# The Guardian's top 50 television dramas of all time



## editor (Jan 12, 2010)

So - what do you reckon to this list?



> 1. Sopranos
> 2. Brideshead Revisited
> 3. Our Friends in the North
> 4. Mad Men
> ...



I *loved* Our Friends In The North.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/jan/12/guardian-50-television-dramas


----------



## HobgoblinMan (Jan 12, 2010)

This Life was the nuts!!!


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2010)

All good stuff though I would disagree with the ranking (as you're meant to with these lists)


----------



## HobgoblinMan (Jan 12, 2010)

This thread will just turn into a "The Wire was much better than.... insert any of the of the top 13."


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2010)

editor said:


> I *loved* Our Friends In The North.



I thought the earlier parts were much better than the later ones.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 12, 2010)

The Wire is number 14, so that list is factually inaccurate.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 12, 2010)

This Life and Queer As Folk my favourites from that list.

Loved Cracker and Oranges.... too.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

I didn't rate Our Friends in the North that much. It was a bit of a box ticking exercise, like the author had seen one of those popular histories of each decade and just jotted down each notable development.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 12, 2010)

Sorry but *Brookside* better than _24_??!


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Sorry but *Brookside* better than _24_??!



24 lost whatever lifted it up out of sub-Mission Impossible parody after a couple of series.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 12, 2010)

Whist storylines surrounding Jimmy Corkhill and his dog Cracker were the cutting edge of provocative drama?


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jan 12, 2010)

The Shield -37 . ?  List invalidated . Although to be fair I haven't seen most these shows.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 12, 2010)

no Life on Mars?


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2010)

Lo Siento. said:


> no Life on Mars?


Exactly. That should have been near the top.


----------



## HobgoblinMan (Jan 12, 2010)

No Magnum PI???


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

That list is pretty crap. No Edge of Darkness for starters (and there's plenty of other series in there with 6 or so episodes in there). Good to see thew Monocled Mutinerr in there though - now repeat the bloody thing BBC


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 12, 2010)

And how exactly is _Buffy The Vampire Slayer_ better than Cracker, This Life, The Shield etc?

list fail


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Whist storylines surrounding Jimmy Corkhill and his dog Cracker were the cutting edge of provocative drama?



As cutting edge as when Jack Bauer's wife caught amnesia and then regained her memory in a couple of hours, yeah.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 12, 2010)

You don't have to agree with the rankings, but absenting Deadwood entirely makes it a nonsense.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That list is rperrty crap. No Edge of Darkness for starters (and there's plenty of other series i9n there with 6 or so episodes in there). Good to see thew MonocledMutinerr in there though - now repeat the bloody thing BBC.






			
				ARTICLE said:
			
		

> They marked the titles out of 20 and we averaged the scores, discounting any series that failed to attract at least four voters on the *basis that these were the hobby horses of fanatics – not the greatest TV of all time. At this stage, A Very British Coup, Edge of Darkness and Tenko went by the wayside.



Well there you go.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 12, 2010)

I think I only rate 5 of those.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> And how exactly is _Buffy The Vampire Slayer_ better than Cracker, This Life, The Shield etc?
> 
> list fail



In every way possible.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> And how exactly is _Buffy The Vampire Slayer_ better than Cracker, This Life, The Shield etc?
> 
> list fail



Because it was better?  Certainly more innovative than The Shield and Cracker.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2010)

Sopranos and Mad Men above the Wire?

Bullshit


----------



## Voley (Jan 12, 2010)

Good to see The Singing Detective so high up the list. I still rate that really highly. Agree with The Sporanos being top, too. The most enjoyable thing I've ever watched on TV. Yes, BETTER THAN THE WIRE.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Has anyone read the accompanying article? You'd see how, for example, The Wire only ended up at 14 (insofar as it's not universally popular with all the Guardian's critics, for example).

I also agree with Mad Men trumping The Wire.


----------



## Voley (Jan 12, 2010)

I'd love to see The Monocled Mutineer repeated, too.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 12, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> You don't have to agree with the rankings, but absenting Deadwood entirely makes it a nonsense.



Indeed. Would be in my top 5 of all time.

Shield should be higher, too many crap UK shows on that list too.

Surprised to see Buffy as high as it is (even though I love it), but it deserves it's place more than fucking Eastenders or Brookside.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

pretty much all good drama's, unless your a total snob/imbecile. Even the ines that went crap at some point (most of them) had times when they surpassed nearly everything else on the telly concurrently.

There are a few absurldy 'overplaced' shows tho - How do You want Me?  at 16, and how the fuck does A Very Peculiar Practise make 5?  From a lot of Guardian correspondents being at uni with the writers I'm guessing


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2010)

A bunch of chainsmoking phalli working to sell people shit scored higher than the wWire. Not reading the article. So much for the grauns vaunted liberalism when they are clearly getting off on the gender inequality and naked greed of Mad Men


/stir, stir


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Altho I also agree that the ommission of Deadwood from this Top 50 is a bit weird...but then SATC didn't make it either, so who knows...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> As cutting edge as when Jack Bauer's wife caught amnesia and then regained her memory in a couple of hours, yeah.



I'm not saying 24 is without some very dubious storylines. In fact I don't even like 24 much, and I loved Brookside much more. It is equally as worthy of being there as Grange Hill or Boys From the Blackstuff for social commentary and innovative programming. 

That said, 24 was undeniably a benchmark in terms of style, format, production quality and subsequent international success on TV and DVD. In my honest opinion it pips Brookside by quite a margin in terms of being amongst the top 50 dramas of all time.


----------



## Voley (Jan 12, 2010)

Still not seen Deadwood.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Altho I also agree that the ommission of Deadwood from this Top 50 is a bit weird



didn't get a decent enough outing on UK telly, I'm not even sure if season 3 ws ever actually shown here.  Just wouldn't have got picked up by any 'casual' TV viewer, like The Wire, but x10


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Brookside had loads of gritty storyline drama type stuff (along with the inevitable comedy), way back in the day (much like EE in fact). Plus, the whole Beth Jordache saga, from sizzling lezza kiss to burying dad under the patio (and the irony of critics saying 'No one could do that, someone would notice it', 2 months later the story of the Wests breaks).

24 is fun, but I don't think it deserves it's place in the top 50.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

wtf is the L word?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> wtf is the L word?



I definitely didn't go to a convention of this program. Never happened. You can't prove it.


It's a lez drama series popular with Buffy fangirls.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

US drama about lesbians. Big critical hit, didn't make terrertrial in the UK.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> 24 is fun, but I don't think it deserves it's place in the top 50.



the first two or three seasons were really good, broke new ground, then really worked out the formula so no mountain lions were necessary and made for 24 shit-kicking episodes.  then did the traditinal 'gone on too long thing', tho i here the last season was more a return to form


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I definitely didn't go to a convention of this program. Never happened. You can't prove it.
> 
> 
> It's a lez drama series popular with Buffy fangirls.



One for belboid then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

Clocking off?  Another one i've never heard of.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Yeah, S7 was a vast improvement over S6 - still had some of the 24-standard plotlines, but managed to ratchet up a reasonable level of tension.

I think S3 or 4 probably the best, altho why Surnow has to keep including stupid elements like mountain lions, Chloe's baby etc is beyond me.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jan 12, 2010)

Disappointed not to see Life On Mars, Edge of Darkness or Homicide in there otherwise seems a reasonable list just some strange placings for certain shows.

I've never really thought of Talking Heads as drama, maybe because of the monologue format, but I suppose it is and I am glad it is in there.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> One for belboid then.



naah, too lipstick for me.



butchersapron said:


> Clocking off?  Another one i've never heard of.



another Paul 'Shameless' Abbott.  Also Mancs based working class humour, brought Philip Glenister to fame


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

Who?


----------



## Idaho (Jan 12, 2010)

What about Bodyline? That was great.

Er... and some other things I can't remember - which were really good too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

Idaho said:


> What about Bodyline? That was great.
> 
> Er... and some other things I can't remember - which were really good too.



The Biederbecke Affair etc


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 12, 2010)

Edge of Darkness is an odd omission considering it usually is near the top of these lists.

This Life would be near the top for me.

Magnum PI, yes, there was a show. And Matt Houston.


----------



## HobgoblinMan (Jan 12, 2010)

Fuck Deadwood, where's Lovejoy???


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2010)

Clocking Off was a bunch of arse as well , wanted the realism of gritty kitchen sink drama with the production values and salability of a mainstream series. In consequence it did niether well and felt like the sort of cheeky-chappie nonsense in the vein of Full Monty


----------



## Reno (Jan 12, 2010)

No Dallas.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who?


Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes copper


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The Biederbecke Affair etc



good call.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

Oh him. he wants to be caefrul he doesn't get typecast.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 12, 2010)

HobgoblinMan said:


> Fuck Deadwood, where's Lovejoy???



How about Pie in the Sky? Rosemary and Thyme? Midsomer Murders? Miss Marple?

There should be a special catagory of "top 50 unthreatening sunday evening drama - probably on ITV".

Actually the Miss Marples and Poirots were pretty good back in the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> good call.



Was being repeated on itv3 in the daytime early last year. Lovely series.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

> Actually the Miss Marples and Poirots were pretty good back in the day.



I got wrysmile into Poirot over the Xmas break


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jan 12, 2010)

Idaho said:


> How about Pie in the Sky? Rosemary and Thyme? Midsomer Murders? Miss Marple?
> 
> There should be a special catagory of "top 50 unthreatening sunday evening drama - probably on ITV".
> 
> Actually the Miss Marples and Poirots were pretty good back in the day.




Great idea! Though I don't care for "Rosemary and Thyme" myself. However Insp. Barnaby is a hero 

And that reminds me I still have one of the Christmas "Poirot"s on the digibox. W00t!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 12, 2010)

No Byker Grove either


----------



## rhod (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Sorry but *Brookside* better than _24_??!



I know!! - Brookie definitely had it's moments in the early series, but I would hardly put it in the top TV 50 dramas..


----------



## HobgoblinMan (Jan 12, 2010)

Hotel Babylon???


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 12, 2010)

The West Wing should have been higher...


----------



## rhod (Jan 12, 2010)

Personally I would have included Lars Von Trier's original version of The Kingdom.

Spooky, dark,funny and weird. Stephen King's remake was ok - but didn't have the same bleak atmosphere of Von Trier's show.

Come to think of it, where's Heimat?


----------



## elevendayempire (Jan 12, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Great idea! Though I don't care for "Rosemary and Thyme" myself. However Insp. Barnaby is a hero


I love Midsomer Murders. Barnaby's so completely useless as a detective, he just stands around looking bewildered while people are offed in ever more baroque ways... 

Also: Buffy the Vampire Slayer made the list, but Doctor Who didn't? Fuck. Off.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 12, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Great idea! Though I don't care for "Rosemary and Thyme" myself. However Insp. Barnaby is a hero
> 
> And that reminds me I still have one of the Christmas "Poirot"s on the digibox. W00t!



I have to confess that I haven't watched that stuff for years. I did used to like Poirot though.


----------



## Bajie (Jan 12, 2010)

These "of all time" lists are always pretty lame really, as they always have a modern angle as that is what people remember and know about.

If it aint on TV and the nerds writing the article are just off their mama's tit, they wont know about it.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 12, 2010)

It is a pretty good list. 
Can't think of any that are missing for me. 

As for 'Mad Men trumping The Wire' I am still undecided. 
Mad Men has been excellent, really good but I am only just into season 2 and told it gets better. 

Can see why Sopranos is number one. 
It is recent, universally appealing and I was into it from the first 10 minutes.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Buffy should have been higher up that list.

Those of you that doubt it almost certainly haven't watched it.  It's a series with numerous awards -- in particular there is one episode broadcast entirely without dialogue and another musical episode that Channel 4 voted the "13th best musical of all time", sitting just below Oliver! and just ahead of the Lion King.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> another musical episode that Channel 4 voted the "13th best musical of all time",



that really was a fucking stupid vote, much as I love Buffy & that episode. Better than _any_ Sinatra musical?  Fuck off!


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

I tried emailing that list on, but it got quarantined for breaking the rules.  Specifically "lexical rule: profanity."  

"The message contained words or phrases that breached the configured policy."

So now I'm trying to figure out what phrase it could possibly be?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> that really was a fucking stupid vote, much as I love Buffy & that episode. Better than _any_ Sinatra musical?  Fuck off!


Either way, shows how high quality it was as a drama series.  Even to get anywhere near the Top 50 musicals of all time is pretty incredible for a one-off show in a non-musical series!

Buffy was incredibly funny, very smart, brilliantly acted by the ensemble cast, had a series of superb overarching plotlines as well as wonderful one-off shows and was generally one of the most incredibly series ever to have been on telly.  Those who really experienced it don't tend to be the ones who put it down.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Buffy should have been higher up that list.



I had ruled Buffy out for a long time but eventually wifey won me over and started watching it. I do _really_ like it  

Prefer X-Files though (scarpers)


----------



## Yetman (Jan 12, 2010)

Trailer Park Boys. Definitely better than some of those including shameless.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Either way, shows how high quality it was as a drama series.  Even to get anywhere near the Top 50 musicals of all time is pretty incredible for a one-off show in a non-musical series!



actually it showsw far moer how stupid the voters were.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Badgers said:


> I had ruled Buffy out for a long time but eventually wifey won me over and started watching it. I do _really_ like it
> 
> Prefer X-Files though (scarpers)


X-Files was good for a couple of series but it SERIOUSLY lost its way by pretending it had an overarching plot whereas actually Chris Thingy was just making it up as he went along (something he later admitted, leading to the whole thing crashing and burning).  It was better when it was just some one-off episodes about freaky people.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> actually it showsw far moer how stupid the voters were.



No, the episode they were voting for really was an incredibly good musical in its own right.  Great song and dance numbers.  And a plot that was taken forward via its musical numbers.

Whether it should have been 13th, lower than 13th or higher than 13th I don't know.  But it definitely deserved its place on the list.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 12, 2010)

HobgoblinMan said:


> Fuck Deadwood, where's Lovejoy???



I've seen Tinker stickers around. Bizarre.

http://www.duncancumming.co.uk/photos.cfm?photo=6519


----------



## Badgers (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> X-Files was good for a couple of series but it SERIOUSLY lost its way by pretending it had an overarching plot whereas actually Chris Thingy was just making it up as he went along (something he later admitted, leading to the whole thing crashing and burning).  It was better when it was just some one-off episodes about freaky people.



Agreed, the first couple of series were better than Buffy for me and I forgive Chris Carter a lot as a result. Buffy was more consistent but I can re-watch episodes like Tooms over and over. Maybe if I had got into Buffy when it was really hyped I would have liked it more? Dunno....


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Buffy could be really in-the-bones funny in a way that few other series could match, though.  That alone gives it a lot of kudos above shows like the X-Files.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 12, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Agreed, the first couple of series were better than Buffy for me and I forgive Chris Carter a lot as a result. Buffy was more consistent but I can re-watch episodes like Tooms over and over. Maybe if I had got into Buffy when it was really hyped I would have liked it more? Dunno....



I definitely prefer to watch one-off episodes of X-Files (mainly because the overarcing plot does my head in).

WRT Buffy, it caught me at exactly the right time and I grew up with it, but still can rewatch the entire thing and love it.

Although I tend to lean towards Angel as the more interesting series now (which I wouldn't expect to feature on this list, I should add).


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 12, 2010)

No Edge of Darkness and no Holding On.  Boo!


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Buffy should have been higher up that list.
> 
> Those of you that doubt it almost certainly haven't watched it.  It's a series with numerous awards -- in particular there is one episode broadcast entirely without dialogue and another musical episode that Channel 4 voted the "13th best musical of all time", sitting just below Oliver! and just ahead of the Lion King.



Was this the same poll in which Grease was voted best musical? Ahead of all Sondheim, all Rogers and Hammerstein, all Gene Kelly, and all Fred Astaire films?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

I've been rewatching the whole of Buffy from Series 1 through to Series 7 in recent months and I was surprised by just how brilliant it still is.  I'd kind of thought it might be a bit rubbish in retrospect but no -- it really is that damned good.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> Was this the same poll in which Grease was voted best musical? Ahead of all Sondheim, all Rogers and Hammerstein, all Gene Kelly, and all Fred Astaire films?


Er, yes.  What'cha gonna do?

Besides, I hate to say it, but actually all Sondheim, all Rogers and Hammerstein, all Gene Kelly, and all Fred Astaire films are actually all just a little bit turgid, awkward and, well, _dull_.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Besides, I hate to say it, but actually all Sondheim, all Rogers and Hammerstein, all Gene Kelly, and all Fred Astaire films are actually all just a little bit turgid, awkward and, well, _dull_.



You're going on my List.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clocking off?  Another one i've never heard of.



Clocking Off was great.  Written by Paul Abbot iirc.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> You're going on my List.


Surely nobody has actually sat down and watched all the way through _Singing in the Rain_ since aboput 1973?  I've never managed more than an hour of it.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Surely nobody has actually sat down and watched all the way through _Singing in the Rain_ since aboput 1973?  I've never managed more than an hour of it.



Singin' in the Rain is practically flawless. I mean that without the merest suggestion of irony or flippancy. It's a staggering achievement.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

> Buffy the Vampire Slayer made the list, but Doctor Who didn't? Fuck. Off.



You're wrong on so many levels. Buffy is streets ahead of Who as a whole. Who's best moments - Blink for example - are on a par, but for consistency of plotting, character development etc, BTVS is way ahead. And that's before you get onto the posh critical stuff about feminism.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> Singin' in the Rain is practically flawless. I mean that without the merest suggestion of irony or flippancy. It's a staggering achievement.


As well as been just a little bit turgid, awkward and dull.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> As well as been just a little bit turgid, awkward and dull.



Not really. There isn't a wasted moment in it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Let's make this easier - what musicals _do_ you like Kabbes? Not liking Singing In The Rain is..._individual_ to say the very least. It's a masterpiece of it's genre.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> Not really. There isn't a wasted moment in it.


The plot is one big wasted moment.  Sorry, but there it is.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

Kabbes' understanding of the genre is sorely lacking.   He'll start banging on about songs advancing the plot again in a minute, as if such empty formalism enlightened anyone.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Let's make this easier - what musicals _do_ you like Kabbes? Not liking Singing In The Rain is..._individual_ to say the very least. It's a masterpiece of it's genre.


West Side Story.  Moulin Rouge.  Going more old-school, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Going more old-school, Gentlemen Perfer Blondes.



Or to give it its full title, Gentlemen Perforate Blondes.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> Kabbes' understanding of the genre is sorely lacking.   He'll start banging on about songs advancing the plot again in a minute, as if such empty formalism enlightened anyone.


I apologise for such unenlightened thinking of not wanting to watch something that is just a little bit turgid, awkward and dull.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> Or to give it its full title, Gentlemen Perforate Blondes.


You were too slow.  I had already edited.  So nyah.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> You were too slow.  I had already edited.  So nyah.



The evidence speaks for itself.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> No, the episode they were voting for really was an incredibly good musical in its own right.  Great song and dance numbers.  And a plot that was taken forward via its musical numbers.



If it fails to do any of those things its just a rubbish musical then (or a very very early one, which might well be the same thing). Too many of the songs were only average (tara's really began to grate around the third reprise) and whilst it was amusing to watch Giles sing, it wasn't that great outside of the entire series. We've often shown it to non-fans, and it hasn't impressed them half as much as Hush or some of te other talky episodes. It's a Buffy fans musical, not musical fans musical.



kabbes said:


> Besides, I hate to say it, but actually all Sondheim, all Rogers and Hammerstein, all Gene Kelly, and all Fred Astaire films are actually all just a little bit turgid, awkward and, well, _dull_.



you have no taste at all then.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 12, 2010)

Band of Brothers, The Wire and Six Feet Under should all be higher. Especially Band of Brothers. Amazing series. Can't wait for Pacific!


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Surely nobody has actually sat down and watched all the way through _Singing in the Rain_ since aboput 1973?  I've never managed more than an hour of it.



cos there's nothing to jerk off to??


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> you have no taste at all then.


The world has moved on, to be honest.  Few films of any genre from 50 years ago still cut it.  The ones that do are still amongst the best films to watch, of course -- a masterpiece can be totally timeless.  But most stories are of their time and at best seem quaint when taken out of their context.

Musicals of all the genres have aged particularly badly and Sondheim's in particular really haven't lasted well.  All IMO, of course.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Ah yes, I remember that afternoon of edification about musicals now...


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

Incidentally, I apologise to the OP for inadvertently turning this thread into a discussion about musicals.  It seems unfortunate.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2010)

I watched the Buffy musical and was embarrassed on behalf of the musical genre. It was clearly written by someone with a copy of Musicals For Dummies propped open on his desk. Oh, here's the Setting the Scene song. Here's the People Articulating Their Feelings number. No amount of knowing self-awareness can disguise the fact that it was a musical written by someone who didn't understand musicals.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2010)

Yeah kabbes, you should probably take this bisnis to the Glee thread...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

The best sort of msucial then.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah kabbes, you should probably take this bisnis to the Glee thread...


I'll never know what Glee is like because the trailers make it look so unremittingly awful that I'll steer very far clear of it indeed.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

it sounds perfect for you, actually. Drama by numbers


----------



## rhod (Jan 12, 2010)

Yetman said:


> Trailer Park Boys. Definitely better than some of those including shameless.



Yeah - what the FUCK! That shit-list should br taken out fuckin' shot. Where the fuck is Indianapolis Jones?


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

just thought....where's Clavdivs????


----------



## Maggot (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> There are a few absurldy 'overplaced' shows tho - How do You want Me?  at 16, and how the fuck does A Very Peculiar Practise make 5?  From a lot of Guardian correspondents being at uni with the writers I'm guessing



_How do You Want Me?_  Was great, Dylan Moran and the late Charlotte Coleman, although I though it was more of a comedy than a drama.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> just thought....where's Clavdivs????


It's resting and looking creaky.


----------



## Dirty Martini (Jan 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No Edge of Darkness for starters



For starters

Or GBH for seconds. Shameful omission.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

Not a big fan of GBH  - right wing toss really - great lead perf though.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

Maggot said:


> _How do You Want Me?_  Was great, Dylan Moran and the late Charlotte Coleman, although I though it was more of a comedy than a drama.



I did enjoy it, but 16th?????  Come on...


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 12, 2010)

editor said:


> So - what do you reckon to this list?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hill Street Blues, was and remains, head and shoulders above any other 'cop' series produced before or since frankly. They all owe their existence effectively to HSB. That it's at a lowly 33 is a travesty.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Sorry but *Brookside* better than _24_??!


_Playschool_ is better than 24.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 12, 2010)

Had forgotten about A very Peculiar Practice. Very funny. And the Monocled Mutineer. May the great, big world keep turning...


----------



## D'wards (Jan 12, 2010)

What about ER?

Never watched it myself, but know a few who love it.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jan 12, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I think I only rate 5 of those.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2010)

why be shocked?  it's Atomic Suplex, and there's only one kids programme in there


----------



## paolo (Jan 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Sorry but *Brookside* better than _24_??!



I'll make a case.

Brookside ventured into subjects that other soaps wouldn't touch at the time. Not just the novelty TV dubut of a lesbian kiss, but also weightier and less headline grabbing stuff like trade unionism and teenage knife crime.

In particular, I remember Sue Johnstone's portrayal of a rape victim. It was genuinely disturbing and drawn out - far beyond the comfort levels of other drama programmes, even to this day.

In the end of course, Brookside jumped the shark, but to compare it to 24 (and conclude 24 was 'better') is perhaps limiting one's points of reference. A bit like comparing Alan Bennet to Steven Spielberg.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 12, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> I'll make a case.


Here's a more succinct one:

24 is pish.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jan 12, 2010)

One Summer should have been there http://www.willyrussell.com/onesummer.html 

What about Tenko, or was that the worst ever? 

Coronation Street? arse

The first 6 or 7 of Twin Peaks were awesome, Jewel in the Crown amazing, Wire, Band of Bros, Battlestar brilliant


----------



## D'wards (Jan 12, 2010)

Ou est?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> One Summer should have been there http://www.willyrussell.com/onesummer.html



That was good, enjoyed it. Not be confused with That Sumnmer.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jan 12, 2010)

D'wards said:


> Ou est?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 12, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> Can a comedy be a drama?


I dunno.  Let's ask Shakespeare.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 12, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> Can a comedy be a drama?



Was kind of a comedy-drama - dunno, may be ruled out cos it was well funny, but was basically an hour drama.

remember what sitcoms were like at the time tho, was way different from them.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 12, 2010)

No Edge of Darkness?

No GBH?

Yet State of Play and This Life make the cut?

Very strange. 

And One Summer was great and should be up there.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> why be shocked?  it's Atomic Suplex, and there's only one kids programme in there



That wasn't one of them. 

Lot of shite on the telly isn't there.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 12, 2010)

Where's 'Holding On' a BBC2 drama that puts some of thos British Entries to shame.

And surely Dexter is better than some of those, and Brotherhood.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 12, 2010)

I only rate 4 of them - I've hardly watched an entire episode of any of the others.

5. A Very Peculiar Practice
7. The Singing Detective
8. Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit
30. Inspector Morse

Personally I like anything that's well-made, with characters developing over time and where I can find insight.

If you'd asked me 35 years ago, I might well have said "The Waltons". a bit later, "Mash" ...

At the moment, "House" takes the prize.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 12, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only rate 4 of them - I've hardly watched an entire episode of any of the others.
> 
> 5. A Very Peculiar Practice
> 7. The Singing Detective
> ...



The only thing I remember from A Very Perculiar Practice is a nurse/matron(?) with a very tight white top!


----------



## Kidblast (Jan 12, 2010)

No Deadwood!

This list is void.

End.


----------



## Kidblast (Jan 12, 2010)

...and no Dexter!

D'oh.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 12, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> I'll make a case.
> 
> Brookside ventured into subjects that other soaps wouldn't touch at the time. Not just the novelty TV dubut of a lesbian kiss, but also weightier and less headline grabbing stuff like trade unionism and teenage knife crime.
> 
> ...



I was too young to really understand Brookside for a lot of its run, but I do remember one of the final episodes, with Jimmy Corkhill talking about the evils of capitalism or something.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 12, 2010)

Good to see How Do You Want me in at number 16.  I thought I was the only person who watched it.

E2A:  Except it's a comedy....


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 12, 2010)

Oh yeh, and whilst I am talking about Jimmy Corkhill, one of my friends from school was an extra in Brookside, in Jimmy Corkhills classroom when he was going mental.

His role was to go like this:  for a second or two.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 12, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> One Summer should have been there http://www.willyrussell.com/onesummer.html
> 
> What about Tenko, or was that the worst ever?
> 
> ...



Tenko should be there.  Probably overlooked cos it's about women.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 12, 2010)

Kaka - GBH was brilliant, but it seems to have a lot of haterz on here.

I think it's because it conveys Derek hatton as less than stellar, tbh, rather than its innate poor drama-ish-ness.  It was a superb programme, some people are just blinded to that by its politics.


----------



## Kidblast (Jan 12, 2010)

WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Thanks poster so much for 'The Pacific heads' up. Man, I loved BoB!


----------



## scifisam (Jan 12, 2010)

Not a bad list, really. A lot fewer omissions and weird additions than usual. I'm just going to ignore the ordering of the shows. 

I've hardly seen any of the proper dramas. I have seen the ones that are science fiction or fantasy, detective shows, House of Cards and Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, and Grange Hill of course, but that's it. 

This is a _really_ odd omission:



D'wards said:


> What about ER?
> 
> Never watched it myself, but know a few who love it.



It was hugely popular, won loads of prestigious awards in its heyday and was on for years and years.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> The only thing I remember from A Very Perculiar Practice is a nurse/matron(?) with a very tight white top!



Barbara Flynn

*melts*


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2010)

See the Biederbecke Affair etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> Tenko should be there.  Probably overlooked cos it's about women.




nah, probably just cos its shit


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 13, 2010)

Can't believe there's no LOST on that list


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jan 13, 2010)

Lost is _wank_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2010)

It (tenko) was a bit rubbish. How did BG get to 25 (not knocking it, just not that popular surely)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2010)

Sci Fi for idiots. Lost that is

Battlestar Glacrica was fucking cool. Caprica airs on the 22nd


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 13, 2010)

Drew - how many years were you raving for?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> See the Biederbecke Affair etc.



'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. And in the name'Beiderbecke"



butchersapron said:


> How did BG get to 25 (not knocking it, just not that popular surely)



it's the natural successor to Buffy, smart, stylish, string women, fucking stupid. With a post-Iraq sub-text that was astoundingly leftist at times. And that only blew it a bit in the last episode.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2010)

belboid said:


> 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. And in the name'Beiderbecke"
> 
> 
> 
> it's the natural successor to Buffy, smart, stylish, string women, fucking stupid. With a post-Iraq sub-text that was astoundingly leftist at times. And that only blew it a bit in the last episode.



Only in series 3 and for 6 or so episodes. I like BG, great series. Not _that_ good that it's the 25th best ever.That's the nature of these things though. (edit:and i have't seen s4 so don't spoiler me please)


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2010)

the first two didn't have it to the forefront, but it was clearly still post-911 drama. 

and you can be assured you aint gonna be disappointed with 4   not till the very end anyway.

other than that, yeah of course 25th best ever is rather daft, but there are bits - that you have yet to see - that are still totally brilliant


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 13, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Kaka - GBH was brilliant, but it seems to have a lot of haterz on here.
> 
> I think it's because it conveys Derek hatton as less than stellar, tbh, rather than its innate poor drama-ish-ness.  It was a superb programme, some people are just blinded to that by its politics.



Or perhaps it told a number of lies and tried to portray them as truth. Perhaps Bleasdale's gutless claims it was nothing to do with Liverpool made it worthy of criticism. Television drama doesn't exist in a vacuum you know.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2010)

belboid said:


> the first two didn't have it to the forefront, but it was clearly still post-911 drama.
> 
> and you can be assured you aint gonna be disappointed with 4   not till the very end anyway.
> 
> other than that, yeah of course 25th best ever is rather daft, but there are bits - that you have yet to see - that are still totally brilliant



I shall report back.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Drew - how many years were you raving for?



Not enough, or too many ?

Depending on whether you listen to my fans or my therapist.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Sci Fi for idiots. Lost that is
> 
> Battlestar Glacrica was fucking cool. Caprica airs on the 22nd



Lost is not sci-fi dude.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2010)

Yes it is.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 13, 2010)

I'm glad to see Oz there though.  A very under-rated program. 

I'm still well hacked off that Channel 4 never finished showing it.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 13, 2010)

And the Wire is garbage btw.

Hyped up beyond belief.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Yes it is.



I'd have it down as fantasy/drama.

There's no spaceships or aliens. Sci-Fi FAIL.


----------



## strung out (Jan 13, 2010)

no Doctor Who or Star Trek


----------



## janeb (Jan 13, 2010)

Interesting list but 2 major flaws

1) No Edge of Darkness

2) In the paper (but, i notice, not on the website) Coronation Street was described as Yorkshire based - YORKSHIRE  - list was obviously originally complied by an idiot so is invalid


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2010)

RaverDrew said:


> I'm glad to see Oz there though.  A very under-rated program.
> 
> I'm still well hacked off that Channel 4 never finished showing it.



did you see the last couple of series'?  Pile of fucking shite.  Shame


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> See the Biederbecke Affair etc.


Is that on the list?  I loved that at the time.

Also, Tutti Frutti.  Is that on?  It should be.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jan 13, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> No Edge of Darkness?
> 
> No GBH?



seconded


----------



## maximilian ping (Jan 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, probably just cos its shit



you too young to know init


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 13, 2010)

GBH - politically it was all over the place and definitely had its iffy moments. Parts of it seemed to be a Kinnock inspired demonisation of Hatton and Militant (although - tbh - they were dickheads). 

However the range of themes, its epic nature,  the charcters, the brilliant performances (esp Robert Lyndsey) and the power of dramatic set pieces were breathtaking. Pathos, dark dark humour, the very best and worst of humantiy. 

Pretty fucking impressive for a TV drama.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 13, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> GBH - politically it was all over the place and definitely had its iffy moments. Parts of it seemed to be a Kinnock inspired demonisation of Hatton and Militant (although - tbh - they were dickheads).



GBH - GoodBye Hatton! Or so the arrogant cunt himself believed.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 13, 2010)

gbh was shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2010)

RaverDrew said:


> I'd have it down as fantasy/drama.
> 
> There's no spaceships or aliens. Sci-Fi FAIL.



Sci Fi knowledge fail my pedigree chum. It belongs to the genre of sci fi oft called 'mundane' sci fi. This lazy catch-all classification tends to get applied to anything that is not a Space Opera.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 13, 2010)

I'm not reading 173 posts so: Das Boot est Das Bollocks.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

Post _Wire_, it's gutsy of the Grauniad to stick _The Sopranos_ first.  Justification's a string of clichés, though, contradicted by their own list. Reads like American TV was _The Waltons_ before HBO stormed the scene and began the revolution in '83. HBO was sports'n'porn'n'_Larry Sanders_ until the late nineties, with a few decent TV movies. _Hill Street Blues_ (no.33), _NYPD Blue_, _Homicide_ and the rest of the Bochco stable were chipping away years before the wiseguys from Jersey rolled in. 

The list makes me think that TV critics don't watch that much TV. Who needs to, with fashions to follow? _Buffy_ bags fourteenth due to its feminist credentials, with no mention of its misogyny-fest of a sixth season, and _Angel_ doesn't show up at all. The flashy but one-note _Mad Men_ bags no.4 spot and beats _The Wire_, and _Deadwood_ is beaten by _Eastenders_ and _Grange Hill_. No _Generation Kill_? I've not seen it, but those who have rate it highly. 

What's their criteria for drama series, anyway? Several mini-series get on the list, but we see nothing from Stephen Poliakoff. Not even _Shooting the Past_. 

Oh, and they give _The Wire_ credit for introducing novelistic structure to TV. That was _Babylon 5_, in the early 90s. 

And no _Rome_. Bet they never got beyond the BBC2 hatchet job. 


strung_out said:


> no Doctor Who or Star Trek


You could make a case for the original _Trek_, given the TV field it had to play in. _Doctor Who_'s as inconsistent as a hyperactive inconsistent thing, although the Moffat reboot could make it a contender if it lives up to expectations.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 14, 2010)

Six Feet and Shameless should be higher I reckon, where the fuck is Trailer Park Boys, Life On Mars i'm a bit surprised about too, but maybe it's too new hmm...

I think it's a pretty good list generally! Lost isn't there anyway, so can't complain!


----------



## paolo (Jan 14, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> I was too young to really understand Brookside for a lot of its run, but I do remember one of the final episodes, with Jimmy Corkhill talking about the evils of capitalism or something.



If it was the final episode, that monologue was transparently Phil Redmond (producer, also of Grange Hill, another ground breaker) having his final say on the axeing of the programme.

Brookie was getting well bonkers before then - it went from gritty realism to absurdity. But the early stuff was exceptional for soap.


----------



## sir.clip (Jan 14, 2010)

I dont know a 3rd of these dramas. 

Not having 'Prospects' on the list is a poor choice by me though.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 14, 2010)

No Rome?  No I Claudius? 

Ridiculous


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 14, 2010)

Riklet said:


> Six Feet and Shameless should be higher I reckon, where the fuck is Trailer Park Boys, Life On Mars i'm a bit surprised about too, but maybe it's too new hmm...
> 
> I think it's a pretty good list generally! Lost isn't there anyway, so can't complain!


how many good series of Shameless are there though. It's basically unwatchable from about the 3rd one onwards, isn't it?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> with no mention of its misogyny-fest of a sixth season



Yeah, that whole thing was kinda the whole point of the season. I'm not going to get into a whole spiel on Warren on this thread, but if you think S6 was a misogyny-fest you really did miss the message.

Agree with you about the lack of real telly history (which is pretty shoddy really - Mangan, Dent and Brooker at the very least are decent telly critics and should know better) tho.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> No Rome?  No I Claudius?
> 
> Ridiculous



Rome was excellent, but they fucking killed it. Defying Gravity, ditto.

All my favourite tele gets cancelled


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Clavdivs hasn't aged well at all. It's not just the Afternoon Theatre sets, the acting looks stilted and hammy to these eyes nowadays.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah, that whole thing was kinda the whole point of the season. I'm not going to get into a whole spiel on Warren on this thread, but if you think S6 was a misogyny-fest you really did miss the message.



Yeah. Claiming that S6 was a misogyny-fest is as daft as claiming that Buffy only got 14th place because of feminism - which is, funnily enough, a bit of a misogynistic thing to say.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Clavdivs


 Please tell me you also pronounce it that way.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Post _Wire_, it's gutsy of the Grauniad to stick _The Sopranos_ first.


I'd probably have put the Sopranos first, too.  I haven't seen the Wire, but sentences like yours make me less and less keen to catch it every time I read them/hear them. "Post Wire".  Lol.  "Gutsy".  Megalol.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Yeah. Claiming that S6 was a misogyny-fest is as daft as claiming that Buffy only got 14th place because of feminism - which is, funnily enough, a bit of a misogynistic thing to say.


For the record, Buffy got 22nd place, not 14th place.  Also mentioned on this thread was the fact that it got 13th place in the "Greatest Musicals" list for "Once More With Feeling".

Not mentioned on this thread, but oddly coincidental, was the fact that it DID win 14th place on another C4 list, for "Greatest Horror Moments".  It won that for the award-winning episode "Hush".

All from memory, so details might be wrong, of course.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Please tell me you also pronounce it that way.



I thought _everyone_ did? It's not even some kind of post-modern ironic thing - everyone I knew when I was a teen and first watched it called it 'I, Clavdivs' too. Possibly one of the first post-modern, self-referential jokes in fact.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I thought _everyone_ did?


Well, my family did.  But other people would say "it's Claudius, actually.  They just wrote Us that way; it was easier to chisel".


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Those people<-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Getting it.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kabbes said:


> For the record, Buffy got 22nd place, not 14th place.  Also mentioned on this thread was the fact that it got 13th place in the "Greatest Musicals" list for "Once More With Feeling".
> 
> Not mentioned on this thread, but oddly coincidental, was the fact that it DID win 14th place on another C4 list, for "Greatest Horror Moments".  It won that for the award-winning episode "Hush".
> 
> All from memory, so details might be wrong, of course.



You're right, 22nd, not 14th. I didn't check because I don't really care about the order. 

I don't think OMWF should have done so well compared to proper musicals, though. I don't think an episode within a much longer TV series counts as a musical in the same way, and even if it did it was nowhere near as good a musical as, well, almost any musical. It was a fantastic episode with lots of character development, a great baddie, good acting and so on, but musically it was only OK and the character development would have been lost on people who hadn't watched the rest of the show. 

The baddie is a very good singer, Giles, Spike and Tara can all sing reasonably well, Buffy and Anya are decent singers, Willow's absolutely dreadful and Dawn was so bad that they had her do a dance routine instead  - the dance routines in the whole ep were of a high standard. But by the standards of musicals, none of them are good enough singers. Though I guess Mama Mia also cast quite a few actors who can't really sing.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

Uh-oh -- in the classic style of all muscials, we're about to have a reprise...


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Uh-oh -- in the classic style of all muscials, we're about to have a reprise...



I don't want to reprise your muscials - I'm practically a married woman!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Uh-oh -- in the classic style of all muscials, we're about to have a reprise...


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah, that whole thing was kinda the whole point of the season. I'm not going to get into a whole spiel on Warren on this thread, but if you think S6 was a misogyny-fest you really did miss the message.


I got the intended message; and I got the fouling up. Marti Noxon and co didn't intend _Buffy_ season six to be a misogyny-fest, but it was the unintended consequence of demeaning and beating down every female character in the show for the length of the season. Add in the use of an egregious homophobic cliché for bad measure. (Fan'll know what I'm referring to. Warren, pistol, bang, Dark Phoenix rip-off.) The whole season is packed with unfortunate implications, which is what happens when the creator has swanned off to direct his new pet project (and short as it was, if _Grange Hill_ can make the list, so can _Firefly_). 

The guys (in defence of my gender, hey!) didn't come out of season six well, either. Perhaps it's also a misandry-fest, or perhaps its good ol' fashioned misanthropy. Unintended, natch.  


> Agree with you about the lack of real telly history (which is pretty shoddy really - Mangan, Dent and Brooker at the very least are decent telly critics and should know better) tho.


Is there anything much on the list from before 1970, beside _The Prisoner_? And if _EastEnders_ bags a spot, can't _M*A*S*H_ feature? Or, in another omission, _Roots_. It might have aged badly, but it's a TV landmark. 


scifisam said:


> Yeah. Claiming that S6 was a misogyny-fest is as daft as claiming that Buffy only got 14th place because of feminism - which is, funnily enough, a bit of a misogynistic thing to say.


See above, re. misogyny claim. How claiming _Buffy_ bagged 22nd spot (not 14th, that's _The Wire_, _mea culpa_) from the _Guardian_'s critics due to feminist credentials is a "misogynistic" statement, I'm none too sure, especially since Joss Whedon has bigged up _Buffy_'s feminism many a time, and the series is founded on a feminist-subversion of the fleeing, helpless blonde beloved of horror movies everywhere. It's a comment on the agenda of the _Guardian_'s critics, if anything. From their summary:-

"[_Buffy_] made old-fashioned ideals like honour and sacrifice relevant and accessible again, and even resurrected ancient feminist beliefs by fighting back against the demons that sought to subdue her. Instead of forever being rescued (or punished – for having sex or self-confidence) like the damsels in horror stories of yesteryear, she saved the world. A lot."

I'm not sure how many of them even watched the show regularly. When the sorry season seven was airing, they were still praising the "tale of a vampire-slaying cheerleader" to the rafters. 


danny la rouge said:


> I'd probably have put the Sopranos first, too.  I haven't seen the Wire, but sentences like yours make me less and less keen to catch it every time I read them/hear them. "Post Wire".  Lol.  "Gutsy".  Megalol.


I'm giving the nod to how the _Wire_ is hyped up crazy, not its actual merits. I wouldn't put it above _The Sopranos_ myself. It's an involving and complex police procedural that I'd recommend, highly, but not the greatest thing _ever_, as critics claim. 


kabbes said:


> For the record, Buffy got 22nd place, not 14th place.  Also mentioned on this thread was the fact that it got 13th place in the "Greatest Musicals" list for "Once More With Feeling".
> 
> Not mentioned on this thread, but oddly coincidental, was the fact that it DID win 14th place on another C4 list, for "Greatest Horror Moments".  It won that for the award-winning episode "Hush".
> 
> All from memory, so details might be wrong, of course.


Wouldn't begrudge "Once More, With Feeling" its spot. It's a pastiche of old school musicals, but so what, its packed with hummable tunes, and uses the form to advance the arc plot in what could've easily been a gimmick. 

Maybe I was thinking of the other list when I said it'd got 14th.  (Actually I was probably thinking of _The Wire_.) "Hush" is easily in the top five episodes _Buffy_ ever made, and one of the few scary bits in the series (the scariest is season three's "Helpless", IMO, or Anya's Hallowe'en costume, take your pick.) 


scifisam said:


> The baddie [in "Once More, With Feeling" is a very good singer ...


Hinton Battle (Sweet) is an amazing singer, and a much, much better villain than big-bad Warren "limp" Mears. (Or was Dark Phoenix the real big-bad, can't remember.)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I'm giving the nod to how the _Wire_ is hyped up crazy, not its actual merits. I wouldn't put it above _The Sopranos_ myself. It's an involving and complex police procedural that I'd recommend, highly, but not the greatest thing _ever_, as critics claim.


Ah.  Fair enough.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

*considers whether to spend the weekend watching S6 of Buffy and come back with a whole thread to debate it*


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

And anyone else spot the flaw in, "Instead of forever being rescued (or punished – for having sex or self-confidence) like the damsels in horror stories of yesteryear, [Buffy] saved the world." Is Angelus wasn't a punishment for dancing the horizontal mambo, I don't know what is! (_Buffy_ was an equal-opportunity punisher, mind. If anything Xander got the worst of it, and as for Willow in "Seeing Red", gah.)


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Marti Noxon and co didn't intend _Buffy_ season six to be a misogyny-fest, but it was the unintended consequence of demeaning and beating down every female character in the show for the length of the season. Add in the use of an egregious homophobic cliché for bad measure. (Fan'll know what I'm referring to. Warren, pistol, bang, Dark Phoenix rip-off.) The whole season is packed with unfortunate implications, which is what happens when the creator has swanned off to direct his new pet project (and short as it was, if _Grange Hill_ can make the list, so can _Firefly_).
> 
> The guys (in defence of my gender, hey!) didn't come out of season six well, either. Perhaps it's also a misandry-fest, or perhaps its good ol' fashioned misanthropy. Unintended, natch.



How can it be misogyny if, as you admit, the men were all beaten down too? It was the season where the real big bad was themselves. The only reason lots of female characters had bad things done to them is because, unlike many shows with an action focus, Buffy had lots of female characters in the first place. 

Which homophobic cliche are you talking about? Do you mean when 



Spoiler: I'm hiding this for those who haven't seen this far yet



Tara got shot


? God, I hate it when people act as if that was homophobic - as if all the straight couples in the series got treated wonderfully. Which other element of supposed homophobia are you talking about?



> See above, re. misogyny claim. How claiming _Buffy_ bagged 22nd spot (not 14th, that's _The Wire_, _mea culpa_) from the _Guardian_'s critics due to feminist credentials is a "misogynistic" statement, I'm none too sure, especially since Joss Whendon has bigged up _Buffy_'s feminism many a time, and the series is founded on a feminist-subversion of the fleeing, helpless blonde beloved of horror movies everywhere. It's a comment on the agenda of the _Guardian_'s critics, if anything. From their summary:-



You look at one of only two* female-dominated shows in the top of the list and conclude that it's there because of feminism, because the Guardian critics have an 'agenda,' rather than because the show's very good. That's straight-up, clear-cut misogyny. It's exactly the same thinking that looks at female CEOs or ministers or top poilce officers and concludes that they're there because of positive discrimination rather than because they were the best for the job. 

*The other being Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, where women and gay people get treated pretty damn terribly, which I guess means it's misogynistic and homophobic.


BTW, I'm _really_ not seeing where you get the Dark Phoenix stuff from.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah.  Fair enough.


Yeah, could've made that clearer.  I'd forgotten that some would type "Post _Wire_" in earnest! 


kyser_soze said:


> *considers whether to spend the weekend watching S6 of Buffy and come back with a whole thread to debate it*


A demon, I made a demon!  

I found _Buffy_ season six a decent watch, if I pulled down the fourth wall, and ticked off all the ways it backfired. Slayer drops out of college, has to hold down a scummy McJob to feed herself & lil' sis, and spends the best part of the year in a mutually-abusive relationship with a demon because it's the only way she can feel alive, and to cap it, her Teutonic lummox of an ex returns to rub in just how big a trainwreck her life has become. This is _empowering_?


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> And anyone else spot the flaw in, "Instead of forever being rescued (or punished – for having sex or self-confidence) like the damsels in horror stories of yesteryear, [Buffy] saved the world." Is Angelus wasn't a punishment for dancing the horizontal mambo, I don't know what is! (_Buffy_ was an equal-opportunity punisher, mind. If anything Xander got the worst of it, and as for Willow in "Seeing Red", gah.)



Oh yeah, Angelus is definitely a punishment. They're quite open about that in the show. However, it's a punishment for Angel as well as Buffy. Angel's the one that loses his entire self and ends up getting killed, all as a result of having sex. Buffy only loses her boyfriend and gets sad. Imagine if the outcomes were reversed - people would say it was horribly misogynist. 

(Can't be arsed with spoilers for such an early season).


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I'm giving the nod to how the _Wire_ is hyped up crazy . . . It's an involving and complex police procedural


Is it bollocks!

Like Hamlet is an involving and complex version of Kevin and Perry.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I found _Buffy_ season six a decent watch, if I pulled down the fourth wall, and ticked off all the ways it backfired. Slayer drops out of college, has to hold down a scummy McJob to feed herself & lil' sis, and spends the best part of the year in a mutually-abusive relationship with a demon because it's the only way she can feel alive, and to cap it, her Teutonic lummox of an ex returns to rub in just how big a trainwreck her life has become. This is _empowering_?



Surely the whole point was that 'Life' was the big bad of the season, the comparative mundanity of the geek trio only re-inforcing that, until the big finish 



Spoiler: S6



with Darth Rosenberg. The 'Buffy torn out of heaven' aspect was only going to lead one way (although I think Marti Noxon was the wrong person to do it, for many reasons, including over-worship of Spike and a weird fixation with rape).



The show didn't have to hammer home the 'empowering' message all the time, occasionally the characters need to be taken down to their lowest points before re-asserting themselves (as seen in S7).



Spoiler: S6 ending



And as for the homophobic aspect of the final 3-4 episodes with the shooting, Joss Whedon has made a specific point of never letting couples be happy for very long 





scifisam said:


> Oh yeah, Angelus is definitely a punishment. They're quite open about that in the show. However, it's a punishment for Angel as well as Buffy. Angel's the one that loses his entire self and ends up getting killed, all as a result of having sex. Buffy only loses her boyfriend and gets sad. Imagine if the outcomes were reversed - people would say it was horribly misogynist.
> 
> (Can't be arsed with spoilers for such an early season).



Yep, it's a fairly obvious high school metaphor for a girl's fears about sex (girl sleeps with sweet boy and once it's done he turns into a wanker, albeit taken up a notch).


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

I assumed the Dark Phoenix reference was based on 



Spoiler: buffy



Willow going ape when Tara gets shot and going all Jean Grey/Dark Pheonix on the world's ass in revenge



Other than that I have no idea what Az is banging on about. As you point out, S6's Big Bad is themselves, and Warren is _supposed_ to be a weak, disgusting example of manhood, which is why, out of _all_ the Buffy seasons



Spoiler: buffy



he has to use a _gun_ to attack Buffy, because all his previous efforts had failed. It's the final act of a weak, desparate man and it goes horribly wrong


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 14, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Is it bollocks!


I suspect so.  But each to their own.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Oct, you might want to spoiler code a few of those references to the specific goings on in S6.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Post _Wire_, it's gutsy of the Grauniad to stick _The Sopranos_ first.  Justification's a string of clichés, though, contradicted by their own list. Reads like American TV was _The Waltons_ before HBO stormed the scene and began the revolution in '83. HBO was sports'n'porn'n'_Larry Sanders_ until the late nineties, with a few decent TV movies. _Hill Street Blues_ (no.33), _NYPD Blue_, _Homicide_ and the rest of the Bochco stable were chipping away years before the wiseguys from Jersey rolled in.
> 
> The list makes me think that TV critics don't watch that much TV. Who needs to, with fashions to follow? _Buffy_ bags fourteenth due to its feminist credentials, with no mention of its misogyny-fest of a sixth season, and _Angel_ doesn't show up at all. The flashy but one-note _Mad Men_ bags no.4 spot and beats _The Wire_, and _Deadwood_ is beaten by _Eastenders_ and _Grange Hill_. No _Generation Kill_? I've not seen it, but those who have rate it highly.
> 
> ...



while you have a point about the Grauniads current love of anything HBO, and that Mad Men getting 4th is abusrd, the rest of your points are utter nonsense.  

That you got Buffy S6 so totally wrong has already bveen dealt with. then you lambast the guardian for their fashion following, and then whine that its not following your fashion preferences - which is all you've done, come up with a slightly different, older, list.

Just to take the specific of Poliakoff - personally i think he's one of the most over-rated writers going, but even then...I bet he got a lot of votes but they would bve split across so many of his series' none of them would do well enough to crack the list. The best/most popular would be Shooting The past, but it (frankly) didn't deserve to get into the list due to its ultimate shallowness and lack of anything significant to say. 

Odd voting twists are how these lists work tho, and its because oft hat I bet that MM did so well.  It will have appeared on almost all their critics lists, maybe not in the top three or even top ten, but somewhere.  And that will raise it above things like The Wire which maybe half the voters loved, but the other half hated.  Hence it came in quite low.  That was the way the Yeah Yeah Yeahs made second in this years Urban Album of the Year despite not getting a single vote for it actually being the album of the year!


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> How can it be misogyny if, as you admit, the men were all beaten down too? It was the season where the real big bad was themselves. The only reason lots of female characters had bad things done to them is because, unlike many shows with an action focus, Buffy had lots of female characters in the first place.


I did offer misanthropy as an alternative! 

Having a villain who was defined by his hatred of women is what punched home the inadvertent tone. The writing staff were obviously blind to it (and the sucky, self-pitying dialogue), and thought they were writing something profound and empowering. Would've been funny if it wasn't so icky. 

And then:- 

[spoiler='Buffy' season six]Spike attempts to rape Buffy, who promptly _leaves her kid sister_ to stay round his dank crypt. This isn't included to examine the issue, but as a plot device to allow Captain Peroxide to bag redemption and a soul. Ick, double-pluss ick.[/spoiler]


> Which homophobic cliche are you talking about? Do you mean when
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's it, and it's not just that X got shot (by a magic bullet that changes trajectory mid-flight, no less), but the circumstances. The morning after a night of make-up sex, like she's being punished by the plot-gods. I remember it well, got quite nasty at the time. Not bad for a TV show about a teenage vampire slayer, I guess. 

I don't for a minute think that the writers intended to be homophobic. Yet another unintended consequence. 


> You look at one of only two* female-dominated shows in the top of the list and conclude that it's there because of feminism, because the Guardian critics have an 'agenda,' rather than because the show's very good. That's straight-up, clear-cut misogyny. It's exactly the same thinking that looks at female CEOs or ministers or top poilce officers and concludes that they're there because of positive discrimination rather than because they were the best for the job.
> 
> *The other being Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, where women and gay people get treated pretty damn terribly, which I guess means it's misogynistic and homophobic.


This is getting heated for a thread about TV shows! 

I'm concluding that the _Guardian_'s critics are bigging up _Buffy_ for ideological reasons because it's clear most of them don't watch the show they lavish praise on. (Gals and guys, she was a cheerleader in a single season one episode, and she didn't make the squad.  ) Sounds like tokenism to me, which I'd have thought you wouldn't be hot on. I'd pop it in the top ten myself, for the quality of its comedy, writing, and performances, and the way early seasons were empowering. Which is what all successors to John Knox would do.  

_Oranges_ was (semi?) autobiographical, and an adaptation. Buffy season six wasn't (I hope  ). 


> BTW, I'm _really_ not seeing where you get the Dark Phoenix stuff from.


_X Men_, apparently (I don't read it, but I saw the juddery Sat morning cartoon.)


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Surely the whole point was that 'Life' was the big bad of the season, the comparative mundanity of the geek trio only re-inforcing that



absolutely, 6 is about how fucking dull real life actually is.  No vampires or werewolves or magical shit, just silly little boys (who dont grow up as fast) and shitty jobs.  As encapsualted in the Normal Again episode.

Only a fucking idiot could call that season 'mysoginistic'


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I did offer misanthropy as an alternative!
> 
> Having a villain who was defined by his hatred of women is what punched home the inadvertent tone.



your speaking voluumes about your own attitudes, but saying fuck all about Buffy.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I assumed the Dark Phoenix reference was based on
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh. OK. I thought he must mean something more specific than that, because he said it was homophobic. 

Having a female character go bad and try to destroy the world is hardly a trope that's so specific to Dark Phoenix that it's got to be a copy, and hell, even if it was, why would it matter? Fantasy and scifi TV shows and comics feed off each other all the time. 

Season six is the weakest season, IMO. I don't like the way that 



Spoiler



magic is treated as if it were a drug and drugs are bad, mmmkay?


 But misogyny and homophobia are not the problem.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> your speaking voluumes about your own attitudes, but saying fuck all about Buffy.


Can we keep this about TV, not your attempts at psycho-political analysis over a net connection.  

My "attitude" is that _Buffy_ went to pot in season six, and implied the opposite of what it wanted to apply. I remember that plenty fans of both genders thought the same. Were they revealing deep dark nasties about their attitudes as well?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Is it bollocks!
> 
> Like Hamlet is an involving and complex version of Kevin and Perry.


Nothing wrong with police procedurals! _The Wire_'s about the process of getting suspects to trial, and paints a multi-faceted map of Baltimore in the process. All the observations about urban decay, the war on drugs, etc, arise from the procedure. See David Simon's earlier HBO mini-series, _The Corner_, for a different approach to the same issue.


----------



## Reno (Jan 14, 2010)

Geek gold ! 

I think Whedon has acknowledged in several interviews that his Dark Willow storyline was a tribute to Dark Phoenix and he certainly did a better job with it than the 3rd X-Men movie managed. That said, I also thought Season 6 was the weakest Buffy season and the characters were all over the place. 

Its biggest mistake was not to have Willow turn bad at the start and have her be the main big bad for the season. I don't think having a gay character, especially one who had been treated so sympathetically, turn bad necessarily homophobic. Her reasons for snapping were quite understandable.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Can we keep this about TV, not your attempts at psycho-political analysis over a net connection.


you keep your misogyny out of it, and maybe we will do



> My "attitude" is that _Buffy_ went to pot in season six, and implied the opposite of what it wanted to apply. I remember that plenty fans of both genders thought the same. Were they revealing deep dark nasties about their attitudes as well?


you think thats a clever statement??  Odd boy.  Maybe your acquaintances thought that, maybe you are making them up (I know which I think is more likely). Either way you and they are wrong and you just didn't get it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Reno said:


> I don't think having a gay character, especially one who had been treated so sympathetically, turn bad necessarily homophobic.



of course it isnt.  It really is the most stupid thing for anyone to say that that is what happened.  The Wire is homophobic cos Omar shoots people. Queer As Folk was homophobic cos not all gay people were lovely.  Idiotic lack of thinking.  (the stupidest since JC2 lambasted the Wires 'racism')


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

I was dubious about Buffy Season 6 when I was 25.  But having just watched it again at the age of 33, I've found it one of the best seasons of all.  It certainly has some of the most sophisticated moments of humour.  And seeing her world fall apart from simple everyday life was an inspired and brave piece of writing for a show obstensibly about vampires and demons.  In retrospect it's easy to take that for granted.  But when you watch all the series back to back in the space of a few months, you notice just what an achievement it was.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I did offer misanthropy as an alternative!



Yes - after admitting that the men got treated badly too. How can it be misogynistic when the suffering wasn't confined to men?



> Having a villain who was defined by his hatred of women is what punched home the inadvertent tone. The writing staff were obviously blind to it (and the sucky, self-pitying dialogue), and thought they were writing something profound and empowering. Would've been funny if it wasn't so icky.



How is having a misogynistic bad guy misogynistic in itself? If they had a racist bad guy, would that make the show racist? 



> And then:-
> 
> [spoile=Spike attempts to rape Buffy, who promptly [I]leaves her kid sister[/I] to stay round his dank crypt. This isn't included to examine the issue, but as a plot device to allow Captain Peroxide to bag redemption and a soul. Ick, double-pluss ick.]



Not promptly. You're forgetting a ton of episodes in between there. And she had pretty much no other choice.



> Yeah, that's it, and it's not just that X got shot (by a magic bullet that changes trajectory mid-flight, no less), but the circumstances. The morning after a night of make-up sex, like she's being punished by the plot-gods. I remember it well, got quite nasty at the time. Not bad for a TV show about a teenage vampire slayer, I guess.
> 
> I don't for a minute think that the writers intended to be homophobic. Yet another unintended consequence.



They're a couple in a TV show where relationships are doomed and there's no guarantee any character will stay alive. 



Spoiler



Tara wasn't shot for being gay. Hell, she wasn't even shot for being Tara - Warren was trying to get Buffy.


You're really reaching if you think that was homophobic. 

What happened was that a mainstream show that's strongly aimed at under 18s as well as adults had a lesbian couple as two of its main characters, and treated them just as seriously as any other relationship. That's the exact opposite of homophobic. 

I hate it when people complain about gay characters or gay couples being hurt in TV shows where characters getting hurt is a matter of course. All those complaints do is discourage writers from creating storylines where gay characters and couples are big players with interesting things happening to them. I don't want shows where the only gay characters skip blithely on by holding hands while the straights get all the good storylines. 



> This is getting heated for a programme about TV shows!
> 
> I'm concluding that the _Guardian_'s critics are bigging up _Buffy_ for ideological reasons because it's clear most of them don't watch the show they lavish praise on. (Gals and guys, she was a cheerleader in a single season one episode, and she didn't make the squad.  ) Sounds like tokenism to me, which I'd have thought you wouldn't be hot on. I'd pop it in the top ten myself, for the quality of its comedy, writing, and performances, and the way early seasons were empowering. Which is what all successors to John Knox would do.



I am pretty certain you're wrong. Buffy was enormously, enormously popular in criticial circles. I'd bet you a million quid that they did watch it. And, if you think the show was that good, why do you _still_ think it was tokenism? 

Who said 'vampire-slaying cheerleader'? You didn't provide a cite for that. Besides, while the TV Buffy might not have been allowed to be a cheerleader, she did want to be one, she was one in the original movie, and she was very much the cheerleader 'type.' 



> _Oranges_ was (semi?) autobiographical, and an adaptation. Buffy season six wasn't (I hope  ).



Why does the origin of the story make such terrible misogyny and homophobia OK? I mean, if treating women and gay characters badly = misogyny and homophobia, then it doesn't matter what the source material is. 



> _X Men_, apparently (I don't read it, but I saw the juddery Sat morning cartoon.)



Yes, I know where Dark Phoenix is from. You said that a certain character's death was a rip-off of Dark Phoenix and I can't see any similarities at all - I certainly can't see how it would be homophobic if there were any similarities.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Reno said:


> Geek gold !
> 
> I think Whedon has acknowledged in several interviews that his Dark Willow storyline was a tribute to Dark Phoenix and he certainly did a better job with it than the 3rd X-Men movie managed. That said, I also thought Season 6 was the weakest Buffy season and the characters were all over the place.
> 
> Its biggest mistake was not to have Willow turn bad at the start and have her be the main big bad for the season. I don't think having a gay character, especially one who had been treated so sympathetically, turn bad necessarily homophobic. Her reasons for snapping were quite understandable.



I have no idea why Azrael invoked Jean Grey TBH.

I'm not in disagreement about the overall quality of S6 in comparison with other seasons (obv individual eps are excepted from this), but to write the whole season off as a misogyny-fest is wrong.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I was dubious about Buffy Season 6 when I was 25.  But having just watched it again at the age of 33, I've found it one of the best seasons of all.  It certainly has some of the most sophisticated moments of humour.  And seeing her world fall apart from simple everyday life was an inspired and brave piece of writing for a show obstensibly about vampires and demons.  In retrospect it's easy to take that for granted.  But when you watch all the series back to back in the space of a few months, you notice just what an achievement it was.



I see what you mean, but my opinions are coloured by just how much I hated the magic analogy. 

We also rewatch the entire series from start to finish every so often.  Rewatching has made me dislike Dawn a lot less.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

http://wondercow.blogspot.com/2005/05/joss-whedon-is-misogynist-homophobe.html

Makes basically the same argument as Az, but makes many, many basic errors. For example, the stuff about the Watchers, completely ignores the fact that:



Spoiler: buffy



Buffy rejects the authority of the Watcher's council on a number of occassions, and in fct Giles is left, on several occassions, wondering what his role is since he can't train Buffy any more skills wise and she's simply grown out of him


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

One thing's for sure: any series that can generate this level of serious debate certainly deserves its place in the top 50 list.

Can I just throw _The Body_ in Season 5, in which 



Spoiler: buffy



Buffy's mum dies


 as being one of the most powerful single pieces of drama that I have _ever_ seen?  And sublimely acted from start to finish too -- the cast really came of age in that series.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> http://wondercow.blogspot.com/2005/05/joss-whedon-is-misogynist-homophobe.html



god thats bad.  Some sad sod trying far too hard and just missing the point by a fucking mile.  It does seem like he thinks vampires are real, and that the whole story isn't a simple analogy for _growing up_.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Indeed. It's up there with The Wire for it's ability to induce pseudishness in anyone 

And yeah, I'd second that comment about _The Body_ too.

Actually, this poll is shit for not placing Buffy higher.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> god thats bad.  Some sad sod trying far too hard and just missing the point by a fucking mile.  It does seem like he thinks vampires are real, and that the whole story isn't a simple analogy for _growing up_.



More undiscovered critical genius here:

http://www.slayageonline.com/SCBtVS_Archive/Talks/Hall.pdf


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Oh yeah, Angelus is definitely a punishment. They're quite open about that in the show. However, it's a punishment for Angel as well as Buffy. Angel's the one that loses his entire self and ends up getting killed, all as a result of having sex. Buffy only loses her boyfriend and gets sad. Imagine if the outcomes were reversed - people would say it was horribly misogynist.
> 
> (Can't be arsed with spoilers for such an early season).


I agree about Angelus. He was a metaphor for "sleep with a guy and he turns bad", and it was superbly done. It could've tipped over into misandry if they weren't careful, but Joss & co had a good game back at the beginning. 


The Octagon said:


> Surely the whole point was that 'Life' was the big bad of the season, the comparative mundanity of the geek trio only re-inforcing that (until the big finish with Darth Rosenberg). The 'Buffy torn out of heaven' aspect was only going to lead one way (although I think Marti Noxon was the wrong person to do it, for many reasons, including over-worship of Spike and a weird fixation with rape).


Didn't the Nox more or less admit that she was using season six to work through her "issues" in one interview? (can't be sure, years since I read this stuff). The "Life is the big bad" thing is a clever idea, but y'know what, _Buffy_ writing staff? I live life. Like the best fiction, _Buffy_ was about transcending the mundanities of the world. It was driven by its _joie de vivre_, and watching the cast come down with communal clinical depression sucked worse than an undead sucky thing. 


kyser_soze said:


> I assumed the Dark Phoenix reference was based on
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. 


> Other than that I have no idea what Az is banging on about. As you point out, S6's Big Bad is themselves, and Warren is _supposed_ to be a weak, disgusting example of manhood, which is why, out of _all_ the Buffy seasons
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except that he succeeds in bumping off you-know-who (we don't need no stinkin' laws of physics!), punishing Willow for getting her life back together. (It was such blatant audience manipulation that it tore down the fourth wall for me. My considered response back in 2002 was, "Oh, for fuck's sake!".) Combined with a season in which the writers rub all characters' faces in it (Buffy comes off worse, but Willow's not far behind) unfortunate implications abound. 


belboid said:


> That you got Buffy S6 so totally wrong has already bveen dealt with. then you lambast the guardian for their fashion following, and then whine that its not following your fashion preferences - which is all you've done, come up with a slightly different, older, list.


Which fashion prefs are these? I'm doing a Jay Sherman on _Buffy_ season six because it blew the show's earlier mission statement. From showrunner and sky-tyrant himself, Joss Whedon, no less. 


> Just to take the specific of Poliakoff - personally i think he's one of the most over-rated writers going, but even then...I bet he got a lot of votes but they would bve split across so many of his series' none of them would do well enough to crack the list. The best/most popular would be Shooting The past, but it (frankly) didn't deserve to get into the list due to its ultimate shallowness and lack of anything significant to say.


Actually my Poliakoff candidate would be 1980's _Caught on a Train_, since the little-seen 1993 _Century_ would be asking too much. _Shooting the Past_ would be a good winner, although I don't agree that it lacked significant message, or was shallow. I do agree that his recent work (_Lost Prince_ onwards) isn't his best, although I've yet to see his new film, and I enjoyed the creepy ghost story in _Capturing Mary_. You could well be right about the vote being split. Something similar probably cost _Babylon 5_ its first Hugo. (It won the next season when they only entered one episode.) 


> Odd voting twists are how these lists work tho, and its because oft hat I bet that MM did so well.


_Mad Men_ is good, solid melodrama, and defines period chic. It's more accessible than a five season examination of Baltimore's criminal underbelly. Its fans have been criticised for gushing over the surface and ignoring its dark message, but really, what else can you do? "The Fifties was a land of lost content for good ol' boys who don't treat women right." Yep, got it, agree. Next?


belboid said:


> absolutely, 6 is about how fucking dull real life actually is.  No vampires or werewolves or magical shit, just silly little boys (who dont grow up as fast) and shitty jobs.  As encapsualted in the Normal Again episode.
> 
> Only a fucking idiot could call that season 'mysoginistic'


It's a TV show. About vampires. And cheerleaders. Allegedly. Repeat until the desire to post personal abuse leaves you. And even if it doesn't, don't.  

_Buffy_ was about using vamps, werewolves, and magical shit as metaphors for life. Why it needed to ditch them, I don't know, but it wasn't an improvement.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> http://wondercow.blogspot.com/2005/05/joss-whedon-is-misogynist-homophobe.html
> 
> Makes basically the same argument as Az, but makes many, many basic errors. For example, the stuff about the Watchers, completely ignores the fact that:
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've seen that argument in a few places. 

It's a bit odd to say that there's a subtext of the watchers' council being patriarchal and sexist. It's not a subtext at all. The show makes them partriarchal and sexist on purpose, has it be completely out in the open that they're patriarchal and sexist, has Buffy first leave them then defeat them, then do the watcher's job much better than any of them ever did. Being patriachal and sexist, and then being defeated, is the whole point of the watcher's council. 

It's true about Willow and Tara's love scenes being really mild when compared to those between some of the straight characters. I don't blame the writers for that, though. They would not have been allowed to show lesbian sex on a show with such a demographic. 

He also complains that the girls who don't have superpowers aren't very good at fighting vampires and other bad guys. I guess all the male characters without superpowers were really strong and never had to be rescued and never felt useless and never got hurt or killed or mutilated ... oh, wait. 

BTW, even before checking his profile, I was fairly certain that that blog would be written by a straight man. A few straight men see homophobia and sexism where all that's happening is female or gay characters being taken seriously, and that's because they don't expect female and gay characters to be taken seriously. They're sexist and homophobic and also really, really stupid. And they make it harder for writers to create good gay and female characters - thanks guys!


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> you keep your misogyny out of it, and maybe we will do


Okay, that's crossing the line. Apology, please. 


> you think thats a clever statement??  Odd boy.  Maybe your acquaintances thought that, maybe you are making them up (I know which I think is more likely). Either way you and they are wrong and you just didn't get it.


"Think that's clever statement"? What are you on about? 

This is a discussion for TV shows. Can we keep it pleasant, instead of accusing people of hating women for, erm, criticising a season of show for, erm, having misogynistic implications. Yeah, that figures!  

Please tell me this is a wind up? Otherwise, you're one confused poster!


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jan 14, 2010)

The Prisoner only at 34!?! JOKE! It should be no lower than #3.

Six Feet Under and Twin Peaks should be higher up.

Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz is a glaring omission - should be in the top 10.

And where's Auf Wiedersehen Pet?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> Mad Men is good, solid melodrama, and defines period chic. It's more accessible than a five season examination of Baltimore's criminal underbelly. Its fans have been criticised for gushing over the surface and ignoring its dark message, but really, what else can you do? "The Fifties was a land of lost content for good ol' boys who don't treat women right." Yep, got it, agree. Next?



But one of the things that becomes clear as the seasons go on is that _none_ of the men are happy; Don remarking he doesn't know who he is anymore; Roger's 2nd marriage; Coopers complete impotence



Spoiler: Mad Men



in the face of the takeover



It's as much about how the perpetuation of the patriachy trapped the men in boxes as much as the women were disempowered. So no, it's not a one-note series by any means.

Oh, and re: The Wire - 3 season, maybe 3.5 at best. S5 is a steaming pile of doodoo, and S4 doesn't know what it is.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

Also, it's a bit rich to criticise S6 for having a misogynist as a villain, when in S7 - 



Spoiler: Season 7



The physical big bad, Caleb, is pure misogyny and hatred of women, who is eventually killed by having his balls sliced (amongst other things). Overt much?


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Okay, that's crossing the line. Apology, please.
> 
> "Think that's clever statement"? What are you on about?
> 
> ...



lol, is this post meant to be a joke?  I am judging you from your incoherent posts old boy. Ones opinions do say a lot about oneself, and I'm afraid yours reek (sp?) of you projecting your own mysogyny.  Sorry.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> http://wondercow.blogspot.com/2005/05/joss-whedon-is-misogynist-homophobe.html





kyser_soze said:


> More undiscovered critical genius here:
> 
> http://www.slayageonline.com/SCBtVS_Archive/Talks/Hall.pdf




You think they're bad, try "A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon & Firefly"

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

Truly frightening


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> BTW, even before checking his profile, I was fairly certain that that blog would be written by a straight man. A few straight men see homophobia and sexism where all that's happening is female or gay characters being taken seriously, and that's because they don't expect female and gay characters to be taken seriously. They're sexist and homophobic and also really, really stupid. And they make it harder for writers to create good gay and female characters - thanks guys!



Yeah, it's a funny thing that response - it's like female or gay characters (or black for that matter, and the race issue is one tat BtVS is _very_ easy to critique over) can either be paragons or demons, but not real characters who can be good/bad/mixture of the two but who _also happen to be female or gay_.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

We all dived straight into defending Season 6 so quickly that I forgot to ask the more general question that I found interesting:

If you have five great seasons and then one bad one, do you suddenly go from being a great drama to a bad one?  Shouldn't the single bad season be at worst neutral when you come to judge it?


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> _Buffy_ was about using vamps, werewolves, and magical shit as metaphors for life. Why it needed to ditch them, I don't know, but it wasn't an improvement.



because most people _grow up_.  That was much of its point, a point that seems to have gone over your head.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 14, 2010)

I've only watched maybe half of those


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

Quite.  What do you do when the characters in your coming-of-age drama have actually come of age?  If you're a bad drama, you carry on pretending that your twenty-somethings are still teenagers.  If you're an average drama then you end it.  If you're a _good_ drama then you progress things to the natural next level.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kabbes said:


> We all dived straight into defending Season 6 so quickly that I forgot to ask the more general question that I found interesting:
> 
> If you have five great seasons and then one bad one, do you suddenly go from being a great drama to a bad one?  Shouldn't the single bad season be at worst neutral when you come to judge it?



True, I found S5 of The Wire to be a massive drop in quality, yet I view the whole thing as brilliant, regardless.

Ditto S3 of Deadwood, S5 of The West Wing, and the final season of The Sopranos.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> You think they're bad, try "A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon & Firefly"
> 
> http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html
> 
> Truly frightening



Jesus suffering fuck:



> Zoe, of course, is meant to be our empowered, ass-kicking sidechick. Like all sidechicks she is objectified from the get go. Her husband, Wash, talking about how he likes to watch her bathe. Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour. I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.



I can't quite work out if this is actually a really clever parody or not - stuff like this:



> lesbian feminist sister



Do people actually talk like this?


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kabbes said:


> We all dived straight into defending Season 6 so quickly that I forgot to ask the more general question that I found interesting:
> 
> If you have five great seasons and then one bad one, do you suddenly go from being a great drama to a bad one?  Shouldn't the single bad season be at worst neutral when you come to judge it?



I don't think it does exactly, but it depends how bad it is. Take the X-Files, for example.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Jesus suffering fuck:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's frightening real, unless she's a very dedicated parody writer. There's shedloads of critiques and articles.

She basically calls Joss Whedon a rapist (in her view, all men in consenting sexual relations are rapists) several times.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Jesus suffering fuck:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope it's a parody - a terrible one. 

The only person I know who uses terms like lesbian feminist sister ('soul sistah') does it tongue in cheek and is a bit off her head anyway.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Jesus suffering fuck:
> 
> I can't quite work out if this is actually a really clever parody or not - stuff like this:
> 
> Do people actually talk like this?



classic first year undergraduate


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I don't think it does exactly, but it depends how bad it is. Take the X-Files, for example.


The X-Files is a bit of a special case, though.  As it progressed, it became clear that Chris Carter was actually making it up as he went along -- something he later admitted to.  In doing so, it retrospectively made a lot of the earlier episodes shit, because they appeared to be portentous and meaningful at the time but they turned out to be nothing but placeholders for an as-yet unwritten plot.

A subtle effect, maybe, but an important one IMO.  Nobody likes to look back and think, "Bollocks, that was all for nothing."


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

Reno said:


> Geek gold !
> 
> I think Whedon has acknowledged in several interviews that his Dark Willow storyline was a tribute to Dark Phoenix and he certainly did a better job with it than the 3rd X-Men movie managed. That said, I also thought Season 6 was the weakest Buffy season and the characters were all over the place.
> 
> Its biggest mistake was not to have Willow turn bad at the start and have her be the main big bad for the season. I don't think having a gay character, especially one who had been treated so sympathetically, turn bad necessarily homophobic. Her reasons for snapping were quite understandable.


Willow snapping wasn't automatically homophobic because she happened to be gay. It was the specific way the writers did it. I think "Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché" is the term. Steven D Knight (writer, "Seeing Red") even went onto a Willow and Tara fan board and apologised. 


kabbes said:


> I was dubious about Buffy Season 6 when I was 25.  But having just watched it again at the age of 33, I've found it one of the best seasons of all.  It certainly has some of the most sophisticated moments of humour.  And seeing her world fall apart from simple everyday life was an inspired and brave piece of writing for a show obstensibly about vampires and demons.  In retrospect it's easy to take that for granted.  But when you watch all the series back to back in the space of a few months, you notice just what an achievement it was.


But the show's always been about real life falling apart. It used the vamps and demons as metaphors. The season two Angelus arc was the highlight of this. 


scifisam said:


> How is having a misogynistic bad guy misogynistic in itself? If they had a racist bad guy, would that make the show racist?


No. But if Mr Racist Badguy was combined with a stack of racial and Uncle Tom clichés, it could have unfortunate implications. Context is everything. When Mal from _Firefly_ rolled into _Buffy_ season seven as part of the Whedon welfare check service, the women-hating nut of a preacher gave no unfortunate implications, because the context was different. 


> Not promptly. You're forgetting a ton of episodes in between there. And she had pretty much no other choice.


Next episode, wasn't it? 


> They're a couple in a TV show where relationships are doomed and there's no guarantee any character will stay alive. [spoiler='Buffy', "Seeing Red"]Tara wasn't shot for being gay. Hell, she wasn't even shot for being Tara - Warren was trying to get Buffy.[/spoiler]You're really reaching if you think that was homophobic.


See "Gay/Evil Lesbian Cliché", above. No critic said they'd done it intentionally. It was sloppy writing. 

I didn't say _Buffy_, as a series, was homophobic. Just that one cliché. 


> I am pretty certain you're wrong. Buffy was enormously, enormously popular in criticial circles. I'd bet you a million quid that they did watch it. And, if you think the show was that good, why do you _still_ think it was tokenism?


I'm sure they critics have watched a few episodes. I think they're exaggerating their love for the show, based on the fact that their write-ups tend to be formulaic and stacked with clichés. The cheerleader comment was de rigueur in the Grauniad's "G2" TV pages during later seasons, along with mentioning that the show was set in a high school years after the Buffster had left for (and then dropped out of) college. Don't know if these are online. Will look, later. 


> Why does the origin of [_Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit_] make such terrible misogyny and homophobia OK? I mean, if treating women and gay characters badly = misogyny and homophobia, then it doesn't matter what the source material is.


They are, sadly, appropriate for the setting, and an intrinsic part of the story, just as a drama set in the antebellum South is going to feature some less than enlightened attitudes to black Americans. Warren was not an intrinsic part of _Buffy_, and neither was the nasty relationship they forced on Buffy in season six, which was played variously for laughs, kinks, and drama. I don't for a minute think the _Buffy_ writers intended any of the implications we got. That's what makes them unfortunate.  

Put it like this: no one complains that _Mississippi Burning_ features racist characters. But some do complain that it has a bunch of heroic white g-men ride in from up North to save the day. Not because the writers are evil racists, but because it has unfortunate implications. 


> Yes, I know where Dark Phoenix is from. You said that a certain character's death was a rip-off of Dark Phoenix and I can't see any similarities at all - I certainly can't see how it would be homophobic if there were any similarities.


I was referring to Dark Willow, afterwards. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Nothing wrong with police procedurals! _The Wire_'s about the process of getting suspects to trial, and paints a multi-faceted map of Baltimore in the process. All the observations about urban decay, the war on drugs, etc, arise from the procedure. See David Simon's earlier HBO mini-series, _The Corner_, for a different approach to the same issue.


Sorry, but this is just a daft way to look at anything.

Star Wars is a love story - yep, but . . .

In other words, you're alighting on a tool or mechanism within the work  and using that as the defining or overriding  characteristic of the whole -   Dickens wasn't discussing transport in A Tale of Two Cities.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> lol, is this post meant to be a joke?  I am judging you from your incoherent posts old boy. Ones opinions do say a lot about oneself, and I'm afraid yours reek (sp?) of you projecting your own mysogyny.  Sorry.


No joke. I tend not to snigger about posters who accuse me of hating women. Funny that way. 

As wind-ups go, it's piss weak, and needlessly souring the whole thread. Either post up a genuine apology, or we've got nothing more to say to each other.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Why would I bother trying to wind you up?  Your posts make me think you are a misogynist, simple as that.  Hey ho


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/

Leaving aside the use of the word 'womyn', this is priceless:



> First of all, this journal is for women who have a genuine interest in women's rights and commitment to sisterhood. Discussion has always been a vital part of the development of the women's movement. If you disagree with something published here, please don't hesitate to say so unless your opinions fall under the banned comments section. If you do want to engage me in a discussion about something I have posted on my journal, please treat me with respect. You have every right to disagree, you have every right to tell me how and why, but you do not have the right to insult your own intelligence by attempting to insult mine. I am not easily offended and I will merely have a good laugh at your inanity before deleting your comment. So, don't be stupid if you actually want your comment to be published.
> 
> Banned Comments
> 
> ...



Sorry for the derail, but I genuinely thought that people like this were some kind of parodic invention...



> It was the specific way the writers did it. I think "Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché" is the term. Steven D Knight (writer, "Seeing Red") even went onto a Willow and Tara fan board and apologised.



Sorry, how does that scan? 



Spoiler: buffy



Willow and Tara had just reconciled, Willow was _happy_ Warren then comes along and (accidentally) shoots Tara. Willow goes apeshit. If Tara had been Willow's BF, would it have been character inconsistent for her to react in the same way? If it was Xander having a relationship with another guy would his having the same reaction be any different? I cannot see the homophobia in actions consistent with the character's history and emotional state. Ridiculous.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Sorry, but this is just a daft way to look at anything.
> 
> Star Wars is a love story - yep, but . . .


_Star Wars_ is a sci-fi romp that includes a love story. It's not the defining feature of the show. 


> In other words, you're alighting on a tool or mechanism within the work  and using that as the defining or overriding  characteristic of the whole -   Dickens wasn't discussing transport in A Tale of Two Cities.


The first season of _The Wire_ follows the course of an investigation into the Barksdale set-up, and the fallout from this is a springboard for later seasons. Police (po-lice) procedure is central to the show. So I think "police procedural" is a fair summary. Procedural needn't mean _Law & Order_, which is a formulaic police/legal procedural (although much good drama arises from the rigidly-followed formula).


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> Star Wars is a sci-fi romp that includes a love story



SW is cowboys and indians set in spaceships. It's setting is SF, nothing else about it is.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> Why would I bother trying to wind you up?  Your posts make me think you are a misogynist, simple as that.  Hey ho


If you think calling people misogynistic doesn't tend to wind them up, you have much to learn about people.  

You've just accused me of hating women, out the blue, over a TV show. An apology is the least you owe me. If you can bring yourself to do that, highlight the "misogynistic" bit of the post, and on we go. Otherwise, you and me are done here. Simple as.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> SW is cowboys and indians set in spaceships. It's setting is SF, nothing else about it is.


Samurai movie, too.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> If you think calling people misogynistic doesn't tend to wind them up, you have much to learn about people.
> 
> You've just accused me of hating women, out the blue, over a TV show. An apology is the least you owe me. If you can bring yourself to do that, highlight the "misogynistic" bit of the post, and on we go. Otherwise, you and me are done here. Simple as.



I dont care whether it winds you up.  Why on earth should I care about hurting the feelings of someone who seems to be a misogynist? 

bye, it's you who'll be missing out


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Samurai movie, too.



Red Sun in Space.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

Star Wars is not just not really Sci-Fi, it actually is anti-science.  Consider lines like, "He's more machine than man now -- twisted and evil."  In what way is a machine "twisted and evil"?


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/
> 
> Leaving aside the use of the word 'womyn', this is priceless:
> 
> ...




Basically it mean if you disagree in any way she deleted your comments, a few people from the IMDB Buffy Board attempted to talk her round reasonably and got ranted at


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> BTW, even before checking his profile, I was fairly certain that that blog would be written by a straight man. A few straight men see homophobia and sexism where all that's happening is female or gay characters being taken seriously, and that's because they don't expect female and gay characters to be taken seriously. They're sexist and homophobic and also really, really stupid. And they make it harder for writers to create good gay and female characters - thanks guys!


You mean they expect female characters to be paragons, and react accordingly if they're not? Maybe so. The nasty old "virgin or s**t" thinking. I don't think that applies to the author of the link, though. It just misses some points. 

The article misses the point about Angelus by a country mile. The condemnation weighed on him, not her. (Although Whedon has mischievously said that they punish everyone for being happy.)


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> I dont care whether it winds you up.  Why on earth should I care about hurting the feelings of someone who seems to be a misogynist?
> 
> bye, it's you who'll be missing out


Erm, I'm not wound up, I'm just not going to let your stupid accusations pass. Nor am I going to try and defend myself from something you haven't even backed up. 

Tell you what, I'll be charitable. I'll pass on the apology for now. Post up the comments you think are misogynistic, and explain why. In your own words, not those you've borrowed off another poster.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> True, I found S5 of The Wire to be a massive drop in quality, yet I view the whole thing as brilliant, regardless.
> 
> Ditto S3 of Deadwood, S5 of The West Wing, and the final season of The Sopranos.



I block S5 of The Wire out. I focus instead on S1-3, especially S3.

I really liked Deadwood's 3rd season FWIW...agree on S5 of the WW...S6&7 _so_ make up for it tho.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Erm, I'm not wound up, I'm just not going to let your stupid accusations pass. Nor am I going to try and defend myself from something you haven't even backed up.
> 
> Tell you what, I'll be charitable. I'll pass on the apology for now. Post up the comments you think are misogynistic, and explain why. In your own words, not those you've borrowed off another poster.



naah, I'll get back to the discussion and leave you and your amusing contradictions to yourself.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Willow snapping wasn't automatically homophobic because she happened to be gay. It was the specific way the writers did it. I think "Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché" is the term. Steven D Knight (writer, "Seeing Red") even went onto a Willow and Tara fan board and apologised.



Link to the apology, please? I bet he wasn't actually saying 'sorry for being homophobic.' 

You know, Evil Lesbian does exist as a cliche. But was she evil because she was a lesbian? Er, no. 



> No. But if Mr Racist Badguy was combined with a stack of racial and Uncle Tom clichés, it could have unfortunate implications. Context is everything. When Mal from _Firefly_ rolled into _Buffy_ season seven as part of the Whedon welfare check service, the women-hating nut of a preacher gave no unfortunate implications, because the context was different.







> Next episode, wasn't it?



No. Several episodes into the next _season_ after he'd gone and got his sould back so was a different person. 



> I'm sure they critics have watched a few episodes. I think they're exaggerating their love for the show, based on the fact that their write-ups tend to be formulaic and stacked with clichés. The cheerleader comment was de rigueur in the Grauniad's "G2" TV pages during later seasons, along with mentioning that the show was set in a high school years after the Buffster had left for (and then dropped out of) college. Don't know if these are online. Will look, later.



You know, I don't think the TV listings in G2 were written by TV critics. 



> They are, sadly, appropriate for the setting, and an intrinsic part of the story, just as a drama set in the antebellum South is going to feature some less than enlightened attitudes to black Americans. Warren was not an intrinsic part of _Buffy_, and neither was the nasty relationship they forced on Buffy in season six, which was played variously for laughs, kinks, and drama. I don't for a minute think the _Buffy_ writers intended any of the implications we got. That's what makes them unfortunate.
> 
> Put it like this: no one complains that _Mississippi Burning_ features racist characters. But some do complain that it has a bunch of heroic white g-men ride in from up North to save the day. Not because the writers are evil racists, but because it has unfortunate implications.



Thanks for making my point for me. Having women and lesbians mistreated was appropriate for the setting of OANTOF. Having everyone treated terribly was appropriate for the setting of Buffy. It's stupid to complain about characters being hurt and killed in a TV series which is about fighting vampires and other evil beings. 

Imagine an alternative universe where all the genders in Buffy were reversed. We'd have a strong young man destined to save the world, a young man who's hot and witty as well as practically invincible. Every generation has a man like who saves the world. 

He's guided by a stereotypical mother figure who gets knocked out almost every episode and has to be rescued several times. This woman is part of a group that's almost all female and matriarchal. When the male star is no longer as dependent on this mother character she loses her identity and turns to drink. Her BF is killed in a very sexual way. She only becomes strong again once the male character needs her again. 

His male best friend is a boy who's nerdy but brilliantly clever, especially at science and maths, and adept at magic - so good that he becomes one of the most powerful magicians in the world. He comes out as gay, which is a huge deal for the type of show, and his relationship is one of the most loving in the show with his BF being a major character too. When his boyfriend gets killed, by a woman who hates men, he turns bad for a single episode. He then controls his magic and stays strong and capable and finishes the season happily in love with another man. 

His other best friend is a girl who's nerdy, not good at school stuff, gets hurt a lot, and is so helpless that there's a whole episode about him being the weakest one of the group and that fact is brought up several times in the series. Every time she thinks about kissing a boy, that boy turns out to be bad and tries to kill her. She heartlessly dumps her husband to be and is later blinded. She finises the series weakened, blind, single and depending on her 'heart' for her role in the group.

Then there's the main character's vampire GF. In her human life, she was a drunken slut who lost her soul when she went off to have sex with a stranger. Now, if she has sex, she turns evil. If she stays away from sex, she's a really good person, one of the greatest heroes in the world. The main male star kills her by sticking his big sword in her. 

And so on. Sounds a bit misogynistic, doesn't it?

Buffy was the opposite of misogynistic and homophobic. 



> I was referring to Dark Willow, afterwards. Sorry for any confusion.



There's not much of a similarity. Willow goes bad. Jean Grey has an alternative bad persona. Their hair colour changes. That's about it. Note that the TV series didn't call her DarkWillow - that was the fans. And it's still not homophobic.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> Although Whedon has mischievously said that they punish everyone for being happy



Writer's conceit that tho, and it is applied equally across the board. 

I know it's tragic, but for me the saddest of the romance plotlines is



Spoiler: buffy



Xander and Anyanka. Xander, for being a cock and listening to D'Hoffryn and dumping her on her wedding day. I *heart* Anya, and never forgave Xander for it


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Imagine an alternative universe where all the genders in Buffy were reversed. We'd have a strong young man destined to save the world, a young man who's hot and witty as well as practically invincible. Every generation has a man like who saves the world.
> 
> He's guided by a stereotypical mother figure who gets knocked out almost every episode and has to be rescued several times. This woman is part of a group that's almost all female and matriarchal. When the male star is no longer as dependent on this mother character she loses her identity and turns to drink. Her BF is killed in a very sexual way. She only becomes strong again once the male character needs her again.
> 
> ...





That show would (depressingly) make millions if it was commissioned in the US.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> naah, I'll get back to the discussion and leave you and your amusing contradictions to yourself.


So you can't back your unhinged accusation of misogyny up, and you haven't the good grace to apologise. Right. Just so we're clear. 

Back to the discussion!


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I know it's tragic, but for me the saddest of the romance plotlines is
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahem, *geek time*, I believe...



Spoiler: S6



Xander was influenced by a demon (punished by Anyanka), posing as his older self, rather than D'Hoffryn



Oh god I need to do some work....


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> unhinged



giggles


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Ahem, *geek time*, I believe...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*hangs head in geek shame*


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Link to the apology [from _Buffy_ and "Seeing Red" writer Steven Deknight), please? I bet he wasn't actually saying 'sorry for being homophobic.'


Hold your your hats, it gets geeky. "BytrSuite" (Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:51 pm ) posted up the first apology from Steven Deknight (loving that name!) over at a Willow & Tara fansite, over comments he made after "Seeing Red" aired. ("We're so over the gay thing," or words to that effect.) And then, he came over himself (Steve DeKnight, Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:23 pm). I remember being surprised that a writer would take time out to do that years back when someone posted up the link. 

Of course he didn't say, "Hands up, I'm a gay basher." No one (not even that fansite, which go even further than I do) claims that he, or anyone else on the show, was. 


> No. Several episodes into the next _season_ after he'd gone and got his sould back so was a different person.


From the next ep, "Villains". (Looking all this up is bringing back memories!) 


DAWN: Fine. I want to go to Spike's. 
BUFFY: All right.
XANDER: What?! Not all right. Are you kidding? After what Spike did-
BUFFY: Xander! 


Spoiler: spoiler



XANDER: You're not gonna really leave Dawn with Mr. Attempted Rape.


BUFFY: He won't hurt Dawn. I, he-he physically can't. Besides, he wouldn't.
XANDER: Well, after the other night, I'd say all bets are off on what he's capable of.
BUFFY: Dawn feels safe with him. We don't have a choice. Right now, he's all we've got.[1] 

Spike's gone when they get round to his place. 


> Thanks for making my point for me. Having women and lesbians mistreated was appropriate for the setting of OANTOF. Having everyone treated terribly was appropriate for the setting of Buffy. It's stupid to complain about characters being hurt and killed in a TV series which is about fighting vampires and other evil beings.


Yep, it would be. The specific way they were hurt is the problem. _Buffy_ season six remorselessly beat down on every character on the show, to (barely) varying degrees. The misogynistic implications come from combining this with the intro of a frothing woman-hating psychopath as a villain, and implied that the only way the lead character could go on was by allowing herself to be slapped around by a demon. A relationship they played for laughs most of the time, up until 



Spoiler: Seeing Red



he tried to rape her.


 Mr Psycho then succeeds in 



Spoiler: Seeing Contrivance



murdering Tara, and sends her girlfriend onto a revenge crusade, culminating in an attempt to wipe out the human race.



Intended? Nope. Cack-handed? Yep. 

It's obvious they were trying to make an anti-misogynistic point. Fine. They just went about it in completely the wrong way, and ended up with a nasty atmosphere all round. 


> Buffy was the opposite of misogynistic and homophobic.


Yep, in the early seasons. It jumped the shark badly at the end of season six (actually, I think it was on its way at the end of season four, but that's by the by.) I don't for a minute think the writing staff turned into the employees of Sterling Cooper. They just wrote a lot of crap, and didn't notice they'd screwed the pooch until it was too late.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Writer's conceit that tho, and it is applied equally across the board.
> 
> I know it's tragic, but for me the saddest of the romance plotlines is
> 
> ...


I never bought into Xander and Anya's alleged epic romance. It was a relationship centred around casual sex that got shoehorned into a Trew Love mold because the plot demanded it. They had to suffer, gorram it! The Xander character deserved better, and Anya was too one-note for me to care either way. (Well, in later seasons, she was sassy and cunning when she first appeared.)


----------



## Reno (Jan 14, 2010)

I don't hold with the wisdom that Buffy jumped the shark with Season 4. Maybe the overally continuing storyline wasn't as good as that of the previous two seasons, but it had several fantastic stand alone episodes, best of all Hush and Restless which are my two favourite episodes in the entire series and among the best TV fantasy ever. I also liked Willow falling for Tara. Season 5 was great and I think Season 7 is good fun and rather underrated. Season 6 is the only one I don't care for too much, though the last few episodes were excellent.

In any case, Buffy fully desreves its inclusion in and best TV drama ever list. It was smart and funny and occasionally it broke my heart unlike any other show.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Sorry, but the actual criticism, and drawing the parallel of the evil minority cliché is flawed, because Willow's behaviour is exactly as one would expect it to be _if someone had just murdered a characters lover_. I reject the basic criticism, and TBH Mr Darknkight was an idiot for apologising to an incorrect criticism.

The irony, of course, is that in making this criticism, those arguing it are actually making Willow and Tara's characters and relationship as _less_ than the one portrayed on screen - it's _only_ about them being gay, and not about them being gay _people_.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Sorry, but the actual criticism, and drawing the parallel of the evil minority cliché is flawed, because Willow's behaviour is exactly as one would expect it to be _if someone had just murdered a characters lover_. I reject the basic criticism, and TBH Mr Darknkight was an idiot for apologising to an incorrect criticism.


You'd expect someone who's lover's been killed to try to 



Spoiler: Grave



_exterminate the human race_?


 Extreme! 

Mr DeKnight was apologising specifically for his stupid comments after the episode aired. If I recall right, several writers later accepted that they'd stumbled into a cliche. 


> The irony, of course, is that in making this criticism, those arguing it are actually making Willow and Tara's characters and relationship as _less_ than the one portrayed on screen - it's _only_ about them being gay, and not about them being gay _people_.


They're arguing that it walked straight into a honking great cliche, as bad as "the black sidekick who dies first" or "Albinos, evil sharpshooters" and all the other ugly caricatures in film and TV. I'm not one for identity politics, but I accept that the people who complain about these cliches have a point, and they should be avoided. While it's wrong to reduce a character to one aspect of their identity, it's naieve to avoid it entirely. 

Besides which, the shooting only came about as a hackneyed plot device to inject some drama into a moribund season. It was a rehash of what happened at the end of season five, with the brain-suckin'. No one accused _Buffy_ of propagating cliches over that.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

well I hope no one has only got through the first four seasons of the buffster, cos there are some mighty spoliers for the rest of it here now!


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

Reno said:


> I don't hold with the wisdom that Buffy jumped the shark with Season 4. Maybe the overally continuing storyline wasn't as good as that of the previous two seasons, but it had several fantastic stand alone episodes, best of all Hush and Restless which are my two favourite episodes in the entire series and among the best TV fantasy ever. I also liked Willow falling for Tara. Season 5 was great and I think Season 7 is good fun and rather underrated. Season 6 is the only one I don't care for too much, though the last few episodes were excellent.


Actually I agree about season four. Walking plot device Riley was inoffensive but a mistake, but the Big Bad was compromised by an actress leaving earlier than expected. (Not sure it'd have been that much better anyway, mind.) Still, season four had some of the best dialogue, Spike was good, and Willow and Oz/Willow and Tara was nicely done. The return of Faith, excellent. Nothing that couldn't be put right.  

I think _Buffy_ was on its way at the beginning of season five with the intro of Dawn "long lost sister" Summers, who the show immediately focussed on. It really went to pot shortly after the beginning of season six. 


> In any case, Buffy fully desreves its inclusion in and best TV drama ever list. It was smart and funny and occasionally it broke my heart unlike any other show.


Undoubtedly. I'd put it in the top five. 

What's the criteria for this list, anyhow? Is it "lankmark/worthy" TV, or timeless, fun TV? _Buffy_ scores in both columns, though.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> You'd expect someone who's lover's been killed to try to...



Yeah. I've read enough fiction where a character's father/mother/brother/whatever is murdered and they decide to exact vengence in some hugely disproportionate way. Shit, Grand Moff Tarkin exterminated _a whole planet_ just to attempt to extract some information from a prisoner. Extreme!!!

They're arguing using student identity politics; the action was consistent with Willow's character development over the season. The simple fact is that their position would have _any_ gay character who manifests _any_ bad behaviour as being homophobic. Which is nonsense.


----------



## Reno (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> You'd expect someone who's lover's been killed to try to
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think Buffy should be taken to literally. It's allegory. Just as when Buffy looses her virginity to Angel, he turns evil and dumps her was an exaggeration of how a young girl would feel after having been taken advantage off and been dumped by her boyfriend. To her he would be evil, in Buffy he literally becomes the personification of evil. 

Equally Willow feels an all consuming rage after her lover gets killed. It's an exaggeration of human emotions we would feel in this case. I saw her as a tragic (anti-)heroine rather than a homophobic stereotype. I certainly cheered her on when she skinned Warren alive.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> They're arguing using student identity politics; the action was consistent with Willow's character development over the season. The simple fact is that their position would have _any_ gay character who manifests _any_ bad behaviour as being homophobic. Which is nonsense.



all of those articles seem to be no more than student identity politics. they are embarassingly bad and would barely scrape you a pass in a first year critical studies course


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Hold your your hats, it gets geeky. "BytrSuite" (Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:51 pm ) posted up the first apology from Steven Deknight (loving that name!) over at a Willow & Tara fansite, over comments he made after "Seeing Red" aired. ("We're so over the gay thing," or words to that effect.) And then, he came over himself (Steve DeKnight, Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:23 pm). I remember being surprised that a writer would take time out to do that years back when someone posted up the link.
> 
> Of course he didn't say, "Hands up, I'm a gay basher." No one (not even that fansite, which go even further than I do) claims that he, or anyone else on the show, was.



The definition of 'dead/evil lesbian cliche' doesn't fit Willow or Tara at all:



> gay people in general, all people of color - are introduced into a storyline in order to be killed or play the villain


 
Unless you think Willow was in the entire series just to be the villain.

The writer of that post then defines dead/evil lesbian cliche as:



> That all lesbians and, specifically lesbian couples, can never find happiness and always meet tragic ends. One of the most repeated scenarios is that one lesbian dies horribly and her lover goes crazy, killing others or herself. (Sound familiar?)



Which does fit Willow and Tara - but wait! It's clear that she wrote that definition only because of Willow and Tara. NONE of her other examples fit that definition at all. 

There is a cliche of lesbians going evil. It is very rare for a lesbian relationship to end happily in films and on TV, even in genres where relationships ending badly is commonplace. There's quite a lot of homophobia still in the media and in the past there was even more. 

That does mean that _every_ lesbian character who goes bad (for ONE episode) is an example of this cliche. The show was full of characters, male female and undefined, who were evil. It's complaining that the show is prejudiced against Irish people because Angel turned evil. Or against straight women because Anya turned evil. 


> From the next ep, "Villains". (Looking all this up is bringing back memories!)
> 
> 
> DAWN: Fine. I want to go to Spike's.
> ...



Ah, I see where the confusion lies - the next time she _actually_ leaves Dawn with him is after he's resouled, but she did attempt it straight away. But only because she had no choice and his actions are hardly condoned. 



> Yep, it would be. The specific way they were hurt is the problem. _Buffy_ season six remorselessly beat down on every character on the show, to (barely) varying degrees. The misogynistic implications come from combining this with the intro of a frothing woman-hating psychopath as a villain, and implied that the only way the lead character could go on was by allowing herself to be slapped around by a demon. A relationship they played for laughs most of the time, up until
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only if you want it to be that way and view events very selectively. With selective viewing you could make that season out to be anti-male, anti-British, racist, anything you like.  

And good Lord, if Warren (who, FWIW, was one of three bad guys, two of whom didn't hate women) was 'frothing' then what were the other, much more ebullient, bad guys in other seasons? In comparison they must have had more froth than an exploded cappuccino machine in a Carling factory. 



> Yep, in the early seasons. It jumped the shark badly at the end of season six (actually, I think it was on its way at the end of season four, but that's by the by.) I don't for a minute think the writing staff turned into the employees of Sterling Cooper. They just wrote a lot of crap, and didn't notice they'd screwed the pooch until it was too late.



There we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah. I've read enough fiction where a character's father/mother/brother/whatever is murdered and they decide to exact vengence in some hugely disproportionate way. Shit, Grand Moff Tarkin exterminated _a whole planet_ just to attempt to extract some information from a prisoner. Extreme!!!


Well yeah. 

Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. Willow's chosen fate for Warren, perhaps (although even then ...). Trying to commit the genocide to beat all genocides, and becoming in a stroke worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Richard Nixon combined. Nah. 



> They're arguing using student identity politics; the action was consistent with Willow's character development over the season. The simple fact is that their position would have _any_ gay character who manifests _any_ bad behaviour as being homophobic. Which is nonsense.


Erm, they turned against the show only when Warren's victim was gunned down. Willow had spent the best part of the season before that acting like a grade A-1 shit, including 



Spoiler: All the Way



mind raping Tara


. So you claim that they demand gay characters be paragons don't fly. Student identity politics probably would demand that every gay character nobly suffer.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Hold your your hats, it gets geeky. "BytrSuite" (Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:51 pm ) posted up the first apology from Steven Deknight (loving that name!) over at a Willow & Tara fansite, over comments he made after "Seeing Red" aired. ("We're so over the gay thing," or words to that effect.) And then, he came over himself (Steve DeKnight, Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:23 pm). I remember being surprised that a writer would take time out to do that years back when someone posted up the link.
> 
> Of course he didn't say, "Hands up, I'm a gay basher." No one (not even that fansite, which go even further than I do) claims that he, or anyone else on the show, was.



I finally read through that thread (and man, they have a whole site devoted to Joss Whedon being evil for what happened to Willow and Tara? A whole site for that? Jesus Christ - that's freakishly obssessive) and found the quote:



> I know a lot of you feel that my recent apology on the Bronze was far too little and way too late, and I apologize for that, too. But it was sincere. There were no ulterior motives beyond the need to express how sorry I am that my insensitive remarks hurt so many of you. That’s really all there was to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why did you claim that he was apologising for the storyline? He was apologising for calling some fans homophobes - he wasn't apologising for the storyline in any way, shape or form.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Then they're idiots for then going on to claim that the end of the season is a homophobic cliché. Or indeed, in any way different to the tragedy that befalls _all the other characters_ at some point in the show.



Spoiler: buffy



I suspect that, on a Willow and Tara fan club site, that it has more to do with redirected pissed-offness at their beloved character getting offed and then hanging a convenient critical trope on it then anything else


.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> That does mean that _every_ lesbian character who goes bad (for ONE episode) is an example of this cliche. The show was full of characters, male female and undefined, who were evil. It's complaining that the show is prejudiced against Irish people because Angel turned evil. Or against straight women because Anya turned evil.


If Angel had turned evil after drinking himself silly, and trying to buy arms for the 'ra, then yeah, I'd say the show was showing a hint of bias against Irish folks. There's no sweeping movie cliché against straight people I can think of (given that they're the majority) so can't think of an equivalent for Anya, on that basis. 

On the Willow and Tara thing:- 



Spoiler: spoiler



Willow spent the season alone and miserable, and finally reunites with Tara. Tara is promptly shot above the bed in which they've spent the past day going at it like Anya's phobia. Willow goes crazy, torturers the murderer to death, and tries to commit the biggest genocide in history.



There are unfortunate implications there, alright. I was dubious about the claim myself at first (I always loathed it as a sloppy plot contrivance) but read the arguments, and was forced to agree. You could say it's coincidence, but then the same argument was repeatedly used for the black sidekick who got bumped off. After a while, it's a honking, negative cliché, and something to be avoided. Poor show for a show that set itself up to subvert clichéd writing. 


> Ah, I see where the confusion lies - the next time she _actually_ leaves Dawn with him is after he's resouled, but she did attempt it straight away. But only because she had no choice and his actions are hardly condoned.


No, they're loudly condemned by Mr Righteous, which makes it even worse. She didn't have no choice. She made a very strange choice. 


> Only if you want it to be that way and view events very selectively. With selective viewing you could make that season out to be anti-male, anti-British, racist, anything you like.


True enough, but what have I selected? The main plots of the series. The only thing I've not really mentioned is Xander being a prick. Although if Xanders prickisness was combined with a female villain who ranted and raved about how selfish and feckless men were, I think you could fairly take that as having misandrist implications. 

On matters bubbly, the other villains all had an agenda and a decent plan. Warren was nuts, and ... what _was_ his plan, again. He seemed to exist for no other reason than to be a drooling woman hater, and to facilitate the real Big Bad at season's end. I've seen flatpacks with more depth!


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I finally read through that thread (and man, they have a whole site devoted to Joss Whedon being evil for what happened to Willow and Tara? A whole site for that? Jesus Christ - that's freakishly obssessive) ...


Well, I don't agree with their line, but can sort of see where they're coming from, after all the smokescreen BS the writers put out about a certain character being "central to the show" and so on, capped with an appearance in the credits of "Seeing Red". 


> ... and found the quote:
> Why did you claim that he was apologising for the storyline? He was apologising for calling some fans homophobes - he wasn't apologising for the storyline in any way, shape or form.


I said he went there and apologised, couldn't remember the exact details (it's years since I've read through all this). Several other writers, while not saying the character shouldn't have died, admitted that the way they handled it was a mistake.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

> I was dubious about the claim myself at first (I always loathed it as a sloppy plot contrivance) but read the arguments, and was forced to agree.



Comme ci, comme ca. I've read them and disagree, quite vehemently in fact. 



> You could say it's coincidence, but then the same argument was repeatedly used for the black sidekick who got bumped off.



And we're talking about which character here? Or is that a more generic argument about the evil/murder cliché which takes no account at all of the storyline leading up to the point under contention?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Then they're idiots for then going on to claim that the end of the season is a homophobic cliché. Or indeed, in any way different to the tragedy that befalls _all the other characters_ at some point in the show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not just them, some articles turned up other sites, notably afterellen, saying much the same thing. 

I thought exactly the same as you when I first saw the argument. But the whole badly written soap opera from season six does fit the template uncomfortably well. If nothing else, it was spectacularly poor and contrived writing. Warning, plot device at 100 paces.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> And we're talking about which character here? Or is that a more generic argument about the evil/murder cliché which takes no account at all of the storyline leading up to the point under contention?


If you mean the redcoat black sidekick cliche, so far as I remember, it applies mainly to generic 80s action movies, where a black actor was hired to play a comic sidekick who got bumped off to "make it personal" for the (white) hero, thus reducing black people on screen to a means to an end. This one's so infamous I wouldn't have thought it was seriously disputed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> If nothing else, it was spectacularly poor and contrived writing. Warning, plot device at 100 paces.



It _was_ a program on the telly to be fair to it.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It _was_ a program on the telly to be fair to it.


Yeah, and it was still better than most shows, but it used to avoid this sort of signposted writing. 



Spoiler: season 2 'Buffy', way back when



It wasn't obvious that the boyfriend was going to turn into a bloodsucking fiend.


----------



## strung out (Jan 14, 2010)

i think it's disappointing that the longest running science fiction programme of all time didn't make the list


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

strung_out said:


> i think it's disappointing that the longest running science fiction programme of all time didn't make the list



Que?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

Give Moffat a chance, and it might show in the next one.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Que?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5390372.stm


----------



## strung out (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Give Moffat a chance, and it might show in the next one.



it should have been in this list, considering some of the crap that's on it


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5390372.stm



Ah right.

Don't rate it personally, but then again I'm arguing the toss over Buffy The Vampire Slayer, so swings and roundabouts 

But Buffy's far superior.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 14, 2010)

Maggot said:


> _How do You Want Me?_  Was great, Dylan Moran and the late Charlotte Coleman, although I though it was more of a comedy than a drama.



I do like it but surprised to see it here. GBH should be on that list.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> If Angel had turned evil after drinking himself silly, and trying to buy arms for the 'ra, then yeah, I'd say the show was showing a hint of bias against Irish folks. There's no sweeping movie cliché against straight people I can think of (given that they're the majority) so can't think of an equivalent for Anya, on that basis.



You're not getting me. Having a lesbian character turn evil isn't that significant in a show that has loads of evil characters, including some who were formerly good. It'd be like complaining that a gay male character in Ugly Betty was working in the fashion industry even though the entire show is about the fashion industry. 



> On the Willow and Tara thing:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While all the other characters have simple, happy relationships, right? None of them ever have their lover die (in their own bed), turn evil, cheat on them, try to drain their life force, anything bad at all.  



> There are unfortunate implications there, alright. I was dubious about the claim myself at first (I always loathed it as a sloppy plot contrivance) but read the arguments, and was forced to agree. You could say it's coincidence, but then the same argument was repeatedly used for the black sidekick who got bumped off. After a while, it's a honking, negative cliché, and something to be avoided. Poor show for a show that set itself up to subvert clichéd writing.



In those shows, the black character dies while the white characters live. In Buffy, the lesbian characters get done over while the straight characters all get done over too. Not the same thing. If every lesbian character they'd introduced was treated worse than the others, you might have a point, but 



Spoiler: spoiler



Kennedy survives and she and Willow have the happiest ending of all the characters.


 


> No, they're loudly condemned by Mr Righteous, which makes it even worse. She didn't have no choice. She made a very strange choice.



What other choice did she have, then?



> True enough, but what have I selected? The main plots of the series. The only thing I've not really mentioned is Xander being a prick. Although if Xanders prickisness was combined with a female villain who ranted and raved about how selfish and feckless men were, I think you could fairly take that as having misandrist implications.



You've selected only stuff about Willow and Tara and then only some of the aspects of that that fit your theory. That's missing out a fair few plots in the series. 



> On matters bubbly, the other villains all had an agenda and a decent plan. Warren was nuts, and ... what _was_ his plan, again. He seemed to exist for no other reason than to be a drooling woman hater, and to facilitate the real Big Bad at season's end. I've seen flatpacks with more depth!



We have different definitions of frothing psychopath, then. Mine means someone who is over the top, energetic, excitable, crazy in ways humans normally aren't crazy - not _disorganised and a bit nuts_.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Well, I don't agree with their line, but can sort of see where they're coming from, after all the smokescreen BS the writers put out about a certain character being "central to the show" and so on, capped with an appearance in the credits of "Seeing Red".
> 
> I said he went there and apologised, couldn't remember the exact details (it's years since I've read through all this). Several other writers, while not saying the character shouldn't have died, admitted that the way they handled it was a mistake.



That's not an apology for the storyline, which you claimed. I bet the others weren't apologies for the storyline's handling either. Again, you're seeing what you want to see. 

You reckon it was signposted? You mean you guessed that



Spoiler



Tara was going to die?



 Not only that, but lots of people guessed? They would have if it were signposted.

I don't believe you. This is the same audience who, according to you, wouldn't have guessed that the boyfriend was going to turn into a bloodsucking fiend. The _vampire_ boyfriend.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

The vampire boyfriend who said 'If you shag me, I'll become a monster. So don't shag me. Whatever you do, don't shag me.'



Spoiler: buffy



And Willow totally trades up with Kennedy too. Tara was a bit Clannad for me - I expect she smelled of patchouli oil or something. Kennedy was hot, confident and did I say hot? Yeah, Willow traded up there, for sure


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> The vampire boyfriend who said 'If you shag me, I'll become a monster. So don't shag me. Whatever you do, don't shag me.'



I'm afraid I must geek-out again and point out that it wasn't until said shagging that Angel realised how the curse worked.

The gypsys only told him he would remember all his victims and his soul would torment him, they didn't tell him about the loophole.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case ignore me.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jan 14, 2010)

Damn it. You're all making me want to finally get round to watching Buffy, but a) I don't know how to download so I have to wait until bf gets back, and b) I've been reading the posts so now I know numerous important things which are going to happen!* 

*blaming self for this btw, not anyone on thread.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Sarcasm.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Damn it. You're all making me want to finally get round to watching Buffy, but a) I don't know how to download so I have to wait until bf gets back, and b) I've been reading the posts so now I know numerous important things which are going to happen!*
> 
> *blaming self for this btw, not anyone on thread.



We did get a bit spoiler happy, sorry.

Perhaps a warning could be affixed - _Beware! Lots of sad people debating Buffy plot points within..._


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Sarcasm.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

strung_out said:


> it should have been in this list, considering some of the crap that's on it


True, that. 










The Octagon said:


> But Buffy's far superior.[/COLOR]


True, that.  

(Although I think the Moff could give it a run. We'll see come March/April.) 


scifisam said:


> You're not getting me. Having a lesbian character turn evil isn't that significant in a show that has loads of evil characters, including some who were formerly good. It'd be like complaining that a gay male character in Ugly Betty was working in the fashion industry even though the entire show is about the fashion industry.


Or that the _Wire_ was racist. 

It's not that 



Spoiler: Buffy season six



Willow turned evil, but the specific way she did in "Villains". The Willow/Tara fans had no problem with her evil actions early in season, including mind-rape, betrayal, "magic abuse", getting Dawn into a car wreck, the works. Or if they did, they didn't accuse Mutant Enemy of using homophobic clichés.



If Detective McNulty had a loyal black sidekick who was always wisecracking and got gunned down by Barksdale to "make it personal", wouldn't fans have a point about it being a cliché? 


> In those shows, the black character dies while the white characters live.


Or they die first, the horror movie version of the trope. 


> What other choice did she have, then?


Without going all fanfic, she could've stuck Xanda and Dawn on a bus outa town. Didn't Anya have superpowers again at this point? Have her teleport Dawn to Giles' place in Englad. Or, well, pretty much anything besides 


Spoiler: Villains



sending her off to spend quality time with a demon who'd just tried to rape her.





> You've selected only stuff about Willow and Tara and then only some of the aspects of that that fit your theory. That's missing out a fair few plots in the series.


Which theory's this? The Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché specifically applies to a certain couple in a certain episode, so of course I selected them for that. The general ugly implications, well, I picked several strands (the choice of villain, Buffy's relationship, Riley coming back into town, etc). 


> We have different definitions of frothing psychopath, then. Mine means someone who is over the top, energetic, excitable, crazy in ways humans normally aren't crazy - not _disorganised and a bit nuts_.


Warren 



Spoiler: Dead Things



used some mind control dohickey to try and rape his ex


. That's not like your average bear!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2010)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Damn it. You're all making me want to finally get round to watching Buffy, but a) I don't know how to download so I have to wait until bf gets back, and b) I've been reading the posts so now I know numerous important things which are going to happen!*
> 
> *blaming self for this btw, not anyone on thread.



I has them all on avi, burned onto DVD if you want?

I blame the sucky spoiler code and it's insistence on spoiler=...for the open tag...grrr...


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I blame the sucky spoiler code and it's insistence on spoiler=...for the open tag...grrr...


And the string of edits in my posts.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> It's not that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's only that website that's claiming this is the trope, but not a single one of the examples they give actually has, as they claim



Spoiler



a lesbian character dying and her partner turning evil as a result


. 

It's not a cliche if it only happens in one show. 

And trust me, the same people were going on and on very instance of Willow being bad or W&T' relationship being imperfect. I'm a lesbian science fiction fan and I was well into the fandom at that time. Trust me, I know what people were saying. 



> Or they die first, the horror movie version of the trope.



Yup ... And did that happen to Willow? Nope.



> Without going all fanfic, she could've stuck Xanda and Dawn on a bus outa town. Didn't Anya have superpowers again at this point? Have her teleport Dawn to Giles' place in Englad. Or, well, pretty much anything besides
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Villains
> ...


 
I think you need to rewatch the episodes if you think those were possibilities. Go on, you know you want an excuse for another viewing. 



> Which theory's this? The Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché specifically applies to a certain couple in a certain episode, so of course I selected them for that. The general ugly implications, well, I picked several strands (the choice of villain, Buffy's relationship, Riley coming back into town, etc).



 You never mentioned those before. Riley coming back to town is misogynist? Huh? How? Buffy's relationship is fucked up, but she's not the only one getting beaten up there, is she? You're digging desperately now. 



> Warren
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course Warren acts differently to normal people. He's a baddie. What do you expect, a baddie who does nothing bad? But he's nowhere near the levels of the other baddies, who generally wanted to either destroy or enslave the world.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jan 14, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> We did get a bit spoiler happy, sorry.


As I said, it's my own fault for reading it! You're all making it look really interesting though. 



kyser_soze said:


> I has them all on avi, burned onto DVD if you want?



Ooo, very tempting.  Particularly as I'm unemployed at the moment... Maybe this would be a bad idea.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> It's only that website that's claiming this is the trope, but not a single one of the examples they give actually has, as they claim


This series sum-up from afterellen notes the same thing. The writer doesn't even agree that "Seeing Red" fits, but admits it could've been handled better. 

(Link to pdf) 

This has some more on the cliché. 


> You never mentioned those before. Riley coming back to town is misogynist? Huh? How? Buffy's relationship is fucked up, but she's not the only one getting beaten up there, is she? You're digging desperately now.


Mentioned Captain Cardboard pages back. And of course his return isn't misogynistic in isolation. Combined with the trashing of Buffy's character, however, it's unfortunate. Roughly summed up: Buffy's life falls apart without a strong man, said man comes back into town and shows her the light about her current skank of a boyfriend, all the while punishing her for not choosing him. 



Spoiler: various season 5 eps



Yeah, after he offered himself up as chow in a vampire crack den.



Ick, ick, ick. Feminist studies could have hours of fun with this, and rightly so. 

If you think I expect female characters to be some kind of paragon, you're way off base. None of them on Buffy ever has been. Faith was clearly a damaged person in season three, but believably so, and a great character. By contrast, the writers just kept putting the boot into Buffy until she curled up. (Literally, see "Normal, Again".) 


> Of course Warren acts differently to normal people. He's a baddie. What do you expect, a baddie who does nothing bad? But he's nowhere near the levels of the other baddies, who generally wanted to either destroy or enslave the world.


Well no, he's portrayed as a feeble hack. I just noted that he's a one-note creation, and not playing with a full deck.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> By contrast, the writers just kept putting the boot into Buffy until she curled up. (Literally, see "Normal, Again".)


where's that hitting your head against a brick wall smilie?  The above statement is Azrael missing the point by about 18,000 miles.  Normal Again was the supreme episode of that series that showed precisely why Az is wrong (in general, there obvioulsy aint much 'evil lesbian' nonsense in there.  Not that there is any in the rest of the season either)


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> where's that hitting your head against a brick wall smilie?  The above statement is Azrael missing the point by about 18,000 miles.  Normal Again was the supreme episode of that series that showed precisely why Az is wrong (in general, there obvioulsy aint much 'evil lesbian' nonsense in there.  Not that there is any in the rest of the season either)


You seem to have trouble separating intention and execution. But then, you think a dislike of misogyny is evidence of, erm, misogyny, so little wonder you're confused. 

"Norma Again" is mostly about having fun with the fourth wall, which works well, but manages to reduce Buffy's dignity still further in the process. The "believe in yourself" coda doesn't undo that. (And of course, there's that final shot.)


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> You seem to have trouble separating intention and execution. But then, you think a dislike of misogyny is evidence of, erm, misogyny, so little wonder you're confused.


actually it was thinkng that complaining about misogyny that clearly isnt there (and you have been so totally pwnd on this, your humungous contradictions and ill thought out theories shredded) is a pisspoor attempt at cover up. Not dis-similar from secretly gay men who take part in homophobic attacks.



> "Norma Again" is mostly about having fun with the fourth wall, which works well, but manages to reduce Buffy's dignity still further in the process. The "believe in yourself" coda doesn't undo that. (And of course, there's that final shot.)



I do like the idea of it being Norma Again. Buffy as Marilyn Monroe would be fun 

I dln't think it reduces Buffy's dignity at all, and what it doeds is explain to the audience nicely why a pathetic character like Warren is, in so many ways, the biggest and most real enemey she will face.

Obviously if one thinks the show is all about vampires and werewolves and shit then you wnt like that episode.


And, on an almost totally unconnected point, even if S6 was misogynistic I'd still love it, just for the way Willow says 'bored now' in the penultimate (?)episode.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> actually it was thinkng that complaining about misogyny that clearly isnt there (and you have been so totally pwnd on this, your humungous contradictions and ill thought out theories shredded) is a pisspoor attempt at cover up. Not dis-similar from secretly gay men who take part in homophobic attacks.


Yawn. More cod-psych down a phoneline. It's show, don't tell. 


> I dln't think it reduces Buffy's dignity at all, and what it doeds is explain to the audience nicely why a pathetic character like Warren is, in so many ways, the biggest and most real enemey she will face.
> 
> Obviously if one thinks the show is all about vampires and werewolves and shit then you wnt like that episode.


The clue's in the title. 


> And, on an almost totally unconnected point, even if S6 was misogynistic I'd still love it, just for the way Willow says 'bored now' in the penultimate (?)episode.


So you'd excuse misogyny because a character says a cool line. Well sod me, if I was prone to long-distance diagnosis ...


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> This series sum-up from afterellen notes the same thing. The writer doesn't even agree that "Seeing Red" fits, but admits it could've been handled better.
> 
> (Link to pdf)



But they're not using the same definition as the other site you cited, and they _don't agree with it_:


> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many fans felt that killing                        Tara off and subsequently turning Willow evil reinforced                        the dead/evil lesbian cliche to such a degree that it canceled                        out all other positive contributions the show made to lesbian                        visibility. I disagree, because I believe the _Buffy_                        writers were treating Tara just like the other characters                        on the show (since main characters frequently die on Buffy,                        as Anya did in the finale). But nonetheless, they should                        have thought through Tara's murder a little better, and                        perhaps handled that storyline differently, even if Tara                        still ultimately had to die to drive Willow's character                        development. [/FONT]



The last line is consiliatory to those who rant on and on about how homophobic it is to kill a lesbian character no matter the series. The rest says exactly what _I've_ been saying. 




> This





> has some more on the cliché.



Good God. That's some of the worst supposedly academic writing I've ever seen. It starts with the supposition that Willow was linking lesbianism with evil. All this based on two sentences that she uttered in an episode. Except that that pdf writes them down as one sentence, not two uttered a few seconds apart in a completely different tone of voice. That writer is trying really, really really hard to see homophobia wherever she turns. 

Well done her - contributing to the stereotype of the oversensitive lesbian at the same time as discouraging writers from writing interesting storyline for gay characters. I hope she's proud.  



> Mentioned Captain Cardboard pages back. And of course his return isn't misogynistic in isolation. Combined with the trashing of Buffy's character, however, it's unfortunate. Roughly summed up: Buffy's life falls apart without a strong man, said man comes back into town and shows her the light about her current skank of a boyfriend, all the while punishing her for not choosing him.



Her life falling apart has nothing to do with Riley. He doesn't show her the 'light of day.' He doesn't punish her for not choosing him; they talk about their break up, but there's no punishment involved. His new wife is a human woman who's an awesome fighter - does that fit the misogynist theory? 

Well done for taking an example of a straight relationship that went wrong, and a straight lover who turned (somewhat) bad, and using it to back up the idea that Willow and Tara going wrong and then Willow going bad is somehow unique.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> And, on an almost totally unconnected point, even if S6 was misogynistic I'd still love it, just for the way Willow says 'bored now' in the penultimate (?)episode.



A line echoed by Spike when he turns up in Torchwood. Ah now those two episodes were geek  heaven.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

Or how about 



Spoiler: all of 'Buffy' season six



Buffy, Willow and Dawn falling to pieces once father figure Giles leaves town, and relying on him to be their saviour in the season finale. 

Or the one female character who keeps her independence, dignity and self-respect being gunned down by a self-declared misogynist sociopath. 

Or (and this is a doozey) the one remaining human man, who's proved himself to be a feckless waste of space by dumping his bride at the altar, gets to save the genocidal lesbian from herself and be the hero of the hour, thanks to a speech about a crayon, and the "good magic" cure the father figure gave his wayward surrogate daughter.



I can feel the empowerment from here!


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Woah. I just went to edit the coding and the post coding's bizarre. I'll leave it as it is.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Spoiler



Having the father figure leave does contribute to their problems. The show's about growing up, and being emancipated from your parents is part of that. However, Joyce's death has much more of an impact than Giles' departure. 

One female character who keeps her independence, dignity and self-respect? What, Tara? You've got to be kidding me.  But, if you're saying that Tara has her independence and so on and the others don't, then surely that's saying that a lesbian character was a stronger personality than all the straight characters, and, you know, I don't think that could be called homophobic. 

Yes, Xander is the one who saves the world this time. This was after a constant refrain of how useless and powerless he is compared to the rest of them. He saves the world by being a good guy and a good friend, not by being a strong prince rescuing the damsel in distress. 

Do you think NONE of the male characters should ever do anything good? Is a male character being useful evidence of misogyny?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> But they're not using the same definition as the other site you cited, and they _don't agree with it_:


Well yeah, I know, that's why I posted it, and pointed out that she didn't agree with it. I was pointing out that it isn't just crazed fans who see there's something in it. 


> Good God. That's some of the worst supposedly academic writing I've ever seen. It starts with the supposition that Willow was linking lesbianism with evil. All this based on two sentences that she uttered in an episode. Except that that pdf writes them down as one sentence, not two uttered a few seconds apart in a completely different tone of voice. That writer is trying really, really really hard to see homophobia wherever she turns.
> 
> Well done her - contributing to the stereotype of the oversensitive lesbian at the same time as discouraging writers from writing interesting storyline for gay characters. I hope she's proud.


Whatever happened to play the ball, not the woman? 


> Her life falling apart has nothing to do with Riley. He doesn't show her the 'light of day.' He doesn't punish her for not choosing him; they talk about their break up, but there's no punishment involved.


Riley reveals to Buffy that 



Spoiler: Captain Cardboard's return



Spike's up to some madcap evil scheme, and while not deliberately punishing her, makes Buffy feel miserable for not choosing him.





> His new wife is a human woman who's an awesome fighter - does that fit the misogynist theory?


If I were reaching, I could claim that they imply a woman can only be strong with the help of a man, but honestly, it doesn't fit, because the writers never intended misogyny. There's not some calculated plan running through the season. Difference is, the new character is there for one episode, and it's Buffy we've watched demeaned week after week. 


> Well done for taking an example of a straight relationship that went wrong, and a straight lover who turned (somewhat) bad, and using it to back up the idea that Willow and Tara going wrong and then Willow going bad is somehow unique.


I never said Willow going bad was unique. 



Spoiler: end of season six



I said her going batshit crazy and trying to exterminate the human race over the death of her gay lover had unfortunate implications.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2010)

You simply MUST watch it, Sparra.  Forget 22nd best drama -- it's easily top 5, as others have already said.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler: all 'Buffy' season six



Difference is, Buffy copes remarkably well after Joyce's death, as do Willow and the rest. Dawn, not so well, but who'd expect her to. 
When Giles goes, everyone falls to pieces, except Tara, who gets gunned down by a one-note woman hater. 

Do I think this is intentional? Not for a second. Buffy fell to bits when Giles left because she'd got yanked out of heaven. But the implication is there, all the same, and any decent writer would've spotted it. 

Yep, Tara keeps it together. She leaves the woman she loves, despite the pain, because Willow's betrayed her after a final warning. She's hurting, but she doesn't become dependent on a demon. She stands up for Willow to Anya, and is Buffy's confidant. And yep, this isn't a cliché at all. Never said it was. That's why the cheap stunt-shooting is so egregious. 

And of course a male character doing good isn't evidence of misogyny. It's the combination of events that's unfortunate. Xander gets to be a bride-dumping waste of skin, but hey, when time comes, a man steps up! He's Joss's proxy, so he gets a free pass, but even so … 

Again, none of this is intentional. It's a symptom of poorly thought-out writing.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

And for those doubting the much-discussed cliche, I direct your attention here.


----------



## starfish2000 (Jan 14, 2010)

Theyve over egged the British Element with soaps and stuff Guardian readers approve of to detract from the fact television drama is fucked in this country.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 14, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> Theyve over egged the British Element with soaps and stuff Guardian readers approve of to detract from the fact television drama is fucked in this country.


Do _Guardian_ readers approve of soaps, as a rule? 

Poll!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 14, 2010)

Guys, guys, you're spoiling the magic.


----------



## Reno (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> And for those doubting the much-discussed cliche, I direct your attention here.



Bored now !

These are rather schematic attitudes to gay representations in film and TV as laid out in Vito Russo's 70s book Celluloid Closet. At that time representations of gay men and women where mostly derogatory and then his views were groundbreaking. Now we have a wide variety of different representations of characters and sometimes they won't be "positive role models" and these character won't always be saints or ride off into the sunset (though despite her transgressions Willow is ultimately allowed a happy ending)


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Well yeah, I know, that's why I posted it, and pointed out that she didn't agree with it. I was pointing out that it isn't just crazed fans who see there's something in it.



But it doesn't back up that point. It goes against it. They're not crazed fans and they disagree with the 'OMG a lezbian dyed in BtVS their such haterz ov gayz n girlz' theory.  



> Whatever happened to play the ball, not the woman?



I am.  I'm criticising what she wrote and commenting on one of the outcomes of such writing. If I'd said she was a stupid misandristic self-obsessed bore who's got her head so far up her own arse that she can indulge in navel-gazing from the inside, then that would be making it personal. But I think that'd be a bit much to get from one stupid essay. 



> Riley reveals to Buffy that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So ... he wasn't actually punishing her and, er, he was wrong. 



> If I were reaching, I could claim that they imply a woman can only be strong with the help of a man, but honestly, it doesn't fit, because the writers never intended misogyny. There's not some calculated plan running through the season. Difference is, the new character is there for one episode, and it's Buffy we've watched demeaned week after week.



I bet you wouldn't discount that character if she fitted your theory. 



> I never said Willow going bad was unique.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It only has unfortunate implications _if such behaviour is unique in the show_.  

If you think Buffy coped well with Joyce not being around any more, then you must have missed the fact that the situation left Buffy having to support herself and Dawn financially as well as look after Dawn. That was the reason she had to quit college and work all those terrible jobs. It was the absence of a woman, not a man, that caused those problems. Giles helped somewhat with Dawn, but not as much as you might have expected, and he never supported them financially. He felt useless - he had little of use to do any more. 

His departure is supposed to unsettle everyone somewhat - that's not implied, it's overt. Season six was about growing up. That includes separating from your parents even if your independence is difficult to begin with. Giles was the father figure. He left, they got unsettled. 

Tara being the only one who kept it together is simply laughable. There were other female characters who were doing better than her (even Anya and Dawn) and Tara was never written to be an overly confident, independent character in the first place. Funnily enough, I guess you could see _that_ as a negative portrayal, but nobody ever mentions it. 

But again, if you reckoned that one of the lesbian characters was stronger than the rest, that would be evidence of positive characterisation, not negative. You keep arguing against yourself.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 14, 2010)

I doubt anyone but Azriel's going to read my long post above, but have a look at this part of the TV Tropes definition he linked to:



> Please note that sometimes gay characters die in fiction because in fiction sometimes people die (this is particularly true of soldiers at war, where Sitch Sexuality and Anyone Can Die are both common tropes); this isn't an if-then correlation, and it's not always meant to "teach us something" or indicative of some prejudice on the part of the creator. The problem isn't when gay characters are killed off: the problem is when gay characters are killed off _far more often_ than straight characters, or when they're killed off because they are gay. This trope therefore won't apply to a series where Anyone Can Die (and does).



I apologise for repeating the link to TV Tropes. I know this will mean many of you lose several hours there.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jan 14, 2010)

6 to 16 days to download buffy.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I doubt anyone but Azriel's going to read my long post above


I've read and enjoyed all your contributions, they've been tops.

Thanks


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2010)

Agent Sparrow said:


> 6 to 16 days to download buffy.


which means you can download season one (which is only half the length of the others) overnight and then the rest while you're watching that one.


----------



## colbhoy (Jan 14, 2010)

First impressions: This Life and Band of Brothers should both be considerably higher, they would be in my top 5. Can't argue with where Brideshead Revisted or Our Friends in the North are placed though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

no threads or made in england or holding on or scum


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jan 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> which means you can download season one (which is only half the length of the others) overnight and then the rest while you're watching that one.



Streaming is my friend. 

I don't think Crispy is that impressed though...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> no threads or made in england or holding on or scum



I think Holding On should be in there too. Great writing and acting.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

i haven't read the thread as it's too long, but was there much comment about brideshead revisited?
i have neither read the book nor seen it on the telly, so can't comment on its high placement, but the idea of watching brideshead and other programmes of its ilk fills me with revulsion. maybe there's some kind of natural atavistic antipathy to posh people with teddies and blazers in vast houses. i know i'm never goint to like them. there are more recent examples such as line of beauty. and poliakoff. don't get me started on him.


----------



## paolo (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> no threads or made in england or holding on or scum



Does the Guardian's list include films? If not, there's your answer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Does the Guardian's list include films? If not, there's your answer.



they were all television dramas. and the words 'television drama' feature strongly in the title of the list.
do they mean tv drama serials then?


----------



## Reno (Jan 14, 2010)

Yes tv drama series, but the way they titled it is a bit misleading.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

cops should have had a look in


----------



## paolo (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they were all television dramas. and the words 'television drama' feature strongly in the title of the list.
> do they mean tv drama serials then?



They don't mean films, no.

Films are films. They remain films regardless of transmission medium.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

Reno said:


> Yes tv drama series, but the way they titled it is a bit misleading.



it looks like a mixture of long running series like west wing and sopranos and mini-series such as our friends in the north and oranges are not the only fruit, yet it leaves out stand alone dramas such as threads and scum.
it's very dissatisfying. how can you compare something a family saga like the sopranos or a soap like eastenders with a 4 part drama about a specific character or event such as monocled mutineer or talking heads?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> cops should have had a look in



Good call.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> They don't mean films, no.
> 
> Films are films. They remain films regardless of transmission medium.


films are shown in cinemas - these were broadcast first on television


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Good call.


i've only seen 3 programmes that had believable cops in them. cops, red riding and the young ones.


----------



## paolo (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> films are shown in cinemas - these were broadcast first on television



What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a film made for television. ??


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> how can you compare something a family saga like the sopranos or a soap like eastenders with a 4 part drama about a specific character or event such as monocled mutineer or talking heads?



You can measure them in terms of quality - writing, acting etc.

_For me_ the Sopranos was the best thing ever on TV, yet I hate how a drama like Holding On was pratically ignored when it was aired, receives little praise, yet delivered fantastic drama written by Tony Marchant featuring some fucking fantastic actors. 

Deadwood's not in there, and for the writing alone that deserves to be top 10.

Births Marriages and Deaths, Auf Weidersehn, Tough Love, Lenny Blue, Fox, Our Boy?

Ray Winstone was in all of those - he should have a list of his own - and he turned down the Wire!

Ray as McNulty - that would have been a very different show! (if for no other reason than he does a shit yank accent!)


----------



## Reno (Jan 14, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a film made for television. ??



Do you enjoy arguing about something pointless for the sake of it.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 14, 2010)

Reno said:


> arguing about something pointless for the sake of it.



Is that not the point of Urban75's existence?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> What you are saying is that there is no such thing as a film made for television. ??


well that depends. we obviously have different ideas about what is a film and what is a tv play or drama.
in tv's heyday, films tended to be filmed, and television was taped. people only tended to call them films if they were released theatrically.
the distinctions are getting blurred nowadays of course i grant you.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> well that depends. we obviously have different ideas about what is a film and what is a tv play or drama.
> in tv's heyday, films tended to be filmed, and television was taped. people only tended to call them films if they were released theatrically.
> the distinctions are getting blurred nowadays of course i grant you.



This is true - the BBC would never have made (called it) a TV film, it would have always been a TV Play/Drama - Scum, Nuts in May, Abigail's Party.

They still make these  - Curse of Steptoe...(and the others in the series).


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

Below be discussion of _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_. Other Top 50 TV Show discussion, as you were. 



scifisam said:


> But it doesn't back up that point. It goes against it. They're not crazed fans and they disagree with the 'OMG a lezbian dyed in BtVS their such haterz ov gayz n girlz' theory.


But that summary's a straw man (and in text speak, to boot!). No one says the BTVS staff are heterz ov gayz. They say they got sloppy and inadvertently used a negative cliché. Different things, no? 


> I am.  I'm criticising what she wrote and commenting on one of the outcomes of such writing. If I'd said she was a stupid misandristic self-obsessed bore who's got her head so far up her own arse that she can indulge in navel-gazing from the inside, then that would be making it personal. But I think that'd be a bit much to get from one stupid essay.


Well, yeah, it would (like the navel gazing from the inside comment, BTW  ). 


> So ... he wasn't actually punishing her and, er, he was wrong.


No, the character wasn't deliberately punishing Buffy. The writers were (inadvertently, I think). Add in the endless guilt trips the Buffy character went through over Riley (including a Xander Harris judgement speech, TM, when Riley left) and its not a good combination. 


> I bet you wouldn't discount that character if she fitted your theory.


I didn't discount Sam, but she's there for all of one ep, and has never been seen before. Tough fighter as she is, she can't fight, single handed, a dynamic that's been running the entire season. 


> [A female character going tonto] only has unfortunate implications _if such behaviour is unique in the show_.


Not so, the problem lies in the behaviour in the context of the season six arc.  


> If you think Buffy coped well with Joyce not being around any more, then you must have missed the fact that the situation left Buffy having to support herself and Dawn financially as well as look after Dawn. That was the reason she had to quit college and work all those terrible jobs. It was the absence of a woman, not a man, that caused those problems. Giles helped somewhat with Dawn, but not as much as you might have expected, and he never supported them financially. He felt useless - he had little of use to do any more.


Yeah, it was odd that Giles never offered to help financially. Or that no one demanded a stipend off the (tamed) Watchers Council. Armies feed and cloth their soldiers (and sometimes given them functioning rifles  ). It was evidence of clunky writing. Buffy had to suffer, so the writers made her suffer, ignoring character dynamics. (And Willow and Tara lived at Buffy's house rent-free for months. Right.) Buffy only fell apart after 



Spoiler: After Life



she vacationed in heaven for a summer.


And you're right, Joyce was a strong female character. I've never claimed some dastardly (mwwhaahaa) series-long agenda on the part of the BTVS writers. My criticism's been confined to season six, when events came together to create an unfortunate picture. Some, like Anthony Stewart Head wanting a smaller role, were beyond the writers' control. Most weren't. 


> His departure is supposed to unsettle everyone somewhat - that's not implied, it's overt. Season six was about growing up. That includes separating from your parents even if your independence is difficult to begin with. Giles was the father figure. He left, they got unsettled.


Yep, this is what the writers were going for. They just ignored any other implications of their chosen direction while they made the characters suffer, suffer, suffer! 

Real life was a mixed bag, but in Buffy season six, everyone gets dumped on, hard. It's not realistic, as its fans claim: it's just the flipside of happy lollypop world. _Buffy_ always balanced joy and pain before then. Besides, "real life" had been the enemy since day one. It's a weak rationale for what played out. 


> Tara being the only one who kept it together is simply laughable. There were other female characters who were doing better than her (even Anya and Dawn) and Tara was never written to be an overly confident, independent character in the first place. Funnily enough, I guess you could see _that_ as a negative portrayal, but nobody ever mentions it.


What's laughable about it? Despite not being a naturally confident person, [spoiler='Buffy' season six]Tara leaves Willow when the writers make magic a narcotic, stands up for her ex without enabling her, remains a friend to Dawn, needles Spike, and supports Buffy without judging her. Meanwhile, Anya has to become a demon without the mighty Xander Harris (pffft) to hold her hand, and Dawn turns into a self-pitying kleptomaniac, a trait the writers shoehorned into the character to create interest, since Dawn's reason for existing was over by the end of "The Gift". She steals stuff! She hurts! Bow to the depth, 'cause the hand ain't listening! Tara's the one regular who doesn't become cipher.[/spoiler] 
Really, what more could Tara have done? Do female characters have to fit some confident and independent template to be considered strong? There are different kinds of strength, surely? Besides [spoiler='Buffy' season five, "Family"]Tara went to college on her own, to escape an abusive family; and then left Willow when her girlfriend betrayed her; along with Buffy, she was one of the most independent characters on the show.[/spoiler] 


> But again, if you reckoned that one of the lesbian characters was stronger than the rest, that would be evidence of positive characterisation, not negative. You keep arguing against yourself.


Yep, it was positive characterisation. And not because Tara was a Token Minority. Then it was all undone 



Spoiler: Seeing Red



by having a nutjob who seemed to have declared war on womenkind gunning her down. There's one strong female regular in season six, and she gets killed. By a one-note misogynist. Inadvertent message: women, know your limits, or the plot gods strike you down.


So in the way events play out, Tara's strong characterisation helps my argument. 


Reno said:


> Bored now !


This world's no fun anymore. 

 


> These are rather schematic attitudes to gay representations in film and TV as laid out in Vito Russo's 70s book Celluloid Closet. At that time representations of gay men and women where mostly derogatory and then his views were groundbreaking. Now we have a wide variety of different representations of characters and sometimes they won't be "positive role models" and these character won't always be saints or ride off into the sunset (though despite her transgressions Willow is ultimately allowed a happy ending)


Except I never argued that any gay character should be a paragon, or a "positive role model". Not once. Neither did fans of Willow and Tara. [spoiler='Buffy' season six]How much less of a paragon can Willow get than mind-raping her girlfriend, getting hopped up on a magic bong, and breaking Dawn's arm in a car wreck?[/spoiler] With regard to gay characters, I've simply been arguing that events in "Seeing Red" fit a negative cliché. (One that any _Babylon 5_ fans out there should recognise on sight.) If an argument needs to use a straw man, it can't be that strong! 

[spoiler='Buffy' season seven, "Chosen"]Yep, Willow gets a happy ending of sorts -- she's shoehorned into a relationship to avoid another cliché, but does leave the show alive, intact and with a girlfriend. That's season seven. My criticism's been confined to season six. (Season seven is a mess, but for different reasons.)[/spoiler] 
Talking about representation, Willow and Tara were the first long-running lesbian couple on American network TV. At the time, regular, believable lesbian characters hadn't even reached minority sidekick status. They were just invisible. (And how much better is it today?)


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

colbhoy said:


> First impressions: This Life and Band of Brothers should both be considerably higher, they would be in my top 5. Can't argue Bill Guarneawith where Brideshead Revisted or Our Friends in the North are placed though.


I'd probably put _Band of Brothers_ in my top five, or close to it. Fine production values and performances, and best of all, it follows Stephen Ambrose's book pretty darn closely, smashing through TV tropes and cliches in the process. 

[Spoiler='BoB', "The Breaking Point"]Most war movies kill anonymous extras, or allow the leads to die in the Heroic Showdown at the end. In _Band of Brothers_, Bill Guarnere's one of the strongest characters for the first six episodes, and then gets his leg blown off helping another strong character who's just been maimed in the same fashion, and disappears from the series.[/spoiler]


----------



## mauvais (Jan 15, 2010)

Das Boot was the best TV series I ever saw. I know it's a film but it worked far better split into a serial.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

mauvais said:


> Das Boot was the best TV series I ever saw. I know it's a film but it worked far better split into a serial.


Oh how did I miss that.  

Not sure which version of _Das Boot_ I prefer (I've not seen the series since the BBC2 showing in the mid-90s), although the serial would probably come out on top. The few flaws (making all but one of the U-boat crew non-Nazi) are forgivable in the circumstances in which it was made, and the drama that arises from the prolonged claustrophobia is hard to match. And of course, there's the suckerpunch ending. 

If the _Guardian_ made a point of confining the list to English-language series, it'd be an understandable omission. If they're including foreign-language TV, the _Heimat_ trilogy is an obvious contender. As is the French _Engrenages_ (loosely translated as "Spiral" by BBC4).


----------



## Reno (Jan 15, 2010)

If we add foreign language series then I would go for _Heimat_, the German series that followed two generations of a family through the major events of the 20th century and the haunted hospital series _Riget _aka _The Kingdom_, the best thing Lars Von Trier has ever done.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2010)

For me it would be:

1) Columbo
2) Buffy
3) Babylon 5

And that's probably it.  I watched some Sopranos, 24, NYPD Blue, Lost and so on (never The Wire) but never really liked any of them enough to justify including them in a list.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

_Babylon 5_ would definitely make my top 5. It's a shame that cheap sets and some clunky dialogue distracted from a tightly-plotted story that (so far as I know, any predecessors?) introduced the novel's structure to network TV. The muddle over renewal that led to a weak 5th season didn't help it, either. 

JMS was also the first showrunner to use the net to communicate with his fans (and, credit to him, stuck with it right through the show's run, and beyond). 

It's hardly known over in Britain thanks to the many unholy mysteries of Channel 4's scheduling. And they even got namechecked in one episode! Pft, there's gratitude for you.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 15, 2010)

I'm not sure if I'm in the mood for debating Buffy for another day. Course, I am stuck at home - again - letting workmen in and out and moving stuff around for them and otherwise doing nothing at all - so I might change my mind.


----------



## paolo (Jan 15, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> well that depends. we obviously have different ideas about what is a film and what is a tv play or drama.
> in tv's heyday, films tended to be filmed, and television was taped. people only tended to call them films if they were released theatrically.
> the distinctions are getting blurred nowadays of course i grant you.



Scum was originally made for BBC's Play for Today slot.

It wasn't broadcast, and was then remade as a film.

It's all there to Google


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I'm not sure if I'm in the mood for debating Buffy for another day. Course, I am stuck at home - again - letting workmen in and out and moving stuff around for them and otherwise doing nothing at all - so I might change my mind.



it's the old 'bore your opponent to death so you can claim 'victory' despite having been ripped a new one on every salient point made' tactic


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> it's the old 'bore your opponent to death so you can claim 'victory' despite having been ripped a new one on every salient point made' tactic


Your one "salient" contribution has been to call me a misogynist, on the basis that I don't like misogyny. (Urban, packed with racists, according to belboid "logic".) Libellous raving for which you still owe me an apology, and which briefly turned a thread about TV shows nasty. Good going.  

Either bow out, or do it properly. As you like.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Your one "salient" contribution has been to call me a misogynist, on the basis that I don't like misogyny. (Urban, packed with racists, according to belboid "logic".) Libellous raving for which you still owe me an apology, and which briefly turned a thread about TV shows nasty. Good going.
> 
> Either bow out, or do it properly. As you like.



oh do fuck off with your orders.  you've been ripped apart with your stupid, borrowed from a first year undergraduate, 'theories' and are desperately trying to save face. you have failed.

And your ability to read common english is as bad as your ability to read moving pictures.  Hopefully this post has been clear enough even for you


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 15, 2010)

Probably repeating what sfs has said, but the evil lesbian trope doesn't apply because the overall context of the series is Anyone Can Die (and does). 

Q.E.D.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> oh do fuck off with your orders.  you've been ripped apart with your stupid, borrowed from a first year undergraduate, 'theories' and are desperately trying to save face. you have failed.
> 
> And your ability to read common english is as bad as your ability to read moving pictures.  Hopefully this post has been clear enough even for you


It's a cult TV show. About a _teenage vampire slayer_. Repeat until you calm down. 

My only "order" has been a request for an apology for your nasty personal attack. You expect me to be pleased about it? I'm not especially bothered, because it's baseless rubbish you (half) picked up on from another poster. You wanna let it drop, I'll let it drop. 

Whatever, don't wreck the thread over it. That's really all I've got to say.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

good


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Probably repeating what sfs has said, but the evil lesbian trope doesn't apply because the overall context of the series is Anyone Can Die (and does).
> 
> Q.E.D.


Yeah, but the same could go for the "black guy dies first" trope from horror movies. Or the black sidekick who dies in action movies. 

It was 



Spoiler: Seeing Red



the particular circumstances of Tara dying over the bed she and Willow had just made love in, followed by Willow going evil


 that got some people's heckles up. If the character had died in another way, say, in battle against the Big Bad, I doubt anything like the same fuss would've kicked off. Fans didn't get mad when [spoiler='Buffy' season five]Tara got brainsucked, and looked a gonner, back in season five[/spoiler] as the circumstances were different.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2010)

I object to the claim that Willow turned "evil".  It's such a Dungeons and Dragons word, for a start.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

the different ending may just have had an effect there.  peoplle who like specific characters get pissed off when they die, and come out with shite.  the same 'logic' was employed by several idiots after the last series of Torchwood.  Cos obviously Russel Davies is a homophobe too


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I object to the claim that Willow turned "evil".  It's such a Dungeons and Dragons word, for a start.



Would you prefer 'chaotic neutral'?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2010)

Santino said:


> Would you prefer 'chaotic neutral'?


On the grounds that "chaotic neutral" is less D&D than "evil" is?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> the different ending may just have had an effect there.  peoplle who like specific characters get pissed off when they die, and come out with shite.  the same 'logic' was employed by several idiots after the last series of Torchwood.  Cos obviously Russel Davies is a homophobe too



Self-hating gay, apparently.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Self-hating gay, apparently.



duh, but of course, why didnt i see that??


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2010)

kabbes said:


> On the grounds that "chaotic neutral" is less D&D than "evil" is?



Just be grateful for small mercies, is all I'm saying.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Self-hating gay, apparently.


Yeah, but, so far as I know (don't watch _Torchwood_) there was no particular cliche Russel T Davies was playing into. A gay character just happened to die. Just like no one said it was a cliche when 



Spoiler: major spoiler for 'The Wire' season two



D'Angelo Barksdale was murdered in lock-up.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I object to the claim that Willow turned "evil".  It's such a Dungeons and Dragons word, for a start.


BTVS is a fantasy series about demons, magic and vampires. 


Santino said:


> Would you prefer 'chaotic neutral'?


A TV troper!


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2010)

Azrael said:


> BTVS is a fantasy series about demons, magic and vampires.


Right -- and the vampires and demons were classically evil, in true D&D-stylee.

A person who cracks after their lover is killed in front of them, however, is not "evil".  In the wrong, yes.  But to call them "evil" is WAY too reductionist.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Right -- and the vampires and demons were classically evil, in true D&D-stylee.
> 
> A person who cracks after their lover is killed in front of them, however, is not "evil".  In the wrong, yes.  But to call them "evil" is WAY too reductionist.


If Willow had just cracked, yep, I agree. 

[spoiler="Villains", I think]But she got hopped up on dark magics. There's that cool shot where she puts her hands on the books, and the text spirals up her arms. And black eyes, leather, and general "veiny" apperance. 

XANDER: I'm not joking. I know you're in pain. I can't imagine the pain you're in. And I know you're about to do something apocalyptically (glancing back at the statue) evil and stupid, and hey. (spreading out his arms) I still want to hang. You're Willow. (Grave)[/spoiler]


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2010)

Azrael said:


> A TV troper!



Do what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2010)

alternate universe vampire willow is much hotter than evil willow.

To bring the discussion down  afew notches


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 15, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Right -- and the vampires and demons were classically evil, in true D&D-stylee.
> 
> A person who cracks after their lover is killed in front of them, however, is not "evil".  In the wrong, yes.  But to call them "evil" is WAY too reductionist.



Whilst I kind of agree, she didn't just 'crack' and go off the rails - 



Spoiler: S6 ending



She was consumed by dark magics (yeah, i included the s at the end of magic ), murdered 2 people, then attempted to kill her friends and finally decided to end the world using a satanic temple



I think 'temporarily evil', or 'evil on the grounds of diminished responsibility' is fair enough.

EDIT - Bugger, too slow.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2010)

Meh, it just reminds me of the tabloid's desperation to label anybody that does anything unpleasant as "evil", which is a convenient way to distance themselves from the "Evil Monster" and deny all responsibility for the society that helped to create that evil.

I realise that's a little bit over the top for a comment about Evil Willow, but feel we passed the OTT threshold about Buffy many MANY pages ago, so what the hey.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> alternate universe vampire willow is much hotter than evil willow.
> 
> To bring the discussion down a few notches



Indeed, in fact all the characters were more attractive when 'bad' - 

Faith - nuff said
Buffy's teasing dance at the start of S2
Xander's 'pack animal' nastiness
Giles letting Ripper out of the box at the end of S5 

And of course Angelus (leather trousers, second-hand smoking from a hooker's neck) and Spike (S2 and a bit of S4).


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> alternate universe vampire willow is much hotter than evil willow.
> 
> To bring the discussion down  afew notches














Agreed.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Meh, it just reminds me of the tabloid's desperation to label anybody that does anything unpleasant as "evil", which is a convenient way to distance themselves from the "Evil Monster" and deny all responsibility for the society that helped to create that evil.
> 
> I realise that's a little bit over the top for a comment about Evil Willow, but feel we passed the OTT threshold about Buffy many MANY pages ago, so what the hey.


 

The dark magic stuff gave the writers a good helping of deniability. 



Spoiler: BTVS, S6, again



"Yeah, there's the double-murder, and the torture, and the attempted-genocide's a sticker. But hey, dark magic!


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 15, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Clavdivs hasn't aged well at all. It's not just the Afternoon Theatre sets, the acting looks stilted and hammy to these eyes nowadays.



I couldn't disagree more 

I watched it all again last year and it was as gripping now as it was back then and the performances were wonderful.  Special props to Derek Jacoby, Sian Phillips and John Hurt who were ALL magnificent IMO. 

The Sopranos screenplay writers were inspired by I Claudius and it was the foundation for a lot of the character development and relationships. 

I am pleased that the list include A Very Peculiar Practice as it was pretty obscure but groundbreaking and very funny


----------



## Azrael (Jan 15, 2010)

One of the _Rome_ directors mentioned this on a DVD commentary. Couldn't praise _I, Claudius_ enough for plot and performance, but added something like, "On _Rome_, we decided not to follow them by lighting every scene with 1,000 watt lights."


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I am pleased that the list include A Very Peculiar Practice as it was pretty obscure but groundbreaking and very funny



how was it groundbreaking?  ( not saying it wasn't, I just can't remember)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2010)

Or obscure?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Or obscure?


Quite.  I seem to remember it as Prime Time.  Am I wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2010)

Prime time but for BBC2 i think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Prime time but for BBC2 i think.


Ah, maybe BBC2 is obscure for some folks.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 15, 2010)

This seems fair enough:


> A Very Peculiar Practice is in many ways Andrew Davies' definitive work. A savage satire on Thatcherism, using the University as a microcosm of a Britain in the grip of cutbacks and American intervention, it is also one of the writer's most thorough studies of sexual politics and male insecurity.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> This seems fair enough:


I liked it at the time, but what it strongly reminded me of is the novels of David Lodge.

(Some of which, incidentally, were - unsuccessfully, in my view - televised around the same time, unless I'm mistaken).


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I liked it at the time, but what it strongly reminded me of is the novels of David Lodge.
> 
> (Some of which, incidentally, were - unsuccessfully, in my view - televised around the same time, unless I'm mistaken).



Small World & Nice Work were both televised around then.  Weren't as good as The History Man, or a host of other Campus Dramas


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 15, 2010)

20 years ago I didn't have the knowledge or experience I have now so I hugely underrated it, though I was sure it was rubbish. It’s interesting to go back and review what you knew so assuredly as a much younger man.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 15, 2010)

Shame Porterhouse Blue isn't in there. I loved that.


----------



## IMR (Jan 15, 2010)

No _Private Schultz_ - Michael Elphick's best telly work (_Boon_ was shite).


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Small World & Nice Work were both televised around then.  Weren't as good as The History Man, or a host of other Campus Dramas


Whatever you think of the genre, Lodge is a terrific writer.  That would never come across on screen, I don't suppose.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Sopranos and Mad Men above the Wire?
> 
> Bullshit



The Sopranos is better than The Wire. FACT


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 15, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> The Sopranos is better than The Wire. FACT



I think so too.


----------



## strung out (Jan 15, 2010)

not better than doctor who though


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 15, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I think so too.



The Wire is great and the critical adulation is well placed...its just not as good as The Sopranos.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 15, 2010)

strung_out said:


> not better than doctor who though



*coughs, prepares ghetto impression*

Girl please, you talkin' craaaazy.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 15, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> The Wire is great and the critical adulation is well placed...its just not as good as The Sopranos.



Yes, I agree.

The Wire occasionally suffered from some duff acting (especially when any of the cast acted drunk), and some scenes appeared to be just plonked in to get the story from A-B, which never really happened in The Sopranos, which did the opposite and would often leave a story thread hanging and never go back to it.

...but I really enjoyed the Wire - it was bloody good TV.

I thought Deadwod was better writing than the Wire - not sure it was a better show, was one series short of being truly great, whereas The Wire went one series too long.


----------



## speed-it-up (Jan 15, 2010)

I'd have thought Rome would have got in there.
I Claudius would be expecting a bit much.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2010)

speed-it-up said:


> I'd have thought Rome would have got in there.
> I Claudius would be expecting a bit much.



Rome was seriously truncated and axed early. Shame, it was brilliant.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

why on earth should Rome get in?  Enjoyable tosh, yes, but total tosh. Historically laughable, plenty of dodgy acting/writing in the first half of the first series, not particularly inventive or anything. It _might_ just get in a top 50 of the last decade but it was really no better than that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> why on earth should Rome get in?


I think you answered your own question: because of when the article was written.

I enjoyed it, though.  Especially the first series.  And it's 2 _brazillian_ times better than 24.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2010)

I always think we've these lists the selectors give themselves a limit of how many <whatevers> from the last couple of years can go in, they have to show they are knowledgeable about the whole history of <whatever>. So Rome gets bumped by Mad Men & Red Riding


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 15, 2010)

I just spotted the absence of Northern Exposure? I'm sure it's been mentioned though . . .


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 15, 2010)

I still haven't seen the last few eps of season 1 of the Wire. . . but I have to say, there's no way you could say the Sopranos is better.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 15, 2010)

They have different agenda's, different ambitions, different strengths and weaknesses. You may as well ask which is better, the 1966 England football team or a blow job from Princess Diana.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 15, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I just spotted the absence of Northern Exposure? I'm sure it's been mentioned though . . .



That's categorised under comedy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They have different agenda's, different ambitions, different strengths and weaknesses. You may as well ask which is better, the 1966 England football team or a blow job from Princess Diana.



Sopranos is certainly more episodic and concerned with one particular criminal subculture. The wire has wider focus, which imo gives it far more to say.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 15, 2010)

Indeed, and you can write lengthy lists on that basis. For example, I can't imagine David Chase saying "Fuck the casual viewer". In fact, he rather did the opposite. IMO.


----------



## coccinelle (Jan 15, 2010)

Did anyone mention "Hormblower"?  I remember being really impressed when they came on British television


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 15, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Indeed, and you can write lengthy lists on that basis. For example, I can't imagine David Chase saying "Fuck the casual viewer". In fact, he rather did the opposite. IMO.



Actually there was an interview in sight and sound after series one where David Chase realised that the viewer numbers were gonna balance out and that he was never gonna draw casual viewers......he said then he felt comfortable experiment and to put in some of the fantasy/dream sequences, allow plotlines to grow, develop or fade as he saw fit because he realised he now had a core fanbase and that they would pretty much stick with the show whatever he did.

I was always quite impressed that he chose not to chase viewers.


----------



## Ceej (Jan 16, 2010)

No Life on Mars, or GBH?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Buffy

Giles spanking the whiskey and singing Freebird is fucking hilarious


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 16, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Actually there was an interview in sight and sound after series one where David Chase realised that the viewer numbers were gonna balance out and that he was never gonna draw casual viewers......he said then he felt comfortable experiment and to put in some of the fantasy/dream sequences, allow plotlines to grow, develop or fade as he saw fit because he realised he now had a core fanbase and that they would pretty much stick with the show whatever he did.
> 
> I was always quite impressed that he chose not to chase viewers.


It's a fair point, though I'm not sure how engenuous he was really being given his viewing numbers - and new HBO customers - were so far beyond expectations at the end of S1: HBO were in totally new territory at the end of 1999.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 16, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It's a fair point, though I'm not sure how engenuous he was really being given his viewing numbers - and new HBO customers - were so far beyond expectations at the end of S1: HBO were in totally new territory at the end of 1999.



You're right, but Chase realised very quickly that he had an audience that would stick with the Sopranos wherever it went, and HBO picked up on this realised that they too could push the boundaries and green light shows that were not as accessible, or contained straight forward narratives, and therefore the Sopranos remains the groundbreaker for me and my favourite.

The dialogue in Deadwood was biblical, Shakespearian, Dickensian, fucking nasty.....bloody brave stuff for any channel. 

I also think that Oz helped paved the way - it was uncompromising, experimental, it toyed with its audience, played with its formula etc - produced very few sympathetic characters.

In short HBO has revolutionised TV and this has filtered through the network channels too. Compare an episode from the start of the Shield to one from the end and see how far they pushed themselves - sex, language, violence and storytelling were all up a few notches. Even a show like 24 has much rougher edges. Showtime are coming through as real contenders too. Both Dexter and Brotherhood are HBO style shows which I've enjoyed.

UK drama needs to catch up a bit.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 16, 2010)

Indeed. The amusing thing for me is that, towards the start of this wonderful era, I gave up tv (obviously not knowing what was unfolding)  . I suppose at least playing catch-up has allowed me to enjoy them in a non-prescribed format (i.e. not weekly spread over several years)

Anyway, for anyone intereted in  putting this era into context,  I found this article quite helpful a while back.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 16, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Indeed. The amusing thing for me is that, towards the start of this wonderful era, I gave up tv (obviously not knowing what was unfolding)  . I suppose at least playing catch-up has allowed me to enjoy them in a non-prescribed format (i.e. not weekly spread over several years)
> 
> Anyway, for anyone intereted in  putting this era into context,  I found this article quite helpful a while back.



Good article. I've been left wondering where HBO goes next.

I was in at the beginning with the Sopranos and so taken with it I used to tape it and watch it again straight afterwards.

I never felt let down by it, even when the pace dipped a little around season 4, it was still head and shoulders above anything else, and it soon picked up again. I've seen it all about 4 times now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2010)

Well, series 3 of True Blood is being made, and that is HBO's highest viewed show since Soprano's. It's certainly a very diffrent show to The Wire or Sopranos. I shouldn't think it'll be long before we see something else crime/police/gangster related from them though. Oh and of course we have more Sons of Anarchy to come. I've no idea how popular it is proving stateside but it is very, very good.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 16, 2010)

Couldn't get on with Son of Anarchy - maybe I'll give it another go.

Scorcese has something planned with HBO - that could be good.

Rumours still floating around about an American Tabloid adaptation too - that could be mighty.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 16, 2010)

coccinelle said:


> Did anyone mention "Hormblower"?  I remember being really impressed when they came on British television



I have the box set of this on DVD and really like it. Would make my list above a lot of the stuff in the Guardian top 50 but can see why it is not to everyone's taste. What about Sharpe?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 16, 2010)

And David Simon has Treme in the works, of course. HBO did let Mad Men get away though . .


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 16, 2010)

breaking bad is the best new one i reckon


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 16, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> HBO did let Mad Men get away though . .



I'm not a fan. I think they made the right choice.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 16, 2010)

Well, perhaps not in terms of revenues. I'm keen for HBO to represent a successful business model as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> *Couldn't get on with Son of Anarchy - maybe I'll give it another go.
> *
> Scorcese has something planned with HBO - that could be good.
> 
> Rumours still floating around about an American Tabloid adaptation too - that could be mighty.



Give it a few episodes (I find myself saying this about all HBO stuff) to get into it's stride.

Testosterone and motor oil.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2010)

What about The Sandbaggers - anyone remember that? Was it any good? Seems to have disappeared off the radar.


----------

