If you've an interest in discussing Buffy, Angel, the Whedonverse or other shows and media, in fanart or fanfiction... then you are definitely in the right place. Feel free to click on the Forums link and browse around.
*Better still* why not register and come and introduce yourself in our Welcome Posts section and join in the conversations. We look forward to meeting you.
Please go to the Latest Site Upgrade thread if you notice any problems since the recent site changes. Or to note any changes/new features you want to share with other members. Thanks.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Buffy 8.08 "No Future For You", Part III Discussion Thread
Buffy 8.08 "No Future For You", Part III Discussion Thread
Continuing our so far good pattern of starting the discussion thread with the release of the preview pages... here it is. Three tantalizing pages of preview from Issue #8 are already available. Still best to discuss in spoilers until the episode is released, though, probably
Good to see Giles is seriously concerned about the mess that he seems to have made. But clearly he's going to start wondering if Faith has "gone native"... which seems plausible, but I don't buy it. I think Faith is winging it, and has decided to learn more about what's going on here rather than acting impulsively. She's doing Giles' job, in other words
Can I just say that Faith and Genevieve bathing together totally evens the score for the HSB panel?
Continuing a discussion from the 8.10 preview thread.
Spoiler:
[/quote]oh, com'on. i recall quite a few semi-naked women (darla, nina, illyria) and scantily clad (cordy, anya, harmony, lilah) at various points. sure, we fangirls got eyefuls of angel, spike, oz and a few others... darla probably had the most frequent nudity of the women. not to mention all of cordy's tops that had frequently had charisma's ample bosoms popping out, especially when she was pregnant.
but there's a difference between buffy's 'haven't seen too many men other than xander, andrew and giles in like a year' dream sequence about angel and spike and faith and gigi ACTUALLY taking a bath together. as was said... it's one of those animal house male fantasies along with naked pillow fights that girls just don't really do. dream sequence vs. reality. there's the distinction. do remember xander did have a potentials pillow fight dream sequence that reflects this... you fanboys are hardly slighted. [/quote]
Fanboys had fun on the televised seasons, true. But in this medium, the predisposition has been to be hypercritical of any sexualized presentation of female characters *at all* as a kneejerk reaction to the cliches of comic books. Even though Joss said it over and over that this book was different, even though he makes script notes to Georges Jeanty reminding him to be careful, and even though the result is a comic that has *none* of the artistic conventions you'd find in most other comics... it still doesn't seem to be enough.
I've seen criticism poured on the book on other forums and blogs even for the first appearance of Buffy and Alpha Team, in their combat gear as being too skintight. Buffy in her nightgown in 8.02. The girls playing strip poker. All monumentally chaste in the comic book world. And, now, this scene in 8.08, which takes place in a bath the size of the average public whirlpool bath in which, yes, people frequently skinny dip. The heightened scrutiny is becoming especially aggravating when I know perfectly well how this book *could* be written and drawn.
On the other side, though, the HSB panel (which, nurse uniform or not, is all for the ladies) is basically adored, buff Xander is fine (I don't have a problem with buff Xander as a character element, though).
As an aside, it also leads to some frustration when I see the criticism of Jeanty's pencils. There are better pencilers out there for the money, you bet... but I guarantee you wouldn't want them. Google J. Scott Campbell.
And, yes, Lady Genevieve is hot, but I decided that around the time I saw her belly button ring and her school girl outfit. Her soapy bum is not a factor.
I've been reading Whedonesque and some people have made really good points about this entire issue that has come up about the comics lately. Quite frankly I have no idea what the problem is. I could list countless times in the series that have been very sexual, when both men and women have been in sexualised scenes and no one raises a finger. Notedly, hardly anyone other than James himself had an issue with Spike being constantly naked or shirtless throughout s6 and then all of a sudden we have Gigi and Faith naked in a (very large) bathtub together and people cry foul? Why the double standards? Why is Joss accused of trying to please fanboys but no one pointed the accusatory finger at him throughout the entire course of the televised seasons.
I actually think it is rather offensive that people are claiming the comics are being set up to please fanboys, as if that is all that could appeal to us in the first place. Speaking on behalf of myself I find the comics interesting because of the characters, the interesting plot, the snappy dialogue and interesting themes not because we see the soapy behind of Gigi in one panel. Just like I'm sure fangirls didn't rush and buy the comics because there was a shirtless Angel and Spike in one panel. Fanboys are just as intellectually intelligent as fangirls and it may come to a surprise to some but we have the capabilities to be interested in more than the sexy women drawn on the page.
I'm sure Joss, member of Equality Now and who has based his entire career depicting strong powerful women who aren't objectified, would be equally as offended by the claims.
I've been reading Whedonesque and some people have made really good points about this entire issue that has come up about the comics lately. Quite frankly I have no idea what the problem is. I could list countless times in the series that have been very sexual, when both men and women have been in sexualised scenes and no one raises a finger. Notedly, hardly anyone other than James himself had an issue with Spike being constantly naked or shirtless throughout s6 and then all of a sudden we have Gigi and Faith naked in a (very large) bathtub together and people cry foul? Why the double standards? Why is Joss accused of trying to please fanboys but no one pointed the accusatory finger at him throughout the entire course of the televised seasons.
I wasn't sure about this either. I did come up with a couple of theories, neither particularly worth mentioning, about why people do this, but in the end I think it comes down to unrealistic expectations from people who completely fail to appreciate comics. They think comics will always end up sexualising women and pick on any detail that could possibly be used to support that view.
Spoiler:
I actually think it is rather offensive that people are claiming the comics are being set up to please fanboys, as if that is all that could appeal to us in the first place. Speaking on behalf of myself I find the comics interesting because of the characters, the interesting plot, the snappy dialogue and interesting themes not because we see the soapy behind of Gigi in one panel. Just like I'm sure fangirls didn't rush and buy the comics because there was a shirtless Angel and Spike in one panel. Fanboys are just as intellectually intelligent as fangirls and it may come to a surprise to some but we have the capabilities to be interested in more than the sexy women drawn on the page.
If what I was interested in was women being displayed in a sexual manner, I would avoid these comics like the plague. There just isn't enough in them to make it worth bothering if that's what you care about.
Is it really necessary to use spoiler tags for talking about the eighth issue of the comics in a thread devoted to that issue?
I wan't sure about this either. I did come up with a couple of theories, neither particuarly worth mentioning, about why people do this, but in the end I think it comes down to unrealistic expectations from people who completely fail to appreciate comics. They think comics will always end up sexualising women and pick on any detail that could possibly be used to support that view.
You know I had thought the same thing earlier today. I think some people have set themselves up to dislike these comics and hence, will try and find any fault they can to make themselves not like it. Sure some people just aren't going to like season eight and there isn't anything wrong with that, I'm sure a lot of people weren't sure about them but gave it their best and just can't get into it. Yet, I think there are some people who were extremely negative about the idea of season eight being explored in the comic medium and are intent on making sure they do not like the comic.
Besides what is the easiest way to diss the comics when we are talking about Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Say it is being demeaning to women, easiest thing to say towards a show that prides itself on depicting strong powerful women as a reason not to like it. Really there hasn't been anything to show that the season has been objectifying women.
Saying that what she was wearing when leaping from the helicopter was bad because it was skin tight is just ridiculous. She appears to be wearing leather pants, last time I checked they were tight no matter wether a male or female wore them. Buffy wore tight leather pants in the last three episodes of s5, in 'Graduation Day Part 1' and in 'New Moon Rising' just to name a few, in all these episodes they were skin tight. Anyone going to get all flustered about that? It just makes no sense to me, apart from her pants nothing else was even skin tight on her.
I was searching some sites and blogs on Google and came across one fan protesting the idea of Xander being general because he was a man. They actually found it demeaning that a man would be leading these girls, I found it ridiculous. Joss is part of a group called 'Equality Now,' not 'Superiority Now.' Last time I checked his goal wasn't to undermine the importance of men, but rather to make show his show rightfully represented an abundance of strong powerful women as well. It makes perfect sense for Xander to lead the slayers, he is more experience than them, began teaching them lessons in season seven anyway and as KingofCretins points out in the Xander Club Thread, successfully lead a group of men on his building sites. I don't see why anyone has a problem with Xander being a man, what should matter is that whoever is in the leadership role is there because they are best equipped for the job. Not because they are a man or a woman, it shouldn't matter what you are.
If what I was interested in was women being displayed in a sexual manner, I would avoid these comics like the plauge. There just isn't enough in them to make it worth bothering if that's what you care about.
Agreed. And if the comics were displaying women solely in a sexual manner and completely abandoning the theme of the show then I'd avoid them like the plague as would probably any real Btvs fan who read them. Because if you are a Buffy fan one can assume you enjoy watching a show with women who aren't just there to look at.
I must say that some fans, though not in this board, IMO are being rather sexist about the way they've been commenting on men in the comics. Basically implying that the men in the comics should have a minimal role, should in no way be in charge of any women and that women should be more superior.
Is it really necessary to use spoiler tags for talking about the eigth issue of the comics in a thread devoted to that issue?
I'm not sure. Others were doing it so I followed in case I got in trouble But I don't think it should be, if people are coming into this thread I think they assume to be met with spoilers.
I wasn't sure about this either. I did come up with a couple of theories, neither particularly worth mentioning, about why people do this, but in the end I think it comes down to unrealistic expectations from people who completely fail to appreciate comics. They think comics will always end up sexualising women and pick on any detail that could possibly be used to support that view.
Nice theory if it wasn't for the fact I've been a comic collector now for, oh, 25 odd years. I appreciate comics alright, how rich and complex they can be in the right hands, Thats why it came as a hell of a shock when I realise I really didn't like what I was seeing in season 8. To say I was underwhelmed is an understatement. Thats my main 'gripe' with this series more then anything else.
The 'sexualization' aspect. Yeah, that grates for me. There's not much, thank god and as I fell outta love with this series a couple of issues ago it's no great whoop for me one way or another.
I sadly still keep buying this though in the hope it will start to resemble the at least a striking resemblance of the show I once loved.
After saying that though last two issues have been better, but compared to whats gone before, maybe thats not saying an awful lot.
But hey, this is a case of ''one mans meat another mans poison'. If it hits your buttons good for you, but don't be surprised that not everyone out there thinks the same.
Nice theory if it wasn't for the fact I've been a comic collector now for, oh, 25 odd years. I appreciate comics alright, how rich and complex they can be in the right hands, Thats why it came as a hell of a shock when I realise I really didn't like what I was seeing in season 8. To say I was underwhelmed is an understatement. Thats my main 'gripe' with this series more then anything else.
The 'sexualization' aspect. Yeah, that grates for me. There's not much, thank god and as I fell outta love with this series a couple of issues ago it's no great whoop for me one way or another.
I sadly still keep buying this though in the hope it will start to resemble the at least a striking resemblance of the show I once loved.
After saying that though last two issues have been better, but compared to whats gone before, maybe thats not saying an awful lot.
But hey, this is a case of ''one mans meat another mans poison'. If it hits your buttons good for you, but don't be surprised that not everyone out there thinks the same.
I don't expect people to agree with me, necessarily, but I like to think that most people know what they're talking about. I don't get that impression from you. In fact, some of your complaints are about problems that don't actually exist unless you really try to see them there. The 'sexualising' characters issue is a good example. There are two panels in the issues released to date which you could legitimately claim sexualised characters, and you would be missing the point of at least one of them.
It's strange that you go on about 'rich' and 'complex' while saying that you liked the last couple of issues better, even though they are actually relatively simple compared to what went before. There is much less going on there. Even then, they are a long way from being simplistic.
It doesn't help that you say that others agree with you and try to make it look like that means something. Having others agree with you doesn't add any weight or legitimacy to your opinions.
Since I don't have your point of reference I'm not quite sure what you were expecting. Care to give some examples?
I also thought the The Long Way Home was far more complex than the Faith arc. I admit I like the Faith arc better because it's simpler and easier to follow. I think we'll understand The Long Way Home once we read more and more issues. I like how it's still a puzzle, but I guess some fans want everything to be explained from the first issue, that's not only impossible, but it'll make it more boring.
Things I didn't like so far about the comics was the Warren storyline, I don't see the point of it
Made by Trickyboxes
Halfrek gives Spike the curse that will change his entire life. Teenage Dirtbag
I also thought the The Long Way Home was far more complex than the Faith arc. I admit I like the Faith arc better because it's simpler and easier to follow. I think we'll understand The Long Way Home once we read more and more issues. I like how it's still a puzzle, but I guess some fans want everything to be explained from the first issue, that's not only impossible, but it'll make it more boring.
Things I didn't like so far about the comics was the Warren storyline, I don't see the point of it
I agree. In the 'Slay the Critics' of Issue #7 a fan was complaining about not knowing what had happened in the year and a half we missed after reading 8.01. Well duh What would be the point of revealing everything in the first issue, not only is it impossible as you have said but it makes no sense from a story telling point of view. Why not complain about Lessons because it didn't reveal to us everything that had happened to Spike between s6 and s7, or that it was the First who was taunting Spike in the end? It just doesn't make sense and in the end some fans have unrealistic expectations.
I don't mind the Warren storyline. I think it is going to have really great implications for Willow and her story. The thing with comics is that really each arc is one episode, however it takes four months to finish one arc. So by the time we finish No Future For You we would have had six months since the end of The Long Way Home due to The Chain and the gap month between Issue #4 and #5. Technically speaking we would have only then had three episodes of the season so far, and as in most seasons usually we don't have three executive episodes early in the season dealing with the big bad or major players quite yet. However, in the comics it seems like a really long time since we've had Amy or Warren, six months is a long time to have them absent for the story and it isn't even clear when they will resurface in the story again. It may take a while before we understand what Joss has plans for these two, I personally feel they are a very creepy and unnerving couple, I'm enjoying them both.
It's strange that you go on about 'rich' and 'complex' while saying that you liked the last couple of issues better, even though they are actually relatively simple compared to what went before. There is much less going on there. Even then, they are a long way from being simplistic.
I just did. Simple they may be, but I thought it was better. Sometimes 'simple works' other times not. I'd take a simple well thought out story, over a bad complicated one any day.
Maybe I liked the last two issues because Giles finally had a wee bit more to do, or maybe because we're getting away from Buffy for a bit, I don't know.
Hey, it's an opinion, and I just preferred them. Saying that I did have 'issues' with the English aristocrat elements, and I still find it odd that after all Faith has been through Giles is willing to turn her back into an 'attack dog' for him, even if it is for a 'good cause'.
I still find the whole 'fairy tale' element is becoming rather over used, and so that part of it still doesn't sit well with me, even in the last two issues.
I don't mind the Warren storyline.
Oh I did. Made even worse when I Joss finally admitted that he had forgotten that Warren had indeed appeared as the first evil in the show, thus mucking up the logic in the comic. That was a hoot!
Since I don't have your point of reference I'm not quite sure what you were expecting. Care to give some examples?
I covered all that ground in another of my posts love. I quoted from a review that someone did on lj, who pointed out the elements that she has problems with. Have a look back, you'll find it some where.
But as I said before, you like these comics, fine. On the evidence of what I've seen so far...I'm not so keen.
But it would be a weird old world if we all loved the same thing eh.
It's worth noting that even before Joss' owned up to it, most fans had already accepted the obvious answer (which is the one he decided on in the letter column) immediately. The reason being that Buffy's continuity has been so tight for so long that when confronted with conflicting information, we didn't even fanwank it, we just inferred the missing fact that would bring it in line with continuity. I think that's a compliment to the Buffyverse overall.
I think Giles is under some kind of stress that we don't know about fully over the time since "Chosen". He never had any real emotional investment in Faith, so I'm not all that surprised at his willingness to exploit her in this way. He seems to care for her welfare generally but not for the emotional impact of what he would have her do. I personally love how Vaughan is writing Faith so far, particularly that she's come to a place where she can't *just* do it. Even though it appears she was about to.
This season continues to be the best of Buffy since before the show went to UPN.
But it would be a weird old world if we all loved the same thing eh.
Boring world more accurate
Imagine a world where every Buffy fan likes Spander and nothing else... on second thought... nah, I like the world with Spander, Xangel and Spangel. And the other ships of course
About the Warren subplot, I'm think Joss has more to say about that in #10 (which I anticipate would be one amazing issue) in which Buffy and Willow reflect on their past. I remember Joss mentioning that Buffy and Willow will have a long conversation, apparently about past issues.
Made by Trickyboxes
Halfrek gives Spike the curse that will change his entire life. Teenage Dirtbag
About the Warren subplot, I'm think Joss has more to say about that in #10 (which I anticipate would be one amazing issue) in which Buffy and Willow reflect on their past. I remember Joss mentioning that Buffy and Willow will have a long conversation, apparently about past issues.
Yup and it is also to be a Issue which will cause a few tears and remember Tara so I am anticipating great things from Issue #10. I think Warren will have an important role in this season we just have to wait and see how it is going to turn out.
On the subject of the inconsistency surrounding his story, Joss has acknowledged that, but it doesn't he won't fanwank it himself in some way to make it make sense. He may still come up with something that works.
I covered all that ground in another of my posts love. I quoted from a review that someone did on lj, who pointed out the elements that she has problems with. Have a look back, you'll find it some where.
No. You didn't. I asked for examples of comics you liked so that I could get some idea of what you were using to compare the Buffy comics to.
Hey, it's an opinion, and I just preferred them. Saying that I did have 'issues' with the English aristocrat elements, and I still find it odd that after all Faith has been through Giles is willing to turn her back into an 'attack dog' for him, even if it is for a 'good cause'.
Yeah, I'll agree that BKV didn't research this properly. I have some problems with things such as a eighteen/nineteen year old having a personal tutor despite the fact that they should be at university or be outside of formal education (and given the estimated time of year I would expect her to be at Uni even if she'd had a gap year).
Then there's things such as living isolated in a large house and grounds despite the fact that these places require a fortune to maintain and even the wealthiest families are having to open up parts of their properties to the public to raise the money. That and even the most ardent snobs would be unlikely to call someone a 'filthy little commoner' these days.
Faith also struck me as a very poor choice of assassin, given what she had been through and the fact that she spent years trying to atone for killing people. I think I commented on this elsewhere.
I agree with some of the things you say, but some of your comments make me wonder whether or not you're reading the same comics.
No. You didn't. I asked for examples of comics you liked so that I could get some idea of what you were using to compare the Buffy comics to.
Ok, I know you didn't ask me, but I'm genetically incapable of passing up an opportunity to recommend comics?under spoiler tags because off topic:
Spoiler:
Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi?brilliant story about Iran, fundamentalism and culture shock, all told as part of a very personal story of a young woman.
Halo Jones by Alan Moore?who's actually referenced in the Buffy comics as the "bearded wizard of northampton" ? a story about being unemployed in the future. With robot dogs and emotional realism. She's a Buffy-esque heroine?no superpowers, but strong and has her own take on everything. And likes bad boys
(since not all comics are about women?understatement?) Maus by Art Spiegleman ? the best book I've ever read about the Holocaust. And that's including Primo Levi's stuff.
An animal fable with the jews as mice and the Nazis as cats, which explores the difficulty of telling such stories.
Fun Home by Alison Bechdel ? great biographical comic
Watchmen by Alan Moore ? over the hill superheroes get back in the tights. Perhaps not a good entry point into comics, but brilliant.
Barefoot Gen ? a manga about Hiroshima. Painful genius.
Elfquest by Richard and Wendy Pini ? this is rather cutesy but I'm so in love with it from childhood?a quest story about elves. Charming, sweet, tragic?ok, cheesy at times?but so's Buffy!
^ That is in no way a comprehensive list of the comics that I would press you to try?but since I'm already off topic and you didn't ask, stopping there
Yeah, I'll agree that BKV didn't research this properly. I have some problems with things such as a eighteen/nineteen year old having a personal tutor despite the fact that they should be at university or be outside of formal education (and given the estimated time of year I would expect her to be at Uni even if she'd had a gap year).
I thought that was because irish dude was keeping her away from the world?
That and even the most ardent snobs would be unlikely to call someone a 'filthy little commoner' these days.
Yeah, seriously! They would call someone a chav though. It's the new socially acceptable way of calling someone "common."
But I don't think they would do it to their staffs face though. I have a friend who's had dealing with parts of the royal family, and they do not shout at their own staff. If you 'displease' them in some way, they have 'ways' of making their displeasure know. To do anything else would be seen as 'letting the side down' if you get my drift. They know they who holds the power in a working relationship, and so on the whole truly powerful people don't feel the need to behave as depicted in the comic.
As to what comics I've read. Well I had to give up buying them for quite sometime now, due to my other passions (Buffy being one ironically enough) and so my list is a fairly old one.
X men since they began up to about 6 years ago.
Excalibur
Watchmen
2000 ad (don't laugh it had some brilliant ideas and characters in there)
Spiderman from the start onwards (the original inspiration for Buffy, as Doug Petrie pointed out in a recent interview)
Batman. (loved Killing Joke!)
A whole host of assorted Marvel comics which I won't bore you with here.
My friends are more familiar with the 'indie comic' range then I, as that whole more complicated side to the comic art really only took off as I was starting to phase my comic buying out.
But that doesn't mean I don't know how complicated and emotioally complex a comic can be. I'm just not finding anyhting in the Buffy searies that 'pressing my buttons' really.
I don't think Giles' poor choice of an assassin should be stated as bad writing, rather it makes everything more interesting. Bringing in Faith to do this IMO is done by the writer with the full knowledge of Faith's past and what kind of implications such a task will have on her and her redemption. It doesn't seem like he made a mistake but rather did this very intentionally because of her dark past, it makes things all the more complicated. And putting someone like Faith up for this task allows us to see how much she has really changed, it was a very purposeful choice.
If we were going to say every bad choice a character made was the result of bad writing we'd have to diss a lot of the episodes in Btvs. These characters aren't perfect, are going to make controversial decisions and this is done intentionally by the writers. The only time it could be labelled as bad writing is if the choice of the character is extremely OOC, and in my opinion Giles isn't in this issue. He believes in the greater good, but does have feelings even though at times they take back seat when he believes what he is doing is necessary or right. I don't believe his decision to bring Faith in as the assassin is any more controversial than going behind Buffy's back to have Spike killed. In that instance Giles did what he believed was right but we saw glimpses of him being saddened by the decision to deceive Buffy in this way, just like in the preview pages for Issue 8 Giles seems genuinely concerned about Faith.
I'm personally convinced now that there may be some major reason why Faith has specifically been chosen for the role by Giles in the first place. Giles concedes other girls would have been better suited for the role. However, he begins to say that he chose Faith because but then is cut off by Faith stabbing him with a fork. Then in the preview pages for this issue Giles says that Faith was born to do this. I'm not sure if he was meaning just chosen to be a slayer, or born specifically for this job. We know his sources tell him that Gigi is going to end the world unless she is stopped, so they can foretell that. I have a feeling that may also informed Giles that the only person who is capable of stopping her is Faith, for whatever reason I'm not sure.
NOTE: I didn't put anything about the preview pages in spoiler tags because I figured that this thread is about Issue #8 hence, people are going to be talking about that issue and it is going to be expected that things about the issue will be talked about. Anon raised the point earlier, I personally don't feel there is any need. What do others think? It is terribly annoying trying to quote people with spoiler tags and such?
I don't see the need to use spoiler tags here. If people don't want to be spoiled for this issue, they shouldn't be reading this thread. I mean, the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss No Future For You part III
In some ways, I think Faith is the right slayer for the job. She's been to the dark side and proven that she can come back from it. Killing vampire children and rouge slayers aren't exactly the most pleasant jobs to do, but due to Faith's own dark and violent history, I think that she's been forced to grow perhaps a little too quickly, and is thus mature enough to do some of the messier jobs that the younger slayers would have trouble coping with. Remember how Buffy never killed the Anointed One? How she wouldn't kill Ben? There are some jobs that need to be done, no matter how nasty they seem. I think Faith is at the point where she understands that, and that is why Giles picked her.
But I don't think it should be, if people are coming into this thread I think they assume to be met with spoilers.
I just did. Simple they may be, but I thought it was better. Sometimes 'simple works' other times not. I'd take a simple well thought out story, over a bad complicated one any day.
Tweet
Comment