dvo47p: Q) Hi Joss why not do Firefly on 'The Scifi Channel', it would seem to be a natural home for a 'space based' science fiction show?
Josh) dvo47p are you kidding me? Everybody knows that unless I had 'nude Vampies' on 'Firefly' Bonnie wouldn't touch it with your ex-wife's broom!
dvo47p) No felgercarb Joss, really?
Josh) No felgercarb VO, the scifi channel is not the place for 'real' science fiction.
dvo47p) Josh, what about Taken and those two Dune mini series?
Josh) Bonnie Hammer would use her husband and child as human sacrifices to get anything from by Spielberg. Plus those Frank Herbert fans would blow Milton James to get a show that wasn't botched like David Lynch's version.
dvo47p) No felgercarb Josh, why doesn't The Scifi Channel @ least try to do Firefly like they did Sliders?
Josh) Pay attention dummy, Firefly had a space ship, so it cannot be on The Scifi Channel!
dvo47p) Josh, old buddy how about setting me up with Sarah Michelle Gellar?
Josh) VO, Your good looks, suave & debonair demeanor will not get you to first base, it’s what can you do for her career, that counts.
dvo47p) OK, Josh (shaking head) this dude from The New York Times want to do a real interview with you, Josh.
Josh) VO, is this another joke?
dvo47p) Nope this NY Times guy accually writes real stuff, doesn't make up felgercarb like bogus sources or lie like that dude Jayson Blair, but he will report that he took you to The Tavern on the Green on his exspense account.
Josh) Ok, VO send 'em in.
***************************************************
10 QUESTIONS FOR . . .Joss Whedon
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/re...HED.html?8hpib
As the seven-year run of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" comes to a close, creator Joss Whedon answered readers' questions about redemption, the soul and other frivolous matters.
Q. 1. What are your thoughts on the academic community's use of the show, from the humanities to the sciences, to debate and analyze everything?
A. I think it’s great that the academic community has taken an interest in the show. I think it’s always important for academics to study popular culture, even if the thing they are studying is idiotic. If it’s successful or made a dent in culture, then it is worthy of study to find out why.
"Buffy," on the other hand is, I hope, not idiotic. We think very carefully about what we’re trying to say emotionally, politically, and even philosophically while we’re writing it. The process of breaking a story involves the writers and myself, so a lot of different influences, prejudices, and ideas get rolled up into it. So it really is, apart from being a big pop culture phenom, something that is deeply layered textually episode by episode. I do believe that there is plenty to study and there are plenty of things going on in it, as there are in me that I am completely unaware of. People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. There’s nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing. So, like that, I think "Buffy" should be analyzed, broken down, and possibly banned.
Q. 2. Is there anything on any show you wanted to do, but couldn't, because the budget or network TV standards wouldn't allow it?
A. I’ve always fought the budget fight, but I found early on the less money you have the more you have to fall back on good story telling, so it’s never been a terrible problem. We’ve never been able to have (with the exception of John Ritter) any particularly notable guest stars. We’re not one of those shows that’s such a big hit that everyone wants to be on it, and we never had enough money to have anyone really famous. Every now and then we sort of wished we would, but we don’t really tell stories that way so that wasn’t a big deal either.
The only thing that we’ve ever actually been stopped or asked to stop doing was the fast food run. When Buffy worked at the fast food joint it made the advertisers very twitchy. So apparently the most controversial thing we ever had on Buffy was a hamburger and chicken sandwich.
Q. 3. Are there any plot twists or character developments (characters leaving the show, going from evil to good or vice versa) that you look back on and wish you could alter, somehow?
A. There aren’t a lot of twists that I wanted to throw out there. After seven years you’ve pretty much used a bunch of them up, and then you start twisting just to twist again (like we did last summer). You’re not really telling mythic stories, you’re just trying to surprise people and it sort of becomes fake.
However, there are a couple of things I would’ve liked to have seen a little more of; either Vampire or Hyena Xander, because Nick pulls that off really well. And I wish we had been able to service Dawn’s character a little bit more in her third season. I really wanted to paint her with a lot of different colors, but we got wrapped up in the big slayer story and the whole arc of the season, so I think she got a little bit gypped.
Q. 4. Buffy's father and his absence are important thematically in the first season. How did he go from being a somewhat neglectful, newly-divorced father in Season One to a total deadbeat? Did he fade out to clear the way for Giles as a father figure? Did you ever consider taking the Joyce/Giles pairing farther than it went?
A. It’s true that Buffy’s father started out as just a divorced dad and then turned into this sort of "evil pariah" figure of not even bothering to show up, and that was simply because we had a father figure in Giles.
I’m very much more interested in the created family than I am in actual families. And, you have to deal with that character; how he’s dealing with his ex-wife’s death for example. We have so many characters to service it made things simpler to use the short hand of, "he’s just not there". And since we’re telling stories about family that often hit on the traditional patriarchy as being kind of lame-o, and the created family as being more lasting and more loving, it just made sense.
But there was also the practical reality of having to hire an actor and create a sub-plot that may not be as important as what we wanted to see our regular actor, Tony Head, going through, nothing against Dean [the actor who played Buffy's father]. We didn’t mean to make him such a bad guy, but that’s just the reality of the thing.
And no, I never wanted Joyce and Giles to hook up romantically, but I did think it would be pretty funny if they had one night of drunken sex, of course the "Band Candy" episode lent itself perfectly to that.
Q. 5. I would like to get a more in-depth, coherent explanation of your concept of the soul. It seems to be the crucial thing that separates good and evil in the Buffyverse, yet at times it is treated like a commodity -- if you survive torture or know the right kind of magic you, too, can get a soul. Is it one particular soul per customer, as the white fog in the glass jar, identified as "Angel's soul" would indicate? Or is the soul merely the conscience? Why was Spike able to be "good" even without a soul?
A. I would love to give you a more in-depth coherent explanation of my view of the soul, and if I had one I would. The soul and my concept of it are as ephemeral as anybody’s, and possibly more so. And in terms of the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience; the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is sometimes someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one. I don’t think Clem has a soul, but he’s certainly a sweet guy. Spike was definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didn’t exist for him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally, ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her because he couldn’t make the connection —- the difference between their dominance games and actual rape.
With a soul comes a more adult understanding. That is again, a little vague, but… can I say that I believe in the soul? I don’t know that I can. It’s a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of other things we have on the show that I’m not really sure I can explain and I certainly don’t believe in. It does fall prey to convenience, but at the same time it has consistently marked the real difference between somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens.