|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 13, 2010 19:08:36 GMT -5
No, it doesn't line up. And I think you're right, in season 5 we're going for comic effect, and in season 6, for dramatic effect. When Buffy makes her confession to Tara, Tara must have known, even before the words came out, that Buffy was about to confess something serious, and she must have understood the need not to pass judgment. She did so by saying nothing, which was the best thing to do. I doubt Willow could've remained silent at that moment.
Have we gotten away from Willow/Tara?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 13, 2010 18:58:25 GMT -5
Could a Slayer possibly live to be 40? But maybe that's not the point ...
If we do see an older Buffy on screen (I hadn't really thought about this before), she'd better be different than the younger Buffy we saw, and I mean her character, not just her appearance.
Remember when they made the first Star Trek movie? And Kirk was the same swash-buckling horse's ass he always was, only with a bigger belly? And Uhura was still checking sub-space frequencies and ... I better stop.
I assume Joss wouldn't do anything like that.
Buffy changes so much from season 1 to 7, we can hardly recognize her as the same. She better keep changing and growing.
That said ... I want more Buffy!
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 13, 2010 18:44:44 GMT -5
I just finished "The Gift," I watched it twice in a row. Tightest climax in the show IMHO. Now I'm slowly working through "Bargaining." I know many people don't like season 6, and even I have my reservations about it, but it sure started out right.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 9, 2010 11:50:24 GMT -5
I rather liked The Master. He was a good villain in the campy style. I thought his moment of victory at the end of season 1 was extremely effective, among the best moments in the series.
Absolutely, it was a mistake to kill off Maggie Walsh. It's painful to think of all that could've been done with her, if she were still alive, especially if Buffy could've been kept in the dark about her a few episodes longer. She could've been a "double agent."
Say ... is this thread getting too long? Could we close it out, start again?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 8, 2010 10:59:06 GMT -5
For Girl in Question: Please elaborate about Warren. I didn't see any steps in his transition to evil. In season 5, he was not so bad, even a little better than, say, Parker, whom most fans seem to agree isn't actually evil. Then in season 6, he seems to be a full blown villain from the minute we see him. That was a WTF moment for me, I had no idea it was coming and it seemed to me utterly contrived. It was as if the writers wanted a new villain but were too lazy to make up a new character, or maybe Adam Busch needed a job and somebody liked him. It never rang true to me and still doesn't.
If I missed something, clue me in, please.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 7, 2010 17:53:57 GMT -5
Have you read "Jo's Boys" by Louisa May Alcott? That was the gospel of motherhood, in a time when mothers were much more revered than they are today. If you have, you remember the scene where Jo's most prodigal son returns from prison and she takes him back. It was a touching scene, but Jo didn't "do" or "say" anything. She felt.
Buffy and Willow when Buffy learned Willow was gay? Not the same kind of scene. Willow was making a difficult choice, not confessing a terrible transgression. Willow knows that being lesbian might be unpopular in some circles, but she doesn't feel it is a sin. Buffy definitely feels she's doing something wrong and a thousand times wrong by sleeping with Spike.
In season 5, can't remember which episode, when we first meet the Buffy Bot, Willow gets the idea that Buffy is sleeping with Spike (not true at that time). Remember how she responded? Not like Tara did. That's the difference between friend love and mother love.
Oh, here's a notion I just picked up from Rhonda Wilcox. Wilcox says "Tara" is a "charactonym." It refers to "Terra," or earth, and reflects the "earth mother" concept. I haven't made up my mind about that. It sounds a little far-fetched to me, even though it supports my point of view.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 7, 2010 17:43:02 GMT -5
Buffy must've felt that she wasn't really welcome at the Magic Box. They might've accepted her, but it smacked of charity. The job at Doublemeat she GOT ALL BY HERSELF. That's why she preferred it.
You don't think accepting money from Giles damaged the relationship? That's the way it always is. Nobody wants to say, or even think, "I don't feel equal or secure in this relationship anymore because you gave me money," but that's in the background.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 7, 2010 17:34:08 GMT -5
^^ As for Giles not being a father figure to the group as a whole, I can see where you're coming from but I have to disagree. Giles is clearly a father figure to Buffy, yes, and even Willow to a large extent, but I would argue for Xander as well. ... Even later on in the series despite all her progression and character-growth, there is still an insecure young girl that lies within Willow. She desperately tries to compensate for it, of course, but there are times even later in the series when it is readily apparent. I think this, again, is what leads her to attach so strongly to Tara, and later, Kennedy. Lots of things ... Can't agree about Giles-Xander. It always seemed to me that Giles was very dismissive of Xander, didn't like him or respect him, didn't want him around, thought he was a liability to the group. And not without reason! I'll look for examples, see if I can find evidence one way or another. Willow as an "insecure little girl" ... this is the subject of another thread started by tkts but he "blames it" on me. Willow is the "junior partner" to Tara in that relationship (see Tough Love) because she's the needy one. It's pretty unequal. After Tara threatens to leave, Willow seems to shape up somewhat, and I'm willing to believe the relationship was on the right track, until of course it was cut short by Warren's bullet. In a way, Willow's relationship with Oz was better. My hunch is that Oz, not being weak in the way Willow was, couldn't see Willow's weakness and never attempted to minister to it, so that the two were more equal.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 7, 2010 8:02:28 GMT -5
Is this thread about Buffy? I'm so obsessed, I don't want to talk about anything but Buffy.
But if you want to know about me, I'm trying to put up a poetry chapbook, and I'm studying ahead for a math class I intend to take next semester. I'm not a student. I just love math.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 6, 2010 20:02:09 GMT -5
OOps! A little more. I agree about Hell's Bells, they dropped the ball there. Anya and Xander should've married. A subplot about Anya being offered a return to demon status and turning it down could've preceded it.
And that part about the world-ending temple in the desert, which didn't appear until the last episode, I did hate that. It showed they weren't doing their homework, playing catchup.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 6, 2010 19:58:49 GMT -5
I mentioned something about Warren in an earlier post that nobody replied to ... does anybody have a take on it?
In Season 5, Warren isn't so bad. There's even an interview with Adam Busch where he didn't think of Warren as a villain and didn't play him that way. Turning him into the blackest of black villains in Season 6 just didn't work. I feel the same about Amy, BTW. She was also sympathetic when we first met her.
On another issue, sorry to some of you, but I think Buffy winding up in a fast food joint was entirely realistic and just what would've been expected. Buffy has an "amazing heart" and a vast fund of instinctive wisdom, but she doesn't have the competence that makes Xander succeed in the workplace, or the brilliance that makes Willow shine in the classroom. Her good qualities are not salable. And it was her first job, after all! I say, kudos to Marti Noxon. She must've been under pressure to go the "Charmed" route, make Buffy into a little princess, with a soft job as a buyer for a department store or a junior editor at a ladies' magazine.
Should Willow and Tara have chipped in with rent? Maybe they did. Presumably they had to maintain living quarters somewhere else. And Giles giving Buffy money ... I'm not surprised their relationship went downhill. Have any of you ever been in the position of giving or receiving money from a friend? I have. Sometimes you have to do it, but as a rule of thumb, any cash gift of more than about $50 to a person outside your family will mean the end of the relationship.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 6, 2010 17:40:45 GMT -5
About Buffy's love for Dawn and the soul ... I lost track of this thread for a few days ...
Having no soul would seem to imply that Dawn was less than a full person. At the least, having a soul seems to mean that you have a full set of natural feelings, including empathy for other people. If you don't have a soul then you "can't feel anything real" and "don't know what love is" as Buffy says to Spike while she's beating him up. Her blows must be causing him pain, but what does that matter? He has no soul, therefore he doesn't feel real pain, his "feelings" are fake and deserve no respect. Could she love him? Is that a serious question? Now after he gets a soul, it's a different question.
That's not the way she feels about Dawn. Buffy thinks Dawn has a soul. She "feels with" Dawn so deeply that she cares for Dawn's feelings than for her own.
BTW: this reflects the minimum meaning of the word "soul" in the Buffyverse, as I understand it. In some places, and more and more as the show progresses, a "soul" seems to mean the essence of a person's individuality and the vehicle of his/her mentality. Angelus can have memories that Angel does not.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 6, 2010 17:30:21 GMT -5
I don't think Willow will be able to have a healthy relationship, she's got a lot of issues. When she was with Oz she cheated with Xander and that was probably the most stable relationship she had during the show. Even after he left she's already talking about wanting to be able to control her relationships- in something blue she tells Buffy that if she had had any real power she would have been able to make Oz stay with her. And then we see her actually try and enact that on Tara with the memory spells and what not. Personally, I don't think she (or anyone else in the show) will ever have a healthy, happy relationship... but I don't think anyone in real life does either. Everyone has issues and baggage, so the shows relationships are realistic in that respect. Plus they're cute and entertaining to watch. also, I like this topic *karmas* I agree absolutely. Let me add a couple of things ... the Willow-Tara relationship began at a time when Willow was more vulnerable than usual, suffering from lack of Oz. In "Tough Love" she describes herself as the "junior partner" in her relationship with Tara. I picture the early Willow-Tara conversations involving a lot of crying and release of feelings on Willow's part (some people would say "whining," I don't like that word). We never see conversations like that, though. We see healthy conversations related to matters in the present, like what to name the kitty.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 6, 2010 17:24:09 GMT -5
Tara didn't do anything? What was she supposed to do? What would Joyce have done that she didn't? She accepted Buffy as she (Buffy) was, even though it was difficult. That's what mother love is. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 5, 2010 13:19:56 GMT -5
I love season 6, and I love many of the things some other people don't like about it.
But there is one thing about it I definitely don't like. I don't like "The Trio" as villains.
That Jonathan, whom I always liked, should "go evil" never made sense to me. It wasn't in character. He might not have fought back or ratted out Warren, but the Jonathan I know wouldn't have followed along either.
But what about Warren? In season 5, Warren is not so bad. He's flawed, but seems to be basically a decent guy. I never believed all the evil he showed in season 6. I believe it even less in season 8.
Finally, if the message is "nerds are evil," which is what I think a lot of people will get out of it, then it's actually offensive, and contrary to the drift of the earlier seasons.
I searched this thread and I'm puzzled that nobody else in this thread objects to the "trio" as villains. Am I the only one who feels this way?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 5, 2010 12:49:28 GMT -5
Let's do a thought experiment.
Suppose that, contrary to the way you see it, Tara actually was a mother figure to Buffy. Then, if you're right and Tara was "just a good friend," then something different would've happened. What? What would a mother figure have done, that Tara didn't do?
Suppose Buffy had laid her head on Tara's breast and cried. Then would you say that Tara was a mother figure to Buffy? Buffy actually did cry, and she held both of Tara's hands, if I remember right.
I'm trying to figure out why we see this differently. Here's a stab at it. I think that mothers are necessary, not just before birth or even before adulthood, but throughout life. I think a good mother can offer a kind of emotional support that ever normal person or any age needs, especially in certain desperate but realistic situations. Buffy lost her mother. She must either find somebody else to fill that role, or suffer for the lack of mothering.
Do you agree?
I could be completely off the mark, but I think your view is conditioned by a perception that mothering is only for babies. If Buffy needs mothering, on this view, then she's not a grownup and we can't respect her.
Is this the point where we see things differently?
BTW, somebody pointed out that Buffy asks Tara not to forgive her. She did indeed say that. But I don't think she meant it. I think she wanted forgiveness in the worst way. That's why she revealed her secret first to the one among all her friends who was most likely to forgive her.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 5, 2010 11:58:09 GMT -5
So a male slayer would kill his vampire girlfriend at the end of Season 2? That would've been harder to accept. The head would get, but maybe not the heart. The idea of a man practicing violence against a woman is so repellent, I don't think we could've gotten over that feeling.
And a male slayer would've died for his sister at the end of season 5? Or his brother? Dawn would've been, uh, Don? It would've been hard to get that terrible tender-heartedness of the Buffy character into a male shape. In a way, I wish it'd been tried.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 4, 2010 21:09:27 GMT -5
About metaphors in the later seasons ...
First, we continue metaphors from the earlier seasons. We still have vampires, and the hellmouth reappears in season 7. We even learn more about these metaphors. Vampires were more vicious and more powerful in the old days than they are now (true), and the hellmouth can be opened by shedding blood and closed by shedding tears (true).
BTW, the vampire is a metaphor for ... and the hellmouth is a metaphor for ...
I know what I'd put in the blanks, but I won't learn anything by me talking. What do you guys say a vampire or a hellmouth is a metaphor for?
Now some new metaphors.
The first thing that comes to mind is Willow threatening to "end the world" after Tara dies in season 6. That's a metaphor for threatening suicide.
And the First Evil, which has no body, works only by suggestion, can appear only in the form of someone who has died, that had better be a metaphor. Again, I have my own way of explaining it, but I'd like to hear what other people say.
In Season 4, and season 1 of Angel which was concurrent, we have "The Initiative" and "Wolfram & Hart." What do they represent? When Angel takes his elevator ride down and down, to the home office of W&H, that's a metaphor too.
And Glory is a metaphor.
I'm at a hotspot, place is closing, gotta go. I pass the ball.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 3, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
I haven't read the Angel comics very regularly, but I do remember a scene where Spike telephones a woman he knows in Las Vegas, hoping he can help him cope with LA Hell. She listens to what he says, but she's also watching a TV set where a news report from LA shows the city functioning as always. She hangs up on him.
We can sense of this in more than one way, but on any showing, there are two variations on reality here, one where LA is in shambles, and another where it's not.
Presumably there is a reality, or illusion, where Sunnydale is all right. Willow's and Xander's parents live there.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Sept 3, 2010 16:28:44 GMT -5
I'm reading "Why Buffy Matters," by Rhonda Wilcox. Here's what she says on p. 18: "In Buffy's world, the problems teenagers face become literal monsters. Internet predators are demons; drink-doctoring frat boys have sold their souls for success in the business world; a girl who has sex with even the nicest-seeming male discovers that he afterwards becomes a monster. From the earliest episodes, it was apparent to attentive viewers that Buffy operated on a symbolic level."
What do you guys think of that?
If you say something like that to a non-believer, at least if you're me, you can expect dismissal or ridicule. Even people who have never seen the show seem absolutely certain that it can't possible "operate on a symbolic level," that anybody who thinks it does is making things up, and that most rank-and-file viewers see nothing symbolic or metaphorical in the show at all.
This board is the best place I know to connect with rank-and-file fans. What do you guys think?
|
|