(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Hmmm...this is an interesting essay, which I kind of disagree with.
Buffy Revisited Through Whedon Allegations

I honestly think you can analyze anything a certain way if you want to badly enough. I remember my brother and his friend trying to convince me that the soap opera The Guiding Light's - iconic lighthouse was a phallic symbol. (Uh, no. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar folks.)

Here, I'm kind of going yes, okay, possibly, nodding along until I hit this paragraph:

An example of this is one of the most awful episodes, when Spike attempts to rape Buffy. The scene is stomach-churning, not in the least because it is played for maximum distress (and traumatized actors during filming). This scene pokes another hole in Whedon's self-proclaimed feminism: that women can only be really strong if the source of their power comes from their sexuality or from "overcoming" trauma. Of course Faith, another slayer, is promiscuous. Of course sex with Buffy turns Angel evil — her sexualized teen body is that powerful.

The rape scene seems totally out of character and to come out of nowhere, though Whedon stated his reasoning was to remind viewers that Spike is a vampire and therefore "soulless." What's the easiest way to do that? Have a sympathetic and frankly, non-toxic male character suddenly rape.

So, did this woman skip S2? Or miss the fact that Spike was set up as a sexual predator in S2 - S6?

Also, the idea for that scene wasn't Whedon's - but Marti, and it was written by Deknight, Jane Espenson, and I think David Fury. They famously did a podcast interview after it aired and broke it down with the interviewers on the Succubus Club, we all transcribed it for Buffy fanboards.

See this is the problem with people re-watching things after they find out personal or private information about what has happening behind the scenes, the details of which are incredibly vague, and reported twenty years after the fact, and various parties staying silent regarding them. You want to read all sorts of crazy things into it.

I was taught not to do that in undergrad - and to be careful to apply a more critical and objective eye.

Also, Spike - "A Non-toxic male character" ??? This person was not on the same Buffy boards that I was on. I had to re-read that sentence twice.

"Out of nowhere?" - I saw it coming a mile away. I mean they kept foreshadowing it.


Also part of the point of Buffy was a critique of toxic male culture in violent westerns and slasher pictures in the 1970s-90s. Buffy started in the 1990s - and in direct reaction to horror films like Scream, which had popped up shortly before it. It was satirizing a lot of that toxic male culture.
With Buffy taking out the male vampires - often a metaphor for sexual violence with a phallic symbol - the stake. It explored the misogynistic nerd as the villains, and their inability to handle women. They were shown as the villains and weak. Notably no male has power in Buffy, unless they become a vampire or are turned into a monster.

The women have the power.

2. I also saw an essay about Xander as the epitome of misogyny. Really? I think you are confusing him with Warren. And there are quite a few women and men loved Xander and did not see him that way. I may have disagreed with them at times, but I can see their perspective. And could defend it. I have defended it - in numerous essays.

Quiet Misogyny in Buffy

Huh? I'm sorry, the writers were blatantly exposing the misogyny in our culture and calling our attention to it. It wasn't celebrating it - just the opposite. Willow's scene in Villains with Warren - dissects misogyny at its base. And in S7 Buffy takes down the bad guy - a misogynist empowered by the First Evil - who has given birth to vampires. The vampires in Whedon's stories are in a part a metaphor for sexual violence and misogyny.

He's showing the reality of it. It's not exploitive or romanticized. It's painful and horrifying. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a horror series, it wasn't a romantic teen soap like the Vampire Diaries and Legacies. It was horror. Horror isn't nice and fuzzy.

They were showing the dark side of human nature and questioning it. There's a lot of good stuff in this series. Don't dismiss it out of hand or review it based on what may have happened twenty years ago to several cast members behind the scenes. I seriously doubt anyone who came forward would want you to view their work or the series in that manner.

SMG pretty much states that, as does everyone else. It was a toxic work environment but the end product is still meaningful. You can separate behavior from a person and from art, it is possible. It just requires a little critical thinking to do so.

