August 2003 posts


Previous August 2003  

More August 2003

O/T -- Rob, I feel like you don't want to date me because you... -- Rochefort, 14:23:38 08/22/03 Fri

think I'm just trying to use you so that I can go to Little Shop with you and then try to meet Kerry. But I'm so OVER Kerry. This isn't about Kerry. I really want to be your date to Little Shop just cause I want to be your date to Little Shop. NOT because of Kerry. Even if we go to talk to her after the show and she asks me out, I would wait till after OUR date was finished before I hooked up with her. And I would still like, totally treat our relationship with all seriousness and weigh it for its own merits and as I said, I'm totally over her. I mean she's not such hot stuff. I was listening to Bat Boy the Musical the other day and I was like, "I bet Rob would be cute singing 'Inside My Heart' too." So what do you say? Take me to the show?

[> Okay, you can be my date...as long as you wear your sheriff outfit. Meow. ;o) -- Rob, humming "Somewhere That's Green", 20:19:19 08/22/03 Fri


[> [> Hell yes. I'll bring my gun, too. Yay! I can't wait! -- Rochefort, 22:39:48 08/22/03 Fri


[> [> [> Oh, I'm so happy for you boys!! **sniff, sob** -- dub ;o), 08:09:33 08/23/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> We want a full report. And pictures. Fanfic is optional. -- Arethusa, 08:39:28 08/23/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> Hmmmmm.... :-) -- LittleBit (setting up for BehindATPo), 20:47:59 08/23/03 Sat


[> [> If Rochefort is dressing up as sheriff, will you be sportng the pom poms? -- Tyreseus, 15:22:10 08/23/03 Sat


[> [> [> shhhhhh. If I'm lucky. -- Rochefort, 17:34:29 08/23/03 Sat


OT, but something that's been discussed before -- Darby, 15:06:12 08/22/03 Fri

For gender and writing style, you can go to
The Gender Genie

I submitted this week's "Revisited" (just a cut-and-paste into the window) and it correctly pegged it as written by a male, although its overall numbers suggest it's not much more accurate than flipping a coin.

[> It got Sara right too. -- Darby, 15:09:39 08/22/03 Fri


[> Is it now better than flipping a coin? -- d'Herblay, 16:21:53 08/22/03 Fri

While I was testing the Gender Genie last night, its correct rate was under 42%, which means that I'd have had better success flipping a coin. (I ran through various posters: it successfully determined that Rah and Masq are female, but pegged ponygirl as male and KdS as female. I ran through about ten of my LiveJournal entries, and it called me male maybe three times.) I've just checked now and it is above 50% accuracy, so you're right, it is better than flipping a coin (barely).

Anyway, I'm not sure what this new web obsession will tell us: for one thing, it is not clear how faithfully the Gender Genie reproduces the algorithm of Koppel and Argamon (the programmers based their construction on a New York Times summary rather than the original paper); on the other hand, one could explain away the low accuracy rate with the simple explanation that one cannot expect more than about 50% accuracy on the web. One thing I have noticed is that the Times algorithm specifies fiction; the Gender Genie makes no mention of fiction vs. non-fiction, and I suspect that the vast majority of trials have been with non-fiction.

I'm currently experimenting with fiction, running through the first chapter of the Fanged Fic. It has returned male for both Marie and Dead Soul, and female for me, but correctly named deeva as a woman and JCC as male. At this rate, I'll need only about 800 more trials to get it back under 50%.

[> [> Just out of curiosity... -- Masq, 16:30:06 08/22/03 Fri

What writing of mine did you submit? Because my live journal, concerned with personal matters, might be pegged as "female", while my website, using formal language and abstract concepts, might be pegged as "male".

[> [> [> Hey, I'm a guy!......;) -- Rufus, 17:12:08 08/22/03 Fri

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: Male!

I took that post I wrote without the quotes in the Home thread.

[> [> [> Re: Just out of curiosity... -- d'Herblay, 21:03:47 08/22/03 Fri

The algorithm makes no such allowances for personal or impersonal subject matters. It's entirely based on grammatical choices. But, yeah, I took one of your LJ posts.

I haven't tried anything from atpobtvs.com, but your Kate essay reveals that you're female.

[> [> Re: Is it now better than flipping a coin? -- ponygirl, 18:04:49 08/22/03 Fri

It was pretty consistent in having all my work-related writing as female, while my personal writing came back as male. It must be the nurturing all-inclusive nature of my copy compared to my rugged Hemingway-esque posts!

The post was long. Yes. And deep. Shot through with wisdom, like the hide of the old elephant. The one that I killed with my long rifle. There would be time to post again. But not tonight.

[> [> [> LOL! -- Arethusa, 21:07:30 08/22/03 Fri

I was female the first time, male the second. The deciding factor seemed to be the number of times I said "the." Which doesn't seem to be a reliable indicator, since I got two different answers. So men really say "the" more often than women?

The Arethusa

[> I've just discovered something frightening about myself -- Tyreseus, 17:11:59 08/22/03 Fri

Despite HonorH's tongue in cheek claim that I'm actually a hermaphrodite, I have only boy parts in real life. However, after running about 15 of my posts, articles, editorials and works of fiction through this thing, all but one came back as female. (Including this post)

I'm having terrible high school flashbacks - only instead of hearing those jocks taunt me because I throw like a girl, now my English teachers are chanting "writes like a girl... writes like a girl..."

[> Right now it's at 50.65% correct -- Vickie, 17:22:39 08/22/03 Fri

It got me right, but thought James Tiptree (Alice Sheldon) was a man. It also thinks Masq the philosopher (a piece of the I in Team analysis) is a man.

Interesting.

[> I submitted my reply below. Female? Wrong! -- CW, 17:44:50 08/22/03 Fri


[> Got me right every time -- Diana, 18:08:04 08/22/03 Fri

Guess I'm a chick after all. It didn't matter the style, the subject, the formality, or any other variable I could come up with. Fiction/non-fiction. Technical or designed for a lay audience. Didn't matter.

For once, I'm not on the boarderline of something. YIPPEEE!!! I'm a girl and girls just wanna have fun.

[> [> Re: Got me right every time -- Eryn, 20:18:50 08/22/03 Fri

Oddly enough--when I put in scholarly writing, it judged me to be a man. When I put in fiction I'd written, it said I was a woman.

Eryn

[> I'm a guy, too. -- dub ;o), 21:32:01 08/22/03 Fri

My recent LJ entry on returning to work came up male.

[> It got me right -- Celebaelin, 01:55:09 08/23/03 Sat

Used the Hollywood Waltz parts I & II. Interesting criteria it uses but don't you think you could do better than 50/50? I'd give some guesses but it would only annoy the non gender stipulators amongst us.

[> ME writers are female too! -- ponygirl, 07:23:57 08/23/03 Sat

I ran bits from the shooting scripts through the Genie, I tried to stick to dialogue since I thought the directions might screw up the results, but everyone I put in came up femme. Joss, Jane, David Fury and Doug Petrie all chicks - though the Jane thing wasn't a surprise. I even copied some Joss posts from the Bronze archive over and again female. Maybe "you write like a girl" will be the cool new compliment?

[> Well, oddly enough.... -- Rob, 08:13:49 08/23/03 Sat

I submitted three separate paragraphs from the same essay. Two of them labelled me feminine, and one masculine. When I clicked "No," that it hadn't labelled me correctly, for the two feminine ones, a graph showed up, with its accuracy results. So far, it's only been correct 50.34% of the time, whereas according to the algorithm, it should be correct 80% of the time.

Rob

[> Got me right, and a friend too -- mamcu, 08:52:31 08/23/03 Sat

And both were just very similar passages giving directions to students about starting online courses. Very strange.

[> [> Now I'm gender-confused -- Katrina, 10:11:46 08/23/03 Sat

I tried it three times: once with a paragraph from an academic essay, once with the introduction to a personal essay, and once with a poem I wrote. All three times it pegged me male. Which I guess goes to prove I'm as improperly socialized as I've always suspected.

Good thing my husband doesn't mind.

[> [> [> Just don't write in bed! -- mamcu, 12:49:18 08/24/03 Sun


[> Odyssey update -- Tchaikovsky, 14:49:50 08/23/03 Sat

The reviews for 'Home', 'Peace Out' and 'Sacrifice' were all written by a female apparently. Which is odd because I had myself pegged as male. Back to the drawing board...

TCH

[> [> Don't feel bad. Jane Espenson came out as a male. -- s'kat, 22:14:24 08/23/03 Sat

My essay above came out as female. But Jane Espenson's quote about writing came out as male.

Which means that we can't figure out each other's gender by submitting writing samples to the website. Dang. ;-) (Not that I was going to...I mean honestly who has the time?)

[> [> [> Re:Tara's alternate fates? -- DEN, 09:35:28 08/24/03 Sun

Kat--or anyone else--perhaps you can help me on a point of story planning. At the end of S6/start of s7, Joss and Amber seemed to agree that Tara's only prospects were as a mask for the First Evil--something Amber did not wish to do. That has been the "Canonical story." Now you cite an interview where Joss talks about a plan to bring Tara back alive late in s7, but Amber wanted to do other things. I'd never heard of that as even a possibility, so am interested in picking up the thread. WTF was the real story.

BTW,Kat--the essay is magnificent! I've seen masters' degrees granted for far less scholarship and analysis. My compliments on your achievement.

[> [> [> [> It is interesting to speculate on. -- s'kat, 11:13:54 08/24/03 Sun

"Kat--or anyone else--perhaps you can help me on a point of story planning. At the end of S6/start of s7, Joss and Amber seemed to agree that Tara's only prospects were as a mask for the First Evil--something Amber did not wish to do. That has been the "Canonical story." Now you cite an interview where Joss talks about a plan to bring Tara back alive late in s7, but Amber wanted to do other things. I'd never heard of that as even a possibility, so am interested in picking up the thread. WTF was the real story."

I'm not sure to be honest. The IGFN interview certainly suggests that was the case. Which made me wonder about Benson and what we accept as canon.;-)

We do have proof he planned to have Tara as First Evil to start with. Benson also tells us that he had told her all the twists and turns of S7 and she found it to depressing and didn't want to go there. Amber is 25/26 and right now focusing on writing and filmmaking more than acting. She also makes close to $50,000 at the conventions and is trying to sell a movie she wrote and directed herself. It stands to reason that she would try to put as positive a light as possible on why she did not wish to return as Tara in S7. She needs those fans.

JW's comments in IGFN are equally interesting - b/c they state that he planned on bringing her back as both the First Evil and as Tara eventually. My gut tells me he is probably telling the truth - especially if you look at Tara's interesting role in Restless as guide. I would not put it past ME to have wanted to reprise that idea. What you would have is Tara as FE up until...a breaking point where the real Tara makes an appearence to Willow and/or Buffy dispelling the FE's influence. It would have been a fantastic and moving metaphor for the battle inside Willow between darkness and light - using Tara as spiritual guide and FE. So I think that was Whedon's plan. Whether Whedon successfully conveyed that idea to Amber? We'll never know. My guess is he probably didn't. I think she is probably telling the truth when she states that she found the idea way too painful. In ten years? She'll probably curse herself for passing up on the opportunity to play such an interesting dual role. Actors are interesting - in their 20s - several of them, not all (some of the more successful ones will play anything - such as Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton) are afraid of tarnishing their image and don't want to play anything negative, or if they portrayed a positive character close to their heart - they fear tarnishing it in any way. SMG really had problems with how Buffy was portrayed in Season 6, according to interviews after that season concluded. Alyson Hannigan also struggled with Willow. Both are still quite young at 26 and 28. When actors get older - they'd give their eye-tooth to play those types of characters. Example: Denzel Washington refused to play negative characters until he got the role he won the oscar for, and he was in his 40s at that point.

OTOH - perhaps Amber was correct in her estimation of both the fanbase and the role. Playing the negative aspects of TARA may not have gone over well with her fans and she does need their support at this point in her career. It is her fans after all that are paying her rent and getting her self-made movie Chance sold. For an entertainer - your fans are your bread and butter.

So my hunch for what it's worth is that both Amber and Whedon are telling the truth here. Whedon saw his story as gripping and a tale of true love, Amber saw it as a painful deconstruction of the character she loved and depressing.
Don't know about anyone else? But I'd love to have seen whatever script or outline JW pitched to Amber. Otherwise all we can do is speculate on what happened and what might have been.

SK
PS: Thanks - regarding the essay!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: It is interesting to speculate on. -- Yellow Bear, 15:11:16 08/25/03 Mon

Really thoughtful little essay on the whole 'Tara-return' storyline. I tend to agree with you on the above, although I have a difficult time believing that Ms. Benson wasn't informed that she was meant to return as Tara and not some aspect of the First as she has stated. You never know in these situations but it sure doesn't keep us from speculating.

