Lesbian Cliche FAQ - Final (tentative)

[friskylez]

EmmaPeel, I thought it was cool to that the "W" brothers brought in a lesbian advisor, i just kind of chuckled to myself when i heard about that..It only goes to show that they wanted to get it right, apparently getting it right was a good thing, i believe thats why the film was so successful...Gina and Jennifer werent in the movie simply as plot devices, they were the plot and it wouldnt have worked otherwise..

And let me add this, if said poster doesnt feel welcome here or thinks the kittens are insensitive, you are so far off the mark its ridiculous...ive never met any of the kittens in person, but these are some of the most sensitive, caring, passionate, intelligent, accepting people i have ever had the good fortune to come across in my 47 years, 20 of those being out..

I know they dont need me defending them, they could do it rather well themselves, but it trips my trigger to hear people say how insensitive this or blah blah blah that this board is...If you didnt just drop in to tell us how we should feel and read the board on a regular basis, youd know how wrong you are..

Didnt want to double post so ill edit this to add, BenV said " It comes from the ME writers, the other people who made up W & T"

I understand what you are trying to say, but it isnt always about the writing..It is the actors who deliver the lines and make the viewers believe in the characters, they make the words come to life...There are parts/stories that are character driven, if you dont get the right people, the story doesnt work...

Amber and Aly were made to play W/T because of their chemistry together...Yes Joss did come up with the stories and he created Tara and Willow on paper, but it wasnt Joss who brought those characters to life, it was the wonderfully talented actresses who played W/T...No one shipped Joss/his story, they shipped W/T the characters that Amber and Aly "created"...

[roamin]

[quote:9bdf5155e9][b:9bdf5155e9][i:9bdf5155e9]Quote:[/i:9bdf5155e9][/b:9bdf5155e9]

---

Well I realize that too, not thanks to Joss Whedon, but thanks to the people on this board. It would not surprise me if a few months from now he is patting himself on the back for having created this discussion as if he intended it in the first place and merits praise for it, as if he has made *us* aware of these issues instead of vice versa.

---

[/quote:9bdf5155e9]

You're right Dr. G - it's really because of the discussions here.When I first started lurking I thought the Kittens were all over-reacting, but I kept reading and thinking and, well, I came around.

[Epicurus]

Ben Varkentine said:
[b:0504ced8e6] Someone made the promising comparison of putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa, which would obviously be a negative thing to do if someone who bought the rights to show it to others did so. It would also be an inexplicable thing to do if Leonardo did it himself, but he would have the right if anyone did.[/b:0504ced8e6]

While I dont think there is an issue of Joss rights I do see the point youre trying to make. I also think that this particular comparison is WAY oversimplified. The Joss/W/T/death situation is more like

a painter paints the Mona Lisa and sells it to a museum where it hangs for years and years allowing visitors to revel in its beauty. For no reason one day but to shock the museums patrons the painter storms in and draws a moustache on her face (and gives her an extra nose and decides to paint her eyes a different colour). Sure, I could never come up with a reasonable argument to prove he had no right to do this, it is [b:0504ced8e6]his[/b:0504ced8e6] painting after all. But it does leave me with some questions:
Is it wrong to expect him not to change the painting after he assured me that it wasnt going to change?
Am I allowed to be angry at him for ruining such a beautiful piece of art?
Would it be wrong of me to expect an honest explanation from the painter regarding his actions?
Would me and the other museum visitors be told to suck it up and deal?
Would it be ok if the painter walked up to people and told them that Art is so passe?

Ok so I exaggerated a bit there but I think these questions hit the heart of the problem. I dont know about anyone else but my issues with Joss were never about his rights. Just his stupidity.

And also:
[b:0504ced8e6]As his patrons would then have the right to decide that the couldn't trust him not to muck up his own work, and take their business elsewhere.[/b:0504ced8e6]

But this doesnt take away the fact that he ruined something that I loved. Taking my business elsewhere does not change what happened. Ill still feel the same only now I can rest assured that hell never be able to ruin something that I loved ever again.

[BBOvenGuy]

Mutant Enemy's response to the fans has been all about their rights, and nothing about their responsibilities. They were quick to gobble up the praise from people who appreciated the Willow/Tara relationship, but now they've washed their hands of any responsibility for the way their choices have hurt people.

Well, guess what? You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim your right to do something, then you should be held responsible for the consequences of your actions. That's what Mutant Enemy has been trying so hard to deny.

And in any case, their claim that the needs of the story come before everything else isn't even true. At the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences thing, Joss admitted that they're going to drop Buffy's job at the Doublemeat Palace because the fast food industry was offended and threatened to pull its advertising dollars. The gay community's feelings aren't important, but Ronald McDonald's and Jack in the Box's are? Give me a break.

Instead of using the Mona Lisa as an example, imagine what would happen if Francis Scott Key came back from the dead and told us all, "You know, I'd really like to revise that [i:2a8ff1b449] Star-Spangled Banner[/i:2a8ff1b449] poem I wrote. I really think it should sing the praises of England and King George instead." Where would the dividing line between rights and responsibilities come into play then?

As I said before, what happened is that the Willow/Tara relationship grew into something greater than Joss could have created on his own, and I just don't think he knew what to do with it - or that he even wanted to know.

[urnofosiris]

For real? Buffy is getting another job because the advertisers complained? I missed that. So Joss Whedon's artisitic "integrity" is for sale then is it? Well I would not give a dime for it now.

[BBOvenGuy]

Here it is, in black and white:

[quote:57c44289bd][b:57c44289bd][i:57c44289bd]Quote:[/i:57c44289bd][/b:57c44289bd]

---

One thing that won't be back is Buffy's (Sarah Michelle Gellar) job at the Doublemeat Palace. "Doublemeat Palace was the only thing we ever did to make advertisers pull out," Whedon said. "They did not like us making fun of fast food. Sarah's very upset about not getting to wear the hat anymore."

---

[/quote:57c44289bd]

[tommo]

No, we mustn't make fun of fast food. But killing gays is okay. Oh yes.

[emma peel]

I've been catching up with the last couple pages of this thread, and I don't know what to say,but I'll try.
All you guys here of the male persuasion are absolutely wonderful The world would be a much better place if there were more like ya'll out there in RL.
It's funny, but I think most of the postings on the last couple of pages are from our terrific "straight male" Kittens. I think some of you guys are way more vocal than "those evil, manhating lesbians."
Bob, please keep on writing here on the board.
Ben, I appreciate your point of view and the considerate manner in which you express your viewpoint.. I might not agree with you, but I certainly respect your opinion.
I wish we could get permission from the posters on the Kitten to copy the "best" posts and fax and/or e-mail or snail mail them to JW, ME, Gail Berman, Wanda,anybody and everybody who "won't get it," much less "listen" as well as to those who do, I.e. Todd.Flood them with paper,halt their fax machines,clog their mailboxes.
Ah,well.End of ramble.Thanks ya'll for making this such a nice home.What an "odd family" we are.
Janice
Edited to add a note to friskylez.
Susie Bright was asked by the brothers W to play a cameo in Bound. After she read the script SHE asked THEM if she could be technical advisor.No kidding. Just look under a search engine for "Susie Bright lesbian sex consultant."

[friskylez]

Ohhhhh i got it EmmaPeel, Well its cool anyway that they said heck why not hire a lesbian sex consultant

[xita]

Yes indeed, the wheel turns when money talks. Fox wants Joss to change the entire premise of Firefly, sure. I'll do it, you gave me 10 million dollars. You want more action and less drama, I'll give it to you, I will do marathon writing and get you a script this weekend. Why didn't Joss say then, my vision cannot be compromised by your money? None of this is about vision, it is all about money. Amber Benson may create a loyal fan base, but it's clear she wasn't bringing in the right kind of advertising.

And about the Mona Lisa, to expand on your argument Epicurus, so the artist himself comes and defaces it. You said:
[quote:52d6588bea][b:52d6588bea][i:52d6588bea]Quote:[/i:52d6588bea][/b:52d6588bea]

---

Is it wrong to expect him not to change the painting after he assured me that it wasnt going to change?
Am I allowed to be angry at him for ruining such a beautiful piece of art?
Would it be wrong of me to expect an honest explanation from the painter regarding his actions?
Would me and the other museum visitors be told to suck it up and deal?
Would it be ok if the painter walked up to people and told them that Art is so passe?

---

[/quote:52d6588bea]


You have said some wonderful things there. To add to your argument.

Would it still be considered the beatiful piece of art it once was?
Would the museum still feel compelled to display it?
Would it deserve the critical look it once did?
Would I have a responsibility to inform people about the integrity of a man who ruined a global treasure?

And I am with Bob, it turns into a more complex issue if we think of it in more of a social context. Mount Rushmore, does anyone have the right to go bomb and deface it? Well, if you own the property I suppose you can, if you are responsible for its creation, sure. Should you? Would be upset? For many gays and lesbians this was unique, once in a lifetime and sacred. You don't have to agree.

[with catlike tread]

interesting article here

thebunnyslayer.oasismag.c...yReader$42


nothing new, as such, but well written.

[Ben Varkentine]

friskylez, with all the respect in the world (plus a dollop more because I just saw from your profile that we share a passion for '80's music), I disagree with you. Sort of. I think it is always about the writing first, but it isn't *only* about the writing. Yes, the actors are absolutely crucial--and though I've never seen the fabled Buffy pilot with another actress playing Willow, I've read and can believe that she didn't fit it as well as Aly Hannigan did. And I love what Amber B. did with Tara, obviously.
But if you ask me who I think is most responsible for W/T...I have to say Joss and the ME writers. They deserve the credit for this even as they desereve the blame for what they did later. No question that the actresses had great chemistry, but without the writers they're not Tara and Willow. And of course without the actresses, the writers aren't Tara and Willow either.

If you'll forgive a sexual metaphor (on a Buffy-related board? Get out!), it's as though the writer, man or woman, is the "male figure," and the actor, man or woman, is the "female figure." The "male" plants his seed in the "female" and together they make something extraordinary which is a part of both of them, and more besides.

I disagree with you that no one shipped Joss and or his story, I think that is what we all have done, with help from the actresses. I mean, this board isn't just for people who think AB and AH are beautiful young women, right? And it's not just for people who think they're talented actresses either. Both of which they are, and both of which this board partially is for. But it's also for Tara and Willow, and that means that in a perverse way, every time we post here, even as we tear Joss to shreds with not entirely unjustified anger...we honor him.

It just seems to have turned out that he didn't look at what he had created the same way we did. And that applies not just to W/T but to the whole (or should I say hole?) of season six.

[xita]

Oh I wanted to add to Bob's story, I remember Joss looking at me confused. I too assumed it was due to being tired or something. But yeah he didn't get it. He didn't understand what his creation had come to mean to so many people.

And Ben, I can agree with you up to a point. Joss didn't want W/T to be more than subtext, this he has said. That was until he saw that the chemistry between Aly and Amber was great, that the characters worked well together. So in a way it is a collaborative effort. Take a lame script like Marti Noxon's "Goodbye Iowa." There is nothing there but junk, jokes, xena-type innuendo. Yet Aly and Amber manage to inject enough charm to make you believe they actually do care for one another. Then you have Rebecca Rand Kirshner, who says her favorite character is spike, but who manages to put so much love into her w/t lines that combined with Aly and Amber's acting it creates pure magic.

And yes I agree, Joss has completely lost touch with his creation. Whatever he had that made the show so good, whatever love he had for the characters is now gone, replaced by the need to tell "a story," to sell a metaphor, to work out their trauma. I loved this show because it was character driven, but it has now become ego driven. It's sad.

[hilarita]

i understand what people are saying when they think its ungrateful to blame ME or joss for our disappointment, but i think that this is coming at it from the wrong angle. everyone here loved willow and tara, and everyone appreciated them. it is because of my appreciation for willow and tara, and not despite it, that i feel the need to call ME and joss on destroying it. by allowing them to sweep willow and tara under the rug, it gives the impression that the relationship was never important. and it was. very important. if i dont yell about it now, whats to keep it from happening again? why would any program even think about representing a healthy lesbian relationship, when it comes with so much trouble, if they dont think people care about it? people are upset because they loved them so much. there is no, shut up and be grateful, if you really care. thats just my thought.

edited to add: ben, wasnt talking to you. i think of you as being on my side, whatever that may be.

[Ben Varkentine]

Just wanted to quickly add that I hope no one thinks I'm one who thinks the kittens are "ungrateful." I think, first of all, we *are* grateful for W/T up until the end of "Seeing Red" (as it says in the FAQ), and that we have every right to be ungrateful for the end of SR.

Just thought I should state that plainly.

[AutumnT]

[quote:d2fca1d213][b:d2fca1d213][i:d2fca1d213]Quote:[/i:d2fca1d213][/b:d2fca1d213]

---

Not sure that I understand the logic of how this makes me scary, but if Autumn can do it and be scary, I shall follow in her footsteps

---

[/quote:d2fca1d213] oooo I just got a chill from your scary self. Don't forget to be dirty too. That's what I was called as well. And I don't even remember pulling anyone's hair or calling names. I guess that was the easy cop out though.

edited to add for [b:d2fca1d213] Ben[/b:d2fca1d213] TV is a collaborative process. Writers are important, but everything you see on the screen is shaped by directors (who can totally change a writer's intent), editors (who can even change the way a scene plays), and actors (who interpret and filter the writer and even add their own emotion and meaning). The process does not belong to writers. It's an amazing thing to watch. It belongs to all of them.

[friskylez]

Point well taken Ben, as a frustrated screenplay writer, i can only speak
from a perspective of what i would want if my screenplay were to be made into a movie..id want the two best actors i could get because id want them to make my characters come to life..I can write the words, but IMO they dont mean much if
the viewers dont "buy" into the characters", relate to them, hate them, love them, whatever..

And yes the words can be powerful, im a dialogue freak, i love good dialogue, witty, realistic, meaningful..Joss, Marti and the other writers do get kudos for writing some of the snappiest dialogue ive heard..I will give them that, but its the delivery that makes it work..And Autumn is so right about the whole process, from directing, to acting, to editing, ill just bet it is something to behold...

[Ben Varkentine]

Yes, absolutely. Good, I don't think we're as far apart as all that. And I'm a frustrated playwright, BTW--I haven't had a full production yet, but my actor friend (he was in Angel!) Corey's theater company in LA did a reading of one of my plays which was an informative experience in terms of what actors bring to characters. I won't bore you with details of my play, but there are two sets of couples in it, one leading, the other supporting. What happened is that the people chosen (not by me) to read the supporting roles "got" it and knocked their parts out of the park. I was thrilled, and one of them got it so well that when I revised the part later I heard his voice in my head. Of the people reading the leads, though, one was "miscast," and the other hadn't bothered to read the play prior to the reading, and so was all over the place in her reading. And she was only the central character.

So believe me, I know good writers live for the right actors to let their characters inhabit them...just as good actors breathe the right kind of writing.

John Lennon once said that he thought he and Paul might have been the Beatles with two other people, but Ringo and George wouldn't have. And that's taking nothing away from how wonderful they were in their roles and the very real contributions they made to the whole. I guess what I'm saying is--even though I can't imagine I'd want to see it--I think it's more likely ME could have created Tara & Willow without Benson & Hannigan than the other way around. We're just all lucky they didn't have to.

Hey, here's a time-travel paradox question. Say you could go back in time and convince Seth Green not to leave the show. So Tara either never gets introduced or at best has her part sverly curtailed. But we're also spared the trauma of "Seeing Red" (as we know it in this timeline) and the surrounding controversy...would you? Just an idle thought.

[urnofosiris]

[quote:cb47c35b78][b:cb47c35b78][i:cb47c35b78]Quote:[/i:cb47c35b78][/b:cb47c35b78]

---

I think it's more likely ME could have created Tara & Willow without Benson & Hannigan than the other way around.

---

[/quote:cb47c35b78]

I'd disagree with that, I think that [b:cb47c35b78] is[/b:cb47c35b78] the other way around. It is the chmistry between Alyson and Amber that gave a whole other meaning to the words and actions that were written down on paper, thereby reshaping the story, but I guess that's a discussion for another thread, heh, I believe we actually have one about this somewhere.

[xita]

corinthian/evilsgood wrote:

[quote:1a84337110][b:1a84337110][i:1a84337110]Quote:[/i:1a84337110][/b:1a84337110]

---

i never said i wanted tara to die. i love amber and tara. i'm just saying that when tara left willow she abused magic but didn't go dark phoenix. yes amy brought her into a dangerous situation with rack. she enjoyed the power but suffered. and she hit bottom the first time when dawn got hurt. and while she fought to regain herself, she hadn't fully recovered. i remember this clearly from amber's q&a's. joss felt that the only way willow would go really over the edge was if tara died. was it the right decision? obviously everyone feels it wasn't. and i wish that hadn't happened. but creative bankruptcy? i respectfully disagree.

i'd love to know others' ideas on how they might have achieved this effect had they been given the chance to write the ending of S6.

---

[/quote:1a84337110]


Certainly some people can accept that Tara dying was the only way. I will disagree. First of all if Amber had not been able to do the show at all, shortly after NMR. How would Joss have gotten to the point where he gets a dark Willow? Does he give up the idea entirely because Tara is out of the picture. No he has to be creative enough to get Willow there without Tara. It was the easiest way for Willow go dark and that is creative bankruptcy. Willow didn't go dark phoenix when Tara left because she still had hope that Tara would come back. Even so she went pretty far. And the reason she came back was because her friends were still on her side. How do you think they would react if she kept doing this. How long would Tara stay around. What if Tara left the country? What if Tara got another gf? What if all of Willow's friends abandoned her? What if Willow was living on the streets?

Oh but ME could only think of Tara dying, not just Tara dying, cause she could have died a hero, they make sure to kill her in the most cowardly way possible. This wasn't the only way, just the easiest. Me? I have a great imagination and I could think of many ways to accomplish what Joss wanted. But you know what I won't spend another second on it cause I never thought Dark Willow was sexy enough for me to consider bringing to reality.

The other fact revealed by Amber which you are neglecting to mention is that Joss not only wanted to bring forth Dark Willow but he always meant to kill Tara, he just didn't know how.

You are also harping on the addiction metaphor. I know addicts as I am sure you do. And I have seen them hit absolute bottom with their loved one's lives intact. In fact as they sink further and further into addiction they have people that love them surrounding them. They don't need their soulmate killed in order to reach that point. Often they destroy every relationship, burn every bridge as the sink further and further into their addiction. You seem to be saying that to let addiction destroy your life you need to watch someone you love die? It doesn't work that way, often you die or fellow junkies etc. die. Your loved ones end up not talking to you and separating themselves from your life.

[Unregistered(d)]

I understand your point when you say that people don't need to see their soulmate die in order to hit bottom. But what I feel here, and it is only one man's musings, is that she already hit bottom half-way through the season but hadn't recovered properly. And then, through Joss' storyline, she was pushed off that metaphoric cliff into her own personal hell. Tara died and she didn't care anymore. If Tara had simply left Willow because she fell 'off the wagon', for whatever reason, it would've had an effect but not the one Joss was aiming for.

I won't say that it was the only way to handle the story. But it is the one Joss chose. He wanted Willow pushed to the brink of losing her sanity, and her life, and felt that was the only way. On that level I agree. If I had a choice the Dark Willow storyline wouldn't have happened at all. But it did. We have the choice to accept it or not. I respect everyone's decision who don't accept it. I do. And that's what it is. A choice. And feel free to disagree but to me, my decision to accept this can't be labelled "right" or "wrong". It simply is.

[xita]

See that's the whole point of an earlier argument in this thread. It's his perrogative, just as it is all of our perrogative's to discuss the social damage this kind of creative "decision" can have and try to combat its effects in the most effective ways.

You said:
[quote:6700d43e13][b:6700d43e13][i:6700d43e13]Quote:[/i:6700d43e13][/b:6700d43e13]

---

I won't say that it was the only way to handle the story.

---

[/quote:6700d43e13] but in fact that is exactly the opposite of what you said in the toronto thread, which is what I was replying to.

Earlier you said:
[quote:6700d43e13][b:6700d43e13][i:6700d43e13]Quote:[/i:6700d43e13][/b:6700d43e13]

---

There was really no other way for Willow to go ballistic... I honestly can't see anything less that would cause Willow to go dark.

---

[/quote:6700d43e13]

So I politely disagreed.

[relativegirl]

[quote:796d891d2d][b:796d891d2d][i:796d891d2d]Quote:[/i:796d891d2d][/b:796d891d2d]

---

joss felt that the only way willow would go really over the edge was if tara died . . . i'd love to know others' ideas on how they might have achieved this effect had they been given the chance to write the ending of S6.

---

[/quote:796d891d2d]
Well, I'm no writer and I've only thought about this for about 3 minutes, not 3 years, but I've yet to hear anyone explain why Tara had to [b:796d891d2d] actually die[/b:796d891d2d] for Willow to want to destroy the world as opposed to Willow merely [b:796d891d2d] believing[/b:796d891d2d] that Tara had died. So long as Willow truly believed that Tara was dead, why couldn't all of the events of the last three episodes still have occurred? (Not that I have changed my mind on these episodes -- I still believe they were crap and not worth doing even if Tara hadn't died).

Isn't Western drama rooted in classical greek literature in which gods and men were always marching off to destroy the world because some traitor had whispered lies in their ear about how a lover or child or parent had died at the hands of another? Didn't Shakespeare make quite a career out of writing plays in which characters make horrible, tragic decisions based on their mistaken belief that someone they love has died? Romeo kills himself believing Juliet is dead, not realizing it is only a potion-induced slumber. Being the Bard-Phile he holds himself out to be, surely Joss is better equiped than I am to list all of the other similar examples from Shakespeare's canon. The plot device is good enough for Aeschylus and Shakespeare but not Joss Whedon?

Even if Willow mistakenly believes Tara has died, this doesn't resolve a HUGE plot hole which is endemic in any storyline which relies on Tara's death to send Willow over the edge: (btw other kittens have already pointed this out better than I can, I'm just summarizing their comments) It wasn't even remotely believable that Willow would spend 140+ days stubbornly figuring out how to resurrect Buffy but would give up trying to resurrect her lover and soul-mate after about 40 seconds. Why would Willow be so accepting of Osiris' pronouncement that Tara could not be resurrected? Joss and his minions never provided any kind of back-story to help us understand why Willow would believe that Osiris' pronouncement was the absolutely final word on Tara's possible resurrection. It was absurd to think Willow would just give up on Tara after less than one minute.

Personally, I think it would have been far more believable if Willow had mistakenly believed that Tara had betrayed her. In ATW, when Willow and Tara are on the balcony at the Bronze looking for Dawn, Willow turned incredibly cruel in an instant when she believed that Tara and Giles were talking about her behind her back. Imagine if Willow believed Tara had completely and fundamentally betrayed her? What if at the same time Willow believed everyone else in her life had betrayed her, everything in her life had been taken away. Make Willow suffer like Job (or MacLeish's J.B.) and use her mistaken belief that Tara has betrayed her as the final straw. If it's done right, I could buy it. I might even applaud a storyline that takes a serious look at how life can so batter a person's soul that even a sweetheart like Willow Rosenberg ends up wanting to destroy herself and the world. I might not like it, but I could buy into it. And if Tara and Willow were both alive right now, I would be hanging on every episode of season 7 waiting for the redemption and inevitable reunion to play itself out. Even if I had to wait until the series finale to see the reunion, I'd be there every step of the way.

When all is said and done, I still don't understand what about DMW seemed so irresistible that Joss was willing to destroy his show to put Willow over the edge. The lure of Evil Willow? I [i:796d891d2d] so[/i:796d891d2d] get the appeal of an Evil Willow! Dopplegangland is classic, brilliant TV. Vamp Willow is irresistible in every, [i:796d891d2d] every[/i:796d891d2d] way. But DMW was fucking pathetic and never in any way approximated what was so wonderful about Vamp Willow.

Well, I've gone on far too long. Suffice it to say I remain unconvinced that actually killing Tara was a remotely plausible way, let alone the [i:796d891d2d] only[/i:796d891d2d] way, to push Willow over the edge and I dont' get why we're trying to push Willow over the edge in the first place.

[urnofosiris]

Awesome post relativegirl.
I am ever so glad to have read Amy's transcripts of Amber's Q&A in the convention thread, seems like she is not so eager to agree that this was the only or the best way to tell a story. She could not even watch it.

I have yet to read one remotely convincing argument as to whether Willow going over the edge was a story that *had* to be told, and that this is was the *only* way to tell it, and that there is an absolute reason why Tara cannot be brought back *alive*. Was this story and the way it was told really worth the destruction of something so beautiful and [b:9819d90b6a] unique[/b:9819d90b6a]?
It puzzles me why someone who would be fan of Amber Benson or Tara would rather accept these things than question them.

[WebWarlock]

Wow Bob, you did have another Essay in you after all!

Speaking of which, your last essay, "It's Not Homophobia, but That Doesn't Make it Right." is now linked at Slayage.com.

It is pointing the the copy I have, www.xtreme-gaming.com/the...hobia.html

Since it went up there a couple of hours ago it has been read over 600 times and I am getting hits from all over the world!
It will be nice to see what happens when the west coast wakes up.

Warlock

[friskylez]

Had something posted here, but i think RelativeGirl and Xita summed it up rather nicely, no need for my two cents

[Scout]

You're right, relativegirl, there are so many unanswered questions about why it was handled this way. And I agree that if Joss insisted on having Willow go off the wagon, one of the most compelling storylines of S7 could have been how Willow and Tara addressed what she did and how they worked on her recovery - together. It is just one more W/T story that they didn't take advantage of and, of course, there are others - Willow and Tara trying to forge a relationship where one uses magick and the other can't; Tara's continued growth and the changing dynamic in the gang - with Tara as the witch and Willow as the intellectual leader; Tara's growing friendship with Buffy; Tara's mother and her backstory, which we never heard about; the girls approaching graduation and a post-school life together. Just so many opportunities lost. Nothing that they present in S7 is going to make up for what they threw away.

[Warduke]

Some people have mentioned why go there at all? Why the need for DMW?

First of all, DMW was so lame its ridiculous, that stupid makeup and those cheesy lines? I was literally embarrassed for Aly, that she had to go through that crap, yeah, Josss isnt creatively bankruptyeah right!

And secondly, Joss had this planned for long time, DMW, Taras death and for what? The best big bad in Buffys history? One who reeked havoc like no other? The ultimate enemy?

Nope, one who was there for three episodes? [b:6fe2c7c5c2] THREE EPISODES!!![/b:6fe2c7c5c2] Joss killed Tara and ruined Willow for three episodes of the most pathetic big bad ever, not a season, not a very long arc, but three fucking episodes, now does THAT make sense to anyone here?

[Sheridan]

[quote:ef6321d21e][b:ef6321d21e][i:ef6321d21e]Quote:[/i:ef6321d21e][/b:ef6321d21e]

---

No, we mustn't make fun of fast food. But killing gays is okay

---

[/quote:ef6321d21e]

This torpedoes any arguments ME makes about their rights and their vision. It's now clear the only vision they see is of Dollar bills. Guess the gays just don't spend enough.

Edited to add:

As to the [b:ef6321d21e] DMW[/b:ef6321d21e] well Willow seemed well on the way to something very like it in 'Smashed'. If she hadn't climbed on the wagon in the first place they wouldn't have had to knock her off it, and it would have made for a much more interesting development of the idea. My view was that Willow could be driven into a dark place if she used her magic to protect the others but took out the Troika in the process. She might well retreat into the kind of denial Faith exhibited after killing the Deputy Mayor

[WebWarlock]

Sheridan, the trouble is lesbians are one of the most attractive markets to retailers. I was doing a marketing stats course. Here is what I found out.

Subaru openly markets to lesbian customers because they found that they had a large number of current lesbian Subaru owners.

So, they found out that on the average lesbians consumers,
- make more money than a similarly aligned "straight" population.
- have greater brand loyalty than a match group on SES (Social Economic Status).
- and are most likely to be repeat buyers of said products and get their friends to buy as well.

So much so that Subaru began to run adds featuring what could be a lesbian couple out in the woods or playing softball or doing something. Right there was their brand new Subaru with it's "XNAFAN" license plates.

THIS is the market share that Joss screwed over.
You have market muscle and you should flex it. In fact you should make UPN, Fox and ME very, very scared. With ratings on the downward slide fear turns into action by higher ups. The action that ME receives may not be what they want. But it will be what they need.

They caved to fast food, they will cave in to you if you choose to do it.

Warlock.