February 09 2007
Joss' Geek Monthly interview (part four).
Hoping for a Buffy crossover with Angel at IDW? Well as the man says "You know what? Stranger things have happened?". All that and find out what Joss' message is for Buffy in 2007.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
It's because somewhere along the line, at least four or five thousand years ago, we as a species reverted to a horrible ape-like patriarchy. And it still hasn't gotten better.
Interesting angle, Mr.Whedon. You just doubled my interest in this thing.
NekoDono | February 09, 23:34 CET
At the end of the day there are only really three people that are likely to have survived beyond Not Fade Away and as we already know that Angel and Spike are going to be appearing sooner or later I'd really like to see the blue bombshell turn up as well. The lack of Illyria time we got was probably my biggest regret of the whole Angel cancellation. I wants me some canon Illyria developments.
Don't get me wrong here. I think IDW are doing a great job with the comics they put out but ultimately they are really just glorified Angel fanfic that you pay for. Whatever happens to Angel, Spike or Illyria in those comics is no more or less canon than a story I could write myself. I was very interested by what Joss said about legally being able to use any of the characters. I didn't think that was the case. Bodes well for my big blue hopes, at least.
Demon-X | February 09, 23:56 CET
Well that answers a question people have been asking for a while. Not to mention the statement that he will definately be using Spike and Angel. (We already had the, not very much, part, but there was always an "if" in all the previous statements that I remember.) I don't have an agenda of who I have to see, but I am really happy that we can and will see everyone Joss feels inspired to use.
newcj | February 09, 23:56 CET
I have enjoyed reading all four parts of this interview.
Shade of Pale | February 10, 00:39 CET
Okay, sorry, but I have to step in with my grown-up voice here - Master's Degree in Primate Behavior, 2 years in the Amazon studying wild-living monkeys, taught college courses in primates. So,"horrible ape-like patriarchy." There is no such thing. In the first place the terms "matriarchy" and "patriarchy" simply don't apply to nonhuman primates, because those terms are about ideology - how societies regard the roles of the sexes. Primatologists study primate behavior. I don't know if apes or any other nonhuman primates have any ideation about themselves, their roles of the roles of other members of their groups but if they do, we humans have no way of knowing what it is, so we have no business applying our terminology to it.
Second place, there is no ape society that in any way resembles a "horrible patriarchy." Chimpanzees live in fluid fission-fusion societies where unrelated adult males are more likely to form groups, and adult females tend to associate mostly with their own offspring, and the genders only meet occasionally. Bonobos live in groups of both sexes, tend to be nonaggressive and use sex a lot as a way of defusing tension and avoiding violence. (As a friend of mine who studied them commented "Bonobos have a really great way of saying 'hi.'") Orang-utangs are mostly solitary. Gibbons and siamangs live in small nuclear family groups. Gorillas are the only ape that have a social structure that could be mistaken for "patriarchy" in that social groups include only 1 fully adult male along with females and young, except that the male does not in any sense rule over the females. All he does is keep other adult males from joining the group. Females are just as likely to be the ones initiating sexual contact as the male.
The fact is, the real difference between humans and nonhuman primates is that only we have institutionalized power relations, as opposed to individual interactions. Monkeys and apes do not go around making other monkeys and apes do things for them. Nonhuman primates can have aggressive interactions with each other, but they have no means of controlling each other's behavior when they're not face to face. For better or worse, only humans have the social structure that enables us enforce our ideas of how other individuals should behave in our absence.
And, I'm really, really excited to know that legally Joss can include our favorite dead guys in the new series and I'm getting more and more thrilled as I hear more about his ideas for it.
Done now.
barboo | February 10, 01:04 CET
I wish Joss would consider making a comic for Angel season 6.
Bring on I llyria to Bs8!
The world really isn't as it should be, was it ever? (at least in human history).
barboo - thanks for the interesting info.
urkonn | February 10, 01:13 CET
Roxtar, that was my biggest regret too. I was so unhappy about Fred's demise until I saw what Joss did with it. There were so many possibilities/directions that could have gone and it infuriated me that I wouldn't be able to see it play out. So, I must agree-I hope she makes an appearance at some point as well. Perhaps in season nine. Or ten. I'm an optimistic one.
Barboo, thanks for sharing. I got a good laugh out of
As a friend of mine who studied them commented "Bonobos have a really great way of saying 'hi.'"
Betsy | February 10, 01:24 CET
A Buffy crossover with Angel at IDW would be cool though. Joss makes it seem like it's possible.
maje | February 10, 01:38 CET
Interesting stuff, I wouldn't mean to give apes a bad name. In fact, I've been well known among certain circles to enjoy the company of orangutans. Some would say to an almost unhealthy degree.
Perhaps I should've said primitive. But you probably still get what I was saying.
NekoDono | February 10, 01:44 CET
It would be interesting if Joss decided to do an Angel S6 series. It seemed the logical next step once the Buffy series was announced. Now that the Buffy series is getting so big, however, I'm wondering if there will ever be time in Joss's schedule.
newcj | February 10, 01:49 CET
Buffy will do what she can to remind people than powerful young women are not a bigger threat to civilization or the human race than Kim Jung-Il and Ahmadinejad combined. It makes our world better.
[ edited by impalergeneral on 2007-02-09 23:51 ]
impalergeneral | February 10, 01:50 CET
Also sounds like we're in for some comicy goodness by the boss. Surprise, eh!
[ edited by Tmas on 2007-02-10 01:06 ]
Tmas | February 10, 03:06 CET
batmarlowe | February 10, 03:27 CET
Assume that Reed Richards adopts a Govan accent when saying this..
Simon | February 10, 03:35 CET
Buffyfantic | February 10, 03:58 CET
Huh.
Rogue Slayer | February 10, 04:01 CET
spikeylover | February 10, 04:02 CET
Barboo, great read. Thanks for that.
Demon-X | February 10, 04:14 CET
I can't wait to find out how Joss is going to use Spike in the comics.
Reddygirl | February 10, 04:22 CET
I can't wait to find out how Joss is going to use EVERYONE in the comics.
I like me some ensemble action!
crossoverman | February 10, 05:12 CET
Rogue Slayer | February 10, 05:48 CET
I can't wait to find out how Joss is going to use EVERYONE in the comics.
I like me some ensemble action!
Yes, but at least we know who was still alive at the end of Chosen. If the Buffy comics take place at least a year later than Chosen, it means it takes place after Never Fade Away, and we as of yet don't know what happened with the battle in the alley. When Spike or Angel show up in the BtVS comic, it will be the first inkling we'll have as to what happened, or even confirmation that they survived. Plus, it's still unknown, or at least debatable, what Buffy really feels for Spike and whether she ever found out that he was brought back from the dead (or rather, brought back to his normal state of dead). So while we want to know how Joss is going to use all the other characters, we probably won't get any real answers to probably the biggest unanswered 'verse questions until one or both of the souled vamps appear.
deanna b | February 10, 06:48 CET
cheryl | February 10, 07:20 CET
And very interesting to hear that, legally, Joss can use any of the Fang Gang. He totally should. I mean, I need to fucking know what happens after Not Fade Away.
As much as I love Buffy, it's actually the Jossverse franchise I would least want a continuation from; not to say I'm not absolutely DYING for these comics to come out, but we got so much Buffy and in such a properly paced way. We got plenty of Angel but the story got cut short rather abruptly, and Firefly/Serenity...well, we need more, and that's all there is to say.
UnpluggedCrazy | February 10, 07:28 CET
I wish Joss would consider making a comic for Angel season 6."
Urkonn, it's true that IDW got off to a rough start. The Curse and Old Friends I personally found plodding and pointless. At the time I thought it was me, just not being able to handle the whole comic concept. I bought the Spotlight Wesley and found it so abysmal that I didn't buy any of the others. Old Wounds and Old Friends I enjoyed more, but I chalked it up to pretty Spike pictures.
But with Spike Vs Dracula it was a whole new ball game. I enjoyed each one immensely, and Spike: Asylum has been even more enjoyable. The stories are exciting, interesting, and ring true, there is emotion as well as action. Plus, comedy. The art is truly art. I haven't read Auld Lang Syne yet but have heard that it is good.
Joss seems to have great faith in the whole comic deal, and the preview with Giant Dawn I found worked very well.
I admit that Spike is the focal point of the Buffyverse for me, so I still don't know if I'll get these or not, but I no longer dismiss the story just because its a comic and not a TV show.
Sure I would prefer to see it on screen, but IDW definitely changed my thinking about the value of comics in general with the last two Spike series.
Xane | February 10, 08:07 CET
Yes but Spike did ask him not to tell Buffy. With Andrew who knows who he told or didn't tell.
helcat | February 10, 08:07 CET
You guys are exhausting! ;)
Nah, jus' kiddin'. I've got my own set of "wanna see happens" too. It will be a treat for all of us. And maybe he'll get around to a few of these, and a few of mine. We'll see, hmm?