[> [> [> [> [> [> AB made quite a few public comments -- Sophist, 20:58:33 08/25/03 Mon

in which it was clear that she understood Tara would only return as a manifestation of the FE. She said this repeatedly over the course of about 6 months. Only after Chosen did JW suggest any other story had been pitched to her. Given all the circumstances, I'm inclined to believe that AB has it correct.

[> [> [> God and Jesus are female. -- Arethusa, 09:45:47 08/24/03 Sun

I used a passage from Genesis for God and the Sermon on the Mount for Jesus.

[> [> [> [> LOL- but we already knew that -- sdev, 11:45:34 08/24/03 Sun


[> [> Shakespeare's female, too! I just fed the Gender Genie some Hamlet monologues. -- Rob, 10:16:56 08/25/03 Mon


[> Everything I write is female, female, female -- Masq, 11:04:42 08/25/03 Mon

But I'm pretty sure I'm writing with my hands, not my girl-parts.

BTVS(also ATS) and The Pitfalls of the Television Medium ( long w/footnotes) -- shadowkat (trying something new), 09:56:39 08/23/03 Sat

Okay never done this before and not sure it is going to work, but attempting it anyway. Thanks in advance for indulging me. ;-) I call this my frustration management essay. Spoilers to Home and Chosen only. With the well known casting spoiler that only people living under rocks don't know. ;-)

(*A NOTE, or rather, A WARNING REGARDING CITATIONS: Although I've planted footnotes where appropriate, there is a full bibliography at the end. Apologies for any errors in the footnotes. They appear as endnotes at the end of each section b/c I couldn't figure out how to post them as footnotes at the end of each page. Also since I couldn't figure out how to get the little raised numbers to appear on the internet, I put the numbers in parenthesis like this (1). So suffice it to say this is the last time I attempt footnotes for an internet essay - I'll leave footnotes to the tech savvy from now on. Since I haven't written a footnote since 1994 when I graduated from law school, I think I may have abused the footnote. In fact after this essay you may come to the conclusion that I should be banned from using footnotes in the future. ;-) Even more annoying, I can't remember where I got everything from and since I'm not being paid for this and it isn't being published in an academic journal, hunting down and verifying every single statement is not something I feel overly inclined to do. So you'll just have to give me the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff, most of which is pretty widely known anyways and has been discussed on the internet ad nausem - so shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for your indulgence.)

Buffy The Vampire Slayer and The Pitfalls of The Television Medium

(This essay is something I've been playing around with off and on for two months - more as frustration therapy than anything else. It was inspired by a few posts on the Angel After Spike board and criticisms on assorted fan boards and in articles of BTVS and/or ATS. It includes a bibliography, footnotes, and arises from my own study of television. It is also incredibly long and split into 6 sections with an Introduction and Conclusion. The focus of the essay is on the pitfalls of the process of making a television show not on the inner meaning of the content or metaphors within the shows - an important distinction and one that distinguishes this essay from all my others. Have no idea where to post it, it is a critique of the television medium and BTVS/ATS yet also oddly enough a celebration of them - hope here is fine. Thanks again!!)

First a couple of relevant quotes to get things started, these quotes introduce several of the themes I'll address in the essay:

"Do you judge a show based on its potential or only on what you've seen in the first episode or so? The great thing about TV is that a show can always get better or worse, often when you least expect it. But to cut a show too much slack just because it may improve in the future would not be a very useful approach to writing a review, I think."From TV Critic Matt Roush, The Roush Room.

"One of ME's strengths is finding good actors to bring their characters to life. That's why they reuse the good ones they find." Cheryl, Atpobtvs.com Discussion Board.

Jane Espenson during her interview with Hercules on AICN: "I think it's very natural that TV is better. The system of making television allows for strong individual voices, like Joss's. Movies are always made by committees, and the writer is not at the head of the committee. Thus, mush."

"Collaboration; the art off passing off work to someone else." The audience applauded and laughed as David [Fury] gave them an example. "I'm in the midst of episode two right now of our next season. Mr. Edlund here, I was having so much fun, I had to bring someone else into it. And I think Ben here is going to help me do it. Basically, when we're in the room we are going off a general idea that Joss has. He'll have maybe one small story point or some emotion that he wants to bring out in the episode and then it's up to us in a room trying to brainstorm a bit and trying to figure things out." From the Angel the Series Writers' Panel Discussion at Comic Con, courtesy of cityofangel.com

"We were working on the very first presentation," Anthony Stewart Head told the convention-goers, "which was the half-hour version of the first episode. It felt like it was going well, but it wasn't going brilliantly - because Joss had the crew from hell. None of them wanted to be there, they were all mid-season workers who hadn't been picked up by any of the regular shows, so they all had quite an attitude. But I remember saying to Joss, 'This is going to go. I think it's a brilliant script and I think [the show] is a goer.' And Joss said, 'Oh, yeah, it's going to go. It's not going to go because the TV people get it.' Which was certainly true because the WB didn't get it and Fox definitely didn't get it. He said, 'The fans are going to get it. It won't happen immediately, but it will be world-wide and it will slowly build. The word-of-mouth will just spread and spread and spread'. I still get little chills because he's just such an extraordinary man." Anthony Stewart Head from Moonlight Rising, Epitaphs: Life After Buffy by Matt Clark.

"The words aren't mine, the camera placement isn't mine. There are so many things that make me look cool and I'm not doing it." James Marsters, Epitaphs: Life After Buffy.

"I knew a long time into the show what was going to happen with Tara," Amber Benson said. "Joss and I had talked about the whole character and the story. When Joss first told Alyson and I were going to be lovers, we had no idea [the characters were heading in that direction]. Joss came to us and told us that he was friends with this couple, these two women who were in love and he based the relationship on them. I got to meet them, and realized that Willow and Tara cared about each other the same way these two friends of Joss' did. The bond between them was really strong and really special. And when it came to the point where Tara was killed - Adam Busch is always so apologetic [for killing "Tara"], he's such a nice guy - it was really about Willow's addiction. Most people understand about obsession - we all get obsessed with something and the only way to come back down is to have the rug pulled out from under us. And the only way Willow was going to hit bottom was to have her lover, her soulmate, taken away. And as much as we all cried and didn't want it to happen, story-wise, I knew it was the right thing to do."

Benson continued, "I don't think Joss really expected the ramifications of it, or that he'd get faxes up to about last week. It didn't come from a bad place, but a lot of people were really destroyed by it. For me, I didn't want her to die for selfish reasons. One, I really loved working with everyone and two, I really cared about Tara. When you spend three years as someone, they kind of become part of you. And she really did, in an odd way, Tara was me and I was her. She was special to me. And the day she died it was devastating to me. Actually, the day we shot my last scene, they brought out this cake shaped like a tombstone with 'Tara McClay, Rest In Piece', and that was the last straw. Sarah lost it, Michele lost it, I lost it. We were all these girly-girls crying our eyes out. I don't think anyone on the show realized what the relationship was going to mean to a lot of people out there. I feel really lucky - Alyson felt really lucky - to have set a precedent [for lesbian characters]."

"I didn't really watch much of the final season," Amber said. "I knew what was going to happen, Joss told me the whole story, I knew all the plot twists, and I didn't want to get sad and cry. It's the reason I didn't want to come back as Tara on season seven. I'd really debated, though. I knew that they were having the story with The First, and that Tara would only be back as The First in disguise and I thought that would be very upsetting, for me and the fans. [Tara's death] was so upsetting, I didn't want to go through that or put people through that. I was miserable after [Tara died]. People really cared about this character. So in the end, it was mutually decided that it would be easier to just let her, let her rest in piece. Bringing her back in the future is definitely an option - though I don't think Tara would work real well on Angel. I think she'd just get really annoyed by everybody. [laughs]" Amber Benson at Moonlight Rising.

*******************
Introduction

God, I hate TV sometimes. Give me a good book that I can flip to the end of or a movie that lasts two - three hours or one of those cool plays that Shakespeare or Euripides excelled at, because television unlike those mediums is at the mercy of so many variables. A play is just the writer, the cast, the director and the crew. Each time it is performed it is a different experience, and as much as the actors may affect what we see on stage, they are replaceable if the play has any lasting quality. The actors do not make the play, they don't inhibit the characters to such a degree that the audience will accept no substitutes, because the audience usually just sees the play once. If we get new actors - that's a whole new audience. And if someone is re-watching it? They come to it prepared to see a whole different piece. A book? The writer is the king or queen - s/he controls the characters, the plot, the set, everything along with the reader - who envisions it in their head. We can cast anyone we dream of in these parts. We can place the piece in the set of our dreams and direct it ourselves. In a book - the writer and reader are the kings and queens. We also can read the book backwards, forwards, in our bed, upside down, or aloud if we so wish. We can start at the end and work our way towards the beginning or just read the last chapter first. Movies? Director is king/queen, with the actors, then writers coming in second and third. The fans don't really affect movies or plays or books. They may participate by watching them or reading them or just by going to them and reacting. But they do not change the plot arcs or cause actors to decide not to reprise characters or cause writers to insert problematic scenes. The fans/audience/reader of plays, movies, and books stay firmly in place behind that fourth wall - exactly where they belong in my humble opinion. Not rearing their ugly heads and poking their noses where they don't belong.

Another wonderful thing about movies, books and plays is that they are wonderfully self-contained. In most, not all cases - we don't have an on-going serial that could be disrupted mid-flow. Actors are contracted to finish that film - which takes place in a short workable period of time and once they are cast the plot is thoroughly written without too much disruption. We don't have someone suddenly jumping ship after the first hour of the movie, saying uhm I'm sorry, but I have this great gig in Australia and you just have to work without me for a week. (Oh some try to do that - but believe me, it's rare and usually results in very nasty consequences and awfully long court cases - the most famous being the case against Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor for Cleopatra.) We don't have network brass or executive producers telling the author, s/he has to change a character mid-story because ratings are dropping or they are worried about ancillary products. How much you want to bet - J.K. Rowling's editors did not interfere or make her change Order of the Phoenix mid-stream because it got too dark? Daniel Radcliff didn't come up to J.K or announce in the press - he's unhappy with how dark Harry is becoming, or that he feels Snape is coming out better than he is - resulting in poor JK inserting a new scene with Snape and re-writing two chapters. Nor do we end up with JK or the latest director of Harry Potter and Prison of Azkaban having to write out Dumbledore because Richard Harris died or changing another key character because the actor decided he wanted out.

Also in movies the actor is cognizant of all the things he has to do in a film. If he has to rape the lead? He knows about it before he signs the contract or even auditions for the part. Rarely is an actor surprised by film. He knows where it's going. Actors have been known to get out of films it they differ from what they contracted for. (1) In TV, the actor seldom knows what will happen. The part they audition for may change over time. They can in fact be forced to portray a role they would turn down elsewhere. (2)

Editors do change books and try to make them more commercial. Executive producers and celebrities change movie scripts and directors and actors change plays but somehow it's not quite as drastic as it is on TV. Television is a very special medium in of itself. Perhaps the most collaborative of all the current mediums we have, and certainly the most inter-active. With the internet - fans have instant access to television writers, each other, and an ability to influence their favorite shows. Oh they can try this with books, plays and movies too - but the fourth wall is more firmly intact there, these mediums are a little less dependent on things like ratings to determine how many viewers watch each week. (3) They have nifty things like actual dollars and sales figures. But a network television show unlike a book, movie or play - has one purpose to draw the largest audience possible to advertisers. (4) Advertising rules TV. It does not rule books, movies or plays. And through advertising - fans/audience influence what is on TV, they always have - as early as Father Knows Best when they sent mail to the advertisers begging the show be renewed. Based solely on those letters - a new advertiser decided to sponsor Father Knows Best and it survived the ax. (5) Other more modern examples include "Save our Shows" campaigns for Cagney and Lacy, Party of Five and most recently Angel the Series. These campaigns, if the program is just teetering on the ledge, often succeed in saving the show. They also demonstrate the amount of power fans truly have both to the writers and the fans themselves. While I love the fact that viewers can prevent their favorite shows from being prematurely completed, I am not fond of the fact that fans, even more so now with the advent of the internet, can influence the framework and internal story of the show. Call me crazy, but I prefer the fourth wall intact. Too many chefs in the kitchen ruin the stew. And I have yet to see a TV show survive this problem. Sooner or later, the mighty advertising dollar coupled with fans will influence the writers of a show.

Most of the critiques I've read regarding Buffy The Vampire Slayer's final seasons (6) - have more to do with the opportunities and limitations of the medium this brilliant show is in than people may realize. In fact, every single criticism may be a result of those opportunities and limitations - a direct result of this marvelously frustrating, at times brilliant and at times quite pedestrian medium called television. I hope to address some of those complaints/criticisms in this essay.

Even though the main thrust of this essay regards how BTVS operates as a TV show, I will briefly address issues such as the genres it operates within and how successfully it operates within those genres. (While I've set up the essay so that you can read and respond just to sections of it, I strongly suggest you read all of it before making any response, especially the conclusion.)
____________________________________________________________
1.Interview with Anthony Stewart Head, IGN : in film Metal God, when Head's role was truncated, the director contacted him and asked if he still wanted to do it. Interview with James Marsters for SFX Aug. 2003 edition - Marsters saw the entire script to Venetian Heat ahead of time prior to signing. He knew he had to get past his own reservations playing a gay lead.
2 James Marsters Interview in The Official Buffy Magazine #8, June/July 2002, pp.20-21: "In Voices in the Dark, I played a serial killer who has a 10-minute fight scene with a woman. I dragged her across the stage by her hair, she dropped me off a 10-foot drop into a spa. That scene is the end of the play, and you get an emotional release. If you do movies or plays, you choose what kind of projects you would be willing to do." James is against doing rape scenes and traditionally will turn down any role that does not punish the perpetuator immediately after-ward. He can't watch films where women or children are hurt. "On a television series, however, actors are bound to perform the scripts as they come in." According to other assorted interviews and online posts, James did not know about this scene until he came to work that day. In Interview with Anthony Stewart Head, IGFN, 1/6/03, Head mentions going out for drinks after work with Nicholas Brendan (Xander) and discussing where the show will go next and always being wrong.
3 See The Business of Television, Blumenthal & Goodenough, 1998, pp. 402-415 for more on ratings.
4 Blumenthal, p.402 : "the effectiveness of an advertisement is based upon the estimated number of people who saw the advertisement. To be more precise, it's not the total number of people that matters. Instead, it's the total number of people within the advertiser's demographic that matters." P. 2, "Each [network] is a giant company with a single goal - to supply the largest number of desirable viewers to the advertisers who provide the networks with revenues and thus the programs."
5 Brilliant But Cancelled Documentary - Trio Network
6 Reviews on the internet, specifically 3Strikes, cjl, Darby, Kds, Shadowkat's Season Seven Critique, RabidRaen, Spoilerslayer, Slayage.com, amongst others. See atpobtvs.com archives, www.spoilerslayer.com season 7 review, www.slayage.com article archives, and Angle After Spike archives.

(TBC in Part I ...) SK

[> Part I. Tragedy, Television and Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- s'kat, 09:58:59 08/23/03 Sat

Part I. Tragedy, Television and Buffy the Vampire Slayer

I don't believe Mutant Enemy's ( the writing staff and producers of BTVS and ATS under and including Joss Whedon, hereinafter ME) goal was to do a classic tragedy per se, regardless of the medium, although the medium may have had a role in this decision. ME's writers are first and foremost television writers - they know the medium, they've done a bulk of their work in it prior to BTVS, they know what works and what doesn't from those past experiences. Heck, Whedon is a third generation television writer, I'd say he's an expert or the closest we'll get to one. (7)

So why not do classic tragedy on TV? Is it because the modern audience is intolerant of tragedy? If that were the case we wouldn't have tragic movies and books - go to your bookstore some time, check out all those contemporary novels - I bet you'll find a few classic tragedies amongst them. Same with the cinema-plex. Also Shakespeare? Still popular. And Medea? It was quite successful on Broadway this year, thank you very much. The Greeks and Elizabethans? Experienced more tragedy than most of us sitting nice and comfy in our little homes will ever experience. They were lucky to make it to 30, we complain if we don't make it to 100. Tragedy was part and parcel of their lives. We, having only experienced it through television sets via the news, books, theatre, plays and the newspaper - are a tad desensitized to it - it's not real to us, not in the same way. (Speaking generally here, I'm well aware of the fact that there are folks out there who have experienced tragedy first hand - but these people are the exception not the rule in our society. And in some ways, they seem to experience and look at fictional tragedy the same way the Greeks did, with a deep abiding appreciation. Preferring it to the more gratuitous and somewhat exploitive newsreels.) No, the reason is far more simple - advertisers don't like to have their products associated with tragedy. Honestly, are you going to go out to McDonalds after watching Xena get her head chopped off? Or buy that new Lexus convertible? I don't think so. You might think about eating that box of Rocky Road ice cream in the fridge though. There's also that teeny little problem of coaxing the viewer back the next week. The Greeks didn't really have this problem, nor did Ms. Bronte. Their story was done. They don't have to coax the reader back again. Television? Unless you don't plan on doing an episode next week, have a spin-off, or a franchise of ancillary products - you want and need people to keep watching. We want you to tune in again - we also want you to watch us in syndication and re-runs. So if we give you deep dark tragedy this week? We promise next week it will be lighter and somewhat fluffy. Everything will come out swell in the end...trust us. That's the reason Fox, The Kuzuis, the WB and UPN don't want ME doing anything too tragic. It is not, however the reason ME decided not to do tragedy.

Whedon and the other ME writers have stated in numerous interviews and commentaries that they took items from numerous genre's, subverting and twisting some in the process.(8) Because Btvs has elements of each of these genres (fantasy, gothic, horror, science-fiction and noir/pulp) within it - it doesn't really fit the model of any single one exactly. Trying to press it into that structure is akin to pressing a square peg into a round hole, believe me I've tried it. By using a hodge-podge of techniques, ME have oddly enough appeared to create a new genre, something that stands a little apart from the others. I can see why people may think that Btvs is meant to be a classic tragedy or just a tragedy - but it's not really. (9) Btvs while incredibly "tragic" at times is hardly ever a "tragedy" in the classic sense nor has it ever been one. Ats is actually more in keeping with the styling of classic "tragedy" but it's modernized and comes across more as "neo-noir tragedy". In Noir, a sort of subversion of the classic form, created in the 1940s and early 50's - the tragic hero is less a hero than an anti-hero, he is not necessarily likable, yet we root for him or her (usually a him except for a few neo-noir films in the late 80's, early 90's where it was a she) and the ending is always a tragic one, the best we can hope for is he survives. Unlike the classic tragedy, the tragedy in neo-noir is not the hero's death per se but his failure to reach his goal - a failure often caused by hubris, just like the classic form. Examples are Kiss Me Deadly, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and The Killing (a Stanley Kubrick film that satirizes the form). (10)

Xena: Warrior Princess was actually more of a classic tragedy, which is something that is incredibly difficult to pull off on television. For how difficult - just look at the negative fan response to Xena's end or for that matter Nick Knight's in Forever Knight.(11) Both heroes died tragically as a result of their own fatal flaw and the episodes were not well received. Most gothic dramas are styled in this manner by the way - from Wuthering Heights to Ann Rice's Interview With A Vampire. Why didn't fans react negatively to them? Well how do you know they didn't? The difference is Wuthering Heights is a book, Xena is a cult television show. Same with Gone with The Wind - Rhett Butler could tell Scarlett to go to hell in the book and movie - these mediums did not depend on fans coming back to see episode two or watch in perpetuity in syndication. They do not depend on the all mighty advertising dollar, product endorsements, and ancillary products. Same with Euripides and Shakespeare - you know each audience will be different and the audience for a play or movie? They have no problem being hurt - their investment in the characters is short lived - it began at the start of that three-hour movie and ended when they left the theater. Oh they may dream and fret over Scarlett and Rhett, but they can't influence the writers, they can't un-see it. The money's been spent. If they despise it? That means it dies never to be seen again. But it doesn't change the story. They aren't like the nutty television fans who get to see a new chapter in their characters' lives every week - just making them more obsessed. Sooner or later you're going to get tired of rewatching the same three-hour movie. But a TV show with a spin-off, movie possibilities, and ancillary products?

Btvs wasn't meant to be a tragedy. We know this from the very beginning - re-watch Prophecy Girlwhich we are mislead to believe will end in tragedy yet ends in triumph. The Gift is hardly a classic tragedy per se since Buffy by dying saves the world. She goes to a better place. Becoming II isn't really true tragedy, the only major character that dies is Angel - who comes back, and while it's tragic she has to kill him - it's not tragic on the scale it would be if this was "classic" tragedy or pure tragedy. Also in both The Gift and in Becoming, the character returns from the dead the very next season. Fans only have to wait six months. (The same can be said of Spike in Chosen, who apparently will be resurrected in some form for Angel S5. Tara was one of the few characters in BTVS history not resurrected in some form and that was partly due to the actress' unavailability. )

According to the rumor mill, Whedon's original intention was to end the whole series with pure "classical" tragedy. I'm not sure how much of this is true and how much is just fan speculation: In Season 5: Glory was supposed to kill Tara, Willow was supposed to go dark and be overwhelmed with vengence. Xander was supposed to be the one housing Glory not Ben. Giles kills Xander to defeat Glory. Anya dies trying to save Xander. Spike dies trying to save Dawn from Willow. Buffy dies to save the world and preserve Dawn. Leaving Dawn and Giles and the cast of ATS the only survivors. Sunnydale would be sucked into the hellmouth. The only portion of this that I've seen validated in interviews was the Willow bit. (12) I mentioned this to a friend of mine and he said - if this happened, over a 100,000 BTVS fans would be asking for prozac.

So why did Joss change his mind? Several reasons - Btvs is not just his creation, it's a collaboration. Heck he even got voted out of the writers' room once. (13) If you look at the credits of each episode you'll notice how many executive, co-executive, supervising producers there are. Also the writers change each time. As do the directors. Then of course there's all the camera people, the stunt people, the makeup people, the set designers, the assistants...in short unlike a book - this baby has more than one mother and father. (14) Marti has stated in interviews that she told Joss he wasn't allowed to kill everyone in The Gift - since they could get picked up for another year - also he couldn't destroy the entire set. Joss may have wanted Btvs to end with The Gift, but Joss does not own the rights to Btvs, the Kuzis and Fox do. Joss may have creative control over who is cast, general story arc, who writes the episodes, and produces each episode - but the executive producers still have some say in the proceedings. They still get to okay whatever appears on screen as do the network brass. They don't like something? It does not get aired. Just look at what happened to Firefly. Also, even though Whedon may run it like the military (15) - these are still artists not soldiers - they bring whatever is inside them to the piece and he has made it clear he's open to that.(16) In fact from what I've read - it's clear that Btvs is NOT tightly plotted. They figure out the general arc each season, make sure it builds from the last season, then writers pitch ideas for specific episodes.

Examples: Jane Espenson came up with the idea of Wood being Nikki's son. Oh Whedon wanted Nikki's kid to come gunning for Spike - they just didn't know who it would be until episode 9. (17) The whole Kennedy arc they came up with around CwDP after Amber Benson nixed coming back. Amber Benson was chosen as Tara in S4 by Marti not Joss. Same with Buffy and Spike - also from Marti's experience. (18)

Whedon was probably told to scale back his original concept by assorted players: Fox, Kuzuis, his writers, the actors, etc. Then of course, BTVS was renewed after Season 5 and Joss under his contract with Fox and UPN was honor bound to keep producing it for another two years, hence the decision not to end with a complete tragedy.
____________________________________________________________
7 Interview with Joss Whedon, June 2003, on IGFN web site. Whedon states he's a third generation television writer. His father and grandfather wrote for assorted situation comedies including the Golden Girls, Benson, Dick Cavette. Whedon got his first job writing for the Roseanne Show.
8 See Whedon Interview with IGFN cited above. Also End of the Series Whedon Interview on Salon.com and Joss Whedon Interview: Ending Buffy at http://actionadventure.about.com/cs/weeklystories/a/aa041903.htm#b. (Note the second one is free, the salon.com one requires you subscribe.)
9 See the thread "Tragedy and BTVS & ATS" by WtP from The Stakehouse, posted by Rufus on AASB board on 8/1/03
1010 Film Noir Reader 2, Alan Silver & James Ursini
11See www.atpobtvs.com - discussion board archives, Xena's end or Forever Knight's. http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/may03_p27.html
12 Sarah Michelle Gellar's Exit Interview with Entertainment Weekly, March 2003; Marti Noxon's Interview in SFX regarding Season 6, Dec. 2001; In the SMG Interview - Gellar states Whedon put off killing Tara and turning Willow, because he fell in love with the Willow/Tara relationship and wanted another full year of it. But Willow was supposed to turn dark ever since Season 3. It was pre-planned. According to Noxon - Whedon had planned to destroy Sunnydale in Season 5, but they begged him to leave some of the set in case they got renewed.
13Not sure which interview this came from - my guess is salon.com (which I can no longer access) or about.com (the actionadventure.com site referenced in note 8). If I'm completely off? Be a sweetie and let me know. ;-)
14Interview with Anthony Stewart Head for IGN, Head relates a story about a costume designer who created his look for two seasons and informs the interviewer that due to lighting and camera problems, they had to place everyone around the table in the library, the lighting and camera angles were horrid everywhere else.
15IGFN Interview with Joss Whedon
16 Interviews with Anthony Stewart Head for IGN and with Danny Strong, IGN; James Marsters Interviews on http://www.visimag.com/starburst/284_feature.htm, Demon Lover: "Joss Whedon is letting (producer) Marti Noxon come more into the fore with this story. And her crucible of experience - one she'll always go back to as a writer - is in issues that relate to people in their mid-twenties. It's brilliant that although Joss is still very much in charge of the show, there's another voice that's coming in, using the metaphor to her own ends."
17 The Official Buffy Magazine #8, June/July 2003, Writer Revelations: Espenson states -" We'd been talking quite a while about what if Nikki had a daughter who survived and came to Sunnydale seeking vengeance. Then I had a literally sit-up-in-your-bed brainstorm, where I went, 'She didn't have a daughter, she had a son - and we've already met him. It's Principal Wood."
18 IGN Interview with Joss Whedon; Commentary to Hush, Josh Whedon, S4 BTVS DVD; James Marsters Shore Leave Q&A regarding Buffy/Spike relationship : "I am really serious. I don't think Joss went there, I think it was Marti. She has a dirty mind. How much heat was there last year? Whoa! That was Marti's year. As much as we talk about Joss, Marti is the Bomb! She is, like all the writers, using her personal life and she is incredibly brave about what she admits has happened to her. She has lived the life." http://www.slayernews.com/Actors/Marsters.php

[> [> Re: Part I. Tragedy, Television and Buffy - The Noir thing- -- Rendyl, 07:30:51 08/25/03 Mon

***Noir, a sort of subversion of the classic form, created in the 1940s and early 50's - the tragic hero is less a hero than an anti-hero, he is not necessarily likable, yet we root for him or her (usually a him except for a few neo-noir films in the late 80's, early 90's where it was a she)***

Ack! Overcome by terrible compulsion...must correct misconception...must introduce female hard-boileds...must...aghhhh ;)

Violet McDade and Nevada Alvarado - (Cleve F Adams) - Created in 1935 Violet is probably the first female dick. Violet was just as tough as the guys she shared magazine space with.
Carrie Cashin by Theodore Tinsley (over three dozen stories featuring her) who runs 'Cash and Carry' detective agency (sue me, I like puns).

Bertha Cool (and Donald Lam) -Erle Stanley Gardner (writing as A.A. Fair) Bertha was in over 30 stories from 1939 to 1970.

There's also Grace Culver, Cassie Gibson, Kitty Keene (radio show), Marla Trent, etc.

(I skipped Madge Hatchett by Lee McGraw and Sharon McCone by Marcia Muller since they originate in the 1970's.)

(I also would skip The Beagle Sisters, Nancy Drew, and Mary Roberts since they are much more mystery solving/deducting rather than noir)

I could have listed more but I tried to keep everyone between 1935 and 1960 and I tried to list women who appear in multiple stories or episodes.

Rendyl - thanking s'kat for giving us the "rumble" on TV. :)

[> [> [> Question : were any of those female hardboiled in films? -- s'kat, 07:48:24 08/25/03 Mon

First off - Thanks for this!

I probably should have made it a little clearer I was limiting noir to film and television. (Books and Magazines have a bit more room for this - since they don't cost as much to produce, films and television? Different story.)

Am I wrong? Did these ladies actually make it to the screen? If so can you list the films? I'd love to see them.
Only ones I was able to hunt down were from the late 70s, and 80s and early 90s - with Kathryn Bigelow and Lizzie Borden amongst the directors.

Again Books? A whole different debate - so much more room for change and risk there. With film? You're getting into serious money, what with salaries, etc so less room for risk. So it would be wonderful to see that I'm wrong and the female dick predated neo-noir in film.

[> [> [> [> Re: Question : were any of those female hardboiled in films? -- Rendyl, 10:38:11 08/25/03 Mon

Ack..sorry to veer off into left field...okay..film and tv..

There were several Torchy Blane films made in the 1930's. I am not sure if she counts in as hard boiled but she was tough. She was a newspaper reporter who did more investigating than reporting.

Honey West is generally considered 'hard boiled' (I cough here) but when she made the switch from books to film she became more of a techno-spy type. (At least in the movies she gets to keep her clothes on. I suspect bimbo to sexy spy is an improvement)

I am sure there are more but I haven't personally seen any except a couple of 'Torchy' movies and the 'Thin Man' series of movies. (you mentioned Nora Charles previously)

'Cool and Lam' ran on CBS in the early 50's. It is reported that when his editors complained about Bertha's profanity, Gardner refused to tone her down claiming that "he swore as much as Bertha" and telling the publishers "they would just have to accept Bertha as he portrayed her".

(Bertha was kind of...rough...grin)

There are several series in the 50's and 60's (Detectives Wife, Crime with Father, etc) that feature women private eyes but most of them are husband/wife teams or intrepid Nancy Drew types. Much more Miss Marple than Mickey Spillane.

Ren - off to put down a can of coke and finish folding my rags -

[> [> [> Noir heroes -- sdev, 08:26:57 08/25/03 Mon

In Double Indemnity (original not remake), Fred McMurray plays a highly likeable guy. The audience very much identifies with the sympathetic character he plays. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it as one of the original and outstanding films of the genre.

[> Part II: The Pitfalls of Plotting Television Shows -- s'kat, 10:01:02 08/23/03 Sat

Part II. The Pitfalls of Plotting Television Shows

So how much of BTVS is truly plotted way ahead of time? How much of any Television show arc is plotted ahead of time?

Alarmingly little, believe it or not. I know that's hard to believe when you watch shows like BTVS - but that's b/c the show is done that well. All tv shows are done in this manner. Very very few can be tightly plotted ahead of time and even those? Get screwed. This where the opportunities/limitations of the medium come into play.

Plays and movies - are one self-contained two to three hour drama or comedy, cast well ahead of rehearsals, the play script or movie script may be written by one or more people. In some cases plays and movies are re-written for the cast. But the main thing is that the story is generally plotted in advance. They usually have a complete outline and sketches of each character. The actors meet to discuss the script and scenes. Cast/Actors do affect movies and plays but not quite in the same way they do TV. (19) Fans? Almost zero effect on what happens - just on whether it makes any money and lives to see another day. Although preview audiences can affect these mediums to an extent, they rarely come into play until after the entire thing is done. (20) We usually don't get some fan group or network producer screaming at the creator to change the story after chapter one of a book or act one of the play has aired or been published, usually the whole thing is published or aired at once - there's no changing it in mid-stream. Not so with TV - which is more akin to a work in progress - each chapter airing as the writer begins writing the next. (21)

TV - the difference between a television series and a book or movie or play is simply the fact it is an on-going series with new episodes once a week with no more than a month or two in between during a seasonal arc and three - five months between seasons.

A book that is an on-going serial - is dependent on just the writer continuing it. A movie? On actors, director, writer, producer, distributor, crew continuing - but, it is usually self-contained enough that if someone doesn't want to come back, they can handle it. Example: Halle Berry doesn't want to do X-Men 3, fine, just write the next movie without Halle Berry in it. Doesn't really hurt the franchise. You might even be able to recast her if you want. Or you can stop the franchise...and the fans are satisfied, story self-contained. Example: Amber Benson doesn't want to do Buffy S7 because she hates the script or isn't being paid enough or feels it would hurt the fans, oops big problem, we wrote this whole Willow story arc around her, dang it. Have to change the arc and gut that whole story. In fact the arc may have been considered way before they killed her.(22)

On top of this - we have the problem that the series is on network television not cable and not a movie - this means advertisers, this means censors, this means the network on your ass, and this means ratings. With a movie - it's box office, but you don't have to worry about advertisers or censors or those pesky ratings or fans doing mail-ins for the next episode. You don't have to worry about someone throwing a hissy fit because Spike isn't wearing his leather jacket. (23) In a movie or book - it's done. In TV? You can be forced to change it to accommodate others.

Then there's the whole money factor - each episode of BTVS costs approximately 2.3 million dollars. (24) A third of that goes to the cast, (25) the rest to writers, special effects, crew etc. Movie budgets can be increased as filming goes. TV? Nope. That budget is set in stone during the contract phase. So say you want to hire Amber Benson to do S7 of BTVs and Amber has raised her asking price? You can't do it. You also can't hire this other person you have your eye on. You're stuck. You can't make new deals with the contracted actors, producers, or ask them to lower their price like in a film - their salaries are written in stone. In a movie? You can do all this negotiating. TV - not after you did the initial stuff.

So you have this budget written-in-stone and a cast written-in-stone. No, wait they aren't. Seth Green took off in S4 and he had a contract. Lindsey Crouse also took off. Amber didn't sign a new contract after S6. Emma Caulfield announced she's done after Season 7. And the star, Sarah Michelle Gellar? She's not sure she'll sign for another year. Joss Whedon? He's sick of Btvs, wants to do something new after S7 (26) ...but hey you can continue without him, just not the cast. In a movie - they'd have replaced Whedon, Seth Green and Lindsey Crouse probably would have taken off, filming would stop, or they'd be recast and they'd re-film the scenes, or they'd wait for them to return or they'd sue them. In TV not so easy. Books? You're the writer, you're god, not a problem. And if you decide to call it quits? No one sees the book. Only person who hurts a book by calling it quits is the writer - and you can always hire a new writer - if s/he doesn't own the rights to the characters and story.

So you're a TV writer, you've plotted out your arc - five years complete. But wait, the lead? The network brass doesn't like him. He's not charismatic enough. No chemistry. Too stiff. They want a name to carry it. Or you're cancelled. Dang. Got to do a little re-writing here. (This is what happened to the creator of Bablyon 5).

Or you've decided to do that series - with the vampire with the soul, a half-demon companion and the cheerful cheerleader, only one problem the actor you wanted for the half-demon? He's in jail. So you find another actor. But whoops he has a substance abuse problem...so you re-write and bring in someone new. (This happened to Angel The Series in Season 1).

You can't plot out your entire story ahead of time. Too many movable parts - too many things can go wrong. You have to make it flexible. There is no way Whedon and his writers would have been able to plot all of S7 - they had too many uncertainties. If it had been a book or a movie? No problem. But not a TV series with 22 episodes on a struggling network with financial problems. UPN had major problems last year - they lost money on Buffy just as the WB had before them, the only difference is UPN was paying more and was at the bottom of the network ratings game.(27)

So if you think BTVS was plotted way ahead time? Hate to burst your bubble, but nope. What they did do, was build off of previous episodes. (28)They took elements from Restless and built stories from those elements and themes, so that it appears to the audience that the show was plotted to some extent in advance. Whedon and Fury and others have admitted in assorted interviews that they took elements from S5 and S6 and took the characters emotional arcs from there. (29)They did not figure out S7 or S6 prior to writing S5. Whedon didn't know what he was going to do with Buffy past S5, prior to The Gift. He figured it out after The Gift.
____________________________________________________________
19 See James Marsters Interview in SFX Aug. 2003 edition, specifically on the play to screen edition of Venetian Heat; Anthony Stewart Head's IGN Interview
20 See Adventures in The Screen Trade and Which Lie Did I Tell, both by William Goldman
21See David Fury Interview on City of Angel website; Joss Whedon Interview with IGN; Tim Minear Interview in SFX December Edition - 2002: the scene where Angel attacks Darla sexually was changed by network brass, as was the scene where Kate pukes in Epiphany.
22 Joss Whedon IGN Interview; Amber Benson Q&A at Moonlight Rising
23 See Tampa Vulkon Q&A with James Marsters at www.morethanspike.com , where Marsters mentions WB freaked over the fact that Fox sold Spike's leather jacket on Ebay. Also fan speculation on www.atpobtvs.com discussion board - archives, that the jacket came back due to network complaints.
24Consoli, John "Moonves to Creatives: Days of Big, Fat Paychecks Are Over" JULY 15, 2001, http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1541956;
" Ironically, it was UPN, which Moonves now oversees since both UPN and CBS are under the Viacom umbrella, that prior to Moonves assuming oversight over it, paid more than $2 million per episode to acquire the rights to Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, when the WB refused to pick it up for that price." ; See also: Francis, Rob, "News - 23rd April : Buffy Wrestles With Her Future", http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/news/archive/archive35.shtml: "According to the American press, UPN has agreed to a two-year, 44 episode deal for the series, reportedly paying US$ 2.3 million per episode."
25In articles archived on www.slayage.com in fall 2002, Sarah Michelle Gellar was reported to be pulling in a paycheck of $735,000 per episode, in a recent article in the Dublin Times, Alyson Hannigan admitted to be pulling in $200,000 per episode for Season 6-7.
26See assorted Joss Whedon interviews including IGFN Interview with Joss Whedon in June 2003; salon.com's exit interview with Joss Whedon; NyTimes Interview with Joss Whedon and interviews archived on www.slayer.com and whedonesque.com.
27 See Consoli, John "Moonves to Creatives: Days of Big, Fat Paychecks Are Over" JULY 15, 2001, http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1541956 "UPN has lost a sizable amount of money on Buffy, about $1 million per episode by some industry estimates..."; See also: Battaglio, Stephen, "Buffy's Studio Shows Its Fangs", May 14, 2001, http://www.crashdown.com/news/2219.shtml : "The two sides never even got close to a deal. The WB, which lost $ 50 million last year, stopped bidding at $ 1.8 million an episode. (At that amount, insiders say, the network would lose $ 200,000 per show.) Fox wanted $ 2.3 million--and got it from UPN. The network, which is desperate for a hit beyond WWF wrestling and Star Trek spinoffs, bought two seasons' worth of Buffy for more than $ 100 million."
28 Interview with Marti Noxon, CBC 2003: ". So a lot of times people who see this as a grand design, an opera about good and evil. It's just really a slowly evolving thing, and sometimes form follows function." Q&A with Joss Whedon at the Paley Festival, March 30, 2001: "Very specifically in terms of huge -- arcing these things out as far in advance as we can. Some of them are fortuitous acts and as we look back and say, 'Oh you know we had this and it will connect this with this and that.' Eventually, and some of them come from disasters. For example, one that we did on Buffy, 'Lovers Walk,' the episode where Spike came back and Drusilla had left him. Juliet was shooting a movie and they were gonna come back together. They were Spike and Dru and we couldn't get her and we said, 'Well, what if they broke up?' So eventually, as I've said before, the story's telling us what's going to happen. There a symbiosis between what we're doing and what the story's doing to the point where when we come up with something, even if it surprises us we look back and go, "Wow, we've been building towards that and we didn't even know it.' The Xander and Cordelia romance -- a long time on Buffy. The intensity of their arguments had been increasing and increasing and we had not thought about giving them a romance. When we looked back and it was like we had been trying to do it from the second episode. So it really just takes on a life of its own and some of it's planned, some of it isn't. Some of it comes from the trouble but it's like riding the rapids. And we keep going and it all seems to fall together . . . sometimes."
29IGN Interview with Joss Whedon; Jane Espenson Interview with Hercules http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=15587; Sound of The Fury : Interview with David Fury, http://www.cityofangel.com/behindTh...bts3/fury2.html; Drew Goddard Interview with Succubus Club.

[> [> Nothing new, nothing new, gotta come up with something new -- Celebaelin, 17:29:58 08/25/03 Mon

?@#%$=*^!(+) I'd have to have more control than that. I'd be saying things like 'Why don't you just give me the money and 'run along' while I do this to the best of my ability.' for the whole 3 seconds before I was out on my ear. However if we can all dream our dreamy dreams... Modifications that have to be made for practical reasons would obviously stand out rather because of the inflexibility but for the writer it gives that element of solidity to the plot as a whole that allows you to do some clever stuff with plotlines and timelines. I have an idea (one that probably wouldn't work out) about thematically based series rather than chronologically sequenced series, I'd love to give it a try if the problems could be overcome (like the fact that no-one would get the first series, they'd just think the time line was a bit loose - six month jumps half way through an episode, that kind of stuff). And then, later on, you could show it chronologically instead! Or not! Or could you? What if you could release two separate DVDs of the same material structured in different ways and have them both sell? Am I talking your language now? And for the connoisseur maybe a DVD of the scenes which appeared in multiple episodes, and maybe one of the already recorded scenes which were intended for inclusion in series which were never filmed in their entirety? There's a kind of creeping chronologicallity to the filming in my mind but the scripting has to be done way in advance of the filming as regards critical plot details.

Then there's the idea I ripped off from found had been used in a comic book about repairing temporal anomalies and incursions into this reality. I kinda like this one, could work.

And of course there's 2000AD's D.R. and Quinch, this one will never get made because the leads are irredeemably criminal, psychotic, murderous, sociopathic aliens on a galaxy-wide killing spree. 'Live fast and leave a good-looking corpse, preferably someone elses' is their motto, oh, and one of them is an extremely bad war poet (not in itself a crime, but it should be).

From "D.R. and Quinch Get Drafted."

I used to sit on sunkissed fields
Watching the buphlinks grazing
But now I'm here on Gohoigi
Which is like, totally amazing

D.R. His first war poem

All soldiers leave a girl behind
That worships and adores 'em
But mine's here on Gohoigi too
Which is like, unbelievably awesome

D.R. His second war poem

The clock is ticking, I wonder if I'll ever write any of this stuff down.

C

[> Part III:The TV Show Grind and Writer Burn-Out (The Very Special Episode) -- s'kat (most lengthy footnotes here!), 10:07:14 08/23/03 Sat

Part III: The TV Show Grind and Writer Burn-Out

Seven years is an incredibly long time for a drama to be on TV. Few television shows last that long and retain their worth. TV is a grind. Long hours. Lots of pressure. Not that much recognition in the industry. You have approximately 8-10 days to kick out a 43 minute episode. (30) To give you an idea what that means, it can take a day to shoot a 30 second commercial. You have what amounts to anywhere from 8 days to maybe 15 hours to write the episode. (31)The actors get the script pretty close to the time they have to perform it and they do enough takes to get the lines right. It's not like plays and film - where you you get the script way ahead of time. The actor often doesn't know what the script is until s/he arrives on the set. And you don't have the time to re-do the episode if it's horrible. Time is money. (32)

Like all TV shows - Btvs fell into some common pitfalls partly due to the grind and partly due to the challenges of writing innovative episodes over a seven-year period. (33) Writers can get tired of the same stories and characters after a while, they want to do something new. (34) Add to this actor burn-out or restlessness, partly due to normal work-place tensions, and the fact that most people in the film/theater business are nomadic by nature and don't like doing one thing for too long. (35) They're used to movies or plays - six months doing this, six months doing that. So due to these pressures, after about four or five years, even the best TV shows and television writers fall into the following traps:

The Very Special Episode

This is when TV writers decide to tackle big issues and be brave. What happens is they flip the show out of its genre/reality than flip it back the very next episode. As a result the audience loses its trust in the writers. Examples: situation comedies who decide to do the drug or domestic abuse or eating disorder or rape storyline. Btvs did it with Seeing Red and to an extent with Wrecked . They skirted the problem barely with Earshot and The Body by staying true to their characters and universe. Seeing Red? Well let's just say the infamous bathroom/attempted rape scene was like watching an episode of Law and Order meets Beverly Hills 90210 not an episode of metaphorically layered Btvs. It was even filmed in the same gritty white on black, naturalistic style as Law and Order, with tight camera angles and close-ups, while the surrounding material was filmed more in the style of BTVS. The contrast jarred the audience - emphasizing the violence of the scene and the victimization of the heroine more than may have been intended. The audience was in effect no longer watching a vampire and a vampire slayer - they were watching the girl-next door and her ex-boyfriend. Other examples of the very special episode in BTVS include: Warren's shooting of Buffy and Tara in Seeing Red and Willow's visit to a molesting drug dealer and subsequent magic addiction arc in Wrecked. They stripped away the metaphors. Then put them back again. Just like those situation comedies do - dramatic one episode - then snap - comedy the next...the writers trust that the audience followed and didn't just decide to jump ship.

The problem with The Message episode or Special Episode - is the writers think they are being new and innovative and shocking - truth is? The audience have seen it all before. I If you've ever in your life watched a prime time or daytime soap opera, an after-school special, Lifetime Original Movie, Beverly Hills 90210, Boston Public or an episode of Seventh Heaven, etc: you probably have seen the heroine almost get raped/or get raped by her date or boyfriend, usually someone the audience likes and a relationship that the writers need to break up for some reason but can't figure out how. (36) To Whedon's credit, he attempted to subvert the attempted rape/rape cliché by concentrating on the perpetuator of the crime as opposed to the victim. Whedon felt that too often our society demonizes rapists and/or attempted rapists by their acts, instead of treating them like human beings who made a horrible mistake and aren't completely defined by their crime. They can be redeemed. (37) So he tried to tackle through Spike the issue of rape from the perpetuator's point of view. The problem with doing this is two-fold: 1.) In our society most rapists get-off, rape is a very hard crime to prove and up until the last couple of years, one that wasn't acknowledged. 2. The day-time soap operas and movies of the week already beat him to it. (38)

A recent review from film force suggests that viewers are not able to appreciate this story and it may even be offensive to some. Note the reviewer fails to recognize the fact that we're not discussing a human character or "man" but a soulless vampire with no conscience, who because of the attempted rape, hunts a soul to become a better man - one who would never force himself on a woman. A soulless vamp who after winning his soul redeems himself by sacrificing his life for the world.

"For all of the protestations of "girl power", it was Spike, the man who attempted to rape Buffy last season, who winds up ultimately saving the day. In a true General Hospital moment, Buffy even professes her love for the vampire who tried to kill her more than once. If last season's tryst was supposed to be about women who find themselves in bad relationships, what the hell was that supposed to be?" From the film force review of Chosen, "Buffy Gets Dusted; 24 Keeps on Ticking" at http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/408/408596p1.html?fromint=1

The reviewer refuses to see Spike's attempted rape as the crime of a soulless vampire and suggests that the idea Spike sought a soul afterwards and could be forgiven is offensive. Odd considering people generally accept the idea that the most vicious vampire in the history of the show, someone who raped and murdered a chaste girl entering a convent, could be redeemed, that this is not offensive. If you accept Angel's journey for redemption at all, than you should be able to accept Spike's, but several people can't. Why? The television rape cliché started by General Hospital in the 1970s. People viewed a violent attempted rape on their television screen against the heroine. So violent that the UK censored the scene for viewers because it aired prior to 9 pm. Some viewers just can't get past it. No matter what the writers do. If our society had a history of punishing and rehabilitating rapists, it may work. But instead, we have a history of vilifying the victim. Odd, considering viewers had no problem forgiving Xander's attempted rape on Buffy in The Pack, Faith's attempted rape of Xander in Consequences, Angelus' rapes of Drusilla, Holtz's wife and daughter, the gypsy girl, torture of Giles, and murder of Jenny - of course a lot of people have dealt with Angelus' crimes by deciding Angel isn't Angelus at all. (39) Why? The reason is the naturalistic manner that the attempted rape scene in Seeing Red was filmed. (40) The writers dropped the metaphors. By dropping the metaphors so, Buffy became a victim and Spike an attempted rapist in Seeing Red - for those five brief minutes, both characters fell out of the fragile mythology the series had spent six years developing. If the scene had been filmed in the same style as the Faith/Xander sequence in Consequences or Xander/Buffy sequence in The Pack or even Angelus/the gypsy girl in Darla - or Angel/Darla in Reprise, several viewers may have reacted differently to the stimuli. (*Note I did not say all viewers reacted this way, quite a few understood where ME was going and accepted it.)

Unfortunately, there are no new interpretations when it comes to the "rape" issue, attempted or otherwise. It's been over-done. Add to this the fact that Buffy The Vampire Slayer is a gothic horror serial that for the last seven years has used vampires as a metaphor for sexual taboos ranging from incest to S & M sex to sexual assault. Just about every vampire on the show has in some way shape or form committed a sexual assault. Angel certainly did on his show, but always within the context of the metaphor. To strip away the metaphor in a gothic horror show risks exposing other realities, such as the fact that the heroine solves her problems by slaying things with a sharp stick or her fists. Also what is ME saying about rapists in general - when all the male characters who attempt it are in fact soulless or infected with a demon at the time of the act? If they left the metaphor intact, the vampire bite, then we would have no need to ask these questions. By doing the "very special episode" and dropping the metaphorical veil, ME may have risked the fragile framework of their own universe.

The other issues ME tackled in Season 6's version of the special episode was drug abuse and the shooting of a loved one. If you have watched any television in your lifetime, you have seen this story line, in which the main character or a regular struggles with drug abuse, addiction, grief, or insanity, hits rock bottom, slowly comes back after betraying all the other characters or losing something or someone close to them. Cheers did it with Sam Malone twice - alcohol and sex-addiction, MASH did it with Hawkeye going insane, and Family Ties did it with Alex P. Keaton and grief. (41) You have also probably seen someone get shot on a tv show. Soap operas love this plot device. Usually it happens at a huge event or a very intimate moment, the villain everyone has ignored or not taken seriously shoots two of the leads, one lives and one dies. The one who dies is usually a wonderful character that everyone adores and the most mature one in the cast. Dallas is one of the few programs that subverted this idea and shot the villain - but then the glory of Dallas was the villain was the star of the show, JR Ewing and that shooting got the highest ratings ever. Dynasty shot two characters. Beverly 90210 did it their last season. Actually they did it more than once. Melrose Place? All the time. The rape, the drug addict, the heroes getting shot are plot devices that have been used so often in TV they have almost become clichés. West Wing did the whole gunshot thing their very first season and then again in 2002. I look forward to seeing the TV dramas that don't do it. Was hoping since BTVS is a fantasy show, it wouldn't - but it hit the six year time span and sure enough out came the television clichés.

Meta-narration, Reunions, Flashback Episode and Clips - a TV specialty.

The day I see a tv show that does not feel compelled to bring back old characters or do clips of past episodes or even refer to them in its last season, is the day Television stops being a guilty pleasure.

a. The Meta-narration/clips Episode

Sooner or later all TV shows will fall into this trap. Star Trek The Next Generation did by referencing its predecessor and doing meta-narration on past episodes in its series finale.
Instead of building on what it had - it felt the need to become nostalgic. Same with MASH. Cheers also did it. And Friends? All the blasted time. It's a wonderfully cheap way to kill time, I suspect. But it is never as entertaining as it's meant to be.

BTVS did it a lot in S7. Not only did we get the 15 minute previously on Buffy section, which now included bits from almost all the previously aired episodes, but we got old regenerated clips in the middle of episodes - most notably the Faith sequences in Dirty Girls.

And just in case we didn't notice? They would meta-narrate on past episodes - using obvious mentions of the first - fifth season episodes in the narrative, something that happens a lot with Television. Movies? Not so much since they are self-contained. If part of a serial? A little just to catch you up. Although I noticed to my delight that Peter Jackson avoided doing this in Two Towers, Part II of LoR, he apparently thought it silly and demeaning to the audience to show what happened previously in the first movie. George Lucas set the precedent with Empire Strikes Back - similarly not showing what came before or dwelling on it too much. Odd that tv writers who know we watch their shows in syndication, feel the need to refer to past episodes constantly. Books also don't really do this. JK Rowling did it a little in Harry Potter, but pretty quickly. Most? Don't. And Shakespeare? He avoids doing it too heavily in Henry the V, the sequel to Henry the IV. Yet, most, possibly all TV shows do. Dawson's Creek certainly did. BTVS did. And I suspect next year - Angel the Series will. It seems to be part and parcel of the form. If you dislike this, I suggest you focus your time on movies and books. TV will never change.

b. Flashback Episode

In a recent New York Times article, television critic Emily Nussbaum raves about the flashback. "The flashback episode: it's a television specialty worth looking back on. Perfectly suited to TV's episodic nature, flashbacks bend the rules of television time, creating an instant set of memories and allowing viewers a prison break from TV's seemingly eternal present tense." (42) She ranks them from the previously mentioned low on the totem pole: "dumb clip-show aka filler" to the more profound "flashback episode", which is usually best done by taking the audience inside the characters heads with little more preamble than a line or scene transition. The better episodes - use the flashback to reveal something new about the characters, explain a plot point, or a long unanswered question such as how does Monica on Friends afford that great apartment? Or how did Angel and Spike become vampires?

ME may have overused this device in Season 7, Btvs. In prior years the flashback was used sparingly to explain Angel's background in Season 2 finale Becoming. More importantly, it lent itself to whatever plot was unraveling at the time. It was not just an excuse for the writers to experiment. It did not stop the action - rather flowed from it - establishing for the audience Angel's motivation in Becoming and the irony of his actions. Fool for Love in Season 5 Btvs is another example of the flashback working brilliantly - in this episode key information about Spike's past is revealed which in turn shed's light on what Buffy is up against and the central mythology of the series. Plus none of these episodes rely on previously aired scenes, instead they provide brand new ones which build on the characters. We get both Buffy's motivations and Spike's in the episode. Compare this to Storyteller, Dirty Girls, and Him all of which use previously aired scenes as flashbacks with comic twists akin to a blooper episode. Him flashes back to Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered - succeeding only in reminding the audience of how much better that episode was regarding a similar theme. Dirty Girls flashes back to Bad Girls and Consequences, also far better episodes than how the writers twist them in the flashbacks. Storyteller uses clips from Season 6 throughout the episode. ME attempts to do it's own twist on this form by making the clips comical in retrospect or changing them slightly, but all this does is make me miss the original version. Storyteller does introduce other sequences, several scenes of Andrew talking to Warren behind Jonathan's back, but these don't really lead us anywhere plot-wise or character-wise. Also they tend to be on the repetitive side - since we've already seen these scenes in Conversations with Dead People and Never Leave Me. They do not add to the story. We know why Jonathan and Andrew go to Sunnydale in Conversations With Dead People - Andrew's remembered conversation with Jonathan in Mexico merely repeats that information. The knife that Andrew brings back with him from Mexico and used to kill Jonathan, which is supposed to be the point of the flashback, is never really explained or used in the episode. It appears to be a device or excuse for the writer to do the flashback between Andrew and Jonathan. Instead of using these scenes to explain who Andrew is or his family background or why he ended up with Warren and Jonathan in the first place, the flashbacks appear to provide little more than comic relief. The scenes provide no true depth, do not really tell us anything new, and just feel like more filler, creative, maybe even comical filler, but filler all the same. (43) Contrast this with Lies My Parents Told Me, which through a series of flashbacks caused by a memory device magically inserted in Spike's brain, reveals the source of Spike's psychological trigger and the source of Wood's vendetta against Spike. The flashback sequences do provide depth to the characters and move the plot along. While not as strong and entangled in the plot/mythology as Fool for Love and Becoming's flashbacks, they do serve a clear purpose outside of filler or comical clips. When done well - the flashback sequence is a remarkable device specific to the television medium; it advances both character and plot seamlessly with wit and little artifice. Done badly? It's little more than filler.

c. Character Reunions

These are used principally to obtain ratings. I honestly think that the network brass insists that the writers insert some long-missed character in an episode, specifically one towards the very end of a series run, just to get those ratings, regardless of whether this long- missed character actually fits in the story.

Cheers did it with Diane Chambers in the Cheers Season Finale.
Happy Days with Ron Howard.
Btvs with Angel and Faith.
Star Trek the Next Generation with characters from the first series
Voyager with characters from the other series if available
Xena did it with Hercules
Hercules did it with Xena
Spin City did it with Michael J. Fox in the last season, his character had left two years before.

Sometimes it works beautifully. But usually it feels contrived and the character that comes back or crosses over feels stiff and uncomfortable as if he/she is aware of the contrivance. I have yet to see a television writer or network exec avoid this obvious and admittedly successful ploy for ratings. It has become an expected piece of the television formulaic style. Oh and if the long missed character had been in a romantic relationship with the lead? They immediately fall into bed with them, have sex, or share a passionate kiss as if they never left and the two have been humping like rabbits for the last five years. Diane and Sam immediately went after each other and tried to get married, after barely saying a word to each other for two-three seasons. It's like: 'ohhh look here comes h/ir one true love! Let's all swoon.' Please. Obvious ratings grabber and rarely done well. That said, occasionally writers pull this off. I actually liked the Sam and Diane reunion - it did a wonderful job of reiterating why these two should not be together. Of course Diane was allowed to interact with everyone, was made a central part of the episode and was not just a device, but a strategic part of a plot arc centering on Sam's sex addiction. Also she and Sam did not immediately kiss, they worked up to it. It was earned. No one else has come close to pulling this off as well or demonstrating it as more than just a ratings stunt. ME came close with Faith on Angel The Series and BTVS, but fell short of the mark with Angel's long-awaited cross-over to Buffy, where the character came across as slightly stiff and adolescent in marked contrast to the maturity he'd shown in his own series the week before. Also he only interacted with Buffy, no one else. Outside of the amulet - a plot device that could have reached Sunnydale by other means, Angel's appearance did little to add to the character's growth or the plot. He may have helped Buffy reach a sort of epiphany, but that epiphany would have just as easily been reached in a scene with Xander, Willow or Spike. Angel was not necessary. Except to make ratings climb and tease B/A fans who were oddly split regarding it. The ratings also did not climb. Barely hit 2.9 nationally. (44) Faith by comparison was redeemed by her appearance and interacted with all of the major characters. ME might have been better off letting Angel stay on his series and only bringing Faith and the amulet over.

