Friday, July 27, 2012

CBR TV @ CCI: Joss Whedon on Buffy, "The Avengers" & Nick Fury

From his "that just happened" meeting with legendary director John Landis to talking about what he and the rest of the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 9" creative teams have in story for Buffy, Angel, Faith and the rest of the Sunnydale alum to his approach towards "The Avengers," Joss Whedon had something to talk about.

The director/writer spoke with CBR's Kiel Phegley on the floor of Comic-Con International in San Diego, where he explained what went into the recently-completed Buffy/pregnancy/abortion/robot storyline, developing the new world rules in "Angel & Faith," Nick Fury's Machiavellian approach to protecting the world and more.

Check out the interview - and complete transcript - below!

CBR TV: What up partners? It's Kiel Phegley here on CBR TV and I am in a secret enclave within the Dark Horse booth at Comic-Con 2012 with Mr. Joss Whedon and they didn't get to see this, but John Landis was just here! That was really crazy and fun!

Joss Whedon: John Landis just stopped by and said, "Hey, I'm John Landis!" as if he needed to tell me that.

[Laughs]

He said, "I really liked your movie," and I said, "That's good because you were a big influence." And then he left!

Obviously, we're at the Dark Horse booth and I spent a lot of time for the site talking to Scott Allie and Andrew Chambliss and all these guys who have been working on the Buffy books, but I feel like they're the team who are playing out your playbook on that series and SPOILER WARNING, everybody, there's been so many twists to "Season 9" so far. We've had a pregnancy scare, we have a choice for an abortion, we have a robot twist at the end of all this and as that arc took shape for you, what piece came first and in what way did you feel all those disparate parts to fit together for the character in this moment?

Well, it's all in the service of telling this story about somebody who's twenty who doesn't know how to start creating her identity. All of her friends seem to be on a path. When you're in your twenties, you choose a path. Usually, that doesn't change. Usually, when you're in your thirties, what you chose in your twenties is who you are now. It's kind of this weirdly crucial time that people don't talk about very much because it doesn't sound very mythic. The thing about Buffy is she's mythic and it's always grounded in the mundane. The mundane truth is she has a skill set that she doesn't know how to use. She doesn't have a lot of other skills and she never really thought about direction because she assumed she was going to be killed. To me, I am one of the few people I know that always had a pretty clear idea of what he wanted to do from college on. But most of my friends were like, "Who am I, what do I become?" and for her to deal with the idea of "Okay, if I'm pregnant, that makes me think about my life. If I'm a robot watching myself in a different life, that makes me figure out who I am." Everything was always in the service of -- I'm at an age where I could be one thing, I can be another, I see variations on it and the urgency of needing to make those choices are what's driving it.

There has been so much change since Buffy has moved into comics full time, but with the idea of a pregnancy, I kind of feel like it would have been hard to go through with that on many different fronts. A baby specifically, but even an abortion -- do you have a fear sometimes that you can change too much about that character and that world that takes it far off from what you initially intended?

You're always trying to figure out the line. When I see something where a character completely violates something that I understand about them, I'm done. I'm not watching. This has happened with shows that I've watched through religiously and I saw one false move and I'm like, "I'm out." I always have to be aware of that. At the same time, we are always changing in what we do, what we think is okay -- you have to change. If people just do the same thing all the time, the comic would get super boring. I think with the abortion, for me, I was never going to give her a child because that's not the journey she should be on right now. It was really about "How is this going to affect how she thinks about her life" and it was also as political as I've ever gotten, just that somebody should say, "I am going to do this." It is a choice over a third of America will make in their lifetimes and nobody was really talking about it. But it was never about going through the process. It was just about articulating the decision. And robot. The robot was always in the mix. The first issue I wrote, everything was designed to call back to "Wait a minute--"

You've also got the "Angel and Faith" book coming along. That book seems to be so involved with how the world has changed, but in a completely different way than what "Buffy" has been. We know we're in a world where magic is a rare commodity now and the rules don't quite work anymore. How do you expect by the end of "Season 9" those two books in terms of the characters and their personal journeys will clash back together?

That's actually something we're still working out. Theirs is this sort of weird and tenuous, yet strong bond. We want to shake it up, we want to change the parameters, but at the same time, we're always having discussions about "Do they come here? Do they come apart? How separate can we make it and still have it be 'Angel and Faith?'" which is a team.

On the movie side of things, I'm going to be the twelve billionth person to tell you this weekend that "The Avengers" was great, it was so much fun, I saw it twice. I took my mother. She laughed and then she was confused about things, then she laughed again.

[Laughs] That's sort of what it was like to me. Funny, I didn't really know what was going on.

Well, one of the threads that really struck me as I was watching the film is that all the Marvel movies ended up being a play on this idea of militarization of technology and that we have something that's introduced into the world and we have opposing sides trying to weaponize it in some sense. Your really seemed to want to take that thread in some sense and kind of run -- not unknowingly -- but just a facet of the world and push it essential to the conflict. What for you made that a story that worked for these extraordinary characters coming together.

Well, I didn't really think about it in terms of what they had done for the other movies, except as useful to me. I didn't think about it as a thematic thread, I thought, "Oh, this is a piece I can use is that they're interested in this stuff" -- because why wouldn't they be? The idea that they were going to weaponize the cube, for me, was about playing more of the reality in terms of "The Ultimates" or "The Authority" -- that kind of thing where -- or Straczynski's book --

"Rising Stars?"

Yes. No, it's not "Rising Stars."

Oh! "Supreme Power!"

Yes, sorry. Sorry, J. Michael. But they all deal very poignantly with the reality of "Superman's here and he's in a bad mood. What do we do? We're humans! We've got nothing. We're in trouble." To lay that on the table was such a perfect thing for this because it made Fury seem Machiavellian, but I think he's totally right. I mean, absolutely they need to protect themselves. There's aliens now. Thor's an alien and he's stronger than us. It brought up issues that would help everybody's point of view coalesce and it would also help separate the Avengers from S.H.I.E.L.D., which is the other really important thing -- making sure that people didn't think, "Oh, it's a group that these guys run." It was very important for them to kill daddy in order to become their own grown-up family. That's the other thing that I like to raise. Fury even knew that. He knew he had to get them together as a team and then take himself out of the equation.

Comic Book Resources

Comic Review: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 9 #10


Comic Review: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 9 #10

Posted by Lucid Crash  |  July 24th, 2012 at 4:30 pm    

Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 9 #10Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Story by Andrew Chambliss and Scott Allie
Pencils by Cliff Richards
Ink by Andy Owens
Colors by Michelle Madsen
Cover by Phil Noto
Alternate Cover by Georges Jeanty with Dexter Vines and Michelle Madsen
Created by Joss Whedon
Dark Horse Comics
Release Date: June 13, 2012
Cover Price: $3.99

Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 9 is all about the big existential questions interspersed with some brief action scenes and lovey bits thrown in. Joss Whedon is still the producer and occasional writer of his original creation, so all of those elements seem just as entertaining and challenging as ever. The Apart (Of Me) storyline has been no exception with Buffy The Vampire Slayer: Season 9 #10 rounding up the arc in an orderly fashion. There are no big explosions or revelations, but with a more internalized plot like this one, that would have just been rather tacky. Not to worry, there is stuff actually happening.

Buffy-Bot (body of robot, brain o’ Buffy) and Buffy-Not (body of Buffy, brain o’ Robot) get in a tussle with the latest big bad, the rough slayer Simone, Spike’s “bug army” shows up, Detective Dowling is upset over the loss of his partner turned zompire Cheung, Buffy makes a decision about her coffee shop gig, Spike and Buffy make some progress in their relationship etc. All that is rather important, as it sets up the next wave of Buffydom tales in a very natural manner.

What I care about, especially nine seasons in, is all the quiet stuff. Buffy is plagued with insecurities and self-analysis intrinsic to being a live-action heroine in the modern world. The difference is now as an adult, there is more at stake (pardon the pun) than in high school. Just like many non-supernatural types, Buffy is adjusting to a reality of financial struggle after coming from a generation where people were taught that if they went to school, they would be a success like their parents, or at least like somebody’s parents. The Scooby gang (her core group of friends) is scattered about the country, she just lost her one remaining parental figure Giles, there was the infamous faux pregnancy scare, magic banished from the land, etc. So, while most people would need a break, she literally gets one. Half of her gets to play in the suburban world she idealizes because it represents what she will never have, (a normal life) while the other half stays and fights. Here’s to hoping body and soul comes together so to speak, so we can all get back to Buffy business as usual in San Francisco.

Phil Noto gets my vote for “coolest cover I have seen in a good while” with a psychedelic possible homage to Firestarter (or at least that is the old movie poster it reminded me of) with a swirling spiral of self-doubt forming a halo behind Geller’s blonde head. Quotes include: “Only you could lose your own body” to the more mundane “Why don’t you own a car?” The coexistence of events that would concern anyone with events that would effect “The Chosen One” have helped to keep this show so vital, years after it left TV sets. The newest nemesis Simone annoys rather than intrigues many fans but I cannot say I mind her and look forward to hearing more about her backstory/why we should ultimately care about her as a character. Also, Spike and I both “love her look” as preppy people are not that intimidating aside from Patrick Bateman.

Spike and I however differ on the necessity of a “bug army.” I realize that this makes me an 8-year-old, but simply put: bugs are gross. Even as a long-time vegetarian I cannot find any inherent sympathy within myself for insects. No one looks appealing standing next to one, and realistically if one started talking to a human being, said human being would start crying. Whenever I see them it makes me want to go to a happy place in my mind where Willow is still hanging around, vampires were still cute-ish, and Giles was still alive. OK, fine, I’m probably still just livid at Whedon for killing off Giles whether it made literary sense or not, but it’s still a good issue regardless despite my angst.

Geeks of Doom

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Joss Whedon, The Complete Companion Book Review

Joss Whedon, The Complete Companion Book Review



Very few creative minds in the world of television are adored as fanatically or studied as thoroughly as Joss Whedon. Scholars flock to his work, exploring hundreds of topics in the Whedonverse from all angles; was Willow and Tara’s homosexual relationship on Buffy The Vampire Slayer a brave rally behind the LGBTQ community, or just a case of tokenism that displayed lesbianism as something other-worldly and magical? Was Dollhouse just another example of misogyny masquerading as female empowerment? Did Firefly and Serenity really change sci-fi television and the film industry? PopMatters has published Joss Whedon, The Complete Companion: The TV Series, the Movies, the Comic Books and More with the goal of compiling some of the many essays trying to answer questions such as these.

The book, which has 464 pages containing over 60 essays and interviews, seems to cover all of Whedon’s works, including Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, Astonishing X-Men, and even Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers. However, for a book that compiles scholarly essays, only one question need be asked to assess its quality; would you be able to write a good essay using only this book as a scholarly source? The answer: yeah, I guess.

I can find few faults in the essays themselves; they are all logical, well written, and cover a wide variety of topics. While fans of Buffy will be well aware that it lends itself to be examined in gender studies, there are also essays that examine masculinity in Angel, providing the comparison that while Buffy is about how hard it is to be a woman, Angel is about how hard it is to be a man. The topics of moral ethics and language are also examined in several essays throughout the book and could all be used by students at the high school and university levels to write their own essays.

Sadly, the book was written before the release of The Avengers or Cabin in the Woods, so the essays contained can only speculate about the films. However, that does not make these essays worthless now that the movies have been released and watched by millions. The essay “Six Reasons why Joss Whedon is the Perfect Director for The Avengers” is written from the perspective that, should The Avengers be a good movie, the reasons explained will be why. Having seen the film, I agree with every point the author makes and his speculation is spot on. Therefore, were someone to use these reasons in their own essay, they are only burdened with the task of finding examples of these things in the film itself.

However, the book’s greatest fault is its lack of differing opinions which would hinder anyone trying to write an argumentative essay on any of the topics discussed. Not a single essay argues that Buffy, Angel, Firefly, or Dollhouse were insignificant in any way. The closest thing we get is an essay that argues that, while a step in the right direction, Buffy is not a perfect feminist hero because of the cattiness in her altercations with other women which often emphasize physical attractiveness. However, this essay is somewhat flawed by ignoring and completely denying the way that Xander Harris will comment on the physical appearance of characters like Spike and Angel, who he sees as threatening his masculinity in the same way Faith may threaten Buffy’s femininity. But this is as close as we get to hearing that any of Joss Whedon’s main works are anything less than a masterpiece.

One author even goes as far as to say that Alien Resurrection being terrible had nothing to do with Joss Whedon’s script, which anyone who has actually read the original script knows just isn’t true. This mistake is somewhat redeemed by another author’s essay being entirely dedicated to how Joss Whedon explored the failed ideas in Alien Resurrection in his later works (such as Buffy’s apathy after being brought back to life in the later seasons of Buffy), but it shows the general theme of the book: Joss Whedon is a god who can do (almost) no wrong.

Before I continue, I feel the need to establish that I am very much a Joss Whedon fan. My mom and I used to toon in to Buffy every week from season 3 to the series finale, and though I may have only been 11 years old when the series ended in 2003, I made a point to rewatch the entire series in my late teens. My boyfriend and I were Mal and Inara for Halloween last year. I have mapped out an entire script complete with technical notes for a would-be stage production of Dr. Horrible. I am a fan. All this to say that any criticisms here are not because I’m hell-bent on disavowing any praise bestowed on Joss Whedon or any of his works. My criticisms here are because, in addition to being a Joss Whedon fan, I’m also a university student who spends a lot of time writing essays and knows that to really prove your opinion is the correct one, you need to show that other opinions are wrong. This is where essays denying Joss Whedon’s greatness would come in. Essays arguing that Agent Scully from The X-Files is a better female role model and did more to change the role of women in television than Buffy or how Firefly is derivative of Star Wars would have been a welcome addition to the book, providing students points to argue against in their own writing. But sadly, such topics go unexplored. Unfortunately, this theme is present in almost any scholarly discussion of Joss Whedon’s works, as though the only people who care enough to talk about him are already eager to lick his boots.

However, there is one small point for which I must rain praise down upon this book for, and that is its appendix. At the end of the book, after all the essays, there is an appendix which lists every episode of every Joss Whedon television series along with the episode’s title, writer, director, original air date, time, and what network it played on. These kinds of details are gold for a student when writing their bibliography. Citing television shows is notoriously difficult as they often have different lead writers and directors from episode to episode and finding original air dates can be tricky. It often requires a lot of fast forwarding to the credits of the episode you want to cite and paying close attention. No more for a Joss Whedon series; it’s all there in The Complete Companion. It’s a small detail, but it took time to compile and must tip my hat to the authors for doing so.

Overall, while the essays are of good quality and are on a wide variety of topics, Joss Whedon, The Complete Companion: The TV Series, the Movies, the Comic Books and More could probably not be used as your only source for a good essay. However, I would highly recommend it as one source of many and to anyone who’s looking to validate their fandom with a little scholarly reading. If you find yourself stuck when trying to explain to friends just why exactly Firefly is a must-watch show, or have no answer when wondering why people are still talking about a vampire hunting cheerleader nearly ten years after the show has finished its run, give this book a read.

Nerd Reactor


Thursday, June 14, 2012

Which Pop Culture Property Do Academics Study the Most?

By Daniel Lametti, Aisha Harris, Natasha Geiling, and Natalie Matthews-Ramo

Last week in Slate, Tom Shone examined the academic obsession with the Alien quadrilogy, a movie franchise that has been the subject of dozens of scholarly articles. Shone listed 24 notable Alien studies at the end of his essay. Which got us thinking: How many more papers on the Alien movies are there? And how does the Alien franchise stack up against other films and TV shows that generate a lot of academic attention?

In addition to scouring the Internet to fill out Shone’s Alien bibliography, we also sought out academic writing on The Simpsons, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Wire, and The Matrix trilogy—pop culture favorites known to have provided plenty of PhD fodder over the last couple decades.

Who came out on top?

Buffy the Vampire Slayer by a mile. More than twice as many papers, essays, and books have been devoted to the vampire drama than any of our other choices—so many that we stopped counting when we hit 200. Buffy even has its own journal: Slayage, a publication of the Whedon Studies Association (named for the show’s creator, Joss Whedon), which features titles like “Real Vampires Don’t Wear Shorts: The Aesthetics of Fashion in Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Killing us Softly? A Feminist Search for the ‘Real’ Buffy.”

The Alien franchise did come in second with 86 studies—but it just barely edged out The Wire, which first aired in 2002, more than two decades after the original Alien hit theaters. Another turn-of-the-21st-century creation, The Matrix trilogy, is not far behind, with 71 titles. To our surprise, The Simpsons garnered only 29 academic papers, despite an ongoing, 23-season run. D’oh!

We found most of the studies listed on the website of UC Berkeley’s Media Resources Center, one of the largest repositories of filmed culture in America. We also consulted Google Scholar, JSTOR, and ProQuest. We only counted stand-alone articles and essays that were devoted primarily to the pop-culture property in question and were published either in scholarly journals or books published by university presses.

While the resulting numbers are by no means exact, Gary Handman, the Media Resources Center’s long-time director and website curator, said the result sounded about right to him. “There is so much written about Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” he said, adding, “it’s bone-breakingly weird.”

While not a fan of the show himself, Handman speculated that academics were intrigued by the devotion of its fans. (NPR’s All Things Considered tackled the question of academic interest in Buffy back in 2003.) Handman couldn’t name a television show with more written about it than Buffy, though he said The Wire seems to be catching up. He also suggested Star Trek and The Sopranos as popular choices among the titles we didn’t consider. “Oddly,” he said, “Mad Men doesn’t have a lot written about it.” We here at Slate also find this peculiar.

Slate.com



Monday, April 30, 2012

Behind Buffy Season 9: Unpacking "Angel & Faith's" Daddy Issues


In the world of Dark Horse and Joss Whedon's Buffy The Vampire Slayer, emotions often run high. But the most recent arc of "Buffy Season 9" series "Angel & Faith" explores what would happen if the titular characters could see their defining emotions -- guilt and regret -- taken away in the blink of an eye.

Wrapping this week with issue #9, the "Daddy Issues" arc brought with it the return of demented vampire Drusilla who, with the help of an emotion-sucking Lorophage demon, offered both of the book's heroes a chance to scrub the emotional baggage that came with their past sins and live life in the now. Combine that with Angel's ongoing attempts to piece together the late Rupert Giles' soul and Faith's dealing with the return of her alcoholic father, and the story holds a lot at stake within the larger fabric of Season 9.

To unpack the drama and the danger of the stories at hand, CBR News is back with a new installment of BEHIND BUFFY SEASON 9. This week, writer Christos Gage takes us on a tour of the "Daddy Issues" arc, revealing his full plans for Drusilla's Dark Horse debut, the inspiration for Faith's father Pat, the whereabouts of Angel's son Connor and the secrets both leads are hiding from each other -- and themselves.

Since we last spoke, we've seen a lot of twists in the story of Dru's return, and I wanted to start by talking a bit about the origin recap we got at the beginning of #7. We've talked before about finding that right balance between explaining for people who haven't seen every bit of the "Buffy" and "Angel" series what the background of these characters is while also giving nods to the die hard fans. What did you most want to get across in the scenes of Angel's siring of Dru, and how did that exposition impact Angel as a character throughout the arc?

Follow the link below for more:

Comic Book Resources


Sunday, April 8, 2012

Q&A with Cabin in the Woods Director Drew Goddard and Actress Amy Acker


I sat down with Cabin in the Woods director Drew Goddard and actress Amy Acker to discuss their film that rocked SXSW and has message boards going crazy. We had a chance to talk about writing with Joss Whedon, pacing in films, fearless filmmaking, and Drew gives his theory on how Michael Myers learned how to drive.
How were you able to write the story for Cabin in the Woods? Did you come up with the ending first and work backwards?
Drew Goddard: I wrote this with my partner in crime Joss Whedon……….
I think I’ve heard of him before
DG: [laughs] Yeah. He’s a young up and comer. You should keep your eye on him. He had the basic ending. When we knew what that was we could work backwards. That was very much how we worked on Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel. You find that spark of an idea and try to entertain each other as you flush it out.
Was it a long writing process?
DG: We spent a few months getting the outline in to shape and really getting the structure right. One of the things I learned from Joss, the more work you do on your structure and your outline, the easier the writing is. We spent months doing that. When it came time to write it we said ‘Let’s lock ourselves in a hotel and we aren’t allowed to leave the hotel until we finish the script’. [laughs] It was crazy. It was nice because we had a room with an upstairs and a downstairs. I took the upstairs and we would just yell back and forth and crank pages out. I think we wrote around the clock for three days and at the end we were done. We rewrote it after that, but it stuck pretty close to what we wrote.
Amy, How did you get involved with the project?
Amy Acker: I guess I just knew the right people [laughs]. I was working on something and Joss called and said they were having trouble finding a part and would I mind playing it. I said ‘That sounds great.’
DG: The reason we were having trouble is because nobody was Amy.
It’s good to have a pool of talented people to pull from.
DG: It’s hard because we switch tones so much. We go from high comedy to high drama, often in the same scene or in the same line. It requires a degree of difficulty that’s sort of deceptive. It is so silly at times, but if you find people who can do it well, like Amy can, you want to grab them and hold them close.
Some of the scenes in Cabin are creepy, funny, and then creepy again. The whole premise itself is really bizarre.
DG: I feel like you just described the whole movie.
[everybody laughs]
DG: It’s funny and it’s a little bizarre.
Like the scene with the speakerphone. It captures the tone for the entire film.
DG: It’s a really crucial scene. It was the first scene that told the audience ‘Ok. I’m getting the tone of this movie.’ We sort of hint at it before that, but that’s when it really crystallizes and you really get it.
Did you have any sense of what kind of film you were making while you were on set?
AA: Being around Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford was great. They were so funny. You really got the comedy sense of that part.
DG: Because we’ve worked with Amy for so many years, you’ve seen some [expletive] in your day.
AA: It would’ve been weirder for me if it was just straight forward [laughs].
You did some work on one of my favorite shows Lost. Was that experience helpful in writing the story for Cabin.
DG: Yeah. I’ve been lucky between Buffy, Angel, Alias, and then Lost. The thing they all have in common is that they were all fearless. They were not afraid to be different and try something different. Even if you didn’t know that it was going to work, just try to do something new and fresh. That’s definitely how we felt on Lost doing every episode. Let’s just try something new. I like that. That energy is really intoxicating once you’re in it. I wanted to keep that with Cabin. If nothing else, let’s be bold. If we fail, that’s fine, but there’s integrity to that intent.
Do the bold stories appeal to you as an actor?
AA: Totally. I think that’s the most fun thing to do as an actor. It’s getting to play circumstances that aren’t happening in real life, the same with being on those shows and with this movie.  And being able to change genres within each other. One week you feel like you’re on a sitcom, the next week you’re in a high drama. It’s really fun to play both ends of the spectrum and everything between.
Has Cabin been difficult to advertise for because of how different it is?
DG: Certainly. The filmmaker in me doesn’t want to give anything away. The audience member in me knows you have to prove to an audience that this is worth your time. It’s finding that balance. The truth is, the less you know about this movie the more fun you’re going to have. You also want to tell people that this is not your average everyday horror movie. I think Lionsgate has been doing a great job of giving just enough to let people know this isn’t the same old thing but keeping some of the surprises.
Trying to convince my Mom to see it would be tough because she hates scary movies.
DG: We’ve been touring now and one of the things that has been exciting is people coming up to me saying “I don’t even like Horror movies but I love this.” It’s nice to know that this is also for people that don’t care about Horror movies. I know if you like horror movies, we’ve got something for you. If you don’t like them, we still have something for you.
Me and my friend were having a discussion about the great shows on TV now and how they have a little bit for everyone in there. Like Friday Night Lights. If you love football, you’ll like it. If you’re into high drama, you’ll like it. Even if you love high school drama.
DG: It’s good storytelling.
The stories are good. Much like with Cabin, it doesn’t matter if you’re into that genre or not.
DG: Exactly. That’s always the goal. We definitely wanted to fall more in the Fun Horror Movie genre than the Traumatic Horror Movie genre. We wanted to say this is fun and we’re going to have a good time. We really set out to make a movie that’s a perfect date movie for a Friday night. It’s not too aggressive; it’s not going to give you too many nightmares, maybe a couple. We wanted people to have fun.
Do either of you have a favorite scary movie?
AA: I’m the biggest wimp. [Cabin in the Woods] is now my favorite scary movie. It’s the only one that I haven’t cried at. I am very scary. I’m afraid to flush the toilet after I see a scary movie.
[laughs] What’s the toilet going to do?
AA: [laughs] I don’t know
DG: It’ll tip them off to your location.
AA: But I loved [Cabin in the Woods] and I’m a big wimp.
It does have some awesome horror movie scenes in it.
DG: We wanted to tip our hats to those who’ve come before and try and ad something new. If I had to pick one scary movie I’d go with John Carpenter’s The Thing. That’s probably number one.
I’d hug you right now if it wouldn’t be so inappropriate. I bought a t-shirt the other day that says Outpost #31. I watch that movie every year.
DG: Really. I screened it for the crew before we started this movie. It’s such a beautiful film. Everything about the film was perfect.
Not to nerd out on The Thing too much but it’s so well paced……..
DG: So well paced and that was very important to me. Pacing is sort of fallen off recently. Everything is sort of shock, music video cuts, and shaky camera. I like the way Carpenter shoots The Thing. It’s much more elegant. It’s much quieter and it builds and builds until you get to these crazy places. Lord knows The Thing goes insane by the end, but it’s all stepped out. What I love about any good horror movie is that it functions on multiple levels. It’s just a great story, but also the societal implications. The whole movie is a metaphor for society, what we go through, paranoia, and mistrust of one another. That’s what’s going on in that movie. I remember when I first realized that as kid. A light bulb went on in terms of doing multiple things in one movie.
There’s some of that in Cabin
DG: Absolutely. Mr. Carpenter’s influence is very deep.
One of my favorite movies is Halloween………..
DG: Yep. That was the other one I showed them. There are a lot of nods to Halloween in this movie.
That’s what I thought. Even in Cabin when you know the scare is coming, it’s done so well that it doesn’t matter. Halloween was the same way. The scene when Jamie Lee Curtis goes to into the house and finds the bodies, you see Michael Myers slowly come out of the shadows.
DG: It’s the greatest. It’s so elegant. It really feels like this is going to be extra bad.
Since you’re a big fan of Halloween I have a question. How does Michael Myers know how to drive a car when he breaks out of the asylum?
DG: Great question. I always like concept that while he was at the asylum, one of the ways they tried to help him was making him feel like he was part of society. So his instructor brought his car into the parking lot and let Michael drive it around in circles. That’s my guess. And it didn’t go well. Michael was always trying to smash into things so they had to stop.
Did you have any favorite moments while making this film?
AA: I think the scene with the speakerphone was it. If I’m sad, I just think of that because it was so funny.
DG: Being a director, every scene I loved. It’s like trying to pick between them. There’s not a scene in the movie that I don’t love.
Is ending a horror film the toughest part to do?
DG: Certainly 3rd Acts of any movie are hard. It’s always hard to have something that will give you the promises from the beginning of the movie. That’s true for all movies. That is what gave me comfort in making this film. I knew we had a tremendous 3rd Act.  No matter what happened in the first 60 minutes, the last 30 minutes was going to blow people’s minds.
How did you come up with the concept for the 3rd Act?
DG: I don’t know.
It was like something out of my 8 year old mind’s nightmares.
DG: That’s what it is. It was like getting in touch with that spirit of, if you were a kid and could do whatever you want and make whatever you want. Let your imagination run wild. It was just imaginations going crazy.


Seattle Pi



Thursday, December 22, 2011

‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ movie looking for new writer


Screenwriter Whit Anderson (Sam Comen)

Dec. 22, 2011

That big-screen revamp of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” has been dealt a setback — it looks as though the movie’s first-time screenwriter bit off more than she could chew.

GALLERY: "Buffy" stars: where are they now?

Two sources close to the project say that the script submitted this past summer by writer Whit Anderson fell far short of expectations and, in the end, was rejected completely. That’s news that will spark celebration from some longtime “Buffy” fans who were less than thrilled by the prospects of a “Buffy” revival that didn’t involve Joss Whedon. Whedon, now directing “The Avengers” for Marvel,  himself took a few shots at the reboot project — although he did so with a sly wink.

“This is a sad, sad reflection on our times,” Whedon said last November when that deal was announced, “when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories from their youths — just because they can’t think of an original idea of their own, like I did with my Avengers idea that I made up myself.”

As for the future of “Buffy”? A new writer is being sought but the entire endeavor may have lost some steam. There also might be some healthy fear among the producers who witnessed a spasm of fan criticism when the project was first publicized.

“If you’re going to bring it back, you have to do it right,” one key player in the project told Hero Complex. “[Anderson] came in with some great ideas and she had reinvented some of the lore and it was pretty cool but in the end there just wasn’t enough on the page.”

— Geoff Boucher


Friday, September 9, 2011

'Buffy the Vampire Slayer:' Where Are They Now?


Before "Twilight's" Bella and before "True Blood's" Sookie, one woman reigned over the fang-toothed creatures of the night: Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Sarah Michelle Gellar became a teen queen thanks to the hit TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which took the small screen by storm between 1997 and 2003. She's returning to TV this fall with the thriller "Ringer," in which she plays a woman on the run who takes on the identity of her twin sister after she mysteriously disappears.

Speaking of disappearing -- while some of the cast of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" failed to transition from the drama into bigger and better Hollywood projects, others, including Gellar, have stood the test of time. Below, check out what Gellar and four of her "Buffy" co-stars have done since the show went off the air:

Sarah Michelle Gellar

As Buffy, Gellar fought to rid the fictional town of Sunnydale, Calif., of its supernatural annoyances. She won six teen choice awards for that role and scored a Golden Globe nomination. Gellar co-starred in a few popular movies during her "Buffy" reign, including "I Know What You Did Last Summer" (where she met her future husband, Freddie Prinze Jr., whom she married in 2002) and "Cruel Intentions."

Gellar's movie career floundered for much of the '00s. While her 2004 horror movie "The Grudge" was a box office success, its sequel flopped. At 34, she's thrilled to be returning to TV, and her real life role of taking care of her 2-year-old daughter has kept her in shape to kick butt on camera again.

"I just chase my toddler," she told "Access Hollywood" about staying fit. "That pretty much keeps me on my toes and puts me to bed by 8:30!"

David Boreanaz

Playing Angel, Buffy's forbidden vampire lover, David Boreanaz captured the hearts of teenage fans the world over. After two years on "Buffy," he starred in the spin-off "Angel," which ran from 1999 until 2004. Soon after his professional associations with the underworld ended, Boreanaz, now 42, found a new character on "Bones," in which he plays Special Agent Seeley Booth.

While his career has sailed smoothly, his personal life hasn't fared quite as well. Last May, he admitted that he cheated on his wife, Playboy Playmate Jaime Bergman, multiple times, including with Rachel Uchitel, one of the women linked to Tiger Woods' extramarital affairs. Boreanaz and Bergman still remain together with their two children.

Alyson Hannigan

Every vampire slayer needs a partner in crime, and Alyson Hannigan played Gellar's as Willow, "Buffy's" shy nerd turned magic maven. In 1999, Hannigan scored the role she's probably best known for apart from "Buffy" -- playing band geek Michelle Flaherty in the "American Pie" series of movies. (For people of a certain age, "This one time, at band camp" remains a beloved catchphrase.)

In 2005, Hannigan, now 37, returned to TV with "How I Met Your Mother." Her personal life is as constant as her presence in Hollywood -- she married actor Alexis Denisof in 2003 (who has also appeared on "Buffy," "Angel" and "How I Met Your Mother"). Together, they have a 2-year-old daughter.

Seth Green

Seth Green's "Buffy" alter-ego was Oz, Willow's guitar-playing/werewolf boyfriend. That role was the start of a successful Hollywood career. Green, now 37, has had a number of memorable roles, including Dr. Evil's son in the "Austin Powers" movies, the dork in "Can't Hardly Wait," the voice of Chris Griffin on "Family Guy" and himself on "Entourage."

He also serves as the co-creator and producer of the TV comedy series "Robot Chicken." Last year, he married actress Clare Grant.

Michelle Trachtenberg

Fun fact: Vampire slaying is genetic. It made sense, then, to introduce Michelle Trachtenberg as Dawn, Buffy's little sister, in season five of the series. Along with her role on "Buffy," Trachtenberg built her career by starring in teen-centric movies like "Ice Princess" and "17 Again."

More recently, she's indulged in the manipulative (sometimes psychotic) Georgina Sparks, the scheming outsider on TV's "Gossip Girl." In real life, the 25-year-old Trachtenberg is a fixture of young Hollywood, and can often be caught party hopping with her co-stars Blake Lively and Leighton Meester.

ABC News


Morrow-TV: Sarah Michelle Gellar chose 'Ringer' after 'Buffy'

Unlike many actors, Sarah Michelle Gellar won't dismiss her past so easily.

Going into "Ringer," her new adventure series (debuting 9 p.m. EDT Tuesday, The CW), she's well aware that her fans from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" are still out there and very focused.

"When picking a show, I took into consideration who my fans are, because, let's be honest, I mean, we were a midseason replacement on The WB, based on a failed movie, 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer.' If it wasn't for the outpouring of fans, and the journalists, too, supporting us, we would have been canceled after four episodes," Gellar told reporters recently.

"And I think as an actor, sure you want to stretch and you want to do different things, but I think it's also our job to think about who our fans are and what they want to see, too.

"Because, let's be honest, ultimately that's why we do it. I mean, I do it to entertain the people that want to watch what I do."

Gellar quit "Buffy" after several years because she was burned out on the demands of doing an hourlong comedy-adventure. She was in her mid-20s when she walked away from the show. Since then, she's gotten married, started a family and gone on to big-screen roles. Now in her early 30s, Gellar is ready to tackle weekly series work again.

"Ringer" has some faint similarities to "Buffy." While the new show has no supernatural elements, it does have a Hitchcocklike style -- double crosses, double lives and threats from every corner.

Gellar is once again in the thick of danger. She's tough and smart in the three roles she has here: Bridget, a former prostitute and recovering drug addict; Siobhan, who is Bridget's wealthy identical twin with a shady life; and Bridget-as-Siobhan, which has Bridget on the lam and assuming Siobhan's identity after Siobhan is assumed dead.

The switching from character to character has been a juggling act for Gellar, but one she relishes.

"It's interesting. I think it's like children," she says of the three roles.

"When you're each one, you have to love each one individually and understand that one. So when I'm Bridget, I feel that all of Bridget's motivations are hers, and Siobhan is wrong. And when I'm Siobhan, everything Bridget does is wrong.

"I try to get into the head of each of them."

Scripps News



Saturday, August 20, 2011

Spike and Cordelia Are Getting Married (on Supernatural)

Yes, Buffy alums James Marsters and Charisma Carpenter will be playing an unhappily married couple of the fifth episode of Supernatural's seventh season, titled "Shut Up, Dr. Phil." It's not exactly earth-shattering news, but it's one of those fun nerd nods Supernatural seems to like to slip in where it can. And I'm always kind of pleased to see Carpenter getting work. What do you think the odds are of her hitting on San and/or Dean? One in 1.0025?

Topless Robot 

Friday, August 12, 2011

Teen First U.S. Death by Vampire Bat


Published August 12, 2011

A Mexican teen became the first person in the United States to die from a vampire bat -- and the Centers for Disease Control warned that the bats may be spreading in the country.

The 19-year-old migrant worker contracted rabies from a bite on his heel from the blood sucker on July 15th, 2010. He was bitten in Michoacan, Mexico, 10 days before he left for the United States to work on a sugar cane plantation in Louisiana. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) only just confirmed on Friday, Aug. 12, that his death was the first such case in the U.S.

"This case represents the first reported human death from a vampire bat rabies virus variant in the United States," said the CDC and Prevention in its Morbidity and Mortality weekly report.

The teenager became ill two weeks after the bite, having not received a rabies vaccination. He had a particularly aggressive case of the disease with an incubation period of 15 days as opposed to the average 85 days seen in other human rabies cases in the United States.

He sought medical attention for fatigue, shoulder pain, a dropping left eye and numbness of the left hand. He also developed respiratory distress and a 101.1-degree fever, according the the CDC's report.
On August 20, he was officially diagnosed with rabies after test results of his spinal fluid confirmed the disease. Postmortem test on the teen's brain tissue confirmed "the variant to be a vampire bat rabies virus variant," the CDC said.

In its report, the CDC also urged the public to avoid vampire bats and get vaccinated.
Although vampire bats are typically found in Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina, "research suggests that the range of these bats might be expanding as a result of changes in climate," the CDC reported.

"Expansion of vampire bats into the United States likely would lead to increased bat exposures to both humans and animals (including domestic livestock and wildlife species) and substantially alter rabies virus dynamics and ecology in the southern United States," the health agency warned.


Wednesday, June 22, 2011

MOVIE BLOG: Can vampires be redeemed?

By Naomi Creason, Sentinel Reporter, June 21, 2011   The Sentinel - cumberlink.com

With "Twilight" (finally) ending next year with the second part of "Breaking Dawn," there may be a chance for vampires to get some redemption and earn their way back into the horror genre.

Vampires have always been a safe villain to cast in a movie, but we're seeing plenty of overkill in movies and TV shows when it comes to the bloodsuckers. Given that "The Vampire Diaries," "True Blood" and "Being Human" are doing so well on the small screen, I doubt we'll see any less vampires in the future.

However, after Sweden's "Let the Right One In," we may finally get to see some vampire entertainment that doesn't necessarily revolve around pretty (and sometimes sparkly) people. There's movement going ahead on the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" reboot as well as the action-horror "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," but it's two other movies with potential release dates next year that could add a little bite to the genre.

There was news yesterday about some screenplay work on "The Passage," which is set to be directed by Matt Reeves, who directed "Cloverfield" and "Let Me In." Reeves' movie didn't differ too much from the original Swedish movie, but critics loved it nonetheless. Given Reeves' handling of "Let Me In," it bodes well that "The Passage" could also be something worth watching.

I'm not as enthusiastic about the plot of "The Passage," which follows the cliche of a scientific experiment gone wrong and the eventual horde of vampires, who can apparently read minds. However, Reeves was able to make the "found footage" and monster movie genres into something interesting with "Cloverfield," so I'm willing to see what he does with this.

The other vampire movie that seems like it will be worth more than a "vampire movie" label is an untitled one to be directed by Jim Jarmusch, who made "Coffee and Cigarettes" and "Broken Flowers." If combining Jarmusch with vampires wasn't odd enough, he also managed to assemble an amazing cast with Tilda Swinton, Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska. Swinton rarely takes bad roles, and Fassbender and Wasikowska already proved they work well together in "Jane Eyre." There isn't much information about the movie other than it will be set in Detroit and Tangiers and will be a "crypto-vampire love story" (yeah, I don't really know what that means either), but the pairing of director and cast alone will make this something to look out for in either 2012 or 2013.

While there's still more than a little unknown about these projects and more vampire movies on the horizon, I think I'll be happy with leaving the likes of "Twilight" behind me and watch something that may actually reinvent the horror movie villain.

What do you think of these new vampire movies? Will vampires get their edge back or will "Twilight" overshadow the movie monster? Leave a comment or email me at ncreason@cumberlink.com.

Cumberlink

Monday, May 16, 2011

Gellar: New 'Buffy' movie is 'dumbest idea ever'



Several cast members of the much-beloved series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" have weighed in on the upcoming Joss Whedon-less "Buffy" movie, and now Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar, has made her feelings known.

"It was a movie. It's been made. It stars Kristy Swanson. They don't need to make another one," she said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday. "I think it's a horrible idea! To try to do a 'Buffy' without Joss Whedon? To be incredibly non-eloquent, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!"

Gellar is planning to return to series television for the first time since 2003 in a pilot for CBS called "The Ringer."

"I miss television, I do. It took me a while to understand that I missed it," she said. "Eight years is a really long time, especially at my age, being so young and not knowing other things and you realize you miss the familiarity, you miss the crew, you miss - it's almost like summer vacation and seeing your friends after the break."

Gellar went on to say that having a child motivated her to seek the stability of a regular series. It's also motivated her to join with the "Nestle Share the Joy of Reading Program," and to consider possibly writing a children's book in the future.

"It's a tough market to crash," she said. "It's been on my radar for a very long time. I've never fancied myself a writer, so we'll see."

Gellar visited the Los Angeles Public Library's historic Central Library on Tuesday to promote the program, which encourages continued reading over the summer.

"I love books. I'm constantly afraid that we're moving into this digital era where books are going to go away," Gellar says. "To me books are the basis for everything in life. Reading is how we function, it's not just creative imagination and creative play, it's how we function as human beings, as adults, and if you can instill that at a young age that's a skill they have for life."

CNN

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Buffy Resurrected

Madison-made independent comedy horror, ‘Dead of the Night’ brings back badass female lead

By Ann Rivall

It may not be the next “Citizen Kane,” but it possesses a measure of that norm-defying moxie necessary to promote cinematic industry change.

“Dead of the Night” — an independently made Madison film and the brainchild of local producer and writer Robert Love — is not your typical comedy horror.

For one, this low-budget indie — all funded by Love himself — is set in Wisconsin and described as a fusion of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Friday the 13th.” Two, it boasts of a badass female lead actress, University of Wisconsin senior Morgan Boland, who is bestowed with a palpable dose of chutzpah, well-suited to combating zombies and pesky demons aiming to disrupt an FBI mission.

She is woman, hear her roar.

Influenced by director Joss Whedon’s strong female lead personified by Sarah Michelle Gellar in the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” series, Love and his fellow film producer Jeff Skubal, wanted to create a comedy horror that strayed from the male lead mold by developing the character of Paige — a tenacious self-confident woman who unapologetically asserts her dominance and leaps into the realm of macho.

“As a storyteller, I’ve always been attracted to strong women,” Love said in a recent interview with The Badger Herald. “So often women are portrayed as the sidekick to the guy, and what I liked so much about Buffy was that she was the hero, she’s in charge and she’s got that strength of personality to be the superpower, and so that’s what I wrote Paige to be. She’s a woman; she’ll get in fights.”

Originally cast as an extra when “Dead of the Night” production began over two years ago, Boland impressed Love, who had initially written the part with a different actress in mind. After eventually revolving through three different leading ladies and continually coming back to the extra that impressed him, Love settled on Boland — a UW theatre major who most recently appeared in the University Theatre production of “Eurydice.”

And if Love was searching for the right woman to take on the role of a commanding female presence incarnated in his Paige, he surely found it in Boland. She exudes an equal match of confidence and humility as she traverses the uncharted acting platforms of comedy and film.

“I think I’ve discovered through the process that I’m more like Paige than I realized,” Boland said. “I really love how this character really bluntly speaks her mind. She’s not going to sugarcoat anything, and I find myself in the same situations sometimes.”

Both relative newcomers to the experience of shooting a full-length feature film, Love and Boland each reflected on the adventure of seeing a project stem from an idea and morph into what has become the visionary baby of Love’s that Boland occasionally baby sits with her creative input.

Love is a writer and voice over director for Raven Software — a Middleton-based computer game developer of real world and science fiction game software — and has produced two film shorts, “The Plan” and “The More Things Change,” prior to dipping his toe in the feature-flick pool.

Drawing on an initial acquaintance with film gained while working for Raven and reinforced while shooting his first two shorts, Love was able to call on that specific knowledge base when developing “Dead of the Night.”

“The biggest difference between the short and the full-length film is the time commitment. It’s a huge, huge time commitment, but it’s also so much more rewarding,” Love said. “You get all these different pieces together and all these different people working so hard. I’ve shown the actors scenes, and it’s cool to see when they laugh at the right parts and you really get the emotions where you want to.”

Making the transition from the stage to on-camera proved to be an interesting artistic learning opportunity for Boland who had previously only been a cast member of a local student-produced film. With this being her first full-length film, Boland immediately noticed the task of emotional readiness screen actors are expected to tackle when shooting various, disjointed scenes typical of the sporadic production style of full-length films.

“Before doing film I used to think film actresses had it so much easier because they only had to memorize one scene at a time and theatre people have to memorize the whole show, but film is a lot harder in the sense that you have to jump into that moment no matter what it is,” Boland said. “With theater you can ride that momentum through the show and it can be a lot easier to get yourself to those moments.”

As an actress who has had minimal experience with comedy, Boland is also learning to hone her comedic chops — a theatrical skill of Boland’s that both Love and “Eurydice” reviewers praised the young leading lady for.

“Bob kept telling me I had great comedic timing, and I kept saying, ‘I do?’ It wasn’t until I read a ‘Eurydice’ review and they mentioned my comedic timing that I began to believe it,” Boland said.

For Love, comedy is his niche.

“Comedy really speaks to me; I think that’s my strength as a writer,” Love said.

His first comedy short, “The More Things Change,” allowed Love to explore the genre, and after receiving strong audience encouragement for his writing, decided to pursue the humor of horror with “Dead of the Night.”

“What makes comedy work so well is having some tension in there, and that’s why horror comedies work out really nice,” Love said. “We’re not really a horror per se because we’re not about the blood, we’re not about the violence — it’s mostly about the comedy.”

Citing the “horror renaissance” that has captivated mega-plexes across the world with blockbusters like “Twilight,” and TV series such as “The Vampire Diaries,” Love and Skubal knew that combining the wry intrigue of demonic, otherworldly creatures disrupting the placid nature of a Wisconsin backdrop would make for a clever Joss Whedon-like romp that celebrated a strong female commanding the film’s comedy and action.

“The women in the film always stand up and fight. I want to portray these women as strong,” Love said.

Though the marriage of comedy and horror has been spoofed in numerous “Scary Movie” installments, Love predicted his own genre union in “Dead of the Night” would at one moment present a captivating, edge-of-your-seat scene for viewers, and in the next let the crowd breathe a sigh of comedic relief with a deadpan line delivery.

“For comedy to work well you need a wind up of the tension and then the release,” Love said. “If you’re careful with your comedy you don’t throw off the men or the women, which you can tend to do.”

“Horror is also in itself funny,” Boland added.

Readying themselves for a Madison screening in July at Sundance Theater, Love and Boland reflect back on the experience of surviving their first feature-length film together and credit Skubal’s creative level head for guiding the pair’s imagination.

“I really love the creative process, and I really do think that strong art is very collaborative and that collaboration itself can only make it stronger,” Boland said. “I think we work together to tell a great story.”

“I’m extremely proud of this project,” Love said. “This has been like climbing Mount Everest in your bare feet, and I could not have done it without the enthusiasm of Morgan and Jeff.”

“Dead of the Night” will be shown at Sundance Theater in July. For the most up-to-date information regarding the film’s progress and future viewing opportunities, visit the film’s Facebook page.

badgerherald.com

Buffy remake slays childhood memories

By: Romeo Mora

It seems like every movie studio loves to reboot beloved franchises and bastardize the collective childhood memories of diehard fans. In the past few years Batman, James Bond and Star Trek reboots have flooded multiplexes. No one can blame studios for making an easy buck. And, thanks to "Twilight" and the ensuing vampire craze, greedy producers now have their sights set on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Fran Rubel Kuzui, director of the original 1992 Buffy film, and her husband Kaz Kuzui are planning to release a remake by 2012 without the involvement of "Buffy" creator Joss Whedon. The article makes it clear that the movie will not incorporate the original supporting characters or feature the mythology of the series.

For those who are not familiar with Whedon, he wrote the original movie script and managed to resurrect the box office failure into a successful and critically acclaimed primetime series that resulted in the spin off, "Angel." He created a world win which vampires and monsters are metaphors for growing up. His work was well received by the world of academia and several scholarly articles about the series dealing with themes such as gender roles and violence have been published. So, what's the big deal?

Imagine some yuppie movie executive picking up a copy of "Star Wars" and deciding to keep Luke Skywalker, now played by Justin Bieber, while getting rid of Han Solo, Chewbacca and Princess Laia, and combining C-3PO and RD-D2 into a disembodied voice coming from a iPhone 4.

The major obstacle this "Buffy" remake faces is the backlash for not including Whedon in the process and purposely ignoring key elements from the popular television series. As they are prepping the movie, Whedon has been writing about Buffy in comic book format, which continues the story of the TV series. It's hard to understand why the built-in audience that producers hope to engage would want to subject themselves to such water-down version of Buffy. It does not have to be a carbon copy, but if the essential canon and characters of the series were kept and tweaked for a modern audience, similar to J.J. Abrams's 2009 re-imagining of "Star Trek," then it could be successful.

The Kuzuis need to fix a few things before hardcore Buffy fans begin to entertain the idea of watching the film. First, Buffy needs her friends. The supporting characters allow for Buffy to be grounded in the real world, therefore allowing her to deal with mundane, everyday problems that make her relatable to the audience. In addition, Kuzui needs to capture the spirit of Whedon's writing style and incorporate the language and mythology. "Buffy" was known for its witty dialogue infused with pop culture references and its abuse of the English language. Also, Whedon cleverly use its mythology to demonstrate that high school was literally hell, and you don't have to be a slayer to survive it. It's a message that has become more important during a rise of bullying in schools. Without these elements, Buffy is forced to devolve into a blonde valley girl without depth.
When it comes down to it, all producers want to do is preserve the warm memories of fans than drive a wooden stake through their heart and steal the cash. Regardless of what fans want, the Kuzuis have a script in hand and are planning for a 2012 release. And, being the sucker that I am, I will be standing in line during the opening weekend. I know. I'm a sucker.

Whedon himself best expressed the frustration and annoyance regarding this remake when he replied to E! reporter Kristen Dos Santos in an e-mail.

"This is a sad, sad reflection on our times, when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories from their youths-just because they can't think of an original idea of their own, like I did with my Avengers idea that I made up myself. I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER. I don't love the idea of my creation in other hands, but I'm also well aware that many more hands than mine went into making that show what it was. And there is no legal grounds for doing anything other than sighing audibly. I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill."

csusignal.com


Sunday, April 24, 2011

Whedon announces Avengers film start


Written by Jason Comic Books, News Apr 24, 2011

Geek Messiah Joss Whedon has announced, or E-nounced (see what I did there?) that THE AVENGERS will begin filming following Zombie Jesus Day.

“Tomorrow we start shooting (I THINK I’m legally permitted to say that). Day one. That’s right. We’ll be shooting the pivotal death/betrayal/product placement/setting up the sequel/coming out scene”

Whedon’s statement was made on the popular fan zine Whedonesque.com

Whedon also stated that he was still working on BUFFY pages for the upcoming “Season 9″ of Dark Horse Comics BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and that regarding THE AVENGERS he is trying to “figure out what the movie is about already.”  adding, “I’m pretty sure it’s about the JUSTICE LEAGUE”

While Whedon’s note was squee inducing (a grown man JUST wrote that) it sadly gives fans/obsessive’s/me nothing particularly substantial with regard to what exactly he will do with Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the rest when THE AVENGERS soars into theaters next summer.

My bet? Skrull musical.

veryaware.com

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Hellmouth Revisited

My best friend in college bemoaned the finiteness of movies. They are too short-lived and it’s all over before we’re ready to let go. Television series, on the other hand, endure for multiple years if they possess the right ratings. Characters accompany us for months; we incorporate them into our long-term schedules. Their regular return is a valuable payoff for our investment. For Ava, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a perfect example of a long running series that provided enough gratification through its seven televised seasons. She and I kicked off our sophomore year watching all of the episodes of Buffy. After warning me that the first few episodes were a smidgen campy, she assured me that the series was brilliant and that I’d love it. I enjoyed the series, which was made more fun by her enthusiasm for it. We moved onto Angel, and eventually the rest of the Joss Whedon canon. The routine was often dinner, homework, Buffy, more homework, followed by Buffy with the stream of our chats and pleasant digressions.

Over the summer, she died in a car accident. It devastated her family, our community, and me. Her sweet, strong mother gave me Ava’s DVD collection. It included Thai bootleg DVDs of Buffy, each with a customized, embossed sticker proclaiming it as part of Ava’s library. For a while I couldn’t bear to touch the DVDs for fear of smearing the precious fingerprints she left behind.

When I tried to think of the laughs we had, I smiled when recalling Buffy’s fashion choices (cranberry pleather pants!) and Spike’s fondness for spicy foods (Vampire tongues are less sensitive, was our theory). Ava’s comments about Buffy triggered a smile even when the grief was suffocating the good inside me. One night, unable to sleep, I gingerly slid open a DVD box and watched an episode. Feeling the need for a tearful release, I began with the pilot episode. At first, it felt heretical to watch Buffy without Ava. But Ava’s voice settled into each episode and it comforted me that my memories of her could still be so vivid. The memories of her comments and quips soothed me when I felt lonely. 

I soon reached season five, and braced myself for the sixteenth episode: “The Body.” Buffy’s mother, Joyce, unexpectedly dies of an aneurysm. This is the rare episode in which there is no Big Bad to blame nor an apocalypse at stake. Set to no soundtrack, Whedon claims he was trying to express the “boredom” of loss right when it happens. The countless amount of minute things you notice in grief but are unable to filter out of your mind come across clearly in “The Body.” In the background of one scene, a wind chime clinks prettily while Buffy vomits from shock of Joyce’s passing. The scene reminded me of how bizarre it seemed to me that birds chirped while I wept. And, indeed, it was a boring realization that the sun would rise no matter how I felt about it—that the outside world progressed regardless of my participation in it.

 In addition, I discovered that the impulse to find reasons for such random and insignificant events was in vain. Identifying the purpose for events in narratives are generally easy—events are crafted to serve a coherent plot. “The Body” helped me let go of the idea that nothing happens without a reason. Sudden loss is discordant to our general understanding of the world. In Buffy’s universe, where the demons are kitten-eating evil incarnate, few questions asked, it’s especially poignant that Joyce dies of a natural cause. The story about a girl with the gift to destroy vampires and stave off a series of apocalypses who is coping instead with her mother’s sudden death is unexpected, and an entirely different formula. I recognized in watching “The Body” that my control of the direction of my life is less certain than I believed. There are unperceivable forces beneath an opaque surface of understanding. This goes for both mild-mannered undergrads and Slayers. Part of maturing, for both Buffy and me, was growing to tolerate this through the cruel lesson of loss.

As the Buffy series is set in high school, one of its major themes is the experience of adolescence. Buffy learns her limitations, and that taking the part and shape of a strong woman arriving from girlhood necessitates some loss. Watching the show a second time, I felt far more sympathetic towards Buffy and appreciative of its steady pacing. Moreover, it became a way to honor Ava. In an earlier stage of grief, I dreaded that I was somehow leaving her behind by growing up without her. Through revisiting Buffy I learned how to carry the memories of her with me through my adolescence and college graduation. The television series she was so passionate about, enough to watch it with me from the beginning for a second time, stays relevant to me. And so does she.  

Salon

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Zombies, Reavers, Butchers, and Actuals in Joss Whedon's Work


By Gerry Canavan 4 April 2011

For all the standard horror movie monsters Joss Whedon took up in Buffy and Angel—vampires, of course, but also ghosts, demons, werewolves, witches, Frankenstein’s monster, the Devil, mummies, haunted puppets, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, the “bad boyfriend,” and so on—you’d think there would have been more zombies. In twelve years of television across both series zombies appear in only a handful of episodes. They attack almost as an afterthought at Buffy’s drama-laden homecoming party early in Buffy  Season Three; they completely ruin Xander’s evening in “The Zeppo” later that same season; they patrol a Los Angeles neighborhood in “The Thin Dead Line” in Angel Season Two; they stalk the halls of Wolfram & Hart in “Habeas Corpses” (4.8) in Angel  Season Four. A single zombie comes back from the dead to work things out with the girlfriend who poisoned him in a subplot in “Provider” in Angel Season Three; Adam uses science to reanimate dead bodies to make his lab assistants near the end of Buffy Season Four; zombies guard a fail-safe device in the basement of Wolfram & Hart in “You’re Welcome” in Angel Season Five.

That’s about it—and most of these don’t even really count as zombies at all. Many can talk, and most exhibit a capacity for complex reasoning and decision-making that is totally antithetical to the zombie myth. Not a one of these so-called zombies seems especially interested in devouring our heroes’ delicious flesh. Of the aforementioned episodes only “Dead Man’s Party” and “Habeas Corpses” really come close to evoking the wonderfully claustrophobic adrenaline rush of the shambling, groaning zombie horde that has become so popular in American horror since George Romero’s genre-establishing Night of the Living Dead series: a small group of people, desperately hiding within a confined, fortified space, with nowhere to run and no hope for survival when the zombies finally penetrate their defenses.

In interviews Whedon frequently cites Romero as a major influence on his work. In one he describes his early ambition to become a “a brilliant, independent filmmaker who then went on to make giant, major box office summer movies” as “Spielberg by way of George Romero”; in another he credits Romero with writing strong, complex female characters long before either James Cameron or Whedon himself came around. In a video interview with fear.net Whedon describes Romero as “a huge influence,” adding that Romero “is the only really ambitiously political filmmaker in that genre—and the Night of the Living Dead trilogy is just an incredible example of what can be done with gut-wrenching terror.”

Why then are there so few (and such poor) zombies in the early Whedon canon? We might speculate that filming a properly immense zombie horde would have risked busting the budget for the series, an ever-present concern for supernatural and science fiction series on television, especially on UPN and the WB. A properly ravenous horde, too, might have made Broadcast Standards and Practices rather nervous; American television’s very first zombie-themed series, AMC’s gory hit The Walking Dead, only made it to cable last year. When cost and potential censorship are not a factor, Mutant Enemy turns to zombies almost immediately; Whedon wrote a zombie horde attack on the Slayer castle in the first arc of the Buffy Season 8 comic, “The Long Way Home,” and zombies have been a common fixture in Buffy video games as well.

But let me suggest there’s something more at work. First, despite his admiration for Romero, Whedon seems to exhibit a strong preference for the original Haitian zombi—a nightmarish transfiguration of slavery into a curse that continues even after death—over George Romero’s mindless, ravenous consumer of flesh. The American horror zombie is a corpse without a mind, wandering aimlessly in search of food and governed by pure instinct; the zombi, in contrast, is only sometimes a revivified corpse, and is more commonly a traumatized but still living person whose will has been replaced with the will of the zombie master and whose body has been put to work. Whedon fairly frequently makes his characters pedants on this point; in “Some Assembly Required” Giles scolds Xander when he suggests that zombies might feed on the living, and Wesley does the same thing to Gunn in Angel’s “Provider” (3.12), dismissing flesh-eating as a myth (though Wesley’s zombies still “mangle, mutilate, and occasionally wear human flesh”). Anya says it again in Buffy Season Six’s “Bargaining, Part I,” when Xander speculates that their resurrection spell might have accidentally turned Buffy into a zombie who will attempt to eat their brains: “Zombies don’t eat brains, anyway, unless instructed to by their zombie masters. Lotta of people get that wrong.” (Alas, Romero!)

Remembering Whedon’s oft-stated political ambitions for the Buffy franchise, a second reason why zombies receive so little attention emerges. “The first thing I ever thought of when I thought of Buffy: The Movie,” he explains on the DVD commentary track for the first episode of Buffy, “Welcome to the Hellmouth,” “was the little blonde girl who goes into a dark alley and gets killed in every horror movie. The idea of Buffy was to subvert that idea, that image, and create someone who was a hero where she had always been a victim.” As he says this he’s talking, interestingly enough, over the very first scene of the series, which features not Buffy but Darla, playing the part of a misleadingly naïve high school girl who lures an unsuspecting boy into a deserted classroom before unexpectedly revealing herself as a vampire and going for his throat. The scene subverts and reverses the horror movie cliché; the sketchy football player turns out to be the victim, while the blond ingénue turns out to be a killer.

That scene—like countless later scenes featuring such lovable and charismatic vampires as Angel, Spike, Drusilla, Dracula, The Master, Harmony, Mister Trick, and Holden—just wouldn’t work if a dead-eyed, lurching Darla were groaning incoherently, covered in pus and blood, her skin falling off. This is the difference between vampires and zombies: despite superficial similarities in appetite, bad skin, and ghastly undeath, vampires are characters, they are agents, they are (despite everything else) people. The popularity of the vampire as a figure for both transgressive heterosexual lust and queer sexuality—both on Buffy and in popular successors like True Blood—could never be located in the zombie, as the zombie is never a possible point of identification or romance but is always hopelessly, permanently, intractably Other. The Hollywood zombie popularized by Romero is not a person but a force of nature: it can’t be reasoned with, it certainly can’t seduce us, and it cannot ever be redeemed. It doesn’t want anything but to gnaw on your bones.

Of course, most vampires in the Buffyverse never get the sort of elaborate backstory of Angel, Spike, or Darla; most are actually so much like zombies that to include both might have seemed frankly redundant. The random monster-of-the-minute vampires who jump out snarling in dark alleyways are zombielike in their hunger, apparently slaves to their impulses and just as fundamentally disposable as any individual zombie in a horde. Giles lays out this proposition early in the series when he insists that “A vampire isn’t a person at all. It may have the movements, the memories, even the personality of the person it took over, but it’s still a demon at the core. There is no halfway” (“Angel”). But Whedon can’t seem to stick to this edict over the course of the series; where in the beginning all vampires must be killed, with Angel as the sole exception only because of the infamous Gypsy curse that re-ensouled him, by the end of the series Spike is able to choose to seek out the return of his soul out a desire to be a better man, and even as vapid a vampire as Harmony is, by the end of Angel, able to voluntarily give up human blood altogether without much difficulty at all. Central to Whedon’s vision of postmodern horror is a layering of complication and contradiction in his characters that presents itself, especially as the series goes on, as a kind of mania for addition: Buffy is a ditzy cheerleader who is also a Slayer; Angel is a vampire with a soul and a soul-loophole; Willow is a nerd who becomes a witch and becomes a junkie and then gets better; Spike is a nebbish poet who becomes a vampire and falls in love and gets chipped by the government but remains fundamentally evil until he eventually goes off to win back his soul, and that’s not even counting the post-hypnotic suggestions implanted in his mind by the First Evil or the time he briefly becomes a ghost after sacrificing himself to save the world…

Vampires and the other creatures Joss favors in Buffy and Angel are about all addition; they’re humans, plus a little something more. But zombies are typically about subtraction, about the expression of a fundamental, irrecoverable lack. As Marina Warner notes in her essay “Our Zombies, Our Selves,” the difference between vampires and zombies originates in the problem of will: “Unlike phantoms, who have a soul but no body, zombies and vampires are all body—but unlike the vampire who has will and desire and an appetite for life (literally), a zombie is a body which has been hollowed out, emptied of selfhood” (Phantasmagoria 357). Warner’s definition points at the common thematic thread linking the Romero-style consumer-zombie with the original Haitian producer-zombie: both are stories of “soul-theft” (357), the evacuation of individual will in favor of either mindless herd instinct or whims of the enslaving zombie master. This soul-theft manifests itself in myriad ways; most relevant to the Buffyverse zombie is the fact that unlike vampires (who as Warner notes sometimes even dictate their own autobiographies, as in Anne Rice’s Interview with a Vampire), the zombie cannot speak at all, replicating the tongue-mutilating punishment sometimes inflicted on slaves (358). (Perhaps this is still another reason Whedon shied away from vampires in Buffy; zombies offer little opportunity for his famous Buffyspeak.)

Whedon and the Mutant Enemy writing stable ruin nearly every one of their early attempts at zombie stories by refusing to let this fundamental lack remain unfilled. They can’t let zombies just stay zombies. In the Marti Noxon-penned “Dead Man’s Party,” for instance, which condenses the typical zombie home invasion plot to about twenty minutes, the instinct driving the zombies is not the desire for food but to reacquire a mask Joyce has foolishly hung in the Summers’ home. When one of the zombies is able to acquire this object, the mask turns the character into a kind of zombie god—which among other things grants it that power zombies never have, the power of speech. “I live, you die,” the zombie god asserts, just before things devolve into the usual fistfight.

Similar problems abound in most of the other Buffyverse zombie episodes I’ve mentioned. None of them really scratches the zombie itch, in part because none of them are really about zombies at all; they’re just about dead people who come back to life. To tackle the zombie, Whedon has to move from horror to the realm of science fiction, a place where the contemporary zombie of 28 Days Later, I Am Legend, and The Walking Dead is a little more at home. In distinction from the original Romero zombie—which is generally a universal condition, cause unknown, affecting every dead body on the planet whether they’ve been bit by a zombie or not—the contemporary zombie is generally a biological contagion, very commonly a disease that has escaped from a government laboratory. The new, science fictional zombie reflects Vivian Sobchack’s observation in Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film that “the horror film is primarily concerned with the individual in conflict with society or with some extension of himself, the science fiction film with society and its institutions in conflict with each other or with some alien other” (30); the old-style horror zombie reflected (as in Romero’s Dawn of the Dead) a monstrous emptiness at the core of everyday American life, while the new zombie is something that’s been done to us, something foreign that’s invaded from outside. (Sobchack puts this in terms of the sort of chaos created by the monster; the horror monster generates “moral chaos,” while the science fictional monster generates “social chaos.”) This difference in scale is certainly reflected in Whedon’s shift from horror to science fiction; Tracy Little’s four-word summary of basically every Buffy plot—”high school is hell” (“High School is Hell: Metaphor Made Literal in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale, p. 282-293)—reminds us just how local that show remained over the course of its seven seasons, almost never leaving its tiny California suburb. Firefly and Dollhouse, in contrast, take place at the margins of worlds are so vast we only ever see the tiniest sliver of what’s really going on.

If in horror zombies are scary, in science fiction they become utterly apocalyptic. And both Firefly and Dollhouse turn out somewhat unexpectedly to be centered on this aspect of the zombie; on these narratives the zombie becomes a limit for society, its final destination. In creating this bleak vision of a zombie future Joss, true to form, finds a way to transform the zombie lack into a new type of excess—performing a clever kind of subtraction by addition that allows him to make the zombie function as something more than just a hole where a character used to be.


Zombies in Space: 'Firefly' / 'Serenity'

In Firefly—Whedon’s gone-much-too-soon “space Western” from 2002-2003—Romero-style zombies appear as rampaging space maniacs called Reavers. In the television series we never actually see a Reaver; they appear only in the form of rumors, whispers, and threats, and occasionally in the form of a distant spaceship on the viewscreen. But we can be certain that they’re zombies. Described both as “men gone savage on the edge of space” and “men too long removed from civilization,” Reavers will “rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing; and if we’re very very lucky they’ll do it in that order,” as Zoë memorably warns Simon in the show’s original pilot. The mere mention of Reavers brings panic to everyone on board, causing Inara to bring out what appears to be a suicide kit and causing even resident tough-guy Jayne to abandon any hint of machismo. Human beings transformed into monsters, Reavers are now simply outside the family of the human altogether: “Reavers ain’t men. Or they forgot how to be. Now they’re just nothing. They got out to the edge of the galaxy, to that place of nothing, and that’s what they became” (“Bushwhacked” 1.3). They likewise exist beyond life and death. The crew’s first close-up vision of a Reaver vessel directly suggests a kind of undead status; they figure out it is a Reaver ship because it is operating suicidally without radioactive core containment.

Over the course of the television series neither the audience nor the crew ever actually sees a real Reaver; the closest we some is the survivor of the Reaver attack in “Bushwhacked,” who has been so traumatized by what he has witnessed that he begins to associate, transforming into a Reaver himself. This is the first way Whedon makes the zombie’s lack into an excess; it becomes trauma:

They made him watch. He probably tried to turn away—they wouldn’t let him. You call him a “survivor?” He’s not. A man comes up against that kind of will, only way to deal with it, I suspect… is to become it. He’s following the only course that’s left to him. First he’ll try to make himself look like one… cut on himself, desecrate his own flesh…then he’ll start acting like one.

Sure enough, this is exactly what happens: he tattoos himself, splits his own tongue down the middle (giving himself the zombie’s muteness), and soon after begins to run violently amuck.

We only finally see Reavers in Serenity (2005), which begins when a bank heist the crew is engaged in is unexpectedly interrupted by a Reaver attack on the planet. The animalistic sound effects that accompany Reavers in the film—as well as the quick-cut flashes that represent River’s psychic flashes of the violence in their minds—have been borrowed directly from zombie cinema, most directly the various “fast zombie” films that came in the wake of 28 Days Later. The Reavers’ actions, as much as the cinematography, suggest the extent to which they have been modeled on zombies; when they capture a man during the crew’s escape, they begin to eat him, and when Mal takes pity on the man and shoots him through the skull, the Reavers immediately drop the corpse. River understands why: “They want us alive when they eat us.”

For much of the film the early Reaver attack seems to be an entirely gratuitous action sequence for a film that is otherwise about the attempts of the crew of Serenity to evade an uncannily serene government agent, known only as The Operative, dedicated to retrieving the fugitive River. But near the end of the film the central importance of the Reavers reemerges with newfound clarity; the “campfire stories” about men driven mad by the blackness of space turn out to have just been just fairy tales, obscuring the more disturbing truth that Reavers are actually the accidental byproduct of deliberate Alliance governmental experiments with behavior-modifying drugs intended to pacify the population. The Reavers aren’t killers at all; they’re victims too. Recalling the concept of “blowback” coined by the Central Intelligence Agency euphemistically to denote the inevitable unintended consequences that result from its efforts, the Alliance state has become a monster itself in a doomed effort to perfect the human. Like colonial powers and imperial militaries right here on the Earth-That-Was, the Alliance outlives its usefulness to become itself the greatest impediment to its self-proclaimed mission of civilizing the Outer Planets and bringing light to darkness. This is the peril that political theorist Achille Mbembe has called “the mutual ‘zombification’ of both the dominant and the apparently dominated”; in the structures of domination that arise in of the colonial system and survive into the postcolonial era, both parties are ultimately sapped of their vitality.

In her essay for the Jane Espenson-edited anthology Finding Serenity, Mercedes Lackey argues that this is why the ’Verse, despite its futuristic trappings, feels so real to us:

    “…the rules by which this dystopia operates are familiar. The Alliance uses a lot of the same psychological weapons on its own people that all the major governments of the world used back when I was growing up and are still using today. Demonization of the enemy, even the construction of enemies that don’t exist, create the fear of nebulous threats and the willingness to sacrifice freedoms for security. (p. 63-64)

Taking up where Romero’s politicization of the zombie left off, Whedon again transforms the zombie’s lack into an excess—not of any individual person but of the very notion of Homeland Security, its unacknowledged dark side and its secret truth. Reavers terrorize the Alliance at the edge of civilized space—but it was the Alliance that put them there.

But this critique of state power is still not Whedon’s final turn of the screw. Where Whedon ultimately takes the zombie mythos is in the discovery that the only way to defeat zombies—whether ravenous Reavers or zombie governmental institutions that now exist only to perpetuate themselves and their own power—is not to be more alive than they are, but to be more dead. This strategy of judo-like reversal mimics the logic of the original Haitian zombi myth, where the flipside of the zombi’s enslavement is his capacity to defy the limits of both death and pain. Alongside the legend of the enslaved zombi, then, we have from controversial anthropologist Wade Davis a description of the related legend of the Bizango, a zombified outcast who functions not as a ghoul but as a protective spirit for the community, as well as the importance David Cohen and C.L.R James have placed on voodoo rituals as a means of communication, military coordination, and morale-building during the 1791 Haitian revolution. In their recent “Zombie Manifesto” Sarah Juliet Lauro and Karen Embry point to this history to suggest that the zombie, in its position at the boundary between subject and object, rebel and slave, life and death, is still the best metaphor we have for what it means to resist power.

In accordance with this political prehistory of the zombie, the last hour of Serenity is one long, continuous reprisal of that ubiquitous scene in zombie cinema in which a live human must attempt to pass for a dead one in order to escape an otherwise hopeless situation—only our characters aren’t exactly pretending. First Mal orders his crew to retrofit Serenity as a Reaver vessel, complete with a leaking containment core and corpses lashed to its exterior, so they might pass safely through Reaver space. By the time they arrive at the site of the final confrontation with the Alliance, most of the crew has by now accepted that this is a suicide mission and that they are all already dead: “Do you really think any of us are gonna get through this?” In the midst of all this hopelessness, with much of the crew seriously injured or already killed, River is finally able to access consciously her super solider training and dives headlong into a battle with a group of Reavers that has also made landfall on the planet, singlehandedly killing them all. The shot that lingers on River after this battle is over makes it clear: animal-like, uncannily unfeeling, and completely covered in blood, River has essentially become a Reaver herself.

The same happens to Mal. In his fistfight with the Operative at Mr. Universe’s mainframe, the Operative is winning as always—until the Operative punches Mal in the back and appears to disable him. (The Operative is using his own super solider training here: the targeted punch, like the “touch of death” from a kung-fu film, is intended to temporarily paralyze one’s opponent by overwhelming their muscles’ ability to move.) The Operative takes a moment to gloat: “You should know there’s no shame in this. You’ve done remarkable things. But you’re fighting a war you’ve already lost.” He turns his back—allowing Mal to strike. He’d had that particular nerve cluster removed as a result of an injury he’d received during the war. Already metaphorically dead—his nerve cluster literally so—and with nothing left to lose, Mal is just enough of a zombie to finally win the fight.


Zombies in Cyberspace: 'Dollhouse'

In Dollhouse Whedon takes this twist on the zombie myth still further, focusing more directly on the original myth of an immortalized slave that stands behind Romero’s ghouls to explore the unexpected agency to be found even in positions of extreme powerlessness. Dollhouse depicts a world in which (mostly female) human bodies might be fully stripped of their autonomy and be made zombis, subject entirely to the whims of the computer programmers who can now write and rewrite the human brain as well as any hard drive. “Dolls” are programmed with new personalities in order to fulfill various one-off jobs that are almost always involve satisfying the sexual fantasies of the extremely rich and powerful. The Dolls themselves are nominally volunteers, having signed a contract (if, in some cases, under duress) in exchange for a large cash payout at the end of their tenure and (often) a promise that some aspect of their personal psychology will be reprogrammed to make them happier people afterwards—but real questions linger about the extent to which you decide to can sign away the very power to make decisions.

In an episode that features in-universe news reporting on “urban legends” about the Dollhouse, “Man on the Street” (1.6), one woman, dressed as a Wal-Mart employee, suggests she would be quite happy to work as a Doll even without this payment: “So being a Doll, you do whatever, and you don’t gotta remember nothing, or study, or pay rent, and you just party with rich people all the time. Where’s the dotted line?” This woman’s eagerness reinforces the wisdom of another interviewee, an African-American woman who angrily denounces the very idea that workers in the Dollhouse are “volunteers”: “There’s only one reason why a person would volunteer to be a slave: if they is one already. Volunteers. You must be out of your fucking mind.”

When the newscaster interviews a college professor, perhaps a teacher of biology or cognitive science, he takes a much more aggressively nightmarish view of the possibility of the Dollhouse:

Forget morality. Imagine it’s true. Imagine this technology being used. Now imagine it being used on you. Everything you believe, gone. Everyone you love, strangers. Maybe enemies. Every part of you that makes you more than a walking cluster of neurons dissolved at someone else’s whim. If that technology exists, it’ll be used. It’ll be abused. It’ll be global. And we will be over as a species. We will cease to matter. I don’t know. Maybe we should.

Consent, in this light, becomes merely a formality; the Dollhouse will get us all in the end. The immediate suggestion of the episode, however, is that this professor is importantly and chillingly wrong: the technology already exists in the real world in the form of the narcotizing spectacle of the entertainment industry, especially television itself. The next and final interviewee in “Man on the Street,” who appears immediately following a commercial break, drives this point home: “You think it’s not happening? You think they’re not controlling you? Don’t worry about it. Just sit back and wait for them to tell you what to buy.” The question is not, from this perspective, whether you might somehow be turned into a Doll, unknowingly operating according the whims of corporate interests that own both your labor power and your free time; the question is whether it’s happened already, without your even noticing, without anyone even bothering to complain.

As the series goes on Whedon pushes these questions of consent and control to one side to focus instead on a more traditional sci-fi complication. The imprinting technology turns out in the end to be fundamentally and fatally flawed; in its efforts to produce perfect slaves—to produce a zombie lack that can be filled with the sexual pliability the Dollhouse sells—the Dollhouse technology produces instead more excess in the form of a entirely new type of consciousness, one that (like the folkloric Haitian zombi) is capable of resisting and subverting the imprinting technology and repurposing it towards its own ends. Over time, the amnesiac Dolls begin to remember. And through this power of memory the Dolls slowly gain control over their unique situation; the characters portrayed by the show’s starring cast become increasingly autonomous actors, ultimately becoming protectors of both each other and the society of large. Their hybrid status—no longer their original unitary selves, but each containing a new multiplicity—gives these characters an entirely new sort of human agency. This is especially true in the case of Eliza Dushku’s Echo and Alan Tudyk’s Alpha, both of whom slowly patch together new composite personalities that are the sum of all the imprints who have been uploaded into their minds. Alpha, whose original personality already contained strongly violent tendencies, is driven mad by multiple personality disorder, becoming a brilliant but murderous sociopath in his quest for revenge against the Dollhouse (in fairness he eventually gets better). Echo is more successfully able to organize all her Dolls inside a new, multitudinous personality and, driven by an urgent empathy, seeks to awaken and liberate the other Dolls and bring down the Dollhouse that enslaves them.

In much the same way as his original vision for Buffy, in Dollhouse Whedon creates an unexpected heroine out of a character who would traditionally be figured as a passive victim in need of rescuing. Despite the clichés of the genre and the hopelessness of her situation, Echo rescues herself. And in the process the very formlessness of the Doll state, its malleable plasticity, becomes her greatest strength; the living death of the zombi, in essence, gives her a twenty-first century superpower: the ability to reprogram herself however she likes.

In “Epitaph One,” the episode originally intended to serve as a possible series finale before the show was unexpectedly renewed, we see our first glimpse of the unexpected way this story ends. The episode skips ahead ten years to a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles; the ruined city is in flames. What has happened is never made precisely clear—but Los Angeles is now divided between “actuals” (unmodified humans), “dumbshows” (pacified wanderers in the base Doll state), and “butchers” (berserk killers suggestive of nothing so much as Romero’s ghouls or Firefly’s Reavers). Finally, our two species of zombies get to meet—and the results are not pretty. As the episode proceeds we discover that the Dollhouse technology has somehow gotten loose, broadcasting “signals” of varying kinds across all communications media that transform actuals into either dumbshows or butchers. Civilization has been destroyed in an ongoing orgy of universal zombification—TV finally and forever turning all our brains to mush.

In Season Two’s series-concluding follow-up, “Epitaph Two”—continuing the plot thread begun in “Epitaph One”—we discover the 2019 versions of the series’ regular cast are still alive, hidden from the apocalypse in an agricultural enclave in the deserts of Arizona. In a sense they’re partially responsible for what has happened to the world; not only did Topher and Adelle selfishly abet the Rossum Corporation’s drive for better and better technologies of control, but the rebelling Dolls’ victories over Rossum ironically introduced the unstable power vacuum that made the global Dollpocalypse possible in the first place. Echo and the others are still fighting the remnants of Rossum as well as periodic hordes of butchers, but things are not going well; this is not a war which can be won.

Finally Topher announces that he has come up with a miraculous plan to “bring back the world”; bouncing blanket signals off the atmosphere, he believes he can simultaneously return every imprinted person to their original, actual state. It gives nothing away to tell you the plan is ultimately successful; this is, in the end, television, and happy endings are always the order of the day. At the end of “Epitaph Two” confused dumbshows and former butchers begin to wake up out of their fog into a completely transformed world. We see nothing of what they’re thinking, or of what sort of world they might actually construct from the ruins of ours. The focus instead is on our Doll heroes, most of whom have chosen to remain inside the Dollhouse for a year until the de-imprinting signal fades and it’s safe for them to reemerge. Completely unexpectedly—and, given that the show began with the Dollhouse as an obvious metaphor for human trafficking and the sex industry, somewhat disturbingly—most of our Doll heroes decide they don’t want to be restored to their original, actual selves. They’ve become something new, something powerful, something posthuman; in becoming Dolls, they’ve gained much more than they’ve lost, and they don’t want to go back.

Pop Matters