Set, tmdq, I assure you, he killed off characters you enjoyed with grim intent and nothing but malice in his heart. Rebuke him! Let him know that such writing is unacceptable!
Personally, I really like that he is willing to kill of characters, and find he does it to great dramatic effect.
|
Set, tmdq, I assure you, he killed off characters you enjoyed with grim intent and nothing but malice in his heart. Rebuke him! Let him know that such writing is unacceptable!Personally, I really like that he is willing to kill of characters, and find he does it to great dramatic effect.
Depends on the death. Tara's death served a narrative purpose (and it would have been Oz, according to Joss, if Willow was still with Oz, which I would have preferred, since I never liked him...). It may have been an eye-rollingly bad 'Dark Phoenix Willow' story, but it still served a purpose. (Although I'm so over female characters being killed or maimed or whatever as a motivator for some other character's development... At least when something terrible happened to Buffy, it wasn't part of her boyfriend's revenge rampage arc, but part of her revenge rampage character arc!)
Anya's death was 'oh, and I decided to kill someone in the finale.' In a 'blink and you missed it' scene, after the human-strength Anya inexplicably cleaves two nigh-indestructible ubervamps in half with a single swing of a mundane sword she can barely lift, she gets cut in half herself by a human-strength bringer with a small-ish knife. (This after a scene where she tells a group of human-strength girls that they can stake uber-vamps that Buffy herself couldn't stake, and that holy water, which Buffy burned one with, doesn't hurt them at all, making it seem like Anya'd been killed and replaced by an evil doppleganger anyway, thanks to the craptacular writing that season...)
Book's death wasn't much better. The events leading to his death happpened off-screen, and, as tends to happen in movies, he lingered on long enough to have a good-bye speech, making his death two cheap gimmicks in one...
Wash's death was the best-written, IMO. It was simple, shocking, effective, and had consequences reflected in Zoe's later actions and words. "She's banged up, but she'll fly true."
Cordelia died as a character long before her actress stopped getting paid, IMO. So did Xander, really, although his actor got to hang around the set longer.
Xanders dead? No "yes, I'm out of the series!" moments?
Ah, nm.
Set, tmdq, I assure you, he killed off characters you enjoyed with grim intent and nothing but malice in his heart. Rebuke him! Let him know that such writing is unacceptable!Personally, I really like that he is willing to kill of characters, and find he does it to great dramatic effect.
Some of the deaths have been dramatic (see Wash).
Some of them have been more about, "Well, it's time I killed someone." It's a cheap move to push the plot along and cause a reaction that serves no narrative purpose. The thing is, after awhile, I realized, Oh, at some point, characters I like will die because Joss thinks that makes for cool drama. And then I come to prepare myself for it, not get attached to characters, and then fail to feel any drama when it happens because it's expected routine.
TL;DR: I feel personally that Joss Whedon turned character death into routine, which is the opposite of "dramatic effect."
Also, I'm pretty sure he wants to kill me. Quirky, geeky, socially awkward, queer hippie girl--if I ever meet him, I will have the pepper spray out preemptively, just in case he's got a knife.
(I still really liked The Avengers though.)
|
|
Apparently it was NOT his idea in Avengers to ** spoiler omitted **
[Avengers tangent]
It seemed necessary, really.The name doesn't really 'work' if there's nothing to avenge, and it's a bit early in the Marvel movie paradigm to kill someone like Fury (and possibly incure the wrath of Sam Jackson). :)
I was impressed with how well Joss handled the various characters, and how he managed to give both Hawkeye and Black Widow some great moments to shine (even if some of Hawkeyes more impressive feats happened while under Loki's control, he still got to be badass). Given past Joss shows, where folk without super-powers have occasionally been treated like stones around the neck of the super-peeps that just hold them back and get in the way, I was wondering if Hawkeye and Black Widow (and, to a lesser extent, Captain America) would come off as chumps next to Iron Man, Thor and the Hulk.
Instead we got to see Clint nearly take out the SHIELD helicarrier and Natasha *play* the god of trickery, which was actually believable, since Loki is just that arrogant.
I did miss Jan and Hank from the starting line-up, but that wasn't Joss' call to make, really.
It's kind of awkward for Marvel, as they move into the movie mainstream, that, of their four classic female heroes from the beginning, Sue, Jean, Jan and Wanda, Sue's the only one not currently suffering from a slight case of death or 'women can't handle power'/evil/crazy-ness.
[/Avengers tangent]
Set, tmdq, I assure you, he killed off characters you enjoyed with grim intent and nothing but malice in his heart. Rebuke him! Let him know that such writing is unacceptable!Personally, I really like that he is willing to kill of characters, and find he does it to great dramatic effect.Some of the deaths have been dramatic (see Wash).
Some of them have been more about, "Well, it's time I killed someone." It's a cheap move to push the plot along and cause a reaction that serves no narrative purpose. The thing is, after awhile, I realized, Oh, at some point, characters I like will die because Joss thinks that makes for cool drama. And then I come to prepare myself for it, not get attached to characters, and then fail to feel any drama when it happens because it's expected routine.
TL;DR: I feel personally that Joss Whedon turned character death into routine, which is the opposite of "dramatic effect."
Also, I'm pretty sure he wants to kill me. Quirky, geeky, socially awkward, queer hippie girl--if I ever meet him, I will have the pepper spray out preemptively, just in case he's got a knife.
(I still really liked The Avengers though.)
I will do what I can to keep you safe from Whedon. Wear this necklace of Haterade(tm), it should keep you safe from him as long as you don't look directly into his eyes.
Apparently it was NOT his idea in Avengers to ** spoiler omitted **[Avengers tangent]
It seemed necessary, really.The name doesn't really 'work' if there's nothing to avenge, and it's a bit early in the Marvel movie paradigm to kill someone like Fury (and possibly incure the wrath of Sam Jackson). :)
I was impressed with how well Joss handled the various characters, and how he managed to give both Hawkeye and Black Widow some great moments to shine (even if some of Hawkeyes more impressive feats happened while under Loki's control, he still got to be badass). Given past Joss shows, where folk without super-powers have occasionally been treated like stones around the neck of the super-peeps that just hold them back and get in the way, I was wondering if Hawkeye and Black Widow (and, to a lesser extent, Captain America) would come off as chumps next to Iron Man, Thor and the Hulk.
Instead we got to see Clint nearly take out the SHIELD helicarrier and Natasha *play* the god of trickery, which was actually believable, since Loki is just that arrogant.
I did miss Jan and Hank from the starting line-up, but that wasn't Joss' call to make, really.
It's kind of awkward for Marvel, as they move into the movie mainstream, that, of their four classic female heroes from the beginning, Sue, Jean, Jan and Wanda, Sue's the only one not currently suffering from a slight case of death or 'women can't handle power'/evil/crazy-ness.
[/Avengers tangent]
An interesting viewpoint I respect, but I don't agree with re: Whedon.
|
I loved Fred Fred was great then again I liked all of the Angel characters so.
I thought it was good to see Cordelia grow up too? In Buffy she always got on my nerves, but in Angel she learned loss and suffering and friendship.
Angel himself is always great because he's a VAMPIRE I mean come on how are you not (sexually) intrigued?
Firefly now if you said movie that would be Avengers his latest endeavour and no morse intended!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Whedon for the most part, but I'm starting to get annoyed with his over the top feminism ideas. The Avengers was great, except for the Black Widow. I think she had more play time and overshined the entire other cast just to cator to the badass woman fanclub, but she was both a weak/boring character otherwise and distracted from the movie.
As for the TV shows, it's a difficult choice, but I went with Angel. Firefly was a very close (equal?) second, but it is so different from the Buffy verse it really isn't a comparison. Buffy was good too, but again we see this over the top female lead for the purpose of a female lead.
I agree that for most of the shows, the supporting cast was the best, except in Angel.
In Angel, I loved Fred probaly the most, as she was probably the most realistic and human. I liked Angel and I really liked Spike vs Angel towards the end. I didn't really dislike any character, and unlike with Buffy, I didn't start rooting for the "big bad" fairly soon.
In Buffy, I liked Xander, (evil) Giles, Anya, Spike, evil Angel, early Willow, and Oz. Favorate would have to be . . . I don't know, (early) Spike was funny as heck. Oz was kind of mysterious and coldly funny. Probably Giles. Great lines, a lot more power than he reveals, and for the most part has everything figured out, just no one listens to him and everything gets all messed up.
Firefly, couldn't stand Mal. He was annoying at best, but that's really it. The other aspects indirectly tied to the character where great, but I hated the specific charcter. I love the siblings, and especially the caretaker aspect. Jayne, like Spike was amazingly funny. Zoe, I'm not sue I don't dislike her, but she seems like a really poor 2nd in command whenever she actually had to command, with the exception of "it's girl shine time just because". She fails to emotionally satisfy her husband most of the time it seems, and I'm just not sure what her point is, what her part in the group was suppossed to be except to support and build up Mal's character. Like I said, I don't hate her, I just am not drawn to her either. The Doc I think is my favorate, both because he is the most realistic, passionate, and dramatic of the character's situations. He has a motivation, and a calling, and he has his broken sis, and he has the most to lose. He chose to be what he is, sacrificing his other family, his money, his good life, everything for a sister he truely cares about more than himself. Kayle is perfect. I liked "Preacher" too, because for one he seems really at odds with the scoundrel, but both finds a place and a voice among them, and matters. Preacher and Doc are the heart and soul of the show offering a sense of morality as oppossed to other unamed codes.