____________________________________________________________
30 The Sound of The Fury, David Fuy Interview, City of Angel: "I've discovered how long it takes to write a script without killing myself, which is eight days. That's why when I get these stories that break four days into prep, I usually have to go 'Hey Steve [DeKnight], Wanna write this with me?'"; Interview with Anthony Stewart Head on IGN: Discusses filming that took 22 hours. See also James Marsters Q& A at Chicago Convention transcribed by atzone, regarding the television show grind: "You know we worked twelve to twenty hours, five days a week. We begin on 4 am on Monday morning and we get out about 5am Saturday morning, which we call Friday night. You know it's really fun but at the same time there is this quality of exhaustion that is behind everything. My memory of doing the show is a little hazy, frankly. Most of the time I feel like I'm stumbling around and as soon as we get the lines right, we move on and I'm always amazed by how good it looks. I read the scripts and I get these grand ideas on all this stuff I want to do and then the crush of television happens and it's just about trying to get these scenes filmed in the time we have." http://www.atnzone.com/tvzone/features/buffycon_1.shtml
31 Documentary on Filming of The Sheild (Trio Network); The Sound of The Fury
32Although at Moonlight Rising Adam Busch told convention goers that he'd been brought back to re-do a line for a scene once. See also, James Marsters Interview, pp.20-21, The Official Buffy Magazine #8, June/July 2003: "If you do movies or plays, you choose what kind of projects you would be willing to do." But on a "television series [....] actors are bound to perform the scripts as they come in." See also the James Marsters Q& A on atzone.
33See Joss Whedon Interview on salon.com and actionadventure.com where he discusses why this was his last year of BTVS: "TV is such a grind." Marti Noxon in The Official Buffy Magazine #9: states that if they were to do a season 8 it would probably about doing laundry.
34After BTVS ended it was reported on AICN that the writers went on to other shows. Only three of the BTVS writers joined BTVS' spin-series Angel, and one of those three writers just joined BTVS in Season 7. Jane Espenson went to Gilmore Girls, Doug Petrie to Tru Calling, Rebecca Rand Kirshner to Tarzan, Drew Greenberg to Smallville, and Marti Noxon to Still Life. At least five left before BTVS finished filming in Season 7. In numerous interviews - Whedon and Noxon state they were ready to move on, Gellar's decision to quit came more as a relief than a surprise. Official Buffy Magazine #8; AICN interview, IGN Interview with Joss Whedon amongst others.
35 Emma Caulfield, Sara Michelle Gellar, Alyson Hannigan, and Michelle Trachtenberg all commented in exit interviews that they were ready to move on to movies. Emma Caulfield reported that five years was a long time to be in any one place - in her Interview in The Official Buffy Magazine #7 and in TV Zone.
36Here is a partial list of the television shows who did the special episodes on "rape" and how they explored the issue: According to promotional ads - Boston Public will do the "rape story line" in it's season premiere. The episode raises the age old question is it rape or just violent sex? The witness claims it was rape. The victim claims violent sex. It's a new twist torn from the headlines. This week according to TV Guide there's a made for TV movie on the Andrew Luster case about the Max Factor heir who was serial rapist. Currently on Television (July -September 2003) - All My Children and As the World Turns have rape storylines. It's been a soap opera standby for over 30 years. 24 in their very first season had the wife of the lead character get raped. Beverly Hills 90210 (Kelly was the victim of a date rape towards end of series by her boyfriend)Angel The Series (see the flashback episodes Dear Boy, Darla, and Reprise where Angel is shown raping or intending to rape different women - one Drusilla - Dear Boy, two - the gypsy girl Darla, and three Darla in Reprise. He is also mentioned raping and murdering Holtz's wife - but it's not a very special episode, nor emphasized, more implied), Melrose Place, Dallas, Dynasty, Law & Order, All in the Family (in this situation comedy they featured and were proud of dealing with elderly rape, Edith Bunker was raped by an intruder), St. Elsewhere (major character was serial rapist), China Beach, NyPd Blue, and Hill Street Blues (Joyce Davenport was the victim of an assault). BTVS has done five attempted rape scenes/sexual assault's in it's history: 1) Xander attempted to rape Buffy in The Pack - she hit over the head with a desk, 2) Buffy's date attempted to rape her in Go Fish - she punched him in the nose, 3)Faith attempted to rape Xander in Consequences, Angel yanked her off him and knocked her unconscious, 4) Spike attempted to bite Willow in The Initiative in what could be described as a metaphor for date rape. 5) Seeing Red - the infamous sexual assault in the bathroom. Apparently there are no new ideas in TV since they keep relying on what has now become a cliché - how do we put the heroine into jeopardy or show her boyfriend is dangerous? Regardless of the fact he's a vampire? I know let's do a sexual assault. (And they wonder why Seeing Red had such low ratings. See www.futonmediacritic.com.)
The whole marital rape or boyfriend/girlfriend violent relationship drama was actually done best on a soap opera, partly because the writers had a 20 year time period to do it and the flexibility of writing the characters out over the long haul. And no, it's not General Hospital, which did it so poorly, that years later a new writer came in and attempted to re-address it. No, the soap that did it right was The Guiding Light, when the misunderstood/villainous Roger Thorpe raped his wife Holly, out of jealousy and rage. Holly was married bad-boy Roger, but wanted good boy Ed. Out of rage and jealousy - Roger raped her. She turned him in. He escaped and kidnapped her. Ed saved her and Roger appeared to fall off a cliff. Only to return in true soap fashion fifteen years later. Holly also returns and they are forced to deal with what happened all those years ago. The two characters had a rich and complex relationship that spanned over 20 years, included a child and concluded with forgiveness and both characters finally moving on. No one else has done it as well as they did. Nor did it ever come across as believably and naturally and not as a contrivance as it did here. The writers responsibly had both characters deal with the crime in more than one way, first violently, then responsibly. Which is surprising since Guiding Light is a soap opera, the oldest one actually - started on radio.
37 Comic Con Q&A with Joss Whedon and ATS writers in San Diego, June 2003, (courtesy of www.cityofangel.com who posted a transcript): "It's something that we had been debating for years and we figured our ambivalence was exactly what we wanted to project and we used that on the show. We knew that we couldn't come back from an attempted rape to a romantic sexual relationship. But what we did want to say was that we could come back to a place of trust between these people. That man could redeem himself. And in time what went on with Spike and Buffy was very textured and complicated you couldn't just say, 'Well now he's the villain again.' I think that does a disservice to the complexity of what went on and we went back and forth endlessly. Should they get together once, should they never get together, should she serve her emotional need, should she feel guilty bout that emotional need? Hopefully some of that spilled out into the show because it is probably the most complex question that is asked in the entire run of the show."
38 See note 36, also: General Hospital - in 1996-99 the show revisited Laura's rape by Luke through Luke and Lucky's eyes. It came close to destroying their relationship and tormented Luke. In this version - we were forced to relive the crime through Luke's eyes, Laura's husband at the time- Scotty's eyes, and through Laura's. It was an attempt to show a complex topic from a new angle. One Life to Live - the rape of Marty by Todd Manning, was explored through Todd's eyes and Marty Seabrook's. Todd eventually redeems himself by selflessly taking a bullet for Marty and in the process giving up his happy life with child and wife Blair, who had nothing to do with his past crime. Even after his redemption - he is forced to wear Marti's scar on his cheek as a reminder. Guiding Light, 1989-1997 dealt with Roger's remorse over the rape of Holly that occurred fifteen years ago. Rape and attempted rape storylines are soap opera stand-bys. Jack Devereux of the romantic Jack and Jenn duo on Days of Our Lives, also was a rapist, he raped his first wife way back when he was first introduced. He was also redeemed eventually.
39 See Darla, Dear Boy, Ats S2 Becoming Part II S2Btvs, Passion S2 Btvs, and Offspring-Lullaby S3 Ats which detail several of Angelus/Angel's misdeeds.
40Finn MaCool's media savvy post on www.atpobtvs.com discussion board in May 2003; See also KdS' post in response to Claudia's thread Btvs Impressions, 8/7/03, on www.atpobtvs.com discussion board: "The Seeing Red rape scene. Recent discussions here have convinced me that the brutal naturalism of that scene was a truly disastrous decision if the way Spike and Spuffy were to be developed in S7 was already planned." See also Entertainment Geekly's review: "Sarah: Speaking of disastrous, my most hated plot device this season actually has to do with Spike, and Dan, I believe this relates directly to your lazy writing comment. There were a few elements that were obvious, "let's get from point a to point b" type of things, but none so much so as that wretched Spike/Buffy attempted rape scene. OK, first of all, what was that? Has Meredith Baxter-Birney suddenly replaced SMG in the credits? This was probably the biggest TV movie moment ever to grace Buffy. Even worse, it didn't make any sense. You could see the little wheels turning in the exposed writerly brain: OK, we need to get rid of Spike for a couple of episodes. OK, you know what? We really need to remind people that he's bad. He's a vampire! Forget the fact that he hasn't done anything much badder than walking around with an exposed torso for a coupla years. To me, that was just a dumb, gratuitous plot device. So obvious. Really hated it. Dan: Yeah, the attempted rape struck me as cheap, unmotivated melodrama. I almost can't comment on Spike's development because I can't accept that that actually happened. And I'm really not looking forward to another brooding guilt-racked vampire wandering the Buffy universe." http://www.entertainmentgeekly.com/web/general/sep2002/buffy_roundtable
41 Sam Malone - had an alcohol problem in Season 2 Cheers - where he fell off the wagon, in Season 10 he was attending sex addicts group - both were done more for laughs than pathos. Mash - had Hawkeye Pierce go through post-traumatic stress syndrome & Father Macaughy lose his hearing in the final episode. Family Ties had Alex P. Keaton go nuts over grief and have to see a psychiatrist. Growing Pains dealt with eating disorders. Blossom - drugs.
42 Emily Nussbaum, "Thanks for the Instant Memories", New York Times Arts Section, August 10th, 2003.
43 As Emily Nussbaum states, regarding the use of flashbacks by reality dating shows and sitcoms : "Prevalent in 80's sitcoms, clip shows paste older scenes together with a corny trigger [...] a narrative technique so transparently dorky that contemporary shows can perform it only with a wink. As if reality dating shows haven't done enough damage, they've generated their own clip format: the penultimate-episode rip-off, in which the audience is force fed reshuffled memories from the week before, a display necessary only for a viewer with severely compromised short-term memory." See note 35 for cite.
44 See www.futonmediacritic.com which calculates the Neilsen ratings for the shows.

[> [> not edith -- anom, 22:49:20 08/24/03 Sun

I know, s'kat, you said read the whole thing 1st. I'm just a little over halfway through, but I have to pick a slight quibble w/a couple of the examples you cite.

"...All in the Family (in this situation comedy they featured and were proud of dealing with elderly rape, Edith Bunker was raped by an intruder)...."

Edith wasn't raped. She stalled until her oven timer rang, got the would-be rapist to let her take the freshly baked, hot cake out...& shoved it into his face, giving her the chance to escape! (I also have to object to the word "elderly"; Edith was middle-aged at most, in her 50s, I think. The episode actually takes place on her birthday, but I don't remember which birthday. The would-be rapist does tell her he likes "older women," but I think that just means older than his own age range. BTW, the series also had an episode in which Gloria was sexually assaulted [also unsuccessfully] on the street, & made reference to it in a later episode when she says she still feels scared passing the place where it happened.)

"Odd, considering viewers had no problem forgiving...Angelus' rapes of Drusilla, Holtz's wife and daughter...."

I don't think there's any implication that he raped Holtz's daughter (literally, as distinguished from metaphorically by vamping her). Not that Angelus might not have, but there's nothing that specifically suggests he did. And is it even a question of viewers' forgiving these acts? Or do you mean that Angel isn't held responsible for them? Does it count as forgiveness if he isn't considered the same person?

Overall, this is an amazing series, shadowkat. I hope I can finish it before it's archived so I can comment more generally--& given how it's taken over the board, there's probably a good chance!

[> [> [> Re: not edith -- s'kat, 09:50:36 08/25/03 Mon

Overall, this is an amazing series, shadowkat. I hope I can finish it before it's archived so I can comment more generally--& given how it's taken over the board, there's probably a good chance!

Thank you! It is on Angel After Spike board as well and will probably last there even a little longer - if you need to comment.

Also thanks for the added information on All in The Family - actually the statement I used is a semi-quote from reviewers who say ALL IN THE FAMILY was the first to show an older woman get attacked. (I was sure she got raped in that episode, but it has been several years since I saw it, so I'll take your word for it.) Also thanks for the information on Gloria (I had a hunch she got it too, but
decided not to mention it since I couldn't remember for certain.)

Another drama that I left out was The Practice - where Lindsey is date-raped via the date-rape drug.

Odd, considering viewers had no problem forgiving...Angelus' rapes of Drusilla, Holtz's wife and daughter...."

I don't think there's any implication that he raped Holtz's daughter (literally, as distinguished from metaphorically by vamping her). Not that Angelus might not have, but there's nothing that specifically suggests he did. And is it even a question of viewers' forgiving these acts? Or do you mean that Angel isn't held responsible for them? Does it count as forgiveness if he isn't considered the same person?

You're right he probably didn't rape the daughter - I was using vampirism as a metaphor for rape, sorry for not making that clearer - the show jumps back and forth regarding it - wish they'd stay consistent.

Well, here's the thing - if you can't hold Angel responsible, how can you hold Spike? Both didn't have souls at the time. Both get souls. If you hold ensouledSpike responsible, you have to hold Angel - otherwise...a little hypocritical, don't you think?? Same with Xander and the hyena. The only character who attempted rape with a soul and not under demonic influence was Faith.

But how they filmed the AR scene caused viewers to reacte differently. Yet - if you think about it, Spike's act was no worse than Angelus or Faith or Xanders in any way.

Does it count as forgiveness if he isn't considered the same person? Interesting. Don't know the answer to that.
I guess this is a question we've been struggling with for some time in our society. A while back there was a woman who was going to be executed for a vile and very violent murder - what was famous about her case, was she really wasn't the same person who had committed that crime. She had changed. When she committed the crime, she'd been under the influence of drugs, was out of control. Now she tutors in-mates, has helped juveniles, etc. She became a Christian.
A good person. The Warden of the Prison did not want to execute her. Numerous conservatives petitioned the Governor to let her off the hook. But they couldn't. Texas had the death penalty. She had committed this horrible crime. It did not matter how much she had changed.

Another real-life case - is the case of the 1960s activist who had robbed banks and bombed buildings, went on the run, changed her name, her identity, and changed. Years later they find her, married, two kids, a normal loving housewife with a job. But she is still arrested and held responsible for those crimes she did while a teenager, a young adult.
Would she have done them now? No, of course not. But she had done them then.

We are who we are - no matter how much we appear to have changed. So yes, we are responsible for past acts even if they were done when we felt differently about things. Does that mean we shouldn't be forgiven for them? Of course not.
If anything we should. But by the same token we should not get a "get out of jail free card" just because we've moved past them or got away with it way back when. I believe that all our acts should be weighed not just the bad or just the good. People should be granted the opportunity to redeem themselves, to become better people, to overcome their negative acts. To regret them and show by their deeds they've become better than that and won't do it again. That's one of the many reasons why I'm against the death penalty and always will be. But that's a whole other debate that I do not advise getting into. ;-)

[> [> [> [> Re: not edith -- anom, 21:55:09 08/25/03 Mon

"It is on Angel After Spike board as well and will probably last there even a little longer - if you need to comment."

Yeah, but I want to comment here! I've read the whole series now, & I'm feeling like I should've taken notes! I'll see what I can get written in response; meanwhile, I'll just answer your response to me.

"(I was sure [Edith Bunker] got raped in that episode, but it has been several years since I saw it, so I'll take your word for it.) Also thanks for the information on Gloria (I had a hunch she got it too, but decided not to mention it since I couldn't remember for certain.)"

I can. @>) In fact, I'm kind of amazed at how clearly I remember it. Maybe a comedy, even an issues-oriented one, couldn't go so far as to have a main character raped, although there was an episode where a transvestite friend of Mike's was attacked; when the attackers tried to rape the friend & found out "she" was a man, they killed him. The attempted rape of Edith was pretty intense, though, even if it didn't get very physical. To me, the most frightening line was when the rapist told her, after she'd stalled him a while, "Look, this is gonna happen." I was so proud of her when it didn't! She played her dingbat image enough to make him think it couldn't hurt to let her take the cake out of the oven; then she used it as a weapon! Gotta admire her resourcefulness.

"You're right he probably didn't rape the daughter - I was using vampirism as a metaphor for rape, sorry for not making that clearer - the show jumps back and forth regarding it - wish they'd stay consistent."

From the context, it sounded like you were talking about literal rapes. If you're using it as a metaphor, well, every turning of a victim or even every vampire bite could be counted. I'd even say the "impotence" scene between Spike & Willow wasn't intended to portray a literal rape attempt (as some posters have treated it) but rather played w/the metaphor. Otherwise there wouldn't have been the shifting of gears that made it funny.

As for the question of who gets forgiven, I agree that it's hypocritical to forgive in one case but not the other. I wonder if some people are less willing to forgive in Spike's case because it's more recent--he hasn't had as much time to agonize over it as Angel has. The fact that the attack was shown so graphically--no cutting away after it started--could also have influenced opinions. Good point about Faith. She's certainly the same person (in the literal sense, no possession or absence of soul), yet there doesn't even seem to be any residual animosity toward her from Xander, or from anyone else on his account, when she returns in Season 7.

