"my kids"? I thought he had just the one.

pillboxed | July 11, 01:20 CET

Don't want to be that guy, but Spike got more than enough face time in Season Seven, imo. I would say, and I think even SMG said, that Xander deserved a better farewell, especially in the finale. Love Spike and all, and I know I'm in the minority, but I feel like he became the Wolverine of the Buffyverse, cuter in small doses, but a bit much after a while.

Regardless, I appreciate James' bluntness in his answers. He isn't giving watered-down, empty answers to please any and everyone. He says what he feels.

CowboyCliche | July 11, 01:36 CET

I was never too big on the potentials myself. Most of them just annoyed me.

Dan Corson | July 11, 01:39 CET

Well, I didn't even know he had a child. News to me.

Anyways, I wasn't a fan that much of the Potentials either. I mean it was nice to know that Buffy & Faith weren't alone in this and if it wasn't for those girls Buffy or Faith (maybe both) would've been dead, but they annoyed me as well and they seemed childish.

I agree CowboyCliche, I really thought Xander should've gotten a better farewell. After all he is the heart of the show.

badwolf | July 11, 01:52 CET

What? He didn't choose to sacrifice himself? Did we watch the same show? S7 to me was largely about Buffy losing her grip and then getting her groove back and Spike becoming a triumphant, good man choosing to sacrifice himself for the greater good in spite of his monstrous past. Sure the potentials crowded out some of what that could've meant, but... what? Also:



Not sure that I would ever describe Spike that way. Hmm.

zeitgeist | July 11, 01:54 CET

zeitgeist said:



So very well-put; I completely agree.

The potentials taking up so much screen time definitely frustrated me, though I didn't think they took much away from Spike at all. It was the other major characters who suffered most from the potentials' presence. I would have liked to have seen more of Willow to try to come to terms with the fallout of of her fall at the end of S6--that was barely acknowledged. I would have liked for Xander to do something. I would have liked to see more of Dawn (though I'm probably in the minority in that); she was just beginning to get truly interesting and there were lots of places they could have gone with her character. Spike was, I thought, just about the only major character besides Buffy who didn't get robbed of screen time and then he also got an awesome death scene full of beautiful self-sacrifice as well.

Lirazel | July 11, 02:07 CET

Dawn in season seven is great. I'm very glad they took the make-her-like-school-like-Willow-did route. It made her more interesting and more useful. She was actually kinda cool for parts of that season. Too bad there wasn't more of her.

Jobo | July 11, 02:14 CET

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, zeitgeist. It's great that James Marsters gives such honest answers in interviews, but he does sometimes leave me scratching my head. Spot on about Xander though. ;)

[ edited by cypher on 2008-07-10 23:20 ]

NotaViking | July 11, 02:16 CET

Yeah, nice re: Xander :). Count me in for the "Suprisingly, we actually could've used more of Dawn." camp. In re-watching this last time I really appreciated MT/Dawn way more. She was whiny and annoying when she was meant to be and slowly showed growth and she was becoming one hell of a character/young woman.

zeitgeist | July 11, 02:20 CET

I agree, Lirazel. The potentials took away from the main characters. I also agree with James Marsters (and cherish his bluntness) that season 7 would have been better without the potentials. From the moment that I learned the series would end, I hoped to see the series return to its roots--the central four. And I got that in the last 10 minutes or so (DVD time) of the very last episode when Buffy, Giles, Xander, and Willow were in a circle talking about random things--much like they were in the very first episode. Gosh, how I wish season 7 would have been a true build up to that scene! And wouldn't it have been nice if Buffy would have kept her promise to Dawn at the end of season 6 and trained her to be mini-Buffy--a passing of the torch to someone I actually cared about. Oh, wishful thinking! Still, I liked some of the potentials, and I think that Spike got enough screen time, so Mr. Marsters shouldn't be complaining.

P.S. The last episode was just awesome overall!

ricetxpeaches | July 11, 02:21 CET

To Melanie: He's the legal guardian of his niece.

Astoria_Potter | July 11, 02:23 CET

I agree, zeitgeist. Add me to the "Surprisingly, we could've used more of Dawn" camp. :-)

ricetxpeaches | July 11, 02:23 CET

Although Xander didn't get as much screen time as he should have the more mature Xander and his relationships to the other Scoobs (particularly with Buffy and Dawn) made S7 Xander probably my favourite season for that character.

I know a lot of people felt like the finale was All About Spike but for me Spike's arc in S7 is actually all about Buffy. The season is about power and Buffy's own feelings of disconnect. The reason Spike can zap the vamps in the end is due to Buffy's connection with him, her belief in him and how she empowered him with that belief through the whole of S7. She is the only reason that he's there at all. Her ability to forgive, connect, (love if you take that) and empower (the Potentials as well in a more obvious way) saves the world.

James’ comment may be to do with his complaint before about Spike not going down fighting. For me Spike had a pretty good idea there was a big chance of him dying when he took the amulet.

[ edited by Leaf on 2008-07-10 23:41 ]

Leaf | July 11, 02:37 CET

I think I'm in the minority. *shifts eyes worriedly*

I really liked the Potentials, with the exceptions of Rona and Kennedy. I especially loved the beginning episodes where Buffy was dreaming of the Potentials getting killed.

I was kind of getting sick of Spike, to be honest, and his death really didn't affect me all that much. *nervous shifty eyes*

And yes, I would have loved more Dawn, as well as more Xander. Definitely more Xander.

HowlingLupe | July 11, 02:47 CET

Hahah yeah zeitgeist I thought that was an odd thing to say too--Spike (who is my favorite character) was most definitely featured enough in season 7 and most definitely chose to sacrifice himself in the finale.

James has a son (from his previous marriage I believe) as well as legal custody of his niece.

