Buffy Season 8

[TheCorpulent1]

Hey, he doesn't do a bad job on Buffy. Granted, she looks like an anonymous blonde woman, but she still at least looks good. Clearly, Tom Lenk has no such deal worked out with Dark Horse.

 

[Matt]

The main reason I've stuck with the comic this long is because of the Fray crossover...I was ready to dump it out of increasing lack of interest (and the overload of the "look at the random stuff we can do now that this is a comic" stuff), but when I learned there was going to be a crossover with Fray I decided to stick around.

I will admit, after re-reading all the issues all together...it's been a lot more enjoyable as compared to my first reading of each issue as I had bought them.

I'm trying to be more open-minded about the comic and give it more of a fair chance (since I've enjoyed it better upon re-reading it as a whole), so I'll just wait to see where he goes with it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...while Buffy the series was episodic, it also felt very tightly wrapped. There were very few episodes I would consider to be "filler." 40 issues are just too many. So much feels like filler (including the Fray cross over, IMO). I feel like it should've been 21-23 issues, just like a season of the show.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

But an issue of a comic book doesn't contain as much content as an hour of television unless you make the panels like 2 cm x 2 cm.

 

[fifthfiend]

Granted, she looks like an anonymous blonde woman, but she still at least looks good.

She looks like a blonde woman who's had her face beaten with a sackful of hammers.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'd still hit it.

 

[Matt]

But an issue of a comic book doesn't contain as much content as an hour of television unless you make the panels like 2 cm x 2 cm.

They simply have to make the stories shorter. It is better than half the issues being overly drawn out, fillers.

As for issue 15...it was okay. The Mecha-Dawn was a bit ridiculous but its dialogue made up for it. "I cry a lot! I often let teenage boys take advantage of my emotional state!", Loved the conversation about Judi Dench and Eleanor Roosevelt. Also loved Andrew's small role. I thought the opening narration of Renee was really sad too. Glad Satsu is gone, though. My critique however would be, that it kinda felt like "What's the point?" There wasn't really an arc to this story. Some vampires steal the scythe for a reason that was never explained or was so uneventful that I cannot remember it. Simple spell takes away their powers. Slayers kill them. The end.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I really haven't felt like any of the current Buffy series was filler, so I can't relate. One could argue that the Faith/Giles story was filler, since it took the focus away from the main characters, but it was also the best story we've gotten from the comic so far. I think, really, the scope of the comic is just broader than that of the TV series, so it's approached a different way. I doubt we would've gotten a story of comparable length with Faith and Giles in the TV series because that would be like two or three episodes without the main stars of the series.

 

[fifthfiend]

"What's the point?"

To throw Xander's girlfriend under a bus.

Basically I figure Whedon and Goddard sat down and said "okay what's the stupidest, most contrived '**** you for paying money for this comic book' way we can kill Xander's girlfriend?" and invincible-until-they-aren't Japanese vampires just seemed like the way to go.

 

[Matt]

To throw Xander's girlfriend under a bus.

Basically I figure Whedon and Goddard sat down and said "okay what's the stupidest, most contrived '**** you for paying money for this comic book' way we can kill Xander's girlfriend?" and invincible-until-they-aren't Japanese vampires just seemed like the way to go.

I've decided Whedon's writing is actually quite cheap. If he really wanted an "Anyone's vulnerable" mentality, he would go 24, Season 5 on our asses and basically kill the main characters we thought were the safest. Whedon does not do that. He takes disposable side characters, endears them to his audience, and then kills them off in a cheap way to pull at the heart strings of his viewer. Cases in point: Anya, Doyle, Renee, etc. The list goes on. If Whedon really wanted to prove that anyone was vaulnerable Giles or Willow would be dead.

 

[BrianWilly]

Anya is a disposable side character? Wash? Tara? Joyce? Doyle?? Buffy herself? Cordelia? Fred? Wesley? Seriously?

Sure you don't wanna rethink that theory?

 

[fifthfiend]

Buffy herself?

See, now you're just talking some ********.

 

[BrianWilly]

She died, and not cheaply, and in a completely valid pull at the "heartstrings of the viewer." And the manner and consequence of her death were one of the biggest plot points of the show, ever. If ever there was an "anyone's vulnerable" mentality, that sure as heck would be it.

 

[BrianWilly]

Oh, yeah, and Angel. And Darla. Hell, even Spike. And Book.

 

[fifthfiend]

She died, and not cheaply, and in a completely valid pull at the "heartstrings of the viewer." And the manner and consequence of her death were one of the biggest plot points of the show, ever. If ever there was an "anyone's vulnerable" mentality, that sure as heck would be it.

So she's dead? Not walking around doing things in the pages of her comic book?

No? Then you're talking some ********.

 

[BrianWilly]

I don't even understand what your argument is, though I'm ever so certain that you'll explain it to me. The complaint was that Whedon only ever kills disposable side characters, and cheaply so, when he wants tug at the heartstrings. Which simply isn't true, no matter how you look at it; Buffy herself is a good example, especially if you consider that at the time the episode was written, they had no idea if they were ever going to come back for another season. And even discounting that, it's a superb example of a death used tastefully and effectively, and centered around primary characters.

 

[fifthfiend]

it's a superb example of a death used tastefully and effectively, and centered around primary characters.

Why would I need to explain my argument when you're already making it for me?

Buffy gets a tasteful, effective, meaningful, Last Stand of a death scene centered around her as a character. And then goes right on living, cause that's the kind of plot immunity you can count on when you're Whedon's darling. Exactly the kind of treatment which is never given to an Anya, Wash, or Renee, who get "lol, dead" and then they're dead and hey **** you for caring.

 

[Manic]

So she's dead? Not walking around doing things in the pages of her comic book?

No? Then you're talking some ********.

You know good and well Buffy died at the end of season 5 of her show, and stayed dead for several "in continuity" months before Willow brought her back.

 

[BrianWilly]

Why would I need to explain my argument when you're already making it for me?

Buffy gets a tasteful, effective, meaningful, Last Stand of a death scene centered around her as a character. And then goes right on living, cause that's the kind of plot immunity you can count on when you're Whedon's darling. Exactly the kind of treatment which is never given to an Anya, Wash, or Renee, who get "lol, dead" and then they're dead and hey **** you for caring.

The complaint was that Whedon only ever kills disposable side characters, and cheaply so, when he wants tug at the heartstrings. Which simply isn't true, no matter how you look at it; Buffy herself is a good example, especially if you consider that at the time the episode was written, they had no idea if they were ever going to come back for another season. And even discounting that, it's a superb example of a death used tastefully and effectively, and centered around primary characters.

Moreover, Renee has been dead for all of a single issue, so I would think it's a bit premature to decide that her death has been without consequence. And did you seriously just cite Wash of all people as a character that Whedon might not care about? On what manner of evidence could you possibly base that on?

 

[fifthfiend]

The complaint was that Whedon only ever kills disposable side characters, and cheaply so, when he wants tug at the heartstrings.

Except that wasn't actually the complaint, you're just inserting your own language as an excuse to misunderstand it.

The actual argument, without the random extra verbiage, is that he takes disposable side characters, endears them to his audience, and then kills them off in a cheap way to pull at the heart strings of his viewer. This is done to creat a faux "Anyone's vulnerable" mentality which is belied by the invulnerability of the core cast. That core cast members get tastefully done, plot-significant deaths from which they inevitably recover doesn't argue for them being vulnerable in any meaningful sense of the word.

And did you seriously just cite Wash of all people as a character that Whedon might not care about? On what manner of evidence could you possibly base that on?

Could you repeat that, I couldn't hear over every single actually plot-significant moment in Serenity being one of Mal's speeches or River's magical girl-fu.

You know good and well Buffy died at the end of season 5 of her show, and stayed dead for several "in continuity" months before Willow brought her back.

Oh, in-continuity months! That changes everything.

Wait no, Buffy was still alive again in the very next episode, and you're talkin' some ********.

 

[BrianWilly]

Except that wasn't actually the complaint, you're just inserting your own language as an excuse to misunderstand it.

The actual argument, without the random extra verbiage, is that he takes disposable side characters, endears them to his audience, and then kills them off in a cheap way to pull at the heart strings of his viewer. This is done to creat a faux "Anyone's vulnerable" mentality which is belied by the invulnerability of the core cast. That core cast members get tastefully done, plot-significant deaths from which they inevitably recover doesn't argue for them being vulnerable in any meaningful sense of the word.

One word: Joyce. Total support player. Best death. However you verb the complaint, it still ends up being inaccurate; all manners of characters, primary or otherwise, got both appropriate and inappropriate deaths. Anya was a pivotal character for almost four seasons and got an ignominious death. Hell, Matt even used Doyle as an example, which is simply ridiculous considering that he was one of three primary, original characters on that show, not to mention he got one of the best death scenes. And Tara? Who decides if she's a disposable character or not, or that her death was cheap?

What you're basically asking for is that all characters get treated ****tily, or that no characters get treated ****tily at all. Either everyone gets treated as a star, or no one does. Which is impossible, and would have made for a horrible show.

Could you repeat that, I couldn't hear over every single actually plot-significant moment in Serenity being one of Mal's speeches or River's magical girl-fu.

The movie is a poor measure of these characters and you know it. If we only go by the movie to decide how well Joss likes characters, then he must absolutely despise Book and think Inara is the biggest waste of time. Thankfully we have fourteen other episodes of a series to show us otherwise, fourteen episodes which I can only assume you're flagrantly ignoring so that your argument will make any sense at all.

lookee ma i can ad hominem too

 

[Mandi-chan]

So wait - Sarah Michelle Gellar actually has people she's paying to approve the people who are drawing her like she had her face pounded in with a sackful of hammers?

I'm under the impression that it's not unusual for actors and actresses to approve their image being reproduced in the form of comics or statues/figures.

I believe other Buffy-verse actors were doing that when Sideshow did the 12inch figures (except Eliza...and we all know how butt-ugly/horrible the Faith figure came out looking).

Unless your comment is regarding the crappy quality of the actual comic itself (and not the beautiful covers)...in that case, I agree that it's odd that SMG's reps (or the other actors for that matter) have no problem with the less than impressive artwork.

 

[Matt]

One word: Joyce. Total support player. Best death. However you verb the complaint, it still ends up being inaccurate; all manners of characters, primary or otherwise, got both appropriate and inappropriate deaths. Anya was a pivotal character for almost four seasons and got an ignominious death. Hell, Matt even used Doyle as an example, which is simply ridiculous considering that he was one of three primary, original characters on that show, not to mention he got one of the best death scenes. And Tara? Who decides if she's a disposable character or not, or that her death was cheap?

But he was concieved as an original, primary character with the intent of being killed and Wesley taking his place (at least according to Whedon). Therefore he was concieved to be a disposable character who created the faux-image that "anyone is vulnerable," which really wasn't the case until the final season. Outside of Doyle, how many major characters died on Angel prior to season 5? Lilah, Holland Manners, and Merl? Thats all I can pull off of the top of my head. The only major character of those three being Lilah. Lilah did not die until the end of Season 4. Certainly doesn't make me think "Hey! Anyone is vulnerable because a character they planned to kill after a short time from day one died!"

And Tara is clearly disposable. If she is not a necessary element to the show, she is disposable. The show went on without her. Thus, not necessary. Thus, disposable. And I'd say its a pretty cheap death when you keep the character side-lined for a majority of the season, bring her back for one episode, add her to the opening credits (after 3 seasons), and then kill her in such a quick manner.

What you're basically asking for is that all characters get treated ****tily, or that no characters get treated ****tily at all. Either everyone gets treated as a star, or no one does. Which is impossible, and would have made for a horrible show.

No, what we're asking for is Whedon grows some testicles and either kill a character that matters (and in turn inject some suspense into his story telling) or quit trying to create this artificially false "no one is safe" mentality, when clearly, the major five characters (Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, and Dawn) are all very much so death proof (and in turn save time by not developing useless side characters who die for pretty much no reason).

Oh, and just for the record, Wash, Book, Darla, Tara, Anya, and Joyce ARE side characters. They are not crucial to the movement of the plot. They are not focal points of the over-all plot arc.

In Buffy the focal points to the plot are Buffy, Xander, Giles, Willow, and later Dawn.

In Angel the focal point to the plot is pretty much just Angel. Angel and his journey alone is what drives the plot. The argument could be made for Cordeila as well, in which case I will concede, she was not the pointless elimination of a side character, but more so a character who had come full circle, completed her story, and had reached the point where from a story telling perspective, death was the best option.

As for Firefly, Mal and River are the ones who move the plot focuses on.

Basically anyone else is by definition...a side character.

 

[Matt]

Oh, and just for the record Brian, fifthfiend is right. You are missing the point of my original post. The point was that Whedon creates a faux-no one is safe mentality by killing side characters. You can't really use Buffy, Angel, Darla, Wesley, Gunn or Fred in that argument as all have been brought back to life...therefore as fifthfiend accurately sumised, creates a "Everyone is safe, but main characters," mentality.

 

[BrianWilly]

Oh, and just for the record, Wash, Book, Darla, Tara, Anya, and Joyce ARE side characters. They are not crucial to the movement of the plot. They are not focal points of the over-all plot arc.

Sorry, but to use someone else's words...now this is some ********. I don't know how you are defining "focal points of the over-all plot arc," but it doesn't resemble any definition of it that I know. Because all these people have absolutely been the focal point of numerous pivotal relationships, plots, character arcs within themselves and without, appear in utterly significant roles in one crucial episode after another -- several of them dedicated to the character itself -- and more besides. You call Xander a focal character, and yet by your logic, Xander could have died at any point throughout the series and someone could have just said that, hey, it doesn't count because he was totally disposable. Objectively, he was no more a focal point of the over-all plot arc -- by how you're quantifying it -- than Tara or Book was, while they were active. I love Xander but, objectively, he's not some all-consequential mover at the top of the totem pole compared to those characters.

Hell, Giles could die, and the same standards could apply. He was the Watcher and therefore crucial to the plot, you say? Well Wash flew the dang ship, the plot literally wouldn't have moved an inch without him! Again, objectively...this is not some transitive opinion up for debate; if you can't see that, then I simply don't know what to tell you because we'd have reached one of those insurmountable differences in perception wherein your perception makes absolutely no sense to me. Your standards for what constitutes a disposable character are simply too lenient, almost impossibly so; going by what you've described so far, ultimately a "cheap disposable character" would boil down to everyone and anyone who isn't Buffy, Angel, Mal, or possibly River! And going by your "Mal and River are teh center of the 'verse" notion, anyone who wasn't intricately attached to that plotline -- which wasn't even the focus of most episodes -- were disposable characters to the show, which would include more than half of the entire cast. Again, I'm sorry, but you truly and unreservedly must have been watching an entirely different show than I was if you honestly think that more than half of the crew were disposable.

 

[DavianVenture]

And Tara is clearly disposable. If she is not a necessary element to the show, she is disposable. The show went on without her. Thus, not necessary. Thus, disposable.

So you're saying that if a show continues after a characters death, that character was disposable? And you're complaining that non-disposable characters were never killed? Think about that for a minute. By your definition, the only way a non-disposable character could be killed is if the show ended for good after that episode. You're compaining that Joss Whedon kept his shows running? Or are you compaining that Joss Whedon didn't kill more characters on the last episodes of his shows?