|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 12, 2010 9:24:26 GMT -5
I figure next two issues will be about evenly split between Buffy and Angel making me sick to my stomach, and the other characters finding out a whole lot of things they didn't know before.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Mar 12, 2010 11:38:35 GMT -5
Haha maybe there'd be obvious knock-offs instead. Like Giles and Xander were obvious knock offs of Merrick and Pike, Buffy's original friends? I'm still pro-remake. Open mind people.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 12, 2010 11:55:35 GMT -5
Like Giles and Xander were obvious knock offs of Merrick and Pike, Buffy's original friends? I'm still pro-remake. Open mind people. I don't think it's accurate to call them knock-offs, other than the fact that they occupy similar places in Buffy's life to Merrick and Pike. (Minus the romantic tension with Pike.) I'm as opposed as ever to the remake on principle, but I'm not going back to that fight until I hear news suggesting I should.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Mar 12, 2010 12:06:30 GMT -5
Like Giles and Xander were obvious knock offs of Merrick and Pike, Buffy's original friends? I'm still pro-remake. Open mind people. I don't think it's accurate to call them knock-offs, other than the fact that they occupy similar places in Buffy's life to Merrick and Pike. (Minus the romantic tension with Pike.) I'm as opposed as ever to the remake on principle, but I'm not going back to that fight until I hear news suggesting I should. They're very similar characters, in terms of personality and the role they play in the story. Stuffy-British-teacher guy forces unwanted destiny on Buffy, finds her valley girl attitude off-putting but comes to love and respect her in time. Dorky-but-cute working class guy who loves Buffy and plays the male scaredy-cat role against the strong heroine. Xander was even supposed to end up with Buffy, before the fans fell in love with Angel. So I think it's very accurate to call them knock-offs. Joss basically recycled his old characters and changed the names. I doubt the remake will ever happen at this point, but I think it could work in principle. I'm still disappointed that this fandom is too narrow-minded to accept another version of Buffy besides Joss'.
|
|
|
Post by wytchcroft on Mar 12, 2010 17:51:15 GMT -5
i've lost track of this thread slightly but wanted to add to the earlier discussion that, whatever my personal misgiving over Twilight and the reveal, one thing i'm sure of is that Twilight's plan or motivation is not a case of 'the bigger picture' or doing evil to fight evil. Buffy explicitly states that she doesn't agree with such an idea in S7, and i doubt a radical shift on her part. But more importantly perhaps, the way Twilight's plan is apparently shaping up comes uncomfortably close to the Operative in Serenity and we know where Whedon's sympathies are in that regard.
I'm thinking of how the Operative and Mal talk especially, all the 'world without sin' stuff and the greater good and picture picture. Mal; "I don't murder children." Operative "I do." If you substitute the word Slayers or even Civilians you'll see what i mean. If Buffy agrees to anything like that (however prettily or better worded the rationalization may be) then she is going to be a Big Bad at the close and no question. Perhaps Whedon wants that - but it will mean he's writing a tragedy (possible) and will not be expecting feathers to go unruffled or for us readers to have a ready excuse to defend Buffy. I think it has to be something else - something none of us have guessed yet.
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on Mar 13, 2010 8:00:54 GMT -5
I'm still pro-remake. Open mind people. Remakes aren't filmed for creative reasons, they exist to make some quick cash from old ideas with established fanbases/target audiences. For this reason, coupled with the fact that I love the Buffy we have now that is still going, I won't be watching a remake.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Mar 13, 2010 11:36:57 GMT -5
I'm still pro-remake. Open mind people. Remakes aren't filmed for creative reasons, they exist to make some quick cash from old ideas with established fanbases/target audiences. For this reason, coupled with the fact that I love the Buffy we have now that is still going, I won't be watching a remake. You're being prejudiced. Many remakes have provided creative alternate versions of classic films and some even surpass the original ( The Fly and The Thing immediately come to mind as famous examples). For ongoing series, remakes and reboots also have creative value in bringing a story back to it's original concept and tone ( Casino Royale, Star Trek, Friday the 13th). This would be beneficial for Buffy which, while still excellent, has strayed far from it's "vampire-fighting cheerleader" roots and is no longer accessible to a mainstream audience due to years of complicated continuity. Yes, remakes are produced in the first place to milk an existing fanbase (as are sequels), but that doesn't mean the director/writers involved can't be creative. There are people out there who care about these franchises and doing them justice. Whether or not that creativity would exist behind the Buffy remake is debatable, but you shouldn't rubbish the concept of a remake alone. In the current Twilight climate of sappy Bella tweens, I think a new Buffy film (with the same ass-kicking values of the original) would be very relevant. Yeah, SMG will always be our Buffy but that doesn't mean the character shouldn't be kept alive in different forms for a new audience. I've totally derailed this thread but whatever... as Andrew said, there's not much to say about #33 anymore.
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on Mar 13, 2010 13:21:04 GMT -5
Remakes aren't filmed for creative reasons, they exist to make some quick cash from old ideas with established fanbases/target audiences. For this reason, coupled with the fact that I love the Buffy we have now that is still going, I won't be watching a remake. You're being prejudiced. Many remakes have provided creative alternate versions of classic films and some even surpass the original ( The Fly and The Thing immediately come to mind as famous examples). For ongoing series, remakes and reboots also have creative value in bringing a story back to it's original concept and tone ( Casino Royale, Star Trek, Friday the 13th). This would be beneficial for Buffy which, while still excellent, has strayed far from it's "vampire-fighting cheerleader" roots and is no longer accessible to a mainstream audience due to years of complicated continuity. Yes, remakes are produced in the first place to milk an existing fanbase (as are sequels), but that doesn't mean the director/writers involved can't be creative. There are people out there who care about these franchises and doing them justice. Whether or not that creativity would exist behind the Buffy remake is debatable, but you shouldn't rubbish the concept of a remake alone. In the current Twilight climate of sappy Bella tweens, I think a new Buffy film (with the same ass-kicking values of the original) would be very relevant. Yeah, SMG will always be our Buffy but that doesn't mean the character shouldn't be kept alive in different forms for a new audience. I've totally derailed this thread but whatever... as Andrew said, there's not much to say about #33 anymore. I think revisiting concepts can occassionally be a great idea. Sometimes things were badly handled before, or got out of hand over time. Sometimes technology has developed to an extent that visions can be better realised. Sometimes things can be brought up to date with modern culture in effective ways. None of these things are particularly relevent to Buffy, which only ended on TV 7 years ago. It's not even cold, it's just blatent attempts to cash in in on this awful Twilight craze. A part of me wouldn't mind it, if only to get a strong female protagonist out there to balance against that love-sick retard Bella, but I wouldn't watch it. Thread derailing for the win lol
|
|
|
Post by DorothyFan1 on Mar 13, 2010 14:57:46 GMT -5
You're being prejudiced. Many remakes have provided creative alternate versions of classic films and some even surpass the original ( The Fly and The Thing immediately come to mind as famous examples). For ongoing series, remakes and reboots also have creative value in bringing a story back to it's original concept and tone ( Casino Royale, Star Trek, Friday the 13th). This would be beneficial for Buffy which, while still excellent, has strayed far from it's "vampire-fighting cheerleader" roots and is no longer accessible to a mainstream audience due to years of complicated continuity. Yes, remakes are produced in the first place to milk an existing fanbase (as are sequels), but that doesn't mean the director/writers involved can't be creative. There are people out there who care about these franchises and doing them justice. Whether or not that creativity would exist behind the Buffy remake is debatable, but you shouldn't rubbish the concept of a remake alone. In the current Twilight climate of sappy Bella tweens, I think a new Buffy film (with the same ass-kicking values of the original) would be very relevant. Yeah, SMG will always be our Buffy but that doesn't mean the character shouldn't be kept alive in different forms for a new audience. I've totally derailed this thread but whatever... as Andrew said, there's not much to say about #33 anymore. I think revisiting concepts can occassionally be a great idea. Sometimes things were badly handled before, or got out of hand over time. Sometimes technology has developed to an extent that visions can be better realised. Sometimes things can be brought up to date with modern culture in effective ways. None of these things are particularly relevent to Buffy, which only ended on TV 7 years ago. It's not even cold, it's just blatent attempts to cash in in on this awful Twilight craze. A part of me wouldn't mind it, if only to get a strong female protagonist out there to balance against that love-sick retard Bella, but I wouldn't watch it. Thread derailing for the win lol I have to step in because someone has trashed Bella Swan. Buffy, of course, is much stronger than Bella because of her Slayer training and now, super power skills. But there is one thing both Buffy and Bella have in common - they're both in love with vampires. Buffy with Angel and Bella with Edward. I don't believe the Buffy series every alluded to what Stephanie Meyer makes explicit in her universe...that a human vampire love affair can't work unless a drastic compromise is made. Correct me I'm wrong here...but I don't think Buffy has ever mentioned the taboo subject of Angel's practical immortality. Meaning if Buffy continued to be with Angel, the obviousness of their differences in terms of DNA would become plainly evident. Buffy would get old, wrinkled and die. Buffy would simply be another chapter for Angel in his long life which would continue on long after Buffy's death. Bella Swan, as you have noted, is a little immature. However she's smart enough to know she can't have Edward Cullen fully because of her inherent defect: she's human. She recognizes this limitation and as horrifying as the thought is...Bella is willing to give this up to be with the man of her dreams. People can argue about the ethics of her choice but the fact remains that Bella Swan makes her choice with her eyes wide open. She knows what she's getting into. Strangely enough I don't think Buffy recognizes this. It's heavily implied unless one of them gives up something to have this perfect union together a Buffy Angel pairing would never work in the long run.
|
|
Hallow Thorn
Bad Ass Wicca
Oh and You're Welcome
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2,306
|
Post by Hallow Thorn on Mar 13, 2010 16:12:55 GMT -5
I really want Buffy and Co. to go back to America for the rest of season 8 or at least have season 9 set there. I am really missing the vibe the U.S has. Wired how Angel’s castle was so close to Buffy retreat lol.
Off topic. Maybe the new Slayer in the reboot just calls herself 'Buffy' as a nickname?? also fear tactics. That way it will still make money with the name Buffy attached and could also work as a sequel if they could get any old cast cameos.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 13, 2010 16:30:08 GMT -5
I don't believe the Buffy series every alluded to what Stephanie Meyer makes explicit in her universe...that a human vampire love affair can't work unless a drastic compromise is made. Correct me I'm wrong here...but I don't think Buffy has ever mentioned the taboo subject of Angel's practical immortality. Meaning if Buffy continued to be with Angel, the obviousness of their differences in terms of DNA would become plainly evident. Buffy would get old, wrinkled and die. Buffy would simply be another chapter for Angel in his long life which would continue on long after Buffy's death. Mayor Wilkins mentioned that pretty explicitly to them both in season 3. It was a major factor in Angel's decision to leave at the end of that season. The thing is, it's very possible that these new powers have made Buffy as immortal as Angel. This magic seems to have negated (or masked) that issue, and also the other drawbacks to vampirism that had been making it difficult for them to be together, and, most importantly of all, Angel's curse. But if Willow is even partially right about the source of Buffy's power (and I'm quite sure she is), they're able to be together not because Angel is more human now, but because Buffy is more vampire. Twangel has been making a lot of noise these last few issues about "the truth," but that's a little hard to buy from someone who's spent the last year wearing a head-to-toe disguise. Scott said that Angel believes everything he's saying here, but that doesn't mean any of it is true... or if it is true, that it means the things he seems to think it does.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Mar 13, 2010 22:50:31 GMT -5
Back to #33... obviously, Angel's lair is somewhere near Tibet. Willow, Xander and Satsu are able to hear the "sonic" booms of them flying and fighting and fornicating. But how would he have had the time to build such a fancy HQ there, since he's only known for a few days that Buffy was even in Tibet? Unless Willow is listening in on them long-distance via magic, and has it on "speaker phone" so Xander and Satsu can hear? Or unless Warren has truly achieved Geek Apotheosis by creating Howl's Moving Castle? Well, if Twilight's lair had always been there, maybe he was intending to "push" Buffy to Tibet. I mean, he already knows the restorative powers of going there. Seriously, Angel and Oz are already fans of Tibet. Then Buffy goes and it's all the cool new thing. I guess I'm pondering the possibility that Angel's lair has been there for a very long time, before the Tibet conflict broke out, before Buffy even ran to Tibet. Except that doesn't make sense either because of how they all went searching for Buffy in #26 and all of the lair was probably built by Warren. Wait a sec. What if the lair can not only be moved in time, but in place? So maybe that lair used to be headquartered elsewhere, but Amy moved it magically?
|
|
|
Post by michellebuffyfest on Mar 13, 2010 23:24:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Mar 13, 2010 23:40:34 GMT -5
Emmie: I think AC suggested that, with his Howl's Moving Castle comment. Honestly, I don't think Joss really gave any thought to where Twilight's HQ would be. michellebuffyfest: Thanks for posting that here. I was about to post it myself, after reading that on your blog. That's a nice little update. I'm assuming the S8 pages we saw were from #34, since Jeanty was just finishing #35 last week, and those pages glimpsed seemed pretty complete to me. April cannot come soon enough!
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 13, 2010 23:44:27 GMT -5
Wait a sec. What if the lair can not only be moved in time, but in place? So maybe that lair used to be headquartered elsewhere, but Amy moved it magically? Like I said... Howl's Moving Castle. Actually, unless Amy is more powerful than Willow, I'd have to wonder why Willow didn't just do the same thing with the Slayer HQ's, instead of all the constant fleeing for their lives.
|
|
|
Post by michellebuffyfest on Mar 13, 2010 23:53:34 GMT -5
michellebuffyfest: Thanks for posting that here. I was about to post it myself, after reading that on your blog. That's a nice little update. I'm assuming the S8 pages we saw were from #34, since Jeanty was just finishing #35 last week, and those pages glimpsed seemed pretty complete to me. April cannot come soon enough! You're welcome and yes, April seems really far away right now.
|
|
|
Post by DorothyFan1 on Mar 14, 2010 9:50:14 GMT -5
I don't believe the Buffy series every alluded to what Stephanie Meyer makes explicit in her universe...that a human vampire love affair can't work unless a drastic compromise is made. Correct me I'm wrong here...but I don't think Buffy has ever mentioned the taboo subject of Angel's practical immortality. Meaning if Buffy continued to be with Angel, the obviousness of their differences in terms of DNA would become plainly evident. Buffy would get old, wrinkled and die. Buffy would simply be another chapter for Angel in his long life which would continue on long after Buffy's death. Mayor Wilkins mentioned that pretty explicitly to them both in season 3. It was a major factor in Angel's decision to leave at the end of that season. The thing is, it's very possible that these new powers have made Buffy as immortal as Angel. This magic seems to have negated (or masked) that issue, and also the other drawbacks to vampirism that had been making it difficult for them to be together, and, most importantly of all, Angel's curse. But if Willow is even partially right about the source of Buffy's power (and I'm quite sure she is), they're able to be together not because Angel is more human now, but because Buffy is more vampire. Twangel has been making a lot of noise these last few issues about "the truth," but that's a little hard to buy from someone who's spent the last year wearing a head-to-toe disguise. Scott said that Angel believes everything he's saying here, but that doesn't mean any of it is true... or if it is true, that it means the things he seems to think it does. If your speculation proves accurate...I'll be very upset for two reasons. 1. It's a retcon pure and simple. This would be an easy way to have Buffy and Angel walk off into the sunset happy ever after. Now guess who's left holding the bag? 2. Willow. She's the one left holding the garbage and has to deal with the knowledge that Buffy causes her death 200 years into the future. Either that or Buffy saves Willow the trouble by killing her off before Season 8 ends! How's that for a solution?! Kill Willow! Problem solved. Wasn't that a nice Buffy for the eighth season? Killing off Willow. Pretty cool, huh? In my opinion this is turning into a nightmare. All so Buffy can be with her "tru wuv". Sorry for the rant but I just can't believe the potential train wreck we're getting if any of this comes true. So you're absolutely correct. The super powers for Buffy and Angel will probably be permanent. Wonder Woman and Superman in the Buffyverse. Welcome to the new world of Buffy. I have nothing wrong with any of this unless it means Willow needs killing off. My only hope is all of Season Eight and Twangel is really an expansion of "Graduation Day" in the Buffy Omnibus Volume 4. If you have this you'll notice a strange symbiosis between what happens in issue 33 and what happened in that story. My feeling is the last panel showing Buffy kissing Angel is really a twisted version of the graveyard scene in Graduation Day and in reality Buffy and Angel are really dying. Their super powers are killing them...that's my theory...assuming we're meant to take any symbolism from Graduation Day in the Buffy Volume 4 omnibus as a hint.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Mar 14, 2010 10:14:17 GMT -5
So you're absolutely correct. The super powers for Buffy and Angel will probably be permanent. Wonder Woman and Superman in the Buffyverse. Welcome to the new world of Buffy. I don't think they'll be permanent. I think whatever is causing "the glow" is the true Big Bad of this season, and the need to eliminate it will be so great that Buffy will have to bring about the end of all magic in this world in order to save it. Angel is talking in this issue like he knows everything, but come on... when has Angel ever been an oracle of truth? He's spent his life stumbling awkwardly through the minefield of truth and morality, just like everyone else in these stories. He may know some things Buffy doesn't, but I'm sure he doesn't know everything, and I'm even more sure he doesn't really understand the repercussions of what he does know. There's going to be plenty of disillusionment in the near future for both Buffy and Angel. I still think we're not getting out of this without a major character death, but I don't think it will be Willow. She's too valuable to the ongoing story.
|
|
|
Post by DorothyFan1 on Mar 14, 2010 10:31:42 GMT -5
So you're absolutely correct. The super powers for Buffy and Angel will probably be permanent. Wonder Woman and Superman in the Buffyverse. Welcome to the new world of Buffy. I don't think they'll be permanent. I think whatever is causing "the glow" is the true Big Bad of this season, and the need to eliminate it will be so great that Buffy will have to bring about the end of all magic in this world in order to save it. Angel is talking in this issue like he knows everything, but come on... when has Angel ever been an oracle of truth? He's spent his life stumbling awkwardly through the minefield of truth and morality, just like everyone else in these stories. He may know some things Buffy doesn't, but I'm sure he doesn't know everything, and I'm even more sure he doesn't really understand the repercussions of what he does know. There's going to be plenty of disillusionment in the near future for both Buffy and Angel. I still think we're not getting out of this without a major character death, but I don't think it will be Willow. She's too valuable to the ongoing story. You never can tell...but I hope you're right. Especially about Willow. She's one of the reasons why I bother reading the comic. If Scott Allie or Joss read any of this...let them take note. Be careful who you decide to "kill off" otherwise you'll damage the franchise. So yeah, I do agree with you that Willow is too valuable "right now" to kill off. I'm being a realist though because I know Joss is capable of doing the nastiest thing. The future from DollHouse is pretty bleak and that's Joss so it's likely something truly catastrophic is going to happen and changes the landscape. Buffy does end the age of magic. The question is...what happens after this? Somebody speculated...maybe it was you? that Buffy strands Willow in this universe without magic and leaves her alone to pick up the pieces. Talk about betrayal. This would be it. Scott Allie did say someone is being killed off for Season 8. That much is certain. Right now. two candidates are very high on this list: Dawn and Willow.
|
|
zamolxis
Novice Witch
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 210
|
Post by zamolxis on Mar 14, 2010 10:51:03 GMT -5
I don't think they'll be permanent. I think whatever is causing "the glow" is the true Big Bad of this season, and the need to eliminate it will be so great that Buffy will have to bring about the end of all magic in this world in order to save it. Oh, God, yes please. I violently hate the glow
|
|