MySerenity | July 11, 02:57 CET

[ edited by wytchcroft on 2008-07-16 18:08 ]

wytchcroft | July 11, 03:00 CET

The Potentials could be a bit of a drag... but Joss was building towards the now-classic enSlayering of all of them. That was such a perfect ending that it had to happen, and in order to make it work at least some Potentials had to get some screen time. (Personally I was rather fond of Amanda.) Also, as they were dealing with the nature of Slayerhood, Faith had to come back too, so things were getting a bit crowded as it was.

What I think is, "Chosen" might have done better as a two-parter, but frankly, Joss knew it couldn't be one long cavalcade of goodbyes, and so that final circle scene ("The Earth is definitely doomed") was a pretty good balance.

For me Spike's finest hour came an episode or two earlier, in his magnificent speech to Buffy, and also his sacrifice feels lessened somehow by his return on Angel -- so Marsters' complaints, while understandable, don't bug me much.

ManEnoughToAdmitIt | July 11, 03:10 CET

He got the right answer on the Xander question for the right reason -- Spike is lighter. Xander has no investment in either of those guys.

Surprised to hear him vocal about the Potentials; considering the backlash blitzkrieg I've seen thrown at Sarah over having an opinion on the storylines, and seeing a quote once of James saying something to the effect of the actor just being an instrument of the writer, I wouldn't have guessed he'd be willing to be that candid.

I wonder exactly what "dangerous" things he thought might get voiced at Paley? Too bad it wasn't formatted to filter out the banal nonsense of "Angel or Spike?" and "what's on your iPod?"

KingofCretins | July 11, 03:22 CET

From my side, it was kind of a letdown – there were good questions, but we didn’t say anything really dangerous. Well, Seth [Green] did. I felt like we were trying to protect something. I felt like the audience was ready, but we weren’t.

Nicholas Brendan & SMG's secret lovechild perhaps?

I wonder what he's talking about...

Swil | July 11, 03:23 CET

Personally, I had way more than enough of Spike in Season Seven. I actually liked the character, but just about OD'd on him before the end of Season Six. I liked several of the Potentials, too - including Kennedy - and, while more core Scoobyage (Scoobiage? Scoobage? Whatever...) would have been great, if the choice was between the Potentials and More Spike, I'm happy it went the way it did.

Rowan Hawthorn | July 11, 03:37 CET

What dangerous things at Paley, KOC? Well, to start, a real discussion about how the loss of Tara affected people. That'd be dangerous, and to my knowledge has never really taken place. I appreciate James' bluntness here more than I can say. For once, some non-diplomatic answers.

As to the Potentials, I did not like them. And for those that did not, not to worry- S8 ought to get rid of them. :-)

Dana5140 | July 11, 03:52 CET

I think the big problem about having the Buffy Reunion at the Paley Festival is that it should have been two hours, or even three. That could have led to some "dangerous questions". As for his opinion about the Potentials, maybe they should have been more interesting, like Vi. Adding Oz into the mix would have been great, too. Maybe add some potential Watchers, too. Otherwise, James has some interesting comments there.

impalergeneral | July 11, 04:00 CET

Yeah, place me in the "wondering what he meant" department as well. Altough, to be fair, there are quite a lot of divisive topics in our fandom to this day. Still, I'm not sure that those need to be adressed in any way by the creators and actors and are maybe best left to the fandom itself.

Also: James was hoping Spike would become a big bad? Well, him and me both, then. I've always preferred the 'evil-with-just-a-tiny-twist-of-screwed-up-humanity' Spike of S2. Certainly one of my favorite villains of the series, ever. I never liked the 'spike being chipped' storyline or the build-up to him getting his soul. I know it's a topic that's been beaten to death in this fandom and something that's very divisive, so please don't read this as anything other than the opinion of one single fan: but despite everything I've read and heard on the topic, I still don't see the Spike of season 2 turning into the Spike of seasons 4 to 6 with just the addition of a simple chip-in-the-head and a newfound healthy Buffy obsession. It was only once he had a soul, that the character started to make sense to me again.

As for James' complaints about Spike's role in S7 - that I don't get. Yes, it may have been a long stretch of basements and caves for him, but what happened felt true to Spike's new re-souled self and he got more than enough room for his final development to boot. Having said that, I did prefer him in S5 of Angel. At first I was skeptical of having him there (and a little afraid that it would become 'The Spike Show'), but his character fit right in there and even made the season better.

And yes, I too would have liked more to do for Xander and more of a focus on the core scoobies who'd started out that seven year journey together (one of the reason's I adore that scene in 'Chosen'). I did happen to like the potentials as characters, but in season seven, where the amount of characters battling for screen time was getting to nearly-ridiculous levels, we maybe could've done without them.

But, in the end, the season we got was very true to the empowering theme of Buffy overall, so I'm at peace with the choices made, even though I probably would have made different ones.

GVH | July 11, 04:11 CET

James Marsters - the ultimate whiny Spike fangirl.

crossoverman | July 11, 04:23 CET

lol. Amen to that.

marvelknight616 | July 11, 04:56 CET

I think the Potentials were necessary - thematically, structurally, dramatically. They filled a number of important functions. They increased Buffy's isolation, for one, which was a crucial component of the whole Buffy-losing-her-grip arc. Faith's remark that she'd never felt so alone when she took command is an illustration of that. The loneliness and isolation had to be so great that Buffy would either buckle or come up with a new paradigm. Staying in her familar role of superb, improvising, group leader of the scoobies wouldn't accomplish that. Thinking she had to be a general for this group of young women, and feeling the responsibility for every loss, was what forced her to see that that patriarchal way of wielding power was a dead end.