3. I think Screen Logic's essay handles it best... A Teachable Moment in Cognitive Dissonance After Joss Whedon

Many People Worked Hard on These Projects Beyond the Disgraced Figures

My answer is simply "Yes." You can still appreciate the art and those involved while tempering who you praise in the process. There was still a final season of House of Cards despite the allegations against star Kevin Spacey, who was fired prior to filming. You can still enjoy the work of the X-Men franchise even after what people found out about Bryan Singer. I don't think it's fair to judge anyone regardless if they support or identify as part of the LGBTQ community if they still love the Harry Potter franchise despite J.K. Rowling's TERF beliefs.

It's hard to keep track of everything because what's done is already done, and nothing is going to erase what's in the can. We can only do things that affect the present and in the future. Obviously, there's a line of which you can't think of things the same way again, but at the same time, a lot of hard-working people put in their soul to create what you love. Can you imagine shuttering away in a vault every single thing that had Harvey Weinstein's name on it? It would deprive such a significant piece of cinema history away that doesn't make any practical sense to punish those who weren't involved. The way we learn and what is a teachable moment is to just speak up while we can and do what we can now because the worst that can happen is nothing is said, and suffering continues.

I agree. I'm not sure it matters right now, what these people did in the past as a pandemic roars in the background. The US is pretty close to the 500,000 death milestone. We've lost 500,000 people to COVID-19 in this country.

And we're addressing toxic workplaces and hunting ways to stop them. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but we are making progress.

Comments

[mefisto]

I think this is the strangest claim of all, that the existence of misogynistic characters on Buffy somehow reveals something about Joss or the intent of the series. I mean, Shakespeare wasn't intending to make lots of little Iagos, he was writing about a bad person whom we're supposed to see as a villain (or the dark side of Othello according to the Sunnydale High English Department). Neither was Milton praising Satan even if his version is fascinating. Almost all literature would be impossible if writers couldn't write villains for fear of some critic accusing them of making the villain into a hero.

[shadowkat]

Almost all literature would be impossible if writers couldn't write villains for fear of some critic accusing them of making the villain into a hero.

Exactly.

You can't look at an artist's body of work to determine if they were an asshole in their personal life. Stephen King is a horror writer - he's not an asshole, nor is Neil Gaiman. This weird desire to condemn people for what you might or might not see in their art is absurd. Also art can be interpreted in more than one way - regardless of what people may think.

It's like the soap opera fandom confusing the evil characters they love to hate with the actors played to portray them. Just because an actor is paid to portray to a rapist in a film, television series, or play doesn't make them one in their real lives. And just because a writer writes an explicit murder - doesn't make them a psychopath or murderer. LOL!

These people are being absurd.

[aaronlisa]

Here from the Sunnydale Herald. I think that the author of the first essay completely discounts two very huge points. The first being that Whedon didn't make Buffy in a vacuum. He had a network and producers that he had to answer to and he also had a team of writers and directors who helped to shape the show and characters. Secondly, the show is a product of it's time. Sadly a lot of shows from the late 90s/early 00s haven't aged that well when it comes to the way certain topics were handled/treated. Or the way certain characters were written.

I personally feel that Xander is probably one of the characters who has aged the worst in the show. That said, whilst he may be Whedon's teenager avatar, I think that discounts the fact that the show wasn't made in a vacuum. I think it's more apparent in the first two seasons that unless its a Xander-centered episode, no one really knows what to do with the character. In the same vein, after re-watching the last year, I felt that he was the most like a teenager out of the group in those early seasons. He does careless, immature things like teenagers do. He says things that are stupid and selfish but he also does his best to stand by his friends and face evil when he had nothing to really offer in the fight.

To sum it up, Whedom seems to be a terrible person who was praised for being a feminist for far too long when all he did was create some really decent TV and we shouldn't spend hours navel-gazing trying to look at his work to try to see where he ends and his shows begin.

[shadowkat]

I completely agree.

For one thing - the episode where Dawn talks about it being like a meat party in her mouth? That was written by Jane Espenson - Whedon didn't write it.

That's just one example.

Secondly, the show is a product of it's time. Sadly a lot of shows from the late 90s/early 00s haven't aged that well when it comes to the way certain topics were handled/treated. Or the way certain characters were written.

It truly is. And like 98% of television series - it doesn't age well. I'm trying to think of one that has...they are all creatures of their time.