And I really like how you took my question as an opportunity to talk about real people who changed after their crimes! In this sense, it could be argued that Faith isn't the same person she was before the Sanctuary arc. I agree that people who've harmed others still bear the responsibility for their acts--in fact, if they don't take that responsibility, they haven't really changed. And they should--maybe even need to--face the consequences, to themselves & others. This applies not only to the legal consequences & penalties but more generally. A person who has abused or betrayed others may genuinely change, but the people s/he hurt aren't likely to accept that change or to trust that person until s/he has proved s/he won't hurt them again--& that may take a long time, if they're even willing to give s/him the chance to prove it. There are plenty of examples of this in real life & in the TV series you've been discussing--too many to cite, so I won't.

[> [> [> [> [> Angelus did rape Holtz's wife -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:45:23 08/25/03 Mon

Holtz specifically says that Angelus, "violated and killed my wife".

[> Part IV: Difficulties of Operating Within Structure and Boundaries of TV Formula -- s'kat (no footnotes in this section), 10:09:36 08/23/03 Sat

Part IV Difficulties of Operating Within Structure and Boundaries of Television Formula

Television serials have a basic structure and formula, which no matter how creative and innovative the writers are - they can't really break. Advertisers and network execs won't let you.

A. The General Television Formula

With the possible exception of reality shows, which are in a class by themselves, you have 13-22 episodes, 6 if you are in the UK, to produce a year, 43 minutes each to tell a story. The story may be told in an episodic stand-alone format, a serialized format, or a combo of the two. It may contain:

1. One central character - usually the one in the title - with a bunch of supporting characters
2. A central character, supporting and guest stars,
3. Change the lead and supporting characters each episode,
4. Just change the supporting characters each episode and have only one contracted character,
5. Have an ensemble with no one as the lead.

B. If the story has a lead or central character it will most likely fit one of the following formulas. All have been done numerous times and all are comforting tried and true methods to the network brass and advertisers. (ie. Guaranteed audience getters.)

1. The "Cursed Hero On A Quest" or "Quest of The Cursed Hero"

This formula usually has the name of the central character or their profession in the title. It is most generally a combo of episodic and stand-alone, rarely is it serialized except in a few instances. The over-arcing plot is the hero's quest for whatever it is s/he is lacking and this part is important: the hero cannot resolve or obtain hi/r goal until the final episode of the series or it is over. In some cases the hero may never obtain it.

Requirements of the formula:

a. The hero must be stoic and brooding and the straight man, seldom is the central character snarky or amusing. They must be serious-minded and guilt-ridden.

b. Usually, not always, the hero has a dark side - a Mr. Hyde just lurking beneath the surface that makes hi/r dangerous. The villain does not want to push the hero too far. "You really don't want to make me angry!" (David Banner, The Incredible Hulk)

c. The hero has a secret that he can't tell anyone - something that keeps him apart from society and any potential love interest. This secret explains the Mr. Hyde persona.

d. If there's more than one character in the cast - these characters act as the heroes support group or trusted allies in hi/r quest for whatever.

e. The hero may be an anti-hero or just misunderstood with a tragic flaw that keeps h/ir from accomplishing hi/r objective. Usually the flaw is hubris or vanity, something basic to the human condition, which the audience identifies with. But deep down, the audience must believe the hero is good. (Series where the central character's moral condition is too ambiguous or negative rarely survive - advertisers feel uncomfortable with it. Sopranos and Blackadder are rarities and neither has appeared on US network television. The ones that have are Maverick and Nichols. Nichols was a western that aired in 1971 and barely made it to 13 episodes. The main hero was considered too ambiguous. Maverick was a Western with more than one hero.)

f. Important: while the hero can't be too ambiguous or become evil in any way, the supporting characters can. The supporting characters can also be depicted as fools or clowns, as long as they never supersede the hero or take over the spotlight. Why? Because that would be very bad and subvert the formula and we mustn't do that. Fans might revolt and who would buy the advertisers products? When you have a central character in the title - the series is built around them - it is essentially all about them. Veer from that formula and you might get a fan revolt and lose advertisers. Bottom line - bring as many people to the advertisers as possible that is your mission.

Examples of this formula: Angel The Series, The Pretender, John Doe, The Fugitive, Forever Knight, Highlander, Xena: Warrior Princess (which actually tried to subvert the formula and make Gabrielle the lead, but didn't completely - everything else fits), Have Gun Will Travel, The Equalizer, The Incredible Hulk, Brimstone, Millenium, Miracles, and Quantum Leap. Genre TV loves this formula. And no, Angel The Series has not in my opinion subverted it in any way - now if Spike, Lorne, Fred, Connor or Wes took over? That would be a subversion but remember point (f)? Very bad things would happen. If they turn it into an ensemble? That would also be a subversion. If Angel became the villain? Yep, subversion. But I wouldn't worry - it looks to me as if ME is bound and determined to continue with the formula. The most experimental they'll get is adding a little comedy and whoops! Quantum Leap, Highlander, and Xena beat them to it.

2. The Hero's Journey :

Basically we have a hero who has some sort of mission, be it a job, a calling, a task which they alone can do. They aren't cursed. They don't have a Mr. Hyde lurking beneath the surface. They just have this sacred mission.

Requirements of the formula - pretty close to the Cursed Hero actually. The hero is usually the title character. They may or may not have a bunch of sidekicks who help them. It's important the hero/heroine themselves never turns completely evil or villainous, although they can get a little nasty from time to time. They must NEVER be happy.

a. Unlucky in love. The more unresolved the hero's romantic life, the better. As long as the show is on the air - the hero will be unlucky in love. Everyone else in the hero's life can be lucky in love but the hero. Often the hero's best friend will either be married, be engaged, be happy, or have a long-term relationship in the series, while the hero flits from one bad relationship to the next. If there's a long-term love relationship? It will never be resolved, the writers will pull out every possible contrivance to keep the two apart and preferably from having sex - since once you have sex - things tend to get dull.

b. Unrequited love triangles are really popular under this formula. Usually it's between the hero, someone the hero wants but can never have, and someone who wants the hero but the hero can't see because of the unattainable object. With love triangles the trick is to have no one happy. The writer's job is to keep all three characters conflicted as long as possible. It helps if it's a quadrangle - thus removing too much sympathy from the character who wants the hero but the hero won't give the time of day. The hero must have the audience's sympathy. Triangles are seldom resolved and only when the writers come up with a new one.

c. If the hero has sex - bad things happen and mostly to the significant other. They will either go evil, attempt to rape her (if the hero is a her), get killed (if a guy), sacrifice themselves to save the hero, or abandon the hero due to a misunderstanding. Rarely does the significant other get more than half a year of sex with the hero. Remember point a? Must be miserable. Woe to the character who falls in love with or gets sexually involved with the hero, they are doomed.

d. Supporting characters tend to evolve more than the hero.

e. The hero is a bit of a martyr - no one else can do their job, they are alone, they are constantly saving people but never getting any money or thanks for it. The cops or authorities are constantly against them.

f. Cops are stupid - if the hero isn't a cop or FBI agent, but lone wolf. If the hero is a cop or agent - Cops are bright. Depends on who the hero is and who the hero's associates are.

g. The hero has some quality that requires the audience to suspend disbelief. Superstrength, super-smarts, super-sight, etc.

h. The hero is misunderstood by their friends and feels like an outsider. (See Martyr)

i. The hero will risk h/ir life to save everyone, good or evil. The hero is the voice of reason and judgment, redeems the villain, saves the day.

j. The hero must be likable and usually has some tragic but completely understandable flaw that makes the audience sympathize with them.

k. The hero can often come across as self-involved, but never to the extent they alienate the audience. The majority of the audience must either strongly identify with or fall in love with the hero.

l. The hero must always win in the end. Rarely does the hero lose. The audience must root for the hero and want the hero to win. Mustn't depress the audience.


Examples of the Formula: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, La Femme Nikita, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Dark Angel, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Smallville, Six Million Dollar Man, Bionic Woman, and now - Jake 2.0, Tarzan, and Tru Calling.

3. The Hero as Detective

This one is usually more realistic or more based in our reality. It also tends to be far more episodic in nature with no clear plot arcs. This formula has pretty much the same qualifications as 1 and 2, with the difference being that the super-human quality is usually just super-smarts or Sherlock Holmes complex. Ie. This character can solve the crime when no one else can. Examples: Monk, Diagnosis Murder, Murder She Wrote, The Rockford Files, Columbo, and Profiler .

We also have the duo - a male/female detective team, which was created by Dashielle Hammett in the Nick and Nora Charles mysteries: The duo involves two heroes, usually a romantically inclined couple that investigate crimes, the duo can be either very bright or stupid or just of normal intelligence. They usually do it together and neither overshadows the other. The humor is their witty repartee and or sexual chemistry. In order to preserve the sexual chemistry and/or tension between the characters - they seldom are shown having sex or consummating the relationship - at least not until the series ends. Examples of this form include: The X-Files, Remington Steel, Moonlighting, MacMillian and Wife, Hart and Hart.

The important thing to remember about television dramas with a central character - is that each has a tried but true formula. A few TV shows have attempted to jump away from the formulas, examples include Xena: Warrior Princess and The X-Files. Xena did it by making the story as much if not more about the sidekick than the cursed heroine, also it killed Xena in the end, redeeming her through her sidekick. The other stretch Xena made was the love story was more between Xena and Gabrielle than Xena and Hercules, if it had stuck with the formula - Xena would have remained more or less in love with Hercules throughout, ie. The unattainable object, reason for the redemption, trophy. X-Files does it by making Mulder and Scully question the cases they are investigating. Most of the suspense in the X-Files came from the mythology as opposed to the chemistry between the actors. Viewers were more concerned about whether aliens had manipulated Scully's brain or stolen her child than if she would have sex with Mulder. The serial nature of the X-Files took it a step beyond the usually episodic nature of the duo formula. The creator, Chris Carter, continued to subvert it by mixing comedy and heart-wrenching drama and chills. X-Files contained at least three genres within its format: the horror genre, the sci-fi, and the detective story. By doing so, it successfully stepped outside the formula. On top of this - it attempted to change the lead characters - a big mistake in this format. You can only change principal characters and leads if the formula is an ensemble and within a workplace setting, which focuses more on the procedures/ins and outs of the workplace and less on the characters- ie. Law and Order, ER, The West Wing, or CSI - the reason is the audience can accept the characters changing in these formats - they are less invested in the characters and more invested in the setting. In these dramas the setting mustn't change. X-Files attempted to change lead characters in a duo detective drama where the audience was mainly invested in the two lead characters. As a result the last two seasons of the show dipped in ratings. By attempting this - the writers/producers subverted the formula but not in a good way. The new characters, while interesting, just left the audience missing the old ones. When you attempt to break free of the rules of your formula - you must provide the viewers with a hook or a reason to follow you. Remember they don't have to watch and the point is to get as many of them to watch as possible.

So did BTVS subvert its "hero" formula? Not really. BTVS came close but may have missed the opportunity to truly subvert the formula. If Spike had been redeemed sans soul and had never raped Buffy? Maybe. If Willow had merely gone dark on power without losing Tara or following the route of the classic addiction storyline? Maybe. If Warren hadn't shot anyone? Maybe. All these are soap clichés and ME fell right into them as discussed in Part III. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's television - everyone does it. It's part and parcel of the formula. Same with Angel - if Angel starts to fall into the background? Then yes they've subverted the formula. If Angel goes evil? Yep. If Angel never gets redeemed? nope. If Angel gets redeemed? nope. It's hard being different when so many people have gotten there before you. Not that you have to be of course, after all the advertisers prefer it if you're not. Besides - you don't have to subvert the formula to be cool and entertaining. You do have to subvert it to be legendary. But you also have to do it well and preferably without losing your audience in the process. (Which is what happened to both Xena and X-Files).

Don't get me wrong, I love both ATS and BTVS, think they are amazing, and believe they have subverted other things, but they have not subverted the essential television formula they base themselves on. Both shows still fall victim to the clichés. They don't really try to jump outside the box that supports them. And in a sense ME is justified in not jumping too far outside that box, ATS and BTVS have never been high in the ratings department and they are cult/genre TV shows. Cult TV shows are already on the networks hit list, they are already being subversive just by being a cult tv show, you don't want to push your luck.

In order to subvert the formula - ME would have had to do a few things that probably would have pissed off a good portion of their fan base not to mention the networks and advertisers. Buffy did not really do anything that heroes before haven't done. Nor did she veer in any way from the traditional hero's journey. Also the show remained the Buffy show, it did not become the Xander, Willow, Giles or Spike show, Buffy was still the central focus. We still saw everything through her eyes. It didn't take any serious risks against the form - ie. casting moral doubt on Buffy's slayer calling by redeeming Spike sans soul, or ending the show with Buffy waking up in an insane asylum. Or killing off any of the principal human characters such as Willow, Xander, Giles, Dawn, or Buffy in the finale. No serious risks that could alienate fans or advertising dollars. (Oddly enough the risks they took that did alienate fans - were the soap opera clichés not the creative risks that other programs have taken.) Xena