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
"My depth perceptions not exactly what it used to be."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 22 September 2014




Tweet







September 15 2010

Jane Espenson on Buffy Season 8 and more. A must-read interview.

Oh My God, she watched Torchwood without watching Doctor Who first? She is missing out bigtime!
She's missing out (IMO) BUT it's also completely unnecessary, a couple of fleeting appearances and mentions aside, 'Torchwood' stands alone from Who quite well. And 769 episodes is pretty daunting, even if you get a "best of" list from a hardcore fan (*cough* Russell T Davies *cough* ;). Puzzled by people worrying about the LGBT representation on the Starz 'Torchwood' though - do folk really have so little faith in Davies ? Why would he (and Julie Gardner) stay on if the show and characters were going to be sold down the river in that manner ?

Good interview with very minor spoilers for Jane's 'Firefly' short story and 'Caprica'. Like what she says about Dawn's opinion of Buffy's Buffyness and about feminism not being about making women paragons of virtue.

(and I see a future where Buffy's scarred and at peace. Best of both worlds. Yes, i'm saying she destroys the Borg)
Very good interview
Jane invented the word "Zima?"
Uh-huh. Next cometh some fizzy drink called 'Leto' or 'Vesna'... Lets give credit for what it is due, shall we? Zima means winter in Russian, but I suspect it was invented like 1000 years ago.
Well, Russian aside, I think in this case that Andrew was referring to the beverage which according to the "always correct" imdb:

When the Scoobies pressure Andrew for useful information about the evil Seal of Danzalthar, Andrew tries to squirm out of it by asking instead for a "cool, refreshing Zima." Buffy replies, "No Zima!" and Spike says, "Shut your face about the Zima, just talk." Jane Espenson, the writer of this episode and a co-executive producer of "Buffy," had some years before created the name "Zima" for the adult beverage while working for a marketing firm.


I hadn't heard that one before, if it is indeed true.
I agree that feminism isn't about (to borrow from Saje) "making women paragons of virture", but I don't really feel like that's the issue with Season 8. I think this interview fell pretty far wide of the point as far as feminism goes.

The rest was brilliant though. Also surprised that she hasn't watched any Doctor Who, but Torchwood stands alone quite nicely.
It should be called 'inventing the label' then, not the word. :)
And of course there's the actress Madeleine Zima :)
Jane invented her too? O_O

[ edited by BreathesStory on 2010-09-15 17:39 ]
So the bankrobbing was a feminist issue? But the noncon in Twilight wasn't?
To be fair, Twilight was mentioned. It just wasn't specified that the non-con was the thing of it. Jane addressed it from the perspective of decision-making based on the context implied by the bank robbing.
Hold on. Jane wrote a short story in the Firefly verse? Did I just not hear about this? Where can I read it?
"But "Counterintuitive Ways to a Goal" is a terrible title."

I love this. I can just picture it on the action-shot cover of that issue, and everyone picking it up going "Huh?"

She's neat. I liked her feminism comments.
Hold on. Jane wrote a short story in the Firefly verse? Did I just not hear about this? Where can I read it?


Yes. Yes. You'll find it in Firefly: Still Flying which is published by Titan Books. It came out a few months back.
mhm, could that comment about future timelines for Buffy be a spoiler for S8? It felt... meaningful.
Buffyfest: Buffy Season 8 has taken some criticism from fans who say that Buffy has lost her feminist message by way of her bank robbing, rogue slayers abusing their powers and the recent Twilight arc. How do you feel about Season 8 so far from a feminist perspective?

Jane Espenson: I hadn't heard that. I think if we try to make women characters better than we really are, then we're holding doors open for them. Let 'em be as disarmingly fallible as men. No one's better than anyone else—that's the important thing.


Jane is eloquent as always and I agree with what she says about portraying women as infallible as men. Equality is the name of the game.

However, I feel the question she was asked completely misses the nuance of the concerns about Twilight and also focuses on areas that are not being criticized for how they affect the feminist message of the series (since when have rogue Slayers doing naughty ever been brought up as feminist critique? Or Buffy's bankrobbing? Buffy's bankrobbing is constantly brought up as OOC, not a strike against the feminist message. :-/). Unless maybe someone was criticizing Season 8 for these reasons and doing a nonsensical feminist critique?

