March 09 2006
Fighting for the custody of characters.
Who knows best? The fans or the creator?
This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
Anwyn | March 09, 23:38 CET
*sigh* I'm one of the fans pissed off about the death of [blank] in Serenity, for reasons many and varied... and reasons thoroughly covered in countless other posts here and elsewhere. Suffice to say authorial custody of fictional characters is not as cut-and-dried as some would like to think.
If we were talking about a novel, or a single, standalone film, that would be one thing. But television, most particularly genre television has always lived and died by the shared custody of it's characters and creations with it's audience. It's part of the package deal. When a creator chooses to tell a genre/sci-fi story in the give-and-take medium of television they really have no right to be surprised when the fans try to take possession of the work. It's the nature of the beast, and one that many creators look to take advantage of. It's really disingenuous to benefit from the unique relationship between genre creators and genre fans and then complain about that very relationship.
(And now, let the counterpoint arguments commence...)
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-03-09 21:44 ]
Haunt | March 09, 23:41 CET
But the general question is an interesting one. I seem to recall Stargate getting into trouble when they wrote off a popular character, and the fan outcry was so immense that they wound up bringing him back - maybe not as a direct result, but clearly you can't just relentlessly alienate your fans and still have a popular TV show. I think pop culture at that level is in part a conversation, especially in a world where the writers of these shows actively monitor forums and blogs to see what people think.
[ edited by Caroline on 2006-03-09 22:15 . Please capitalise your sentences.]
Scotto | March 09, 23:42 CET
Precisely. In the modern world, where creators not only accept the online fan communities, but often join AND nurture them, it's not really realistic for them to want the "good" without also preparing for the "bad"...
(Which in no way implies I agree with the stereotypical definition of which is "good" and which is "bad" by the way)
Haunt | March 09, 23:47 CET
There is a reason I don't read fanfiction.
I don't always like every turn in a story or every character, but it's hard to find a writer(s) who writes exactly to your taste. I think it's a little lame when people boycott overall good entertainment because they don't like one turn in a story. I usually only ditch things if it gets really bad and there seems to be no hope of a recovery.
This reminds me of when someone working at Borders told me he ditched Angel in season 5 because he was "Pro Cordy and Anti Spike".... I was just thinking; yes, but it's still Angel! It's still good entertainment overall.
nna_funk | March 09, 23:47 CET
Anwyn | March 10, 00:00 CET
Just sayin's all.
My disappointment with the death of so-and-so has nothing to do with thinking I'm a better writer than Joss, or even thinking he "owes" me anything (though there's a whole other argument waiting to happen right there). I was disappointed and angry that the relationship Joss had made such a bid deal about and received so much critical praise for (namely Wash and Zoe) ultimately wound up being treated EXACTLY the same way all other romantic relationships are treated in the Jossverse... and therefor never deserved all the hype and critical praise in the first place.
In the end, my disappointment focuses on the fact that after all these years it's clear, on the subject of ongoing, fulfilling romantic relationship stories, Joss is something of a one trick pony. And THAT is not good storytelling.
Now every genre fandom has it's vocal extremists. It's somewhat annoying that the Joss fans (in particular us Browncoats) get so much negative press for being so rabid, when the Star Wars fans, the Trekkies/Trekkers, the Farscape fans, the Stargate fans, hell even the Charmed and Smallville fans... they ALL exhibit just as many rabid tendencies as we do.
Saying you have no interest in seeing a film because you know that your favorite character dies is one thing. Starting some kind of backlash "movement" among fan communities or going out of your way to sabotage a film/series/creator because you dislike or disagree with it... that's something else entirely.
And just to be clear, I don't fall into either of those above categories. I was upset with Joss' decision, but did not boycott him or his works.
I have, however, spent the months since first voicing my frustration defending my Browncoat pedigree against those extremist fans I was talking about for having dared say that Serenity was less than one hundred and fifty percent perfect, or worse for daring to say that Joss may have made a mistake with that one particular choice.
Go figure.
Haunt | March 10, 00:02 CET
Ultimately, it's the story of the show runner (in TV).
Here's a tip: if you do not like the writing or a direction a show is taking, stop watching. I saw people on Buffy boards coming online after every episode for years saying "Well, that was shit. Whedon has no idea what he is doing !!one!1!".
The people running the show are the show. It's as simple as that.
In the end, my disappointment focuses on the fact that after all these years it's clear, on the subject of ongoing, fulfilling romantic relationship stories, Joss is something of a one trick pony. And THAT is not good storytelling.
Point 1 - Alan asked to be killed off. Point 2 - motion picture, not a series.
[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-09 22:07 ]
gossi | March 10, 00:06 CET
And despite the loss, I will still run right out to see Joss's next movie or queue up his next TV show in the Tivo. But I would certainly have the right not to. And if I didn't, and enough felt as I did, Joss would de facto have to change the way he does business in order to sell his product. Nature of the beast. Fans screaming about it one way or the other make very little difference unless they stop watching in droves--and that's how it should be, imho.
Anwyn | March 10, 00:09 CET
(It's why I hate that Lucas won't let me buy the versions of Star Wars which so captivated me when I was seven years old, for example. I don't believe he shuld somehow be barred from messing with them, but he's robbing me of my own cultural backstory by barring me from having access to my childhood.)
But the creator needs to be free to do what he or she wants. If a particular segment of the audience doesn't like it, then they can construct whatever mental devices they need to survive it -- there are people out there who can only enjoy Serenity by excluding it from their personal canon and considering it a different entity altogether.
But whatever particular personal choices an individual member of an audience (or a segment of an audience) makes regarding a given creation, their portion of the shared space ends where the creator's decisions begin.
To return to the example I mention above, it's entirely within a given Browncoat's rights to ditch Serenity from his or her personal canon (or for a group of Browncoats to do so from their communnity canon), but that doesn't change that Serenity remains official canon.
(Fans, of course, are also entirely free to boycott things if it makes them feel better. But creators are not under some sort of slavish obligation to serve up stories based upon, say, poll numbers, boycotts, or website campaigns to try to change a film and thereby inherently spoil the film for those who haven't seen it yet.)
[ edited by theonetruebix on 2006-03-09 22:11 ]
theonetruebix | March 10, 00:09 CET
RambleOn623 | March 10, 00:11 CET
Doing it differently in fan fiction? Great. Seems like that's one of the reasons fan fiction exists. But to me the author, not the fans, will always have custody and ultimate control over the characters, and I wouldn't want it any differently.
And typically, for every fan who is furious over the death of Tara/Cordy/Wash, there's another who thinks it made for a better story, devastating as it may have been. Or who will come ot feel that way over time.
acp | March 10, 00:13 CET
Wash getting killed was like Maximus dying in Gladiator or Harry Lime in Third Man, take it away and the movie would have been nowhere near as good. We had to go into that final act on the edge of our seats believing that any one, or everyone, could die.
zz9 | March 10, 00:15 CET
In the end, my disappointment focuses on the fact that after all these years it's clear, on the subject of ongoing, fulfilling romantic relationship stories, Joss is something of a one trick pony. And THAT is not good storytelling.