The Potentials were also the personification of the empowerment that the whole season was about. They had to be green, naive, unformed, reluctant, or even rebellious, like Rona and Kennedy (who were hardly that different than S1 Buffy, by the way), annoying as that may have been to some. That way, as they were formed into seasoned fighters, their final fight alongside Buffy could potently, no pun intended, illustrate the theme of shared power.

I'd also point out that they didn't even appear until the tenth episode, I believe, or about half-way through the season. I agree that the core scoobs didn't get enough time in the latter half, but there were other characters who contributed to that who haven't been mentioned, and weren't thematically necessary, unlike the Potentials. Not only that, they took up two or three episodes worth of time. I'm speaking of Robin Wood and Andrew.

I loved Principal Wood and I see why the writers fell in love with him, too. But, as originally conceived, he was to die early. With him gone soon, there'd have been no faux-romance with Buffy, no faux-mystery as to why he's burying Jonathan's body, and no romance with Faith, all of which could have led to more time spent on the scoobs. Giles would have had to take on eliminating Spike on his own, thus giving the writers more time with his motivations and how, perhaps, killing Ben and seeing the Council destroyed had sent him down this road and into conflict with Buffy.

With Andrew simply staying gone after killing Jonathan, except perhaps for getting his comeuppance at some point, you'd have again freed up far more time. This would have been good for Xander, especially, since Andrew usurped his role as the main source of humor in an ep. Xander could also then have spent more time with Dawn and/or Anya.

So, though Wood and Andrew were part of a couple of good episodes, LMPTM could have easily been re-structured without Wood and the only crucial loss would have been Storyteller. I for one would have preferred that. The emotional pay-offs we could have gotten with more focus on the core group could have resulted in far less dissatisfaction with the season as a whole.

[ edited by shambleau on 2008-07-11 02:31 ]

shambleau | July 11, 05:20 CET

Way to raise the level of the commentary (posted prior to Shambleu's comments).

[ edited by baxter on 2008-07-11 02:22 ]

baxter | July 11, 05:21 CET

Since the Potentials are a metaphor for feminism -- for the heroic capacity of women -- I think they were what season seven was about. For me, Kennedy was the one who emerged the most as an individual, with an arc of her own, well-defined individual goals, and the interesting personality strength/weakness of brattiness. Others, like Vi and Amanda, were likable, but tended not to have so much individual goals as collective ones (don't get killed, learn how not to get killed, get somewhat killed, kick Buffy out, nearly get killed, accept Buffy back, get empowered by someone powerful and do a bit of demon-killing while the amulet warms up to finish the job).

Loving the Potentials more in Season 8. Satsu's decision to fight for the right to fight was important, as was her decision to take charge of the Japanese home office and step out of Buffy's shadow. And Kennedy's recent "Back off, B" moment was classic -- harsh, but not unfair. Buffy's still the hero, but the Potentials can't find the hero in themselves simply by following orders. That's not how Buffy found the hero in herself.

[ edited by Pointy on 2008-07-11 02:22 ]

Pointy | July 11, 05:22 CET

Be nice.



I could've placed money on you saying that ;). We certainly haven't discussed that enough as a fandom >:>. Or are you saying it hasn't been brought up in an interactive enough way with Joss? As opposed to the many interviews and message board discussions?

zeitgeist | July 11, 05:22 CET

I guess I'm a bit behind, but what dangerous things is he referring to Seth Green saying?

ormaybemidgets | July 11, 05:30 CET

I remember James saying something to the effect of wishing that he had sacrificed himself for something greater overall, and feeling as though he was doing more than what he ended up doing.

In older interviews, immediately after the show ended, he used to say that he knew it was supposed to be about the potentials, and he was totally okay with that, even though he was a bit disappointed about the way Spike went out.

In more recent interviews he's been more vocal in saying that he wishes Spike would've been more involved in it somehow, played a greater part in saving the world.

In this interview, from a Q&A in Toronto, in 2005:

"I was not happy with the way it ended on Buffy… Because Joss came in to direct the show. And I was told that I was going to die saving the world, and I thought "This time, he's going to use me." Cause every single time Joss came in to write or direct an episode, my character was sidelined, off to a half day. And I know I wasn't part of his original, kind of thought for the show, so I kind of understood. But I really thought that when I was going to save the world, we would be working together more. And, when I got the script, it really was a day of work. So I was really kind of depressed about that. Cause it was my last chance to work with him as far as I knew."

Mrs.BigPileofDust | July 11, 05:34 CET

I see. To me, Spike saved the world, though. Willow did a neat trick, but I think that Spike is what saved the world.

zeitgeist | July 11, 05:39 CET

And to everyone questioning what he meant with the dangerous comment, James has been saying that he wishes people had been more honest and less shy about their answers. I think maybe he felt the cast held back too much, whereas Seth was just throwing out random stuff here and there.

Basically, everyone was just too "safe" and gave too many generic answers, perhaps. Then again, yes, not all of the questions gave them the opportunity to really give those kinds of answers.

Mrs.BigPileofDust | July 11, 05:41 CET

"We never saw Spike proactively say, ‘I want that’"

.... and again I'm left wondering if JM ever really understood the character that he was playing - certainly not in the way I understand him. For the record, I liked the potentials, loved season seven, loved Spike in season seven and though his end was very self-sacrificing.

tranquillity | July 11, 05:46 CET

Yeah, there aren't a lot of dangerous answers to "What's on your iPod?". Actually I wasn't going to speculatively post a few dangerous answers to that, but I'm going to stay on topic instead. I understand the want to cut Wood/Andrew as not thematically necessary to the overall arc, but I feel that their contributions had important resonance for sub-themes of the final season and the show overall. Why kill off misguided Andrew when Darth Rosenberg gets a vacation to England and then all is forgiven? Wood kept us guessing for a bit and then helped contribute resonance to "Slaying is a lonely/isolated gig" amongst other things.

zeitgeist | July 11, 05:47 CET

And now he's not being dangerous, he's being a dick. And while that doesn't raise the level of discourse, it needs to be said.

crossoverman | July 11, 05:48 CET

crossoverman - are you calling James a dick? If so, you'll need to consider this a warning to please not hurl personal insults around. You could have said what you were trying to say in a more polite way.

zeitgeist | July 11, 06:06 CET

Zeitgeist, you could kill off "misguided" Andrew, and spend that time on not giving Darth Rosenberg a free pass, for one. He'd mostly been a villain anyway, and one who actually admitted that he knew the First was lying to him and that what he did was wrong.

I agree about Willow being forgiven too easily and the psychological ramifications of her actions being given short shrift. It was a major disappointment for me in S7, although I'm beginning to think that is going to be remedied in S8.

shambleau | July 11, 06:11 CET

He was only a villain in the sense that he let himself be lead along by Warren and the First. Is that still wrong? Absolutely. But its way more understandable/forgivable than some of the villians we're given. I hope that you are right about Willow in S8 (my favorite character the first time through watching Buffy, decidedly not on rewatch).

zeitgeist | July 11, 06:15 CET

I think Marsters is too fixated on the 'shiny bauble at the end' bit of his character's heroism. To me, it was the other moments of S7 - coming home with the soul he won to honor and support a previously abusive lover, defending Buffy and helping to re-purpose her when all her 'dear ones' had abandoned her and tossed her out of her home, keeping faith as her warrior despite the obstacles since she was 'not ready for him to be gone' - that were his marks of heroism. I didn't count screen time but those are the pieces of S7 I recall years later, not the potentials' scenes.

baxter | July 11, 06:39 CET

Baxter-quite well said.

Mrs.BigPileofDust | July 11, 06:53 CET

I always felt that basically season 7 in & of itself needed to be a two-parter. It's one beautiful coherent story, but it's sort of like a great movie version of a long & much more intricate book.

kalia | July 11, 07:15 CET

Also, it needed Caleb to show up sooner. The Ubervamps just didn't cut it. And while I think I, too, would have rearranged some time priorities in S7, I'd swap some of the "Spike's crazy/chained in a cave/chained various other places" for some decent character development of... oh, anyone, really. There's this whole middle bit of Season 7 that just sort of sags.

I wouldn't sacrifice Wood, however. Awesome character. And we simply can't do without "Storyteller," which has some real meat to it under the funny voice-overs.

ManEnoughToAdmitIt | July 11, 07:25 CET

Yo, ZG, yes, I am predictable, but that really is the albatross hanging out there (whoa, shades of Malcolm Reynolds!). You asked: "I could've placed money on you saying that ;). We certainly haven't discussed that enough as a fandom >:>. Or are you saying it hasn't been brought up in an interactive enough way with Joss? As opposed to the many interviews and message board discussions?" And my answer is, yes. :-) There is a reason this remains an issue, and I am not the reason why. :-)

As to other issues, I read JM as really just saying, look, I want to work; I don;t just want to show up for a day and that's it. I sort of understand that, because that is how I feel about work. When I go in, I want to give everything I have every day. What we do know about JM is that he has always taken his acting very seriously, and he has always given thoughtful answers to questions about what he does. Much more so than just about any other Buffy actor I can think of, outside of maybe Amber Benson, and she often quips her way through interviews. So I read his answers as honest answers to things he has thought about deeply. I do not read them as harsh criticisms.

As to the potentials, I still feel the focus was all wrong in S7. I feel that new writers felt that they had to do something different, and so they did- they focused on players that long-time fans found less intriguing- Andrew, Wood, Kennedy (honestly, by Joss's admission a late add due to the Tara fall-out), and maybe a little Vi- but this was at the expense of established characters who resonated with fans. Xander was left in the cold, really, and Willow was diminished in many ways, and Spike was left crazy for a long-time and we could not identify with him. And Buffy was spouting Bushisms, while in the end she ended up activating a lot of people who were given no real choice in the matter, with potentially dire repercussions (Dana, anyone, and I don't mean me. :-)).

And I really, really agree with shambleau about the failure to address Willow, her being forgiven too easily, etc. This is the single largest failure I see in S7. And the way things seem to be going in S8, well, not sure if it ever will.

(In the end, we are left knowing that Willow cast a spell that activated all the potentials- again, I note, against their will). And for that, she goes white, leading Kennedy to state that she is a goddess. Whether she is or is not we still do not know. But we do know that magic is now out of whack, so that spell Willow cast in the end might not have been a good thing to do at all- and if so, that casts a large doubt on the message of S7, the whole idea of female empowerment. This is a dangerous road here).

(And gearing up for RAGBRAI at the end of next week, any Iowans or midwesterners! Time to get the chammy butter! If you know what I mean, and I think you do.) :-)

Dana5140 | July 11, 07:27 CET

There is a reason this remains an issue, and I am not the reason why.

It doesn't remain an issue. It might remain a flaw in a television show that finished five years ago, but it's not really an issue any longer.

Except when you continue to make it an issue... particularly in a thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with Tara.

[ edited by crossoverman on 2008-07-11 04:53 ]

crossoverman | July 11, 07:52 CET

ManEnoughToAdmiIt, agreed on Spike. And if Joss was going to jettison the ubervamps-as-superpowerful aspect in the finale, just because he was too tired to think of a way to get around that, then yeah, Caleb should have been brought in earlier. He was a much cooler character, evil preacher cliche notwithstanding.

Still think someone had to go because of the character glut, and Wood and Andrew should have been sacrificed for the greater good of the Buffyverse, no matter how bitter the loss.