A far better question would've addressed the way dubious consent is constantly used as a plot device while rarely treated with the requisite care and sensitivity (e.g. the Slayer spell in Chosen). Furthermore, the question regarding what Buffy does in Twilight doesn't even fit well with Jane's answer as Buffy is acting under the influence of an outside force, so Buffy is in fact "better than [she] really [is]" in this instance.

I realize I'm beginning negative here, but I'd have loved to hear Jane really delve into the feminism of the story and instead I feel the way the story deals with feminism was improperly conveyed and as a result, Jane's answer didn't address the feminist critique of Season 8. It didn't even come close.

Okay, I'll list off some of the feminist critique:

+ No Future For You: Faith and Gigi bond in a bubble bath together. This is how women bond. This is who one shows women becoming intimate and trusting each other. Yeah, right. Which leads into the next concern...

+ The comics seemed to have inverted the gaze of the TV show from the female gaze to the male gaze: women are always baring their cleavage and showing a tantalizing midriff while the men look like they're afraid any bared skin will give them a cold. Women's skin is sexy and glimpses of their nudity are used to show how sexy they are, men's nudity is used only for when they're having sex or need to show off the Twilight symbol on their chest.

+ The feminist critique of Buffy's actions in Twilight is about how the story frames it: Angel, the love of her life, spends the entire season lying to her, manipulating her, even battering her, all to "push" her into transforming and physically becoming something else, to make her his match and his mate, to make her worthy. And when he pulls off the mask that might as well be metaphorically labeled Abusive Boyfriend, Buffy takes his word for it that it was done for her own good (because of an outside influence that amps up her love for Angel and overrides her indignation of his betrayal). The question then becomes that not only does Buffy become the forgiver of her abuser (just as Dawn does) without him offering any genuine remorse or regret (he justifies it--Baby, I had to hit you for your own good 'cause you don't know any better), but she's in part led to forgive him because of forces that warp and twist her own will. Again, dubious consent. Dubious consent occurs when there's any compromise of a person's autonomy.


That's the feminist concern. And the story isn't done yet so I'm waiting for Buffy to come to her senses and resent what was done to her (because it's in character for Buffy to cherish her free will, to have respect for her autonomy) just as she did in The Long Way Home: "We're being played, Xander. I'm not liking it." But the story still hasn't satisfactorily addressed this feminist concern of Buffy's self-respect. This isn't like Season 6 where she was depressed and very aware of what she was doing and hated herself for it: she had self-awareness of what was going on. That same self-awareness of herself and Angel is currently lacking. I hope it's addressed in the finale. The story is already addressing what Angel did and showing it in a negative light, but I'm waiting for the personal outrage from Buffy over how she was violated.

Color me deeply disappointed at how the feminist critique of the season was misrepresented in this question. As I would've loved to hear Jane's response, I consider this a missed opportunity.

Yes, I have many ~feelings~ on this subject.

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-09-15 21:23 ]
I would've loved to hear Jane's response, I consider this a missed opportunity.

Seconded.
Saje,
Jane need only watch the RTD era of Doctor Who to get a handle on the show. After all, it's the best.
Also, she's missed out on the introduction of Captain Jack AND why he can't die. Also, she's missed out on Rose Tyler, simply one of the best fictional characters created in the last ten years.
I have to agree with Emmie. I'm not as fierce on the feminism question (not nearly), but if the story is that Buffy was OK with Angel battering her (literally and metaphorically) into becoming Super Buffy, that's a real problem for me. Especially if the text treats it as a non-problem.

I know that when voicing the concerns of others that we don't share it's easy to misrepresent them (cause it's not your issue). But in this case I really wish we could get that question back. I need to hear from somebody at DH about this issue.

I've become very, very positive about the comics -- but if the comics leave Buffy embracing the guy who battered her into becoming what he wanted her to become in the pile of things the writers didn't notice enough to even comment on, it'll be a hard pill to swallow. (I still hope that it *is* meant to be a problem and that the story will treat it as one, but who knows?)
Angel didn't "batter" Buffy. I can't believe that word is even being tossed around. *rolls eyes, HARD*
He battered her. Metaphorically AND literally.

He battered both Buffy and Satsu in "A Beautiful Sunset". They were literally battered and covered in bandages in the pages following his attack. They're in a hospital room and everything. Not only were they battered, but the imagery deliberately portrays it as such (which makes me think it's meant to be a commentary on VAW).

Dismissing the battery (both literal and metaphorical) makes me roll my eyes...HARD.
Well said Emmie.
I would love to see Buffy get rid of those super powers and say she was not cool with being 'pushed' into having them!
Emmie- Me, too, well said. But as I sit here mulling and fussing and fretting, I think there is a disconnect, one that I am shocked to even offer, but it is this: we have the time and liberty to read into Buffy and consider all of the possible interpretations of the tale; Jane makes a living writing, and focuses solely on the story. I do not excuse the lack of consistency in the message, and the inversion of that initial Buffy message, but I can understand it in the context of a crazy busy life built around the need to be creative all the time in all circumstances. And I of course could be way, way wrong, too, but it's a thought.
Jane’s answer to the feminist critique did address the dubious consent issue to my mind. It is a complaint that smells of bad feminism, analogous with, or equal to trying to make women into paragons. The concept of dubious consent is used to absolve women of responsibility after having made poor choices, a concept that is in conflict with the important Buffyverse "principle" of taking responsibility for your actions. The criticism is formulated so to attack the crime of influencing a woman’s self-determination, but at the same time it tries to establish her as weak and responsibility-free.
The concept of dubious consent is used to absolve women of responsibility after having made poor choices

Just thought I'd let you know, you're stepping all over some feminist hot buttons with this.

I'm all ranted out, but the heart of the matter is eloquently summarized at this page.
Dubious consent is only one issue, though. For me the hot button is depicting Buffy as embracing the guy who just got finished telling her that he had to 'push' her into become super powered -- and by pushing he meant beating her up, undermining her confidence in herself, and defeating her and her army.

The related issue that they tried to deal with in the Riley one-shot was that Angel was also making the decision on what to do with the situation behind Buffy's back -- essentially de-protagonizing her. If the Riley one-shot was aimed at 'mopping up' that problem, all they did was succeed in hanging a lantern on it.

We'll see how it all boils down. It's a pity that the 'feminist' concerns got communicated as people being upset about Buffy robbing banks. Jane's answer to *that* was spot on, but it leaves the real questions out there on the table.

ETA: Riker The point's been made, but I'll repeat it because the eye roll was so annoying. Re-read #11 and tell me on what planet that's not battery.

[ edited by Maggie on 2010-09-16 00:02 ]

[ edited by Maggie on 2010-09-16 00:04 ]
Cheers, Xantastic1316. I'll take a look at that link.
Emmie --

+ The comics seemed to have inverted the gaze of the TV show from the female gaze to the male gaze: women are always baring their cleavage and showing a tantalizing midriff while the men look like they're afraid any bared skin will give them a cold. Women's skin is sexy and glimpses of their nudity are used to show how sexy they are, men's nudity is used only for when they're having sex or need to show off the Twilight symbol on their chest.


I've been disagreeing with this criticism since roughly the first issue, and still do. First, if the TV show was under the "female gaze" and this can be discerned through its' relative lack of cleavage or tantalizing midriff, I am glad I got the unedited and/or "male gaze" edition of the DVD sets, because cleavage and tantalizing midriff are everywhere. Everywhere. As liberally doused upon the lens as any of its contemporaries were.

Second, I'm having trouble reconciling how female nudity is used to show women are 'sexy' (objectifying), but male nudity (putatively non-objectivifying in Season 8?) is used "only for when they are having sex". I'm not disputing your placement of the male nudity (although Gratuitously Shirtless Xander -- renewing his membership in the Gratuitously Shirtless Men Society he joined in "Go Fish" and is treasurer of along with Angel, Spike, and Riley, and Wood's Guns -- is not having sex or showing a Twilight symbol in 8.06), but rather the notion that showing men nude "only" for the purpose of having sex is somehow not a form of sexual objectification. It reminds of the Giles line from "Potential" about how he's evil for taking the girls camping to not touch them.

The rest of the feminist critique though sounds pretty reasonable. Whether Jane is right or not and it's just normal fallibility (I think she has a good point) that Buffy has sex with Angel, it still carries with it the symbolism of a woman, discovering that the person whose been tormenting her and beating her up A) is doing it for her own good, and B) is doing it because he loves her, immediately deciding to accept his judgment and reward him with love. It's why I decided that "Love the Way You Lie" by Eminem (feat. Rihanna) is the new Buffy/Angel anthem as of 8.33.
We really didn't want to get into the consent issue in this interview. We started with 40 questions and it was more difficult than we can ever explain to cut them down...but getting into the details of Twilight-consent-glow stuff was certainly not going to make it into our final edit with Ms. Espenson. Kindly understand that with that question, we just wanted to address a few fan concerns without getting too far into the negative.
I don't think it was intentional, but the failure to include that aspect of the debate ultimately made the question misrepresentative of the issue. Or at the very least, clearly led Jane Espenson away from the actual root of the controversy surrounding that storyline. If there has ever been a debate over Buffy robbing banks as a function of the feminism of the story, I've missed it.

The question basically treated two different controversies in the fandom (namely, A) Buffy's personal morality with respect to robbing banks, etc., and B) the thematic issues for feminism that are in tension with storylines like the Slayer submitting -- both emotionally and sexually to the judgment of a man who decides he knows what's best for her) and treats them as fungible, interchangeable reactions in the audience. The question of whether it's weird or negative for Buffy to be robbing banks, and for fans to get mad about it is a different question from whether it's a failure of feminism for Buffy to A) sleep with Angel at all under the circumstances, and/or B) to do so with a very open question of whether she genuinely made the decision at all, and for fans to get mad about it.

For the most part, the interview was fun and informative, right down to some insight into how Jane picks titles for her stories, so overall, no complaints other than that one question.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2010-09-16 03:17 ]
Emmie-I have to agree with KingofCretins's disagreement with that nudity criticism. There was a lot of female skin shown on both Buffy and Angel. I haven't found the artwork of season 8 to be bothersome on that issue, unlike Angel: After The Fall, which frankly, is very irksome.
Thank you Buffyfest, it is always enjoyable/interesting to read what the PTB have to say about the story they are trying to tell. Your effort is appreciated.

Scott Allie already answered the question concerning consent in the space sex issue, there was no "non consent" issue.

My favorite part of this interview was in the statement that Dawn is wrong and that what makes Buffy so special is the girl she started as, meaning that Buffy has not lost her humanity. That is something that I have been arguing for YEARS.
@KingofCretins: I asked around about the bank-robbing thing, and apparently there was some feminist discussion at the time. (To the tune of: "Oh, so if women get power, they decide to rob banks?") Jane addressed this quite handily. However, the Twilight issues (feminism's more prevalent concern) fell by the wayside due to the conflation of the two issues.

@buffyfest: The interview really was quite nice, IMHO. That particular question (and answer) left me wanting, but the rest of it was a true joy to read.

@cheryl: Where did Scott Allie say that? All I've seen from him is that it was like being on drugs. (Which does not make the consent issues magically go away. See below.)

@anyone else who's curious

My disappointment is that it doesn't seem like anyone (interviewers OR writers) is really willing to address the concerns of the feminists in the Buffy fandom.

If even one writer would say "BOTH Buffy and Angel willfully and deliberately chose to have sex with each other", I would feel a whole lot better about it. Even to hear that my interpretation of the text is different form authorial intent would go a long way toward putting my mind at ease.

Instead, we get things like Scott Allie saying that it was like being on drugs...as if that makes the consent issues go away. It's not like Buffy and Angel sat down at a bar and said, "We'll have six shots of Twilight glow and a panty-dropper". Even accepting the idea that people can consent while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the Twilight glow is not a drug that either one of them elected to take. It was forced on them. Their punch was spiked. Someone slipped them a drug against their will. This makes me feel like both characters have been violated. The canon has not properly addressed that concern and neither have the writers.

To solve this (at least for me), one of two things would need to happen.

1) The writers explain that the consent issues have been misinterpreted. (See above re: "willfully and deliberately")

2) The characters confront the evil entity that has abused them, explain that they're not okay with being used like that (I'd rather have a "more you know" moment than to not address it at all), and then hopefully beat the crap out of said evil entity. If they beat the crap out of the evil entity without addressing the fact that they've been violated, I will be disappointed in the writers.

