Buffyverse

"Bored now."

POSTED BY: Knibblet
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 8, 2004 20:04
VIEWED: 10971
PAGE 3 of 4

Sunday, May 30, 2004 3:22 PM

Lennier wrote:

Quote:


when I try to talk about this sort of stuff on Buffy boards I usually get a "shut yer hole, season 6 sucks and your comments about Willow are wrong".


What?!???

Let me get this straight... the Buffy FANS (fans thay say eh?) don't get this? I'm completely shocked and dismayed. What the frell is that all about???

It's rather plain from what I've read that your assessment of Willows' psycological makeup is bang on. And I'm sure I've read a few Marti, Tim, Joss interviews that would pan out that conclusion.

They can't be real fans, just kids who like Buffys' clothes?

Lennier, you are right on about Willow. If anyone tells ya different thay aren't paying attention. And I apparently ride a really high falutin' horse so I know I'm right and everyone is intitled to my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:25 PM

I have to third the "who doesn't" comment. although I'm usually into boys I can't resist Willow. and I'm almost sure no sane and healthy person should be able to resist Willow.

and about her 'problems' with magic: I have to say it seemed to me about the way you described it. she always felt useless, unimportant, not adequate and had to look for something to define herself by. magic was a way to be special and a way to help Buffy fight the good fight. be a productive part of the team.

Xander was about in the same place to start with but he somhow managed to define himself by being himself (steady, brave, goodnatured, optimistic) and being ok with it. he really treasured every time someone (Buffy or Giles) told him he did good or he was important but he seemed to be able to live with being just Joe Normal most of the time. he fetched the snackfood and helped as well as he could and somehow he was centered enough in his own personality. The Zeppo was a whole episode all about how Xander coped with being normal. and cope he did.

he did what Willow should have done. instead Willow was the computer crack and it wasn't enough for her. she was too small and not strong enough to help with the fighting and Giles was too much the brain of the gang for her intellect to be much needed and even if it were it wasn't good enough. she was always from the beginning to the end searching for something to make herself better or worth anything to the gang. and I think she was always easy to seduce by power of any kind, because she maybe felt powerless growing up, being ignored and analysed by her parents and being kicked around by people like Cordy. and she always was defensive and secretive about her search for power. she always answered any kind of caution with "Don't you trust me? Don't you think I'm good enough?". and there's probably no right answer to that one if you're in Giles' or Buffy's shoes. the warnings are valid but if she perceives it as a sign of untrustworthiness or lack of ability on he side it has to drive her deeper into the seek for power and something to make her strong and useful.
I think it had to blow up sooner or later and it was very well handled in S6.

Idefix

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2004 2:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Lennier wrote:
Quote:


when I try to talk about this sort of stuff on Buffy boards I usually get a "shut yer hole, season 6 sucks and your comments about Willow are wrong".


What?!???

Let me get this straight... the Buffy FANS (fans thay say eh?) don't get this? I'm completely shocked and dismayed. What the frell is that all about???

It's rather plain from what I've read that your assessment of Willows' psycological makeup is bang on. And I'm sure I've read a few Marti, Tim, Joss interviews that would pan out that conclusion.

They can't be real fans, just kids who like Buffys' clothes?

Lennier, you are right on about Willow. If anyone tells ya different thay aren't paying attention. And I apparently ride a really high falutin' horse so I know I'm right and everyone is intitled to my opinion.




thank you so much!

As for their reaction, there are certainly many 'mature' adults who are saying this (at least judging by their wording), this isn't just a case of some annoying kids/teens (though I'm sure that accounts for a good portion of it). The problem is, a lot of Buffy fans loved things about the first few seasons so much that they can't let go, and can't grow up with the show, or appreciate the different artistic directions joss wanted to go in. A lot of them feel betrayed by what happened later. Personally, I think the real quality showed up in seasons 4 - 6 (not that 2 and 3 aren't also brilliant and well made), even though I admit they don't tend to have the kind of enjoyable or surprising emotional payoff that the early seasons did. So when you even try to talk about stuff relating to season 6, there's a huge bias against it by many *many* fans (and I've found people on boards tend to react before thinking, or else form a fixed opinion, and may have some semi-logical reasons for it, but not be willing to take a second look at their reasons).

A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that Willow's personality in season 6 is completely inconsistent with what came before (which may be true on the shallowest level, but...), and that the writers were basically screwing up for the entire season. A lot of people especially had problems with the drug metaphor, they thought the character would never do that, and that it was just a cliche (but what isn't on Buffy or Firefly? --it's all about re-understanding cliches that we took for granted and making new use and creative of them), and they thought "Wrecked" was an 'after school special' (which is ridiculous, 'cause it wasn't at all about saying 'drugs are bad', it was just using the drug metaphor as an important part of Willow's journey, and showed that this particular way of using 'drugs', or anything equivalent could be bad ...as I said, I think they generalized it to being a universal problem with the transition-to-adulthood that was much larger than drugs specifically. And in fact, I think it's just about the best and most meaningful treatment of drugs that I've ever seen on tv, even though it wasn't 'the point' in the way that some people seemed to think it was (ie. it wasn't an episode constructed to be a pedantic message about drugs!). )
sorry to rant, I get annoyed about this stuff.
Anyhow, a combination of Willow's shift in surface behaviour, with people's distaste for season 6 and the later seasons in general, with the drug stuff that a lot of people reacted badly too (which I'll add, I think is a 'knee jerk' reaction ...we've just seen too many badly-done drug stories that whenever we see it we assume it must be bad, even in a case like "Wrecked" where it's used brilliantly), a combination of all this stuff makes people just blank out anything I have to say in trying to explain Willow's character in relation to those events. Some people I've talked to do have some developed arguements, but it always seems as if there's an obvious flaw in them that I can't get them to notice, and I can't get them to listen to my own lo

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2004 3:01 AM

The seasons I liked best were, in order of fav to least: five, two, three, seven, six, one, and four. There are many reasons I put them in this order, the main is not just how well they were put together (which would put seasons six and seven right behind five in the favs slot), but how I felt about that year in general. Season seven had FF starting, and ending, during that run, so there are some issues there. Season six WAS a downer and, tho I loved how much it emulated real life, "down" episodes hit me rather hard emotionally. Great season, no doubt, and a WONDERFUL ending (Xander saves the world? Woo hoo!), but what a rough ride! I think the main detractors from the later seasons are just used to normal, SAFE, TV, which doesn't take its characters to such incredible depths. I guess many were just expecting Willow to "get over it" in an episode or two and move on. Very UNLIKE real life.

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 3:38 PM

Lennier,
Season 6 was the best season in my opinion as the characters went well beyond mere TV melo-drama.

The characters "grew up" in believable ways. Human ways. Real ways. So... you know, did one feel betrayed when Hamlet killed Ophilia? Jesus... who are these people that didn't like season 6? Do they hate the ep the Body? That show was what got me interested in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Joss Whedon in general.

And I have a high horse to prove it!

Willow is the ONLY character who could fall into a "drug" habit (metaphorically or not). Willow did these things all the time, whether it was drugs or magic wasn't the point. Willow would scare her mother or get irrational - and these things are psychological signs that she could, in fact, loose herself.

If the so called fans can't see this they are in for a big surprise when they grow up and thier own friends start behaving in so called "out of character" ways *chuckle*... some peoples children. Honestly!

And Mari Noxon (name right?) is right to say the fans got what they need. Anything else would be pandering... which is what most culture does and which is why most culture is crap.

Lennier... have you ever thought about becoming a writer? You know character!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Idefix:
SNIP!er or later and it was very well handled in S6.

Idefix


You know, if one looked I bet we could find examples that demonstrate your ruminations here. Nice work. :)

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, June 6, 2004 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Lennier,
Season 6 was the best season in my opinion as the characters went well beyond mere TV melo-drama.



just for the record (though you probably didn't mean it this way), Buffy never was mere tv melodrama ...in the earlier seasons, it was too much an action/comedy/horror (and with a point) to be that, and in the later seasons, as you say, the characters grew up in believable ways (and also, the thematic content became stronger, which you don't see in tv melodrama) ...some people argue that the show became blandly melodramatic in the later seasons, that it was only creative initially ...I agree that it is 'more' like a melodrama in the later seasons (and I agree that it went 'dangerously' close to straight melodrama in certain episodes of season 6), but only in the sense that there was more drama and it was more about the characters for their own sake, which isn't itself a bad thing, as long as they don't do totally-straight-drama (which never actually happened, it always stayed a little off-key) for several episodes in a row, and as long as it still means something (drama is only bad in tv because most tv does it badly, and without a thematic reason, or with bad performances, or without a style, or with characters who are not complex enough or who don't have any 'personality', ie. things that make them unique and strange).

Also, I do think the performances became much more complex in the later seasons, 'despite' being more dramatic; the early season may have been obvious about being 'different', but the later seasons have carried that forward into more subtle territory ...particularly, the way the comedy intermingles with all the other styles becomes much more 'refined' (for lack of a better word) and integrated in the later seasons. In the first 2 seasons, you can 'see' how the styles collide, but starting with season 3, I think they actually began creating a 'new' style ...when I try to really explain it or separate out its parts, my head starts to hurt, because you can't ...they truly 'fused' everything together.
ok, I'm writing this quickly and vaguely, this may not make perfect sense... all I mean to say is that in my opinion the style is even more complex in later seasons, even though it's not as obviously 'weird' (also, part of that lack of weirdness is just that we've gotten used to it---anyone jumping in to the show still says "what the...?"), and at the same time, I appreciate that the early seasons were more blunt about it, I appreciate that as an essential phase of the show that had its own kind of value (though season 1, only barely *g*).

Since you mentioned that in your opinion season 6 is the best season, I'll just say that myself I feel that season 4 and 5 and 6 are almost exactly equal in quality (though each for COMPLETELY different reasons). And actually, as for example one of the posts by someone in this thread, I think season 4 needs defending a lot more than season 6 (season 6 got a louder negative response, but it has a LOT of people defending it, and rightly so; season 4 doesn't have so many people actively defending it, but I think it deserves it just as much---it was the intellectual/experimental season, and in a way I think the actors and writers hit the top of their game that season, just in terms of execution. In a way it's the season that is most clearly making an effort to put the show into 'art' territory; it was the first season to have a fully-coherent set of ideas developed across the season in almost every single episode, in every character and subtext ...though admitedly, the themes themselves are partly about the incoherency of exploration and discovery, so when joss calls the season 'weirdly incoherent' he's also right, and that's exactly how the season had to be to express its ideas; also, season 4 had some of their best directing and cinematography).

Quote:


The characters "grew up" in believable ways. Human ways. Real ways. So... you know, did one feel betrayed when Hamlet killed Ophilia? Jesus

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, June 6, 2004 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lennier:
SNIP!


Wow. Did I say wow? Funny but when I read your post it's pretty obvious I'm wrong about season 6. And in more than a few ways! Great post. Terrific analysis and comments.

Sorry I can't be in depth guy here but my life is tooo busy. Luckily I happened to be in the office this sunday awaiting the D-Day parade so here I am trying to come up with something intellegent to match your post. Wish me luck! I feel like i'm following a really great act... *chuckle*

Lately I've caught the earlier seasons on reruns and when I think of your comments I see the larger Joss 'verse and remembered that the continuity in character is rock solid but subject to human nature. Which is why it's sooo great! And here I am thinking you should be a writer as you've just demonstratged a natural talent for structure. Something writers struggle with all thier lives and often fail at. Nice work!

And I think I'm backwards about melo-drama just as you say though I don't think melo-drama is neccessarily a bad thing. And I think you explain that perfectly well and point out what makes it work as a drama.

... I just have compliments for you here.

Oh, I do have an opinion about the academics you mention...

Quote:

ok, enough flattery!
I've thought about writing essays and finding a place to have them published ...but I'm not actually an arts student currently, so I feel like I'm not 'supposed' to do this ...and I'm simultaneously put-off and inspired by how awful and misguided many of the 'academic' papers on Buffy have been (though there are a few real gems). There was actually a paper at the most recent conference about the 'dead/evil lesbian cliche' ...that's ALL they had to say about Tara, that she was an example of the fact that joss is a Heterosexual White Male who hates lesbians, or something. Pop-culture analysis makes me sick because it just assumes what it is postulating, and assumes that the work it's talking about is too clumsy to have an internal coherency that might overide their assumptions; they just pick out whatever random elements they want to argue their case, and ignore the context, not really caring what is actually going on inside the work; all they care about are surface appearances and how they can relate them to cultural trends. I've even seen pop analysis that treats buffy as that girl-kicking-ass-in-a-miniskirt cliche that has almost nothing to do with the series at all (aside from season 1); ie. treating her as a 'xena' type stereotype that is a 'false' feminism where their sexiness 'undercuts' their power (and frankly, even xena doesn't deserve that kind of treatment! that type of analysis should be reserved for things like "Charlie's Angels"---i would actually agree in that case, they try to sell them as sex-objects 'before' showing them as empowered women).


I read that in the U.S. there are academics looking into Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a well oiled philosophy machine. The main characters in some seasons followed Platonian ethics and such. Kant is talked about and so on. In fact, I have a friend who is a philosophy guy (you can tell because he quit a month before getting his PHd and is jobless) and we have mulled over a few Buffy-isms and he marveled at the last season where the Buffster took on a leadership role like no other. A leader with an army and an enemy. And a leader who was falible. A leader who got people killed. Drama? Oh yes! Makes West Wing look silly wha?

And I have a BIG bone to pick with smarmy little intellectually stunted English Profs who like to "cut and paste" thier cultural constructs onto anything. I feel that's a cheat. If you want to talk about the symbolism, metaphor, and meaning of Art you must demonstrate your opinions and observations onto the Art being deconstructed. That is, if the elements in the Art don't demonstrate the smarmy Profs thoery then the theory must be wrong.

Take Buffy at face value. Teen sex kitten who fights demons. Pretty comic bo

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2004 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Wow. Did I say wow? Funny but when I read your post it's pretty obvious I'm wrong about season 6. And in more than a few ways! Great post. Terrific analysis and comments.




whoa, I wasn't trying to get you to change your mind! that's why I made a point of saying I wasn't being antagonistic... I thought you had a good point of view, that also agrees with mine 'within error margins'. I only wanted to make a point of saying what my own opinion was, and that I didn't want to leave out s4 and s5. The most I was hoping for was a "yes, s4 and s5 are also good".

Anyhow, I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't writing that to change your mind, only to offer my perspective. If I try to change your mind, you'll feel it.
I just worry that my 'voice' often comes off as confrontational, even when I don't mean to be; here I was trying to add something, i was not trying to nulify or attack anything that you said. And especially, I was not in any way critisizing s6 for any 'lack' (and I completely agree with the full extent of your praise of it), I was only pointing out that other seasons did certain things better (or just 'different'), and was trying to explain why I felt they deserved a place beside s6.

Quote:


Quote:


I've thought about writing essays and finding a place to have them published ...but I'm not actually an arts student currently, so I feel like I'm not 'supposed' to do this ...and I'm simultaneously put-off and inspired by how awful and misguided many of the 'academic' papers on Buffy have been (though there are a few real gems). There was actually a paper at the most recent conference about the 'dead/evil lesbian cliche' ...that's ALL they had to say about Tara, that she was an example of the fact that joss is a Heterosexual White Male who hates lesbians, or something. Pop-culture analysis makes me sick because it just assumes what it is postulating, and assumes that the work it's talking about is too clumsy to have an internal coherency that might overide their assumptions; they just pick out whatever random elements they want to argue their case, and ignore the context, not really caring what is actually going on inside the work; all they care about are surface appearances and how they can relate them to cultural trends. I've even seen pop analysis that treats buffy as that girl-kicking-ass-in-a-miniskirt cliche that has almost nothing to do with the series at all (aside from season 1); ie. treating her as a 'xena' type stereotype that is a 'false' feminism where their sexiness 'undercuts' their power (and frankly, even xena doesn't deserve that kind of treatment! that type of analysis should be reserved for things like "Charlie's Angels"---i would actually agree in that case, they try to sell them as sex-objects 'before' showing them as empowered women).


I read that in the U.S. there are academics looking into Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a well oiled philosophy machine. The main characters in some seasons followed Platonian ethics and such. Kant is talked about and so on. In fact, I have a friend who is a philosophy guy (you can tell because he quit a month before getting his PHd and is jobless) and we have mulled over a few Buffy-isms and he marveled at the last season where the Buffster took on a leadership role like no other. A leader with an army and an enemy. And a leader who was falible. A leader who got people killed. Drama? Oh yes! Makes West Wing look silly wha?



Yes! I've been neglecting to mention season 7, only because its overall quality is not as clear-cut in my mind as s4-s6, so I'm not quite ready to call it 'a nearly perfect masterpiece' in the way that I would for s4-s6 (which is not to say that it's not just as good, but currently there are a few things that make me uncertain about it ...and my gut feeling is that it's just slightly 'under', though still extraordinary and important) ...but for reasons such as the one you mention, it is an extraordinary season that took the

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, June 7, 2004 11:47 PM

You guys have said some interesting things, so I thought I'd chime in with some loose change.

Goulman, I am not a smelly fanboy. I am neither smelly nor a boy. Also, it's completely not important to anybody but me, and it's an easy mistake to make, but Hamlet didn't kill Ophelia. She went crazy and killed herself. Hamlet's actions played a major part, but she already had issues, and she did the deed herself.

I agree that season 6 was good. It's my personal favorite. I think one of the reasons people don't like it is because they set up an expectation of what an episode of Buffy should be. If you go in looking for every episode to be "Surprise," then you're going to be disappointed. Have no expectations, and you'll like what you see because Joss is always trying something new. I love how many episode endings found me still open-mouthed and silent five minutes later. I felt that way because I never tried to predict what would happen, so I was never disappointed. I simply analyzed what I saw, like you guys are doing.

Season seven was so coherent. Every episode from beginning to end was pushing to one goal. It opens with power, it closes with power and who has it. And in between it focuses on Buffy's solitude. Good stuff.

Just some rambling thoughts I had while I was reading your posts.



"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME