Anger about Tara's death by Pandora

I always did wonder why they killed off Larry. Probably part of the "make them care about a character, them kill 'em off" gimmick. Which, as I've said before, is getting a little old.

Anyway, this is your usual misuse of statistics. Something like 2/3 of the good characters on Buffy are women. (Look at the opening credits!) Which doesn't even begin to make up for the low ratio of good female characters in other TV dramas. But of course that puts more women at risk...

I hate the term "polticially correct" which is a smug way of describing somebody else's sensibilities. But it's the term people know, so I'll use it: I hope they resist the PC pressure. They've already caved more than I care for. At least that's how I interpret the use of conventional labels such as "gay" to describe Willow and Tara, something they avoided at first. I don't object to the word, but I do object into turning everything into a stereotype, just to please people who think that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
I always did wonder why they killed off Larry. Probably part of the "make them care about a character, them kill 'em off" gimmick. Which, as I've said before, is getting a little old.

But Zic, we're dealing with a vampire slayer. This chick encounters and tussles with deadly, vicious, evil creatures as a part of her daily life. It's only realistic that people she knows and cares about (and that subsequently, are characters we've come to know and care about) are going to die. That's the core of her pathos.

Quote:

I hope they resist the PC pressure. They've already caved more than I care for. At least that's how I interpret the use of conventional labels such as "gay" to describe Willow and Tara, something they avoided at first. I don't object to the word, but I do object into turning everything into a stereotype, just to please people who think that way.

Well, I think that the use of words like 'gay' and 'lesbian' are ok, so long as the words don't define what they're trying to describe. At no point in the course of Willow and Tara's relationship has it seemed (at least to me) contrived, patronizing, or 'PC'. It evolved naturally, tenderly, and sweetly, not with the great forced passion that we often see in TV relationships, but as simply as two people discovering their connection to each other and strengthening it. I don't think Joss ever made their relationship go through any motions because that was the 'gay' or 'lesbian' thing to do- which stands to reason, since, as far as I know, there aren't any 'gay' or 'lesbian' things to do- outside of two people of the same gender being together.

On the other hand, insofar as the article goes, I'm all for gay rights and advocacy. However, this is utter crap. To suggest that Buffy lives in 'Klan country' is inflammatory, stupid, and plainly ignorant of almost everything about Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Though I am an avid supporter of many of the goals behind gay rights groups, I have to say that the radicals that are given press and air time often turn my stomach in their alarmist approach and constant, abrasive cries of discrimination and victimhood. They only serve to do damage to the work that has already been done, and that still needs doing.

Pandora

"Logic is a wonderful thing, but doesn't always beat actual thought." -Terry Pratchett, the Last Continent

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pandora:
Well, I think that the use of words like 'gay' and 'lesbian' are ok, so long as the words don't define what they're trying to describe. At no point in the course of Willow and Tara's relationship has it seemed (at least to me) contrived, patronizing, or 'PC'. It evolved naturally, tenderly, and sweetly, not with the great forced passion that we often see in TV relationships, but as simply as two people discovering their connection to each other and strengthening it.

Oh, I agree completely. That was precisely what I enjoyed about the whole Willow/Tara thing.

What's ironic is, they created a positive image of a "lesbian relationship" by not treating it as such. The story was about two people, not two stereotypes.

Which is why I found it rather disappointing when they started inserting lines like "I realized I was gay." It sounded to me like they were deviating from the original concept to appease people who needed Willow to acknowledge her gayness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Which is why I found it rather disappointing when they started inserting lines like "I realized I was gay." It sounded to me like they were deviating from the original concept to appease people who needed Willow to acknowledge her gayness.

But see, to me, that's not unnatural. I think that it's a natural thing to acknowledge the nature of one's sexuality, especially if it deviates from the 'norm' (whatever the hell that means). Heterosexual people don't have to wake up one morning and say to themselves, "Hey! I thikn I'm heterosexual!". But when you're attracted to folks of the same gender, especially when you've been involved in relationships with people of the opposite gender, I think it's very natural and not contrived at all to feel the need to make an acknowledgement of the realization that it's so.

Y'know?

Pandora

"Logic is a wonderful thing, but doesn't always beat actual thought." -Terry Pratchett, the Last Continent

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pandora:
But see, to me, that's not unnatural. I think that it's a natural thing to acknowledge the nature of one's sexuality, especially if it deviates from the 'norm' (whatever the hell that means).

Well, that's just it. On things sexual, I just don't believe in "the norm". I think everybody's twisted in different ways.

Labels have their uses, but they also have their limitations. If Whedon and company had sat down and said, "let's make Willow discover she's gay" it wouldn't have been quite so good a story -- nor would the resulting relationship have been the great role model everybody's talking about. But instead they said, "Let's have Willow fall in love with Tara." Which moved the whole thing out of the "alternate lifestyle" ghetto and caused a lot of people, of all kinds, to see something of themselves in a story about two young people in love.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Labels have their uses, but they also have their limitations. If Whedon and company had sat down and said, "let's make Willow discover she's gay" it wouldn't have been quite so good a story -- nor would the resulting relationship have been the great role model everybody's talking about. But instead they said, "Let's have Willow fall in love with Tara." Which moved the whole thing out of the "alternate lifestyle" ghetto and caused a lot of people, of all kinds, to see something of themselves in a story about two young people in love.

Too true, but I wasn't talking about Joss sitting down and saying "let's make Willow discover she's gay"... I was talking about Willow discovering she's gay. You dig?

Granted, by Willow bringing up the fact that she realized she was gay, it made the story a little less universal, but it made it more true... because the fact is, when you're gay, little things like that are what makes it a little different. Just like when people of different cultures or races get together, little things are different, just like when a man and a woman of the same race and ethnic group get together, little things are different. The fact that Willow realized she was gay was a detail, not a plot point. At least that's the way I see it.

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 15, 2002 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pandora:
Granted, by Willow bringing up the fact that she realized she was gay, it made the story a little less universal, but it made it more true...

Except that Willow has been shown in can't-keep-there-hands-off-each-other relationships with two different guys. So presumably she's bisexual.

Except that this is a very rude conversation. Don't you hate it when people who don't know you all that well talk knowingly about how your head works? It's patronizing and arrogant, and just a little intrusive -- and all too common nowadays, when everybody thinks they "know psychology." I'll bet if Willow were a real person, she'd be pretty irritated at us.

Here's a personal reason why Willow's forced gayness bugs me. Saying "I'm gay!" is all very well for coming to terms with your own basic sexuality. But insisting that everybody put themselves in these neat categories is most unhelpful to those of us who think of ourselves as "straight", but still have to come to terms with the homosexual side of our own natures.

And it's in everybody's interest to allow that to happen. People who can't live with the gay person in themselves has a depressing tendency to become the nastiest kind of homophobe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Except that Willow has been shown in can't-keep-there-hands-off-each-other relationships with two different guys. So presumably she's bisexual.

Presumably... but that's not how she identifies herself- and if she's to be labelled at all, it should be by her, not any of us.

Quote:
Except that this is a very rude conversation. Don't you hate it when people who don't know you all that well talk knowingly about how your head works? It's patronizing and arrogant, and just a little intrusive -- and all too common nowadays, when everybody thinks they "know psychology." I'll bet if Willow were a real person, she'd be pretty irritated at us.

Thankfully, though, she's not- and since she's a character on a television show, it gives us an interesting opportunity to examine the nature of sexual orientation and labels of the same... thank gods for stories, right?

Quote:
Here's a personal reason why Willow's forced gayness bugs me. Saying "I'm gay!" is all very well for coming to terms with your own basic sexuality. But insisting that everybody put themselves in these neat categories is most unhelpful to those of us who think of ourselves as "straight", but still have to come to terms with the homosexual side of our own natures.

Well, personally, I don't think that Joss, much less Willow, was trying to tell anybody that they have to put themselves in a particular category. I think that what he (she?) was trying to say was that Willow defines herself in a certain way. She feels a certain way about her sexuality. Maybe she never felt about the men in her life the way she did about Tara- maybe Tara was more of a love to her than anyone she'd ever met. Willow coming to her own terms with who and what she is doesn't have anything to do with how everyone else does the same.

To respond in kind to you bringing the discussion to a personal perspective, here's mine: I defy definition. I am attracted both to men and women, both emotionally and physically. I am neither a lesbian, nor what some might refer to as 'straight'. I choose not to identify as a bisexual because there is entirely too much baggage that comes along with that term. The minute that word is spoken, fifty other words come out with it, including but not limited to, 'indecisive', 'phase', 'slut', 'denial', 'fencesitter', and a score of others. I am nonplussed by Willow's self definition because acknowledge that all people are different, and that all people define their sexuality differently. I don't think that any one person, even if that person is a fictional character who is prominent in the public eye, can translate his or her definition to anyone else without that anyone else allowing the character to do so.

Quote:

And it's in everybody's interest to allow that to happen. People who can't live with the gay person in themselves has a depressing tendency to become the nastiest kind of homophobe.

Only the person in question can allow, or disallow, that to happen. It's a terrible shame that some people don't come to terms with their sexuality... but Willow identifying as a lesbian, despite heterosexual experiences in her past, can't be held responsible for that.

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies
and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 15, 2002 4:02 PM

Well, as you point out, Willow is a made-up character. She didn't decide to say "I'm gay!" Her mader-uppers did. That counts as a political statement, especially after they made such a point of avoiding labels as long as they did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 15, 2002 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Well, as you point out, Willow is a made-up character. She didn't decide to say "I'm gay!" Her mader-uppers did. That counts as a political statement, especially after they made such a point of avoiding labels as long as they did.

Ok, granted, but I think you missed the point of what I was saying.

Regardless of whether Willow is real or not, or whether the statement was political (which I'm not sure I agree with, I think you might be reading too much into it, but I'll go with it for now), it doesn't matter what Willow (or Joss, or ME) says about who Willow is; people are still responsible to find their own identities and define (or not) themselves as they see fit. To say that people are going to be homophobic or repressed or whatever because Willow called herself gay is equivalent to saying that teenagers are going to run around stabbing people with wooden sticks because Buffy does.

That's what I'm saying.

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 15, 2002 6:02 PM

MOJOECA

My understanding, working off vague memories of Psych 121 lectures, is that sexuality, while clear-cut for some people, can be very malleable for others. Some lesbians/gays can have (possibly sexual) relationships with the opposite sex early on in their lives, but still wind up joining the 'other team' and defining themselves as homosexual.

Despite what Joss said about Willow being bisexual (probably long ago), if she dates guys now, after "dead Tara/evil Willow," it seals the lesbian cliche*. That would be very bad (you think there's backlash now?). The writers know this, which is why they are now saying, "Hello? Gay now!"

*That point brings me back to the topic: I believe that the lesbian cliche, ultimately, is subverted:
1) A lesbian dies -- Tara's sexuality was never presented as a bad (it was either a good, or irrelevant), so the only link w/ death is proximity. OTOH, some argue this is enough.
2) Another turns evil -- Willow *was* evil, but (presumably) is good again; she and her sexuality are redeemed.
3) And the man saves the day -- typically, a male hero 'saves' and 'cures' the threatened women at the end. But Willow is still gay next season (according to the writers).

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 17, 2002 10:13 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

Quote:

I choose not to identify as a bisexual because there is entirely too much baggage that comes along with that term. The minute that word is spoken, fifty other words come out with it, including but not limited to, 'indecisive', 'phase', 'slut', 'denial', 'fencesitter', and a score of others.

Or how about the other lovely thought of bisexuals, especially females = instant threesome. (I am also one who is, I guess "technically" a bisexual woman {don't let the name fool ya! ;)}, but I'm not really fond of the title either.) I can't believe how often guys automatically assume bisexual means I can't wait to hop in bed with him and his girlfriend.

Or the other lovely idea that bisexuals are greedy... all bisexuals are premiscuous.. they need one of each.

I'm with Willow. When I'm with a girl, I'm gay, when I'm with a boy, I'm straight(ish).

Oh, my god. I'm cured! I want the boys!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 17, 2002 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:

Or how about the other lovely thought of bisexuals, especially females = instant threesome. (I am also one who is, I guess "technically" a bisexual woman {don't let the name fool ya! ;)}, but I'm not really fond of the title either.) I can't believe how often guys automatically assume bisexual means I can't wait to hop in bed with him and his girlfriend.

Or the other lovely idea that bisexuals are greedy... all bisexuals are premiscuous.. they need one of each.

I'm with Willow. When I'm with a girl, I'm gay, when I'm with a boy, I'm straight(ish).

Oh, my god. I'm cured! I want the boys!

Amen, sister... truth be told, some chicks are just in it for the "I want to be sexier to boys" factor, but I don't think that's the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is that according to our friend Kinsey, most people are bisexual anyway, and are just in denial of it. Does that make anyone who's had an attraction to someone of the same gender (if their reigning paradigm is straight) or the opposite gender (if their reigning paradigm is gay) a slut, or greedy, or promiscuous? Hell no.

It's just people being people.

Pandora
btw, I love your sig.

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 6, 2002 1:19 PM

YAHOODLE

They killed her to make the season go out with a shocking bang. Who saw it coming? She was "safe" in the house and Willow was finally happy and then... BLAM! It all comes crashing down, but!!! Out of the whole situation buffy realizes she wants to live which is a lot more important. Yes? It was not to piss anyone off. Buffy lost everyone. So did Giles (Ms. Carpenter) and Xander (Cordelia[Kind of]). AND no one was complaining when Seth Green left. It's a dangerous world. Get used to it and stop complaining. ALTHOUGH this is one of the most disappointing write-offs.

Me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 6, 2002 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
all bisexuals are premiscuous.. they need one of each.

Interesting fact: Statistically, most male bisexuals will have not only many more sexual partners (due to being able to choose between sexes), but they are also more likely to have more *female* partners than the average heterosexual male. *And* from an evolutionary stand-point, bisexuality in the young adult years assist in the success of most male/female relationships.

Amd this has been our interesting fact for the day.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

The Ultimate Buffy-Angel Quote Generator™
Anya: Dawn may have had the wrong idea in summoning this creature, but I've seen some of these Underworld child-bride deals, and they never end well. Maybe once.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 6, 2002 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

Interesting fact: Statistically, most male bisexuals will have not only many more sexual partners (due to being able to choose between sexes), but they are also more likely to have more *female* partners than the average heterosexual male. *And* from an evolutionary stand-point, bisexuality in the young adult years assist in the success of most male/female relationships.

You know, that statistic is funny to me for two reasons:

1) The bisexual boys I know are far more sexually active than the bisexual women I know.

2) I much more likely to gravitate to a bisexual guy than a straight guy (though with women, whether they're bi or lesbian is pretty irrelevant). Not because they're effeminate- I'm *not* into effeminate guys at all, actually. It's more because while they have a masculinity that's appealing, they're comfortable enough with that masculinity to explore their sexuality fully. That kind of confidence is very, very sexy.

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2002 3:39 AM

KOOKYTREE

Saying that simply because black and gay characters have been killed off the shows writers are homophobic and racist, as many people have been saying

(go to www.jumptheshark.com to see for yourself)

is something I just dont understand. Surely the very fact that these characters were written sympathetically/empathetically shows that the writers are not, at least in their writing, biased. If they were, Tara would have been a dungaree-wearing tennis player with a shaved head, Larry would have been mincing around making Graham Norton look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Kendra would have been sitting around all day smoking pot and talking about Jah and lyrical cheeba. But they werent.

Gunn hasnt been killed off (betcha now he is, just to spite me lol). Neither has the Host (though admittedly his sexuality has never been disclosed). And am I the only one who thinks Andrew the nerd is a touch West Hollywood? And the minority characters who were killed off were not done so in a way which was exploitative or mocking to minorities (okay, maybe Tara, but that was for shock value). Wasnt Cordy originally supposed to be black?

And in that Herald article I just didnt understand the part about most of the female characters being killed off. What are they getting at? Saying a show like Buffy is anti women is just plain *dumb*. Did anyone ever think that most of the characters killed off are women because most of the characters on the *show* are women??

The main problem I have with Tara's death is that it felt a little like recyling ideas- as early as the original pilot, Jesse was supposed to appear in the main credits, so his death would be shocking to the audience and keep them on their toes. But the Network didnt like the idea so it was passed over-- five years later and it reappeared. Hmmm....

Stay kooky.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 10:58 AM

BOBKNAPTOR

Quote:
Originally posted by kookytree:
Gunn hasnt been killed off (betcha now he is, just to spite me lol). Neither has the Host (though admittedly his sexuality has never been disclosed). And am I the only one who thinks Andrew the nerd is a touch West Hollywood? And the minority characters who were killed off were not done so in a way which was exploitative or mocking to minorities (okay, maybe Tara, but that was for shock value). Wasnt Cordy originally supposed to be black?

Actually, Marti Noxon said on the DVD for S2 that the actress who played Kendra originally auditioned to play Cordelia.

As for Andrew, oh my gosh! He is on fire, and was So very in love with Warren (poor misguided boy to love an ass like Warren). My Tuesday night Buffy Buddies and I have commented throughout all of S6 that Andrew was "Family", but he really came out in Two to Go when he is talking about Warren's betrayal. He said something like "He never really loved.... (catching himself) hanging out with us."

My biggest fear is that they will put Willow with a guy in the next season, thus reinforcing the "experimental college phase" theory. Although, if they put her with a woman just because they want to keep her gay, that doesn't really sit well with me either. I think she needs to be single for a season. Maybe have a few dates, but be single. She hasn't been on her own since she got together with Oz in S2. Come to think of it, they haven't really had ANY character casually dating since Buffy's little tryst in "Harsh Light of Day". (Not a vote for promiscuity, just a vote to get off the serial monogamy kick.)

______________
So what I'm wondering is: does this always happen? Sleep with a guy and he goes all evil?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 1:01 PM

Quote:
I think she needs to be single for a season. Maybe have a few dates, but be single.

Aaak! She saw her lover violently killed! It's gonna be a long time before she's in a romantic mood again.

And there are practical issues. I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd want to date a woman who recently tried to destroy the world!

Season 7 has some promising possibilities. Spike-with-a-soul should be interesting, not to mention Dawn (about to turn 16, meaning we've sort of come full circle). But Willow, who used to be my favorite character, makes me cringe. What's her role supposed to be? She can't do magic anymore, and the computer geek girl thing is pretty worn out. When the "Dead Scoobie" rumors appeared, I was sure it was here, because her role seemed to be played out. Maybe she's supposed to spend S7 taking I'm An Ordinary Person lessons from Xander. Not a happy thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
But Willow, who used to be my favorite character, makes me cringe. What's her role supposed to be? She can't do magic anymore, and the computer geek girl thing is pretty worn out. When the "Dead Scoobie" rumors appeared, I was sure it was here, because her role seemed to be played out. Maybe she's supposed to spend S7 taking I'm An Ordinary Person lessons from Xander. Not a happy thought.

I agree. There seems to be no place for Willow (unless it's the brooding, sulking broken heart girl... but I expect that position to be taken by Spike). I'm thinking there *has* to be a reason for her to be in England with Giles. Why spend all of the money and time flying overseas unless they have something big planned. I've had a few thoughts...

A.) Willow is learning "good" magic from the coven. This would keep her in at least *some* position to continue without being a normal person.
B.) She's with Giles training to be a watcher. The whole watcher thing is kind of a stupid idea... but it sort of makes sense. 1. Giles had similar magic troubles in his past, to which he may relate. 2. It's been alluded to that the title of watcher is hereditary. Since Giles has no genetic child, it would be logical that he would give the title to another "child" to whom he is close. 3. Giles won't be there all season, and they need a watcher-esque figure for the series to be "Buffy: Year One."
C.) Willow is killed. There're contracts blah blah blah... but red herrings could have been thrown to keep us off track.

It's been a while since I've done a rampant speculation post... so... here it is.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

The Ultimate Buffy-Angel Quote Generator™
Xander: "Whoa, whoa! I...I think I'm having a thought. Yeah, yeah, that's a thought. Now I'm having a plan."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 1:45 PM

BOBKNAPTOR

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

I agree. There seems to be no place for Willow (unless it's the brooding, sulking broken heart girl... but I expect that position to be taken by Spike).

hehehehe. Nova, you rock, again. I'll just send you kisses all day

I am hoping for a good magic Willow. But would settle for a decent Watcher Willow story. Willow has been my favorite character too. And I worry about her future in the Buffyverse.

But at the same time, I am madly in love with Alyson Hannigan and hope happy good things for her career. I'm looking forward to some non-American Pie movies.

______________
Wrong? Why? How did you play doctor?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:

hehehehe. Nova, you rock, again. I'll just send you kisses all day

Aww shucks

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

The Ultimate Buffy-Angel Quote Generator™
Riley: Aww shucks, Buffy{/i]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 3:51 PM

Quote:
There seems to be no place for Willow (unless it's the brooding, sulking broken heart girl... but I expect that position to be taken by Spike).

You forget what getting your soul back does. You get all guilt-ridden about all the evil things you've done.

Quote:
A.) Willow is learning "good" magic from the coven. This would keep her in at least *some* position to continue without being a normal person.

Doesn't work. For Willow magic is a drug, even good magic. An idea I think we all hate, but there's now no getting rid of it.

Quote:
She's with Giles training to be a watcher. The whole watcher thing is kind of a stupid idea... but it sort of makes sense.

I think the watchers were always supposed to be nitwits. If I understand the original pre-Donald-Sutherland story, it was their bumbling that got Buffy in her initial mess, becoming the Slayer without even knowing it. On the TV show, their main purpose has always been to be made fun of -- even Giles, before he broke with the Council. And in Fray, they're portrayed as complete psychos. ("Maybe he was cold.")

I can picture Willow as a Watcher, but only if the Council gets taken over by people aren't classical BUCT (British Upper-Class Twits). Not in the official game plan, I think.

Quote:
Willow is killed. There're contracts blah blah blah... but red herrings...

Yeah, they can always kill people off. Or write her out some other way. But they won't. She's a "star", so her fate isn't dictated by anybody's desire to tell a good story. AH is a key part of the franchise. The suits will not tolerate her character getting killed.

You'll notice that, with one exception, none of the opening-credits characters has ever been killed. (The one exception, Amber Benson, sort of proves the rule!) I'm told that Joss wanted Eric Balfour (Jesse, Xander's buddy in the first episode) to be in the opening credits so people would be shocked when he got killed right off the bat. They wouldn't let him do it.

This is why I keep complaining that the "learn to love them, but they're gonna die anyway" gimmick has turned into a cliche. It was shocking and suprising at first, but now it's as predictable as those ill-fated redsuits on Star Trek.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
There seems to be no place for Willow (unless it's the brooding, sulking broken heart girl... but I expect that position to be taken by Spike).
You forget what getting your soul back does. You get all guilt-ridden about all the evil things you've done.

Wouldn't Spike be brooding and sulking? That's what I was referring to, sorta... but I guess that was how Angel dealt with it. Too redundant, I guess.

I'm beginning to fear the Spike storyline, though. The Willow one as well. The mid-summer optimism is slowly dissolving. Get ready for cynical Buffy critic Dylan... but not until I get back from vacation.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

The Ultimate Buffy-Angel Quote Generator™
out of service

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2002 9:26 PM

SHUGGIE

Quote:
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
My biggest fear is that they will put Willow with a guy in the next season, thus reinforcing the "experimental college phase" theory.