Reminds me of people who critique old genre novels, particular romance, sci-fi, fantasy, and to a lesser degree mystery - they too don't necessarily age well. And super-imposing modern sensibilities on something that was published ten-fifty-100 some years ago...

He does careless, immature things like teenagers do. He says things that are stupid and selfish but he also does his best to stand by his friends and face evil when he had nothing to really offer in the fight.

Xander is basically your normal teenage boy. People make mistakes. And say stupid and selfish things.
We all do. But Xander did stand by his friends and risked his life for them. He wasn't just one thing.

Also it's not entirely clear he was Whedon's avatar and I agree - the show wasn't made in a vacuum, others were involved. And it's important to look at what was on before, during and immediately after it aired. All had similar issues.

Whedon for example - wanted to cast Bianca Lawson as Buffy, but the network insisted on Gellar. Gellar was supposed to be Cordelia. He also originally cast a much larger woman as Willow. If you see the pilot and read who was originally in the running - it kind of makes some of this less clear-cut.

Whedom seems to be a terrible person who was praised for being a feminist for far too long when all he did was create some really decent TV and we shouldn't spend hours navel-gazing trying to look at his work to try to see where he ends and his shows begin.

Agreed. Also I'm beginning to question a lot of these allegations because they are all conveniently timed around the mess that is and was Whedon's shoot of Justice League. I mean every single allegation except for the Pruitts is either associated with the filming of Justice League, brought out because of it, or timed around it. Making me wonder about what was really going on behind the scenes at WB. And whether Whedon really is the bad guy here or if someone else might be?

[aaronlisa]

You've raised quite a few good points.

I think it's far too easy for some fans to try to make Whedon out to have more control of the end product than he did. Everyone likes to point to Season Six to highlight how Whedon is a misogynist. Yet that's the season he was least involved in it. I recall Gellar making comments about how she hated the direction her character was being taken but she couldn't talk to Whedon about it because he was largely absent. There's also been a lot of talk about how he wanted more diversity on the show but was not allowed it by the network.

When I say that he's a terrible person, I should have framed that a bit better. If the allegations that Ray Fisher and Charisma Carpenter have made about him are true, then he's a terrible boss. I tend to feel that what Carpenter has said is truthful, largely because I thought she had already come out and said most of this. I remember the rumours that went around when ATS Season 4 and 5 were aired about how she was fired for being pregnant. I personally think that bosses that create a toxic work environment tend to be pretty terrible people. I do think that he was probably enabled quite a bit by the studio(s) and allowed to get away with bad behaviour. However, I don't think that Whedon being a crappy boss who said some pretty awful things to Carpenter automatically makes him a misogynist. And so on.

[shadowkat]

I tend to feel that what Carpenter has said is truthful, largely because I thought she had already come out and said most of this. I remember the rumours that went around when ATS Season 4 and 5 were aired about how she was fired for being pregnant.

Well the Carpenter thing is more complicated than a lot of people realize. She was apparently problematic on both Buffy and Angel. There's an indication from Kai Cole's letter, and other reports that she more than likely had been having an affair with David Greenwalt (sp?) who specifically asked for her to go to Angel. Greenwalt was the show-runner for Angel up to S3. During S3 - WB and Fox got fed up with Carpenter and Greenwalt who were apparently causing delays and running up costs. So they asked Whedon, Greenwalt's producing partner to step in. Greenwalt got off easy - and he shouldn't have, considering he was the show-runner not Charisma. And keep in mind during all of this? Boreanze was a prankster, who flashed people on the sets. But they basically gave Greenwalt a slap on the wrist, and he got another show - with no problems, and left shiny. Meanwhile, Whedon decided to come up with a story arc that would write Charisma out of the show - and cause the fans to hate her character enough - to get rid of her. Instead of just firing her at the end of S3 or telling her that the studio was having issues with her behavior - like he had done with Greenwalt, he decided to make her the Big Bad for S4 and have either Angel or Connor kill her off.

But Charisma got pregnant over the summer - which pissed him off royally. So he punished her for destroying his evil plan to write her out as the Big Bad (kind of hard to have a Big Bad Pregnant Lady). As a result when he fired her - everyone assumed it was because of her pregnancy, and the story annoyed everyone, because it made no sense.

In way it's worse than people realize. It's also ironic, because her pregnancy saved Cordelia from character assassination by the creator.

So, basically David Greenwalt didn't get punished for the problems on the set, Charisma did. Which is bizarre. Since Greenwalt was the boss.

That said...I agree:

I personally think that bosses that create a toxic work environment tend to be pretty terrible people. I do think that he was probably enabled quite a bit by the studio(s) and allowed to get away with bad behaviour. However, I don't think that Whedon being a crappy boss who said some pretty awful things to Carpenter automatically makes him a misogynist. And so on.

Agreed. He had issues with Charisma and the character of Cordelia, who he felt she was exactly like. And who most likely reminded him of the mean girls he knew in high school. Charisma had issues with other people as well. It was not a happy set. J August and Acker couldn't stand David Boreanze. Nor could Adam Baldwin.

I've had bosses who had issues with me because I happened to remind them of someone else, doesn't necessarily make them a misogynist or a terrible person. Just nasty to me.

[aaronlisa]

Wow! I did not know any of that. If even a quarter of it is true, it further complicates the whole issue. It seems as if ATS was extremely toxic all around. That said, it doesn't let Whedon off the hook for his own bad behaviour. It also raises the question of how much was bad behaviour was the studio (or studios) willing to allow or just ignore in order to profit from the show. It makes me question the official line of ATS being cancelled because it did poorly in reruns.

I still think that trying to destroy a character because you personally don't like an actress is not ideal behaviour. I also don't think that diva/bad behaviour deserves to be punished by further bad behaviour.

I also don't think that fandom should be out there destroying Whedon or his work. To the best of my knowledge, he's been accused of being a terrble boss, who has said terrible and demeaning things, who was toxic to work with for some people and allowed for a toxic workplace to flourish. And it sounds like he did all of this with the studio's backing. The situation is a little more nuanced than it appears. People that are picking apart his work are failing to understand that his body of work was influenced by common tropes in the genres, by what the studio(s) wanted, and by other players (i.e. other writers, producers, directors, etc). I truly feel that we've never going to know the full truth of what happened and who allowed for it all to happen. I think that tearing apart BtvS, Ats or his other shows/movies/projects, tends to over-simplify things. It's one thing to point out that quite a bit of "his work" can be problematic and that as the titular head of those projects, he could have done better. However, I think the whole mess is just far too nuanced for fans to be sitting there and extrapolating that Whedon must be terrible or the allegations are true because if you look at BtVS and AtS there are problematic issues with the shows.

[shadowkat]

However, I think the whole mess is just far too nuanced for fans to be sitting there and extrapolating that Whedon must be terrible or the allegations are true because if you look at BtVS and AtS there are problematic issues with the shows.

I so agree. There's people stating that they could tell from the Buffy comics - except Whedon wasn't really that involved. Also, the show-runner of the Buffy comics was Scott Allie - he was the editor, and he's a nightmare, and another sci-fi writer guy, whose name I can't remember. Whedon didn't really write them.

Just because you dislike something in a work of art doesn't automatically make the work terrible or the individual bad. Zack Snyder from all reports is lovely guy, but his movies are VERY dark and to some folks highly questionable in content. (Although to date the only people I know of that hated Snyders films are online white male social media friends over the age of 40. While the ones who love it - are POC women and men that I know in person. Also Ray Fisher loves Snyder's work as does Israeli Gail Gadot, and Jason Momoa.) Alfred Hitchcock is arguably an excellent director but guilty of horrible behavior. The list is endless.

I saw people trying to rip apart Woody Allen and Michael Jackson's work. All of Allen's films are bad? Really? I've seen them, and I do not agree. Although I admittedly hate "Manhattan", and Jackson? He wrote amazing music. I can love an artists work and denounce their behavior. They aren't one thing. Yes, it makes it a lot easier to just write people off as good or evil, but that's not true for the most part.

I also don't think that fandom should be out there destroying Whedon or his work. To the best of my knowledge, he's been accused of being a terrble boss, who has said terrible and demeaning things, who was toxic to work with for some people and allowed for a toxic workplace to flourish. And it sounds like he did all of this with the studio's backing. The situation is a little more nuanced than it appears.

I would agree. I'm actually more suspicious of the WB - all the allegations have WB in common. Firefly and Dollhouse were FOX, and Avengers - Disney. But ATS, BVTS, and Justice League were WB.

And Fisher is actually after the WB not Whedon. The WB is throwing Whedon under the bus to save themselves. And it was the WB that made Justice League a mess. And the WB that asked Whedon to fire CC. Also ATS was cancelled because WB refused to provide Whedon with a definite answer - the show was doing well actually in the ratings, but the WB and UPN were in the process of being combined and sold to CW. (No one knew that.) And when Whedon pushed them to give him an answer - they said fine - cancelled. Whedon got into a fight with WB.

The MT and Amber allegations are interesting - and I think more telling of an on-going toxic environment on the Buffy set. The fact that Gellar felt isolated towards the end, and Amber refused to come back for S7 - is kind of interesting. Also Marsters, Brendan, and others have relayed a lot of horror stories - it was not a pleasant set to work on.

[aaronlisa]

It's the whole throw the baby out with the bathwater concept. I think that it's fine to state that someone is talented even if they are terrible (or hold terrible views.) I think that as consumers it's our right to spend our money as how we see fit. So if we don't want to support someone, that's great. But I think to tarnish someone's career is wrong. Using Michael Jackson as an example. He was a very talented individual, who I couldn't support when he was living because of how I felt about the allegations made against. After his passing, yes I did download some of his songs from iTunes and yes I don't feel bad for listening to them.

I think it all boils down to cancel culture, which often goes way too far. There are rare exceptions when someone deserves to be completely canceled. In other cases, I think all that fans need to do is make up their own individual minds if they want to continue to support the person in question by spending their money on their work or not. I don't think we need to tear down someone's work and say that just because we feel they are terrible then their work is garbage too.

Going back to Whedon, yeah the studio (or the people at the studio) that allowed for the toxic work place to flourish should be held accountable as well him.

[shadowkat]

There was a lengthy and rather interesting discussion about this topic on sci-fi writer John Scalzi's blog - his daughter was discussing it in regards to the recent events associated with JK Rowling and someone else I'd never heard of. The consensus seemed to be that as long as your love of that art wasn't funding or furthering this writer/creators actions or supporting it - you were fine. (ie. Borrowing the books from the library instead of buying them, or lending them to friends so they don't buy their own.)

But, here's the thing - even then, can you really judge someone based on what they chose to read, or watch, or listen to? And to say they are endorsing something? What if they don't see the same things?

Bret Easten Ellis is a misogynist, an asshole, and I despise his work. I made it halfway through American Psycho - and threw it up against a wall, disgusted. Considered throwing it on the garbage heap. But instead, I gave it to a friend who appreciates his work. And while for a bit I wanted to yank it out of the hands of anyone reading it on the subway (this was back before they had e-readers and smartphones), I realized they had a right to view it another way. I've seen people online applaud the work as a master achievement in satirizing a capitalist culture gone awry. But I had issues with what I saw as blatant misogyny at the core. OTOH, I loved the film version which built up the satirical elements.

People should not feel guilty for what they love. Or be made to feel guilty. We have different perspectives, I think.

I think it all boils down to cancel culture, which often goes way too far. There are rare exceptions when someone deserves to be completely canceled.

I agree. Those who actively continue to perpetuate a hostile work environment and toxic culture through their actions - should be stopped. (See Trump or the idiots who tried to overthrow the US government - I have no problem cancelling Marjorie Green.)

But a television/movie screenwriter/director? Who isn't really that big? (Except in his head? Or that of his fans?) And isn't really pushing any of that? I mean in this case, Whedon was supporting Stacy Abrahams last year, powerful stories about female empowerment, and going on about a female painter he was living with. He had also supported a female writer rebooting the Buffy comics for Boom, and a black female writer to show-run a reboot of Buffy on Netflix. That's hardly toxic. He'd also hired mainly female writers, including a transgender writer and activist - who he personally contacted to write for the series, to the Nevers - and the only complaint that came out of that set was he's not the best director on the planet.

All the allegations with the exception of Justice League (which I'm starting to wonder about), were over twenty years ago. Markedly absent from those supporting CC are the people who worked on Firefly, Dollhouse, Avengers, Much Ado About Nothing, The Nevers...(Cabin in the Woods was directed by Drew Goddard, but that group is absent too.) In fact various folks have denied seeing anything at all.

So, we don't know if the behavior was isolated to sets managed by the WB management, and just that group. Also, we don't know who else was involved. There's so much fans don't know.

That's my difficulty with the "Twitter" cancel culture motif - they react to the information, without thinking about it. It's a knee-jerk emotional reaction. I did it too. I saw, read her post, and posted my support - angry. But now, I'm starting to think about it. We have this tendency to want to cancel someone out for their actions in one area of their lives. We demonize them. And my god, our culture is obsessed with sex.

I've lost count of the number of people who have been outed and cancelled by Twitter for alleged - "sexual perversions", "Sexual harassment", "sexual assault", "molestation", "statutory rape"...as if this is the worst possible thing anyone on the planet could do, and they should be killed for it. (I admit, I'd like to kick rapists.) But it's insane. And it's impossible to prove. Usually it's two people in a room, and a he said/she said scenario and 9 times out of ten - happened a long time ago, so even more impossible to prove. And as a result? Very easy to lie about or exaggerate the facts or embellish. Making it hard to know who to believe.

I still have no idea what to make of MT's statement - which to my knowledge has not been verified or supported or clarified by anyone, including Gellar, who she made it in direct response to.

I don't think we need to tear down someone's work and say that just because we feel they are terrible then their work is garbage too.

So agree. Art can be viewed in more than one way. I see some fans making broad statements about it - and using it to well support their dislike of the work of art, or personal perspective on it. But at the end of the day - that's just their take. And I think they need to realize that - that it is possible for someone to have a completely different perspective or interpretation, and be okay with that. I mean it's art, not...legislative policy.

Going back to Whedon, yeah the studio (or the people at the studio) that allowed for the toxic work place to flourish should be held accountable as well him.

I'm thinking the people who need to be held accountable are those who enabled that environment and/or set it up to begin with. The WB stinks to high heaven in this scenario. Also, Whedon clearly should step back from running a film or television set, and be a writer instead. Or if he is offered that opportunity again - definite rules should be in place to protect those around him. Actually those rules should be place anyhow - Whedon is by no means the only toxic show-runner out there, unfortunately he's the norm not the exception - which is what should be looked at and exposed. Cancel Culture should work more to improving the work place and establishing those rules, and less towards seeking vengeance on the personalities involved. It's the system that requires fixing here - but that's hard to do on social media.

[aaronlisa]

There are a few Bret Easton Ellis novels that I will only ever read once. American Pyscho is one of them. Ellis is a very confusing person. I sometimes feel that he says/does thinks to be edgy and to stay in the public eye. He's also infamous for saying one thing (i.e. Patrick Bateman was modeled after his father) and then saying "oh I lied about that."

The problem with Whedon is that too many people are trying to conflate the allegations with his work. "Look he must be terrible because he has story lines that have issues with consent." Or "he must be terrible because look at Firefly and/or Dollhouse." Or using Season Six of Buffy to prove a point. However, as we've talked about it's far too complicated to compare his work with him as a person. I agree, I think there's an issue with the studio. There are also people that until the most recent allegations have said they would work with him.

With MT and the clause in her contract, we don't know why it was there. But people are already trying to find context in Buffy to show how Whedon is a creep and therefore MT had to be kept away from him. It's frustrating.

I am still willing to stand with Carpenter and Fisher - no one deserves to work in a toxic workplace and a boss shouldn't be the person making it toxic for you. But studios tend to promote highly creative people to positions of power without considering if they are boss material. Sometimes creativity just doesn't mesh with management. If Whedon did/said even half of the things that Fisher, Carpenter and others have accused him of then he clearly should not be a boss again. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the things he has created or the things he may create in the past. By rejecting what he created in the past, fans could be hurting the very people they are standing up for. I am pretty sure that Carpenter probably still gets money in one way or another from her work on Buffy and Angel. If we reject it because Whedon created a toxic environment for her, then we run the risk of making sure she can't make money off of it.

Cancel culture very rarely seems to help anyone.

[shadowkat]

I agree with much of this.

However, as we've talked about it's far too complicated to compare his work with him as a person. I agree, I think there's an issue with the studio. There are also people that until the most recent allegations have said they would work with him.

Exactly - we've gotten conflicting reports. I've watched Q&A's and read interviews, and up until recently most of the people stated they'd work with him again. It's hard to know what to believe.

And I think it is almost impossible to compare a collaborative work - Espenson and Noxon wrote most of the episodes people found problematic, which I find hilarious. As did DeKnight and Drew Goddard. Also David Fury and Doug Petrie.

With MT and the clause in her contract, we don't know why it was there. But people are already trying to find context in Buffy to show how Whedon is a creep and therefore MT had to be kept away from him. It's frustrating.

We really don't know - and she's not clarified it. Nor did she sue. And when people pushed, she shut down. So it's hard to know what happened there.

There is nothing in the work - he didn't write the episodes people are pointing to, nor did he come up with them. Fans have a tendency to think because Whedon came up with the concept and ran the show - that he is responsible for all of the content. But that's simply not true nor how television always works. It does on shows with one or two writers, but not on Whedon shows with multiple writers and directors.

You can't prove a person is a creep based on their writing, art, etc. If that were true 85% of the fanfic writers would be..well.. I certainly don't want anyone looking at what I've written and judging me based on that.

And I've seen fans try to connect it to the Buffy comics - but Whedon wasn't that involved. He wrote a few issues. Espenson wrote most of the Dawn issues.

It's always been my issue with fandom - a tendency to emotionalize an issue, without thinking it through critically. And a tendency to judge people harshly who didn't share that emotional reaction.

I am still willing to stand with Carpenter and Fisher - no one deserves to work in a toxic workplace and a boss shouldn't be the person making it toxic for you. But studios tend to promote highly creative people to positions of power without considering if they are boss material. Sometimes creativity just doesn't mesh with management.

That's the problem. People get rewarded for being narcissistic bullies in our society. They get rewarded on social media with multiple followers. I mean I see it in my own organization.

Why?

Because often they are better at managing above than below. They stroke, chat, and make those above them very happy. Or in some cases - make those above them look good. While they don't care about those below and often bully the ones who report to them.

They can't yell at the big boss - so they yell at the folks who report to them, while the big boss makes their lives hell. It's a vicious cycle.

Fisher is right to go after the management at the WB and he's not let up on that. And he's right to push Whedon out of a show-running or producing or boss role. Take away his power.

I agree, I don't regret standing up for that.

By rejecting what he created in the past, fans could be hurting the very people they are standing up for. I am pretty sure that Carpenter probably still gets money in one way or another from her work on Buffy and Angel. If we reject it because Whedon created a toxic environment for her, then we run the risk of making sure she can't make money off of it.

Yes, and no. I do know this - Whedon isn't getting any royalties off of Buffy - he doesn't own the rights. He sold them ages ago much to his considerable regret. But I don't know about the others - I think they have rights to their image, so as long as their image is being used, they get royalties off of that - also they get some input on how they are portrayed in graphic art that is commercial.

So yes, not watching or streaming those series only hurts the others involved - or the innocent. Whedon doesn't really care. And it does nothing to stop the toxic environment from recurring. We can't go backwards and erase what happened. And throwing our Buffy/Angel DVDs in a bonfire isn't going to matter. (Although I may get rid of mine because I no longer have a DVD player...)

Nor does critiquing or blasting the art change or help in anyway. It doesn't help Charisma, Ray, or anyone else. Although I think Ray would like the Whedon cut of Justice League to disappear. But other than that? No. Anymore than erasing Kubrick's films, Hitchcock's, Allen's and Polanski's helps anyone. Two of those directors are long dead, anyhow.





If Whedon did/said even half of the things that Fisher, Carpenter and others have accused him of then he clearly should not be a boss again. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the things he has created or the things he may create in the past. By rejecting what he created in the past, fans could be hurting the very people they are standing up for. I am pretty sure that Carpenter probably still gets money in one way or another from her work on Buffy and Angel. If we reject it because Whedon created a toxic environment for her, then we run the risk of making sure she can't make money off of it.