FLM films - My Webpage

2003-04-23 00:28:35-04:00 - So why Dawn anyway? - (jramire@attglobal.net)


This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix to stir memories of seasons past? My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and prospects for the sake of the child. But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think the show needed a new kid on the block? Joe Ramirez

2003-04-23 00:28:35-04:00 - So why Dawn anyway? - (jramire@attglobal.net)


This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix to stir memories of seasons past? My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and prospects for the sake of the child. But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think the show needed a new kid on the block? Joe Ramirez

2003-04-23 11:19:24+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they > think the show needed a new kid on the block? <big fat snippet> I think you're reading way too much into it. Why add Dawn as a character? Well, why add any new characters? It's because they keep things interesting, and she was something the audience wasn't expecting. She got people thinking and asking questions (where she came from, what she really is etc). It also gives the writers a chance to show off a very different side to Buffy. Plus she's kinda hot. So why not introduce her? :o) Bingus

2003-04-23 11:19:24+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Bingus <bingus@netspace.net.au-nospam->)


> But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they > think the show needed a new kid on the block? <big fat snippet> I think you're reading way too much into it. Why add Dawn as a character? Well, why add any new characters? It's because they keep things interesting, and she was something the audience wasn't expecting. She got people thinking and asking questions (where she came from, what she really is etc). It also gives the writers a chance to show off a very different side to Buffy. Plus she's kinda hot. So why not introduce her? :o) Bingus

2003-04-23 11:20:38+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


Well, Joss knew pretty early that the actress playing Joyce wanted out as a regular. And apparently he had the idea of giving Buffy a sister as early as season 3. I'm not too sure what he was thinking though. Maybe he thought as the Scoobies got older(and started looking more like their real ages) that the teenage audience would leave if they didn't have a character to identify with. Joss must have known that many of the long time fans wouldn't like the move to retroactively insert a new character into the show, particularly one so lame as Dawn. But ultimately the writers failed by writing her as so immature(much more so than the original gang) and whiny.

2003-04-23 11:20:38+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


Well, Joss knew pretty early that the actress playing Joyce wanted out as a regular. And apparently he had the idea of giving Buffy a sister as early as season 3. I'm not too sure what he was thinking though. Maybe he thought as the Scoobies got older(and started looking more like their real ages) that the teenage audience would leave if they didn't have a character to identify with. Joss must have known that many of the long time fans wouldn't like the move to retroactively insert a new character into the show, particularly one so lame as Dawn. But ultimately the writers failed by writing her as so immature(much more so than the original gang) and whiny.

2003-04-23 13:19:58-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (lpadilla@voicenet.com)


<jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > to stir memories of seasons past? > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > prospects for the sake of the child. > > But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think > the show needed a new kid on the block? > > Joe Ramirez Plus, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Michelle Trachtenberg have always maintained that they became like sisters in real life after acting together in All My Children, and seized upon the opportunity to create that situation in the Buffyverse.

2003-04-23 13:19:58-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (lpadilla@voicenet.com)


<jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > to stir memories of seasons past? > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > prospects for the sake of the child. > > But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think > the show needed a new kid on the block? > > Joe Ramirez Plus, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Michelle Trachtenberg have always maintained that they became like sisters in real life after acting together in All My Children, and seized upon the opportunity to create that situation in the Buffyverse.

2003-04-23 14:19:57-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (salmoneous@aol.com)


> Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Bingo. Throw out all the deep thinking, and follow the money. Buffy - the financial enterprise - lives and dies on its young female viewers. There's a believe - whether true or not is another issues - that the best way to have those viewers is to have characters they can related to. As Buffy, Cordy and Willow aged, they needed Dawn.

2003-04-23 14:19:57-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (salmoneous@aol.com)


> Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Bingo. Throw out all the deep thinking, and follow the money. Buffy - the financial enterprise - lives and dies on its young female viewers. There's a believe - whether true or not is another issues - that the best way to have those viewers is to have characters they can related to. As Buffy, Cordy and Willow aged, they needed Dawn.

2003-04-23 23:07:18-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Christine <cadmium@mindspring.com>)


<jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net... > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > to stir memories of seasons past? > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > prospects for the sake of the child. > > But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think > the show needed a new kid on the block? > When show get dull or they need a ratings boost don't they always add a cute kid, younger than the rest of the cast... Brady Bunch - Oliver Family Ties - Andy Married With Children - Seven Cosby Show - Olivia Growing Pains - Luke or Chrissy I'm sure there are more I can't think of right now. Also I think they wanted to get the show to appeal to a new group of "tweens." Christine

2003-04-23 23:07:18-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Christine <cadmium@mindspring.com>)


<jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net... > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > to stir memories of seasons past? > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > prospects for the sake of the child. > > But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think > the show needed a new kid on the block? > When show get dull or they need a ratings boost don't they always add a cute kid, younger than the rest of the cast... Brady Bunch - Oliver Family Ties - Andy Married With Children - Seven Cosby Show - Olivia Growing Pains - Luke or Chrissy I'm sure there are more I can't think of right now. Also I think they wanted to get the show to appeal to a new group of "tweens." Christine

2003-04-24 02:07:23-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


salmoneous@aol.com (salmoneous) wrote in message news:<54daff87.0304231319.6a35a585@posting.google.com>... > > Did M.E. believe that a > > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > > preteen audience? > > Bingo. Throw out all the deep thinking, and follow the money. And thus only understand half of what's going on.

2003-04-24 02:07:23-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (wallyrosenberg@hotmail.com)


salmoneous@aol.com (salmoneous) wrote in message news:<54daff87.0304231319.6a35a585@posting.google.com>... > > Did M.E. believe that a > > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > > preteen audience? > > Bingo. Throw out all the deep thinking, and follow the money. And thus only understand half of what's going on.

2003-04-24 10:09:21-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (himiko@animail.net)


<jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > to stir memories of seasons past? > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > prospects for the sake of the child. Interesting interpretation, but only of S5. But the question then remains, why did they keep her on the show? She could have pushed past Buffy and jumped on her own: many young women miscarry on their first pregnancy and then feel guilty especially if they didn't want the pregnancy in the first place so it would have worked metaphorically. They made a serious dramatic decision to keep Dawn on the show as a regular. I think it's fair to say that they had a role in mind for her that just didn't work out. Here are some possibilities: 1. Most likely: she was intended to replace Buffy as the slayer later on; too bad they forgot to give her a story in the meantime with the result that most fans grew to detest her for using up so much air time pointlessly. 2. Also very likely: the demographic issue and marketing. 3. She was supposed to serve as a measure of how much the Scoobs have matured since they were her age. Unfortunately, this isn't something fans of S1-3 want to hear (it's a less drastic version of reason #5) and was undercut by the fact that the Scoobs seemed to demature in S6. 4. Going with your analogy, they wanted to make the point that keeping an unwanted child is in fact the worst possible choice, and will result in the mother going dead inside and the child becoming a useless goober. 5. She was supposed to provide a changed p.o.v. from the first 3 seasons when we saw the world through teenage eyes and the adults were the fools for not realizing the world was about to end. Now that the Scoobs are adults, we see that what Dawn sees as demons and the end of the world are really no big deals. That would undercut the show worse than an NA ending and I really doubt that's what they had in mind, but it's possible. himiko

2003-04-24 10:09:21-07:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (himiko@animail.net)


<jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > to stir memories of seasons past? > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > prospects for the sake of the child. Interesting interpretation, but only of S5. But the question then remains, why did they keep her on the show? She could have pushed past Buffy and jumped on her own: many young women miscarry on their first pregnancy and then feel guilty especially if they didn't want the pregnancy in the first place so it would have worked metaphorically. They made a serious dramatic decision to keep Dawn on the show as a regular. I think it's fair to say that they had a role in mind for her that just didn't work out. Here are some possibilities: 1. Most likely: she was intended to replace Buffy as the slayer later on; too bad they forgot to give her a story in the meantime with the result that most fans grew to detest her for using up so much air time pointlessly. 2. Also very likely: the demographic issue and marketing. 3. She was supposed to serve as a measure of how much the Scoobs have matured since they were her age. Unfortunately, this isn't something fans of S1-3 want to hear (it's a less drastic version of reason #5) and was undercut by the fact that the Scoobs seemed to demature in S6. 4. Going with your analogy, they wanted to make the point that keeping an unwanted child is in fact the worst possible choice, and will result in the mother going dead inside and the child becoming a useless goober. 5. She was supposed to provide a changed p.o.v. from the first 3 seasons when we saw the world through teenage eyes and the adults were the fools for not realizing the world was about to end. Now that the Scoobs are adults, we see that what Dawn sees as demons and the end of the world are really no big deals. That would undercut the show worse than an NA ending and I really doubt that's what they had in mind, but it's possible. himiko

2003-04-24 21:33:08+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: >But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think >the show needed a new kid on the block? > Considering that instant-teen Connor was added to Angel in much the same way, my bet is that either ME or the WB decided the shows needed a teen character to appeal to the desired WB demographics.

2003-04-24 21:33:08+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: >But I still want to know what Joss & Co. were thinking. Why did they think >the show needed a new kid on the block? > Considering that instant-teen Connor was added to Angel in much the same way, my bet is that either ME or the WB decided the shows needed a teen character to appeal to the desired WB demographics.

2003-04-24 23:08:55-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <3ea8aa0a_4@news1.prserv.net>, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: > "himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message > news:c7902983.0304240909.2a362655@posting.google.com... > > <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > > > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' > disregard > > > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also > don't > > > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. > What > > > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no > pun > > > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > > > > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half > a > > > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent > of > > > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > > > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes > from > > > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > > > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen > or > > > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the > mix > > > to stir memories of seasons past? > > > > > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen > pregnancy. A > > > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > > > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of > the > > > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > > > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and > on > > > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > > > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > > > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > > > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life > and > > > prospects for the sake of the child. > > > > Interesting interpretation, but only of S5. But the question then > > remains, why did they keep her on the show? She could have pushed > > past Buffy and jumped on her own: many young women miscarry on their > > first pregnancy and then feel guilty especially if they didn't want > > the pregnancy in the first place so it would have worked > > metaphorically. > > > > They made a serious dramatic decision to keep Dawn on the show as a > > regular. I think it's fair to say that they had a role in mind for > > her that just didn't work out. Here are some possibilities: > > > > 1. Most likely: she was intended to replace Buffy as the slayer later > > on; too bad they forgot to give her a story in the meantime with the > > result that most fans grew to detest her for using up so much air time > > pointlessly. > > There has always been a lot of fan speculation about this idea, particularly > at the beginning of this season. Have there been any statements from ME > indicating that this plan was ever seriously considered? > > > 2. Also very likely: the demographic issue and marketing. > > All of us seem to agree on this point, which means we're probably right, > which is rather sad. > > > 3. She was supposed to serve as a measure of how much the Scoobs have > > matured since they were her age. Unfortunately, this isn't something > > fans of S1-3 want to hear (it's a less drastic version of reason #5) > > and was undercut by the fact that the Scoobs seemed to demature in S6. > > But the gang also seemed much more mature than Dawn when they were her age. > > > 4. Going with your analogy, they wanted to make the point that > > keeping an unwanted child is in fact the worst possible choice, and > > will result in the mother going dead inside and the child becoming a > > useless goober. > > Well, I'm not sure how many of the details of season six had been worked out > when season five was being produced, but I do like the expression "useless > goober." > > > 5. She was supposed to provide a changed p.o.v. from the first 3 > > seasons when we saw the world through teenage eyes and the adults were > > the fools for not realizing the world was about to end. Now that the > > Scoobs are adults, we see that what Dawn sees as demons and the end of > > the world are really no big deals. That would undercut the show worse > > than an NA ending and I really doubt that's what they had in mind, but > > it's possible. > > Except that Dawn was usually threatened by evil forces that *were* a big > deal. 6. Dawn was never intended to last beyond season 5 since Joss originally planned to end the series at the fifth year mark. Willow's partner was planned to die during the fifth season and the dark Willow arc would have followed. Glory would have been died but Sunnydale would have been sucked into the portal as Buffy and Dark Willow duked it out. Everyone, with the possible exception of Xander, would have died. This explains why Dawn's character was never developed during S6....

2003-04-24 23:08:55-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <3ea8aa0a_4@news1.prserv.net>, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: > "himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message > news:c7902983.0304240909.2a362655@posting.google.com... > > <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > > > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' > disregard > > > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also > don't > > > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. > What > > > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no > pun > > > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > > > > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half > a > > > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent > of > > > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > > > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes > from > > > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > > > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen > or > > > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the > mix > > > to stir memories of seasons past? > > > > > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen > pregnancy. A > > > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > > > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of > the > > > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > > > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and > on > > > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > > > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > > > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > > > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life > and > > > prospects for the sake of the child. > > > > Interesting interpretation, but only of S5. But the question then > > remains, why did they keep her on the show? She could have pushed > > past Buffy and jumped on her own: many young women miscarry on their > > first pregnancy and then feel guilty especially if they didn't want > > the pregnancy in the first place so it would have worked > > metaphorically. > > > > They made a serious dramatic decision to keep Dawn on the show as a > > regular. I think it's fair to say that they had a role in mind for > > her that just didn't work out. Here are some possibilities: > > > > 1. Most likely: she was intended to replace Buffy as the slayer later > > on; too bad they forgot to give her a story in the meantime with the > > result that most fans grew to detest her for using up so much air time > > pointlessly. > > There has always been a lot of fan speculation about this idea, particularly > at the beginning of this season. Have there been any statements from ME > indicating that this plan was ever seriously considered? > > > 2. Also very likely: the demographic issue and marketing. > > All of us seem to agree on this point, which means we're probably right, > which is rather sad. > > > 3. She was supposed to serve as a measure of how much the Scoobs have > > matured since they were her age. Unfortunately, this isn't something > > fans of S1-3 want to hear (it's a less drastic version of reason #5) > > and was undercut by the fact that the Scoobs seemed to demature in S6. > > But the gang also seemed much more mature than Dawn when they were her age. > > > 4. Going with your analogy, they wanted to make the point that > > keeping an unwanted child is in fact the worst possible choice, and > > will result in the mother going dead inside and the child becoming a > > useless goober. > > Well, I'm not sure how many of the details of season six had been worked out > when season five was being produced, but I do like the expression "useless > goober." > > > 5. She was supposed to provide a changed p.o.v. from the first 3 > > seasons when we saw the world through teenage eyes and the adults were > > the fools for not realizing the world was about to end. Now that the > > Scoobs are adults, we see that what Dawn sees as demons and the end of > > the world are really no big deals. That would undercut the show worse > > than an NA ending and I really doubt that's what they had in mind, but > > it's possible. > > Except that Dawn was usually threatened by evil forces that *were* a big > deal. 6. Dawn was never intended to last beyond season 5 since Joss originally planned to end the series at the fifth year mark. Willow's partner was planned to die during the fifth season and the dark Willow arc would have followed. Glory would have been died but Sunnydale would have been sucked into the portal as Buffy and Dark Willow duked it out. Everyone, with the possible exception of Xander, would have died. This explains why Dawn's character was never developed during S6....