That ended up longer than I intended, but a lot of people don't seem to understand why feminists are angry, so I thought I'd try and explain it.
Can we stick to the actual content of the interview please? This is getting way off topic into things that have been discussed in the general comic threads a lot already.
My apologies. I'll try not to derail again.
menomegirl, it's not about the degree. Of course, After the Fall is more offensive in the T&A degree. It's about the inversion of the standard. Go watch Season 7 again and every single woman is not baring midriff and flashing cleavage. You can barely see skin. Now, think back to all the times Spike was naked. The gaze of the show was decidedly female in how it framed women. In the comics? It's not. Gigi and Faith's bubble bath. The constant need to contruct the comics images of women as being athletic and sexually appealing--check out their bods, they're hot! Compare Angel and Buffy in their Greek togas in Twilight and tell me why Buffy is almost naked (and we're almost getting side boob) but Angel is completely covered. I actually had a fan say to me it's cause Buffy is hotter. Sure, Buffy is hot. So is Angel. But Angel only gets naked for sex. Riley only bares skin to show his Twilight scar. While the women are all running around bouncing out of their tops just 'cause they happen to be in the scene so let's make them eye candy, gosh darnit.

It's not that Season 8 is worse than After the Fall. It's that BtVS the show was better. If the way After the Fall depicted women is the standard, then we're sunk. No. I want the standard of the show itself because it was rare to find the female gaze running things in network primetime.

Women's partial nudity (bared knees, cleavage, midriffs) is part of the way their character is designed in the comics. Men's nudity is purely functional and you won't be seeing their bodies (not even an upper arm bicep) unless it directly serves the narrative (i.e. men get naked for sex, men bare their chests to show off their scar). This is not how women were portrayed on the show. Even in the early seasons when Buffy was running around in shorter-than-short skirts, we still had Angel playing the eye candy (i.e. Tai Chi in the mansion anyone? Falling naked to the floor upon returning from hell?).

There is a difference. The sensibility has been inverted. Men's nudity is only functional. Women's nudity is overwhelmingly used to show how they're sexy (they're standing there, okay, have them be partially naked, alright good that shows off that they're women!). It's an important nuance and what's more, it's a dominant attitude in American culture. What's so disappointing to me was that BtVS by Seasons 6 and 7 stopped doing that and I was blissfully overdosing on female gaze. I don't have that in the comics. It's not there.

That said, I'm hopeful now that Spike is back that the sensibility will be inverted. If only because Whedon is so used to keeping this character naked at all turns. ;-)

[ edited by Emmie on 2010-09-16 08:54 ]
Riker, I seem to remember letting you back in this week on the condition that you would behave. Clearly that went the way of the dodo. So you're out for good this time.
menomegirl, it's not about the degree. Of course, After the Fall is more offensive in the T&A degree. It's about the inversion of the standard. Go watch Season 7 again and every single woman is not baring midriff and flashing cleavage. You can barely see skin. Now, think back to all the times Spike was naked. The gaze of the show was decidedly female in how it framed women. In the comics? It's not. Gigi and Faith's bubble bath. The constant need to contruct the comics images of women as being athletic and sexually appealing--check out their bods, they're hot! Compare Angel and Buffy in their Greek togas in Twilight and tell me why Buffy is almost naked (and we're almost getting side boob) but Angel is completely covered. I actually had a fan say to me it's cause Buffy is hotter. Sure, Buffy is hot. So is Angel. But Angel only gets naked for sex. Riley only bares skin to show his Twilight scar. While the women are all running around bouncing out of their tops just 'cause they happen to be in the scene so let's make them eye candy, gosh darnit.


The essential reason why this is still not persuasive to me at least and never really will be is that the dependent variables of "sexiness" and "presentation" are almost entirely subjective.

For instance, you defend the televised product on the basis that not every woman is baring the cleavage and/or tantalizing midriff, but that's an easy and factual statement to make about Season 8 as well. Indeed, other than 8.34, the above mentioned toga may be the only example of male-gaze-pulling skin from probably 8.26 on. And aside from Naked!Dawn (which repeats a gag from Season 2 as well), none since probably the end of "Time of Your Life". No cleavage, no midriff, not so much as some Zettai Ryouiki (only Genevieve for that one, if I remember). On the contrary, when in battle they are all dressed pragmatically, and even when relaxing, and even when they are not, the clothing is pretty normal Season 6/Season 7 clothing.

This sentence -- "The constant need to contruct the comics images of women as being athletic and sexually appealing--check out their bods, they're hot!" -- made me immediately smile wryly because I thought "check out their bods, they're hot!" is something that pretty universally happened when any camera of Joss Whedon, David Solomon, David Grossman, et al, favored the person of their actresses. I think you may be seeing the male gaze when really there is just life :)

To my mind, and my gaze, the times in Season 8 when I have discerned sexy for sexy's own sake in women have been --

1. Strip poker (which even the script demands be muted as much as possible)
2. Horny Skanky Buffy the Nurse (surrounded by two completely naked men).
3. Faith's transformation scene.
4. The bath.
5. Buffy/Satsu.
6. Probably at least one panel of Buffy in her Riley-dress.

Absolutely nothing else leaps out other than, and only now that you mention it, the toga (which is certainly no more revealing when showing Buffy seated than her costume in "Fear, Itself"). I'd say that for a 40 issue season -- and I assume we're not getting much more gratuitous female form this season -- six incidents is pretty okay. Where I can then flip around and say HSB Angel and Spike, and Xander in 8.06, give us a 3:1 ratio (I'm throwing 8.34 out completely)... but I think that would hold up on the show. I'd bet that if we got 30 odd people to write down all the time in 144 episodes of Buffy that sex appeal registered as standing out, it would be roughly 3:1 as often in female characters as male.

Obviously all this male gaze/female gaze and the methods of measuring it are by necessity pretty heteronormative, but there's only so many variables one can control. But I'm not kidding, I just can't look at the show that gave us Sarah Michelle Gellar's how-high-does-that-leg-go bathing scene isn't going to notch at least as many "holy crap them gals is hot" moments as it will "whoa that guy is hot" ones.

All... tentatively related to the interview, to be sure, but it still ultimately bears on one of the writing norms that all of them, including Jane, were following about not being gratuitously sexual or objectifying. I think this would have been a better question for Jane on the subject of feminism than would either other subject. When she writes a script, is she consciously constraining the gratuity of presentation, like we read in Joss' "The Long Way Home" script for the strip poker?

Just re-read the interview and... man that "in what timeline?" sure is odd. It would depend on how she said it, but that really does sound like it might be the classic convention-panel spoiler slip. I can't think of anything we've already seen that it could remotely connect to. I also clicked through on Buffyfest to the page discussing Season 9 hopes, and it has a page of sample art for "Buffy" done by Pia Guerra... when and for what was that created? Not actually Season 9, right? Because the sample is all clearly set in Sunnydale, much earlier Sunnydale.
I don't think there's a lot of substance to this sexification discussion one way or another, but it might be worth pointing out that if there's 3:1 female-male sex appeal, there's about three times as many female Buffy characters as there are guy characters. One panel of Xander shirtless is proportionately even to sexy Buffy, sexy Faith, and sexy Willow.
@KoC: The sample of Guerra's art you're talking about is pretty old, so no, I doubt it was an audition piece for S9.

ETA: Just took a closer look, and this one doesn't look all that familiar to me. Hmmm... But, I agree that it's definitely early Sunnydale days. That's definitely the Bronze. And I think I see Oz.

[ edited by wenxina on 2010-09-16 14:20 ]
Saje said:
"Puzzled by people worrying about the LGBT representation on the Starz 'Torchwood' though - do folk really have so little faith in Davies ? Why would he (and Julie Gardner) stay on if the show and characters were going to be sold down the river in that manner ?"

Not to mention, Starz is an uncensored premium cable channel that shies away from nothing, from what I've seen in the two shows of theirs that I've watched through so far (the premiere seasons of both Spartacus and Gravity). Steve DeKnight promised more queer content on Spartacus (he may've specified that it'd mostly be of the male kind, not sure of that recollection) and I doubt he'd be making statements like that if he thought the network would object.

Speaking of Russel T. Davies, I finally saw The Second Coming. It was pretty good (though the commentary on the DVD didn't get into the meat of the piece, the story, as much as I was hoping for, it was more about the direction/cinematography and amusing anecdotes about the cast--guess I gotta venture into the mini-series' IMDB message board or something). Had something that might turn out to be kind of on-the-surface in common with Buffy Season 8, the way things are going: . Really missed seeing Christopher Eccleston and Leslie Sharp in stuff, should start renting UK TV again.

I knew the glossing over/not having the time or space to get into the Twilight issue would bring legitimate criticism, but I figured the certainty of Espenson's words about Prop 8 would've gotten an argumentative comment or two as well, since I know we have folks here who'd speak up on the subject. Or maybe they've given up on tackling that subject, since the vast majority of Whedonesquers [the vocal/non-lurking kind, at least] seem to mostly fall on the "No to Prop 8" side of things and would drown them out in the responding comments.

[ edited by Kris on 2010-09-17 00:12 ]

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