Three different writers on three different occasions have all said Willow's still gay. Jane Espenson went as far as to say (responding to some of the flak over Tara's death) that the real betrayal would be if they set Willow up with a boy next.

Shug

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2002 4:36 AM

Well, you've all heard me rant about how I wished that Willow had remained a woman who was romantically involved with another woman, and not gone the full "I'm gay!" route. But she has, and I can't seem them backing away from it.

But! But! This is all really beside the point! Everybody seems to assume that the immediate issue is "Will Willow date boys or girls?" Hello! Violent death! Blood everywhere! Her beloved dying in her arms! Insane attempts at revenge!

I assume nobody here has had to work through this kind of situation. Which is a good thing, but let's stop and think for a moment. Do you really suppose that somebody who's been through something like that is going to have a romantic life anytime soon?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2002 5:45 AM

HJERMSTED

Quote:

ZICSOFT said:

You'll notice that, with one exception, none of the opening-credits characters has ever been killed. (The one exception, Amber Benson, sort of proves the rule!) I'm told that Joss wanted Eric Balfour (Jesse, Xander's buddy in the first episode) to be in the opening credits so people would be shocked when he got killed right off the bat. They wouldn't let him do it.

I think you mean none of the opening credit characters who have died have stayed dead. Angel was dead for the first part of S1 and Buffy has died once and been "clinically dead" on two other occasions. Man, I hate being technical sometimes. I sound like an ass!

Quote:

Well, you've all heard me rant about how I wished that Willow had remained a woman who was romantically involved with another woman, and not gone the full "I'm gay!" route. But she has, and I can't seem them backing away from it.

It's sad that bisexuality seems to be more controversial than homosexuality (on both sides of the straight/gay border). It's all about love and affection, no? Hollywood is just now acclimating itself to gay characters... bi-sexuality would come off like a spanner in the works. Guess that's what happens when you don't have a lobbying effort on your behalf. Bi people are probably too busy getting some to go out and protest.

More power to them!

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2002 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
I think you mean none of the opening credit characters who have died have stayed dead. Angel was dead for the first part of S1 and Buffy has died once and been "clinically dead" on two other occasions. Man, I hate being technical sometimes. I sound like an ass!

Well, I love being technical -- probably too much!

"Dead", like most words, has different meanings in different contexts. I've never been big on the popular definition that calls somebody "dead" just because they've stopped breathing for a few minutes. (Though of course, this definition was necessary for the whole Kendra/Faith thing.) Getting temporarily translated into a hell dimension would seem to fall in the same category. Falling into a mystical vortex might be different (though Osiris didn't seem to think so), but in any case that wasn't at all the same -- we all knew she'd be back.

Quote:

It's sad that bisexuality seems to be more controversial than homosexuality (on both sides of the straight/gay border).

Oh gawd, why does this discussion always have to come down to labels and categories? Not that words like "gay" and "bisexual" don't have their uses. But sometimes they just get in the way.

That was why the Willow/Tara story had such impact. It's wasn't about a "lesbian couple" it was about two people falling in love. Which sex is a part of, but only a part -- and not always the first thing we should be thinking of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2002 12:51 PM

HJERMSTED

Quote:

Oh gawd, why does this discussion always have to come down to labels and categories? Not that words like "gay" and "bisexual" don't have their uses. But sometimes they just get in the way.

Actually, I agree with you that labels suck the majority of the time. I was arguing mostly in the language of entertainment industry "logic" (or lack thereof) and in the lingo of the polarized factions of various identity movements.

Hollywood would come to a grinding halt without labels... you kinda need them when demographics is your religion. And where would the religious right or the rainbow crowd be if everyone started accepting themselves as simply free sexual beings (among other human aspects) rather than tacking a prefix onto their genitals (homo, hetero, bi, non..) in order to define themselves. They'd all have to think with the brains in their heads for a change (or outside The Book in the religious zealots case)!

RE: Willow... I'd personally enjoy seeing her love whomever her heart tells her to love. Forget about the angry letters and go for it, Will! Lobbyists of fictional TV be damned.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2002 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
[
RE: Willow... I'd personally enjoy seeing her love whomever her heart tells her to love. Forget about the angry letters and go for it, Will! Lobbyists of fictional TV be damned.

mattro

Well, that's fine and good, except that the American public isn't ready for that. It'll seem like welshing to much of the gay community and like pandering to much of the straight community. Even beyond that, Ziccy brings up a very important point- this woman is not loving *anyone* within the next year (well, maybe if they're crazy toward the end of the season, but I'd be surprised even by that).

The thing with loves that end in death is that they end before they go bad (ok, assumably some loves never go bad, but that's in the real world, and not in the Jossiverse). To Willow, Tara was quite probably the love of her life. Even if that's not true (which I think it probably is, but for the sake of argument), Willow will never know otherwise because the relationship ended at the pinnacle of its joy. Sort of.

So yeah... I don't think she'll be feeling the dating scene very much for a while.

Pandora
mreh

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2002 4:07 PM

Quote:
To Willow, Tara was quite probably the love of her life. Even if that's not true (which I think it probably is, but for the sake of argument), Willow will never know otherwise because the relationship ended at the pinnacle of its joy. Sort of.

Uhm, little detail. This is the Buffyverse. Ghosts, possession, mystical dreams. Tara may be dead -- more importantly, she's probably permanently dead -- but that doesn't mean she can't keep in touch!

Here's a dark joke: "When I die, I want to be buried in Chicago, so I can continue to participate in civic affairs!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Uhm, little detail. This is the Buffyverse. Ghosts, possession, mystical dreams. Tara may be dead -- more importantly, she's probably permanently dead -- but that doesn't mean she can't keep in touch!

Ziccy, I think you're hankerin' for a spankerin'...

I sincerely doubt that Tara's going to come back in ghostly form or possession or whatever just so she and Willow can start bickering or cheating on each other or deal with whatever pitfalls might befall a normal relationship. If it does happen, then I'll have been wrong. However, for the most part, in all practical senses (because I don't think they're going to try necrophilia), Willow and Tara's romantic relationship is over. The love may (probably does) still exist, but the dead mixing with the living for love never seems to work.

Pandora
nitpicky indeed!

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:43 AM

Actually, I'm not trying to be difficult. (At least no more than usual.) Amber Benson is still on the cast. I'd always assumed that Tara's spirit would somehow manifest to help Willow Come to Terms. (Apparitions are cheesy, but dream sequences are always fun.) Except that they keep saying "Amber will be back, but not Tara." Hmm. Demon disguised as Tara? No, been there, done that. Maybe they're just lying!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Actually, I'm not trying to be difficult. (At least no more than usual.) Amber Benson is still on the cast. I'd always assumed that Tara's spirit would somehow manifest to help Willow Come to Terms. (Apparitions are cheesy, but dream sequences are always fun.) Except that they keep saying "Amber will be back, but not Tara." Hmm. Demon disguised as Tara? No, been there, done that. Maybe they're just lying!

Always with the lying! Damn their eyes... as though we might enjoy it more if we didn't know what was coming...

Pandora

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies
and the baby looked at me." -Ralph Wiggum

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:38 PM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

Except that they keep saying "Amber will be back, but not Tara." Hmm. Demon disguised as Tara? No, been there, done that. Maybe they're just lying!

Not lying. Amber is now a credited writer/director. Thus, it seems somewhat reasonable to guess that she will be writing and/or directing at least one episode this season (remember, they didn't say that Amber would be *acting* just that she'd be back

).

Nathan
"Being popular and well liked is not in your best interest. Let me be more clear; if you behave in a manner pleasing to most, then you are probably doing something wrong." - Janeane Garofalo, from "Feel this Book"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:26 PM