This is kind of missing the point. If you're saying that Joss is retelling the same story by having one half of a romantic pairing die, then you're boiling things down to the most simplistic level. For a start, since nearly every single character in Buffy, Angel and Firefly had some sort of romantic relationship with another character from the same show, you're basically saying that Joss couldn't kill any of them off.
For example, look at Buffy S6 in which the lead cast is comprised of Buffy, Spike, Anya, Willow, Xander, Tara and Dawn. Of those 7, 6 are paired off in 'romantic' relationships. If he kills off anyone besides Dawn then he's going to be ending one relationship or another.
Besides, the Firefly example hardly holds seeing as the film is in the unique position of being a sort of 'fast-forward' of the TV show.
Grounded | March 10, 00:18 CET
The following US preview, nearly all those people were not only still posting, they'd been to see it again.
gossi | March 10, 00:19 CET
That said, I agree that this is fine for a stand-alone film but when the film is, for example, part of a saga that has entered popular culture and is one of the more cherished childhood memories of a whole generation I think the creator has some responsibility to the people who made him a multi-billionaire not to make arbitrary retrospective changes.
Or in other words 'Han shoots first, you bastard !' ;).
When Lucas made the notorious changes I remember him basically saying 'They're my films, I can do what I like' and I thought at the time, 'Yes but they're not are they, they're our films too'. We bought the lunch-boxes and duvet covers and action figures that gave him the money to make these changes and as things currently stand, in 10 years the version of Star Wars I saw at the cinema in 1978 won't exist.
I guess, if it's a genuinely creative choice, done for character development or emotional resonance then I have no problem with it (it is, after all, up to us whether or not to accept the creator's vision). But I am against retrospective changes full stop unless the audience is also given the choice to continue watching the original versions.
On a somewhat related note, one thing that really pisses me off is the way some people lobby to have shows taken off because they're offended by them. If you don't like what you're watching turn over the channel. Jeez, these days you don't even have to get up to do it, it's so easy to ignore offensive TV, why appoint yourself moral guardians to an entire nation ? /rant over ;).
Haunt, I think you raise a valid point about the one trick pony but I genuinely don't see it that way myself. To me, Wash (let's stop [blank]ing around ;) died because he was perhaps the only member of the crew who was almost wholly innocent. He'd never been in a war, never been directly involved in the crimes, was clearly anti-violence (where possible) and just a happy, easy going kind of guy. His death seemed all the more unjust and shocking because of that and really brought home the price of freedom idea. I think only Kaylee's death would have been more shocking and only Joss can answer why he didn't kill her off.
BTW, gossi, I hadn't heard that Alan asked to be killed off. Is that on one of the extras or an interview or something ?
Saje | March 10, 00:32 CET
Shakespeare and Dickens and Poe and Twain had magic pens, no doubt...thousands like them, maybe a touch less deft at prose or characterization, faded into history. But it took a fan to hear "To be or not to be," or read "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," and feel moved. The telltale heart may have beat in Poe's head first, Tom Sawyer may have initially whitewashed his fence in the mind of Samuel Clemens, but it's happened hundreds of millions of times since then. These characters belong as much to their readers as to their creators, because each person has given them life.
Anyone who's ever read Stephen King's "On Writing" will know what I mean when I mention his telepathy experiment. He asks you to imagine a rabbit sitting in a cage with the number 8 on its back, and then points out that no matter how many people read the book and think of thatimage, no two images will be exactly alike. We'll all imagine different rabbits, different cages, et cetera. As Orson Scott Card always has said, the teller and the listener create their tales together.
Neither the text nor the image is the story. Those are just our means of access. It's the connection between author/director and audience that forms the real story, and there's no such thing as a one-way connection. My total conception of, say, who Buffy Summers is probably differs from yours, and I'm sure it differs from that of Joss or SMG. But that's because I've filled in the blanks, and thus Buffy is a little bit mine. I didn't give her the body she wears or the words she speaks, but my contribution, in its own small way, is just as valuable.
And here's where I have to part company with Joss. How does he know what we "need"? In the main, I'm sure he's talking about his philosophy of dramatic stories...that sometimes good people die and bad people get ahead, but that there will be victories and joys as well...that if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do...that our lot in life is to shoulder our burdens and keep flyin' as best we can...and so forth. As far as the general principle goes, I agree. He gives us good, cathartic stories, which is what we need.
But like most things in life, that doesn't always translate well to the practical world. How about all the gays and lesbians who face persecutions in their daily lives, and who had particular ties to Willow and Tara as examples of people like them--people who were valued, needed, counted on? Whose relationship, most importantly, was celebrated instead of being swept under the rug? Anyody remember the backlash against Joss and Steve DeKnight when the Buffy creative team gave the viewers what they "needed" by way of Tara catching a stray bullet? Not so easy, is it?
When you create a story that people "need to see," as Joss has always said he was trying to do, don't be surprised when they assume a bit of ownership in the story, second-guess you on some things, and get angry at some of your decisions. They're far more invested than the average sitcom viewer, and you wanted that. They're the ones who gave you, the storyteller, the belief your tale needed to survive. The downside is that you risk ruining your tale in their eyes if things deviate too far from what they want. That's the exchange, though, if you want to craft a story that really affects people. As Illyria said, so much power here...and you quibble at its price.
BAFfler | March 10, 00:34 CET
Creativity? Not exactly a democratic process, I think. And let me tell you, the first time I saw Serenity, I jumped and gasped out loud at the scene we're all hinting about, and then don't even really remember what happened after that, because my tears blurred the screen and my gut hurt too much. Hell, I STILL can't watch a Buffy ep with Tara in it without feeling a very real pang of grief. (And as a gay woman, I was devastated to lose such a beloved character, especially one that was so-not stereotypically a Hollywood lesbian caricature.)
Would I ever demand Joss rewrite/rescind what he has created? Never.
m'cookies actual | March 10, 00:34 CET
Actually I don't think I'm missing the point at all. Despite what seems to be the prevailing opinion on this subject, it's possible to be disappointed or dissatisfied with a storyline or creative decision WITHOUT being a "bad fan". I've seen Serenity several times in the theater, own the DVD which I've watched many, many times, and continue to pimp it and all of Joss' works (but especially Angel ;-) ) to anyone who'll listen.
My comment wasn't that Joss always kills one half (at least) of any and every romantic pairing in his shows, 'cause clearly that's not true. Death would be far, far too simple. When I first mentioned my frustration with the choice of Wash as the sacrificial lamb used to "up the stakes", I received literally HUNDREDS of responses from people telling me that that is just the way Joss is, reminding me that Joss ALWAYS does that sort of thing and thus I have no right to a) be surprised, or b) complain. I should have expected that Joss would kill Wash 'cause that's his modus operandi.
And THAT is my point. If it is common knowledge, accepted (and in fact lauded) by all, that Joss will always kill (or torture, or maim, or otherwise punish) any and all characters that stand a chance at a real happy romantic relationship, well then how many years can you watch that and still find it interesting? After it happens not just once or twice, but every single last time in every single show or story that Joss tells, it ceases to be interesting or dramatic and instead becomes boring, predictable and frustrating.
I'm not saying Joss can never kill or harm any of his characters involved in a romance with another character. But he has most definitely brought a very, very sharp focus on that particular form of dramatic storytelling, which means he should be held up to a higher standard. He needs to find a new, more interesting way of telling that story or he runs the risk of becoming what I have already labelled him (on this subject at least)... a one trick pony.
For example: Does anyone here have even the barest shadow of a doubt that, should Mal and Inara actually "get together" at some point in the future, something horrible will happen? If not, well then how can you become invested in that storyline? Isn't it just a given, not interesting? Or are you only interested in what exact FORM that horror will take?
What about Simon and Kaylee? As soon as they were officially "together", is there anyone here that didn't immediately think, "Oh you poor bastards, now you're doomed!"
Well when that sort of thing happens time after time after time without even one single exception... that's boring.
And now, to respond to insinuations already floating around here and to hopefully cut off future ones, I'll stress again that I love Joss Whedon. I love all of his shows, I love Serenity, and continue to spend an inordinate (unhealthy?) amount of time and money in the pursuit of my obsession with him and his works. I neither believe I'm a better storyteller than him, nor expect him to ever take any of my criticism to heart... or even recognize that I HAVE a criticism for that matter. I'm not trying to create or endorse any "art by commitee" political movements or anything.
But fans have always "mouthed off" like this. Joss didn't create this level of fan obsession. Genre fiction has always had this level of geeky, fanboy attention, and it always will. Whether it's right or wrong is completely irrelevant, because it's never going to change.
ETA: In response to your entire post above BAFfler, I have to say I think I love you. :)
And Saje, Alan commented in an interview for the film companion book that he once joked with Joss that his character would make a great "pity kill", or something to that effect. Hardly the same thing as outright ASKING to be killed off.
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-03-09 22:47 ]
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-03-09 22:49 ]
Haunt | March 10, 00:45 CET
Rogue Slayer | March 10, 00:49 CET
best_hair_ever | March 10, 00:51 CET
I'm not so sure I agree with this. Yes, obviously art needs an audience in order to resonate (or to be commercially viable). But with those examples you gave – Shakespeare and Poe and Dickens were hardly changing their works based on the feedback they received from fans. Rather, readers recognized their (already complete) work as genius. Dickens work, in fact, was very TV-esque since it was serialized. And I would imagine many readers got highly attached to the characters they followed every installment. But I would have been horrified if those readers demanded he make Dora survive, or treated Oliver differently – and even more horrified had he agreed.
I think we often feel a sense of ownership with characters and worlds in which we're highly invested. That's why we care so much. But that's different to me from actually having that ownership. The stories are, ultimately, the writers' to tell. Otherwise we get into art by test screening or committee, which never ends well...
acp | March 10, 00:53 CET
Of course it is! It's called taste. And opinion. The world would be a boring place without it. It's why some fans may love Serenity as is, and others be incredibly disappointed, because of Wash's death. Neither one is a "better" fan than the other. Why people can tell me until they're blue in the face that Hemingway is the greatest American novelist, but I still won't necessarily like him.
I happen to find many many faults with Buffy Season 7, and Willow's arc in Season 6, and quite a number of stand-alone episodes, even though I'm about as die-hard a Buffy fan as you can get. But would I ever expect Joss to change the show because of my opinion? of course not.
(edited to say... I'm not trying to imply that you would expect Joss to change Serenity, haunt – just speaking generally in response to a few extreme fans who do seem to feel that way)
[ edited by acp on 2006-03-09 22:59 ]
acp | March 10, 00:57 CET
Anwyn | March 10, 01:00 CET
Are there any fans out there that unwaveringly support Joss' right to tell any story he likes, in any way he likes, that have ever found themselves on the other side of this equation? Any Doctor Who fans that have felt violated by recasting choices? Any Star Wars fans that felt cheated by the storytelling decisions Lucas made in the prequel trilogy? Fans of Highlander that either hated the sequel films or raged when the television series killed off Tessa and Ritchie?
I'm sure everyone has felt some form of ownership over some story that they hold sacred, for whatever reasons.
What if Joss' story with Buffy had been to actually MAKE her as wrong as I always thought she was? What if she really had been replaced by Faith in Season Seven? If that was the story the way Joss had ultimately chosen to tell it, is there no one here that would have felt cheated? Would it matter to you that it was JOSS' story to tell, not yours?
What if Joss decides that "his story to tell" with Firefly will eventually turn out to be that Mal has been working with the Alliance all along in an effort to wrangle all those hard-to-find rebellious sorts like Book and Wash and Zoe, etc.? It's utterly ridiculous, I know. But it IS Joss' story, so theoretically he could choose to tell it any way he wants to. With no regard for what us lowly fans want.
It's very noble to say that, should any such unlikely scenarios ever play out, you'd be perfectly fine and well-adjusted enough to just shrug it off and stop watching, or ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. But is there nothing Joss (or any other genre writer for that matter) could do in what we all agree are THEIR stories that would just piss you off beyond the telling?
I suppose not. *shrug*
Haunt | March 10, 01:06 CET
Somebody mentioned Shakespeare. I saw a 1981 production of Othello in DC with James Earl Jones and Christopher Plummer...I'd read Othello a half a dozen times by then, and you only have to read it once to know that Desdemona will not be standing (nor Othello, too, of course) by play's end, but as she pleaded with him, I was softly muttering, please, God, please, don't do it, she's not untrue, don't kill her.
My girlfriend thought I was nuts, but what happened there was that I was viewing great artists (the actors) portraying stupendous art. Had the director re-written the play to have everything turn out hunky dory, there's not a lot of art there to be savored.
I guess the thing to ask one's self is, does this ring true? Is it gratuitious, or is it a totally plausible development? The two main deaths in Serenity ring true to me. In fact, it could be argued that more should have died in the climactic battle scene. When I saw the preview last May, I sure thought that would be the case.
I re-watched The Body yesterday with an old friend whom I have finally gotten interested in Buffy (and, consequently, her brothers, sister, brother-in-law...ah, I love the multiplier effect). She was, as you'd expect, astounded at the depiction of death, grief, anger, and numb bewilderment. During the super-quick fantasy segment when Buffy imagines everything comes out fine, and then the quick return to the ghastly, pallid Joyce, I quickly whispered, "He's the meanest writer ever." She nodded.
Hey, fighting vampires, demons, lawyers (fine line if you ask me), and reavers is pretty much fraught with peril. If people don't die, other than the guy on the away team you never saw before, the story gets a little stale. That Joyce's particular death was an utterly natural one, a death Buffy would have always been powerless to stop, made it even more poignant and almost unbearably sad.
Joss's deft handling of having characters you care about die (and there are so many of them over the years!) is a large part of why the shows continue to compel, even after having re-watched many, many times (that was probably my 15th viewing of The Body, and, yeah, the waterworks were still in action.)
Chris inVirginia | March 10, 01:06 CET
Anyways, I strongly believe that anyone hating Joss for killing Wash and Book need to kiss my ass--is that clear enough?
Okay, bitch moment over...sort of. Shit happens and people die--in both reality and fiction. It's just something you need to get over, plus it almost always makes the story better. Do I cry when characters die? Yes. Do I hate Joss for doing it? Of course not, I'm just glad I got to meet them at all--so why is everyone complaining? Why would the viewers have the right? If you want fluff, ABC Family shows Full House and 7th Heaven reruns every day. Check it out, would ya?
On another note, while I don't hate Joss, I have been known to say "Joss, you son of a bitch!" to my tv on many occasions out of admiration when he A) slips something by me or B) produces an hour of damn good television (which he does...A LOT).
And Haunt, "Any Star Wars fans that felt cheated by the storytelling decisions Lucas made in the prequel trilogy?" I think this covers many more people that you know -- I'm raising both of my hands in the air.
Also, I'll admit, I'm the die-hard Joss fan who believes he can do no wrong because I believe in his visions so strongly. By the 7th season of Buffy there was some spec about the "Normal Again" alternate reality being actual reality and that Buffy was just crazy. I was so distressed by this speculation because it would have been so wrong for the show, it would have made it seem that a girl COULDN'T save the world, couldn't be strong and could only be a hero in her head if she was insane. However, Joss assured us in an interview that he would never do that for the exact reason I felt. If I am at any time skewed in the head and not understanding why someone died or why a certain event takes place, I'll go back, rewatch, think about and then everything falls into place. So yeah, I'm a Joss-can-do-no-wrong girl and until the day comes where I think he did, I always will be (I don't plan on this ever happening). Call it nievity, call it blind faith, but that's just the way I am.
[ edited by MySerenity on 2006-03-09 23:19 ]
MySerenity | March 10, 01:11 CET
Anwyn | March 10, 01:19 CET
Those people who didn't like Tara dying? Cool. That's why she died.
Those Tara fans who told Joss "not to go near any open windows" online - not so cool.
Ultimately, when I invest in a show, I trust the creators of the show as I watch. If it looks like they don't know what they are doing, I stop watching (see also: Lost). Do I always agree with everything JW does? Not so much. I think the Buffy episode "Family" has some qualities that make it a mess in places, and Tim Minear can never apologise enough for "That Old Gang Of Mine". Do I still think overall both BTVS and Angel are the most interesting and entertaining TV I've ever seen? Yes.
gossi | March 10, 01:22 CET
I could go on...
But do I still support Joss's right to tell the story the way he wants? Absolutely and unequivocally. I guess I just don't presume I have a right to tell him how his story should go. I do have the right to express my disappointment. If Buffy had continued to descend in quality, I had the right to just stop watching. But at the end of the day, I want him to stick to his vision and his story, even if it's not the one I would have told.
When I want control, I write myself. But in these scenarios, I see myself as the audience. not as someone who should be giving creative input.
acp | March 10, 01:25 CET
I suppose not. *shrug*
You raise interesting points, Haunt, but you don't need to load the dice by implying that those of us who will accept pretty much anything from Joss's pen are somehow more "noble" or "well-adjusted" than others.
I reserve the right to complain, carp at, get angry with, and cry about the use and misuse of characters in BtVS and Firefly - but I would never translate that response into a demand that Joss do something the way I wanted it done. Sure, I could conceive of ways he could screw up the 'verse that I've accepted - but I trust that he won't, on the evidence of the work he's done thus far. Fans can respond, but they aren't responsible for the 'verse, as others said above. Art - or, at least, this kind of art, - isn't a democratic process. An artist is not a politician. It's his or her own vision. I think it has to be.
I also don't agree with the concept of a "bad fan," the same way I don't agree with the concept of a "true fan." Fans is fans is fans.
SoddingNancyTribe | March 10, 01:25 CET
I think anyone trying to communicate has a certain responsibility for what they might be putting in someone else's head since although it's a voluntary collaboration it's asymmetrical, in that the artist definitely has more power once we elect to let them in.
However, as i've said elsewhere, simply making a story to convey some message is a bad idea. Keeping Tara alive because it's more socially progressive to do so would be very bad storytelling and in the long term, if adopted as general 'policy' by creators, possibly bad for the social acceptance of lesbianism (I don't want to get into affirmative action, suffice to say I think it's not without its problems even though it's probably a necessary 'evil').
Haunt, Bad Fan ! Bad ! I see you're in the US. I bet you're one of those that thinks you should still have due process and freedom of the press even during a 'war'. And you call yourself a patriot ? How dare you ? ;-).
I'm sure some fans respond to your criticism that way but I think most here would agree that's slightly extreme. Re: your point, I would agree with you but in fact, if you read between the lines slightly, i'm not sure Joss' penchant for tragic romances is quite that complete. Angel died, true, but then came back. Tara was apparently due to come back in the 'Buffy's Wish' episode but couldn't for scheduling reasons. There've been hints that even Wash may come back in some way if there are ever any sequels. Also, I don't think the Wash/Zoe romance was lauded because it was different to a typical Whedon romance but because it was different to the majority of TV/film romances which are 1 dimensional and there largely as plot devices (a notable recent exception for me would be The Constant Gardener which was a successful thriller and love story in the same film).
I absolutely agree that everyone has felt ownership of a character to some extent or another and I also agree that if Joss went mental and had everyone actually be ubervamps or incarnations of the First or something then the series would be essentially unwatchable. But surely that is one of the differences between good and bad TV, how well the creators walk the line of giving us what we need and giving us what we want (and even Joss strikes a balance - could anyone really see him killing off one of the core scoobs in Chosen ?).
I'm currently rewatching Angel and i'm just getting to the early Fred episodes. I'd forgotten how incredibly cute (in both senses) and sweet Fred was and it's a constantly bitter sweet experience when I see her since I know that she'll be dead in 2 seasons. But even knowing that she dies I still watch and I still share in her triumphs and disasters. As viewers, that's our choice to make not, ultimately, what happens to our favourite chaarcters or plot-lines.
Saje | March 10, 01:26 CET
I didn't imply otherwise. I was both disappointed and dissatisfied with many of the creative decisions on Buffy and Angel.
I received literally HUNDREDS of responses from people telling me that that is just the way Joss is, reminding me that Joss ALWAYS does that sort of thing and thus I have no right to a) be surprised, or b) complain. I should have expected that Joss would kill Wash 'cause that's his modus operandi.
People say that's his modus operandi, but I don't agree. Willow/Tara lasted a long time before they fell upon bad times. I can't remember how long Wash and Zoe were supposed to have been married, but it's not as though they'd finally come upon happiness only to have it snatched away such as in the Buffy/Angel and Wesley/Fred examples. There has been plenty of variety in the way these deaths have been handled, and to say that they all follow one pattern is to over-simplify. And yes, of course they were wrong to suggest that you shouldn't complain!
Incidentally, were you surprised when Wash died? I was totally shocked. So really, even if you choose to believe it was just the latest in a long sequence of similar events, if you were surprised by it then how can you claim it was predictable and/or boring? (Obviously this doesn't apply if you said 'I bet Wash dies' before the film)
After it happens not just once or twice, but every single last time in every single show or story that Joss tells, it ceases to be interesting or dramatic and instead becomes boring, predictable and frustrating.
Really, how many times has it actually happened? Plenty of pairings have broken up, but isn't that what happens right across the board in dramatic TV? And think about the sheer number of hours of TV that Buffy/Angel/Firefly totals. We're talking about 4 or 5 instances of something spread over many years of storytelling and hundreds of episodes.
Besides, there is at least one exception - Buffy ends with Willow and Kennedy still together. Not everyone's favourite pair I'll admit but you can't ignore it.
Grounded | March 10, 01:32 CET
And he had said in interviews that this was more or less the arc of the second season. For those who believe that Wash would have lived had the show continued... which Whedon shows did you watch?
After watching the preview we went back to the friends' house we were staying at and stayed up until 2 am talking about it. We were hurt, stunned, amazed. Days and weeks and months later we were still talking about it.
After seeing the last Star Wars movie, I think we talked about the effects and the lame dialogue until we got to the car, and then we were more interested in where to get dinner.
Any writer, any creator that can make me feel the way Joss does is to be treasured. He doesn't write it to be beloved. He writes it because he has to. It really, really shows.
C. A. Bridges | March 10, 01:32 CET
The difference with Joss, for me personally, is that so far he hasn't crossed that line. I hated his killing of Wash, but I still trust him to tell compelling stories and, if theoretically Firefly came back and went on to the ridiculous conclusion you suggest, I would be angry and upset at this turn of events with characters I have loved--and I would also stop watching, lose trust, and try to pretend that the show ended at Serenity. So far he hasn't crossed that line with me. This is a personal choice; nobody can make it for anybody else. I loved Friends. Love love loved it. Loved Ross and Rachel, wanted to marry Chandler, etc. etc. I completely stopped watching Friends after the whole Emily and then Vegas debacles when the show just, imho, degenerated into silliness. Those show runners lost my trust. Same with The West Wing when Sorkin left. The new show runners lost my trust when the show became ER in the White House. So yes, to answer your question, it does happen--I'm adjusted enough to either shake off stuff I don't like and continue watching in trust, or I'm adjusted enough to say, "I don't trust you any more, I'm out of here, goodbye." You sound like you might be wavering as to how much to trust Joss from now on, and that's your choice. But nothing they do is ever enough justification to say "Change THIS because I have as much ownership in these characters as you do!" That's just silly.
(edited to say, gossi wrote his short snappy post on trust while I was ginning up this one ... damn my longwindedness and yay gossi.)
[ edited by Anwyn on 2006-03-09 23:34 ]
Anwyn | March 10, 01:32 CET
m'cookies actual | March 10, 01:33 CET
If I disagree with her creator, then I, as a fan, am coming up against the one who surely knew best.
So if I continue to disagree, I am rewriting that act as surely as if I wrote the fanfic about it.
That's my right, but it doesn't mean either that Joss isn't right to claim that he knows better than I do.
However, the easy out of "changing the channel" is not an option for many who love his work despite disagreeing with his choices. I don't agree with Haunt on much but this, but I do think it is too much to ask a fan to stop watching if thry don't agree with all of his choices.
And for the record, I have yet to disagree with any of his choices. I may not like them but I believe that he and his writers are the only ones with the right to make those decisions.
Lioness | March 10, 01:41 CET
Do I love that Joss killed off Wash and Book? No and yes. No, because I didn't want them to die any more than anyone else did. Yes, because I understand the reasons for killing them off and I agree he did the right thing for the story.
There are decisions that writers make that I think absolutely suck, and I don't see their purpose, such as Rick Berman and Brannon Braga killing off Trip in Enterprise (and in such a ridiculous way). There was no purpose to it in a story that fell flat and left its characters unchanged over the next 6 years; but much as I'd like to, I'm not going to threaten or harass the writers, or even pretend I can tell them what to do. I just stop watching anything they have to produce in the future, and focus my attention elsewhere.
I've always felt that if you don't like the way a writer tells his or her stories, and you think you know better than they do, you should try writing your own ORIGINAL stories with your own original characters and prove that you can do better. It's all too easy to hold others up to higher standards than you can meet yourself.
[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2006-03-10 00:22 ]
Nebula1400 | March 10, 01:42 CET
Two additionals: Lioness, regarding changing the channel: I'm not saying do that always. I didn't agree with bits of Buffy. I didn't turn over, because I found it highly entertaining - it was a great, great show. If it was just shit, I'd have turned over.
The other one: I also fall into the camp of 'Buffy commited suicide'. Which, as those of us online on New Years Eve know, is wrong: Joss told us this at the time. That said, I still know what I believe. Am I bad fan? Not so much, I hope.
[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-09 23:49 ]
gossi | March 10, 01:43 CET
Sure there were things I didn't like about the shows but at the end of the day it wasn't my story and it wasn't mine to tell.Had it been left to many fans Buffy and Angel would have lived happily ever after and the show would probably have finished after three seasons , AtS would never have happened and Spike would still be unredeemed and soulless.
I'm glad we have Joss! For everything else there's fanfic.
debw | March 10, 01:49 CET
zeitgeist | March 10, 01:52 CET
I think it's very good when show runners keep an eye online - example, Minear - but I think it's not so good when they react on fan desires. It's a tough one to call where the line is. One extreme example is Lucas: did somebody not say to him 'Hey, you know Jar Jar? I think you've been smokin' too much crack'?
[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-09 23:56 ]
gossi | March 10, 01:55 CET
Thanks for that rather massive spoiler. I think it's fair to assume Buffy/Angel/FF spoilers are fair game on here, but did you really need to post that?
[ edited by Grounded on 2006-03-10 01:17 ]
[ edited by Grounded on 2006-03-10 01:20 ]
Grounded | March 10, 01:58 CET
Indeed. Storyteller and audience do share a connection -- a visceral, emotional connection. They are not best friends or lovers who promise never to hurt one another. Story is born of conflict and pain, not sunshine and rainbows. Of course a writer should be prepared for the fact that his or her choices will upset some people. That's a visceral response. That's the goal. And an audience needs to accept the fact that they don't get a vote. They're just along for the ride, and by sitting in front of a screen or picking up a book, they've made an unspoken agreement to trust said writer's choices, to trust that s/he is telling the story the way s/he needs it to be told. That doesn't mean that it will always be executed well (though in Joss's case I think it always is). It also doesn't mean that we have to love it, but we'll sure take it with us, and I think that's far more important.
Samantha | March 10, 02:00 CET
Thank you, Chris Bridges. Have you met Grounded? The defense rests. ;)
But seriously folks... this is one of those (seemingly endless) divisive issues in the Whedon fan community that I really, REALLY wish just wouldn't be so divisive. I hasten to say that this is far and away the least divided (re: cliquish, polarized, argumentative, unreasonable) fan sites around, so mad props to all of you (us?). But the fact remains that all the attention articles like this have been getting since the premiere of Serenity, at least in some fan circles, smacks of the "well adjusted" Whedon fans poking sticks at us "not-QUITE-so-well adjusted" Whedon fans, making efforts to prove how our disappointment with certain Joss choices is irrational and childish.
Even at the Slayage Conference of '04, a place theoretically populated with highly educated, mature, responsible adult fans, all of whom are presumably among the "well adjusted" contingent, I encounted much arguing and division. In fact that was one place (of many) where my sensitivity to the "good fan/bad fan" debate came into being. Not everyone there, of course. But there were definitely some cliques going on there. And that kind of Us vs. Them fan mentality irks the crap out of me.
[ edited by Haunt on 2006-03-10 00:06 ]
Haunt | March 10, 02:01 CET
It's an interesting question that I first thought about after Ridley Scott pretty definitvely said of Bladerunner 'Deckard was a replicant'. To me the film loses a lot of its power if Deckard isn't human (how can his defiance in the face of death be a triumph of the human spirit if he's not ?). It's complicated by the fact that Harrison Ford says he played him as human and in the PK Dick book he is apparently (I haven't read it, I know, here's my sci-fi fan badge back ;) definitely human. Can I legitimately decide that he 'just is' human despite Scott ?
In short, is it definitely the case that because Joss says it was a sacrifice in The Gift, it actually was ? Note, I don't mean to me or whoever, I mean is it any more true, full stop ? i.e. do these things have an objective truth at all or does what 'really' happens in The Gift or Normal Again depend purely on what most people think happens ? (as an aside is there anyone here who thinks that the really real world of Normal Again is actually Buffy's true reality ? because though i've only seen it a couple of times it always seemed very ambiguous to me)
Saje | March 10, 02:04 CET
Really, all of Joss' creations are about making the audience love the characters - and then knocking them down to see what's inside (and sometimes not so much with the emotional sense). Which is why people love to hate the shows.
gossi | March 10, 02:07 CET
I think I believe that there are likely some stories that are so complete and unambiguous as to be open to really only one interpretation. Then there are others (most?) that incorporate at least some level of ambiguity and call upon the audience to bring their own meaning to the text. I'd argue that Joss (despite is apparently vehement assertion that Buffy absolutely did NOT commit suicide) is one of those authors that not only expects his audience to bring meaning, but practically demands it.
All of which is a longwinded way of saying you can put me firmly in the "there were elements of suicide to the end of 'The Gift'" camp.
Haunt | March 10, 02:14 CET
Apologies if that is a spoiler. I'm not sure when spoiler territory ends with cancelled shows that have already been aired several times. I'll go back and black out the spoilery part, but it will still remain in your quote.
Nebula1400 | March 10, 02:18 CET
I'm not saying that WOULD have happened. Obviously, in light of this argument, I'm not Joss and I don't know. I'm just saying that the deaths of Tara and others do not all resonate equally and that while I believe Joss does have a thing for sudden, brutal, "Joss you son of a bitch" killing of characters, I don't think sudden killing of people in a happy relationship has been enough of a pattern to assume more. Tara/Willow: Happy relationship ended by sudden brutal death of innocent character. Buffy/Angel: tumultuous relationship rendered forever forbidden by that whole pesky "I'll lose my soul" thing. Xander/Anya: rocky, mostly adolescent relationship ending in an uneasy friendship with potential for more later, which only ended in brutal sudden death because it was the series finale and Joss likes to do that. Wash/Zoe: Basically stable relationship ended by sudden, brutal killing of innocent character because it was the movie, not the show, and potentially because Alan wanted out of any future obligation to play Wash, and .... it's just not so simple, imho.
So while I agree with Haunt that Joss has a pattern of sudden deaths of characters to shock us, I disagree that it's for the specific purpose of breaking up happy relationships and I do not believe he would have killed Wash just to break up the relationship. There are far more devastating ways to disrupt relationships in a continuing show ... and Joss that son of a bitch would not hesitate to use them all. :)
(edited to remark that I usually avoid this kind of "what would have happened" like the plague, because it fails to take into account the real-world demands of "this actor needs to leave the show," etc. etc. If Alan wanted out ... voila.)
[ edited by Anwyn on 2006-03-10 00:24 ]
Anwyn | March 10, 02:19 CET
Whilst we're on the subject of Serenity, I've just found out this months DVD Monthly magazine (UK) has a Serenity DVD on it with new 'B' footage. I can't find anything online about it yet to link here.
FYI, it's 7 minutes of additional footage some random UK magazine has been given. I'm going to try and see if I can get it to put online.
gossi | March 10, 02:28 CET
But really, can we stop denying that Joss goes out of his way to disrupt romantic happiness? It's not only been proven by over 12 seasons of various television series', but it's so common knowledge that Joss himself has frequently joked about it. Joss routinely takes the rather simplistic storytelling truism that happiness equals boring while unhappiness equals drama and turned it into a way of life.
It's rather disturbing how wholeheartedly people embrace the notion that there's absolutely no way humanly possible to portray a happily married couple on television without losing any and all dramatic story potential. Sad really. I wonder if those who just accept that requited love means dramatic boredom have ever actually BEEN married.
I am. Happily married, that is. My life involves a lot of requited love. Neither my wife nor myself are dead (as far as I know). And I can assure you that there is no lack of drama whatsoever.
I will say that I agree with Anwyn that it would have been INFINITELY more interesting and compelling to watch Wash and Zoe continue having a "happy marriage". Perhaps that was the plan but it was just derailed by having to switch storytelling formats to film. I don't know. But regardless, the pattern of not allowing characters to remain "together" (whether married or just romantically involved) continued, and it was disappointing to me.
*shrug*
Haunt | March 10, 02:33 CET
The suicide/sacrifice thing is a good example. It was great to get Joss's take on it, but that certainly doesn't put an end to the issue as a matter for debate among the audience. We're free to read into Joss's work - or any work of literature, or film, or piece of art – what we want.
To my mind, that's where our role as audience comes in, and where we can have "input," in a sense. As for creating the actual story in which we find meaning? That's the job of the artist.
acp | March 10, 02:35 CET
Anwyn | March 10, 02:35 CET
Then Fox cancelled the show.
gossi | March 10, 02:35 CET
Princessofdarkness | March 10, 02:36 CET
That is also what Joss says he is writing and he admits that sometimes what he has created surprises him. So of course we are invited to bring our own opinions to what we are experiencing. But what we should not be allowed to do is bowdlerize what has been written. If we do, it can no longer be considered the work of the original author.
Lioness | March 10, 02:39 CET
I love JW (in a manly, I love his work way). That is all.
gossi | March 10, 02:40 CET
I love that we've had several long-lasting, happy relationships in his shows: Willow/Tara, Zoe/Wash, Kennedy/Willow (even though I hated Kennedy!), Buffy/Riley, etc. Those all lasted for a season-ish or more. But I'm the first to admit that while happy marriages and relationships certainly can and do last forever (though even the best ones have their rocky patches), they usually (not always) make for rather uninteresting storytelling. Remember how boring Fred/Gunn got?
As a side note, I was just realizing how few "married" couples there are on any of Joss's shows, but I think that's more a reflection of the settings – high school, young adults, etc – than his philosophy. Still, it is interesting than even among the adults (Joyce, Giles, Principal Wood, various lawyers on Angel, etc), there are so few marriages. Not that that has anything to do with this discussion... Sorry for the tangent! :-)
acp | March 10, 02:41 CET
Random, sorry.
MySerenity | March 10, 02:46 CET
The thing to question is rather or not an actor who has been playing the part for years has any "right" to the character. I think they do. Or should.
The only thing that I find at fault with in the Jossverse is what became of Buffy once she lived again in season 6. I lost Buffy those last two seasons. I do think that has something to do with Sarah feeling that her character wasn't Buffy and that was vividly translated to me (although I didn't read how she felt until after the series ended).
beckyboo | March 10, 02:49 CET
Dhoffryn | March 10, 03:05 CET
Yes. Joss is the storyteller. He has the right (and the responsibility) to tell the stories he wants to tell, the stories he feels need to be told. The viewers have the right to embrace his stories, criticize his stories, watch Charmed instead, or just respond to the work however they like.
For traditional scripted TV series, fans and fan reactions should not dictate the stories. If you want a story which you're allowed to participate in, read some hypertext fiction instead of watching TV. Some suggestions:
12 Blue by Michael Joyce
Fingerprints on Digital Glass by M.D. Coverly
Reagan Library by Stuart Moulthrop
All of these are greatly entertaining works which actively the reader in the storytelling process.
<*sarcasm*> I'm still mad at Baz Luhrmann for killing off Satine at the end of Moulin Rouge! She and Christian wer supposed to live happily ever after! Why didn't Baz Luhrmann understand that? I'm not seeing his next movie!
Invisible Green | March 10, 03:08 CET
As for the happy relationship thing. Every relationship, happy or unhappy, ends. People die. People separate. People move on. Another word for the "end of happy relationships" is life. Change. Joss's shows are about "real life." In real life, relationships end. Yes, we can freeze a moment of happiness - both in real life and on BtVS. But in life, where time passes, relationships end.
SoddingNancyTribe | March 10, 03:11 CET
Haunt | March 10, 03:13 CET
I do agree though that long term it's more interesting to see them stay together and I think that would probably have happened.
Was he mad ?
Only North by Northwest, Lioness ;). My point though (not my idea, obviously, it's down to Barthes I think) was not that as acp said we can have different opinions but that the creator's opinion is widely seen as being definitive and whether there was any actual objective truth to that assumption. As you say, we pull Shakespeare apart in numerous different ways without issue but say (and try not to drool ;) we found a set of annotations by old Bill himself explaining exactly what he meant for each character in his plays and by each line. Would that then effectively invalidate the current body of criticism ? Or at least relegate it to insightful speculation that had turned out to be wrong ? Or would Shakespeare's annotations just be one more opinion and not necessarily even as insightful as those that have percolated for 400+ years ?
And yeah, gossi, I love the way he messes with us too. Obviously he could go too far but I think only if an event didn't feel true, like it had just popped out of nowhere. Ironically, death is one of the few things that can just pop out of nowhere but even then if, say, Wash had been killed in a traffic accident on Persephone a) I probably wouldn't believe he was really dead for several episodes and b) once I did believe it I would pretty quickly stop watching because that just isn't playing fair. As Annie Wilkes might say 'That's cheating'. Heroes don't die like we do, they die heroic deaths or they ride into the sunset to live forever more (anyone else think Indiana Jones IV could be a very bad idea ?).
Saje | March 10, 03:16 CET
That said, I still love to read fanfiction. I don't read fanfic because I don't like what's going on in canon, but because I want to read more about that universe. To read "what-if..." scenarios. And sometimes because they're just damn hot. I suppose in a way, if canon is the "real world" of the fictional universe, than fanfic is, well, the fiction of the fictional universe. *g* Alternative histories, romances, etc.
KernelM | March 10, 03:16 CET
That wasn't so much an argument as it was a re-stating of an opinion. Btw you didn't answer my question - were you shocked when Wash died or did you expect it ahead of time?
Nebula1400: Apologies if that is a spoiler. I'm not sure when spoiler territory ends with cancelled shows that have already been aired several times. I'll go back and black out the spoilery part, but it will still remain in your quote.
Remember this forum isn't exclusive to the US. I don't think Enterprise S4 has even finished airing on UK terrestrial TV.
Grounded | March 10, 03:16 CET
gossi | March 10, 03:17 CET
I did and I didn't. I did in the sense that, by that point in my Joss fandom I'd come to expect that ALL happy couples would suffer and ultimately go down in flames. And I didn't because of comments (from Joss and many, many others) like what gossi mentioned... Joss had stated that Wash and Zoe were meant to be the "happy couple" because he thought that needed to be seen on television.
So pick whichever answer you like and reply accordingly.
Haunt | March 10, 03:26 CET
CBG: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart: What? They're giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? I mean, if anything, you owe them.
Anyhow, don't forget that Joss and Mutant Enemy in the past have listened to what the fans wanted. From what I gather Angel and Spike were originally intended to be minor characters but fans loved them. So they stayed and were given plot arcs.
A creator has to be aware of what will sell to the fans but he does have to be more aware of how it will sell to the general viewing audience. Sometimes I think we focus too much on the goldfish bowl of internet fandom and forget realise that Joss' shows were watched by millions of people who don't post online.
Simon | March 10, 03:34 CET
....? Who are these fantasy people of whom you write??
Rogue Slayer | March 10, 03:39 CET
BTW, my understanding is that if a show has aired on US TV it can no longer strictly be spoiled on here (i'm pretty circumspect about 24 threads for example) though that may only apply to Joss' shows (though that seems daft since they've all already aired on US TV *sniff*).
Yeah, Simon, I think that was largely responsible for the disappointment over Serenity's box office. On here and other Whedon forums we follow every mention in any news source, hang on the big man's every word (cos they're normally such juicy, funny ones ;) and generally bathe in all things Whedon. Very easy to forget that in the real world, not everyone is so, err, enthused.
Saje | March 10, 03:43 CET
ETA: "Star Trek Enterprise's fourth season terrestrial premier continues Sundays Channel Four." Interestingly I find the description for the last episode when I search 4's listings but the page their link takes me to doesn't mention it at all :)
ETA again: According to trektv.co.uk -- "Twinned to England's Channel 4, Sianel Pedwar Cymru (S4C) was launched on Monday, 1st November 1982. Unlike the Independent Television Network (ITV), S4C maintains it's own unique identity and broadcasts its own programs during primetime hours.
It normally airs Enterprise episodes a week after Channel Four." Which would make the last episode of S4 air this weekend, I think.
zeitgeist | March 10, 03:44 CET
-- the creator literally is God in his/her universe, and what they say goes. Absolute control is his deal, bitching and whining and possible turning off of the TV is mine. Ex: I loved Veronica Mars in its first season, but the second season is somehow not working for me. I can't even explicate why this is so, it's just -- not. Still love many of the characters, even agree with the direction many of the plotlines have taken, just somehow don't feel compelled to watch it every week. So I make "meh" comments at the TWoP foruma (forae?) and tape eps and watch 'em like that. I'm no longer an active "good" fan of the show, but an indifferent one. And that is probably even worse than a "bad" angry fan.
-- Oh, there have been decisions Joss has made that have made me long for death: Angel returning mystically in S3 (I was never a BAngel fan), the introduction of Dawn and Riley, and oh, Kennedy, and the Potentials!, Willow's drug addiction storyline (literally ruined the character for me, when she was made "good" again w/ so little heartfelt penance -- has anyone else noticed he lobs softballs to the girls while the guys suffer eternal torment for much lesser sins?), Buffy's depression (it's a noble urge to show depression on TV, but there's a reason it's so rarely done -- it's incredibly hard to make it dramatic) -- in fact, most of S5 onward, I was watching the show out of loyalty rather than enjoyment. Had the show ended at "The Gift", I would regret only one thing: the musical. And even though I was such a "bad" fan, I never really felt the urge to either abandon Joss forever as an artist because I knew his creative juices for BtVS were spent, and that it's very rare for any show to last 7 seasons and not see a creative decline. Especially a show that had reached such heights in seasons 2 and 3. So I watched, and tried to keep my bitching to a minimum, and fell in love with Firefly.
For an artist I really favor -- like Joss, or Alan Moore, or Haruki Murakami, or Vladimir Nabokov -- I can overlook their occasional stumbles b/c when they get it right, utterly & undeniably right, they can do things and make me feel things that nobody else can. I mean that with all sincerity.
dottikin | March 10, 03:53 CET
Haunt | March 10, 03:58 CET
zeitgeist | March 10, 04:00 CET
What this means to me is an audience has every right (duty, even) to bitch and moan about the art (shape the stream), but they shouldn't expect the artist to react. I'm happy to debate issues with people I disagree with (e.g. over Wash's death or Buffy's sacrifice/suicide), but I have no patience for people demanding/expecting Joss or anyone else shape his stories to their wishes.
jam2 | March 10, 04:05 CET
Sometimes I think we focus too much on the goldfish bowl of internet fandom and forget realise that Joss' shows were watched by millions of people who don't post online.
Excellent point. "Serenity" might not have made a lot at the box office, but millions of people saw and enjoyed the film across the world at the cinema and now on DVD. How many of them really object to the killing of Wash? Most of them might have been shocked or sad - but the objection to his death and the call for a boycott of the film and/or Joss Whedon is a minor blip in the fandom, magnified by the internet but of no real consequence to Whedon or his career or the way he tells his stories.
crossoverman | March 10, 04:10 CET
In terms of the "rights" of the viewer, television is quite a singular medium. Due to the time over which a story unfolds, there are manifold opportunities for feedback whilst a programme is still being written and created. It is already the case that the creator of a tv series is likely to have more potential interference than almost any other artist. He (or she) often has to deal with network interference and almost certainly has to deal with viewing figures. Some show-runners have certainly reacted to internet opinion and it is arguable whether or not this has been for the best. Is listening to the opinions of viewers really that different from changing movies in response to test screenings?
Simon, you certainly makes a good point that internet fandom is just a tiny portion of the viewing audience. While it may sometimes be useful for programme makers to see how an audience is reacting to a specific character, it would surely be to the detriment of a programme to try to respond too keenly to internet trends.
I would argue that one of the reasons why HBO shows are very often superior to much of network tv is because the creators of those shows are given more freedom to tell their stories in the way that they wish. Ultimately, if a creator finds it useful to listen to feedback and that works for him then it isn't de facto "wrong" but there should be no onus upon him to do so.
Jon | March 10, 04:12 CET
I won't add to the spoileriness but if you're a fan I almost guarantee you'll be disappointed by the final episode.
Or, if you are a fan of The Next Generation, you'll absolutely love it as I did :-)
crossoverman | March 10, 04:13 CET
And jam2, I love your stream analogy. Very poetical. :)
Haunt | March 10, 04:13 CET
But the gorilla in the room that no one has mentioned is Tara. I cannot agree that her death was what a whole hell of a lot of fans "needed." I don't mean to rake up an issue that will not go away, but I would think there were lessons to be learned in the outcry following Tara's death, but I see little evidence that this is the case. I saw damage control- creating Kennedy as an an ersatz anti-Tara in order to keep Willow gay (and the fact that he and Marti Noxon even had to discuss whether or not to keep Willow gay is an indication of how badly they continued to read the audience), the so-called "get out fo jail card" that many have problems really believing. Intead, I see the same arguments offered here that were trotted out there- I need to do this, the story needs this, you need this. Well, no, I don't. What I am learning is to not invest myself in any character that Joss creates, because he may later take them from me- and I create from them my own story, a point that seems to be lost here as everyone argues for his right to do exactly what he wants. Yes, he can, and he can neglect his audience, and in the end, and I hate to say this, it is all about commerce, about putting a show on the air that makes money and NEEDS to be watched by people in order to survive. TV is a commodity and you do not get to sell your ware if no one buys- so the audience, in their ownership of the characters, make this possible- they are the real engine driving the show. Just because you write does not mean anyone will read. All occurs in the marketplace.
Dana5140 | March 10, 04:17 CET
That particular gorilla has been mentioned a half dozen or so times in this thread :)
zeitgeist | March 10, 04:19 CET
Without question the most annoying, irritating, stab-myself-in-the-eyes upsetting thing that Joss Whedon ever, EVER says (and keeps saying over and over again) is that trite little aphorism "I give them what they need, not what they want." Of all my complaints about minor little Whedon quirks, I really think that hearing this nonsense another two, three hundred thousand MORE times is all it will take to push me away from the 'Verse.
*breathing* Anyways, I'm not as on the Tara ranting train as some others. It upset me, but has never been the main focus of my rage. But I DO completely agree with your comment about learning to not invest in any Joss characters because you know they'll just be taken from you eventually. Somehow the assurance that, just as in "real life", fictional characters all die eventually just doesn't really seem to ease the suffering for me.
Haunt | March 10, 04:32 CET
zeitgeist | March 10, 04:42 CET
From every angle I think it was a great death.
gossi | March 10, 04:44 CET
Aww, how sweet. One more hope for Joss to rip from your chest and throw on the ground at your feet. ;)
(I kid 'cause I love)
Haunt | March 10, 04:48 CET