Never really any nterest in Dollhouse, and I didn't watch Rosanne on purpose.
Angel himself is always great because he's a VAMPIRE I mean come on how are you not (sexually) intrigued?
Intrigued by Moody McForehead? Not in the slightest. He's the least interesting of any Whedon character I can think of. Angel wasn't that engaging a show to me until Spike showed up. It got better in the latter seasons, but I didn't watch it regularly until the final season.
Firefly, couldn't stand Mal. He was annoying at best, but that's really it. The other aspects indirectly tied to the character where great, but I hated the specific charcter.
I have to disagree here.
Mal was clearly a flawed character, but he was heroic, and his irrevocable protection of those he cared about was pretty clear.
I agree that Simon was the "best" character; perfectly cast, believable, and the one who'd given up every shred of his very comfy life to save his sister, only to be hunted in a situation in which he didn't belong.
All the same, he was courageous, if not a tough guy, and his awkwardness with Kaylee made him even more human and endearing. He was a very righteous character, and selfless, without acting like he thought of himself as a martyr, though he was, at times.
I like Mal, though, because he IS annoying. He wasn't trying to be best buddies with anyone. He trusted his crew, and that was about it. He gave Simon and River the benefit of the doubt over and over, because he defined the universe as "his crew," and everything else wasn't.
Serenity gave us a glimpse of what River was capable of. In the end, she trusted Simon and Mal. Mal always had a soft spot for the Tams, but he lived in a very different place than what they had known.
Had the show lasted longer, River's character arc would have made her the "Buffy," and Mal and Simon would have been the ones to try to keep her grounded. Mal was a prick on the outside, which he had to be. His over-the-top protection of the 2 people who brought him the most trouble indicates that he was always kinder than he let on.
Zoe wasn't developed enough, but she was simply a tough warrior who still trusted Mal, after fighting alongside him. She trusts him because they'd done so much together and survived. She didn't want to be the boss. She just wanted a boss she trusted, and she had that in Mal. He listened to her, and never disrespected her. She had his ear more than anyone, and never abused it. They were friends, with a hierarchy, because they both needed that.
Zoe was a soldier, before anything. Mal trusted her far more than anyone else on the ship. Their relationship is the reason there's any semblance of order at all. No one else called him "sir" all the time. Her loyalty is believable because of their history and their situation.
|
|
Firefly, couldn't stand Mal. He was annoying at best, but that's really it. The other aspects indirectly tied to the character where great, but I hated the specific charcter.
I have to disagree here.
Mal was clearly a flawed character, but he was heroic, and his irrevocable protection of those he cared about was pretty clear.
I like Mal, though, because he IS annoying. He wasn't trying to be best buddies with anyone. He trusted his crew, and that was about it. He gave Simon and River the benefit of the doubt over and over, because he defined the universe as "his crew," and everything else wasn't.
Maybe. Just my opinion, but I'm still thinking his character (I like the actor otherwise) was the weak link. Can't take a punch in the face when he damn well deserves it, (which is probably the weakest punch he has ever had, too), and gets butt hurt instead. As a Cpt, he doesn't take much personal responsibilty, just talks a good game.
My understanding from most people I talk to is that Mal is their favorate character, Jayne a close second.
Cordelia died as a character long before her actress stopped getting paid, IMO. So did Xander, really, although his actor got to hang around the set longer.
This was a major weakness of Whedon. He made friends with the actors on his show, hung out with them and so on, so was reluctant to write them out of the show when he really needed to. Oz had some good stuff in Seasons 2 and 4 when he wasn't a regular, but during Season 3, when he was actually a regular, he had absolutely nothing at all to do and was clearly only still on the show because Whedon liked Seth Green. The same thing happened with Emma Caulfield (Anya was completely superfluous for the last season and arguably much of the preceding one) and certainly Nicholas Brendon, though that was justified in the Season 6 finale and a few other moments here and there.
On ANGEL the same problem didn't recur quite as much. Generally characters were ejected once they were no longer needed (probably due to Whedon not being as hands-on as he was with BUFFY), though an argument could be made that Lorne really didn't have a lot to do in the last season. He did kind of make up for that in the finale (Lindsay's disbelief at Lorne fighting him in the epic final confrontation rather than Angel was priceless) and a few other stories here and there, so it wasn't quite as much a problem.