Willowy | February 10, 08:59 CET
That's a good point, deanna b - although I am not personally worried about learning what happened to those characters post-NFA, certainly not in the forum of a Buffy comic. If he does Angel: Season 6, fine. But I'm really happy not to know the specifics of the battle in that alley way until it can be done properly.
crossoverman | February 10, 09:19 CET
I don't think Joss is reading everything, mostly checking outlines, like he did before.
Onto the crossover thing. Does he really need it? Ok, financially might be interesting, because both companies would financing, and he does get to ask IDW to do the distribution, so we'd get a crossover comic appearing both Buffy and Angel, published in that IDW high stock paper.
If I'm not mistaken that's how traditional super-hero comic books work, whenever there's a trans-company joint venture with their characters. In the 90's when Marvel and DC did that DC Vs Marvel / Marvel Vs DC thing, it was a 4 part miniseries, co-financed by both companies, and like #1 and #3 were released by DC (thus titles DC Vs. Marvel) and #2 and #4 were distributed by Marvel (thus titled Marvel Vs. DC). And when they did the Amalgan thing, there was similar half and half share between them. (For the un-informed Amalgan, was a series of comic one shots released by DC and Marvel, where writers were allowed to combine and mix up characters from the two publishers into sort of new characters. Wolverine was mixed up with Batman. The X-Men, Gen-X and X-Force were mixed up with the Titans and Doom Patrol. The X-Men also got to be mixed up with the Justice League, so on so on).
But I don't think the same would apply to BtVS and Angel, since Joss says "Legally I could use anybody I want to..."
Can I just say that I love our boss man. You know what's weider, this same misogynist men seems sometimes even more afraid when there are men that are not only not afraid of strong women, but actually embraces and prefer to have them always present.
In some circles that I have to dwell, I do feel extremely unconfortable when some idiot just start some lame Women and stoves irony. Totally cringeable.
[ edited by Numfar PTB on 2007-02-10 11:31 ]
Numfar PTB | February 10, 13:24 CET
As for Andrew,I just don't think he would be able to keep his mouth shut about Spike being back.It probably would slip out by accident at the very least.Plus Andrew did just lie to Spike about Buffy being in Rome right before he made Andrew promise not to tell her that he's back.I just don't trust Andrew on any real level in this sort of area.
Buffyfantic | February 10, 19:22 CET
I'm probably wrong, (and frankly, I hope that I'm not) but I still think that Andrew's reaction to Spike being alive makes me believe he truly cared about him. That said, IMO, if he's lying to Spike about Buffy's whereabouts, it's entirely possible that he kept the secret about Spike, too. A serious situation that turns into a bit of a funny mess? Sounds like the plot of a Whedon show to me.
spikeylover | February 10, 20:10 CET
It's such a huge thing, finding out he is alive and frankly I want to see her reaction.
I also want to see her reaction to whatever the results of Not Fade Away were as well.
To have the story open up and then just find out that... Yeah, Buffy knows about it all, found out a long time ago, yada yada yada, is such a waste of potentially powerful emotion and angst. I don't want to miss it. Tragic waste of story in my opinion.
Xane | February 10, 22:03 CET
spikeylover | February 10, 18:10 CET
Just because Andrew didn't tell Spike the truth does not mean I think that Andrew wasn't glad Spike was back or didn't care for him.
Xane | February 10, 20:03 CET
I can certainly see Joss having things play out that Buffy knew Spike was back for a while.It wouldn't surprise me.There are plenty of times where I thought,now there's a plotline that could bring much emotion and angst.Yet Joss never touches it or only lightly touches it in a matter of fact way.
[ edited by Buffyfantic on 2007-02-10 21:22 ]
Buffyfantic | February 10, 23:21 CET
Absolutely, I know quite a bit of fan fic has been written about that moment.
spikeylover | February 10, 23:30 CET
Reddygirl | February 10, 23:49 CET
Meanwhile, the W&H guy that Angel had following Buffy (apparently the wrong one) who wound up in the hospital -- was it one of the Immortal's men who beat him up, or was it the Slayers? Something to ponder.
Looking forward to the comic.
deanna b | February 11, 03:41 CET
Now that we know Angel survived the alley, I hope he had a blast doing battle with the dragon.
Tonya J | February 11, 04:38 CET
maje | February 11, 08:10 CET
barboo The fact is, the real difference between humans and nonhuman primates is that only we have institutionalized power relations, as opposed to individual interactions. Monkeys and apes do not go around making other monkeys and apes do things for them. Nonhuman primates can have aggressive interactions with each other, but they have no means of controlling each other's behavior when they're not face to face.