2003-04-24 23:21:27-04:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (jramire@attglobal.net)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304240909.2a362655@posting.google.com... > <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > > to stir memories of seasons past? > > > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > > prospects for the sake of the child. > > Interesting interpretation, but only of S5. But the question then > remains, why did they keep her on the show? She could have pushed > past Buffy and jumped on her own: many young women miscarry on their > first pregnancy and then feel guilty especially if they didn't want > the pregnancy in the first place so it would have worked > metaphorically. > > They made a serious dramatic decision to keep Dawn on the show as a > regular. I think it's fair to say that they had a role in mind for > her that just didn't work out. Here are some possibilities: > > 1. Most likely: she was intended to replace Buffy as the slayer later > on; too bad they forgot to give her a story in the meantime with the > result that most fans grew to detest her for using up so much air time > pointlessly. There has always been a lot of fan speculation about this idea, particularly at the beginning of this season. Have there been any statements from ME indicating that this plan was ever seriously considered? > 2. Also very likely: the demographic issue and marketing. All of us seem to agree on this point, which means we're probably right, which is rather sad. > 3. She was supposed to serve as a measure of how much the Scoobs have > matured since they were her age. Unfortunately, this isn't something > fans of S1-3 want to hear (it's a less drastic version of reason #5) > and was undercut by the fact that the Scoobs seemed to demature in S6. But the gang also seemed much more mature than Dawn when they were her age. > 4. Going with your analogy, they wanted to make the point that > keeping an unwanted child is in fact the worst possible choice, and > will result in the mother going dead inside and the child becoming a > useless goober. Well, I'm not sure how many of the details of season six had been worked out when season five was being produced, but I do like the expression "useless goober." > 5. She was supposed to provide a changed p.o.v. from the first 3 > seasons when we saw the world through teenage eyes and the adults were > the fools for not realizing the world was about to end. Now that the > Scoobs are adults, we see that what Dawn sees as demons and the end of > the world are really no big deals. That would undercut the show worse > than an NA ending and I really doubt that's what they had in mind, but > it's possible. Except that Dawn was usually threatened by evil forces that *were* a big deal. Joe Ramirez

2003-04-24 23:21:27-04:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (jramire@attglobal.net)


"himiko" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in message news:c7902983.0304240909.2a362655@posting.google.com... > <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3ea616c6_4@news1.prserv.net>... > > This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard > > of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't > > really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What > > I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun > > intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > > > Buffy gets a sister out of nowhere and then loses her mother within half a > > season. She goes from a young woman who is gradually growing independent of > > her parent and learning to explore the world at large to someone saddled > > with a dependent who dogs her steps like a starving poodle. Buffy goes from > > college student to fast food career-pather. Why? Did M.E. believe that a > > younger cast member was necessary to help the show reconnect with a teen or > > preteen audience? Did they want to throw a high schooler back into the mix > > to stir memories of seasons past? > > > > My take is that the Dawn story was a bizarre allegory for teen pregnancy. A > > young woman is suddenly burdened with a new life that is completely > > dependent on her; the male factor that contributed to the creation of the > > new life is of zero help. The new parent is pursued on one side by the > > vicious representatives of "god" who want her to give up the child and on > > the other by ruthless pragmatists who suggest that ending the new life > > (abortion?) might be the best way to save the woman's world -- which in > > Buffy's case is *the* world. In the end, the woman rejects both these > > alternatives and accepts the burden willingly, giving up her own life and > > prospects for the sake of the child. > > Interesting interpretation, but only of S5. But the question then > remains, why did they keep her on the show? She could have pushed > past Buffy and jumped on her own: many young women miscarry on their > first pregnancy and then feel guilty especially if they didn't want > the pregnancy in the first place so it would have worked > metaphorically. > > They made a serious dramatic decision to keep Dawn on the show as a > regular. I think it's fair to say that they had a role in mind for > her that just didn't work out. Here are some possibilities: > > 1. Most likely: she was intended to replace Buffy as the slayer later > on; too bad they forgot to give her a story in the meantime with the > result that most fans grew to detest her for using up so much air time > pointlessly. There has always been a lot of fan speculation about this idea, particularly at the beginning of this season. Have there been any statements from ME indicating that this plan was ever seriously considered? > 2. Also very likely: the demographic issue and marketing. All of us seem to agree on this point, which means we're probably right, which is rather sad. > 3. She was supposed to serve as a measure of how much the Scoobs have > matured since they were her age. Unfortunately, this isn't something > fans of S1-3 want to hear (it's a less drastic version of reason #5) > and was undercut by the fact that the Scoobs seemed to demature in S6. But the gang also seemed much more mature than Dawn when they were her age. > 4. Going with your analogy, they wanted to make the point that > keeping an unwanted child is in fact the worst possible choice, and > will result in the mother going dead inside and the child becoming a > useless goober. Well, I'm not sure how many of the details of season six had been worked out when season five was being produced, but I do like the expression "useless goober." > 5. She was supposed to provide a changed p.o.v. from the first 3 > seasons when we saw the world through teenage eyes and the adults were > the fools for not realizing the world was about to end. Now that the > Scoobs are adults, we see that what Dawn sees as demons and the end of > the world are really no big deals. That would undercut the show worse > than an NA ending and I really doubt that's what they had in mind, but > it's possible. Except that Dawn was usually threatened by evil forces that *were* a big deal. Joe Ramirez

