Well, after last time i'm going to avoid making any "wild assumptions" about what other peoples "wild assumptions" will be concerning the "tensions on set" to avoid creating a debate way longer than it needed to be, hehe.

What i will say however is that i was very pleased to hear her say specifically that she would be willing to play Anya again. Joss could very easily bring her back in many different ways, even physically, so there is a good chance that if a movie happens (fingers crossed) Emma will be amongst the cast where she belongs.

The Arcane | April 27, 14:17 CET

At least she made the "tensions on set" comment plural -- they know who they are -- so it doesn't come down to just one person.

It seems funny that she always seems to include some comment about how she would like to be doing other things -- perhaps even have more success at other things -- than acting, but it is acting that she continues to do.

palehorse | April 27, 14:31 CET

I think "wild assumtions" were exhausted in the last Emma post : ).

kaivaal | April 27, 14:32 CET

"And wild assumptions...couldn't drag me away..."

prufrock | April 27, 14:59 CET

"It seems funny that she always seems to include some comment about how she would like to be doing other things -- perhaps even have more success at other things -- than acting, but it is acting that she continues to do."

She's the female Hugh Grant. :)
Naw, I bet there are a number of succesful actors who feel uncertain about whether they're on the right path. But they have just enough love for it to always be second-guessing that feeling. The buts and excuses and the like.

forcorreo | April 27, 15:25 CET

"It wouldn't be smart for me to say, but the people I'm talking about know who they are..."

Then why fan the flames and mention anything at all? I really hope she's talking about other actors and not any powers that be because Hollywood is always so quick to label an actress "difficult". Maybe she's using the flames to burn her bridges so she can move on to something else.

bloodflowers | April 27, 15:56 CET

I don't understand why Emma was so unhappy with Anya's character development. I thought her character had some great arcs (more than she could ever expect anywhere else). Like James, her character started as a disposable villain, but the show gave Anya depth. On Buffy, (unlike her stint on 90210), Emma was allowed to develop into a fully fleshed-out 3-dimensional character. Whatever politics happened behind the scenes, Emma should be happy about the direction her character took in the four years she was on Buffy. It seems silly to me that supporting actors (that includes Michelle Trachtenberg) should complain that their roles were not bigger or more important. There's a reason the show is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".

mai | April 27, 16:45 CET

Well, if I were to read between the lines I'd say she had a problem with maybe Marti Noxon. And here's why I think that, she says "but in some ways I didn’t feel that character was reflective of everything I could do. And by the end, I felt very unappreciated by certain people. Almost everybody was great, but certain people…". It seems to me she may have been expressing her opinion on where she thought they should go with Anya or how Anya should grow and she wasn't getting the response she wanted back from those in charge - such as Marti Noxon. Joss Whedon wasn't as involved with BtVS the last couple of years and left the reins in Marti's hands. And then Emma goes on to say she would happily do a Buffy movie if Joss asks her, which to me indicates she knows he would be the one running things and she wouldn't have to deal with those people she won't name. Obviously if it was the other actresses and actors she would have to work with them directly.

But I agree that whether or not it was the writers, producers or other actors she was talking about it will get tiring to keep hearing her complain about her "difficulties" on the set because she will come across as difficult herself. Time to get over it Emma - you were brought on as a one time character who involved into this great character who had a ton of screen time and helped get your name out there.

As for her moving on to other things, I think she has with this movie by being the person behind the whole thing, yes she's the star but she is also the creative force that made it happen. Hit or not it could open other doors for her.

Firefly Flanatic | April 27, 16:50 CET

Agree with Simon and Bloodflowers et. al...enough with the half-baked recriminations and move on already...

Chris in Virginia | April 27, 17:00 CET

Considering that she's talking about feeling unappreciated because development of her character, it's pretty obvious she's
not talking about other actors.At least in mine opinion. I mean,
if even the star of the show wasn't able to change the bad
development of her own character despite trying, what actor
would be able to influence the development of somebody else's character?

ilanit | April 27, 17:06 CET

There's no way for the likes of us to be sure who Emma's talking about. I do wish she'd put a lid on these kinds of statements. Repeatedly issuing hyper-vague comments about problems doesn't help anyone and it actually makes Emma herself seem difficult. Time to concentrate solely on Bandwagon! It sounds like a fabulously funny film and I hope Emma goes far with it. I think she's a very talented comedienne.

phlebotinin | April 27, 17:32 CET

I agree. As a manager, I've interviewed hundreds of applicants. If an applicant criticized or complained about a previous employer or job (even if s/he was justified), I automatically removed them from consideration. Any HR person will tell you to never hire an applicant that complains about a previous employer because that person will most likely become a difficult employee. Besides, it's just not a classy thing to do.

mai | April 27, 17:52 CET

Who cares! She is getting interviews and coverage because of the popularity gained by BtVs. I think that she will continue to either complain about "certain people" or perhaps she is being misquoted. I know how the public likes a little bit of gossip - perhaps that is all it is.

magdelena | April 27, 18:03 CET

Just to defend Emma, since I've interviewed her twice, she honestly does not go about these interviews with an intent to knock the Buffy staff. Matter of fact, she doesn't really do Buffy-oriented interviews anymore because she tends to get asked those same questions about tension and such. She is just a very honest person. She doesn't want to lie so she answers to an extent and then it comes across "difficult" in fan perception because the writers/editors always make those comments the lead of the story (i.e. TVGuide and Darkworlds.)

As a writer, it was immediate to me how VERY telling the length of both those interviews come in to play. They weren't very long and only covered basically the tension on thet set issues, which infers they were brief snips from junkets or phone interviews. My new interview with her for The Official Buffy Magazine, where I talked to her for an hour, gives her the time to talk about a range of topics that show her not to be "difficult" in the least. Matter of fact, she is very warm about the show and her experiences on it, as well as showing she has a full life outside of what most features tend to only focus on. Sorry, I just wanted to vent and defend someone who is clearly getting the short end of the media stick right now.

TaraDi | April 27, 18:06 CET

thanks taraDi it was just about to turn into an emma bashing session.

willowzbitch | April 27, 18:24 CET

No Emma bashing from me. I really like her work and she seems overall to be a refreshing, fun person. Thanks for the behind the scenes look at interviewing Emma, TaraDi. My critiquing her choice to drop hints in interviews about problems on the Buffy set is just that, a critique. And frankly, a rather gentle one at that. Not bashing. Unless any degree of criticism is bashing in which case I suppose I'm guilty.

phlebotinin | April 27, 18:39 CET

Thanks for the insight TaraDi. It's nice that you've been able to have a sit down talk with her that lasts for an hour and get to know her. For the rest of us, this is what we get because we don't have the opportunity to ask questions on our own. When interview after interview mentions her "difficulties" on the set it is hard to ignore that. Yes, it's not her fault that is what the article ends up focusing on but if she didn't give them the ammo, they couldn't shoot the gun. I do understand and have said this before that a lot of these interviews probably only tell a small part of what was actually said but this is a subject that has been in various interviews and not just one.

I don't feel anyone was overly harsh here with their reactions but when that particular subject keeps coming up in every interview she does she should know how to handle it and not answer the question or "fan the flames" as Bloodflowers mentioned above. It's her choice afterall and it seems like, to me, that she is choosing to "fan the flames" by not just brushing it off and by choosing to be cryptic in just mentioning enough to keep it going and using terms like "most people were great but certain people weren't". Of course that leaves people reading the interview to start speculating on what exactly and who exactly is she talking about because she mentions enough to "fan the flames" but then won't go into any great detail.

And Willowzbitch - I don't see any bashing here - I see people commenting on one section and feeling that it could make her look difficult and wishing she'd move on from that one specific subject considering that it seems to come up in most interviews.

Firefly Flanatic | April 27, 18:42 CET

blwessels, you'd make a fine diplomat. Thanks, as always, for gracefully making your points.

phlebotinin | April 27, 18:49 CET

Phlebotinin - If only my two teenagers felt as you do! But thanks for the compliment!

Firefly Flanatic | April 27, 18:54 CET

I also didn't mean to infer anyone was bashing her here :) I was really commenting more on the unfair angles the other media outlets tend to focus her interviews on lately. If we are lucky, an interviewer gets maybe 10 questions to ask in a standard interview and then we wittle those down depending on editorial needs or space. Nick, Emma, Michelle, SMG...on down the line are always going to get a Buffy past or present question from now on, it's just a fact, but it's always a bit depressing when the outlets choose to ask the same thing over and over and then print the same thing over and over (sometimes out of context) further hammering in perceptions that really are only a part of what the person had to say. It's just the nature of the beast sometimes *sigh*

TaraDi | April 27, 19:44 CET

In all fairness, I'm a friend of the writer of this article - and this snippet is actually an unpublished bit from the interview he did for OC Weekly (which was previously featured on Whedonesque). He thought it would be of interest to the fans, so he put it up on Darkworlds.

He's a great guy, and really had nothing but wonderful things to say about the experience talking to Emma.

TheJoyofZeppo | April 27, 20:12 CET

Ah right thanks for that TheJoyofZeppo, and I've amended my subject line with your info.

Simon | April 27, 20:16 CET

Thanks for all that TaraDi. You've clearly made the point of how unclear all of this is : ). Anyone else seeing "The Eternal Human Struggle for Knowledge" here. Maybe we don't need to know.

We're also kinda falling into the hands of media, who are the real ones fanning the flames. This is exactly what they want when they decide to focus on something like Emma's troubles on BtVS, and not the things that really matter (the bad media I mean, not you Tara : P). They eat this hype for dinner, with a big mocking grin, and peeled grapes... It means we'll all want more, hence this new link, despite the last post about Emma being overwhelmingly for her. While I agree Emma could easily refuse to answer the questions on the topic, she's honest like Tara said, and really shouldn't have to worry about what she says.

kaivaal | April 27, 20:36 CET

Oh man, I should never speak - lol. TheJoyofZeppo, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to knock the author either, but it does illustrate what I was really talking about, which is the issue of context and how we as readers are at the mercy of the editorial decisions overall. The snippet w/o context does make it seem like Emma was just focusing on the negative and instead it was part of a whole which gives a much better overall perspective on Emma. Ok, I'm done now. Shutting up :)

TaraDi | April 27, 20:56 CET

If Ms. Caulfield spent two hours talking about her movie, and two minutes in those two hours mentioning Buffy, there are people who would zero in on those two minutes for scrutiny and dissection. It's not that she's dropping hints at all. It's that we're all trying to understand the behind-the-scenes stuff, at which we can only surmise.

It would be VERY easy to bring Anya back. I can think of a half dozen ways off the top of my head. I'm sure Joss could think of that many squared.

ZachsMind | April 27, 21:21 CET

I work in media relations, and what ZachsMind just described (i.e., 2 hours of substantive interview with one or two minutes of off-topic discussion becoming the focal point of an article) very often happens. That's why any interview subject needs to be disciplined about what she's saying, because the interviewer (and perhaps an editor) will use what seems most compelling to them.

Anybody see the movie "You've Got Mail"? I haven't, but we use a segment of it to illustrate how this kind of thing happens--the scene in the health club when the Hanks character, Joe Fox, is appalled that the only clip a TV story runs of him is a flippant remark about selling cheap books:

Joe Fox: [on the News] I sell cheap books, I do, so sue me.
Kevin: That's what you said?
Joe Fox: Well yeah - that's not *all* I said. I can't believe those bastards. I said we were *great*, I said you could sit and read for hours and no one will bother you. I said we have 150,000 titles. I showed them the New York section. I said we were a goddamn piazza. A place in the city where people can mingle & mix & be.
Kevin: "Piazza"?
Joe Fox: I was *eloquent* - Sh**.

Memo to Emma...deflect those questions about any rancor or politics on Buffy and move to your movie, about which I am very excited.

Chris in Virginia | April 27, 22:06 CET

Excellent example, Chris in Virginia. And excellent overall point -- it pithily sums up what many of us have posted.

phlebotinin | April 27, 23:31 CET

Isn't anyone going to ask me to describe in terrible detail all the ways I could bring Anyanka back from the dead? I'm chompin' at the bit over here.

Okay fine I'll shut up. =)

ZachsMind | April 28, 05:48 CET

Hey Zachsmind, I was wondering if you had any ideas on how they could bring Anyanka back?

Firefly Flanatic | April 28, 05:50 CET

i think anya should stay dead........sorry, but some deaths have to last........next thing you know, they'll bring back tara (lol)

norman | April 28, 06:34 CET

blwessels if you REALLY wanna know... *smirk* Here's a half dozen or so ways the Mutant Enemy writers could bring back Anyanka Jenkins.

1. Well the obvious one is that she never died. No one checked for her pulse. So after everyone else left, she crawled off to safety. Granted, how she survived the city cratering would be harder to explain. She'd need some form of transit. Any demonic or 'more powerful than you nyeah' character from D'Hoffryn to Lilah Morgan could pop in, make Anya promise fealty in return for the ride, and then pop her out. Easy.
   
2. As she feels her life draining, an ubervampire stops by her motionless form to drink from her wound. In her lightheaded stupor she starts giggling and says something about it tickling. She looks down, and the bloodthirsty ubervampire's throat just happens to be exposed. She lunges for it, practically in reflex. Voila. Anya's turned inadvertently -- by an UBERvamp. She starts going by the name "The Mistress" and turns into a super bad girl who's a cross between The Master and Glorificus with just a tad of Drusilla thrown in for good measure. The downside is that
   Emma Caulfield would require four hours of body makeup and wardrobe per day, and she'd end up bald and grotesque. I doubt Emma'd go for it.
   
3. Anya died in the Sunnydale Crater. That doesn't change. Technically. Instead, a temporal distortion that occurred back in the 1970s zaps Anyanka into 'now', AFTER she died. This temporally distorted version of Anya can't die, because eventually she has to go back in time to finish out her life. This becomes both a blessing and a curse, because she can't die but she also expects to have the powers of a vengeance demoness but doesn't because of what her future self did -- things this 1970s Anya doesn't understand and wants to dramatically change. So she's a living paradox. Any knowledge she gets about her death can cause her present to change because it means she doesn't do what she did do before, which could dramatically change how her future - everyone else's past - happens. So ultimately the Scoobies have to erase Anya's memory and send her back to the 70s in order to return temporal reality to normal.
   
4. Emma Caulfield comes back as a completely different character who happens to look like Anyanka. Turns out she's a distant relative to Aud and Olaf; before Aud turned Olaf into a troll and ran into D'Hoffryn. This girl is a descendant of Aud's, and drives Xander up the wall. In all kindsa ways. Yes, Aud could have had a child with Olaf before we saw them in the episode "Selfless."
   
5. Anyanka's body dies but her spirit remains on Earth. Apparently she's done too many bad deeds to go to any version of paradise, and there isn't a hell dimension that will take her because of the good deeds and because of the enemies she's made. She spent some time in some place called Purgatory but that sucked. Bored, she found her way back to Earth and is now an immaterial spirit. The people who were there at the end of Chosen can see her. To anyone else, she's an invisible ghost.
   
6. Andrew and Xander encounter a mysterious demon who promises to take them back in time to the moment when they had previously been forced to leave Anya's body behind. They get to Anyanka's body, bring her back into their present, and they take her to a hospital where she's put back together (turns out it was just a flesh wound) and she's good as new. Xander does this because he's learned he can't live without her, and Andrew feels guilty that she gave her life for him. However, after they're successful in all this, the mysterious demon reveals that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and everything's got a cost.
   
7. Anyanka the vengeance demon made A LOT OF enemies in her thousand years or so of vengeancing. So at the point of her death, a half dozen or so of her past victims show up to take her. In fact there's two or three different factions of her enemies who fight over her. First off they make certain she lives through the ubervamp attack. Why? Cuz they want to torture her. Which they do. A lot. Eventually of course she gets the upper hand and breaks free. Either that, or Xander and Andrew find out she's still alive and being held captive and they break her out.
   
8. Near her point of death, a very normal looking gal materializes with little fanfare, tells Anya she's 'qualifed' and is being 'recruited.' The normal looking girl then teleports Anya away from Sunnydale just before it craters, heals Anya up, and tells her she's got a new job. The girl likes Anya's past record, says she has good references (mentioned D'Hoffryn offhand) and hires her. Anya becomes one of many whose purpose is to go around the world helping people who are about to die cope with the transition. Anya becomes an Angel of Death. It's a forty hour a week job just like any other. There's some perks and some crap. She gets to teleport wherever she wants to again. However, now instead of sensing people who want revenge, she can only sense people who are about to die.

I got more, but I'll stop there. That's definitely a half dozen or so. =)
And yes of course I could write Tara back to life too. In fact I sorta did.

ZachsMind | April 28, 07:19 CET

yes they could always write some way to bring them back, hey maybe next we could bring back jesse, im sure there is a way :) (sorry i just dont like the idea of bringing everybody back, oh well i am only one person).

norman | April 28, 07:30 CET

Oh for goodness sake, Norman. This is television, we're talking about. Buffy died at least three times in seven years and came back every time. There've been over two hundred Lassies in my lifetime. And this is the WhedonVerse where the dead coming back to life is a given, not an exception. So if Anya didn't come back to life, that would be an indication that something is wrong. =)

ZachsMind | April 28, 07:44 CET

I actually agree with Norman.

Invisible Green | April 28, 08:20 CET

About the media focusing on the bad bits of interviews; surely people remember that Simpsons episode where they cut up Homer's interview and put all his words completely out of context and made him sound like a monster -- and you see the clock jumping all over the place in the background... : ), ahh man, that was so funny...

I agree with Norman too. I think bringing people back shouldn't be taken so lightly. Take Joyce for example. I thought it was the best decision the writers could have made to not actually see her again (before CWDP), as it could have completely undone what Joss had created with "The Body". Anya coming back wouldn't be as harsh, as her death was so sudden and wasn't really dealt with. But the effect was there for me, so it would kinda ruin it if she came back.

kaivaal | April 28, 08:50 CET

First let me make it clear: I love comic books.
However, I hate the comic book cliche of bringing back dead characters after they've been given a gret death scene/issue (episode, in TV characters' cases), especially if it had a feeling of finality. I hate the fanboy mentality that it'd be a great idea to bring a character back simply because they were well-loved (or for TV/movies: the actor was impressive). Sometimes fan-demanded resurrections turn out okay (The WB wouldn't have included Spike as a part of their negotiations with ME to greenlight this fifth season of Angel if he wasn't so insanely popular with fans). Luckily, though I was very skeptical at first and not very impressed with the way he was used in the first several episodes of the season, they've found a way to fit Spike into the storyline and make it more or less convincing, but more importantly, brought up a point of intrigue that many fans had been wondering about since Spike got his soul in Season 6--whether the Shanshu prophecy applies to Angel or him. Heck, Darla and Buffy were resurrections that worked out as well. But Anya? Why? So her character can peak at the beginning of the season (or movie, as the case would be), re: "Selfless", and then be kept around for the rest of the season/movie for the occasional one-liner while never surpassing the emotional depth and awesome character development she was given earlier on? No thanks. And Zachs, while a couple of your ideas are creative, most of them sound like terribly conceived fanfic ideas (yeah, I'm knocking fanfic. I've read some really great fanfic over the years, but let's face it, most of it is kinda horrific).

I can see why Emma would be a little bit bitter. It can't be all that fun to be pushed aside for inferior plotlines and characters, not to mention actors (most of the Potentials). I don't buy that BS about how she should be thankful that she got as much great material as she did simply because she was originally conceived as a one-off, and not be entitled to complain. Drawing parallels to when one applies to a run-of-the-mill job, and how you shouldn't criticize past employers (while I agree with that sentiment), that doesn't add up. TV shows are an artform and are going to be criticized. I think it's refreshing to see actors be honest about what they thought of their work rather than just going with the flow and being cheerleaders of a project simply because they were involved with it. It was in her contract to stick around for another season, I would've been pretty disappointed if I'd wasted nearly a year of my life involved in tripe like Buffy Season 7 (which, granted, did give her one of her best episodes in "Selfless", and I'm sure even the most critical person could find something to like in "CwDP" and/or "The Killer in Me" (despite Kennedy) and/or "Chosen", and perhaps a few others...unfortunately it just didn't all add up to make 22 episodes of overall impressive television, or even a dozen episodes for that matter...in my opinion). Also not working are reasonings of "It's called Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Yeah, 'cause they never found time to make room for the secondary characters and their storylines in previous seasons. I felt Season 7 was horribly unbalanced, and Anya one of the characters that, along with Xander and Dawn, suffered the most for it. And from what it sounds like, the actors did as well.

Kris | April 28, 10:17 CET