I thought Buffy was supposed to be kind of unlikeable at the end. She felt she wasn't welcome in her own house.
Actually, speaking as one of those that didn't particularly like Buffy -- the character -- to start with, I'd actually found the love by then. (Which is good, cause I'm contrary by nature and it gave me people to argue with!)
But as a clarification, the viewer wasn't supposed to hate Buffy during the later episodes, we were supposed to feel alienated. It's hard to feel alienated from someone if you don't care about them (At that point, it's mostly just "que?" at best and "eh" style disinterest the rest of the time)
I'm not sure what I think about a new Ménage à Joss.
Mostly I think I'm too old to lose my heart to television anymore. Though I've been known to dabble, the occassional flirtation, a couple of part-season stands. So? We shall see. (Lucky I'm not the type to watch and tell :)
And since this seems to be the defacto strike thread --
A list of showrunners advertising their commitment to Pencils down
Marti joined the Facebook group for Dollhouse, which makes me smile.
I have a book writer friend who wrote something which got optioned for a movie years ago to a small company. They sold it on, until it ended up with Warner Bros. It came out last year, and it was a major motion picture. He got nothing for it, almost. Contracts. Literally, a few thousand quid for a worldwide wide release.
The studios themselves aren't helping the thing at the moment. Last week, 20th Century Fox launched it's co-developed (between studios) video streaming site which is designed to rival iTunes. The content is streamed, so the writers are getting absolutely nothing for it, and there's loads of stuff on it -- the complete Buffy The Vampire Slayer etc. If I wrote that, I'd be fucked off.
Huh. I didn't realize that horror movie I've been seeing ads for recently even though I'd never heard of it before,
P2,
starred Rachel Nichols.
Is that the woman who starred in
The Inside
? I thought it looked like her, but I figured I was just making that up. Go, me, after all!
If there are ads in the streaming video, then there's revenue, and the writers should be able to share in it. If the show is being streamed with no ads, or click through thingies, then there's no revenue and it makes sense to treat it as promotional.
According to the article that I read in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, writers make just as much off fee-based new media (e.g., iTunes) as they do off DVD and VHS sales (something like 0.3% for the first 1 million sales, and 0.36% after that). It's only when the videos are being streamed for free (regardless of whether or not there's advertisements) that the writers aren't seeing any money. Writers for "webisodes" are paid on a case-by-case basis.
I think there's just a lot of newness in the whole digital realm, and it has yet to shake out properly. I think it's a good idea for writers to establish that they expect not to be abused in the process of figuring out where the new money trail lies.
I'm going to start calling you Mister Universe, Simon.
x-posted from Natter,
Heh, I'm at a Panera in Studio City, and a softball team of writers just came in, and are talking about where there are all supposed to go picket.
