This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Haven't you got an elsewhere to be?"
11944 members | you are not logged in | 01 August 2014












February 01 2007

(SPOILER) Joss talks Buffy season 8 to MTV.com. Lots of new juicy tidbits to mull over (and there's new preview pages as well). In related news, the full cover art for Buffy #3 can be viewed in the pics section of Jo Chen's MySpace site.

"Xander — yet another Scooby — now a leader at Central Command, which, since Sunnydale was demolished, is now Scotland."

Scotland! I am giddy at that, what with being Scottish and all.
A warning to others: There are some big new spoilers in there, beyond what Joss has said before or was in the preview pages.
Said it before but I really love the issue 3 cover art, it's beautiful.

Not long now, next month, next month! We get new Buffy!

Interesting new details in there too.
Central Command, which, since Sunnydale was demolished, is now Scotland.

Slayers in Scotland? Buh. Buh I tell you. Once again: buh. With a hint of guh.
Going by the article it seems that Dawn is all grown up in a number of ways. ;)
Slayers in Scotland? Buh. Buh I tell you. Once again: buh. With a hint of guh.


Hey, Scotland is a very happening place.
So how did Amber Benson get to be interviewed in there - or was that a bit of "creative" cut and paste?
Oh dear, suddenly I'm feeling very wary of all this.
was anyone else able to open up that hyperlink to show the preview pages in the article? was it just those 5 preview pages shown back in late 2006 or are they new preview pages?
Slayers in Scotland? I've never seen 'em.
So, did Joss just refer to David Boreanaz working out to lose his "spare tire?" I mean, he got a bit large during "Angel," it's true, but he's looking really good on "Bones."
was anyone else able to open up that hyperlink to show the preview pages in the article?


The link doesn't seem to work, but there's a side panel of preview pics which we've seen before. Anyone suprised to see that Willow is wearing shiny red pants in that cover art (I thought it was a dress judging from the wall paper).
The link worked for me, but I don't think there was anything new... (I could be wrong, though; I don't remember the final little panel it showed, or a close-up of Buffy's face... hrmm.)
I also found it interesting that Amber Benson was quoted for this article, though I do believe that I have read those words from her in a different interview. Having said that, I can see no reason to include her in an interview about the new comic unless there is really a reason to. And I am intrigued by the fact that while they will mention Anya being definitively dead but not necessarily gone, they make NO mention of Tara at all, and that, my friends, is the obvious question a whole lot of people want answered. As Michael Caine said in Hannah and Her Sisters, "I have my answer!"
Xander's in Scotland? Great! How about a trip to Ireland for Giles? There's a whole lot of ghost problems to be sorted there. Maybe he can have a tryst with a bean sidhe...
That MTV site was a nightmare for my poor computer. Must we really have a video yammering away on the top left? And the scrolling thing was poo.

catalyst2, I'm with you - Amber's comments were pretty sus.

And hey, Scotland isn't so bad. Glasgow is funky.
Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before, but has there been any confirmation that Faith will make an appearance in these comics?
I like the idea of command central being in Scotland. I'm imagining Edinburgh cellars, or maybe some highland retreat accessible only on skis come winter time.

And, yes Simon I thought Willow was going to be in a dress too. The red trousers are reminiscent of Fray's sister Erin. From my extensive comic knowledge (so that'd be Fray and AXM 1-12!) I'd say the red's a deliberate choice to show Willow's power.
Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before, but has there been any confirmation that Faith will make an appearance in these comics?


Yes. Brian K. Vaughan will be writing a Faith arc (presumably four issues). I gather that Georges Jeanty will only be drawing the Joss penned issues (premiere and finale arcs), so speculate on which artists will be drawing the other 16 odd issues.
Faith! Faith! Faith! Simon, where did you get the info that Brian K. will write this arc, 'cause that's too magnificent for being than a wet dream...

[ edited by bookworm on 2007-02-01 17:20 ]
Joss F'in Whedon, that might be the worst site design I've ever seen. Even the most offensive myspace page seems tame in comparison.

Oh thank god, there's a link (in the bottom right corner) for a regular HTML version. Much much better.
can someone please post a transcript of what joss said, all i get is a flashing mtv logo.
Here you go bookworm, Dark Horse's Scott Allie mentioned it on Christmas Eve.

Relevant Whedonesque thread:

Of course, one of our biggest events of the year is the new launch of Buffy in March, overseen by Joss Whedon, who's writing the first, middle, and last arc. The second series, after Joss's initial four, is going to feature Faith, and it'll be written by Brian K. Vaughan. We're real jazzed about that. Brian's the most exciting your writer on the scene for me—Ex Machina's my favorite book right now, which led us to using Tony [Harris] on covers for Conan for a while. So having Brian follow Joss really cuts the pain of not having Joss write the whole thing himself. After that, Jeph Loeb will be on the book, and some writers from the show—so we're getting the best possible people to run this series. Working with Joss opens doors.”

I desparately hope Whedon does not break the rule that no one can be perfectly ressurected after dying a non-supernatural death. Fully bringing back Anya or Tara would really ruin a lot of things for me. I'm really pleased right now that there's a way people can STAY dead in the Buffyverse. If that wasn't the case, death becomes meaningless. He'd better not bring any of those characters back... (gettin' worried).
Dana5140
I also found it interesting that Amber Benson was quoted for this article, though I do believe that I have read those words from her in a different interview. Having said that, I can see no reason to include her in an interview about the new comic unless there is really a reason to. And I am intrigued by the fact that while they will mention Anya being definitively dead but not necessarily gone, they make NO mention of Tara at all, and that, my friends, is the obvious question a whole lot of people want answered. As Michael Caine said in Hannah and Her Sisters, "I have my answer!"


