|
Post by LadyDi on Jun 19, 2007 0:51:49 GMT -5
Doing my part to keep Patti-itis alive. Someone mentioned an "awful movie" in an earlier post on this thread. I'm wondering what movie is being referrenced here?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 19, 2007 7:27:13 GMT -5
I'll admit that I probably read this a little too fast and I kinda forgot where they left off, so I was confused at first, but the issue seemed like a whole lot of WTF, until the very end, when the guy started talking about the activation of all the Slayers. Yay! Dangling plot threads being addressed! It gives me hope that we may get definitive answers about how Buffy's resurrection disrupted the Slayer line and what the Scythe's all about, etc. And the guy may be evil or a cultist or something, but I think he does have a valid point or two somewhere in what he said. NotDeadWarren... well, eetah to be's comment about the characters that our heroes kill being not actually dead. I find it a disappointing but consistent trend. On the other hand, there are some interesting things about his being alive. And also, there's that how can The First appear as Warren thing. I could not agree more. One of the worst things about s6 (IMO), is that both Buffy and Willow got easy outs for their bad behavior. For Willow, it was the bad, bad magic. For Buffy, the bad, bad vampire (or his enabling, at any rate). If your gonna go there, then really go there, dammit! S6 was supposed to be about growing up, and part of growing up is taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the consequences. Um, actually that's not what meant and I disagree with you here. I think the season 6 was a lot more subtle and complicated than that. What I was referring to was Buffy killing her potential step-father but not actually killing him because he's really a robot. Wes killing his father but not actually killing him because it was actually a cyber-ninja. And now Willow not actually killing Warren because Amy saved him in the nick of time. It's like they're given the opportunity to have a cathartic holodeck experience. I think the justification for Buffy's and Wes's cases were that Joss/the writers wanted our protagonists to remain likable and becoming murderers would make the audience not like them anymore. Except fans seem to like or not like the characters for a variety of reasons, and not-being-a-murderer isn't always a deal breaker.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 19, 2007 7:37:43 GMT -5
Doing my part to keep Patti-itis alive. Someone mentioned an "awful movie" in an earlier post on this thread. I'm wondering what movie is being referrenced here? CNN and other news ran a story about a woman who was beaten to death and many in the crowd filmed it with their phone cameras. Joss posted a comment on Whedonesque, angry and trying to figure out how the hell things like this happen. There's a link to his comment here.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Jun 19, 2007 19:53:41 GMT -5
I could not agree more. One of the worst things about s6 (IMO), is that both Buffy and Willow got easy outs for their bad behavior. For Willow, it was the bad, bad magic. For Buffy, the bad, bad vampire (or his enabling, at any rate). If your gonna go there, then really go there, dammit! S6 was supposed to be about growing up, and part of growing up is taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the consequences. Um, actually that's not what meant and I disagree with you here. I think the season 6 was a lot more subtle and complicated than that. What I was referring to was Buffy killing her potential step-father but not actually killing him because he's really a robot. Wes killing his father but not actually killing him because it was actually a cyber-ninja. And now Willow not actually killing Warren because Amy saved him in the nick of time. It's like they're given the opportunity to have a cathartic holodeck experience. I think the justification for Buffy's and Wes's cases were that Joss/the writers wanted our protagonists to remain likable and becoming murderers would make the audience not like them anymore. Except fans seem to like or not like the characters for a variety of reasons, and not-being-a-murderer isn't always a deal breaker. I'm not sure that's entirely true. After all, Gunn's murder of the professor was never taken back or miraculously undone, yet he remained a character the audience liked and sympathized with, while Angel facilitated the slaughter of several W&H attorneys and their guests at the hands of Darla and Dru. And although Willow and Wes (I'm leaving Buffy out of it, as Ted's fall down the stairs was, as I recall, an accident) may not technically be guilty of murder, they both acted as they did fully believing they were killing a human being—something Wes himself noted to Fred later in the episode. That he hadn't killed his father didn't really take away his sense of guilt or remorse, because what mattered was that he intended his father's death. So, to me, knowing Warren survived doesn't change my opinion of Willow's actions, any more than discovering Roger Wyndham-Pryce was a robot changed how I viewed what Wesley did. But assume the IMO, YMMV, and all that good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Jun 19, 2007 19:59:14 GMT -5
I loved the continuity with Ethan and the military holding cell. Also? The numbers on the door. I don't think that Buffy is at war with the human race. That symbol on the general's chest indicates that something other-wordly or dimensional is running this show and using the military as puppets to destroy the Slayers and the entire line. (Again.) I don't doubt what he believes, but he has been brainwashed. I'm waiting to find out more about Dawn the Thricewise, btw. We don't see Dawn nearly enough. And, who were those entities with whom Willow was conversing while Warren was busy lobotomizing her? Gyah! Loved the reference back to Amy's worst nightmare being her mother and the rendition was perfect! I do not think that Xander kissed Buffy, but I'm not yet sold on Willow being the one. I'm going to have to re-read to see if I pick up any more clues. And, how perfect was it that on the verge of going into battle Buffy was asking for lipgloss because she was "cracky" and then commenting on the flavor? LOL! So, was Buffy's black-eyed mojo from the witches at the HQ or is it the part of Willow that is always with her? I noticed the similarity between Buffy's comment about the general hating the words "women and power" in the same sentence with his comment the other day about that awful movie and the wide-spread misogyny in the world. He will always rock my world. That comment about the lipgloss was sooo Buffy - but also maybe a clue as to who kissed her, because Buffy commented that the flavor was 'cinnamon', and when she was kissed, the first thing she said when she woke up was 'cinnamon buns'.
I think the Chinese slayer was the one who kissed her.Joss - it was almost like he timed the comic's first 4 story arc with the upcoming Serenity viewings and the fundraisers for Equality Now. Which I think is damn awesome! Believe it or not, Greg picked up on that as well and thought the exact same thing. As for his sister, that connection flew right by her.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jun 19, 2007 20:18:22 GMT -5
Doing my part to keep Patti-itis alive. Someone mentioned an "awful movie" in an earlier post on this thread. I'm wondering what movie is being referrenced here? CNN and other news ran a story about a woman who was beaten to death and many in the crowd filmed it with their phone cameras. Joss posted a comment on Whedonesque, angry and trying to figure out how the hell things like this happen. There's a link to his comment here. And related to that, I the movie that is being referred to is Captivity. Joss wrote a letter to the MPAA protesting the billboard "art" that was used to promote the "film."
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Jun 20, 2007 21:59:44 GMT -5
CNN and other news ran a story about a woman who was beaten to death and many in the crowd filmed it with their phone cameras. Joss posted a comment on Whedonesque, angry and trying to figure out how the hell things like this happen. There's a link to his comment here. And related to that, I the movie that is being referred to is Captivity. Joss wrote a letter to the MPAA protesting the billboard "art" that was used to promote the "film." It sounds like the ad campaign was, at best, misguided, but if I read the movie synopsis correctly, it isn't just a woman being subjected to the atrocities committed in Captivity. This is not a movie I'd have any interest in seeing regardless. I'm not a fan of horror movies in general. I just think Joss may be reading too much into this. I once read some of his comments regarding the movie Die Hard and the anti-feminist treatment of Bonnie Bedelia's character, and thought his reasoning was flawed.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Jun 20, 2007 22:09:22 GMT -5
Warren being back - no problem Warren never having been dead - problem - First Body modification, including tattoos (knights of byzantium) and scars (these twilight guys), are very old human techniques. Most symbols are human symbols. Presence of symbols says nothing about presence of mystical. In logic world. In Buffy world you never know. Ah, Logicworld. It is a good and happy place. A place where, when a man goes on a spiritual quest to prove himself worthy of the girl he loves, The Girl in Question does not: a) leave him in a basement to rot b) go out on a date w/another guy And especially, after said man has made the ultimate sacrifice, c) go on about her business as if the man never existed, let alone mattered. After all, when someone you love dies, you don't cut him/her out of the family photos. c)
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jun 21, 2007 10:55:00 GMT -5
And related to that, I the movie that is being referred to is Captivity. Joss wrote a letter to the MPAA protesting the billboard "art" that was used to promote the "film." It sounds like the ad campaign was, at best, misguided, but if I read the movie synopsis correctly, it isn't just a woman being subjected to the atrocities committed in Captivity. This is not a movie I'd have any interest in seeing regardless. I'm not a fan of horror movies in general. I just think Joss may be reading too much into this. I once read some of his comments regarding the movie Die Hard and the anti-feminist treatment of Bonnie Bedelia's character, and thought his reasoning was flawed. Re: Captivity, I believe he was objecting to the ad campaign and not necessarily the movie itself, for the most part. It featured violent, sexually graphic billboards near major thoroughfares, making it impossible to shield children from seeing, short of making them wear a bag over their head when they traveled by car. I don't think Joss is God, so yes, his reasoning may be flawed. But I respect his sense of obligation to speak up about things that offend him, especially concerning the mistreatment of women.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 21, 2007 12:18:41 GMT -5
It sounds like the ad campaign was, at best, misguided, but if I read the movie synopsis correctly, it isn't just a woman being subjected to the atrocities committed in Captivity. This is not a movie I'd have any interest in seeing regardless. I'm not a fan of horror movies in general. I just think Joss may be reading too much into this. I once read some of his comments regarding the movie Die Hard and the anti-feminist treatment of Bonnie Bedelia's character, and thought his reasoning was flawed. Re: Captivity, I believe he was objecting to the ad campaign and not necessarily the movie itself, for the most part. It featured violent, sexually graphic billboards near major thoroughfares, making it impossible to shield children from seeing, short of making them wear a bag over their head when they traveled by car. I don't think Joss is God, so yes, his reasoning may be flawed. But I respect his sense of obligation to speak up about things that offend him, especially concerning the mistreatment of women. **nods** That was my take on it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 21, 2007 20:59:14 GMT -5
It sounds like the ad campaign was, at best, misguided, but if I read the movie synopsis correctly, it isn't just a woman being subjected to the atrocities committed in Captivity. This is not a movie I'd have any interest in seeing regardless. I'm not a fan of horror movies in general. I just think Joss may be reading too much into this. I once read some of his comments regarding the movie Die Hard and the anti-feminist treatment of Bonnie Bedelia's character, and thought his reasoning was flawed. Re: Captivity, I believe he was objecting to the ad campaign and not necessarily the movie itself, for the most part. It featured violent, sexually graphic billboards near major thoroughfares, making it impossible to shield children from seeing, short of making them wear a bag over their head when they traveled by car. I don't think Joss is God, so yes, his reasoning may be flawed. But I respect his sense of obligation to speak up about things that offend him, especially concerning the mistreatment of women. I didn't want to pursue this thread, but seeing we're still discussing this... I have to say that I think the problem is more about the invasiveness of advertising in our lives rather than the content. What bothers me about this is that there's far more outrage about these billboards than, say, other harmful things like incredibly unhealthy fast food burgers or cigarettes staring kids in the face. If Joss were equally outraged about those billboards as well, then I wouldn't mind his letter so much.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jun 22, 2007 11:43:25 GMT -5
Re: Captivity, I believe he was objecting to the ad campaign and not necessarily the movie itself, for the most part. It featured violent, sexually graphic billboards near major thoroughfares, making it impossible to shield children from seeing, short of making them wear a bag over their head when they traveled by car. I don't think Joss is God, so yes, his reasoning may be flawed. But I respect his sense of obligation to speak up about things that offend him, especially concerning the mistreatment of women. I didn't want to pursue this thread, but seeing we're still discussing this... I have to say that I think the problem is more about the invasiveness of advertising in our lives rather than the content. What bothers me about this is that there's far more outrage about these billboards than, say, other harmful things like incredibly unhealthy fast food burgers or cigarettes staring kids in the face. If Joss were equally outraged about those billboards as well, then I wouldn't mind his letter so much. Hmmmm. I can see your point, but also not see it. 'Cuz I guess I'm in the mode of "everyone gets to pick the issues they care about, or care most about, and work on those". So, some people might not have seen a problem with these billboards but do see a problem with ones about junk food or cigarettes and lobby or protest about those, and others might feel the opposite way. Or might have issues with all, but decide to work on only one or only some.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Jun 25, 2007 21:02:38 GMT -5
It sounds like the ad campaign was, at best, misguided, but if I read the movie synopsis correctly, it isn't just a woman being subjected to the atrocities committed in Captivity. This is not a movie I'd have any interest in seeing regardless. I'm not a fan of horror movies in general. I just think Joss may be reading too much into this. I once read some of his comments regarding the movie Die Hard and the anti-feminist treatment of Bonnie Bedelia's character, and thought his reasoning was flawed. Re: Captivity, I believe he was objecting to the ad campaign and not necessarily the movie itself, for the most part. It featured violent, sexually graphic billboards near major thoroughfares, making it impossible to shield children from seeing, short of making them wear a bag over their head when they traveled by car. I don't think Joss is God, so yes, his reasoning may be flawed. But I respect his sense of obligation to speak up about things that offend him, especially concerning the mistreatment of women. Who doesn't? I read the entirety of his post on Whedonesque, and several of the comments that followed. Had I seen the billboards, I probably wouldn't have been too pleased either. I just think Joss sometimes loses sight of the bigger picture, and this may be one of those times. I doubt the advertising department was acting out of malice/misogyny. Their goal is to get butts in seats and money in the bank. They went sensationalistic, and it backfired on them.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 25, 2007 22:08:40 GMT -5
Re: Captivity, I believe he was objecting to the ad campaign and not necessarily the movie itself, for the most part. It featured violent, sexually graphic billboards near major thoroughfares, making it impossible to shield children from seeing, short of making them wear a bag over their head when they traveled by car. I don't think Joss is God, so yes, his reasoning may be flawed. But I respect his sense of obligation to speak up about things that offend him, especially concerning the mistreatment of women. Who doesn't? I read the entirety of his post on Whedonesque, and several of the comments that followed. Had I seen the billboards, I probably wouldn't have been too pleased either. I just think Joss sometimes loses sight of the bigger picture, and this may be one of those times. I doubt the advertising department was acting out of malice/misogyny. Their goal is to get butts in seats and money in the bank. They went sensationalistic, and it backfired on them. I think Joss had a knee jerk reaction to the inyourface objectivation of women of that billboard. Especially of a young, pretty woman. Totally opposite as to how he likes to portray young girls. He's so swimming upstream on this one, but someone has to. Young girls today look to Paris Hilton as their role model, for god's sake. It's scary.
|
|