Whedon did a good job of giving almost all of his characters good lines. For a while Xander had the best ones. Buffy had a few good ones - usually when she was fighting or snarking with her friends. But she also had a lot of bad lines - and unfortunately people remember them better than the good ones because she was the lead and front and center. It is interesting to note though that Anya and Cordy who were both in the Spike role - sarcastic and snarky, were considered bitches and not nice characters. Why do so many heroes in fiction have to take themselves so seriously? What was nice about Buffy - is they didn't.
Well, clearly Sarah wants to save the world, but from what I've seen of the movies - her *main* focus is on John, because if she saves John she saves the world. Apparently they are tied together. She does attempt to save the world so he doesn't have to. In the last of the three films - there's a nice twist, Kate Brewster - becomes the focal point, the boss. That said, I sometimes wish Sarah didn't have the son or rather she'd had a daughter in the Terminator films. I think about the Mad Max films - where he's solo, having lost his entire family. Don't see that much from the woman's perspective - it's the lone guy.
In Catcher in the Rye - it's different. His sister is *clearly* not his main focus. She's not his child. He cares about her. If he'd been a woman - it wouldn't have been all about the sister. We do have an example by the way - Member of the Wedding by Carson McCuller's - in which the lead character (whose name I forget) is struggling with her own tomboyishness, her own rebel yell. And it isn't all about her sister. But it is all about what is expected.
So, no, I think it makes sense that when people see the later Terminator films (not the first one) Sarah is all about her son. Almost as if - she saves John she saves the world. If she saves the world - she saves it for John. At one point in the series - in a dream sequence, she tells the machine - you've killed him, kill me too, all of it, it doesn't matter anymore. How can you possibly interpret Sarah's purpose as being anything but all about John after that?
no subject
Well, clearly Sarah wants to save the world, but from what I've seen of the movies - her *main* focus is on John, because if she saves John she saves the world. Apparently they are tied together. She does attempt to save the world so he doesn't have to. In the last of the three films - there's a nice twist, Kate Brewster - becomes the focal point, the boss.
That said, I sometimes wish Sarah didn't have the son or rather she'd had a daughter in the Terminator films. I think about the Mad Max films - where he's solo, having lost his entire family. Don't see that much from the woman's perspective - it's the lone guy.
In Catcher in the Rye - it's different. His sister is *clearly* not his main focus. She's not his child. He cares about her. If he'd been a woman - it wouldn't have been all about the sister. We do have an example by the way - Member of the Wedding by Carson McCuller's - in which the lead character (whose name I forget) is struggling with her own tomboyishness, her own rebel yell. And it isn't all about her sister. But it is all about what is expected.
So, no, I think it makes sense that when people see the later Terminator films (not the first one) Sarah is all about her son. Almost as if - she saves John she saves the world. If she saves the world - she saves it for John. At one point in the series - in a dream sequence, she tells the machine - you've killed him, kill me too, all of it, it doesn't matter anymore. How can you possibly interpret Sarah's purpose as being anything but all about John after that?