It's been crazy watching License-gate unfold over the last 24 hours. Buffyfest has been privy to this juicy bit of news for quite some time now and we were just waiting for the official announcement to hit the web so we could finally talk about it! As you'll see from the following interview with Scott Allie, this wasn't the way it was all supposed to go down. But the truth is out and it's time to look forward to Season 9 while still relishing in the awesome stories that IDW is putting out right now.
Buffyfest: How did this huge announcement wind up in the back of the Riley one-shot?
Scott Allie: STUPIDITY. I screwed up. I am a slob.
Buffyfest: Was there a particular reason this wasn't announced at San Diego Comic Con?
Scott Allie: Yeah. Me promising Chris Ryall we'd wait until later in the year. That was the specific reason it was not announced at San Diego. Apparently it did not prevent me from writing it in a goddamn column that I blacked out of my memory until I got a phone call from Chris, and he ... refreshed me.
Buffyfest: Now that the Angel franchise is back with Dark Horse, what does this mean for the characters of that universe? Will Angel have his own title? Will any other characters get their own books? Any specifics?
Scott Allie: Well, it's not here yet. IDW has a bunch of stories yet to tell. But yes, Angel will eventually have his own title, as will some other characters. Some to last the whole of Season 9, some shorter. Details won't be coming for a little bit yet. I'll give you guys something exclusive at New York Comic Con.
Buffyfest: Will Joss be overseeing the Angel titles like he is with Buffy?
Scott Allie: Yeah, all titles of S9 will be part of a singular plan. Avengers will definitely take up more of his time than Dollhouse did, but we've got a plan we're gonna manage together.
Buffyfest: IDW's press release mentioned that their Angel series will tie in with what's happening with your story at Dark Horse. To what extent is that happening?
Buffyfest: Will all the Buffy and Angel characters be interacting with one another throughout Season 9?
Scott Allie: Yes, but believe me, it sucks to have too many characters in a single book. All these characters will be in continuity with one another, there will be as much fluid crossover as we want, but S9 will not be all about getting twenty pithy characters in a room together.
Buffyfest: Will we see Buffy in Angel's book or Angel in Buffy's? What about secondary characters such as Connor or Illyria interacting in Buffy's book?
Scott Allie: Yep, yep. Can't give you specifics, but what you're talking about is sort of the point. Think early Marvel universe. This will be the Buffyverse.
Buffyfest: Switching gears to the Riley One-Shot. It seems like Jane Espenson was really paralleling Riley and Sam's relationship with Angel and Buffy's.
Scott Allie: Thank you, Michelle! Bingo. Has anyone else figured that?
Buffyfest: For example Riley's line, "No, it's okay. We're together even when we're not" can just as easily be Angel's line. Are we supposed to see it that way?
Scott Allie: Jane Espenson is HOTTT!
Buffyfest: What makes the relationships between Riley and Sam and Buffy and Angel similar? What makes them different?
Scott Allie: That is such a great question, but I think it's really for readers to think about, not for me to answer. But when we decided to do a Riley oneshot, our reasons were fairly simple. We felt that Riley's role in S8 needed a bit of explanation, and that it could shed some light on Twilight's days before he revealed himself to Buffy. But the stuff Jane came up with really elevated it. It revealed more about Season 8 than we'd imagined when Joss and I first decided to do the oneshot. Much praise upon Jane.
Buffyfest: A few questions about the surprise appearance of Whistler. How long has Whistler been back in the picture as of this issue and how long has Angel been Twilight as of this moment? Will we be seeing Whistler again?Scott Allie: You will see Whistler again. Yeah. No hard answers to the other part of your question. We don't like defining the timeline more than we have to, but it was my suggestion to put Whistler in that role—we needed someone Angel trusted to talk to, and I came up with Whistler— and Jane and Joss were real into it, because he's been out of it for so long.
Buffyfest: In the preview to Buffy #36, we see Angel seemingly hearing voices from a number of strange, random sources, including a bird. What's up with that? Is Whistler really Whistler?
Scott Allie: Whistler is Whistler, but you'll see what's up with those other voices shortly. It's pretty clear a few pages into #36. It's already at the printers.
Buffyfest: The subtitle of the Riley One-Shot "Commitment Through Distance, Virtue Through Sin" seems to be Angel's destiny in this issue and many times in his past. Can you talk about how that title came about?
Scott Allie: Sure. Jane was working on the script, sent me that title in an email asking if I thought it was cool, and I just thought, Man, that is a lot of words to put on the cover. But it had a great, military-recruitment-ad vibe to it, and hit the theme right on the noggin. So, as I often do with Jane, I said, Yes.
Buffyfest: Does that title have implications going forward as we head into the final arc?
Scott Allie: Eh, sort of, but it's more where we've been, where a lot of our characters have been, how these relationships go.
Buffyfest: Is this the last we'll see of Riley this season? What about season 9?
Scott Allie: We will see more of him in the future, but I won't say exactly when.
Buffyfest: Finally, since the Angel title is back at Dark Horse and since everyone knows you HATE Spike, can we expect Spike to be dusted and dead forever in the first issue?
Scott Allie: Well, I start co-writing as of #37 ...
And there you have it!
Photo Credit: Dirk Wood
28 comments:
OMG, I love you guys and I love Scott Allie. I am so glad it's not just my B/A shipper bias that saw the SCREAMING B/A subtext and to have Scott Allie acknowledge that is AWESOME.
Also loving the vibe for what will happen with the convergence of the two titles under one publishing house. *squeals with delight*
I really wish someone would actually chuck an idw hardcover at scotts face
I realise these 2 are being flip n' funny, for the most part. However, if ANYONE harms ONE hair on Spike's beautiful, fictitious head, there's gonna be TROUBLE!!
Scott Allie must have a very low opinion of the readership - if he thinks that the Riley-Sam/Buffy-Angel parallels are completely obvious.
And if he thinks that his flippant answer regarding your statement of his "hatred of Spike" is clever, you are both wrong. Neither the your statement or his answer are "flip or funny," they are insensitive to a great many of the Buffyverse fans.
Spike, a character created by Joss Whedon, is both a great character, as was his powerful and intellectually fascinating and compelling story. Mr. Allie or you may not find the character equal to your standards of a heroic role model, but let me assure you both a great many Buffyverse and Angelverse readers and fans do.
That you have a personal choice and perspective on, I think is evident by the visuals that you use in this interview. I respectfully suggest that you show a little more sensitivity to all the fans of the Buffyverse, and yes that includes Spike fans.
cil_domney
I'm getting more than tired of Buffyworld's most boring character. Now again he taking away screentime from other characters.
cil_domney, no offense intended there. But no personal perspective stated either. I think you may be a little paranoid. I, for one, personally LOVE Spike and agree that he is a great character. Those visuals are celebrating/bashing each 'ship equally.
Fact is, Scott Allie is often so publicly hated (and unfortunately sometimes abused, even) by die-hard Spike fans. So I do find his answer clever. If he can't laugh at it, what should he do? Cry?
Hi cil_domney,
Thanks for your comments. I just wanted to address a few things that you stated.
1.) "Scott Allie must have a very low opinion of the readership - if he thinks that the Riley-Sam/Buffy-Angel parallels are completely obvious."
I don't think that's what Scott was saying. He was excited that someone else was excited about the story and he was giving praise to Jane Espenson for writing a very complex story with depth of meaning. I, as a reader of the comic, saw parallels and asked him about it.
2.)"And if he thinks that his flippant answer regarding your statement of his "hatred of Spike" is clever, you are both wrong. Neither the your statement or
his answer are "flip or funny," they are insensitive to a great many of the Buffyverse fans."
I was not trying to be insensitive, but make light of a subject that seems to have gotten out of hand. Scott is obviously not going to kill Spike off and
that's why it's funny.
3.)"That you have a personal choice and perspective on, I think is evident by the visuals that you use in this interview. I respectfully suggest that you
show a little more sensitivity to all the fans of the Buffyverse, and yes that includes Spike fans."
Those pics don't make fun of Spike at all. They actually make fun of Angel.
If I was paid a penny everytime you guys push your Bangel agenda down the writers throats, I'd be filthy rich by now.
I find it a little odd that a joke is being made such a big deal of by someone who purports to love Spike, a character who, frankly, made a bit of a career out of taking the piss.
I'm calling it. Spike is Team Buffyfest. Someone make t-shirts.
"Scott Allie must have a very low opinion of the readership - if he thinks that the Riley-Sam/Buffy-Angel parallels are completely obvious."
First, I must apologize for the huge typo error. My comment should have been - "...that the Riley-Sam/Buffy-Angel parallels are not completely obvious." - as they are obvious.
Second - Again, obvious, that the Buffyfest Interview Comments and Scott Allie's answer pertain to the history between a very few Spike Fans and their opinions of Mr. Allie.
My intent was not to solicit any response to my comments, but to give voice to the effect that your question and Scott Allie's remarks might have for a great many of the Spike fans that visit your site. What could very well be a Joke and Clever to you, is not going to be particularly funny or clever to many of the Spike fans.
I sorry to see that my sincere concern are seen as "I think you may be a little paranoid." - why anyone should interpret my comments in this manner - I don't understand. I was simply expressing a reasonable position that many of your other readers will also agree with.
Nor do I appreciate, what I consider your condescension I'm calling it. Spike is Team Buffyfest. Someone make t-shirts." I am not a fool or some crazy over-the-top fanatic Spike Lover. What I am is a devoted Buffyverse fan, who comes to this site for information and who has always tried to give the respect to other fans that I would expect for myself.
I am sorry if my comments seem nonsensical or that I did not find your last question and Scott Allie's response particularly clever. Nor was my intent to make a big deal out of it - it was simply my heartfelt response.
Yet another COMPLETELY unbiased interview by Buffyfest. Fox News really should recruit these guys.
That was me posting above anonoymously, but I do feel strongly enough that your interview felt biased through the lens of a Buffy/Angel shipper to put my name next to my comment. You feed your critics when you try to make everything go back to Buffy/Angel, post pictures from #34 of Angel molesting Buffy (my knee-jerk reaction when I first saw that image spoiled on Splash Page months ago is still valid) not once, but three times, and egg Scott on to bash a character when fans of that character have in fact have had many heart-to-heart conversations about the subject with Scott and have otherwise let that fire die down. If you wish for those that criticize your website to stop, try listening to those criticisms instead of going straight on the defensive. We generally don't want to start something, but your absolute insistence that you handle yourselves with journalistic integrity when the bias is so obvious (really, you think that the whole Sam/Riley thing was supposed to parallel Buffy/Angel? Really?) makes it hard to take you seriously.
Dear Eilowyn,
I appreciate you putting your name out there so we can discuss this. I'm usually the quiet one out of the three of us who doesn't say anything when people constantly call out this site for things that I believe are unwarranted, but this time I couldn't. There is nothing bias in this interview, but even as I type this I know it doesn't matter. You and the ones you say are going to "start something", will always see us the way you want. Still, I feel I must state my side of things.
First of all, did you read the captions we put in the comic panels? Each one of them are meant to be funny and for the most part, make fun of Angel. The artistic choice had nothing, I mean nothing to do with Buffy and Angel as a couple doing the deed. Please read the captions.
Next, the reason I asked about the Riley/Sam and Buffy/Angel parallel had nothing to do with shipping. I read the issue and I honestly saw the connection in the story. I asked Scott about it and he confirmed. If you have a problem with it, please take it up with Jane Espenson. I didn't pen the story, I just read it and took away with me that meaning. Why does that make me a shipper? Does it mean that any time I see a part of the story that has an element of the Buffy/Angel relationship that I should ignore it? I'll never do that, sorry.
The Spike question. I can't believe that you don't see that as a joke. We were teasing Scott Allie and the part of the Buffverse that are at odds with him. We weren't being negative toward the character of Spike at all, just having a little fun with the fandom. On that note, if this isn't about fun, then what is it about?
As for going on the defensive, how can I/we not? You're coming to our site and probably going to others and insisting that we have no integrity and that we have a shipping bias. I've listened to you and the people above in this comment section, but nothing I say will make it okay. As a matter of fact, it seems the only way for us to be okay in your eyes is if we say nothing or just focus on what you're interested in. That is completely unfair. I like Buffy and I'm not going to stop talking about things in the story just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. I just won't do it.
I don't know what else to say. We do this for free because we love Buffy and we want everyone to enjoy the posts we put out, but if you are going to insist on seeing what you want to see, I can't help you. As I said at the beginning of this longer than I expected reply, I can almost bet that everything I've said will be seen as nothing but a lie. Even though, I feel better for getting this off my chest. Thanks for that.
-Michelle
I guess I just don't see what Joss sees in this guy and Dark Horse. Sure he can be somewhat amusing in his interviews from time to time but a lot times I think he just comes off as too goofy. This is the second time that Dark Horse has accidently release information before they were suppose to and both times we have been given an explanation that can be pretty much summed up by the word "oops." I know everyone makes mistakes and the first time it happen I could understand but a second time... Does nobody at Dark Horse talk to each other or proof read anything? It just makes me wonder what is going on over there. IDW doesn't have problems like this and Chris and Mariah have always been very professional in my opinion.
Thanks for posting the interview, there is some interesting material there.
The Riley/Sam // Angel/Buffy parallels are obvious; the coolness is how layered and multifaceted they are. The issue is rife with lots of parallels, lots of resonances all over the place to think about. I did think it was a bit overly specific to ask Scott about one particular resonance that is attached to one particular agenda (see, e.g. your first commenter), but I admired Scott's deft reply about Jane's excellent writing, without committing to a particular interpretation of why that parallel might be interesting or what it means. You seemed to pick up on that, and I loved your next question, which was genuinely open-ended:
Buffyfest: What makes the relationships between Riley and Sam and Buffy and Angel similar? What makes them different?
Scott Allie: That is such a great question, but I think it's really for readers to think about, not for me to answer.
Lots of similarities and lots of differences. Above all a text rich enough to support a wide variety reader interpretations. Like y'all I love, love, love that Jane has delivered a classic 'verse story with lots of layers and lots of different angles from which to read things. I love the respect for the audience implied in Allie's answer.
Allie's been patient and gracious despite getting criticism from all around the fandom. Did you read Whedonesque today? Some fans were complaining about Allie caring more about his son than about an obscure post on facebook. I cringe when I see such hostility directed at the guy. Today it's the IDW-centric folks; tomorrow it'll be some other segment of the fandom. It seemed a bit strange to close out both this interview and the one at IDW with a joke that draws attention to a few of the more unpleasant voices from one particular segment of the fandom. It'd be unfortunate if the impression were created that there's more hostility out there than there really is, or that you have some interest in giving disproportionate attention to one form of hostility. For myself, I like Allie. I disagree with him on a few things, but I have always found him to be pleasant and patient in our few correspondances, and I know many others over on LJ who have had similar experiences. Maybe in your next interview you could find a way to joke about the many fans (not just here) who actually like Allie, and appreciate his efforts at negotiating a thorny fandom. Just a thought.
First of all, I just want to salute Maggie for being a far more diplomatic person than I. She and I have discussed the comics extensively, and I'd like to think that I could be capable of such a balanced commenting if I wasn't responding in the heat of the moment.
Second, I'd like to respond to Michelle with an experiment: I'm going to go over your response to me, examine your contentions with me, and admit when I could have been wrong.