I have to confess that my heart leaped when I noticed Amber's name in the text. While the author of the interview doesn't say anything, her words "without giving too much away" are truly tantalizing. I'm looking at Willow's cover art, her outfit, particularly red pants... And I recollent Joss saying that Willow's reintroduction will be "awesome"... And I hope the Amber quote was an allusion to things to come.
I'm really liking the newest spoilers.Xander in Scotland.I wonder now if Xander was ever in Africa like Andrew said in,"Damage."The new Dawn spoiler I find interesting and in true Joss style.
"And speaking of Sunnydale, did anyone really think no one would ever notice if an entire town was destroyed? Now the army is involved, deeming Buffy's squads terrorist cells. "They got power, they got resources and they got a hard-line ideology that does not jibe with American interests," one general rants. So in addition to her regular crew of monsters and vamps, Buffy's got a new battle coming her way."


I wonder if that means Riley is going to be involved. It certainly would be an interesting arc to see Riley's group clashing with the Slayers.
"I wonder if that means Riley is going to be involved. It certainly would be an interesting arc to see Riley's group clashing with the Slayers."

Didn't they do that already in season 4?
"Xander — yet another Scooby — now a leader at Central Command, which, since Sunnydale was demolished, is now Scotland."

You May Take Our Lives but You'll Never Take Our ...

a) Mr Pointy's !
b) stylish yet affordable boots !
c) status as feminist icons !
d) freedommmm to quip snarkily !
e) all of the aboves !

As a personal request to TPTB, please, please, please have a guest Slayer with a broad Glaswegian accent (they could riff on it the same way they did with the Chinese girl in S7). That'd totally make at least one transplanted Scot a very happy bunny ;).

All sounds great, do we know if everything's still on schedule for March ? Cos that's like, next month, yo. Woot !

(Anya being 'dead but not gone' just sounds like she hasn't been 'Trotskied' out of existence i.e. Xander etc. still think of her and miss her. If Joss can bring people back brilliantly then cool but personally i'm with whoever said it'd devalue their deaths - and sacrifices - to have them simply resurrected. Nothing means anything if there's no price to pay, no cost to fighting the fight. Where, as Joss his own self might say, is the peril ?)
derf wrote February 01, 14:47 CET
Hey, Scotland is a very happening place.


Scotland, very happening place. Heard there is a Serenity Charity Screening being planned in Scotland for around Joss Whedon's birthday in June 2007.

One in Ireland too. England too.
Buffyfantic, I'm really liking the new Xander spoiler as well. It does call into question what Andrew had said on 'Angel'.

There's so many things Joss could do with the characters and stories, it's very exciting. Words can't express how great it is to see the Buffyverse back in action.
"...and sacrifices"

What sacrifices, regarding Tara? She was the victim of a random bullet and never had a noble death. Hers was meaningless.

I am always intrigued by this idea of "devaluing death" by bringing characters back. In fact, nearly everything I have ever read on this makes this comment specifically with regard to Tara, because she is the character that the most comment, criticism and writing about her loss and that people want to bring back. I do not see this about Anya, nor about Joyce, nor Jenny. In Anya's case this is obvious why; she died in the final episode of a show no one thought would be resurrected, even as a comic. Why don't want people wish to see Tara come back? I have enough trust in Joss to understand that there would be a price; there always is, and he would not write the arc simply to serve that purpose. He would make it resonate- and if we are honest, and Joss is as well, he intended to bring Tara back and only a breakdown in negotiations with Amber Benson stopped that from happening. So the idea, which not everyone believes, was already on the table. It would work far better here, because it would force Willow to confront what happened only months earlier, force her to look at herself far differently than in The Killer in Me. I don't see why bringing her back would ruin the Buffyverse for mikejer; not if Joss writes it right, right? (Boy, does that sound like Willow or what?) :-)

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2007-02-01 19:55 ]
re: links to Jo Chen #3 art not working...

um, could somebody who CAN get it to work (I'm guessing that this is probably another one of those endearing Mac v. PC moments) please repost it somewhere (the Library?) or shoot it to me via e-mail, please? please please?

thanks in advance!
annagranfors you have to be have a MySpace account to view the pics section (that's why I never made it a main link on its own).
Dana, it would hurt it a lot for me. When you're breaking your own rules previously established (and a big one at that) it devalues the drama and emotion of living. If Tara was brought back, then all the sudden it's possible to bring back Joyce, Jenny, Anya, anyone. Does only Willow (or some power) get to determine who stays dead or not? So more people want Tara back than anyone else. Is that really a reason to break your own rules? Even bringing Angel back in S3 and Buffy back in S6 were stretches for me that devalued their deaths a bit, but at the very least they established this non-supernatural death clause and stuck with it. If Joss had brought back Tara in the series, my opinion of the series as a whole would likely go down a notch. If life isn't someone precious, why even bother watching these characters struggle and fight? What's the point?
Simon, that's the problem. I *do* have an account. and *none* of my 5 browsers seem to work. believe me, it's a dumb ol' "oh-that-doesn't-work-on-Mac" thing, again. :)
mikejer - but Joss has always been breaking his own rules and it worked fine. In Welcome to the Hellmouth the only vampire with a soul was.... Master. But Joss quickly changed it. "In every generation there is the only one..." - but soon there were two of them and now we have several hundreds. And somehow Joss makes it work brilliantly. I mean - maybe he'll find the way to bring back Tara without cheapening the issue of death?
S1 and early S2 have a lot of stuff that doesn't line up later seasons. That's a forgiveable flaw because it takes a while for a show to find itself. It is a flaw, and it annoys me a bit, but not a ton. With the "In every generation..." phrase, I always took that as simply slayer lore, not some universal law in the Buffyverse. It's just some literature the Shadow Men (or whoever) made up to represent what they created. No where was it stated magic couldn't produce more or what would happen if one was only dead for a minute then came back. It's stated in "Bargaining Pt. 1," but it's "Villains" that shows us a very blatant picture of how death works in the Buffyverse (if "Forever" wasn't enough proof). It is a universal law just as it is in our world, which allows the two worlds to overlap which creates resonance for us when watching it.

If Whedon just cleanly brought Tara (or any of the really dead characters) back, and my God that'd be cruel after we saw what Buffy went through in S6, as a human and fully like she was, it would cheapen all the death that has come before it regardless of how Whedon handled it. I'm not saying I'd be angry to see Tara in some form, maybe as a spirit or something like that, just as long as it's not a real resurrection (or time travel -- please no time travel).
time travel -- please no time travel.


Ever read Jane Espenson's time travel story in Tales of the Slayer Vol 2? I would have killed to have seen that filmed as a Buffy episode.
Re the "nonsupernatural death clause," what do we make of Spike's death and resurrection? The sun killed him, which is a "natural" means of killing an admittedly supernatural being with a human soul. But there he is again on the first ep of Angel's final season. I accepted his resurrection fully, although I agree in principle with mikejer's concerns about violating the established rules.

And while we're talking about it, how about Angel's "death"? Assuming for a moment that Angel actually was killed in Becoming Part II and not merely sent to a Hell dimension, his death would be a betrayal of the show's rule that an object piercing a vampire's heart must be made of wood to be lethal. Angel was pierced by a metal sword. If he were truly killed, why didn't he disintegrate into dust? (And for that matter, why did the Master leave bones behind?) And, how was it that the Bringers could resurrect Angel -- another supernatural being with a human soul?

[ edited by 1starbuckstown on 2007-02-01 21:58 ]
Scotland, eh? Is Buffy going to battle the Loch-Ness monster? I think I've IDed the Big-Bad, y'all.

I'm really excited, Joss! You're going to get me to read a comic book! I can order these online somehow, right?
I disagree, mj. The rules of the show have always been in flux and there has been lots of deus ex machina and plot needs (hey, scythe!). I mean, for all the mythos, we never knew about Guardians until virtually the end of the show, though they had to be critically important for the developing slayer line and not even Giles knew of them. My point is simply that good writing is good writing. I still do not see how returning a character to the living, which, hey, in X-Men for example is an everyday occurence, ruins the show. Of course, I have to say that losing Tara, for me, ruined the show, so who am I to say? It seems apparent that Anya will either be spirit or memory, since the implication of Joss' comments are that she will make appearances. But what I continue to find interesting is that no one, in any of the interviews I have read, not Jo Chen, George Jeanty or Joss, have gone near the Tara question. And to me, that is really telling, all the more so with the curent release noted in this thread.

I think we should also recall there are a number of ways that a dead person can be brought back, and we have seen some of them in action. Dawn nearly resurrected an admittedly weird Joyce, Buffy was brought back by Willow using magic well beyond her ability, Spike returned, etc. It is entirely possible that D'Hoffryn has enough power to bring Tara back- and just think what that would cost for that to happen. There are wish amulets that can do it, other vengeance demons who could do it, oracles who can do it, and TPTB who can do it. All of this is possible under the rules you are quoting above. There are others I am not remembering right now as well.

And again I will sing the praises of jetwolf for writing a storyline that does resurrect Tara with very realistic consequences and with significant prices to be paid. It can be done, it can resonate, and it would devastate Willow- and believe me, there is a real reason Joss is holding WIllow's return to #3 and it has nothing to do with the story itself. :-)
Buffy season 8 #3 cover exists in a better quality version (at wallpapers size) here : Darkhorse.com
and there is perhaps the #4 cover here : Darkhorse.com
please no time travel

I Will Remember You, S1 of Angel. Seem to recall some time hopping, there.
Maybe it's all those years watching the various Star Trek incarnations beating time travel to death (and mostly failing at coming up with good material), but I'm sick of it. It's another thing that just screws around with the universe and cheapens what happens in it.

Dana: Buffy died a supernatural death. The series made it clear that resurrection was possible under those circumstances, and only those circumstances. Trying to resurrect someone otherwise goes into zombie-territory, which is cool with me 'cause the person isn't really back, rather their body is just being reanimated.

Re Angel: in technical terms, Angel didn't really 'die' but rather got sent to a hell dimension through a portal. He didn't dust either, so although I still feel his quick 'return' cheapens "Becoming Pt. 2" a bit, I don't have a huge problem with it in regard to what we're talking about.

Re Spike: his 'death' is also very unclear. Who knows what the hell that amulet did. Did he really die or was he simply stored inside that amulet? At the very least, Whedon had a device that could make his return a lot somewhat feasible without breaking established canon. But Tara? No ambiguity there. Joyce? Nope. Jenny? Nope. etc...

Re X-Men: I don't like X-Men. The frequent resurrections is an example why (among many others).

All imo, of course. But I really respect BtVS for sticking with its care of normal deaths for human beings. That's just got to be permanent or, honestly, what's the point of any of it?
annagranfors, it's really not a Mac problem - I have no problem logging on to myspace and going there at all, either on my Mac laptop or my iMac at the office. Dunno what's happening for you, but try logging onto myspace, and then use this as your URL:

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=147499975&albumID=0&imageID=1751418271

eddy, here's the copy from the site - it's already on the MTV site (yuck, what an annoying site, and yep, Mythtaken, the scrolling thing sure is poo) in article form, but I've posted it here for you in a pdf.
Commenting on the MTV story, with my comments in invisotext...

Let's hope we hear more if Dark Horse makes a stop at Wondercon four weeks from now.

[ edited by impalergeneral on 2007-02-01 22:23 ]

[ edited by impalergeneral on 2007-02-01 22:23 ]
Why is it that The First Evil could not present itself as Tara, if he could become anyone who was truly dead? There is that little issue to address, because it would have hurt Willow one hell of a lot more to see Tara there rather than Cassie. So, was she really and truly dead? Just asking. :-)

Anyway. The point. What is the point? It is simply that the needs of the story drive the mythos, not the other way around. It always has, with Buffy. I know there are ways, even in the continuity of the show, to bring people back to life. But, as I have said all along, with a price to pay. There is no reason to bring Tara back just to bring her back; her return would have to serve the needs of the story, and I trust Joss enough (Seeing Red being an outlier) to do just that in his writing- because one thing is certain: if it is going to happen, Joss'll be the one to write it.

So, mikejer, we are friendly agreeing to disagree here. :-)

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2007-02-01 23:04 ]
um, could somebody who CAN get it to work (I'm guessing that this is probably another one of those endearing Mac v. PC moments) please repost it somewhere (the Library?) or shoot it to me via e-mail, please? please please?


annagranfors, here is the link to Jo Chen's issue #3 cover. Click Here to view.
does anybody else want michael gaydos on the series?
Why is it that The First Evil could not present itself as Tara, if he could become anyone who was truly dead? There is that little issue to address, because it would have hurt Willow one hell of a lot more to see Tara there rather than Cassie. So, was she really and truly dead? Just asking. :-)


Because they couldn't get Amber Benson to come back. The original story did have The First present itself as Tara, but when they couldn't get Amber, for whatever reason, they had it be Cassie instead.

We can really take the characters wherever we want, and of course, that means I can kill them.


I'm scared now!!
This is such a bitter-sweet event... Look at how much excitement that this series is generating... It begs to question why other projects (i.e. TV movies) have not been developed.

: (
wow! thanks to Simon, QuoterGal and buffycomics for all the links. and QG, you're right, the one you gave me worked perfectly...I'm just indulging my Mac persecution complex. :)
I dunno Dana5140, no offence but I think you've a bit of a blind-spot when it comes to Tara. Sounds like you're saying "her return would have to serve the needs of the story ... and if anyone could make the story fit her return then it's Joss" ;).

(if you're actually just saying, "There's no real reason why Tara can't come back" then I totally agree. The Buffyverse has always chucked reason - and to a lesser extent consistency - out the window when story and character could benefit from said chucking and has been all the better for it IMO though I wouldn't want all my shows to be like that and even Joss can only get away with it in moderation. Whether she should come back is a different question though, IMO probably not, YM very clearly Vs ;)

And yep, Gaydos would be good, he's great at capturing mood and atmosphere (the far end of that moody spectrum would be Ben Templesmith who could probably do an arc of 'Angel' or a one off 'Buffy' issue which was deliberately skewed - maybe another 'Normal Again' style story only in a hell world instead of ours ?). If I can't have Brian Bolland (and I can't cos we'd all probably be dead before the first arc was finished ;) then other picks would be Michael Lark (his faces in Gotham Central are very expressive) or Franco Urru who's been doing such a great job on Spike: Asylum. Or Cassaday obviously. Or the guy who draws 'DMZ' could be good for an arc.

Must admit i'm really looking forward to lots of different artists having a crack at it in lots of different styles though I wonder how easy it'll be to maintain the feel of one 'season' if that ends up being the case (maybe that's why Jeanty's doing the 'bookend' arcs ?).
Good question...why aren't we even seeing any chance of any Buffy reunion movies, or even spinoffs such as Slayers in the Armed Forces or Homeland Security?
Two reasons: money, and people forgetting how important this franchise is. Why else do we have unbreakable cheerleaders, flying politicans, and time-traveling otaku?
Saje, I have a confession to make. I love Tara. I don't care how she comes back, just that she comes back. So, no biases in all that I am writing here, okay? :-) I have no axe to grind, or scythe to grind or even nose to grind, except I love the character, think her death was a mistake, and wish like crazy to see that mistake rectified- so long as it fits the story. I'm not crazy, I'm bonafide!
Well, I have to say...Now,I am REALLY very excited to get my new ... FIRST TIME EVER...comics! Woohhoo!!
With the pants, Willow's costume is really bizarre to me now. It's more like a sleeved apron thing than a dress like I originally suspected.

Why is central command in Scotland though? I figured they would have used the resources of the blown up Watcher's Council, and that they'd be based out of England instead. Either way, interesting.
I figured they would have used the resources of the blown up Watcher's Council, and that they'd be based out of England instead

(my emphasis)

Reckon you may have answered your own query there ;). If they need to stay under the radar then Scotland makes more sense, we've more wilderness up there than England has. Also, if I had to have a base of operations I might pick the most beautiful country in the world to have it in too.

(you're not the only one with biases Dana5140 ;)
Slayers in Scotland? I've never seen 'em.


I can name at least two. (Hi Cat!)
Dana: There's a lot of dead characters I love. That doesn't mean they should be resurrected. But, agree to disagree? Fair enough. :)
I found the fact that it mentioned that Angel and Spike would make appearances, however briefly.

I wonder if this means that they survived the battle at the end of Angel, or if the timeline puts them during season 5 of angel, which would have been season Eight of Buffy?
mj- I don't agree. Just kidding! For me, there are also many dead characters I love, just none that ever moved me like that shy lesbian witch did, and y'know, it bothers me to this day that even among all the Buffy scholars, Tara never gets any attention or props- and when she does, it is always in context of the dead lesbian cliche, and she is so much more than that. I'm not smart enough or enough of a religious scholar to complete the paper I wish to write, one that compares Tara to the bodhisattva Tara, compassionate savioress of the world and protector of women. But this is OT.

Well, the truth of our discussion will be seen around 22 issues or so from now, so all this speculation will be reality. I'll continue to hold out hope on this; I miss that character so much it hurts at times, and think that she never got the attention she deserved- she was brain sucked for a while, split from Willow and on her own for a while, and then dead. Tara, we hardly knew you!

(Really OT- if there is anyone on this board from Wales, can you contact me at Dana5140@aol.com? My son is in Aberystwyth for the next 5 months and is looking for things to do. Advice gratefully accepted).
What is all the fuss about ? This isn't season 8, it's a comic..oh excuse me..a graphic novel.
You're excused ;). But you were right the first time, 'comic' is just fine (graphic novels are usually thicker and IMO the term is best used for original stories first released in bound format though others disagree).

(and since it's an official Joss controlled continuation of the Buffy story it's also 'season 8' - as it's been known more or less since plans for the comics series first came to light)
Even more excited now! Bring on Buffy vs The Lochness Monster!

Also, did anyone else notice that there are some panels and a page we haven't seen before? One has Xander.

[ edited by hitnrun017 on 2007-02-02 01:20 ]
They have new preview pages up for issue 1.
Good call, I swear those weren't there earlier.
Buffy season 8 #3 cover exists in a better quality version (at wallpapers size) here : Darkhorse.com
and there is perhaps the #4 cover here: Darkhorse.com.


Actually, what you suppose as a cover for #4, is a cover art by Paul Lee and Brian Horton (who did most of the art covers for the final run of the old comic series) from the old series, from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer #59. Check the complete cover and the old solicitation info: here.



[ edited by Numfar PTB on 2007-02-02 02:23 ]
We all know that canon is fluid. Joss often wrote vaguely, leaving things open to help later plots as needed. I'm a big stickler for Canon but I'm willing to accept any change Joss wishes to make. I took his MTV interview as saying that Buffy really truly was with the Immortal until Joss decided she wasn't. If that happened all the time, it would drive me crazy. But it doesn't and as far as I'm concerned, he can write as many "What if the story went this way instead" versions as he wants.
And it certainly helps that I didn't want her with the Immortal anyway!
Just when you think you can't get anymore excited about this comic. Joss is brilliant. I CAN NOT WAIT to see Buffy Joss style again. Can't wait.
Loving the Andrew is still a storyteller information and that Buffy wasn't really dating the Immortal. That particular storyline was slightly confusing and kinda off set the cookie dough discussion between Buffy and Angel. Nice Romeo and Juliet/Passion shout out.
I can't wait to see what Giles is doing. All this Buffy talk has kick started my desire to see these characters back on screen via the actors who played them. Maybe someday we will get very lucky.
I loved Tara and I loved Oz. Either making an appearance would brighten my day. Kennedy, eh, not so much.
Well, Kennedy has to be there to begin with, that's for sure. As to Andrew, this is, for me, the only character in the entire history of the Buffyverse that I utterly loath, and wish had never been in the story, and if you ask, I cannot tell you why. He just sucks the air right out of any scene he is in for me.

NumfarPTB, the story about Tara that you hid in your spoiler tags is one that was pretty much common knowlege some time ago, the so-called "get out of jail free" storyline. Point being, there were plans that could have led to Tara's return- which is why it could happen again if the story calls for it.

Lioness, I am also glad that Buffy and Immortal ain't a happening thing. Heck, you have The Master, The First, Dracula, etc., so why an Immortal along the way? What's he got that all these other guys don't, huh? :-)

Interesting question, though, is who is the big bad that will be back? How many we got? Master, First, Mayor, Glory, Adam is dead and gone; Willow is there but it ain't her; we know it is not Angel. So, I vote Glory. But it'll probably be the Mayor- and wouldn't that mess Faith up?
Oh, the extra preview pages are great. I love the idea that our gang took the resources of the old Counsel and used them to modernize the operation and to design and build equipment and weapons that help the Slayers do their job. Instead of what the old Counsel did -- sitting around in comfy digs and drinking tea and leaving the Slayers without any practical, and financial, support.

Saje, I think having various artists will not detract from having the completed work feel like a whole season. Look at Tales of Slayers which had various writers and artists but still made a cohesive story. As you mentioned, having the Joss story as a bookend helped.

As to other artists, what about Karl Moline who did Fray? I thought his work was excellent and really sold the story. Ben Templesmith would be awesomely surreal. Also, what about Eric Wight who was going to do the animated series? He loves this verse and, if not too busy with his own new series, would bring a lovely energy.

As to the hints about Dawn's growing problem, now I'm wondering if she could be pregnant with a demon spawn (ala Cordelia). Right now, I'm a little disappointed that once again a female is "punished" for having sex; however, I'm reserving judgment until I've read the whole story.

Only 1 month to go.
"As a personal request to TPTB, please, please, please have a guest Slayer with a broad Glaswegian accent (they could riff on it the same way they did with the Chinese girl in S7)."

You mean she'd need subtitles? ;)

I wish Molly had had a Glaswegian accent instead of that awful Mockney one. Come to think of it, any accent would have been better than that, even a faux Irish accent like Angel's.
Re Joss' original intention to bring Tara back, this is taken from Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine, Issue 67 from December 2004. It comes from the 'News' section so I can't find an authorial credit. Likewise, the website referred to appears to have closed now so I can't get an exact reference. Apologies to whomsoever I should be crediting, although to be fair most of it is Joss' own words anyway! (Oh, and Mods if you think this should be in invisible text could you do that for me pretty please?)


"Joss Whedon shocked fans at the San Diego Comic Con by revealing that he did have plans to resurrect Tara in Season Seven - and not as The First! As reported by the Mediasharx.com website, Joss explained that, "In one of the final episodes, the third to last episode, Buffy was basically going to get a 'get out of jail free' card - one completely reality-altering thing that she could have. She could bring Angel back to her, she could do anything she wanted." He continued, "At the end of the episode she comes to Willow and says look at these shoes I got.' and Willow's like, "What?" "I got these really awesome shoes. I wanted them, and now I have them!" and Willow's like "You ... used ... the wish ... for shoes?" and Buffy says, "Of course not, you idiot," and walks out the room and Tara's standing behind her."
However, much to fans' disappointment Amber Benson wasn't available to appear in the seventh season, and Joss had to rethink his strategy. "Because I knew I couldn't bring Tara back early on, I wanted to change the course and make a statement about grief and how hard it is; how hard it was for Willow," he explained. "[I wanted] to make the statement that you can [recover], that life goes on. That somebody on the show would be in a decent relationship when the show ended."


When I read this I have to say I found it quite comforting that Joss wanted to bring Tara back, but at a point when it seemed like the Buffy story was over I had a lot of respect for the idea that Tara's 'human and pointless' death really did mean the end. Re the above discussion, I guess the key phrase here is 'completely reality-altering'. I wonder if bringing Tara back this way would have meant that actually no-one remembered Tara had died in the way Dawn's or Connor's memories were altered?

As for The First never manifesting as Tara, I once read an interview with Amber Benson in which, if I remember rightly, she said she decided not to come back and play an evil version of Tara so soon after Tara's death because she didn't want to do that to her fans. (I think that's pretty impresssive.) The key thing, however, is the fact we never saw The First as Tara, so there is potential for Joss to rewrite the mythology just as he has with SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO'VE NOT READ THE PREVIEW PAGES Buffy and The Immortal. Maybe The First couldn't manifest as Tara because her afterlife is different?

[ edited by ArielWillow on 2007-02-02 14:00 ]
There were, to be sure, people who felt that Joss was confabulating that tale, that had he really meant to do this he'd have tied Amber up a year earlier since he is known for advanced plotting. Some felt that it ended up blaming Amber Benson for not returning in S7 (which is why CWDP had to be rewritten with Cassie in every scene Tara was initially written in). I'm not bringing this up to rake up old coals or to shift the thread, just to say that I find it truly significant that, going back to the beginning of this thread here, they had Amber Benson comment on the new comic when there was no reason to do so. Why not get a comment from SMG or from Aly Hannigan, people far better known and associated with the series? Why Amber? Now, I know one possible reason is that (a) she was on the show, and (b) she has written comics in the past. But still. I have this feeling that Tara will make an appearance, and why not? Why not, for that matter, Oz even? No one has said it must be a corporeal Tara (well, okay, I never said it but I meant it, LOL), but Tara could appear as a means to get at Willow. And she can be brought back to try and hurt Willow (see: jetwolf). But as to bringing her back altering reality, well, there's Kennedy to deal with...

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2007-02-02 14:53 ]
Well, that's the thing with comics Dana5140, all things are possible ;). However, re: Amber's comments, didn't someone upthread suggest those comments might be from a separate, previous interview with her ?

(supported by the fact that she actually says absolutely nothing about this comic - or any other - that I can see).

Re the above discussion, I guess the key phrase here is 'completely reality-altering'. I wonder if bringing Tara back this way would have meant that actually no-one remembered Tara had died in the way Dawn's or Connor's memories were altered?

Y'see the problem with that is there'd always be the temptation to have memories altered back (as Connor's were and as everyone's were re: Dawn) since it's such a rich vein dramatically. And then we're back to square one with Tara having died and been brought back and everyone knowing it, making it an effective 'get out of jail free card'. Also, if reality was completely altered, we lose the nobility of Buffy's selflessness (when she could have had anything she wanted, she chose to put her friend's happiness above her own. There's a word for that, starts with 'L' ends in 'ove' ;) and the reveal wouldn't really work either, it'd be purely a sop to the fans and mean nothing to the characters.

Don't get me wrong though, part of me really, really wishes that the "Buffy's Wish" episode could've happened, it would've been so lovely to see Willow's face at the reveal, but another part still thinks it would've been cheating somehow (a very interesting twist for me would be to have Tara able to return but only for a limited time and Buffy agonising over whether she should use the wish to do that to Willow, whether it was worth the pain for a day (for instance) of happiness. Great drama, potentially very uplifting and only bending the rules, not breaking them).
Dana5140 I think the implication was that if Tara was going to be brought back through Buffy's reality altering wish Willow wouldn't have been in a relationship with Kennedy. (Personally I really don't like Kennedy so that wouldn't have been a problem for me!)

Saje, yes I see how any memory changing event can either be sabotaged or devalues the loss. So yes, I entirely agree Tara being able to come back for a short time would have been more interesting emotionally and aritstically. I just don't think Buffy would have done that to Willow. There have been plenty of times when I've said 'I'd settle for another day, another hour even, with X', but actually I don't think I could cope with the pain of saying goodbye again and my guess is that that would be Buffy's standpoint too.

If I had to guess I'd say that if Tara does turn up in the comics it'll be as some kind of good spirit. Maybe she would even work unknown to those whom she was helping.
Saje, the idea of having Tara show up for a day is sort of similar to what they did on Angel, where he becomes mortal so that he can have a relation with Buffy but after only a single day has the Oracles return everything back to normal as if it never happened, and only he retains the memory. SO in a sense, that would be a similar story line and thus, I think, not likely.

As much as I truly want Tara back, it has to make sense, it has to fit the story and it has to have real resonance. I think we all know Joss well enough to know that if he is to bring her back, it will not be as a sop to the fans that miss her, but because the story will benefit from it happening. One of the problems of the "get out of jail" storyline was that, to me, it really did not resonate. Bringing Tara back just for what amounts to one episode would do little to resolve what had happened post her death, and it would have cheated Willow out of her hard earned, semi-absolution. So I, personally, had a hard time accepting the reality of that story line. There is a lot to explore with Willow- was she truly redeemed simply by casting a spell that activated the potentials? Has she truly come to grips with the loss of Tara? Has she begun to understand the nature of the magic that imbues her body now? Can she control her emotions? Is her relation with Kennedy strong, given that Kennedy is too direct and blunt? Given these questions, which I just know in my heart have to be explored if S8 is to make any sense and not just be bombast, throwing Tara into that mix could really provide insight into Willow, her powers, her ability to control herself and more. Far more so than just yet another apocalypse. So, like I say, there are ways to make Tara integral to the story. I just don't see her as a ghost or non-coproreal entity working out so well, not with Kennedy there- for there to be tension as a result, I think she has to be real.

I know I continually sing jetwolf's praises, but the chapter in her story where Tara meets Kennedy for the first time is quite interesting... OOps, got to go to a meeting, back later!
Hope the meeting went well (i.e. plenty of doodling time ;).

(unless it was a meeting of the 'Destroy the World Association - US Chapter' then I hope it went badly ;)

Saje, the idea of having Tara show up for a day is sort of similar to what they did on Angel ...

Well, not really. "I Will Remember You" was all about Angel's burden and sacrifice and, of course, afterwards, as you mention, the world was reset and only Angel remembered. The 'twist on "Buffy's Wish"' episode would focus on Buffy (and to a lesser extent, and unbeknownst to her, Willow) trying to decide whether it's worth it i.e. weighing pain against happiness. As per Joss' idea, Tara would only actually show up (or not ;) near the end and the world wouldn't be reset when she left, there'd just be another Tara shaped hole (that, in fact, is kind of the entire point). Plus, I only used a day as an example, it could be longer (though not much) or even shorter, say, just enough time to say goodbye properly.

Also, bringing people back with dire consequences has obviously also been done before (e.g. Buffy and to a lesser extent Spike on 'Angel') so if we're strictly avoiding previous plotlines then Tara can't return full stop. Course, we're just chewing the fat anyway since it'll never happen ;).

... but actually I don't think I could cope with the pain of saying goodbye again and my guess is that that would be Buffy's standpoint too.

Ah, but what if you never got to say goodbye in the first place ?

(and I dunno, but I suspect that the reality altering would probably only have meant "Tara's not dead" otherwise there'd have been no drama as a result and that doesn't strike me as very Jossian. Also, Buffy would've had to have been unusually precise and pedantic in making her wish and that doesn't sound very her either ;).
Oh lord, it was boring, that meeting. I had to listen to an 84-yr old doctor with no concept of science talk about reseach- which is what I do for a living. Holy jeebus!

Good point on Angel's burdon in IWRY; Ihad not considered that interpretation, just the larger context of changing the world and changing it back. So, let's play the idea- Buffy considers bringing Tara back, but it has to be limited in some fashion by the laws of the universe. Balance, maybe. Does she do so, given that Willow is once again in a relationship (albeit one that cannot possibly, yet anyway, be as resonant as the one she had with Tara)? Would it affect her relation with Kennedy? How would she take being able to say a proper goodbye to Tara, if Tara could only appear for some limited period of time? Well, these are interesting questions, for sure, and I don't have answers, have not had time to process the ramifications. But it could be extremely moving, yes?
I think there's more room for drama this way (and it still says "Tara paid the ultimate price, and it's hard, going on impossible, to duck out of that" while maybe giving the character a better - albeit less brutally shocking - send off) but it's probably not going to be quite as clearly uplifting as that BANG! moment in the original proposal when Buffy steps aside and reveals Tara cos there's no doubt that that (hopefully unspoiled) would've been one hell of a moment.

Now that you've mentioned it, I keep coming back to SMG's (IMO) frankly stunning performance at the end of IWRY and wonder what Alyson Hannigan (and Amber Benson) could do in a similar situation. I reckon 'extremely moving' is just the start of it ;).
Saje: "Hope the meeting went well (i.e. plenty of doodling time ;).
(unless it was a meeting of the 'Destroy the World Association - US Chapter' then I hope it went badly ;)"

That group meets in Washington. Daily.
Ba dum dum ! ;)

It'd be even funnier if it wasn't so damn tragic.
Scotland?

Expect to see a guest appearance from the monster that is/are deep fried mars bars!
Hey, that's all four food groups in one handy package right there !

(coronary thrombosis and diabetes are still food groups right ? ;)

And don't forget deep fried pizza (though in fairness, that's actually quite nice).
Can I just say that I'm loving your deppers discussion into this Tara returning or not matter.

It just bring good memories from back the days when we had new episodes, and now we sort of do, only episodes in print.
Buffyfantic, I'm really liking the new Xander spoiler as well. It does call into question what Andrew had said on 'Angel'.


I just re-checked the episode,Damage and see that Andrew was lying as far back as then as well,based off the season 8 spoilers.Andrew specifically tells Spike that Buffy is in Rome in that episode.As we now know,that was never true.So for me,this puts everything Andrew said on Angel in season 5 into question and what we know about Buffy and the Scoobies.Nothing shown on-screen in Damage and The Girl In Question is turning out to true and I love it and these twists.
Saje: Ba dum dum ! ;)

Saje, I almost provided my own drum flourish at the end of my post, but then I remembered that it's in bad taste to remark first on the badness of one's own tragic jokes.

If that's what I mean.

And I do try to hit all of the food groups, but there are days on end when I miss my minimum daily requirement of coronary thrombosis. I don't believe I've ever had anything that's deep fried except potatoes.

Am I missing something awesome? And will my heart thank me later?
QG, no fried chicken, fried seafood, chicken fingers, tempura, donuts/zeppolli/funnel cakes/etc., fallafel, spring rolls, egg rolls, chimichangas...? My goodness! You are missing something awsome, but I don't think your heart is what would thank you.

...and though I have never tried them fried, I'm not sure that Mars bars would be the thing that I would try first.

Weighing in on the Tara question requires time and thought, this just needed to be said.
Wait, newcj, I've had lots things that are fried regularly - like home-made fried chicken, or scallops dipped in batter and lightly fried - but my understanding of "deep frying" is that the entire object is completely submerged in hot fat.

And I lied 'cause of not thinking hard enough before I spoke - I have had the very occasional homemade doughnut (grandma used to make 'em years ago) or fish and chips. What I don't eat are deep fried: chicken-fried steak, bananas, cheese, Mars bars, hot dogs, ice cream, tempura, twinkies, corn dogs, chicken wings, hush puppies, cookies, turkey and all of the other foodstuffs that are being deep fried these days.

These is not to say that I eat a leafy-greened or fully nutritious diet, by any means. I love red meat, butter, eggs, sea food, bread, potatoes, poultry, chocolate, honey, cheese, puddings, cakes, and most of all pie.

It's just that food that is badly deep-fried tastes so bad to me that I avoid it as one of those excesses that's easy to skip - and so many places that deep-fry do it so poorly that it makes my most of my memories of it painful. Good deep-frying is another matter.

But man, take a pice of garlic bread and dip it in melted butter and I'd follow you anywhere...

If we took Buffy Season 8 and dipped it in butter, f'rinstance, I would really like that.

(See how I brought it back to the thread-topic? I am so the segue-genius.)
Joss also told the Tara returns story at the Chicago con a few years back. I got goose bumps just hearing him tell it. Thank you for the word for word account. I could never do Mr. Whedon justice.
His vision would have been awesome in screen form. FTR, Amber Benson was at that con and a certain fan asked her if she would ever reprise the role to reunite with Willow on the Silver Screen. Her reply. Absolutely. Maybe someday we'll see that.
Yep, QG, deep fried means basically dropping it into a trough of fat. Deep fried Mars Bars are usually (or were the one time I had them) dipped in batter first then fried (as with the fish in fish and chips).

Are you missing anything ? Well, imagine a foodstuff that is so sweet it actually tastes like diabetes and that's somehow contrived to become hotter than the surface of the Sun so that it's apparently impossible to eat without losing layers off the skin in your mouth and that's pretty much what you're "missing" ;).

(deep fried pizzas are quite nice though, it's the little individual size pizzas and they're not battered first, just dipped in the hot fat so that something inexplicable and cool happens to the cheese. A bit like fondue ++ GT Excel Turbo ;)

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home