Why, dropping them is practically Becoming 2 writ large, so it's thematically appropriate, too!

Dana5140, there is no evidence whatsoever that all the potentials were activated against their will. Without their consent is not the same thing. Not only did every potential in the room with Buffy agree to it, 500 of the ones not consulted joined up. And the others are perfectly free to never use their powers at all. They have THAT choice and presumably, that's what most of the remaining slayers are doing.

Nor does the idea of female empowerment have to be a completely good thing. In fact, it follows from having the choices that power brings that it will be a double-edged sword. Males have been abusing their power for millenia, but no one thinks that that means they shouldn't be empowered, so I don't see how that clouds the message of S7.

shambleau | July 11, 08:03 CET

(In the end, we are left knowing that Willow cast a spell that activated all the potentials- again, I note, against their will).

I fail to see how giving a bunch of women strength is something that requires their consent. You're not forcing them to use that strength if they don't want it, and as the comics have shown, they're not forcing the slayers to fight if they're not interested. I don't really see how this is any different from, say, giving women the right to vote. Sure, some of them may not have been interested, or may not have wanted to--and they weren't forced to.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you. In which case, my apologies.

On the topic of James's interview... I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm glad that he was honest about how he felt. On the other... I don't like it when people are discontent with the state of something :(

Jobo | July 11, 08:03 CET

Keeping an eye out on the in-fighting there . . .

I think JM might be right in suggesting that it was the on-stage folk at the Reunion who were not "ready" to be dangerous; on the other hand, I don't believe that a large disparate group of 12? 13? people, including a creator, several writers, and a bunch of cast members of differing levels of involvement, interest, and eloquence, is ever going to provide danger or great searing insight at an event of this kind.

The Reunion was essentially a celebration of the show, and not a place to get brutally honest answers about the most controversial issues. That's one reason why I didn't mind (wow, I said it again) the audience questions - because, essentially, there are relatively few inquiries that every guest could respond to other than questions along the lines of: what was your favorite moment/memory/scene/sweater? Furthermore, if you asked, why did X character behave that way in that scene or episode?, or even deeper questions about the show's arc or meaning, chances are the actor wouldn't know what you were talking about, remember, or have a strong opinion about it (we're the fans, they do this for a living, and I don't think they go back and rewatch eps endlessly like we do). I get James' frustration, but I don't know that it could have worked out any differently. For that you need a smaller group, a more intimate setting, and a few strong drinks. :-)

SoddingNancyTribe | July 11, 08:12 CET

Just curious. Is it actually acceptable to refer to the actors or crew on the show as "ultimate whiny fangirls" or dicks?
I thought this was a different kind of site.

Xane | July 11, 08:31 CET

I don't read any of this interview as being particularly subversive. Rather, it sounds like JM was in somewhat of a flippant mood, and we may just be analyzing his comments too much.
But here goes, anyway.

As for the reunion, it sounds like the actors are still protective of their characters and their time on the show, which is kinda nice. James obviously wanted to get a few things off his (no longer naked?) chest, but didn't feel it was the right context. Or, he could be peeved as he couldn't get a word in during the limited time the panel ran for.

I always liked Big Bad Spike more than whining, Buffy-whipped Spike. That's why I loved his turn in 'As You Were', you can neuter a bad guy, surround him with goodness but you can't inherently change their nature. Thus, actor interpretation aside, when he eventually chose to wear the amulet, he did make the sacrifice after all. (Alternate ending- Faith in flames would have been an absolute corker and still freed up Spike for S5 of 'Angel'. Which we all knew was happening, anyway, thus the 'power' of the sacrifice was, for me at least, kind of negated.)

Given that the end of S7 was about sharing power, it would have been a little dodgy to be Potential-free. They were a means to an end and a lead-in to S8. But I never did understand why Dawn, made from Slayer blood with all it's inherent mystical properties, was never a Slayer herself.

I grew to like Xander less and less and I always felt his story was kind of done. (Shock revelation- I didn't even miss him in CWDP!) I would have liked to have seen HIM on the outer over the whole 'Willow says kick his ass' biz, which was hinted at, but quickly glossed over. He could have been off rounding up the Potentials and training them to make a last minute surprise army for Buffy, thus redeeming himself and making a nice segue into his role in the S8 comic. It would have freed up room for the notorious 'fat suit' epi as, Andrew aside, S7 was lacking in funny. Also the famed Tara 'Shoe Wish' one. (That's just for you, Dana 5140.)

And added bonus, no live-in Potentials would have prevented the rise of 'Loves-To-Lecture-Buffy'!

missb | July 11, 08:31 CET

You may have seen me warn him for that; it is absolutely not acceptable.

zeitgeist | July 11, 08:42 CET

I've seen a few videos of James talking extemporaneously at conventions in responding to fan questions, and he can really be out there. I was kind of like, "Whoa," at one thing he was talking about, something really personal. So I don't see anything very egotistical or malicious about what he was saying in the Sci-Fi article. Just seems like James. And the man has a right to his opinion. It seems the Paleyfest Reunion was a bit on the bland side, but when I think about whether I would want there to be a down and dirty discussion of things that went on, personal revelations and so on, my mind automatically screeches to a stop, shrieking, "No! Don't destroy the mystery that exists."

I just hope James never writes a Barbara Walters tell-all (yes, I'm joking). :-)

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-07-11 05:45 ]

Tonya J | July 11, 08:44 CET

Aside from the iPod question, I thought the Paleyfest Reunion was pretty interesting. There were simply too many panelists and not enough time.

As for what JM said in this interview...well, he's not the only Jossverse actor who's expressed displeasure or concern over storylines at one time or another. A short list off the top of my head of the actors who've done the same would include Seth Green, Robia La Morte, Amber Benson and Christian Kane.

menomegirl | July 11, 08:53 CET

Could you give more detail about Seth Green's? I haven't heard anything about this.

Jobo | July 11, 09:41 CET

"It makes me appreciate that you guys are letting your freak out! I had a lot of the best times of my life with Spock ears [at conventions]. There are a lot of intelligent, interesting, wonderfully weird people in my fan base."

He *so* rawks my socks. :)

Lunakitty | July 11, 09:59 CET

Two observations: one, this is a convention panel -- it says right at the start "talking with the audience" -- not an interview, so Mr. Marsters is indeed in convention panel mode.

Two, I took it from the context of these comments and previous other interviews that what he means about Spike not sacrificing himself is that Spike took the amulet not knowing *what* it did. He knew it was dangerous, but not lethal. I think he meant that he'd rather Spike make an informed, intentional choice to sacrifice himself rather than, as it were, going with the flow once that sacrifice was in motion.

[ edited by Shapenew on 2008-07-11 07:50 ]

Shapenew | July 11, 10:25 CET

Good point, Shapenew. There is an important difference there, isn't it?

(And one final S7 comment before I go crazy and fall asleep: a lot of BtVS gets better on a re-watch. Might be there's gold in that season we're overlooking.)

ManEnoughToAdmitIt | July 11, 10:49 CET

ManEnoughToAdmitIt, I think that in interviews with the press, interviewees -- whoever they are and whatever they are being interviewed about -- tend to think about how it will look in print or on the TV screen, whereas people appearing at a convention panel tend to be more aware of how comments will go over at that moment. Also, the interview format, particularly one-on-one, lends itself more to follow-up questions, including the ever-popular "What did you mean by that last answer?", whereas at convention panels, it's more likely the next question will be totally unrelated, because whoever got up to ask the next question wants to ask whatever originally got him or her on their feet to ask it, rather than thinking, "I'd better try to get clarification on that quote ..."

Or did you mean the distinction about the sacrifice was the important difference? :)

Shapenew | July 11, 10:55 CET

I found the thing about Joss underusing Spike in "his" episodes, since Spike always had such great stuff in Joss' episodes (though he is MIA in "The Body") but: he's got plenty of fun in "Hush", reveals Tara's un-demon-ness in "Family", he's got some speechiness and heroism in "The Gift", he saves the day in "Once More With Feeling", and yeah, for serious, gets to save the world in "Chosen."

I dunno, just saying.

streetartist | July 11, 11:13 CET

Furthermore, if you asked, why did X character behave that way in that scene or episode?, or even deeper questions about the show's arc or meaning, chances are the actor wouldn't know what you were talking about...

Now, granted my experience of actors is with theater actors when I was growing up, almost all of whom were capable of engaging in precisely that sort of conversation, but in all honesty I'd rather not even attempt to get into a discussion with any actor if they (the actors) are of the type you describe there. How boring.

Or, maybe that's just me. I'd far and away rather have a conversation with an actor, or a writer, about the creative end of things, about precisely things like "why did X character behave that way" or "the show's arc or meaning", and I'd have zero interest in knowing what's on their iPod or getting them to sign my DVDs. Perhaps that preference blinds me to not all actors being like the ones I grew up with.

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-07-11 08:39 ]

theonetruebix | July 11, 11:30 CET

Is it weird that my vision of a Spike spin off wasn't too far off what JM said? (Only mine had Illyria as sidekick.)

Love's Bitch | July 11, 12:13 CET

I completely agree with James about the Spike comment. Spike ended up being Buffys champion, and wearing that amulet (which nobody had any idea about, really) when they opened the hellmouth with no actual plan besides just staking the countless amount of ybervamps (one of which proved to almost be a match for Buffy earlier...).

Now, spike wore the amulet, joined the fight, but he didn't choose the sacrifice, it just happened and he accepted it as an afterthought. Ended saving the world as the original plan was clearly failing and the übervamps were overwhelming the slayers, but there was no choise on the action.

Eerikki | July 11, 13:39 CET

Sometimes my beloved Buffy fandom makes me so happy...

Sometimes, like now, it makes me die a little inside. I dont really want to explain why.

Beren77 | July 11, 14:25 CET

To me, Spike saved the world, though. Willow did a neat trick, but I think that Spike is what saved the world.

Interesting. I still maintain that Buffy saved the world (again ?! Jeez, talk about hogging the limelight ;) when she (literally) stood in the face of evil after The First delivered what would, to others, probably be a mortal wound (and even to a Slayer it was arguably a "lay down" wound i.e. she could have just quit there and then, given up the ghost, without being seen as defective or cowardly).

I don't think the plan was "clearly failing", the tide had turned back in the Slayers' favour - after Buffy stands we see Faith fight off her multiple attackers, we see a couple of the Potentiateds kill their uber-vamps and, just as important, the music swells ;). Would they have won as quickly ? Absolutely not - I could even envision a long drawn out war where other Slayers were needed to come and defend the hellmouth - but they'd still have won IMO.

(really, if the whole thing led up to them needing to be saved by a man with a very deus ex-ish device then, for me, The Message would have been pretty much cast aside. Course, the amulet might well have been charged by the Slayers' kills or even by Buffy's stand so maybe The Message was about equality in the true sense i.e. helping each other and complementing each others' frailties)

And I can understand JM's comments, even if I don't agree (since for me Spike's arc is second - some days ;) - only to Wesley's as far as Whedonverse journeys go) and certainly respect his honesty. It's a different bag of kettles when you're in the day to day making of the show, filming scenes out of order etc. He probably has a fairly different view of Spike's arc than we, with our 7 year, long game overview might.