2003-04-26 08:10:32-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (tmac <nospam@noemail.net>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:24:34 GMT, dsueme@core.com (David M. Sueme) wrote: >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: > >>This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard >>of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't >>really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What >>I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun >>intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > >They tried to replace the Angel "focus" once with a sister (in >arms)... Faith. This didn't pan out quite right. But lacking any >other idea, they tried again. > >Trouble boyfriend, trouble sister - I'm so looking forward to deleting >this newsgroup. > Who's stopping you from doing it right now?

2003-04-26 08:10:32-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (tmac <nospam@noemail.net>)


On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:24:34 GMT, dsueme@core.com (David M. Sueme) wrote: >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: > >>This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard >>of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't >>really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What >>I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun >>intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > >They tried to replace the Angel "focus" once with a sister (in >arms)... Faith. This didn't pan out quite right. But lacking any >other idea, they tried again. > >Trouble boyfriend, trouble sister - I'm so looking forward to deleting >this newsgroup. > Who's stopping you from doing it right now?

2003-04-26 08:42:08-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3eaa79c0.336847548@news.voyager.net>, dsueme@core.com (David M. Sueme) wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: > > >This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' > >disregard of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also > >don't really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. > >What I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no > >pun intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > They tried to replace the Angel "focus" once with a sister (in > arms)... Faith. This didn't pan out quite right. It panned out just fine for everyone but you. > Trouble boyfriend, trouble sister - I'm so looking forward to deleting > this newsgroup. And yet in another thread you were talking about how much you enjoy posting to this newsgroup. You're so full of shit it leaks out your ears.

2003-04-26 08:42:08-05:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3eaa79c0.336847548@news.voyager.net>, dsueme@core.com (David M. Sueme) wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: > > >This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' > >disregard of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also > >don't really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. > >What I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no > >pun intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? > > They tried to replace the Angel "focus" once with a sister (in > arms)... Faith. This didn't pan out quite right. It panned out just fine for everyone but you. > Trouble boyfriend, trouble sister - I'm so looking forward to deleting > this newsgroup. And yet in another thread you were talking about how much you enjoy posting to this newsgroup. You're so full of shit it leaks out your ears.

2003-04-26 12:24:34+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (dsueme@core.com)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: >This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard >of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't >really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What >I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun >intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? They tried to replace the Angel "focus" once with a sister (in arms)... Faith. This didn't pan out quite right. But lacking any other idea, they tried again. Trouble boyfriend, trouble sister - I'm so looking forward to deleting this newsgroup. Dave When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-04-26 12:24:34+00:00 - Re: So why Dawn anyway? - (dsueme@core.com)


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:28:35 -0400, <jramire@attglobal.net> wrote: >This is not another complaint about the Dawnverse or the Scoobies' disregard >of their obligation to protect the world from magical attack. I also don't >really care about how Dawn functioned in the Glory-Key-Hell storyline. What >I would like to know is this: Why did the writers decide to revamp (no pun >intended!) Buffy's family so dramatically? They tried to replace the Angel "focus" once with a sister (in arms)... Faith. This didn't pan out quite right. But lacking any other idea, they tried again. Trouble boyfriend, trouble sister - I'm so looking forward to deleting this newsgroup. Dave When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG