans watched the show, but so what? We own her future career decisions? I would hope she'd have generally pleasant feelings toward us, but she is not my trained monkey, required to perform at my will.
2. I recall seeing a probably-overly-politic "official comment" saying that Sarah felt the "time wasn't right" to bring Buffy back. Anyone recall that? What if she really DOES think that? What if the story ideas Joss pitched were unattractive to her? I'd also heard she and JW were sometimes at odds over the direction of the show and the stuff Buffy went through. Now that she's no longer employed by Mutant Enemy, SMG has as much right to turn down an Angel script as she does any feature script that she might not like.
3. Has she had a film released since Buffy wrapped? Can you blame her for not wanting her first post-Buffy move to be ... playing Buffy? Give the girl a freakin' break.
4. This idea of diva ... what if she's a bit of a pain in the ass? What if she's not all that chummy on set, or unafraid to voice her opinions or use her status? She's ON A JOB, not at a junior-high sleepover. Professionalism is all that's required, and if we want to take the subtext of everyone calling her professional to mean yeah, professional, but not nice ... well, if she's nice enough to still be labeled professional, she's nice enough.
I do hope to see Buffy again ... maybe if Angel gets a next season, SMG will be up for it. But if not, then not.
"Bang."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
since everyone's talkin about angel. I pray to some kind of god that The O.C. (which is a good show) doesn't take any audience away from Angel, seeing as they've got the same time slot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SpikeSpiegel, here's my thoughts on your thoughts.
Quote:I think that a person in her position should feel a sense of duty to Buffy fans, and her apparent lack of that is what many of us are disappointed with.
1. SMG has NO "duty" regarding Buffy. She got paid to do a job. On the one hand, she got money and fame, on the other, she runs the risk of typecasting. Her fans watched the show, but so what? We own her future career decisions? I would hope she'd have generally pleasant feelings toward us, but she is not my trained monkey, required to perform at my will.
Quote:This could be the last season of Angel, therefore the only time possible, and if she just didn't like the script, I bet they'd be willing to modify it enough to appease her concerns.
2. I recall seeing a probably-overly-politic "official comment" saying that Sarah felt the "time wasn't right" to bring Buffy back. Anyone recall that? What if she really DOES think that? What if the story ideas Joss pitched were unattractive to her? I'd also heard she and JW were sometimes at odds over the direction of the show and the stuff Buffy went through. Now that she's no longer employed by Mutant Enemy, SMG has as much right to turn down an Angel script as she does any feature script that she might not like.
Quote:I think an appearance on Angel would only boost her audience for whatever project comes next.
3. Has she had a film released since Buffy wrapped? Can you blame her for not wanting her first post-Buffy move to be ... playing Buffy? Give the girl a freakin' break.
Quote:Being professional is fine, but that should include treating her co-workers with respect.
4. This idea of diva ... what if she's a bit of a pain in the ass? What if she's not all that chummy on set, or unafraid to voice her opinions or use her status? She's ON A JOB, not at a junior-high sleepover. Professionalism is all that's required, and if we want to take the subtext of everyone calling her professional to mean yeah, professional, but not nice ... well, if she's nice enough to still be labeled professional, she's nice enough.
Haken needs a new development system. Please donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyone remember that Jeff Pruitt and Sophia Crawford mess? Jeff publicly stated that he basically hated Sarah and Sarah was the reason they got fired. At the end of the fourth season.
And he claimed Sarah was a huge diva. Of course, he was pretty sour after being fired, but he did work there.
Jeff was the stuntcoordinator and Sophia was Sarahs stunt double. After their firing the stuntwork went way down.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Justdavid, I'm gonna strongly disagree with you, but don't take it personal:
Quote:
Originally posted by JustDavid:
I think that a person in her position should feel a sense of duty to Buffy fans, and her apparent lack of that is what many of us are disappointed with.
Yes, but that's where the problem lies. You think she "should," but she doesn't have to. She owes us nothing. We owe her nothing. If she owes it to us to reprise Buffy on command, what else will you demand? Since we're fans of her as a tough, empowered heroine, perhaps she "owes" it to us to never play a weak/passive/victimized woman? Or maybe we should hold her obligated to never play a villain?
When you say she "should" do something, you have no basis for that demand. You're essentially restricting her freedom to make choices, to control her career, based on what? That you used to watch her show? What about a fan who loved her as a soap actress and thought she owed it to her soap fans not to do some silly vampire show when she SHOULD be on daytime TV?
Quote:
This could be the last season of Angel, therefore the only time possible, and if she just didn't like the script, I bet they'd be willing to modify it enough to appease her concerns.
Your "bet" there is too speculative. You don't know what her concerns were. We only know they didn't succeed in getting her. The fact that she's NOT doing the show tells us one thing: They did NOT pitch her a story so good, it overcame whatever other resistance she might've had. And as for it being Angel's last season, maybe. Not her problem. Again, being Buffy is no longer her job, and it's not her obligation.
Quote:
I think an appearance on Angel would only boost her audience for whatever project comes next.
You think that. But she might think otherwise. Clearly, the fact she turned down the gig means that she didn't find that possibility so compelling that it overcame whatever other reasons she had for not doing it.
Quote:
Being professional is fine, but that should include treating her co-workers with respect.
That's what I said. She doesn't have to be their friend, and she doesn't need them to like her.
Her career is her business, her art (one presumes) and her future, and she owes it to HERSELF to manage that as she sees fit. You think an Angel shot would be a help. She might think that after seven years as Buffy, an ep or two of Angel ain't gonna do anything more. She may think that it's time to devote herself to her movie career, considering that other than Buffy, her work to date has been slight. She's at a very delicate transition right now, and meeting the demands of fans who feel an entitlement to her fictional persona should not be on her agenda.
"Bang."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, we can all agree she's being selfish. SpikeSpiegel's point is that people have a right to be selfish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, Succatash, with the caveat that I don't really know why she said "no," so selfish might only apply in the sense that almost any decision can be seen as selfish (I work at this job here because they pay me enough money. I spend time with my friends because they're nice to me ...).
In fact, since we don't know what they wanted her to do (say, a wearisome ep rehashing her affairs with Spike and Angel ... sigh ...) she might have been very much living up to any "obligation" to her fans by not giving us something disappointing.
('course, if that were the motivation, she should've bowed out of most of the last two seasons of "Buffy," but that's another impassioned thread ...)
"Bang."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, those people who think otherwise about SMG's selfishness and poor choices can certainly make an attempt to influence her decisions. You can do so with a positive spin or a negative spin. Send her big fan letters to let her know how much you appreciate what she has done as an actor - maybe remind her that there are still lots of fans out there and lots of history. Or you can choose to do so with some negative influence, actively boycott and influence others to boycott her shows and work; send letters to her director, agencies, studios - maybe after she will ready to reprise her role then...
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Spikespiegel,
I have to say, you're making a whole lot of sense to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME