lady_windermere

I wouldn't argue that the plots (as opposed to the character arcs) were never the show's strong point. Explain that thing about Buffy's blood being the same as Dawn's to me again? ;-) But part of the problem here seems to be that to me, the characterisation in S8 is not off. They all seem perfectly organic developments of their earlier selves to me. Yes, there's definitely untold story... but we're finding that out bit by bit. Buffy's suppressed guilt over her method of funding the Slayer Army explains a whole lot of things about the previous episodes, for example. One of the earlier alternative covers was the three Scoobies filling in a giant jigsaw puzzle, and that's exactly what this feels like. I just recently watched both seasons of 'Carnivale' on DVD, and I got the same vibe from that. Things are gradually building up around us to a climax, rather than shunting along directly to the same destination as with AtF. (Insert male-v-female sexuality metaphor here as desired. :-) )

the AtS comics are coming from an appreciation of the AtS universe and that the BtVS comics feel like Joss restaging the BtVS universe

Which is a perfect restatement of why - to me - AtF feels like very well-written fanfic of the old show, and S8 feels like a sequel to the old show written by the original author.

I mean, try comparing 'Hobbit' fanfic about Bilbo and Thorin, to 'The Lord of the Rings'. No fanfic writer would dare write the latter and still call it fanfic...

(And the whole Warren thing? Honestly, and with all due respect, I see it as pretty trivial. The First could appear as Buffy when she was standing right there in front of It, so the fact that It could also appear as Warren when he too, we now learn, was only dead temporarily instead of permanently isn't really a big deal at all.

If Joss were still in charge of Mutant Enemy earning millions of dollars per episode instead of whatever pittance comic publishers are able to pay, he could employ a research assistant to check that sort of continuity detail. But he isn't, and he can't, and he forgot a minor bit of trivia about The First's abilities. It's not the end of the world.)

From:

shipperx.livejournal.com

One thing I've learned from the Jossverse fandom is that people came away with a myriad of impressions about the characters and the characters emotional essences and journeys. Such impressions overlap and don't overlap in varying degrees so that it's possible for different people to walk away with substantially different views of the characters.

While I can certainly come to a place where I can see the comics as possible outcomes for the characters, it's not the most convincing outcome for me. But that's a totally subjective thing and I'm by no means saying that what I think is the only way to view the characters or the canon. It's just that so far, the BtVS comics haven't gotten me emotionally invested or particularly feeling any of the characters (some less than others) and no matter what Joss says, it doesn't click as canon for me. But that's a personal thing.

From:

Which is a perfect restatement of why - to me - AtF feels like very well-written fanfic of the old show, and S8 feels like a sequel to the old show written by the original author.

Interesting observation. Because I tend to agree about the sequel feel of season 8, but I don't see it in a positive way.

BtVS-8 does look and feel like a sequel of a Hollywood franchise. With a desperate urge to make it "bigger and better" i.e. more slam-bang and kick-ass than the original. The sequel syndrome is the main reason of incredible stupidity of current big studio productions.

In National Treasure-2 good guy Nicolas Cage kidnaps American president. In BtVS-8 good guy Buffy robs banks. Seems like a pattern.

From:

You could equally well say it feels like the difference between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Portrait of a Young Man and Ulysses or Firefly and Serenity in the transition from a story about one girl and one town to one with truly global scope.

I have no idea what National Treasure is, was the first movie any good either? But two points of comparison do not make a pattern or I'm as dead as my ex-cat (being also a mammal).

From:

I meant the current "sequelitis" outbreak in Hollywood that has nothing to do with classic literature.

I'm not comparing BtVS to NT. (Although - yes, everything Jerry Bruckheimer does is utter trash that earns a lot of money, including NT-1).

I'm comparing the mechanisms of producing a successul sequel. Today to make a commercially successful sequel the creators have to increase the shock level. To make the audience gasp. Lookey - Nicolas Cage kidnaps the president! Lookey - Indiana and Marion have a son! Lookey - Buffy robs banks!

It's a formula of entertainment business.

From:

I can see what you meant, my point was that there is no more basis for making your comparison with trashy Hollywood sequels than for mine with classic literature. And although BtVS S8 is commercially successful that doesn't mean it has to be so by adopting Bruckenheimer's tactics. You can read the bank robbery in terms of caper movie conventions, but it's not a reading that's easy to maintain given that the previews for issue 11 already indicate that Joss doesn't see it that way but as something with serious repercussions that his protagonist is all to aware of and responsible for.

From:

Problem is that if you regard the situation seriously then Buffy is the ultimate villain. She takes the young girls away from their families and teaches them to be criminals. She corrupts innocent souls. She creates a generation of superbeings who are above the law.

That's why I doubt that Joss will go all the way about responsibility and repercussions.

From:

Where does she take young girls away from their families? You make it sound as if she's running around suburbia kidnapping the nation's youth. Did she teach Xander and Willow to be criminals or did they choose to help her in the fight against a corrupt authority in any way they could? If I break one law by parking in a restricted area to get my child into A&E does that make me above the Law as a whole? Does opening the universities to women allowing them to fufill their potential make all those who do so ungovernable superbeings? Did Ghandi corrupt people's souls or Nelson Mandela or Emmeline Pankhurst? Because yes the whole Slayer movement highlights the whole issue of when does political activism, giving young people a purpose, spill over into breeding fanaticism and terrorism. The bank robbery, what could have lead to it and what it might now lead to is complicated and dramatically compelling. Calling Buffy the ultimate villian is a wierdly all or nothing, madonna or whore judgement of her at this stage.

From:

I don't call her the ultimate villain. I say that from RL POV she's the one.

But actioners are about the suspension of disbelief. Good guys in a Bruckheimer movie can commit crimes without responsibility and repercussions.

From:

Is villain even a RL concept as opposed to a fictional role? In RL you have psychopaths and fanatics, the bad and the misguided but villain suggests a more structured narrative. Either way I disagree that, based on what she's done, Buffy must be regarded as a villain from the RL POV. A criminal certainly (and she was already that) but not necessarily a villain unless you would say the same of Ghandi, Mandela and Pankhurst (the British suffragette leader) all of whom broke the laws of their countries in service of what many now believe were righteous causes.

Good guys in a Bruckheimer movie can commit crimes without responsibility and repercussions.
So as Buffy clearly is seeing repercussions and claiming responsibility we can conclude that Season 8 is not an actioner.

From:

"Villain" is a term of a genre narrative. "Criminal" is a mostly social term.

So as Buffy clearly is seeing repercussions and claiming responsibility we can conclude that Season 8 is not an actioner.

There is a big difference between seeing the repercussions and suffering them. Nicolas Cage's character in NT-2 sees the repercussions of kidnapping the president but he proceeds with his plan anyway and we're supposed to regard him as a white hat.

If Buffy goes to jail or gets herself killed, then season 8 would sport a RL approach. But BtVS has never been about RL. The show has always existed in an enhanced, heightened reality; its characters have always been bigger than life.

In attempt to outdo himself Joss increases the scales of everything - the locations, the danger, the conflict, the battles. Typical for an action sequel. To up the ante, you need shocking twists and turns.

From:

"(And the whole Warren thing? Honestly, and with all due respect, I see it as pretty trivial. The First could appear as Buffy when she was standing right there in front of It, so the fact that It could also appear as Warren when he too, we now learn, was only dead temporarily instead of permanently isn't really a big deal at all."

Trivial? Oh come of it. With great respect the whole Warren thing in season 6 was a big deal, for heavens sake, and having him forget what he actually did there says a lot about Joss attitude towards this comic as far as I'm concerned.

A weirdly lackadaisical attitude for any writer to have let alone Joss, and to have and wank it for him is even worse.

You shouldn't have to be filling in the blanks for him like that. Something that I notice a lot of the series readers are constantly being asked to do, and which quite frankly is getting on my nerves somewhat.

From:

With great respect the whole Warren thing in season 6 was a big deal, for heavens sake

I'd say that even if you find Jeanty not 'adult' enough for your tastes the artwork pretty clearly indicates that Joss remembers Warren being flayed alive. If he forgot anything it wasn't from S6 but the S7 point about the First appearing as any dead person it wants. Or rather any person who had once been dead in the case of Buffy or near death on the way to becoming undead in the case of Spike. It's a little complicated so maybe what he meant when he said he "forgot" was that he forgot to make it absolutely clear to letter-writers not paying attention to the text (which nowhere has Warren stating that he was never dead) that Warren had died in one of the many senses of the word at least momentarily before becoming whatever non-human (because that was explicit) thing he is now.

You shouldn't have to be filling in the blanks for him like that. Something that I notice a lot of the series readers are constantly being asked to do, and which quite frankly is getting on my nerves somewhat.

It is hard having to think about a story.

From:

No he just plain out and out forgot love. There's no excuses.

"It is hard having to think about a story."

Oh I know love. maybe Joss should bare that helpful little comment in mind next time undertakes such a project again.

From:

Trivial? Oh come of it. With great respect the whole Warren thing in season 6 was a big deal, for heavens sake, and having him forget what he actually did there says a lot about Joss attitude

But Warren's season 6 storyline has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Willow flayed him alive, and his body then disappeared in a flash of light. Nothing we've learned in season 8 changes that in the slightest.

The 'trivia' I'm referring to is the fact that The First appeared in Warren's form in season 7, but we were also told that it could only appear as people who'd died. Even so, there was already a massive loophole in that rule as The First appeared as vampires (only technically dead) and as Buffy (no longer dead). Widening that loophole a fraction so it could also appear as Warren hardly changes anything significant, in my mind. And anyway:

You shouldn't have to be filling in the blanks for him like that.

I'm not. He did it himself, by saying that when Amy rescued Warren he was technically dead for a few seconds until Amy's magic could revive him. A perfectly valid and consistent retcon that fits perfectly into canon continuity. If Joss had included that dialogue in 8.04 in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion...

From:

"I'm not. He did it himself, by saying that when Amy rescued Warren he was technically dead for a few seconds until Amy's magic could revive him."

Sorry love, thats sounds soooo weak to me, it's just laughable. Warren appeared as the First because he'd died. End of story. Infact that element was an important past of Willows story arc, and now, what, she just maimed him or something? It weakens the magnitude of what she did other wise.

He just out and out forgot and that's it. To 'wank' it as anything else is just plain silly.

To give the old fella his due he did admit to what he'd done. Some wouldn't have bothered to have replied to the fans complaints at all.

From:

Warren appeared as the First because he'd died. End of story. Infact that element was an important past of Willows story arc,

How was the fact that The First could take Warren's form important to Willow's story arc? It never appeared to her in that form. She killed him, Amy revived him, The First appeared as him (to Andrew). And Buffy died (twice), Xander and Willow (respectively) revived her, and The First appeared as her too. Not really seeing why one is perfectly OK and the other is a dealbreaker, here...

Or to put it another way: what Joss forgot was that The First couldn't have appeared as Warren if he hadn't died, not that Warren died at all!

From:

The fact that Warren has been revived and brought back this way, does 'cheapen' what Willow did I think. The whole climax of the 'OMG Willows gone bad and killed' is that yeah, she did actually kill Warren.

Now to have him come back and say well Amy saved him seconds after he died, is utter bollocks I'm afraid, and hair splitting of the worst kind.

From:

I disagree, but this is going over old ground now so perhaps it's best to agree to disagree.

Willow discovered that she was capable of vicious cruelty and torture, and had the will to do murder in her heart. That's quite powerful enough, even if we later discover the man she thought she'd killed was "only" turned instead into a hideous, skinless monster that makes grown men blanch and shrink in fear at the mere sight of him.

I'm not seeing how that cheapens what she did... but like I say, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise...

From:

Thats okay love, because you haven't. :0

From:

I mean, try comparing 'Hobbit' fanfic about Bilbo and Thorin, to 'The Lord of the Rings'. No fanfic writer would dare write the latter and still call it fanfic...

Most excellent analogy, I wish I'd thought of it. Also with respect to AtF is Spike Bilbo or Thorin?

From:

Thorin - tragic brooding hero who's been deprived of his birthright, but fights desperately to regain it by gathering together a band of reluctant companions. Wants to acquire a mystical sparkly gem, but someone else gets to it first...

Bilbo - enjoying a life of comfort and pleasure before he's reluctantly shaken out of it by the arrival of Thorin, and is forced to join him. At one point appears to be changing sides and betraying Thorin, but isn't really and they end up as friends again.

Hmmm. :-)

(Also, Wesley is clearly Gandalf. I'm not sure whether Illyria and Gollum have much in common, though...)

From:

Precious. How about Gunn for Gollum? Once simple Charles/Smeagol of the ghetto/meadows now corrupted unliving amongst the monsters of the misty mountains (b)eating fissshes.

From: