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
"He's got a husband's bulge."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 01 October 2014




Tweet







November 13 2004

(SPOILER) SyFy Portal article on The Grudge. But what i found more interesting were the author's comments about Sarah herself.

I'm usually very interested to read Scott Nance's opinions as i consider him to be a well above average journalist. However this article surprised me.

In one paragraph he states how the media manufacture stories about Sarah for their own purposes (giving the example of how her reasons for not appearing in the final episodes of Angel were widely misrepresented) but then straight after goes on to reproduce the quotes from the recent Big Issue article as seen on the BBC Cult website. However now they are even more easily taken out of context due to him "filling in the blanks" by making his own determination about what Sarah was saying, rather than actually pointing out that these are just three lines from an entire inerview and that for all he knows she may actually have been joking around with the "Joss yelling" comment.

Seems to me like you can't accuse the media of making up their own opinions one minute and then go on to do the exact same thing with limited information yourself in the exact same article.

I thought that this example of third hand information and chinese whisper journalism was a very apt way of proving how even the most trusted media sources can fuel the rumour mill.

Quick edit to add a spoiler tag for those who still haven't seen the movie yet.

I wish this was posted with a spoiler tag. Because now I know what I wish I didn't about the movie. Oh, well.
I did have a look around the site FAQ's to see about that actually electricspacegirl, needn't seem like one would be neccessary.

Sorry for that though. I'll add one now just in case for the sake of anyone else.
Well said, Senior Partner. You have hit the nail on the head.

Any comments Gellar makes about 'Buffy' are going to be scrutinised in minute detail, and interpretations will often be influenced by pre-existing opinions about her. It's a no-win situation. She will continue to be asked about 'Buffy' for some time to come. It's not as if she can just keep her mouth shut. She would be just as much criticised for doing that.

I have just received a phone call from my wife to tell me that she has found a copy of the Big Issue. I don't know if the full article fills in any of the blanks, but I am interested in reading the source interview rather than just the 'extracts' I have seen so far.

For what it's worth, in the latest edition of Esquire, Gellar is quoted as saying how proud she is of the show. "I truly believe that it is one of the greatest shows of all time and it will go down in history as that. And I don't feel that that is a cocky statement. We changed the way that people looked at television and looked at women leading shows."

Not being a reader of Esquire, and having a somewhat negative opinion of magazine of this type, I have no idea if the quote can be trusted as being 100% accurate, but contrary to what Scott Nance seems to be suggesting, Gellar frequently has positive things to say about 'Buffy'.
Sarah has grudge against Buffy character? Yeah, right. It is much more likely that for whatever
reasons Mr. Nance has grudge against SMG.

He seems to be suggesting that Sarah has to shut up and start playing some dumb blondes
(characters completely different from Buffy character) in romantic comedies. Perhaps because
then he could rip her apart for doing exactly that.
I find both SMG and DB comment's that we've seen in articles interesting. Of course we've seen comments from both them that are taken out of context. David himself at the Halloween event basically said to not pay attention to anything derogatory you may have heard from him about reappearing as Angel.

What I've YET to see is anything similar from AH or JM or others as far as negative comments. Perhaps what SMG and DB say, they say in jest, or only part of what they say gets made public. BUT, they said these things (as far as we know), no matter the context. As we've all seen, JM does nothing but worship Whedon, I don't think I've ever seen him or AH say anything negative about the 'verse. To me, the less fodder you give them the less likely articles like this one will appear and I think AH and JM know that.

Is it possible that AH and JM simply are more careful than others, more aware of how things can be taken when interviewed? I personally think they'd simply never bite the hand that fed them for so long. Not knocking SMG or anybody, or their right to point out the "not so good" as well as the good. Maybe the JMs and AHs simply aren't being as truthful/open, I don't know.

Don't know where I'm going with this, I just find it interesting that the ones that reportedly make the less than stellar comments are the same people time and time again. (Yes, I know the same comments get quoted til the end of time, especially if they're on the more negative side, thus making them more than they probably were meant to be).

Anyway, just batting some observations around...

[ edited by Gracie on 2004-11-13 16:19 ]
dashboardprophet - I asked for details of the Big Issue article but lince has already given me the link (see below). Thanks anyway.

[ edited by catalyst2 on 2004-11-13 16:26 ]

[ edited by catalyst2 on 2004-11-13 16:27 ]

[ edited by catalyst2 on 2004-11-13 16:46 ]

[ edited by catalyst2 on 2004-11-13 16:53 ]
catalyst2, you can find the full text of the Big Issue interview here: link
lince - thanks for the link. Seems that she was quoted correctly and in context, is how I read that.
The problem with the Big Issue interview is that it is more like retelling the interview by the interviewer,
including the actual Sarah quotes from time to time. No actual questions, no full answers.
lince - interesting how that reads. I was about to comment that that bit was complete but its nothing like. In fact, the 'lead' line has no question prior. I really missed that so thanks for the pointer!
Catalyst2, what i think becomes a lot clearer reading the quotes as part of the entire article is what she was in fact talking about. Having now read it all i think it shows the comments in a much better light.

We already knew that she was ready to move on during season seven, her personal opinion, fair enough. We already knew that she had issues with the outcome of season six, her personal view, again fair enough.

To me at least, reading this complete article is so much more enlightening and accurate than reading those three quotes from the BBC article. With the context of what she was saying now in place i don't think it sounds in anyway as bad as how it was originally assumed and she certainly shouldn't be condemned for any of those opinions because they are hardly unfair.

One thing the article does not do well is express the emotion of what she was saying, making the "Joss yelling" comment still unclear as to whether or not it was meant in jest. Without hearing the tone of her voice when she said this we possibly will never know for sure.
Senior Partner - I can only agree. Even though we don't get the whole context, it is already wound back a notch or two in harshness from the "original" BBC bite. Who knows what context/tone etc the 'Joss yells' part came with?
While I don't believe celebrities like SMG and DB should be held to every little statement they make about the shows that made them famous, I do think the author made a valid point about typecasting. There are good ways and bad to move on in your career.

On another note, I find it interesting that SMG is just now finding her Buffy fanbase important to her.
I do agree with the author in that SMG's choice of roles lends itself to comparisons to Buffy and if she wants to distance herself from that role she needs to expand upon the types of characters that she plays. Taking a part in a romantic comedy does not necessarily translate into playing a dumb blonde like someone suggested - there are good parts out there. The author mentioned AH doing Shakespeare, perhaps SMG could find a role set in another time period. Surely there are opportunities out there just waiting to be taken.
By the way, thanks to whoever it was (Simon at a guess) who removed the "edited by" line from my original post.

I knew it would look really untidy on the front page but i thought it best to add the spoiler tag anyway so cheers for the tidy up. :)
I've seen papal bulls that weren't as analysed and dissected as much as an SMG interview is.
I find it very reasonable that SMG is ambivalent about Buffy. She spent a long time on the show, and, if she was feeling toward the end that she should have had greater input, that makes sense. By then, she was older, more confident, etc. It also makes sense to me that she's chooses roles similar to Buffy—within her comfort area, perhaps. I recall a lot of discussion when the first pics of "The Grudge" came out that SMG had, perhaps, worn the same outfit in Buffy!
Personally I don't find "The Grudge" similar to BtVS. As the writer said Karen never fought back (but I just watched the original version, things may have been changed). I don't really believe SMG has grudge against Buffy Summers but I don't think she has warm feelings towards Joss or M.E.

I ,for one, find her sudden interest in BtVS& fans (or Angel last spring) very telling.
I ,for one, find her sudden interest in BtVS& fans (or Angel last spring) very telling.

What sudden interest?
Good article. I remember seeing 'The Grudge' trailer and thinking that Buffy would just so kick this thing's ass. It's pretty clear that SMG has some issuses with her 'Buffy' fame (don't reall blame her. I mean the cover of EW was "Buffy's Back" after all) yet, she keeps taking roles that can't help but make you think of Buffy which seems the primary reason she got the roles, anyway.


Great comment, Simon. Very funny.
I've always felt SMG was appreciative of her fans.

I was disturbed by the author's need to compare Sarah to Ally Personally, I thought the American Pie role had Willow stamped all over it. But what that has to do with Sarah, I don't know.

The desire for Sarah to come down, on one side or the other, loving or hating her time on Buffy, makes no sense. She had a high-profile, long-term job, which required more contact with her co-workers than most of us are required to have.

That she has complex, sometimes conflicting feelings about her time on Buffy is normal. Most people have at least some conflict with their boss. Most of us discuss it with friends, family and co-workers. If we had people interviewing us, asking about our jobs, we'd probably say things that were less than flattering to our bosses from time to time.

I love the irony that in this interview, the author thinks Sarah is saying too much, as opposed to interview (in a British newspaper? I don't remember.) published last week, in which the author faulted her for not being forthcoming enough.
One thing the article does not do well is express the emotion of what she was saying, making the "Joss yelling" comment still unclear as to whether or not it was meant in jest.

Hubby and I were just watching (or listening rather) to Joss' commentary for Welcome to the Hellmouth. In that he states that SMG would come to him and tell him if she thought things weren't working with a scene or if her performance wasn't what she had wanted it to be(ie she played it too angry and should have been more subtle), and basically he was complimenting her on what a consumate actress she was in those instances(granted, it was more about the acting angle than anything else), and he didn't seem to be angry about her giving input.
And it seems to me, if she gave input on how a particular character should act, Joss may hear her out, but ultimately he would go with his own gut. But I can't imagine him yelling at her for giving her opinion. To me, the fine line would lie in how one presents their opinion to someone in authority. If you come off with an attitude, people are less likely to abide your comments, and in that case I could see some tense exchanges. But otherwise, I don't see why someone would get upset with just listening to someone else's thoughts.
What sudden interest?

Her sudden interest in talking about Whedonverse and her character in the universe. It's clear she's not happy with it but seems cannot stop talking about her displeasure. Granted, the media always mentions Buffy but Ms.Gellar never fails to talk about her role and how wrong it was in the last couple of years.

Of course I don't blame her, she's out there in the big market and she needs her fanbase. Therefore comes the conventions, BtVS magazine interviews which she never did in the 5 years of the magazines run, the endless mentions of the show she's not happy with. Altough, I agree that the writer sounds like a fan than a professional.
Pelinxf, the simple fact is that pretty much every interview i saw her do on the Grudge tour included a reference (or ten) to her being Buffy. She couldn't have avoided the topic if she had tried.

The fact that she always answered with similar comments is probably because she is just trying to be honest in her answers about her feelings. Surely she comes across better having a solid opinion (whatever that may be) rather than constantly changing her position, one minute praising the show and the next pointing out her issues.

Basically she is being asked these questions and truthfully answering, that's fair enough for me.
Gellar successfully ignored Buffy while promoting the Scooby films.

[ edited by eddy on 2004-11-13 22:55 ]
I always find it funny how people start to complain how Sarah's interviews are 'dissected'. Since when the things said are positive, suddenly that dissection is fine and dandy. So what really bothers them is not the 'dissecting' as much as that people are possibly saying something less than entirely positive about her. And if that's what bugs, them, fair enough, but don't bemoan poor Sarah's fate of having her words paid attention to because she's a celebrity and a cult icon to boot. So yes, people are going to pay attention to what she says. Big deal.

And frankly you don't need to 'dissect' anything. Her words are pretty clear. She didn't like a lot of what happened on the last years of Buffy. She still did her job well, but she didn't like a lot of elements. And that's not me making that up since she's said so literally in a several dozen interviews by now. Doesn't really take any assumptions on anybody's part.

What bugs me about her words here is 1- The notion, again that actors 'should' have a say in scripts. Sorry but many a TV project or movie has been ruined by stars with delusions of grandeur. Being a good actor does not mean automatically that you're a good writer. And IF you have good input, let a guy like Joss know, and if he likes it he'll use it. But that's still up to HIM. Actors are hired to act. Not to try and take over plotting and dialogue.

And really her line of 'if only I'd had some input then we wouldn't have gotten so lost..' Pfff, that's the first truly arrogant remark I've ever heard her make. Never mind Joss and all the other writers, Sarah's vision is the only right one? Please. She helped portray it and she was important in that and she was good in that. But Joss created the show, the characters, the whole 'verse, not her.
I happen to be a fan of SMG but I am perplexed by some of her recent comments. First off, I have to confess I loved season 6 overall and so I get a bit unhappy when anyone expresses dislike of it. On one hand SMG seems to be saying she didn't sign up for another year of Buffy because she wasn't being challenged but she *was* offered a chance to really stretch in season 6 and imo, she stepped up to the plate and hit the proverbial ball out of the park. She was great in 6 portraying a confused, depressed and scared Buffy. And yet she is dismissive of 6 and has talked about being degraded as an actress.

I think Buffy was a very complex character and that being a slayer meant you had a very dark side and season 6 was an opportunity to explore the slayer's psyche. And that SMG as an actress had a great chance to shine and show off her range in season 6 and she was up to the task.
I'm not impressed by this article for several reasons.

One, that he kept thinking of Buffy while watching The Grudge. Hardly suprising, Buffy and Karen do look similiar... Is he saying he could watch Leonard Nimoy play Hamlet and not think about Spock every now and then?

The question to Gellar is: Why couldn't you have just left well enough alone? Why do you feel the need to be so “vocal”?
So he, a journalist, is asking SMG why she keeps talking to journalists....
Journalists are going to ask about Buffy, and if she refused to answer he'd rip her to shreds for being a diva.

That she vacillates between bad-mouthing Buffy and taking roles that are so akin to her makes for interesting psychological speculation. It also makes for yet another comparison, this time between Gellar and her erstwhile co-star, Alyson Hannigan.
Actors can only pick roles from what's offered, and while Tom's Cruise or Hanks could express a desire to make a biopic about the man who invented correction fluid and get funding in a heartbeat an actress known for one role will always struggle to prove she can break out. Picking the best from what's offered and work from there is the only way. And up to now I'd say 90% of what's crossing her agents desk is Buffyesque.
Also, if he's dissing SMG for picking roles 'similiar' to Buffy how can he overlook AH doing Michelle, the big gag of which was playing on her geek image until the end of the movie and then using that image to provide the big laugh.

Hannigan also seems confident enough with her success that not only has she not criticized her time on “Buffy,” she was -- unlike Gellar -- willing to reprise her role for the planned “Buffy” animated spinoff.
Her success outside BtVS seems a bit etherial at the moment. The animated series may be her only offer on the table, should it happen.

With her “American Pie” achievements to her credit, both creatively and financially, Hannigan clearly doesn't need to hang on to “Buffy” forever to ensure the future of her career.
Not dissing the AP movies, but AH wasn't exactly the star and suggesting it's a "creative achievement" that leaves SMG in the shade is stretching things a bit.
"Gellar successfully ignored Buffy while promoting the Scooby films."

Strange ,I saw her answering questions about Buffy during the Scooby's promotion tours when, and this is important to note, she was asked about Buffy

But since there is more points of comparsion between Buffy and the Grudge than between Buffy and the Scooby movies she is naturally going to be asked more Buffy questions on this current promotion tour

"Not to try and take over plotting and dialogue."

When is having an input taking over plot and dialogue
It is what it says it is "having an input".

That input can be used ,as mentioned by Joss in WttH, or not

[ edited by garda39 on 2004-11-13 23:25 ]
Pelinxf, the simple fact is that pretty much every interview i saw her do on the Grudge tour included a reference (or ten) to her being Buffy. She couldn't have avoided the topic if she had tried.

You're right, media keeps bringing it up but I see more interest in her part than the previous year. Also I see some "changing her position ". She says the show went out on a high note then claims "there wasn't enough to challenge her" or "she was being degraded as an actor". These comments left a bad taste in my mouth.

However, I don't blame her for talking about Buffy (of course) but I'm very wary of her at this point to put it mildly.
The people who like Gellar will continue to like her and the people who have a problem with her will continue to have a problem with her. This is not going to change. I fall into the first camp. She strikes me as an intelligent woman and I have no problem with the fact that she has opinions.

Gellar will probably continue to make films for many years to come and will probably continue to be successful. Eventually, journalists might even stop asking her about 'Buffy', which I personally think would be a good thing. There is little to be gained by continually going over old ground.

I have never heard or read a comment made by her about 'Buffy' that I consider to be disrespectful, but not everyone would agree with this view. Each to their own.
"She says the show went out on a high note then claims "there wasn't enough to challenge her"

How are those statements incompatiable ?

A show can go out on a high note and also the actor in it can also feel they are losing the challenge of playing the character which means of course it is a good time to stop playing the character
zz9 says a biopic about the man who invented correction fluid Actually it was the mother of Monkees' Mike Nesmith who invented correction fluid. The family is filthy rich as a result.:-)
garda39, I think dashboardprophet made a great comment about how people may see things differently. In my opinion if a role/show is not challenging than it can't be at it's best. This is only my view of course.
I hate how this crap always comes out after a show is over. It just casts an ugly pall over what I consider to be the greatest tv show I've ever watched. Her 'if only..' remark is just plain conceited.

Conversely, I have read quite a few things lately where she talks highly about the show and the slayer, and that always takes her up a notch in my eyes.

Think I'll avoid any more negative bits about Buffy. I'm still way too 'into' the show (and Angel and Firefly). These items with an uncool slant cut into my enjoyment and, weirdly, hurt my feelings. (What's THAT about?)
Sometimes I wish SMG would do a striaght up interview about how she truly feels about "Buffy" and all the "so called" negative speculation around her, The way I feel she did the interview clearing up the "negative" ideas about the reasons why she missed out on the final episodes of Angel. The truth is even if she did this interview their will always be people that don't believe it and visa versa.
I think SMG is giving honest, thoughtful, answers to questions put to her and I respect her for that. She could just simper "Buffy was wonderful" and keep the journalist happy but I would rather read the truth, though I believe she is still being guarded about how she phrases things (and with good reason!)

I don't think it's an insult to that show or the role to say she wasn't being 'challenged' any more. Pick the most dangerous job in the world, sneaking up on wild wolves and poking them in the eye for example. No matter how tough a job after seven years you would beging thinking about doing something different.
I think that she has been doing straight up interviews about how she feels about Buffy. I think it's sort of like talking about an ex - part of you needs to relay the why behind the breakup but another part wants to remember why you loved them in the first place. Her recent interviews state that she clearly loved the show and the character but it was time to move on for several reasons about which she has also been straightforward. One doesn't necessarily negate the other.

I think the reason we never hear anything negative from Alyson Hannigan is that we rarely hear from Alyson Hannigan. SMG has done so many interviews lately (I think they probably number in the hundreds) but I haven't heard a peep from AH since When Harry Met Sally in London and after those reviews she probably wasn't too eager to speak to the press. Also, the show wasn't called Willow the Witch. For that reason alone the roll isn't going to follow her around nearly as much as it's going to follow SMG which is why she probably doesn't have the same desire to shake it off.
All I can say is, poor Sarah. I would hate to be a celebrity. Is anyone else sick of this debate?
EdDantes:
And really her line of 'if only I'd had some input then we wouldn't have gotten so lost..' Pfff, that's the first truly arrogant remark I've ever heard her make. Never mind Joss and all the other writers, Sarah's vision is the only right one? Please. She helped portray it and she was important in that and she was good in that. But Joss created the show, the characters, the whole 'verse, not her.


That was harsh. Well, the actual quote is "I really didn't have any [input]. Maybe I should have, 'cause then we wouldn't have got so lost. It took me a while to work up the nerve to say something...".

I guess everybody sees in the quote what he or she wants to see. My interpretation is much more innocent: Sarah was feeling lost about story development, she really needed to talk about it to somebody in charge (and she finally did - she talked to Joss), and she regrets that she did not do this much sooner.

But I really think it is quite pointless to discuss it further. This is not a good interview, it is more like a story about the interview - no actual questions, no full answers (only small pieces). We can only guess what has been actually said before, after, or in between the quotes. Or even in the quotes themselves. For example, was controversial word "input" said by Sarah, or it has been added later by the inverviewer or a journal editor, as indicated by square brackets? So it is better to stop now.
Now that you mention it ,it does look like they asked her "Did you have any input" and that was SMG's reply to it and not just something she said in an interview without any prompting
I wouldn't be here if I weren't a huge fan of Whedon, but even the most brilliant artists have their less-than-brilliant moments. At moments like this, it would be really great if someone gave the brilliant artist a kick and said "Look at this. It's lame!" because people don't often see their own work objectively. So I don't think Sarah was being arrogant...I think she was able to see the work more objectively *because* she wasn't writing it. And challenging, my God...the poor girl was giving the same speech for most of Season 7, which is about as challenging as (and remarkably similar to) telemarketing...
I hope something really exciting happens soon in the Whedon world so we have something else to post about besides what SMG has said and/or what she meant.
I agree electricspacegirl and passion.
I can't blame her for not wanting to say too much, especially about Buffy, not just because of the spin the journalist could put on it, but because things could so easily be misinterpreted by us.
I also really hope something cool happens in the Whedonverse soon.
Truthfully something new happening is exactly what it is going to take.

This is a Whedonverse discussion site, basically our reasons for checking this site out are to discuss all things Whedony and Sarah is very much within that category. With things at the moment being so damn quiet on the show front and with Sarah being in the news so much due to The Grudge it makes perfect sense that we will focus on her. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is questionable but it's a fact nonetheless.

Now for me this debate we have had in this thread and a couple of previous ones recently about what we "think" she said and meant goes well beyond her. It is done for every popular actor or singer who has a strong internet fanbase presence. The fact is that the reality of who they are is becoming more and more distorted by rumours and assumptions based on previous rumours and assumptions that were spread the last time they said something. It's something that needs addressing because i don't think people realise just how bad the situation has become.

I'll stick with Sarah here simply because it's an example we all know. How many of us here can honestly say out preconceptions of her are based on actual reality rather than internet reality? I mean most of us who have been a fan of Buffy for the entire run have now had nearly a decade of internet discussion about her. 99% of what we now form our opinion on will not be who she is, it will be based on somebody else's opinion that we read last week, or last month, or a year ago.

She says something, it ends up on here, it's discussed endlessly, we leave with an opinion based up that discussion. A year later she says something else, we enter a discussion on it again but this time we take with us the assumptions of what she meant previously, right or wrong. Eight years on and we have countless hours worth of discussions and assumptions to base our opinion on rather than any real truth of who she is and what she thinks.

Now i'm not saying i know her, she is one of the few celebs that i really wish i did know because from the little i feel i can be certain of she seems like a decent person and one with a similar attitude to life as mine, but i don't and i almost certainly never will. That said i am somebody who tries very, very hard to get to know the "real" celeb behind the media facade so that i can be as sure as i can be that i'm basing my opinion on as close to reality as possible. I try to do this for all the celebrities that i consider myself a fan of and worthy of a little respect. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eddie Vedder, James Marsters, Kurt Cobain, so on and so on. In all those cases i've chosen to strip away as much of the internet and media crap as possible and try to find out what i can about the real person. You know what? They are nowhere near as interesting as the media image they have been given. Why? Because they are human beings.

Yep, it's true, Sarah is a human being! Shock, horror! She hasn't got all the answers, she doesn't always say the right thing and sometimes she even may not be able to phrase things just so precisely that everybody will know exactly what she was saying when they read her words. Terribly inconvenient for us i know but i guess it's all part of the fact she is human after all.

What i'm trying to say, and the reason i posted this article, is that we need to start pulling back a little and thinking about the situation we are in. I consider this group of people who post here to be a pretty damn intelligent bunch who should be able to do that. If we were to drop all the preconceptions we have developed over the years about the stars we enjoy so much and just accept that there are real people inside those Hollywood stars i think we would be able to get back to doing what we all started out doing. Enjoying the shows and loving the characters rather than obsessing on what the actors behind them are thinking.

Because at the end of the day we really will never know.
Senior Partner:
What i'm trying to say, and the reason i posted this article, is that we need to start pulling back a little and thinking about the situation we are in. I consider this group of people who post here to be a pretty damn intelligent bunch who should be able to do that. If we were to drop all the preconceptions we have developed over the years about the stars we enjoy so much and just accept that there are real people inside those Hollywood stars i think we would be able to get back to doing what we all started out doing. Enjoying the shows and loving the characters rather than obsessing on what the actors behind them are thinking.


Completely agree.

I think we enjoy, love, obsess about these shows so much that we sometimes carry our strong feelings about fictional characters that have become so close to us over to the actors that have portrayed them. Damn, they even look alike :)
Very true Senior Partner. I love coming to this site and reading everyone's posts. There have been a lot of interesting opinions posted here on Whedonesque as a result of the many interviews Sarah has given recently while promoting The Grudge. We all love the Whedon world and SMG is definitely part of it and a leginimate topic for discussion, just there has been so much of it I am hankering for some new topics.
Brilliantly stated Senior Partner,

The only thing I do know is that I have gotten many hours of enjoyment out of my Buffy and Angel DVD's and I'm looking forward to many more and nothing SMG ( or JW for that matter ) says or does will change that fact.

I think it is safe to say that the value placed on the "behind the scenes information" is different from person to person but personally I find it a nice addition to the main event, nothing more.
Cause when I look at a work of art I dont really need to know if the artist shares all my feelings about every brushstroke or choice of color, the important thing is the impact the resulting masterpiece have on me when I watch it.

The internet is a place for the critical thinker, everything being said here needs to be scrutinized from different angles, what is the source ( The Sun vs NYT ), is this a primary or a secondary source ( quotes frequently taken out of context, 'borrowed' from another articles etc. ), the personal spin of the journalist/writer.
Since making mountains out of molehills is the main business of the internet, we as users must be extra careful to minimize the time we spend discussing the mountains of junk and maximize the time we talk about our favorite mole(s), at least Whedonesque provides a excellent environment for doing that.

Personally I belong to those that rate the third season of Buffy the highest (The Mayor, Faith, Doppelgangland !) but as the saying goes YMMV.
Thanks,Senior Partner.Although i have only posted here for a couple of weeks.I also think sometimes we need to take a step back and try not to analyse everything to death.Interviews,can be all things to all people and be interperted in so many different ways i find it very hard to seperate fact from fiction at times.imo,what the interviewer wants is a 'scoop,'what really
happened when, etc, etc,etc,he needs to sell copy,we have to choose if we want to buy into that or not .I dont know if we need everything stripped that bare,why not,leave a little room for fantasy and dreaming in place.
I'm not the biggest smg fan in the world,but the girl is only human,(i'm talking smg not buffy,now!)and has a right to say what she feels. she has had over a year now to reflect on Buffy and if at one time she really didn't like the whole publicity angle perhaps she has had time to look at things anew and realise it is a necessary part of being a 'star'and talking about Buffy,is part of that process.People change.
I think, we also forget that although the Whedonverse may be a big part of our lives alot of people will go, what?,Btvs,thats that?, so in any interview with any of the cast we look at the interview from an entirly different prospective than Jo Bloggs in the street.
If or when smg becomes a really big star she will be remembered for her film rolls (Think,Clint Eastwood, or George Clooney), for us she will always be Buffy and thank the heavens for that
.
Thanks also, to all of you who keep on coming up with all the new threads to keep us all up to date with who's doing what,when and where, true fans every one of you.
As for all the talk about how we should 'stop' this, or about Senior Partner's well-chosen words: yes. We discuss those things here because that's what this board is for. Frankly I have never claimed to 'know' Sarah down to the bone. And I have never gone by what some reporter says about her. I talk about her own direct words, the one in the quotation marks and those here suggest she felt Joss 'lost' Buffy in the last season or so, and that her vision of it was better and that if she'd had more input it wouldn't have gotten 'lost'. I don't *need* to 'dissect' that. It's quite clear how she feels, context or no, and it's hardly the first time she's said something like this. No mystery, no 'dissecting. We just hear her opinion and on boards like this we give ours on what she says. We discuss it. And all I ever said was that in *my* opinion, she sounds arrogant, I disagree with her views, and that I feel those things were and should have been up to Joss. Others disagree, and that's fine. That's the beauty of a discussion board.

And it does bug me that when Sarah says something nice, it's clear proof of her greatness and no one doubts the validity of the quote at all, but when she says something more negative, suddenly it's 'probably misquoted' or 'she probably didn't mean it', or 'that journalist is out to get her!'. Convenient.

Sarah's just a person, and I think she's great, but that doesn't mean I always agree with her views on things. I just never understand why that is such an enormous problem for people. She's not a religious icon yet, is she?

"The people who like Gellar will continue to like her and the people who have a problem with her will continue to have a problem with her. This is not going to change. I fall into the first camp. She strikes me as an intelligent woman and I have no problem with the fact that she has opinions."

And once again it's 'either you worship her or you loathe her'. And once again let me point out that I do neither. I also resent the notion that just because I disagree with her opinions, it's instantly concluded that I have problems with the fact that she has them at all!

"That was harsh."

How on earth was that 'harsh'? Joss created. Joss wrote. Sarah acted. Is anything of that untrue? That's like saying I'm being 'harsh' when I point out that James Marsters portrayed Spike and not Tony Head. There's nothing 'harsh' about it, it's simply statement of fact. And if you mean my words on her comment being arrogant, well I think it's arrogant. She basically says the show went offtrack under Joss and with her input it wouldn't have.

"Well, the actual quote is "I really didn't have any [input]. Maybe I should have, 'cause then we wouldn't have got so lost. It took me a while to work up the nerve to say something..."."

Yes. Thank you for correcting me. Of course the meaning of the sentence is still exaclty the same and changes absolutely nothing about the point I made there but what the hey....

"I wouldn't be here if I weren't a huge fan of Whedon, but even the most brilliant artists have their less-than-brilliant moments. At moments like this, it would be really great if someone gave the brilliant artist a kick and said "Look at this. It's lame!" because people don't often see their own work objectively. So I don't think Sarah was being arrogant...I think she was able to see the work more objectively *because* she wasn't writing it."

So I can tell Stephen King how he should write his novels, *because* I'm not writing them. So I can tell a coach what to do with his team, *because* I'm playing centerfield. Sorry but that makes no sense. And really, the writer and/or director of projects like these *are* the ones who have the overview of how things come together more than the actors to begin with.

And with your 'moments like this' I assume you mean S6 and/or 7? By which you kind of assume that S6 and/or S7 were lame and crap. But that's still just your opinion isn't it? That's not a 'standard of truth' we all agree on. There are plenty of fans who like both those seasons.

Just because you happen to agree with Sarah here doesn't make it the definitive truth. I agree with Joss, and it went Joss' way because, again, it was his show. And everyone will think something different of it, but Sarah's differing opinion can just as easily be seen as the 'wrong' one and I can just as easily see her as the artist that needed someone to tell her that things were not lame but bold and daring. Again, we all have opinions.

I just don't see how just disagreeing with an actor's view on something is always cause for such a ruckus....
I never said we should stop the debate. But this is not the first time SMG interviews have been picked apart like this. It's been going on since I came to Whedonesque. I understand wanting to know what she means by what she says, and even feeling upset by something she says, because that happens to me too, but I think what bothers me most is the debate about her character.

SMG may hate Joss, the fans, the fandom, and may be a complete bitch, or she may love Joss, the Buffyverse, and her fans to death, and be the sweetest person in the world. She is probably somewhere in between, and I have no way of knowing anything about her personality except for what she portrays to the media, which is her facade. She doesn't put herself completely out there, and I'm always going to give her the benefit of the doubt because how can I really know unless I know her in real life?

All I was saying is I get tired of hearing people assume negative things about her. Maybe that's my problem. But don't let me stop you from discussing. I don't have to read it, I know. I meant no offense.
Ed Dantes, I might have misunderstood what you have written, in which case I apologise now, but you seem to have assumed that many comments made here are directed at you. You quote something from an earlier posting of mine that was, in fact, not directed at you, but an opinion about general attitudes to Gellar. Quite possibly I did not explain myself very well, so I'll try to clarify what I meant.

When I wrote, "I have no problems with the fact that she has opnions," I mean that it doesn't make any difference to me if she is quoted as saying things I don't agree with. As one example, she has expressed misgiving about S6 but I love this season and I disagee with her. However, I don't take her comments to be in any way disrespectful but simply the expression of a personal view (from a very different angle, since she was involved in the making of the show).

I am not, contrary to how it might appear, blind to the fact that Gellar has 'faults'. She certainly is not especially 'fan friendly'. I suspect she is decidedly self-possessed and probably can be what some people would consider to be 'difficult' if the situation dictates. In other words, she is just like all of us. Geller is not perfect. Nobody is.

In many way, discussion about her is somewhat pointless because it goes around in circles, and there is rarely, if ever, anything new to add to what we already know or believe we know. Still, I just can't help myself. I get sucked in because I find it interesting.

Additional: EdDantes, you say, "I talk about her own direct words, the one in the quotation marks..." This is fair enough, but I think we all know that not everything these people are quoted as saying is genuine. I do not claim that in the case of the comments being discussed here, but what we never really know from a 'written' quote is the true context.

[ edited by dashboardprophet on 2004-11-14 23:11 ]

[ edited by dashboardprophet on 2004-11-14 23:12 ]
EdDantes, just for the record, if you read back what i wrote i never once said i only ignored the bad stuff i read in the press, i ignore pretty much anything that i can't be 99% certain is straight from the mouth of the celeb in question or somebody who knows him or her well, be it supposedly positive or negative. However it does only seem to be the negative that gets dwelt upon.

I'm not trying to turn the celebrity world into saints and angels, i'm just tired of the way fiction is allowed to control these boards and the way so many people allow themselves to believe it. If the celebrity is a decent person, great, if not, fine too, i just want the facts.

And i have to say you did seem to take a lot of what has been posted extremely personally. I can assure you that, at least in relation to what i said, nothing was directed at you at all.
"i ignore pretty much anything that i can't be 99% certain is straight from the mouth of the celeb in question "

A case in point in this interview is the word "input" Did she actually say it and if so why then is it in brackets or was it implied from a question she was asked

If SMG didn't say it ,the question is then would she have said it or would she have used a word less harsh
I'm not trying to turn the celebrity world into saints and angels, i'm just tired of the way fiction is allowed to control these boards and the way so many people allow themselves to believe it. If the celebrity is a decent person, great, if not, fine too, i just want the facts.

Senior Partner, you said it better than I. And when I said poor Sarah, I meant that I would hate to have people dissecting what I say to this extent. I'm not a Sarah worshipper. She is not a saint in my eyes. No one is, really. I think I may have the tendency to be that way when it comes to Joss, but not Sarah. I just feel sorry for celebritites because they are focused on so much. I empathize with how that must feel. That's all.
Thank you Senior Partner for your well thought out post concerning the media and public perception.
This is a really weird thread (for a bunch a reasons) but mostly cause it seems to miss the most intersting part of the article being discussed which is SMG's habit of taking roles that can't help but recall Buffy yet at the same time wanting to move away from that character.

The oddest thing to me is how the characters in The Grudge & Scobby Doo are completly vapid & dull compared to even the weakest episode of BTVS, but really, how many female characters are every going to be as complex as Buffy Summers.
electricspacegirl"All I was saying is I get tired of hearing people assume negative things about her. Maybe that's my problem. But don't let me stop you from discussing. I don't have to read it, I know. I meant no offense."

Took no offense and didn't mean any myself, but I never 'assume' negative things about her. I take her words for what they are (with the possibility they may be taken out of context.)

dashboardprophet"Ed Dantes, I might have misunderstood what you have written, in which case I apologise now, but you seem to have assumed that many comments made here are directed at you. You quote something from an earlier posting of mine that was, in fact, not directed at you, but an opinion about general attitudes to Gellar."

If so, I do apologize, since I did get the impression it was directed at me. But I still wasn't offended, merely wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.

Senior Partner"And i have to say you did seem to take a lot of what has been posted extremely personally. I can assure you that, at least in relation to what i said, nothing was directed at you at all."

Utter confusion on my part: first off, I was agreeing with you and complimenting you on your eloquence. Yet here you are 'defending' yourself against me. I guess I didn't express myself very well. As for the 'extremely personal' you're mentioning, I have no idea what you mean. We're talking and there are different opinions. I wasn't offended by anyone, least of all you, since I thought we agreed on a lot of things.

garda39"A case in point in this interview is the word "input" Did she actually say it and if so why then is it in brackets or was it implied from a question she was asked
If SMG didn't say it ,the question is then would she have said it or would she have used a word less harsh"


Good point but it brings something up I'm wondering about. I was under the assumption that anything in quotation marks would have to be the literal words of the interviewee. Otherwise being grounds for suing and such. Obviously the tabloids do it all the time and every now and then someone DOES sue, but I assume anything that's above a tabloid would use literal words when literal quoting. Always be on your guard for paraphrasing of course, but quotation marks carry a certain weight on a legal basis.

Unitas"The oddest thing to me is how the characters in The Grudge & Scobby Doo are completly vapid & dull compared to even the weakest episode of BTVS, but really, how many female characters are every going to be as complex as Buffy Summers."

That is an excellent point and something I noticed myself. The Grudge was a decent horror flic but in terms of there being a meaty role for her as an actress or being good characterization, the merest Buffy ep has far more depth than this. It's obviously better thant the "I know what you did last summer" stuff but still, in The Grudge she still had little more to do than look puzzled/worried/scared. I understand getting tired of a character after 8 years, but she simply had a lot more acting to do on Buffy than in anything else she's done.
No ruckus intended, EdDantes. And it goes without saying that everything I've expressed above is my own opinion, which naturally means that I think it's correct. That doesn't mean you are bound to agree.
On the nature of journalism, look at the first line of this and then read the last line (no spoilers):

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=124170574&p=yz4y7yz8x

If this isn't written for effect?

[ edited by catalyst2 on 2004-11-15 08:12 ]
EdDantes, Thank you for your message. I was concerned that you might have taken comments I made to be a direct reference to you, which had never been my intention. I need not have worried. As ever, everyone here at WHEDONesque continues to debate these matters in an amiable manner. This is the very reason why an old fart such as myself feels comfortable posting here. Many thanks, once again.

catalyst2, many thanks, it caused me to laugh at the start of what promises to be a stressful week at work, and (inadvertently) makes a very good point about journalism in general.
Nice to know i'm not the only old fart posting here!!!
EdDantes, apologies if i did misinterpret your words and the feeling behind them, however reading them back again they do still give the same impression that i originally got, which was one of annoyance and sarcasm, The "As for all the talk about how we should 'stop' this, or about Senior Partner's well-chosen words." certainly came across to me as being meant in a sarcastic way and coupled with the comments that followed it seemed to me like you had taken offence at my post. However i of course take you at your word that this wasn't the case.

As for defending myself against you, that wasn't the case either. I merely wanted to ensure that you weren't under the impression i was on some quest to get Sarah a sainthood and that i have no interest in only disputing the negative opinions. Again this for me is about the truth, that is all.

I think that both our misunderstandings of what the other was trying to say here does go a long way to proving the point i was trying to make. That being that it is so easy to read something into words on a computer screen that really weren't intended when those words were originally spoken. Nothing that you read on here can really be trusted as so much of the intended emotion and feeling is lost to the reader.

I would never suggest we stop discussing things here, not Sarah, not Joss, not anything that we enjoy discussing. All i would like to see is a little more thought by everyone involved as to whether or not they really know what they are talking about or if their view is warped by previous misconceptions.
On the nature of journalism, look at the first line of this and then read the last line (no spoilers):

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=124170574&p=yz4y7yz8x

If this isn't written for effect?


lol, that is too funny
Catalyst2, hehe, brilliant! Nothing like sitting on the fence huh?

"She definately will, unless she doesn't!" ;)
Wow .. once again, some great discussion here!

I did want to point out that some of the e-mails SyFy Portal has received has had some misconceptions about what Scott Nance was trying to state. He and I have not talked directly about this, but since I was the one who edited his column, I have had a little bit of a chance to study what he was trying to say.

Some of the e-mails that we received claimed that Scott was slamming SMG, and saying that she has turned her back on Buffy. That is not the case. He mentions how "rumormongers" stated that, but that SMG later came in and stated that her schedule for "The Grudge" -- which was being shot in Japan -- precluded her from being in the final episode. And from what I understand, Joss wasn't inviting her on anyway, mostly because he felt that the final episode of "Angel" should be for the "Angel" characters (and I agree with him). She had been invited to an earlier episode, but couldn't do it because of personal issues.

The crux of this column, if I understand what he's saying, is that SMG is looking to expand her acting horizons beyond the Buffy typecast ... but he doesn't feel that her recent work is doing a good job of that.

I mean, personally, if you're going to break a typecast, you have to do something different. Look at what Patrick Stewart did initially. He broke the Jean-Luc Picard typecast by playing someone exactly the opposite of Picard ... he played a gay painter in "Jeffrey."

I'm not saying that SMG needs to play a lesbian architect or something, but I think that Scott's suggestion was that if she wanted to break the typecast like she's indicated, she'll have to do something different ... maybe a romantic comedy, outside of horror/action/etc.

Please remember that Scott is simply expressing his opinion ... and that whether we agree with him or not, we shouldn't attack him, but simply disagree with his statements and use it for strong discussion. I think that's definitely happened here, but it hasn't happened in some of the nasty e-mails I've received.
In regards to the kind of roles SMG might want to pursue the suggestion of aiming for romantic movies does not in itself make much sense, she tried it with 'Simply irresistible' and it didn't work out.
The main thing should be that she needs to pick the 'good' projects with directors, writers, producers and co-actors capable of delivering quality films with mass-appeal, whether it be romantic movies or something else.
Thanks for that SyFyMichael.

I have to say in relation to the main point of the column, that being Sarah's choice of movie roles seeming to go against her not wanting to be stuck in Buffy'esque roles all her working life, it is something that Scott and i would absolutely agree with. I certainly don't think he was slamming Sarah in that regard.

My only issue with that particular column was the one i initially mentioned. That being that he had pointed out how the media had warped the reasons behind why she hadn't appeared on Angel and then immediately gone on to do the same thing with the comments from the BBC article. The "Yikes" he used after the quotes managed to add an element of "shock, horror, look what Sarah is saying now!" to her words all on it's own, despite the fact he had no way of knowing in what way her words were meant to come across.

Truthfully, had i read that anywhere else, say in a tabloid newspaper, i wouldn't have given it a second thought but i have a great deal of respect for Scott as he is very good at what he does and usually very accurate and fair. This just seemed like a very inappropriate comment for him to make considering he clearly knows how easily these things can be misunderstood and taken out of context. Had he waited to comment after reading the entire interview in the Big Issue rather than going off just three individual quotes posted at the BBC then he may have written the article with a different vibe and maybe the "Yikes" wouldn't have been neccessary.

Anyway, hope you can see what the point i was trying to make has been and i'm glad you realise that none of this was meant in a nasty way towards either Scott or SyFy Portal overall.
Senior:

I don't feel that it was nasty toward Scott or the site at all. :) I think the discussion here is great, and brought up some excellent points, and you did as well. :)

I did forward this thread to Scott, because I know he's always interested in both positive and negative feedback to his work ... as any good writer should be. I think everything said here was very fair and honest, and those are the types of discussions that I love. :)

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