New Essay / Response to "Slayer News" - Fi

[Wiccagrrl313]

I think that may be a good point, Sheridan. Sure, it may help our case to say "Hey, Buffy's ratings are down because of what they did". And, well, sure... they do appear to be down (although the numbers can be twisted) But, suppose they'd skyrocketed. Would that have made what happened ok? I think most of us would say no. The fact that they *didn't* just points out that ME miscalculated in what they thought the response would be. Which is somewhat heartening. I'd hate to think storylines like the end of season 6 would have people turning in in droves and lovin' every minute of it.

[Ben Varkentine]

I also think if you're going to bring up ratings, you ought to try to anticipate as many counter-arguments as you can. Most of the quotes you (Bob) give seem to refer to repeat ratings, which I think we can count on being brought up.

It would be nice to use some info from the first-run eps and/or if, as some have said (I think it was Useful Info Perhaps, but I'm not sure) the networks and advertisers count repeat ratings as much as first-run, having a quote or two to back that up.

[BBOvenGuy]

I'll see if I can dig up another quote from May sweeps or before. The thing is, [i:bcc737480b] Media Week[/i:bcc737480b] seemed to pick up on [i:bcc737480b] Buffy[/i:bcc737480b]'s drop in the ratings before everyone else did. I could put up several quotes from them, but if I do that it'll just look like there was one guy picking on [i:bcc737480b] Buffy[/i:bcc737480b]. I wanted to get as much variety as I could in the quotes, but not put so many quotes up that it bogged the essay down.

I remember seeing somebody's season-review and reading a comment that said the WB's choice to let [i:bcc737480b] Buffy[/i:bcc737480b] go and put [i:bcc737480b] Gilmore Girls[/i:bcc737480b] in its place was the best move of the entire season. Alas, I can't remember where it came from. Can someone try to dig it up?

[mscheckmate]

Here's one such quote. I'll try to dig up more:

http://www.sltrib.com/2002/may/05232002/thursday/739189.htm

WB Slays 'Buffy'
In what must be a most satisfying result for executives of The WB, its season finales of "Gilmore Girls" and "Smallville" outpointed back-to-back episodes of UPN's "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" by a ratings average of 29 percent.
Remember the brouhaha last summer when Paramount, the creators of "Buffy," jumped networks from The WB? The move was supposed to signal a downturn for The WB.

[BBOvenGuy]

Ooh, that's a good quote. Thanks!

I know a lot of people are saying "reruns don't count," but I have a counter-argument to that which I'll put into my essay. Reruns most certainly [b:664c31fa92] do[/b:664c31fa92] count. The way people are going to make big money - or any money in some respects, because production costs are so high - is if the fans want to watch episodes over and over again. The money comes from syndication rights, DVD sales and so on. If people aren't even tuning in to watch these episodes for a second time on UPN, what do you think that says about their financial viability in the future? It doesn't look good.

[helpful information perha]

quote from media week


May 7 Seeing Red
The WB's "Gilmore Girls" surged to series highs in adults 18-34 (3.1/10) and persons 12-34 (3.5/11), even topping UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer in young male demos. UPN showed big year-to-year gains vs. its weak Tuesday scores last season, but "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" fell to firstrun season lows


_____
and comparing National Numbers for
May sweeps S6 Vs S5

S6..........S5
2.8/5.......3.0/5.......- 0.2 entropy
2.7/4.......3.3/5.......- 0.6 SR
3.2/5.......3.2/5........ NC Vils
3.3/5.......3.4/6.......- 0.1 TTG/G 5/21

[Wiccagrrl313]

Reruns definitely count- especially if you see a drop in people tuning in for reruns as opposed to earlier rerun periods. What does it tell you? That what was being offered up was not something people cared to sit around a second time for.

[BBOvenGuy]

Since I'm pretty happy with the essay as it originally came out - unlike the first two, which were almost totally rewritten from their originals - I thought I'd just put the changes here in the same thread for you to look at:

---

The second paragraph now looks like this, switching the positions of my email and Ang's article:

Nevertheless, the issues of Tara's death last season on [u:aed80a6ff2]Buffy the Vampire Slayer[/u:aed80a6ff2] and the season in general haven't let me off the hook yet. I'm continuing to receive emails responding both to the three essays I've written on the subject and to my recent review of the pilot for [u:aed80a6ff2]Firefly[/u:aed80a6ff2]. On top of that, there's a new article going around, with the title "Misrepresentations. Misunderstandings. Slurs and allegations." It's an interesting title, because while the article does made some reasonable points, it also contains exactly what it says - misrepresentations, misunderstandings, slurs and allegations. In this case, directed toward me. It's all made me think a bit more about the relationship between Mutant Enemy and the fans in general.

And the paragraph that follows - the first one of the new section - now looks like this:

Lets look at the rebuttal article, which was written by someone calling herself Ang. It covers pretty much the same ground as the emails Ive been receiving, and its laid out well enough that we can explore all the issues in turn. As I said, the article does make some reasonable points, but in some cases it does so by refuting a point that I didnt actually make, and in other cases it does so by ignoring evidence, even when that evidence is in plain sight.

The first paragraph after the two example quotes from my essay now looks like this:

I've been very careful throughout my essays to make sure that what I said wouldn't be seen as a claim that anyone at Mutant Enemy was homophobic. Why? Because I don't believe that anyone at Mutant Enemy was homophobic. I never have. I believe they were [i:aed80a6ff2]careless[/i:aed80a6ff2] and [i:aed80a6ff2]irresponsible[/i:aed80a6ff2] by not paying attention to the consequences of what they were doing, and I made every effort to stress that point. The first words you see in the title of my first essay are "[b:aed80a6ff2]It's not homophobia[/b:aed80a6ff2]." How much more clear can I get?

Next, I changed what I had Oliver Stone say in my paragraph about the government-hating neighbor to make him sound more like Joss.

Again, shes right - but again, is the comparison valid? Her neighbor might have decided to hate the government without Oliver Stones help, but as someone who hates the government, her neighbor might look to Oliver Stone as a sympathetic figure, perhaps even as a champion for the cause of hating the government. Imagine what would happen if Oliver Stones next movie had a very pro-government message - a story where a group of CIA assassins were the heroes, for example. Suppose Oliver Stone gave an interview where he said, The needs of the story required me to trust the government. I treated the CIA hitmen as individuals, not as government workers. Besides, hating the government is so pass. Im over that. Wouldnt Ms. Angs neighbor feel like Oliver Stone had become a traitor to the cause?

I've greatly expanded the reply to Ang's bit about Joss giving 90% of the fans what they need. Here it is:

This line of argument makes a couple of highly dubious assumptions.

First, it assumes that continuing the Willow/Tara relationship and "major Willow drama" were mutually exclusive - that the couple had to be "perfectly happy" in order to be acceptable on the show. I've said several times now that the Dark Magic Willow story could have been achieved in a way that didn't require Tara's death (and I'll do so again in a few moments). But even if you don't believe me, I would think the brain-sucking story arc from Season 5 was all the proof you'd need that the Willow/Tara relationship and "major Willow drama" were capable of coexisting.

Second, it assumes that the only people who cared about the Willow/Tara relationship were lesbians. I myself am living proof to the contrary (unless your definition of "lesbian" includes the Riley Finn sense of the word, at any rate). Fans of Willow and Tara include both men and women, both gay and straight. Willow and Tara were voted "Best Couple" in this year's "Golden Fang Awards" at The Succubus Club. The gay and lesbian fans may have been the ones who benefited [i:aed80a6ff2]directly[/i:aed80a6ff2] in social terms from the portrayal of Willow and Tara, but that didn't mean others couldn't appreciate it or enjoy it.

I added the quote mscheckmate found in the [i:aed80a6ff2]Salt Lake Tribune[/i:aed80a6ff2] to the quotes about the ratings, and left the other three as they were. I then added these comments on reruns:

One more thing about the summer rerun ratings - a number of people have emailed me to claim that the low numbers don't count, because after all they're only for reruns. But remember that Hollywood depends on the audience's willingness to watch a show repeatedly, especially on a series like [u:aed80a6ff2]Buffy[/u:aed80a6ff2], which runs roughly one million dollars in the red per episode. There's money to be made in the reruns on FX, syndicated reruns on local TV stations and DVD sales - but if viewers aren't even willing to tune in for a second broadcast on UPN, the prospects for all those other avenues aren't good.

Finally, I added this paragraph to my closing, after my quote from Ben's round table piece:

Mind you, I don't feel this way about [i:aed80a6ff2]everyone[/i:aed80a6ff2] who disagrees with me on this issue. I know there are plenty of people out there with different but no less rational points of view, and I have no problem agreeing to disagree with them. It's just that generally speaking they aren't as [i:aed80a6ff2]noisy[/i:aed80a6ff2] about their views, and so I sometimes feel like they've been overwhelmed by their more enthusiastic comrades.

---

The rest of the changes are simple grammar touch-ups and smooth-outs.

What do you think? Do the changes work?

[Sheridan]

Well it sounds fine to me, well written and well argued as always.

[emma peel]

Your changes work for me,Bob.It's another brilliant essay you have there.
Janice

[Wiccagrrl313]

Sounds good, Bob.

[kpmuse]

Excellent work Bob! Go for it!

[Ben Varkentine]

"Hollywood depends on the audience's willingness to watch a show repeatedly, especially on a series like Buffy, which runs roughly one million dollars in the red per episode. There's money to be made in the reruns on FX, syndicated reruns on local TV stations and DVD sales - but if viewers aren't even willing to tune in for a second broadcast on UPN, the prospects for all those other avenues aren't good."

Just trying again to play devil's advocate--I anticipate someone replying to this something along the lines of "Well, most Buffy fans tape the first-run episodes and can watch them again at any time, so they don't feel the need to watch the reruns."

Is there anything you can put it to adress that point?

Otherwise, the changes look fine.

[Sheridan]

Actually there might be somehting. The boxset vidoes for both parts of S6 have been released in thr UK. If someone could find out the sales figures relative to the previous releases that might help.

[supermus]

Can I just say that Ms. Ang or whatever may have had a good point with the bit about "the gay thing is so passe". That WAS kinda taken out of context here, wasn't it? Or am I just misunderstanding the sitch completely again?

[BBOvenGuy]

The question of how you deal with "jokes" is always a difficult one. There are a lot of people who seem to think that you can say the most hurtful things imaginable and get away with it by adding, "Aw, I was just joking!"

At best, the quip is an example of Joss's ongoing insensitivity - another instance where he was completely clueless about the effect his words were having. He may or may not have intended the line to be a reference to Tara, but the fact remains that people took it that way. I would have expected him to know better.

And while I'm here, let me answer Ben's question about people watching their own tapes of the episodes instead of the reruns - I've had people say that to me, but I would think people have been watching their own tapes of the episodes since Day 1. There's no real reason why people would suddenly start watching their tapes instead of anything else more frequently than they'd been doing it before S6. Maybe I can say that, or maybe I'll just let it go and see if anyone tries to call me on it.

[Ben Varkentine]

"The question of how you deal with "jokes" is always a difficult one. There are a lot of people who seem to think that you can say the most hurtful things imaginable and get away with it by adding, "Aw, I was just joking!"

At best, the quip is an example of Joss's ongoing insensitivity - another instance where he was completely clueless about the effect his words were having. He may or may not have intended the line to be a reference to Tara, but the fact remains that people took it that way. I would have expected him to know better."

I think it might not be a bad idea to make this very point in the essay.

[Lisa of Nine]

Another point you also might make about the "joke" is that Whedon would have been called to the carpet if he had made that joke about any other minority.

I can't imagine anyone in Hollywood publicly joking "that (insert minority of your choice here... "African American" "Hispanic" "Jewish" "Islamic") thing is so pass, we're over it."

There would be outrage if Whedon had "joked" about any other minority being pass. It simply would not have been tolerated. Why is that people are not only tolerating Whedon's joke, but defending it? And why isn't the gay press asking this?

Maybe when people send reporters questions to ask Whedon they should include,

Mr. Whedon, do you think it's appropriate to make jokes about all minorities or just gays?

Is the reason you didn't say that African Americans and Hispanics are pass because they don't currently appear on your show?

Was Forrest pass, and is that why he was killed?

Was Kendra pass, and is that why she was killed?

We've heard rumors that Gunn might die. Is Gunn starting to become pass on "Angel"?

Are all minorities pass in Sunnydale or does it just not occur to you and your ethnocentric writing staff to include people who don't look, act, and live just like you?
--------

BTW- just what IS pass?
pass: adj. past one's best, faded:nearly out of date.

Interesting that Whedon thinks it's a joke to suggest that an entire group of people are out of date. What do you do with something that is out of date? You get rid of it. Guess it's time to get rid of us. Isn't that what gay bashers try to do every day in this country? Nice to know Joss Whedon thinks it's funny to make statements that support the worst element of our society. He must be so proud.
Just a few thoughts.
Lisa
FYI- I used the term Hispanic, and mean no offense if the preferred term is Latino/ Latina. My point is that there is a glaringly obvious lack of any non-white faces on BtVS.

[emma peel]

Lisa of Nine writes

BTW- just what IS pass?
pass: adj. past one's best, faded:nearly out of date.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad Joss doesn't realize that he himself is "so passe."
Janice

[roamin]

ah the infamous joke.

Funny, I wasn't really angry with Joss et. al. until he made those postings at the Bronze.

I'm with Lisa, what made me mad was and is that he never, never, would have gotten away with saying "the (insert any other minority except gays here) thing is so passe. We're over that. As for Clem he just acts that way" comment.

What still annoys me is that NO ONE in the press, not even the Advocate - has called him on it. It was a silly, childish thing for Joss to say and the lack of any reaction to it just shows that gays and lesbians are pretty much the last group left that you can "joke" about.

And I have definitely pointed that fact out in many of the letters that I have sent out.

[helpful information perha]

you wrote:

One more thing about the summer rerun ratings - a number of people have emailed me to claim that the low numbers don't count, because after all they're only for reruns. But remember that Hollywood depends on the audience's willingness to watch a show repeatedly, especially on a series like Buffy, which runs roughly one million dollars in the red per episode. There's money to be made in the reruns on FX, syndicated reruns on local TV stations and DVD sales - but if viewers aren't even willing to tune in for a second broadcast on UPN, the prospects for all those other avenues aren't good.
___

Bob

I think you need to be a bit clearer here, about who is taking a mil per ep loss, whose reruns (UPN/FOX) we are talking about and who makes $ from merchandise etc


20th century Fox pays ME to make buffy
they then sell the right to air the first runs to UPN and previously they sold that right to the WB

when FOX was selling the show to the WB (at a bit over a mil per ep), FOX was taking a loss/subsidizing the shows costs. That is they paid ME more per ep than they were being paid by The WB

companies like FOX are willing to subsidize shows because if the show is a hit, they have a better chance to sell it to foreign markets and they can make their money back and much much more, via the back end - that is by selling the reruns in syndication (for which you need 100eps in the can) and by selling merchandise.

Buffy put 100eps in the can season 5.
It's contract with WB also came up for renewal then.

FOX tried to lean on WB during renewal/contract talks to increase the lic fee WB paid to cover the full costs of making the show (about 2 mil per ep)

The WB was willing to go to about 1.6 mil per ep which was what they could make in ad revs from the show

The WB was not willing to go higher noting that the average age of viewers of the show had increased considerably which doesn't fit their business model

UPN was in a bind and needed to keep its station grps signed to keep its doors open. They were willing to pay the big bucks/full costs for buffy and got it at something like 2.1 mil per ep (price rising slightly second year)

UPN cannot generate that much in ad $'s per ep for buffy so its taking a loss - estimated at a mil per ep for the show.

Its willing to do that because
1) it kept the networks doors open /station grps signed 2) buffy brought respectability and name recognition to UPN
3) they hoped to be able to launch new shows off buffy

as it turns out buffy's respectability fell with most of the media critics noting season six suxed the big one and they were unsuccessful in launching rosewell with buffy's lead in. Nor could buffy benifit from enterprise as a lead in

UPN's contract allows them to exclusively air the season 6 first runs in the US a certain number of times. and unfortunatly the season 6 reruns are NOT drawing well thus lowering their income from ad revs


20th century FOX however is very happy, they are getting full costs for the show from UPN so they no longer have to deficit spend to make new eps,

20th century FOX is still selling these same new eps to foreign markets

AND FOX is reaping back end rewards now via syndication. They are airing the S1-5 repeats in syndication and they are also airing them on FX cable so they get to pocket all the ad revs/lic fees

so right now the big loser is UPN

For FOX to feel it, fans would have to be sooo pissed off from season 6 that they tune out the earlier season reruns &/or stop buying merchandise &/or the loss of "american cache" hurt foreign market sales - only then would 20th century feel it

[BBOvenGuy]

Okay, I'm sensing a consensus here.

Let me go back and see if I can fit a paragraph about the joking in somewhere. I should have it ready this afternoon sometime. (That's "afternoon" in the California sense, where it's currently just a little after 1:00.)

[VampNo12]

Bob I just wanted to express how impressed I am with all the hard work you are putting into not only this essay, but all the other ones before it. Really your writing is thought-provoking, and quite eloquent, and I am so glad people like you are getting our issues if not always agreed upon, at least our concerns/issues are being heard.

[roamin]

thanks Bob.

I think part of why the 'joking' really got me mad is because in my work with teens I found that it was all to common for them to refer to anything they didn't like as 'gay' and anyone they thought was odd or different as a 'fag'. Even more alarming though was how few adults were willing to call them on it and challenge them. So to have Joss, a supposed adult, and someone I used to respect first post about how he is more hurt than anyone about Tara and then make a dumb joke like that. Well, it really ticked me off. Suffice it to say I never would have let one of my kids get away with that and it bugs me that Joss got a free pass.
Okay, done venting now.

[BBOvenGuy]

Okay, here's the bit about the joking that I came up with:

---

Speaking of misquotations, Ms. Ang also accused me of taking a Joss Whedon quote out of context. She writes:

---

[i:cf79285568]"Other sited examples of Joss's betrayal are jokes, often taken out of context or chopped up to make them seem like the writer was saying something he wasn't."[/i:cf79285568]

---

She cites the Joss quote, "The gay thing is so pass. We're over that," as her example, pointing out that it was actually part of one line in a much longer humor-filled post. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit myself to the one relevant line:

---

[i:cf79285568]"The gay thing is so pass. We're over that. But honestly, that's just the way Clem ACTS. We're having a talk."[/i:cf79285568]

---

I'm often amazed by the widespread belief that a person can say the most hurtful things imaginable and get away with it by adding, "I was just joking!" Jokes can hurt just as much as insults - perhaps more, because the targets of such jokes are expected to repress their hurts, be "good sports" and laugh along. But it rarely works that way. Just ask anyone who grew up in a household or school environment where they were a frequent target of such "humor."

Let's look at Joss's "joke" in this instance. The punch line is his revelation that he's talking about Clem, which means we were supposed to be thinking about someone [i:cf79285568]else[/i:cf79285568] when he said, "The gay thing is so pass." Who could that be other than Willow and Tara? So not only are Willow and Tara fans supposed to swallow the pain of Joss's betrayal for the sake of "the narrative," but they're also supposed to be "good sports" and laugh along with his insults.

Even if you don't want to believe that Joss was trying to hurt the fans grieving over Willow and Tara, this "joke" is still one more example of his ongoing insensitivity - another instance where he was completely clueless about the effect his words were having. He may or may not have intended the line to be a reference to Tara, but the fact remains that people took it that way. I would have expected him to know better.

---

As for the rest of the things that people have come up with, I definitely think trying to work one or two of the points into the "Questions for reporters to ask" lineup sounds like a good idea.

I also added this bit about summer reruns:

---

I suppose theres also a possibility that people are watching their own tapes of Season 6 instead of watching UPN - but why would that be going on any more this summer than any other summer? If that was all that accounted for the low summer reruns, the ratings for the previous summers would have been just as low - but thats not what the numbers say.

---

How's that?

[Pipsqueak]

All this talk of "Joss jokes" made me remember something else he said shortly after NMR aired. He was trying to be funny, I guess, but for some reason it just rubbed me the wrong way. I went back and looked up the exact quote; it's reprinted below. Just wanted to remind everyone that Joss is not new to the "joking about minorities" game; he's been doing it for a while.

[quote:0b67f92a1c][b:0b67f92a1c][i:0b67f92a1c]Quote:[/i:0b67f92a1c][/b:0b67f92a1c]

---

joss says:
(Thu May 4 05:13:54 2000 152.163.204.186)

Is it safe? Can I come out?

Okay. Let's be frank. Last Tuesday's episode was pretty controversial, and a real eye-opener for me. And despite my fervent hatred of criticism, I do understand when I've made a mistake. I thought the Willow arc made sense for her character, but the fact is, most people AREN'T like that, and it's hard for most normal people to understand a lifestyle that less than 10% of the population embrace. I don't want to be about issues -- I just want to tell a story I think will engage and challenge, and this time I think I missed the mark. So I'm just hoping people understand we're feeling our way along here. We ARE listening. So we're going to shift away from this whole lifestyle chioce Willow has made. Just wipe the slate. From now on, Willow will no longer be a Jew. And I think we can all breathe easier.

Joss.

---

[/quote:0b67f92a1c]

[emma peel]

Bob,you absolutely rock!!!!
You have mail.
Janice

[BBOvenGuy]

I'm wondering if I should add a little something to the beginning about Slayage.com - what I'm thinking is that as long as I'm on the "I thought I was done writing these" theme, I could mention that Slayage had stopped posting links to articles on the subject. I could then go on to point out that Slayage [b:c46643cf81] did[/b:c46643cf81] post the link to Ang's rebuttal.

Would it work? Or is it too petty?

[emma peel]

Oh, go for it, Bob. I don't think it's petty at all.JMO.
The folks that are going to think you are petty are going to think you're petty anyway. I think it probably pisses some of them off that you are apparently pretty thick skinned, but they're not.Also, you can write rings around those guys any day in my book.They're just jealous.(Too bad JW prolly isn't taking any notes from you on how to fix his show).
Janice

[WebWarlock]

Yeah do it Bob.

It is not that Slayage is not getting the emails, cause they got my press release on the Buffy game.

So Slayage.com is your source for Buffy-related news, only if it is positive and does not bring attention to how bad ME screwed and screwed up.

Note, it is not just Bob's article they are ignoring. They also are ignoring the After Ellen one.

These are the articles they have ignred.

AfterEllen
Killing Tara: the Demise of an Exceptional Lesbian Relationship on "Buffy"
www.afterellen.com/TV/buffy.html

A Heinous Clich Raises Its Ugly Head
By Rodger Streitmatter
Media Matters
www.gaytoday.com/entertain/072902en.asp

DIVA
Letters to the DIVA Editor: The death of Tara and the madness of Willow...lesbian clich anyone???
www.divamag.co.uk/diva/default.asp?topic=bb&action=showtopic&but=1&show=15&tsort=down&psort=up&top=382

Buffy In The Guardian
www.ltmiz.com/wtrm/links/theguardian.html

Warlock