From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #96 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, May 31 2001 Volume 03 : Number 096 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/gift ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/gift ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: b/gift [meredith ] b/eliza dushku interview [meredith ] Re: b/gift ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/gift [meredith ] Re: b/gift [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/gift ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/gift ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:37:36 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/gift Joyce Millman on Salon reams out the finales of "West Wing" and "X-Files", but just adored BTVS's: http://www.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2001/05/29/finales_2001/index.html I remain disappointed, myself. Partly for the reasons that Susan and Gail have recently analyzed in detail (which I referred to earlier myself), that the whole business of the Key and the nature of the sacrifice has never hung together. But mostly my heart sank when I read Joss's posting assuring us that Buffy will be back. To have the gumption to kill Buffy off (_again_) and not to have the nerve to stick with it is a most unpalatable combination. It's cheaply manipulative. It's _worse_ than if Dawn had somehow managed to bring Joyce back perfectly fine (as opposed to in Monkey's Paw condition). Meredith predicted that Buffy might die, and I replied that to my tastes, BTVS has already used up its lifetime allotment of "Marvel death". I will keep watching the tv show, but if this were a book I'd throw it across the room. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:51:28 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/gift And I happened to think the finale to "West Wing" was great. I just started watching WW this year and have quickly become almost more attached to it than to BUFFY, especially with the last two seasons. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:37 AM Subject: Re: b/gift > Joyce Millman on Salon reams out the finales of "West Wing" and "X-Files", > but just adored BTVS's: > > http://www.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2001/05/29/finales_2001/index.html > > I remain disappointed, myself. Partly for the reasons that Susan and Gail > have recently analyzed in detail (which I referred to earlier myself), that > the whole business of the Key and the nature of the sacrifice has never > hung together. > > But mostly my heart sank when I read Joss's posting assuring us that Buffy > will be back. To have the gumption to kill Buffy off (_again_) and not to > have the nerve to stick with it is a most unpalatable combination. It's > cheaply manipulative. It's _worse_ than if Dawn had somehow managed to > bring Joyce back perfectly fine (as opposed to in Monkey's Paw condition). > Meredith predicted that Buffy might die, and I replied that to my tastes, > BTVS has already used up its lifetime allotment of "Marvel death". > > I will keep watching the tv show, but if this were a book I'd throw it > across the room. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:14:03 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/gift Hi, David forwarded: >Joyce Millman on Salon reams out the finales of "West Wing" and "X-Files", >but just adored BTVS's: > >http://www.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2001/05/29/finales_2001/index.html Thanks for forwarding that! Her article gives me new appreciation for the finale. I hadn't seen all the threads coming together that she did - but now that I think about it, it was clear that the entire season was indeed leading up to that one moment at the end. >I remain disappointed, myself. Partly for the reasons that Susan and Gail >have recently analyzed in detail (which I referred to earlier myself), that >the whole business of the Key and the nature of the sacrifice has never >hung together. Someone (sorry, I didn't keep all the messages that I meant to) wondered why it came down to blood, and what it would have come down to had the Key been an inanimate object. Spike answered this back in the magic shop, when he said something to the effect that blood is the essence of being human, it's what makes us alive. If the Key had been put into, say, an aloe plant, then the aloe would have done the same thing as the blood. Or if it had been a rock -- split the rock open and the portal would have opened as soon as the shards hit the ground. The blood explanation makes sense to me, and it did at the time, before I had discussed it with anyone or read any of the reactions here and elsewhere. You can't make something out of nothing, so it makes sense that the monks, in their haste to create the Key would take something from Buffy to do it. They knew they were going to send the Key to her for protection, after all. This also makes me wonder if there might be some throw-away background detail, seemingly insignificant from either the end of last season or the first episode of this season that would point this happening. Where did the monks did the essence they needed from Buffy to make the Key? Was it just magic? >But mostly my heart sank when I read Joss's posting assuring us that Buffy >will be back. To have the gumption to kill Buffy off (_again_) and not to >have the nerve to stick with it is a most unpalatable combination. Were you seriously thinking that UPN, as the Salon reviewer pointed out, would pay $2.3 million per episode for 44 episodes of a Buffy-less "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"? As for whether or not it's manipulative, or even a good idea, I'm reserving judgement until after I've seen the conclusion. This story isn't over -- the ending could more than justify the chapter we've been left hanging on for the summer. ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:29:14 -0400 From: meredith Subject: b/eliza dushku interview Hi, There's an interview with Eliza Dushku at http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=9176 It was done on her last day of filming Kevin Smith's _Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back_, back in March. Looks like she'll have two movies in the theaters at the end of August (_Soul Survivors_ being the other one, provided it doesn't get pushed back again). ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:03:03 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/gift At 04:14 PM 5/30/2001 , Meredith wrote: >Were you seriously thinking that UPN, as the Salon reviewer pointed out, >would pay $2.3 million per episode for 44 episodes of a Buffy-less "Buffy >The Vampire Slayer"? Networks have bought such things before. The BBC bought two seasons of a Blake-less "Blakes 7". I know there have been other shows, of Hollywood origin, which have lost their stars and tried to go on, though usually they've been sorry. And for sheer wasted money, how about that network that bought the XFL? >As for whether or not it's manipulative, or even a good idea, I'm reserving >judgement until after I've seen the conclusion. This story isn't over -- >the ending could more than justify the chapter we've been left hanging on >for the summer. It's manipulative. What's unanswered is how artfully Joss can wiggle out of the stock situation he's got himself into. The changes on "oops, they're not really dead" have been thoroughly rung, and wrung dry, by Marvel and DC Comics. If Joss can come up with a new one, he's the same genius who inserted Dawn. But that doesn't make what's happened to date any less manipulative, period. Seeing Willow's face at the end of "Angel" and then learning that Buffy's going to come back - that makes me angry. I've been tricked. An all-flashback show might be forgiven. Buffy as a spirit guide, a la Obi-Wan, or as an alternate person in Dawn's body, a la Glory and Ben, or the monks clone Buffy out of Dawn, or anything of that sort, no. And I doubt those are what he has in mind. "BTVS starring SMG" sounds like she'll be back in full. I note that you write "conclusion" and "ending" about next season and "this story isn't over" -- this is the same Joss Whedon who's on record as saying he hates cliffhanger endings, yes? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:33:53 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/gift Hi, David responded: >Networks have bought such things before. The BBC bought two seasons of a >Blake-less "Blakes 7". I know there have been other shows, of Hollywood >origin, which have lost their stars and tried to go on, though usually >they've been sorry. And for sheer wasted money, how about that network >that bought the XFL? In today's entertainment world, I seriously doubt that a Blake-less "Blakes 7" would be allowed to happen. Plus, now we're talking about UPN, which is a network that was seriously contemplating folding not too long ago, and which still runs the risk of getting eaten by Rupert Murdoch at any time. >But that doesn't make what's happened to date any less manipulative, >period. Seeing Willow's face at the end of "Angel" and then learning that >Buffy's going to come back - that makes me angry. I've been tricked. Why is that such a bad thing? Without getting led down a primrose path every once in a while, and then suddenly finding out what you thought was happening turned out not to be the case at all, you're left with something that is predictable, suspenseless, boring and not remotely entertaining. Joss is a master manipulator. By the end of _Becoming 2_, we had been manipulated into thinking "there's no way, if Angel gets his soul back, that Buffy will be able to send him through the portal." But lo, that's exactly what she did. That scene wouldn't have had nearly the impact that it did without the setup. Any time you watch (or read) a story, you're being manipulated in some way. The bad guy is presented as the bad guy and the good guy is presented as the good guy so you will care what happens. When it looks like something bad is about to happen to the good guy, and suddenly there's a cut to commercial, you sit there glued to your seat waiting to find out what's going to happen next. The examples go on and on. >I note that you write "conclusion" and "ending" about next season and "this >story isn't over" -- this is the same Joss Whedon who's on record as saying >he hates cliffhanger endings, yes? Yes, but just because we've got a break of four months before we get to see the next installment of the story doesn't mean we're left with a cliffhanger. A "cliffhanger" as I define it (and from what I've heard, Joss defines it this way too) is Cancer Man blowing up the train car where Mulder is trapped, then: "Executive producer: Cris Carter." _Babylon 5_ never ended a season with a cliffhanger, but we weren't left any less eager to find out how things were going to turn out in the next chapter. Same here. _Buffy_ is a continuing story, no matter how self-contained every season may appear to be on the outside. Going from season 2 into season 3, for example, we were left wondering where it was that Buffy was going on that bus ... and then in the season premiere we found out the answer. After season 3, we were left wondering how things were going to go once the gang started college. Now, we're left wondering how Buffy is going to come back. None of these endings were "cliffhangers" in the traditional sense, but there were enough open questions left to keep you coming back. ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 01:11:11 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/gift In a message dated 5/30/2001 4:20:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, meth@smoe.org writes: << Someone (sorry, I didn't keep all the messages that I meant to) wondered why it came down to blood, and what it would have come down to had the Key been an inanimate object. Spike answered this back in the magic shop, when he said something to the effect that blood is the essence of being human, it's what makes us alive. If the Key had been put into, say, an aloe plant, then the aloe would have done the same thing as the blood. Or if it had been a rock -- split the rock open and the portal would have opened as soon as the shards hit the ground. >> Well, that is extrapolating a lot that Spike did NOT say. If the show had even given the slightest nod to resolving this it would have helped. But it didn't; what happened in that dialogue was just: "Why blood?" "Spike:" "It's always blood." Nothing connecting blood to Key, even though, as you demonstrate, it would have been easy to come up with something. And Buffy's connection to Dawn's blood in no way explains how Buffy's fall or anything that Buffy did made Dawn stop bleeding. I wish it did make sense so I could have been moved. The character setup was great, perfect, all season building straight up to a great character climax, there was a lot of thought put into the character arc. but the simple plot logic holes just took me right out of the story. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:58:06 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/gift At 08:33 PM 5/30/2001 -0400, Meredith wrote: >In today's entertainment world, I seriously doubt that a Blake-less "Blakes >7" would be allowed to happen. Plus, now we're talking about UPN, which is >a network that was seriously contemplating folding not too long ago, and >which still runs the risk of getting eaten by Rupert Murdoch at any time. Joss has done a lot of things that I would have thought would never be allowed to happen in "today's entertainment world." Plus, it's the nearly bankrupt companies that spend their money on the oddest things. How about PG&E giving millions in bonuses to the executives who led it into bankruptcy? >Why is that such a bad thing? Without getting led down a primrose path >every once in a while, and then suddenly finding out what you thought was >happening turned out not to be the case at all, you're left with something >that is predictable, suspenseless, boring and not remotely entertaining. If you really think that's the only alternative ... Besides, we've been led down this particular primrose path before. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you. In my opinion BTVS has used up its lifetime supply of Marvel death. I've said that before, and I'll keep saying it as necessary. >Any time you watch (or read) a story, you're being manipulated in some way. That's an absurdly broad definition. Having one's emotions and interests involved by a fictional story is not the same as manipulation, a term generally restricted in actual use to cases where the author shoves the reader's emotions around in an arbitrary and willful manner. BTVS is rarely manipulative in this sense. This time it is. >Yes, but just because we've got a break of four months before we get to see >the next installment of the story doesn't mean we're left with a >cliffhanger. A "cliffhanger" as I define it (and from what I've heard, >Joss defines it this way too) is Cancer Man blowing up the train car where >Mulder is trapped, then: "Executive producer: Cris Carter." And that's an absurdly narrow definition. There's a huge difference between a story ending, knowing that there will be another story following, and a cliffhanger. If you can't see the difference between Buffy wandering off at the end of the 2nd season, or graduating at the end of the 3rd, and her Marvel death this time ... Buffy's death was not, in fact, a cliffhanger until Joss told us she'd be coming back. By saying so the very next day he's made a bad situation worse. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:43:51 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/gift Let me try putting this another way. If all fiction is equally manipulative, then why is it that some times I squeal with delight at the clever things Joss has done in my head, while this time I feel violated and abused? Don't say the answer is just in me. Actually, it's the interface between my reaction and Joss's tv program. In any case, everything we say here is our personal reactions: this is mine. If you don't feel that way in this case, fine. But don't deny the existence of the distinctions I'm trying to make. There's a famous case of a really bad slushpile sf story, in which a man is being chased by the bad guys. After harrowing adventures, he is cornered at the edge of cliff, and falls off. Then the author writes, "Oh, did I mention he had wings? Unfurling his wings, he flew off ..." Now, that's certainly a case of "getting led down a primrose path every once in a while, and then suddenly finding out what you thought was happening turned out not to be the case at all." But is that an ideal method of storytelling? I think not. Is there no alternative to this but "something that is predictable, suspenseless, boring and not remotely entertaining"? I think not. The point is, it's not just that something bad happens to the good guy, and then (perhaps after a commercial) he gets out of it. It's what that thing is, and whether the story works with it. Now this is an absurd case. But the point is, somewhere in there is a line, or a fuzzy zone. And this time, I think, it's crossed it. If you don't think so, fine. But the line is still there. Why do I feel this case has crossed that line? Well, let's turn from fiction to reality. If someone lied to me, and told me falsely that someone I cared for had died, and I go through the whole grieving process, and then discover the truth, my relief will be tempered with sharp anger at the person who played with my emotions that way. That's manipulative. Something else, even more important: In certain types of fiction - for instance mysteries that reveal the criminal at the beginning - the suspense and interest lies not in what's going to happen, but how it will happen. (How will the detective catch the criminal?) In an ordinary episode of a series tv show, you know everything's likely to come out all right in the end. The suspense and interest lies in how. Buffy will defeat the Master somehow ... will defeat Angelus somehow ... will defeat the Mayor somehow ... will defeat Adam somehow ... will defeat Glory somehow. And in each case she did. And up until now it worked fine. Adam was a terrible villain, but his demise was neato keen. But after a while this pattern becomes a bit predictable and routine. So, just as you say, it needs to get spiced up: what you thought was going to happen doesn't happen at all. So every once in a while, the how-it-will-happen gets replaced by the surprise of what does happen. (As an incidental case of that, consider Joyce. She's dead. She's not coming back. That was a surprise.) So this time, in addition to defeating this year's supposedly unstoppable menace, Buffy dies too. Wow! We'd been led down the primrose path: we'd assumed everything would come out all right in the end, but it doesn't. Buffy's dead. Well, the very next day Joss comes on and says, no she isn't. Whoops! The surprise - the something different - turns out to be a fake. The primrose path was the right one after all. Nothing bad is going to happen: we can kill the occasional Joyce, but we can't kill Buffy, oh no, that would be going too far. Other Slayers can die, but not our B. If Joss really wanted to surprise us, if he really wanted to startle us and entirely avoid "something that is predictable, suspenseless, boring and not remotely entertaining", he would kill Buffy and KEEP HER DEAD. Now that would have impact. That would keep us glued to our seats. Characters dying and then turning out not to be really dead ... that's the oldest trick in the book. That's why it's called "Marvel death," after its most famous abuser. It's "predictable, suspenseless, boring and not remotely entertaining," to use your own words. If Buffy hadn't died at all this time, Glory's defeat might not have been so interesting, but it wouldn't have been cheap. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #96 ****************************