Saje | July 11, 14:27 CET

Re: James' contention that Joss tended to underuse him in his scripts, I think it is somewhat true but incomplete. The Joss episodes from season four onwards included "Who Are You," "Restless," "Family," and "Lessons" which all had a small amount of Spike scenes (though I would argue the ones there were pivotal), and "The Body" which included none at all. For the most part, there are simple reasons for this: "Family" and "Who Are You" had tight focuses on Tara and Faith respectively, "Restless" sidelined everyone besides the Core Four, "Lessons" saved his reveal for the end, and I think it's quite reasonable to expect him not to appear in "The Body." "Hush," "The Gift" and "Once More, With Feeling" were all pretty ensemble-y, so no real problems there.

The thing about "Chosen," is that it was a very, very Buffy-centric episode--Spike probably had the second most material of any character, but it was still less than James might have been used to.

So I understand where James is coming from, but I think that Joss still does understand and write Spike incredibly well; even if the quantity isn't there, the quality is.

On another note, I agree with many of the criticisms of season seven, but want to chime in to say that Wood and Andrew were strong contributions. I think the season probably could have stood a lot more explicit structuring; Spike got a lot of material later in the season, but started it just being crazy in the basement. Willow had terrific, quiet material early on but her darkness was never really dealt with after "The Killer in Me." Xander was really cool in season seven, but didn't have much to do. And so on. A lot of these are being dealt with in Season Eight, in my opinion, and I do think that the Willow material is building in the right direction. Her speech to Kennedy in the flashbacks of "Anywhere But Here" was one of the strongest and most revelatory Willow moments since the end of S6.

WilliamTheB | July 11, 14:31 CET

I understand what James is saying about Spike not being able to choose. It would have been more of a heroic moment for Spike if he had known what the amulet did, and chances are, he would have chosen to wear it anyway. That line of thinking ties in with the "journey of the hero".

On the other hand, Spike had a habit of throwing himself into the fray without knowing how things would turn out, or just deviating suddenly from whatever plan he had carefully worked out. So again, he would have chosen to wear the amulet.

Either way, Spike helps save the world and is a hero. I remember watching that final episode with my son, and we were both devistated that Spike died, but also in awe at the sacrifice. At the time, it worked. It's only afterwards, when I understood how deeply involved Wolfram and Hart were in all the workings of evil and how easily Lindsey managed to manipulate the return of Spike, that it bothered me that so little was known or explained. If anything was glossed over, it was that.

[ edited by MysticSlug on 2008-07-11 11:51 ]

MysticSlug | July 11, 14:45 CET

I pretty much watched season seven for Spike's story, because the Potentials drove me crazy. They sucked up time for the rest of the cast. And I still don't find the end 'empowering' as a woman. A bunch of girls got super-powers, and a bunch didn't. I guess it's supposed to be a metaphor, but it doesn't work for me.

I think by James means he wanted self-sacrifice for Spike in a more pro-active way - not putting on a necklace that nobody knew what would do, and standing there.

redeem147 | July 11, 15:21 CET

Shapenew got it right. Spike had no idea that his end was going to be in a fiery dusting via gaudy amulet. I don’t think Spike ever minded in his vampire years to die (be it for the good, the bad or just for the hell of it)– if it was going down fighting with fist and fang. We all still recall his comments to Angel in the final fight about not wanting any amulets.



I think he died a heroic death. But, taking a moment to precariously place my self in Spike’s boots, it was really a sad death. Poignant for his fans (and maybe Buffy) but I think he was standing there, can’t move because well, he can’t – thinking “Bloody hell, I signed up for a fight, not to stand and look pretty as I burn in a heavenly glow”.

Btw, I hated how the potentials took so much time from everyone. So much ‘potential’ storylines were driven out: I like my chars bonding. I needed them to bond. *sniff*

Mirage | July 11, 15:36 CET

Xander would probably make it look like he was saving Spike but then let go of his hand as he was pulling him up, dropping him on Angel in the process. Why save one when he could let both drop. ;)

I get what James was saying about the choice Spike didn't have in the way the story played out. He went into the situation knowing the amulet was dangerous but I'm certain he had planned to walk away from the battle given half a chance. If it had been written that whoever wore the amulet knew they wouldn't be coming back, no matter what, it would have been a completely different deal for the character to choose to make that sacrifice.

I've always believed that the Potentials were a mistake, but not so much in relation to Spike's role in season seven. I'm as big a Spike fan as there is. Frankly he was the reason I loved the Buffyverse as much as I did and the reason I still refer to "Angel the Series" as "Spike's Sire Gets His Own Show Until Spike Is Free To Come To LA In Season Five" (just kidding, Angel fans ;)). Even so, I think season seven of Buffy was very kind to the character of Spike and his fanbase. Xander, Anya and Dawn were really the characters that suffered with the arrival of the Potentials.

Interesting that James still feels so protective of Spike the character to the point where he is afraid to read ATF. It's nice that he still cares so much about the role. I'm happy to be proven wrong but my instinct is that if DB were asked the same question about Angel in the comics, he would be far less inclined to care about what they do with his old character. Again, could be wrong, but I'd be interested to hear his opinion either way.

