SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Anybody else a Buffy fan?
date
newest »
newest »
Melanie wrote: "I finally got the first disc of Firefly ( not lovin my netflix lately). That show is awesome does any one know why the canceled it? "Well, they claimed it was raiting, which is my understanding, but the station didn't even give it a chance. They played the episodes out of order so no one could understand what was going on. supposedly the pilot didn't play till a few episodes in. They put it in awful time slots. I never even heard of it till after it was cancelled. What a bummer. It's a great show!!!
Melanie wrote: "I finally got the first disc of Firefly ( not lovin my netflix lately). That show is awesome does any one know why the canceled it? "I hear that the ratings were just pretty bad. But I'm sorta okay with the cancellation, since we have a movie that more or less wrapped up all the loose ends.
Right now, I'm just worried that Dollhouse would suffer the same fate.
I think that it is very sad that the show was cancelled. It is a great show. I would have loved to have more episodes to see! It never got a fair chance and that's so wrong!!!
Alex wrote: I hear that the ratings were just pretty bad. But I'm sorta okay with the cancellation, since we have a movie that more or less wrapped up all the loose ends."Firefly is one of my all time favorite shows. I agree that they didn't give it a proper chance with poor time slots and showing the season out of order. I'm glad we have things wrapped up with the movie, but I'm not ok with the cancelation. I think they had a lot more story to tell.
Beth A. wrote: "but I'm not ok with the cancelation. I think they had a lot more story to tell. "Perhaps "okay" is the wrong word. I guess what I really meant was "resigned", as I only started watching after the show was canceled and it's unlikely that it'd be brought back or anything.
I'd have loved for Firefly to go on forever, too, or at least a couple more seasons. But well, right now I'm excited enough about Dollhouse to overlook that.
Firefly was my link into Whedon's work (actually, the movie Serenity was so good I bought the series discs). The remarkable thing is that it develops such a strong ensemble in a single season (compared to the Star Trek arcs that really take about 4 seasons to hit their stride). I wasn't crazy about the Buffy movie when it came out, but in retrospect, I can see it was a casting issue. I've only watched the Buffy/Angel seasons over the past few months. Buffy ended with me wanting more, but it's hard to sustain 20-something high school students over the long haul. I did look at the first manga issue (season "8"), but it looked pretty lame.
How fitting this news comes out on Tuesday, ("Dawn's in trouble, must be Tuesday"):http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/...
Blasphemy to the highest degree. The producers who hold the rights to Buffy are planning a Buffy movie. Yay! Except...they are jumping on the remake/reboot bandwagon and plan on doing it without Whedon and the series actors.
Uh, yeah, no.
My favorite comment on the page:
"It's like Lucas making Episode I. Except it's not even Lucas, and Jar Jar has suddenly become the main character."
I'm not crazy about anyone "owning" derivative rights. If authors have a moral right to control what goes on in the worlds they create (Ursula LeGuin has been outspoken about this), then it seems that it should be an inalienable right. Once the Buffyverse is out there, it seems that anyone should be able to contribute. If the contributions are shit, then they should be reasonably ignored. Of course, copyright law doesn't agree with me.Here's my argument against rights of derivation:
The unperceived world is no world at all (at least from a pragmatic perspective). Therefore, any world "exists" through the effort of multiple individuals (readers, writers, watchers, actors, directors, critics).
If the creation of a fictional world is labor, in the Lockean sense, then it is the labor of many people. Some may contribute more and other less, but no one individual should be able to perfect a clear title.
Removal of "property" from the common carries a moral obligation to insure that the property removed is not allowed to spoil, and that sufficient raw material remain in the common for the like removal by others (after Locke).
A fictional world should therefore be left in the intellectual common--not exploited by any one individual, but protected by all individuals with an interest in the common.
Whedon doesn't "own" he idea of Buffy, and neither do the people who claim to own it. They only think they own it by an ex cathedra reference to a crappy law.
Blasphemy to the highest degree. The producers who hold the rights to Buffy are planning a Buffy movie. Yay! Except...they are jumping on the remake/reboot bandwagon and plan on doing it without Whedon and the series actors.Tragic stupidity! Where do we line up to picket?
David,I completely and totally disagree with you. Whedon developed and created the world of Buffy: Slayers, Watchers, the hellmouth. Anyone who walks in and creates a derivative work just saved themselves months, if not years, of work creating the world/characters and is capitalizing on someone else's work by tapping into the name recognition of BtVS and the built in fanbase.
If the rules worked the way you stated, no one would bother making anything, because what would be the reward? Whedon could have done the first season of Buffy, then been fired by the TV network and they continue the series based on his notes, because after all he didn't "own" the work. Oh, and Season 2, there are now TWO Season 2s, the one for WB and a competing one on NBC. That won't hurt the original show or anything...
Explain to me what the readers, critics, or watchers contributed? Now I watched the show, I convinced others to watch the show. But I don't think one things I did had any effect on the storylines, character developments, etc.
The actors, directors, etc. all signed detailed contracts that included some of them getting ongoing payment for their performance (reruns, DVD sales, etc). But they weren't the creator. They were implementers of the creator's ideas.
Lara Amber
Robert wrote: "Tragic stupidity! Where do we line up to picket?"AMEN - there is no Buffy without Wheadon! I don't care what the law say re ownership etc. I wouldn't even want to see it.
I've read a lot of the season 8 Buffy comic, and I really like it. I'm a graphic novel fan, so that may play into it. I would not see a Buffy movie that Whedon wasn't involved in. That's ridiculous!
Lara,LeGuin uses the "invading army" metaphor, and I'm inclined to see her point; she does "allow" that people are free to write fan fiction--maybe even share hand-scribed, clandestine copies with their intimates--but she objects to publication (particularly on the Internet) tainting a world that she cares about. But I haven't heard her invoke copyright law, and I (personal opinion) believe that she is supported, rather than justified by the law. If I am inclined to grant her an exception, it's because she hasn't called for collaborators, and she hasn't abandoned her work. That's where the whole "inalienable" thing comes in--if she has a right to protect her work, she also has an obligation to protect it. And she protects her work by continuing to share her amazing contributions to the written environment.
As for the contribution of consumers, Buffy would have never made a 7th season on broadcast television without viewers, and Jane Austen probably would never have written Persuasion if they hadn't published P&P. Existence is the primary characteristic of a storyline, and so fiction consumers collectively affect storyline. I'm not saying fans should be paid; I'm saying they shouldn't be ignored. If writers are just fans inspired to the point of emulation, then pissing on someone else's inspiration seems unconscionable.
As for Buffy, the networks fronted money, but they also made profit. This is all good. This is part of the agreement under which they are given access to public air waves (or allowed to launch and support communication satelites). Networks, publishers, writers, producers--have a right to profit from what they've done. They even have a right to anticipate profit from what they intend to do--subject to established rules. But what moral right do they have to control derivative work (to control the creative output of someone else)? Remember that whole inane thing with Clayton Moore and Jack Wrather (okay, I guess it was a few decades ago) over the Lone Ranger?
If we want to watch Buffy, we either pay for it, or we try to ignore 17 minutes of consumer dogma. I have no objections to purchasing a product subject to free market forces. I do feel, however, that when the principal players are dead (or otherwise refrain from objecting) that the work should go into the public domain. I don't believe that books are substantially different, although they are typically generated by fewer people.
And I don't buy the premise that people (particularly creative people) are primarily motivated by money. Think about Abraham Maslow: people are motivated by pre-potent needs. If you're struggling with visceral and safety needs, they tend to consume all your effort. I haven't been hungry for a long time, but when I stopped being hungry, I started wanting people to think well of me. And it's been a while since I cared what people think of me (until they cut me off on the freeway). Creative ideation is an act of self-actualization. The act is it's own telos.
I like Whedon's work--so much so that I'm pretty much willing to try anything he puts his name on (although I thought the Buffy mangas were pretty stupid). But are you saying Buffy sprang from Whedon's head, like Athena-out-of-Zeus? Surely Buffy's crisp and imaginative, which is why it's good, but it wasn't produced in a vacuum. Whedon has added enormously to the genre, but no one "invented" the genre.
I would not watch a Buffy movie done by the original producers because they ruined the first Buffy movie. It was total crap. And if Whedon is not involved, I don't even care. I agree with whoever said if it's not Whedon, it's not Buffy! Besides...it's been too long now...what, 6 years since the series ended??
So what? Star Trek ended 43 years ago and they still make movies about it.
Ok, I'll give you that point. But the fact still remains that the people who are allegedly wanting to make this movie are the people who almost destroyed Joss's vision in the first Buffy movie. Why would any fan of the series even be interested?
A lot of the ST movies had the original cast in it. When 43 years passes, it's reasonable to expect that most people involved in the original will not be around or interested. When the original creator and cast are still perfectly able to make a movie less than a decade after the show ended, why ALREADY hop on the reboot train and purposefully not ask any of them to be involved? The Kuzuis, from what I've read, only retain the rights to anything in the first movie, not the show. So what does that leave us with?
I suspect they're really just trying to jump on the Twilight train. I'm already annoyed that Hollywood is taking one of my favorite YA vampire series (LJ Smith's The Vampire Diaries) and is making a television show out of it...with everything changed. It's practically unrecognizable except for the title. I don't want anyone to do this to my favorite vampire show as well. Just make your own damn vampire things without trying to manipulate a fanbase you're just going to piss off.
It’s rare for any film to be dominated by a single individual. When Whedon wrote the Buffy movie in the early 90s, he was probably willing to give up control of his script for the sake of a paycheck, a screen credit, and the realization of some version of his basic idea. Typically, actors, directors, and screenwriters simply have their efforts co-opted by a corporation, which then controls the ultimate product. And according to our “crazy” copyright laws, “ultimate product” is expanded to include derivative works as currently un-envisioned. No one holds a gun to the head of creative talent (other than Luca Brasi), but few individuals are capitalized enough to put together their own feature film. Since creative talent is “paid” subject to market forces, you can’t even say that they are paid well (“well” being a relative thing). Many people beyond Roddenberry (who died in 1991) contributed to Star Trek. Why should Paramount decide when and who expands the canon? If you want to control distracting contributions (Lara, wasn’t Angel I actually Buffy 4.5?) why not establish a board of past contributors to approve future projects?
As far as a new Buffy movie goes, I'll be interested to see what they do. It's the Problem of Induction: there is no "good" reason to believe that the future will be like the past. Whedon could make another crappy Buffy movie (although the movie sucked, the script was actually pretty good), and someone else could make a good Buffy movie. How would you characterize a "good" Buffy movie? I think a good derivative work has to add to the canon--and so sometimes a new head helps.
To be honest, I couldn't care less if SMG was out, I didn't think much of her anyway. But Joss, Alyson Hannigan, Nicholas Brendon, and Anthony Head bring much more to the show for me and I would rather they were there. If they were advisors to a newer and better Buffy it wouldn't matter to me so much, but I don't know if anyone writing in Hellywood can do what Joss does.
I look at most of these reboots, from Batman to Star Trek, as if they were cover versions of a song. Sometimes the cover is better, sometimes it's worse, sometimes it's just different. Liking one doesn't mean I have to hate the other. Nobody needs my permission to cover my song, as long as they pay for it, and conversely, I can't prevent somebody from covering it as long as they follow the payment rules.
That said, I can't see how anyone would think this particular cover is a good idea.
Wow, lots of Whedon-lovers here! Firefly is pretty much my favorite TV show ever, and I recently watched (and loved) all of Buffy. I'm tempted to assuage my withdrawal with the graphic novels, but I have to admit I'm pretty wary of extending the Buffyverse outside of Sunnydale. The idea of the Scoobies commanding legions from a Scottish castle just seems kind of ridiculous to me. Someone tell me I'm wrong!
I've enjoyed the graphic novels. They're different, but they've been okay. I'm a little behind on them, though. Trying to keep up with the Buffy and Angel ones.
Sarah Pi wrote: "I look at most of these reboots, from Batman to Star Trek, as if they were cover versions of a song. Sometimes the cover is better, sometimes it's worse, sometimes it's just different..."That's a good analogy. The cover doesn't erase anything. A good cover is a unique interpretation--it adds depth to the song--finds something new that makes a song worth listening to. Good musicians get bored and do their own covers.
Does the cover hurt anyone? Well, Little Richard (RE: Pat Boone) was surely frustrated, but it did seems to make him visible to the more deeply pocketed.
Ken-ichi wrote: "Wow, lots of Whedon-lovers here! Firefly is pretty much my favorite TV show ever, and I recently watched (and loved) all of Buffy. I'm tempted to assuage my withdrawal with the graphic novels, bu..."I recently watched Firefly and LOVE IT!!! That is my all time fav show. Sorry I haven't read the graphic novels....but have you seen Angel. That supposed to be pretty good.
I am trying to decide between Buffy and Charmed as the next series to watch, 2 episodes a night.Any advice?
I'm a Buffy fan. I read online somewhere that they're going to do another movie in the future, but probably not with the same characters.
I downloaded the Dollhouse episodes as they became available, but didn't have time to watch any of them. I had some time yesterday and watched the first five. So, women can be programmed to do anything (even be "just a girl") but they get programmed by a guy? I realize the doctor is a woman, and the administrator is a woman, but the handler, the security, and the resident techno-genius are all male. Is this saying that men have to control women, or that women have to be contoled (or that men think women have to be controled)?I like the meat-puppet, Neoromancer angle.
David, when I watched Dollhouse, I had a whole bunch of ideas swirling in my head regarding gender and consent and what Joss was trying to say, and this blogger summed up my thoughts better than I ever could:(there are some light spoilers in here, so you might want to watch more before reading)
http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/200...
In short, the blogger and I both think that the Dollhouse is a representation of the society we live in. And it's scarier than Buffy, because in Buffy you can fight the bad guy and win, but when the bad guy is the society you live in, it's not quite as easy.
I'd love to hear other peoples' thoughts too, I think there's a whole lot to dig into here.
Brooke wrote: "David, when I watched Dollhouse, I had a whole bunch of ideas swirling in my head regarding gender and consent and what Joss was trying to say, and this blogger summed up my thoughts better than I ..."Yeah, that was interesting; there is a fuzzy line between seduction and rape (wasn't that Greer's point?). Maybe another way to say this is that all rapes are not equally invasive. However, as much as we seem to obsess about penetration, the alienation of moral autonomy seems like a more substantial issue.
Can someone consent to being a meat-puppet (obviously, I'm not going to buy a utilitarian argument here)? Gibson's treatment is a little more straight-forward, quid pro quo--but if I remember correctly, it's a regulated trade, and the transformation is of limited duration (and Gibson pretty-much limits it to the sex trade--so the meat puppet consents to being humped, and not caring about it, for a limited period of time).
The truth is that we are continually being co-opted by incentives (positive and negative), and if personhood is inalienable, then a Doll is not the kind of thing you can consent to become (no matter how well informed you might be). Meat puppets are not moral agents (ought implies can), but the choice to accept the loss of moral autonomy (your own, or someone else's) does seem to be a moral issue.
Maybe it's a little Kantian. The Dolls might be seduced by a variety of incentives, but is the exchange consistent with the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (use no one, including yourself, as a means only to an end)?
Brooke wrote: "David, when I watched Dollhouse, I had a whole bunch of ideas swirling in my head regarding gender and consent and what Joss was trying to say, and this blogger summed up my thoughts better than I ..."Brooke, that blog post is wonderful. I hadn't specifically thought about consent being the central topic of the show, but every time I try and explain it to people that's the subject that comes up immediately: "They have no control, but they agreed to have no control..." Anyway, thanks for the link!
On Amber Benson as an author - I bought her book at WalMart because I liked the cover and the blurb - and didn't realize who the author was until my daughter said "She looks like Tara!" Then I read the blurb about the author and realized it was Tara! The book was excellent, and it was more special to me when I found out who the author was. I've been a Buffy fan since season 1, and my oldest daughter has all the seasons on DVD. My 14 yr. old and I had a Buffy-thon last year just so she would know what her sister and I were talking about!
Because Fox always cancels good shows?
Also, for some boneheaded reason they broadcast the show completely out of order. I believe the first ep was shown near the end. Caused all kinds of confusion for people trying to watch it.