I'm sorry for joining this discussion so late. And for being contrary and possibly crazy, but I see you two missing each other's points here.
Anthropology and archeology, which are really at least partly continuations of zoology, say that there was an observable break in human behavior, when the oldest extant stone cities started having walls. Something happened. We don't know what it was. But there became much more evidence of weapons and fortification. That's what NekoDono, if I understand him or her, is talking about.
Meanwhile, I don't blame you for seeing this as an attack on those who can't defend themselves, barboo. But aren't we all animals? And I'm a layperson, but I can't agree with your characterization of higher ape groups as not having culture. I've seen persuasive studies that even rat groups have culture, meaning intergenerational behavior differing significantly from other groups. And if it's true that other species can have cultures, they can also have long-standing maladaptations, like we do. And so especially can our closest relatives, the apes. From what I've read, the chimpanzee murder rate is about like ours or maybe worse, and less supported because of their lower birth rate. That may well be because of the tremendous pressure we're putting on them in encroachment and predation. But they take it out on each other, just as we do.
dreamlogic | February 11, 08:23 CET
In my mind, Buffy knows that Spike is alive because she showed up at the end of NFA to help Angel out of the unfortunate situation he found himself in. Just like Angel brought Buffy the "key" to defeating the bad in Chosen, I can also see Buffy bring her army of slayers to help Angel at the end of NFA.
Super Heroes have to stick together.
cheryl | February 11, 17:50 CET
NekoDono | February 11, 23:14 CET
My guess? Andrew would have told Giles, who would most likely have decided to keep it quiet for the time being so that Buffy would remain focused on her responsibilities regarding the new slayer army they were organizing. At some point, Andrew would have let it slip, leading to the annual 'Buffy gets pissed off at Giles' event. It's a tradition, after all. ;)
Demon-X | February 11, 23:37 CET
Where do you see me saying that apes do not have culture? In the limited sense in which you are using the word, there are certainly shared, learned behaviors that are distinct to specific groups in many primate species. In what way does that make it patriarchy, horrible or otherwise?
And yes, there is aggression among nonhuman primates. Chimpanzees do even exhibit a kind of proto-warlike behavior, in which groups of males will invade the territory of a neighboring group, and attack and kill other individuals. If you want to argue that that demonstrates male chimpanzees are more aggressive than females, I don't have a problem with that. But I'm still not seeing patriarchy.
Patriarchy is a description of power relations within a social group, in which males have authority and are able to exert control of others through ideological as well as coercive means. Nonhuman primates don't have the mechanisms of social control. To create a comparison, a human king or chief can declare that he is the boss and therefore everyone has to bring half of the food they grow or gather to him, as tribute. And since he's the king, and he's got an army that answers to his authority and is willing to enforce his pronouncements, he gets the tribute.
What happens when a monkey or ape, even the highest-ranking animal, decides that everyone should bring half their food to him. Well, in the first place he has no way of communicating directives for the future to the rest of the group. But imagine that he could, what would the reaction of the rest of the group be? "You're nuts. Why should we give our food to you?" He has no way of enforcing control. Yeah, if he's the dominant male in the hierarchy that means he can cow any single other animal in a one-on-one confrontation -- if you're eating a favorite food he can bully you out of your feeding spot - but once he's done eating and leaves that tree he can't prevent you from going into it and eating up whatever's left so that he can have it later. And if the food is something that's spread around the environment, he has no way of preventing you, or the other members of the group, from eating it in all the places he can't be at at the same time.
The point is, that nonhuman primates can be aggressive, they can attack others, they can bully others, but they do not rule over each other. That is something that requires a level of communicative ability and social sophistication that they simply don't possess, just as they lack the social ability to build a city. And without the ability to rule over others, I argue that there is no possibility of an "archy" of any kind, whether it be patriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy or what have you.
(For the record, the most famous episode of shared learned behavior in primates demonstrated a social system that is focused around mothers and young. These are the potato-washing Japanese macaques, which became popularized in the "hundred-monkey" paradigm. A juvenile female figured out how to wash the sand off sweet potatoes to make them more palatable. Other juveniles learned the behavior from her and their mothers learned it from them. The only class of animal that didn't learn the behavior was that of the adult males. They simply weren't networked into the transmission of learned behavior the way other group members were).
barboo | February 12, 08:49 CET
NekoDono | February 12, 09:34 CET
Of course I agree that patriarchy doesn't exist outside of our species. But murderous regimes do. I guess I'm trying to say that I think you put too much stock in the stories we tell about our behavior.
dreamlogic | February 13, 18:08 CET