Cordelia died as a character long before her actress stopped getting paid, IMO. So did Xander, really, although his actor got to hang around the set longer.
If only Xander could see from his left eye while leaving the
final battle. Then he would have seen Anya laying there. Perhapsit is best he did not.
.
Cordelia died as a character long before her actress stopped getting paid, IMO. So did Xander, really, although his actor got to hang around the set longer.This was a major weakness of Whedon. He made friends with the actors on his show, hung out with them and so on, so was reluctant to write them out of the show when he really needed to. Oz had some good stuff in Seasons 2 and 4 when he wasn't a regular, but during Season 3, when he was actually a regular, he had absolutely nothing at all to do and was clearly only still on the show because Whedon liked Seth Green. The same thing happened with Emma Caulfield (Anya was completely superfluous for the last season and arguably much of the preceding one) and certainly Nicholas Brendon, though that was justified in the Season 6 finale and a few other moments here and there.
On ANGEL the same problem didn't recur quite as much. Generally characters were ejected once they were no longer needed (probably due to Whedon not being as hands-on as he was with BUFFY), though an argument could be made that Lorne really didn't have a lot to do in the last season. He did kind of make up for that in the finale (Lindsay's disbelief at Lorne fighting him in the epic final confrontation rather than Angel was priceless) and a few other stories here and there, so it wasn't quite as much a problem.
Honestly, I would have been more annoyed if he wrote off the characters. Just because someone is no longer a prominent role doesn't mean they no longer exist. Sure, the supporting cast didn't have as much to do as he delved more into Buffy, but they still had moments and enhanced the story. The only character I felt was treated poorly was the annoying guy from the trio in the last season, who they should have written off.
I was more disappointed with characters continuously disappearing in Angel and never being heard from again.
|
Interesting to me to see those that like Firefly, but don't like Mal. Mal is Firefly. The show really revolves around Mal. He is the glue that hold all the other characters together, and more so with Inara. I found their relationship to be very interesting and unique. Mal was a very morale character that had fallen in many ways; yet still maintains a certain sense of morality. He was complex. His complexity attracted Inara to him. And to add to it, Nathan Fillion is a comic. So some of Nathan couldn't help but come out in Mal. Same is true for Castle.
Sheppard Book's death was way to premature. There was too many things left unanswered with his character.
Wash's death was tragic, but really not a surprise. Alan Tudyk may never have as juicy a role as Wash. But quite frankly this is true for all of the cast of Firefly. Very rarely does an ensemble cast of relatively no-name actors of this caliber come along. YMMV!
Later,
Mazra
Interesting to me to see those that like Firefly, but don't like Mal. Mal is Firefly. ...
What? Huh?
Back in grad school, I wrote a paper about Mal -- it was titled "Mal: The Face of Leadership"
.
Buffy. I love Spike and when the good went evil. ...in fact I love them all. Even bought the DVD-bok.
Angel second.
Haven't seen Firefly. Will check it out after having read this thread :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firefly.
"How does your brain even comprehend human speech? I'm just so curious!" - Wash
"Doesn't the bible say something against killing people?" "It does. It is however, a little more murky on the subject of kneecaps." -Mal and Book
"Besides, I could kill you with my brain." - River
"Doesn't the bible say something against killing people?" "It does. It is however, a little more murky on the subject of kneecaps." -Mal and BookNot to be an uber-nerd, but wasn't that Zoe and Book?
I believe you are right.
Buffy. I love Spike and when the good went evil. ...in fact I love them all. Even bought the DVD-bok.
Angel second.
Haven't seen Firefly. Will check it out after having read this thread :-)
Welcome to the cult, amigo. What size browncoat would you like?
"The hero of Canton, the man they call Jaaaaaaayyyynnnn!"
So many great lines...
Buffy. I love Spike and when the good went evil. ...in fact I love them all. Even bought the DVD-bok.
Angel second.
Haven't seen Firefly. Will check it out after having read this thread :-)Welcome to the cult, amigo. What size browncoat would you like?
"The hero of Canton, the man they call Jaaaaaaayyyynnnn!"
So many great lines...
clearly, it's time to start making offerings to kali ma.
Freehold DM, hide your eyes, lest you should hate me forevermore:
Buffy, given the number of seasons of airtime had some interesting development of the main character. Angel? Not so much, it felt very "spinoff' if you know what I mean. Firefly and Dollhouse were probably the winners of the "Best new series I saw cancelled too early" category.
...I'm guess I'm saying Joss Whedon needs too much time to compose a story. (Descendants was the best best Buffy episode ever and it wasn't directed by Joss Whedon, and didn't star Sarah Michelle Gellar.)
Set, I'm generally with you on liking the supporting characters more than the main characters.
Yes, me too.
BTW, I haven't seen the last seasons of Angel.
I heard that the show was canceled before they could wrap things up. I don't know if this is true, but it made me reluctant to buy the last DVD-boxes. I always hate when a TV network cancels a show and leave the hanging in midair.
Is really fascinating how much influence Buffy has had on popular culture. The twilight saga, True Blood and especially Vampire diaries.
Perhaps the character Buffy isn't a great feministic role model, but the show itself had feministic streaks. Perhaps not intentionally, but they were there, IMHO.
It exposed, questioned and sometimes even ridicule conventional norms. Buffy herself is a good example of this. The girl that is often trying to please everyone and always so eager to fit in. Often worried about her looks, trying to patch it up with Giles, her mother, Angel and other supporting characters.
It also had gay love exposed during prime time, it had good characters turning evil and evil characters turning good, etc. A good girl fighting evil, yet the show isn't so much about the old black and white: 'good vs. evil'. In many way the show questions how we perceive 'the others'.
I still wonder why no supporting characters were afro American. Sure there was Bianca Lawson as Kendra, but she was just around for 3 episodes.
...and it was fun and exciting :-)
Set, I'm generally with you on liking the supporting characters more than the main characters.Yes, me too.
BTW, I haven't seen the last seasons of Angel.
I heard that the show was canceled before they could wrap things up. I don't know if this is true, but it made me reluctant to buy the last DVD-boxes. I always hate when a TV network cancels a show and leave the hanging in midair.
Is really fascinating how much influence Buffy has had on popular culture. The twilight saga, True Blood and especially Vampire diaries.Perhaps the character Buffy isn't a great feministic role model, but the show itself had feministic streaks. Perhaps not intentionally, but they were there, IMHO.
It exposed, questioned and sometimes even ridicule conventional norms. Buffy herself is a good example of this. The girl that is often trying to please everyone and always so eager to fit in. Often worried about her looks, trying to patch it up with Giles, her mother, Angel and other supporting characters.
It also had gay love exposed during prime time, it had good characters turning evil and evil characters turning good, etc. A good girl fighting evil, yet the show isn't so much about the old black and white: 'good vs. evil'. In many way the show questions how we perceive 'the others'.
I still wonder why no supporting characters were afro American. Sure there was Bianca Lawson as Kendra, but she was just around for 3 episodes.
...and it was fun and exciting :-)
Funny you mention that feminists don't like Buffy, because in my experience it is the exact opposite. In fact, I see her put up as a role model in a lot of places, especially when comparing the show to Twilight.
I'm not saying feminists don't like Buffy. There are just as many feministic readings of the show as there are feminists.
Me, I agree with like feminists like Rani Singh but not with feminists like Gwyneth Bodger .
And according to Wikipedia there is a feminist called Lorna Jowet whose paper "Sex and The Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan" states that:
"‘Buffy may be “Barbie with a kung-fu grip”, but she is still Barbie’ (p. 197). Jowett identifies the show as being “post-feminist”, while arguing that it fails to challenge gender stereotypes in meaningful ways. Jowetts book’s first 3 chapters are entitled: Girl Power, Good Girls and Bad Girls, in which Jowett dissects the stereotypes within the female characters that, she argues, are reinforced by the show. The next three chapters are broken into the male stereotypes: Tough men, New Men and Dead Boys. Jowett states that reinforcement of stereotypes exists within the show for male characters as well"
I don't agree with Gwyneth Bodger and Lorna Jowet, but I guess some feminists do and some don't. You could say that there isn't one right and one wrong reading, I just agree with Rani Singh on her reading.
BTW, I haven't seen the last seasons of Angel.
I heard that the show was canceled before they could wrap things up. I don't know if this is true, but it made me reluctant to buy the last DVD-boxes. I always hate when a TV network cancels a show and leave the hanging in midair.
Is really fascinating how much influence Buffy has had on popular culture. The twilight saga, True Blood and especially Vampire diaries.
Yeah, that's what happened. The ending was pretty much a big tacked-on cliffhanger with a healthy dose of "oh well, let's die with our boots on" fatalism thrown in as a snarky quip at the end.
On the bright side, they added Spike to the show. He worked really well as a foil to Angel's broody soul-having. Spike was always the better of the two anyway. (Though the downside was that having a still-svelte James Marsters standing side-by-side with an increasingly puffy David Boreanaz didn't help the verisimilitude.)
Plus, you get funny stuff like this. (Yes, spoilers.)
|
|
And according to Wikipedia there is a feminist called Lorna Jowet whose paper "Sex and The Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan" states that:
Kind of funny how the lack of personal responsibilty in their youth was perfect, but bad when inevitably their kids do the same thing and the other shoe is on.
Kind of funny how the lack of personal responsibilty in their youth was perfect, but bad when inevitably their kids do the same thing and the other shoe is on.
And according to Wikipedia there is a feminist called Lorna Jowet whose paper "Sex and The Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan" states that:
Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds right :-)
Really strange how a lot of critics and feminist always put 'girl power' down. Be it in movies, music or whatever.This is very evident when it comes to music.
Sex Pistols was really ground breaking and important, but female groups like The Runaways and Spice Girls are just products and puppets of the music industry.
Heck, Sex Pistols like most artist where a product of the music industry, but they still where great, important and ground breaking. I like Sex Pistols. Just as much as I like The Runaways and Spice Girls.
Edit:
When a female artist doesn't write her own songs she is just a product, but a male artist like Tom Jones is a great interpreter.
|
|
I was just pocking at the concepts of the varous waves for feminism and the inevitable "post-feminism", which is basially to say when they actually have kids themselves, and start to see what they where actualy like to everyone else's eyes. Add to the fact the Whedon is imself a staunch self-avowed feminist, siting his mother's strength and feminism for his inspiration in what so many feminists absolutely detest.
I sometimes wonder if Whedon is actually a Antifeminist, slighting them in the open and they just don't get it, but that's just a mischievious joking side of me seeing things in a foggy mirrior.
:)
I sometimes wonder if Whedon is actually a Antifeminist, slighting them in the open and they just don't get it, but that's just a mischievious joking side of me seeing things in a foggy mirrior.:)
sometimes you gotta be an Antifeminist to be a feminist ;-)
|
|
Is really fascinating how much influence Buffy has had on popular culture. The twilight saga, True Blood and especially Vampire diaries.
And something that will linger longer than all of them, it's also pretty much to blame for TV Tropes. :)
Perhaps the character Buffy isn't a great feministic role model, but the show itself had feministic streaks. Perhaps not intentionally, but they were there, IMHO.
In the beginning, it offered up all sorts of interesting pokes at convention. The kids who were saving the town week after week did so by *researching in a library,* and it was fairly regularly pointed out that Buffy's strength wasn't that she could lift a car, in episodes where she had to defeat Der Kinderstod by making herself sick, or where her powers were stripped away in the Cruciamentum and had to beat a vampire without them, where wits, intelligence and resourcefulness (and her friends and family, as Spike points out, and the end of Season Four really hammers home with the enjoining spell) proved to be as vital, and the reason why she was a more successful Slayer than many who had come before.
Unfortunately, these things fell by the wayside in later years. Research increasingly proved to be useless. The brainy librarian moved away (and even when brought back, was never the same). The super-smart computer geek turned to magic and the new 'lesson' of the show became, 'if you don't have super-powers, you are a whiny useless stone around the neck of those who do, holding them back.'
I think the feminism of the show took a hit, when it was explicitly stated in the last season that girls without super-powers were useless, and that the only way a woman could be 'empowered' and 'make a difference' was to be given literal super-powers. That seemed anti-feminist. Joss was always flirting with that notion, right from the outset, in creating a 'strong female character' who, by dint of her super-powers, was not truly competing with a strong male character on the same field, but as long as other female characters around her (like Willow) managed to be awesome *without* super-powers, and Buffy herself occasionally pointed out (or had pointed out to her) that her main strength wasn't her super-powers, but her resourcefulness or her friends or her wits or some other non-super-factor that any girl could have, he dodged the bullet. When he turned away, and others began running the show, that theme was eroded away, and the 'strong women' of the show became 'strong' in the sense of super-powered, instead of being 'strong' in a more relatable / attainable sort of way.
@ Set. Thanks for a very interesting post. I'll answer in a (edited) spoiler in an attempt not to threadjack this thread more ;-)
In the beginning, it offered up all sorts of interesting pokes at convention. The kids who were saving the town week after week did so by *researching in a library,* and it was fairly regularly pointed out that Buffy's strength wasn't that she could lift a car, in episodes where she had to defeat Der Kinderstod by making herself sick, or where her powers were stripped away in the Cruciamentum and had to beat a vampire without them, where wits, intelligence and resourcefulness (and her friends and family, as Spike points out, and the end of Season Four really hammers home with the enjoining spell) proved to be as vital, and the reason why she was a more successful Slayer than many who had come before.Unfortunately, these things fell by the wayside in later years.
You have a point. It was many years since a saw the show and I have recently bought the DVD-box so what happened when is a bit of a blur. I do recall that the shows lost some of its charm during later years, but that is true for most show. House for one. Great the three first seasons and then more and more lack of ideas.
Research increasingly proved to be useless. The brainy librarian moved away (and even when brought back, was never the same). The super-smart computer geek turned to magic and the new 'lesson' of the show became, 'if you don't have super-powers, you are a whiny useless stone around the neck of those who do, holding them back.'
I think the feminism of the show took a hit, when it was explicitly stated in the last season that girls without super-powers were useless, and that the only way a woman could be 'empowered' and 'make a difference' was to be given literal super-powers. That seemed anti-feminist.
Edit:
True that during later years The whole young detectives á la Enid Blyton's Five books was toned down in favor of superheroes. I think it was inevitable in a way. I'm not saying I like it but when you deal with monsters, magic, super powerful villains then it easily happens.( Just look at the game we all play and love. It would be hard to have a level 10 party bring a long a level 2 expert when facing a CR 10 monster. ) That is often the problem with TV series. Each season have to top previous seasons so they tend to get more and more over the top. The whole "let's get to the library" or "let me checkout the internet" can get old pretty quick. Me, I liked it and I would have preferred if they had kept some of it during the later years, but I guess most of the audience wanted more action.As for the The super-smart computer geek turning to magic being anti-feminist? This wasn't only happening to Willow. Giles became obsolete too. And Spike? He got castrated and became a friendly puppy. Or at least you can make that reading.
Heck, you can put down anything or any show if that is what you want.
With "you", I'm not referring to you Set. I'm not being snarky or implying you trying your best to but the show down. I'm just stating you can read things in many different ways.
The super-smart computer geek turning to magic could be read as The super-smart computer geek stopped being a victim/good girl and got in touch with her own powers, or whatever.
Joss was always flirting with that notion, right from the outset, in creating a 'strong female character' who, by dint of her super-powers, was not truly competing with a strong male...
I don't agree with you. I think 'strong female character' who, by dint of her super-powers, was not truly competing with a strong male has a point. I also think The super-smart computer geek turning to magic has a point.
Buffy is a fighter, not a Bard or Wizard. And she still had one ability besides her super-power that other Slayers didn't have. She had friends.
Willow levels up from level 1 expert to level xx Wizard (or Sorcerer). Just as skills are important to a level 1 party in Pathfinder, skills at level 16 isn't as important. Brut force (or what it is called) works fine most of the time. Willow (just as most role players) got lazy and just relied on her magic power. Or one could say she stopped being the reliable, little obedient good girl that just studied and did what she was being told. Finding Magic could be an analogy of finding your own potential and finding out what you want to do with your life.
True that the show had more and more obvious interesting pokes at convention at earlier years, but pretending that it is enough for a woman to be just as good as a man when they compete against men for something isn't really an interesting poke at convention (again I'm not implying you meant that). Buffy and Willow are both two powerful women and by that, the smart and funny scripts and the flavor of the show I still think it kept some streak of feminism.
In the end it is in the eye of the beholder, and the show has many aspects you can take to your heart as "interesting pokes at convention", if you are looking for liberation/liberating readings
Sure you can say that Pathfinder is male chauvinistic and anti-feministic. All the female Icon have super powers and cleavage. And those that don't have cleavage clearly are men pretending to be woman. So most of the Icons are men, with a few exceptions that are sex objects, etc.
You can make that reading or you can say that Pathfinder takes obvious "interesting pokes at convention". Both are can be valid readings although I prefer the later.
Set, I'm generally with you on liking the supporting characters more than the main characters.Yes, me too.
BTW, I haven't seen the last seasons of Angel.
I heard that the show was canceled before they could wrap things up. I don't know if this is true, but it made me reluctant to buy the last DVD-boxes. I always hate when a TV network cancels a show and leave the hanging in midair.
Season 5 is one of my favorite seasons (my other favorite is Season 2). In my opinion, it really is worth watching. The dynamic of their trying to work for Wolfram and Hart and change things from within was very interesting. The acting is phenomenal and the cast is tight. After a disappointing 3rd season and an often infuriating 4th season (with a few bright spots), the 5th season really brought it back to what I felt like Angel should feel like.
Plus, the episode with the puppets alone probably makes it all worth it. :)
I was fine with the ending, although yes, it ends intentionally, even though they knew they were not going to be renewed, on a "cliffhanger." I actually felt very satisfied by it. To the point that I was actually somewhat disappointed by the "Angel Season 6" comic book which continues the story, although that has its bright points.