And, James, I know you are still kidding but no matter how often you mention it, your Spike movie plot idea sucks. ;)

Highlander | July 11, 15:51 CET

Well, they certainly all contributed, but I didn't see a limited number of Slayer wannabes closing the Hellmouth, I saw them them slowly getting overrun. I like the idea about the Slayers somehow charging the amulet and agree that a man saving everything with a deus ex machina at the last moment is a little bit counter to the story. However, he was just closing it off (and I don't think a man helping finish things up, a sort of balance of power, endangered the message of empowerment and subverion of patriarchal power structure that came from the 'shared power' choice that Buffy made and Willow helped enact -- both women, those two), something he (I believe) chose to do because of where he'd come to in his journey and I think he made that sacrifice largely because of who Buffy was and what she meant to him. I think that our William knew what he was in for on some level and chose it, so I still disagree about this being some "oh crap, wouldn't'a done that if I knew" sort of death that was thrust upon him. Re: his "no amulets" joke in Angel, it was a joke and was largely predicated upon the character of Spiking shedding what he'd learned in the last season and more of Buffy to go back to being Season Four or so Spike. I'm frankly surprised that James loved Spike so much on Angel given his talk of Spike's journey as a character. I also find that Spike and Wesley are my two favorite large and massive change-y arcs. One could even argue, if they chose to get all academic and film historical-y, that Spike often played a role previously relegated to women, while Buffy played a role more often occupied by a man. So what's wrong with empowering the woman's role as opposed to the literal woman? That's a rhetorical question ;)

zeitgeist | July 11, 15:52 CET

"I also find that Spike and Wesley are my two favorite large and massive change-y arcs."

Thirding that, zeitgeist, although I'd probably have to add Willow to the list too. Those three characters were easily the most changed by their experiences over the years and for that reason the most interesting for me to watch.

Highlander | July 11, 16:03 CET

I do wish to note a serious comment. In my real life, I serve as the human protections administrator at my college, and as a physician, I am enrolled in a master's of arts program in bioethics and public health- so when I speak of "against their will" and "consent" it has a very specific meaning to me, which it may not to others. You see, you cannot consent (to medical research, for example), if you are not fully informed. Consent requires comprehension, competence, and lack of coercion, and obviously not all of these were met when Willow cast her spell. It is simply impossible to determine whether anyone felt that they were activated "against their will" but we can quite definitively state that consent was never obtained, and an after-the-fact acceptance of "what is" would never stand a legal challenge- but of course, I am reading too deep here; it is just a story- but as we saw, there really were repercussions to that activation, which is why I mentioned Dana, someone who patently should not have been activated. And the instability of magic and slayers in the current story.

As to Tara and her controversy, that remains active. I may be the sole voice here harping on the issue, but on other boards, there is still a significant amount of debate. That's just reality. And no big, but it is still out there, and like I said, not just because I post on whedonesque and raise the issue- which got brought up because we were trying to respond to what JM was referring to with his comment.

In any event, S7 is the season I almost never watch. It just does not resonate with me, which is key to my viewing pleasure. And I need to identify with someone, and in Buffy that was always Willow, but she is so reduced in S7 that it is painful to me. The most incomprehensible issue to me was the elevation of Andrew, a character I honestly loath. I could live with Wood, as he has some depth- I like his fake out on Faith and his comment to her about her ability at sex. But Andrew is all surface, comic relief and all ambiguity.

redeem makes an interesting comment and one I need to think about: "A bunch of girls got super-powers, and a bunch didn't. I guess it's supposed to be a metaphor, but it doesn't work for me." If you did not earn you powers, but were given them, have you truly been "empowered?" Now, I accept the metaphor here, and I like it, but as an academic, I find this a question that might be worth exploring. Bringers were killing girls who were potentials but did not know it; Willow empowered them and Giles found them, and what did the girls do to earn any of it? Giles found them because they were in danger, without their knowing why or really anything. So did they come with Giles out of a willingness to fight the fight or out of fear, or what, and how did so many leave their families? Hmm, new questions! :-)

Dana5140 | July 11, 16:05 CET

I've always hated the Potentials I'm afraid. In season seven they were but faceless canon fodder half the time, and just didn't 'do it' for me on any level. A tradition that carries as far as I'm concerned in season 8, but I digress.

The ending of season seven, with Buffy's 'so called' empowerment spell always gets to me. I mean she was guilty of doing to others what the shadowmen did to the original Slayer. She dumped a whole load of unwanted powers, together with it's life changing effects onto these girls who had no idea what was happening to them.

As a story I wish something else had been devised to defeat the First, as it just doesn't work me at all.

Back to the topic in hand. I've been told by a few online that this 'interview' isn't as such, but It's been cobbled together from various convention Q &A's which would explain a lot.

James is more then entitled to his own ideas, but he is after all seeing things from a different perspective to that of the writers, who are the ones who are capable of seeing the 'bigger picture' when it comes to the show. Unlike the actors who are mainly concerned with just their own character.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-07-11 13:35 ]

sueworld2003 | July 11, 16:22 CET

Good questions raised, Dana. I used to view the show primarily through Willow (I still love ya, Will, but we gotta have some words ;)), so some of this is of particular interest to me. You are right that this was something thrust upon them, and it has always been so with Slayer-hood. I think that they all coming running to the 'dale out of fear, personally rather that any desire to fight the fight that was forced upon them. They thought that being there might be their best chance of survivial. Of course the Tara debate is still out there, because of who she was, what she meant to fans, and what she meant to Willow and how what happened to her changed Willow's course.

I find that S7 is immensely better in compressed viewing, but anyone's mileage may vary on that. I also find Andrew to be fascinating and don't dismiss him as readily as others do. He is often played for comic relief or in a very surface-y way, but whats beneath that surface is really of great interest to me: someone who is kind of directionless and book smart, but emotionally immature being swept along by feelings they don't know what to do with. Someone who is not a leader, but who falls easily into sway of a great leader or great power or... oh, hey, he's kind of like another variant of Willow. Maybe that's why I feel strongly that is valuable.

PS - is it RAGBRAI time already? :))

zeitgeist | July 11, 16:24 CET

That explains a lot, sueworld. I knew I'd read some of those quotes but not others, which makes sense if it's a compilation of quotes and not an interview.

redeem147 | July 11, 17:01 CET