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
"It's a sham with yams. It's a yam sham."
11971 members | you are not logged in | 18 January 2021


May 18 2011

Favourite TV Romance Competition. Buffy & Angel are up against Glee's Kurt & Blaine and they're currently losing. Get over there and vote away! :)

I prefer Willow and Tara to every other couple on the show.
That's awful that they are losing to Kurt and Blaine. They have been together maybe 5 episodes, and only on screen heavily two of those episodes.
I dont know who Kurt & Blaine are. Or watch The Vampire Diaries either. I'm not down with the kids anymore.
Go to bed, old man! (translation: I have no idea who they are, either)
Yay! I adore Kurt and Blaine. And Damon and Elena. :) I guess I am down with the kids.

edited because I really need to pay a bit more attention to detail. I'm giving zeitgeist way too much ammunition today.

[ edited by IrrationaliTV on 2011-05-18 21:49 ]
Interesting phrasing :)
Klaine? Seriously that has to be the stupidest shipper name since, well, um ... there all pretty stupid I guess.
But but but... Darren Criss! This is a hard choice.
Considering who I like together - I voted Kurt and Blaine. :)
Sorry, gotta vote for Kurt and Blaine. Now if it was Buffy and Spike...
Oo that's a tricky choice. I like Kurt and Blaine's relationship a lot. Or did. Kurt's storyline wasn't enough to keep me watching Glee this season.
I voted Kurt and Blaine. Would go differently if it was Willow and Tara they were up against, but dude, it's Darren.
Oh, yuck. Glee? Really?
I watch Glee, I quite like it, but seriously? Any relationship on that is a joke.
Buffy and Angel obviously because they have had actual issues to deal with. Not saying a gay relationship in school isn't an issue, but maybe throw more at them. Other than being super supportive of each other they don't seem to deal with relationship issues like jealousy, fights(on anything other than prom outfits), mini break ups. Maybe I'm just looking for more drama, but they're treated with kids gloves on the show. Willow and Tara had a more realistic relationship that anyone(straight or gay) could identify with. So if voting for the political reasons then there surely are better examples of gay relationships on TV(Modern Family for example, and I hate that show!). Still waiting on the tragedy of Brittany and Santana...
Plus purely on aesthetics, Buffy and Angel are much more attractive. Sorry for being shallow.

[ edited by BlueSkies on 2011-05-19 01:35 ]
I'm with Einsy - between Buffy and Angel and Kurt and Blaine, I know where my heart lies. And I don't even really like Glee.
@BlueSkies -- Because being an out teen gay couple at a high school in the Midwest isn't an "actual issue"?

And yes, "shallow" is a very good description there.
With enisy and elowyn, otherwise I love Kurt, alas not that big a fan of Blaine. One-half against one-half equeals not voting.
I said that was an issue, but they don't seem to deal with "relationship" issues. Other than the bullying aspect they seem to have a sugar-coated relationship. It's not making much in the way of drama, Finn seems to be soaking all that up though.

I should have said superficial not shallow on that last point actually. Thanks for reminding me.
I really enjoyed the scene where Blaine admits he has no idea what he's doing, after we see him completely bomb his attempt to woo the guy at the mall he'd been admiring from a distance. That was very relationshippy. For that age, anyway. Especially for a gay kid in a small town. But I get what BlueSkies is saying (quite clearly the first time, I thought)-- from what I have seen of it, it is not a great example of a well developed couple dynamic. It just can't be. They have their age and incredible Glee-ness stacked against them there.
Glee isn't a drama. It's a musical dramedy on its most serious days. In award competitions, Glee is always in the comedy category. Perhaps some folks expect too much from what is basically a comedy musical that hits a few dramatic moments occasionally.
Wow, how cool is it that Buffy and Angel are still on lists like this? My vote went to Joss Whedon's energizer couple, Buffy and Angel. *g* He has to be so darn proud.
BetNoir: as a gay man myself, I firmly believe that for a television show, being a gay couple in high school in the Midwest isn't enough for good television. All too often, gay couples in fiction are given that one card to go with, and it really bothers me. It's very one-note.

No Glee/musical pun intended.
Perhaps some folks expect too much from what is basically a comedy musical that hits a few dramatic moments occasionally.

Maybe, but I'd be happy with something as little as actual character arcs. They don't even have to be good (e.g. S1 levels. They were enough for me.) Unfortunately Glee seems to have misplaced something along the way.
People are always saying that Glee "used to be good" or is "getting lame" or whatever. The show hasn't changed a single bit. Every 3rd or 4th episode is great and the rest is fun silly filler with music.
Umm, I'm sure people are allowed to have different opinions. S2 has been vastly inferior to S1 in every way. Glee has alway been suspect quality wise, but this season has been downright painful. I can't remember another show that has fallen so far so fast.*

*Except for maybe The Walking Dead, but thats another story.
Only watched Glee during season 1, considering I watch TV for great character development and intricate plots, it's just not for me. Why does short blonde-haired track lady care so much about some sad old Glee club? Why do they rehearse songs that are never actually performed in competitions?

I get that there is a camp aspect to it, but they go too far. I resent that pretty much everyone at my school watches it and has deemed it the "best show ever". -Hugs Buffy DVDs-
Kaan, you of course allowed (who decides these things?) to have an opinion even if it is wrong. :) You have plenty of company.
Kaan - I completely agree. They lost something along the way. My wife and I, from the beginning, fully acknowledged that "Glee" was never a *good* show, but damn, it was fun and delightful and just made you feel good after every episode... of the first season. I can't claim to know if it changed or if we did, but the second season has us rolling our eyes more than pumping our fists, tapping our feet impatiently rather than tapping joyfully. I know, I know. Why watch the show if we dislike it so much? I swear I'm not one of those people who needs to complain about something just to complain. We've kept watching this far because of the first season. We'll watch to the end of this season just to have some sense of closure. But then we're done and that'll be that.

popgoestheshelby - I totally get being frustrated by there being more questions than answers. However, in fairness, Sue Sylvester cares so much about the Glee Club because it threatens to take school funding money away from her program, the Cheerios. And they rehearse songs they don't perform basically for practice, so that when they do perform, they're not rusty. I agree that this is ridiculous since in real life they'd be non-stop practicing their performance songs, and last night's episode took the cake by establishing that they will be writing their Nationals song on the way to Nationals, BUT they at least do explain your particular questions away.

Now, if you wondered how the heck they seem to have enough clout and money to use fancy lighting and, in the first Gwyneth Paltrow episode, fancy water effects for the songs that they're just rehearsing, well, I would join you in wondering that exact same thing. :)
Now you want realism from a musical? Oh dear. Isn't that totally missing the point?
Wow, close vote in the end. Stopped watching 'Glee' at the end of season 1 (mainly cos the miming really bugged me and I didn't enjoy the show enough to see past it) so i'd have somewhat unfairly voted for Buffy/Angel (since Buffy/Clem almost never makes it onto these lists, despite their smoldering chemistry).
RE: IrrationaliTV

*cough* drhorriblessingalongblog *COUGH*

Suspension of disbelief means you allow them to start expressing their emotions in song (or become supervillains, etc). Suspension of disbelief doesn't mean the characters can change their personalities on a dime for the sake of whatever gimmick they're plugging that week. Look at any good musical you'll still see the thoughtful character arc that you expect in a hard hitting drama, whereby the events change the characters naturally from start to finish (or in a series, from week to week). Look at Sky's journey in Guys and Dolls. Or Eliza's journey in My Fair Lady. Or, perhaps, all of the characters' journeys in Once More With Feeling. Now look at Glee's character arcs: They start at point a, something happens, they stay at point a for several weeks, then shift to point b when the plot of the episode demands it, then usually shift back to point a until it's time for point c, ad infinitum.

These are professional television writers, and they can't keep a grip on where there characters are emotionally from one week to the next? Sheesh.
Coleberg, I'm aware of Glee's flaws. I said as much in my comments above. I also don't require every show I watch to be Deadwood or BSG or Buffy. I'm perfectly content to watch fun flawed material without viciously tearing it apart. I can appreciate the music, the funny one-liners and ignore the inconsistency without demanding some sort of strict continuity or perfection. Not everything has to be Kobe beef. Meatloaf is good too.
I wasn't saying it's not enjoyable, I myself only stopped watching partway through season 2 (why it took me so long to stop isn't a question I'm prepared to ask myself right now). I was just trying to confront the notion that a musical doesn't need to have logic. It's an argument I hear a lot, that because it's a musical it's automatically unrealistic, so why bother? It's also an argument that a lot of people use in reference to sci-fi and fantasy, and yet Buffy and Angel managed to have some of the truest characters and character developments of any television series.

I wouldn't argue against people watching flawed shows (I've been watching House and The Big Bang Theory for years, and they've never been shows with a firm grasp on how to evolve their characters). I just don't think it's right to excuse the flaws as a part of the genre, a genre in which the emotions of the characters are the most important aspect.
I agree about emotions and development of the character. What I was reacting to was the notion that it was unrealistic to have expensive "fancy" production values for the Gwyneth Paltrow Dancing in the Rain number. That type of device is very common in musicals and should be applauded not scoffed at.
Fair enough, though it could still be argued that it was meant to fit into the show's internal logic, which doesn't allow for the club to have that much money at their disposal (as opposed to the fantasy sequences). I can't really remember that episode well enough to argue either way, but I remember being highly irritated by the Rocky Horror episode, which posited that Will could plan the school musical within a week, cast it, rehearse it, recast it, costume it, get fancy effects, then cancel it after all the money that had been spent on it (also, he cast the entire show himself on a whim and without auditions, and then cast himself in a sexually explicit role opposite the students, proving himself to be the world's worst and most inappropriate teacher) without anyone higher up saying "Hey, where's our money gone?".
IrrationalTV - Like I meant to convey in my original post, it's really not that big a deal to me. It's cool if you don't agree with my taking issue with the money-woes inconsistencies. I was just mentioning that as a counter to the issues that someone else raised that the show actually has addressed. As far as I can recall, the show has always claimed that this club is underfunded. They often make mention of, if not have entire plots revolving around, the fact that the Glee club is the underdog in this school in pretty much every way except for the all important "having heart." Given that that's something that the show itself tells us often, I was just mentioning that it's odd that, when it's convenient, they seem to have whatever budget they need and use it, in the case I mentioned, arbitrarily and unnecessarily.

Again, really not a big deal to me. Honestly, it's not even something I would probably let get to me if I was still as delighted by the show as I was in the first season. Although I don't quite see why this ought to be applauded, I can at least see how I've upset you by scoffing at it. While I'll undoubtedly continue to scoff, I'll do so more privately, and less on message boards. My apologies.
XanMan, I'm not at all upset. Far from it. And I thought the fancy lighting and effects weren't supposed to be taken literally. Simply a bit of musical "magic". All of it disappeared as soon as the song was over. The song itself transports and the appropriate visuals follow. You weren't supposed to infer that those effects were really there.
OKay, I"m obviously late but I want to get back to the original subject. The Klaine ship is not a great TV romantic relationship. It is contrived, unbelievable and utterly lacking in substance or any interesting conflict. Don't get me wrong. I love Glee. But the writing on the show is inane, and only sometimes in a good way (the pilot being the only exception). It's pretty much all about the musical performances and Sue Sylvester's one liners.

In short, Buffy and Angel are the the obviously better choice. Indeed, pretty much ANY relationship written by Joss is better than pretty much any relationship from Glee.

Now, are you wit me or agin' me?
I just vote with the chemistry. ;) As I see it anyway.
Squishy(I love your name and always hear Dory from Nemo's voice when I read it, Ellen, right?), I'm with you. Underdeveloped is an understatement. I thought when they were giving him a love interest and a storyline this year that it would at least tap into the Dawson's Creek kind of dealing with being gay. Instead you just get to see how he keeps insisting that being gay means he should only sing girl parts, is an authority on fashion and other such stereotypes.
I'm not gay, or a man, or a gay man, but I expect these characters to not just be treated like political fodder. The relationship is an excuse to show two men together to get attention, there's no chemistry there, it's just filler. He'd be better off outting the bully and dating him. Kurt is now the most irritating character on the show. Hope they fix it for season 3, maybe focus on the fact that he's a better male lead than Finn, even Artie has more talent then Finn, how is that guy the head of the club?
I adore Kurt. He's the sweetest soul, and I have two gay friends that are JUST like that... fashionistas, pop culture whores, and completely out. They don't even know each other except through me.

In my experience as a straight woman, gay men have always been wonderful human beings and friends to me, no matter how they present themselves. Just because something is stereotypical doesn't mean it isn't true. Or that we should look down on it.

As much as I love Kurt, I agree with the poster that said that him and Blaine don't have much chemistry. Kurt is head and shoulders the better actor, and it is glaringly obvious in their scenes together.

Buffy and Angel, ftw. :D
Blueskies, I shall call him Squishy and he shall be my Squishy.

I also find Kurt to be a shallow, irritating stereotype . . . and an insufferable crybaby. And as far as chemistry goes, I just don't believe that Blaine -- a talented, positive, fun guy -- is into him. They have nothing in common.

I don't mind Finn but I do like some of Artie's performances, especially the recent Fleetwood Mac song, Never Going Back Again, and the Bob Marley rendition of One Love that he did with Puck.

[ edited by Squishy on 2011-05-20 05:51 ]
I generally think Glee is awful in every way but I keep watching because I love the Kurt character. He makes me cry in the way that no one did except Willow.
Yes!! Thank you Squishy! Now if all you posts could please begin with that line it'd make my day...everyday!

Xane, Kurt makes you cry? He makes me fast forward. More of the "dancing Asian" and the guy in the wheelchair please. Let's not even pretend like we don't all love Brittany and fondue for two. That should be a show on its own.
Glee was never a serious show for me (writing, character development or plot), I watch it to pass the time and they have the really amazing songs every 3rd episode or so. Kurt and Blaine are cute together and the first kiss had me on the edge of my seat and grinning so hard even though it was so obviously coming.

I'm a Spike/Buffy girl but compared to Angel/Buffy the Glee boys are still too young (relationship wise if we ignore the show) to get my vote. It was a close call in the end though! Great to see our fandom still kicking it hard after all these years and giving this kid show a good run.

Now if you want a relationship that would ruffle feathers (pun not intended but sure fits ;o) Dean/Castiel had been kicking butt and taking names! I watch the show and if you'd seen their episodes and especially the last couple, you cannot deny that there is something there. I wouldn't jump on the boyfriend bandwagon of course but it won't be a stretch to see some unrequited love from Castiel's side (what that guy did for him 'cause he believed in him, Romantic as hell) not to mention possessiveness/dependent issues from Dean (AND THE LOOKS, MAN! finale is almost upon us!).

This thread has been closed for new comments.

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