And that's the thing. They did get to continue the story in the comics, so there isn't much point in feeling like Season 5 is "the end" when it's not. Whether you like the comics or not is another thing, but it's still not the actual end of the story.
Unfortunately, these things fell by the wayside in later years. Research increasingly proved to be useless. The brainy librarian moved away (and even when brought back, was never the same). The super-smart computer geek turned to magic and the new 'lesson' of the show became, 'if you don't have super-powers, you are a whiny useless stone around the neck of those who do, holding them back.'
I think the feminism of the show took a hit, when it was explicitly stated in the last season that girls without super-powers were useless, and that the only way a woman could be 'empowered' and 'make a difference' was to be given literal super-powers. That seemed anti-feminist. Joss was always flirting with that notion, right from the outset, in creating a 'strong female character' who, by dint of her super-powers, was not truly competing with a strong male...
I edited your post down just for the sake of space.
Only my opinion, but the tone of the writing took a big hit when Whedon became less involved.
For example, the scene when Willow comes out to Buffy is about as well written an example of such a scene as you can find. Andrew on the last season is closeted gay who gropes whatever other men he has a chance to; the characters a laughingstock. I don't think that really is a part of the whole feminist/anti-feminist question, but it's sloppy writing. It's exactly the sort of easy characterization that Whedon, like his work or hate it, doesn't do.
stuff
Thanks for the advice. I'll buy the rest of the seasons. I do like Angel ,so I'm sure it will give me great pleasure watching the rest of the seasons.
I came THIS close to picking Buffy, but picked Firefly (I'm actually re-watching it right now!). I've watched Firefly over and over, I've only seen Buffy two or three times.
I think Buffy was a very important show. It demonstrated you could have a character driven epic with a season long story arcs. All the characters had their own voices; just reading the words on the page with no character names, you can tell the difference between Xander and Buffy and Willow and Giles and Angel and Oz and Tara and Cordelia and Anya and Spike and Drusilla, etc. etc. etc.
The guy who played Victor from Dollhouse totally deserved an Emmy for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe 2.
|
|
The guy who played Victor from Dollhouse totally deserved an Emmy for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe 2.
The ep where he was imprinted with Topher's personality and basically played 'Topher?' Freaking fantastic.
Whatever I could say about Joss' writing talents or attention span, the man finds, seemingly out of nowhere, some amazing young actors. (Even if some of them seem to fall right off the face of the earth, after he's done with them...)
I remember, being jaded and annoyed with the character of Buffy, by later seasons, and totally enamored of Eliza Dushku's role as Faith, thinking that Eliza was a better actress, and then they had a body-swap episode, and Sarah Michelle Gellar, portraying Faith-in-Buffy's-body, acted *rings* around Eliza Dushku, playing Buffy-trapped-in-Faith's-body, and I thought, 'Mmm. Crow. Tasty!'
Yeah, SMG is actually a pretty good actress, surprisingly enough.
But Faith seems to have more fun with her powers. Buffy is a little too Peter Parkery, but even whinier.
I also like Cordelia.
And Inara!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, SMG is actually a pretty good actress, surprisingly enough.
But Faith seems to have more fun with her powers. Buffy is a little too Peter Parkery, but even whinier.
I also like Cordelia.
And Inara!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eliza Dushku is really good at the bad girl. Not so much with anything else. It was one of the reasons I had concerns about Dollhouse. She just isn't very diverse, so the closer they stuck to her strengths the more it was stripper of the week.
I just got through Smile Time last night. Awesome.
|
|
Yeah, SMG is actually a pretty good actress, surprisingly enough.
But Faith seems to have more fun with her powers. Buffy is a little too Peter Parkery, but even whinier.
I love the scene where Buffy is regaling Faith with tales of woe about life as a Slayer, and Faith says, 'Yeah, it really sucks how we're hot chicks with super-powers.'
Hell, I even loved the very unpopular Kennedy for the same reason. It was a breath of fresh air to see someone who *wanted* to be a Slayer.
I also like Cordelia.
Oh yes. She was amazing on Buffy. On Angel, IMO, she was underused / toned down, and it made her less fun to have around.
"Buffy should be above the law, she's, like, a super-hero!"
"What about that nutty 'all men are created equal?'"
"Propaganda spread by the ugly and undeserving."
"Ah, Cordelia, always ready to help the rich and pretty."
"Which, lucky me, excludes you. Twice."
I liked Kennedy too.
And Cordelia was totally wasted on Angel. She should have had second, if not top, billing. She was fun!