True, I didn't read the captions on the panels until you pointed them out. Repugnance with that image (and much of the wishy-washy pornography of issue #34) caused me to ignore looking at them too closely, and while I tittered a bit, I figure you still didn't need to repeat the image three times to get a point across, but that's your artistic choice. So be it.
See? It really wasn't so hard. Admitting that there could be construed, on some level, a shipping agenda in your own work couldn't hurt you either, could only serve to make you a better interviewer next time. I'll be a more thorough reader next time, too, and not jump to such conclusions without reading the image captions. Deal?
Next, I've seen your site be capable of acting without bias, so I'm trying not to paint the entire site with a biased brush. I found your review of this issue to be very apt, and agreed with much of it. However, I felt the need to call you out for focusing specifically on something that screams shipper bias, as evidenced by Lucinda's effusive response. This is known as the Riley one-shot, and as the Riley one-shot, the more obvious parallels were made with Angel singly rather than the Riley/Sam, Angel/Buffy parallels, which are only one aspect of this? It's a choice like this which I find suspect; when there are so many other parallels and resonances, you ask about the one that would affirm a particular ship. What was Allie supposed to say? No, you're totally off base? Yes, there was some comparison with Angel/Buffy made, but it wasn't the major comparison Espenson was going for: she was comparing the men as characters and their choices in conjunction with honesty about motivations with Buffy, and comparing the relationships with the women was just one aspect of that. You also picked the shippiest interpretation of a line to ask about, so there is that to acknowledge as well.
I'm trying not to paint you all as terrible people with no integrity whatsoever, because I've seen you do other reviews and interviews well. When we (us people who really don't want to start something at all, we just want to see a little less validation-seeking for a particular ship when we read interviews from the higher ups) see things like this, we take in a history of questionable posts, and interpret this as bias. Because this is possible, all I'm asking is that you try acknowledging that yes, you may be working with a personal bias you may not be aware of, and at least try better next time. That's really all we can do, and all we ask.
Hi. I've been following the IDW/DH story with interest. Thanks for posting the interview. It was very interesting, as is your interview with Chris Ryall and Mariah Huehner.
I would ask one thing of you. Given that fandom is such a volatile place, do you really think it's a good idea to choose the same fan faction over and over again as the butt of your humor? I get that there are people in that faction who have said some silly things, but that's true of all fan factions. This constant picking and picking at this same faction (which continues on in your subsequent interview with Mr Ryall and Ms Huehner)can be pretty irritating after a while when you're always on the receiving end.
The way I see it, there was an initial disagreement many years ago between Scott Allie and three Spike fans (yes, three), which has been built up in the collective fandom consciousness as something far bigger than it actually was. Since then, many Spike fans have had personal interaction with Mr Allie and found him to be very gracious and fair minded. Yet fansites such as yours seem to make a habit of building up this supposed antagonism until it's been blown up out of all proportion and everyone - including Mr Allie, it seems - believes it's a matter of fact.
You say it's meant to be funny - and yes, it is funny, the first two or three times it happens. However, when it's the same group of people being laughed at over and over, it seems less and less like humor to those people and more like deliberate targetting, whatever the original intention was.
I'm not asking you not to make jokes. I'm just asking you to not fan non-existent (or barely existent) flames into something they're not. All Buffyverse fan factions have their extremists and troublemakers and it's unfair to imply that this is only true of one.
Thanks very much.
Good point about the whole Scott Allie/Spike thing. I'm sick of hearing about it and having it be an interview stable for Scott. At a certain point the horse is dead and you need to quit beating it. Do I think Scott is out to get Spike and that he is going to kill the character when Dark Horse takes over - no, of course, not Spike is way too popular and interesting a character for anyone to think that would be a good idea. None of the other fans concerns were addressed in this interview. He barely tells us what happen with license-gate (for lack of a better term) and he is really vague about plans for the Angel series. My main concern about Angel going over to Dark Horse is that I found Buffy S8 to be a huge misfire and I don't want the same to happen to Angel. A lot of fans feel the same way. For me S8 has been a long trip on a bumpy road. It has been over-the-top with a lot guest appearances for the sake of guest appearances. They should have picked a plot and stuck with it. The whole Twilight thing was more WTF than interesting to me while some of the smaller plots would have made for a much better main story (a mohawk toting rogue slayer for example). Someone said once that the best stories are the simple ones that are told really well. I don't trust yet that Dark Horse can do this and I would have liked it if Scott could have attempted to ease some of my worries.
The fact is Scott Allie gets abused. We asked about it because it's happening. It's not happening because we talked about it.
What supports that is the nasty comment that was posted yesterday about Allie...you know the one. It's one thing to dislike Scott Allie's professional decisions, it's another thing to attack one's family. When that shit stops, we'll won't have any more to say about it.
Dear Maggie,
Glad you liked the issue as much as I did and I guess it's time for me to do that defense thing again.
I did think it was a bit overly specific to ask Scott about one particular resonance that is attached to one particular agenda (see, e.g. your first commenter)
As I said above, there was no agenda. I liked that one line because it had such a Hemingway-esque simplicity about it. For me, that line clearly outlined how Riley felt and in my opinion how Angel felt which was a compliment to Jane Espenson. I didn't say I thought the line was gospel or even that Angel's feelings are what really is happening. I guess the point is that if I would have picked another line that showed Jane Espenson's writing ability, none of this would have happened.
I love, love, love that Jane has delivered a classic 'verse story with lots of layers and lots of different angles from which to read things. I love the respect for the audience implied in Allie's answer.
Me too!
It seemed a bit strange to close out both this interview and the one at IDW with a joke that draws attention to a few of the more unpleasant voices from one particular segment of the fandom. It'd be unfortunate if the impression were created that there's more hostility out there than there really is, or that you have some interest in giving disproportionate attention to one form of hostility.
Seriously Maggie? I'm creating the impression that "there's more hostility out there than there really is?" Before we did these interviews people were already railing on Scott and therefore, we brought it to the surface. I know you know it's not "a few unpleasant voices".
Maybe in your next interview you could find a way to joke about the many fans (not just here) who actually like Allie, and appreciate his efforts at negotiating a thorny fandom. Just a thought.
How is making a joke about fans who like Allie funny? The reason the latter was funny is because all the things people say about Scott aren't true.
We welcome all comments here and thanks for yours.
-Michelle
Tara -- I don't much like mocking any fans. If the problem is hostility, mocking people usually raises the hostility and makes things worse. But to each his own.
I share your dislike of the abuse Allie gets. I've been publicly defending him on various points for quite some time. But the fact of the matter is that your joke wasn't about the vile notion on Whedonesque that Scott's priorities are wrong because he went to his sons pre-school graduation. Nor did you joke about all the people who are lambasting Scott for the second major PR mistake in a year. Instead you trotted out the well-worn joke about how ridiculous some Spike fans are. (And yes, the idea that Scott hates Spike is ridiculous). Indeed, you made the same joke twice (and implied again in your cartoon).
This sort of argument never works, but walk a mile in another's shoes. Bangel fans said some stupid things about Joss after NFA. If everytime a particular fan site brought up those old Bangel remarks frequently in interviews with the powers that be, or tweeted them every time a Bangel said something silly -- wouldn't you start to get the feeling that the fan site had an axe to grind about Bangel fans?
Michelle, I certainly didn't mean to make you feel like you had to adopt a defensive posture and write a long detailed reply. I offered a minor criticism in a paragraph that spent much more time talking about what I liked about the interview. But if suggestions only provoke defensiveness, I will by all means avoid making them in the future.
Peace!
To answer your question: If Bangel fans started a movement that lasted for years against a professional, we'd ask that professional about it too. No bias there, just general interviewee reaction about his attacker. And no, I wouldn't necessarily think that they had an axe to grind, just that they're commenting on the current climate of the fandom.
I saw your point/question on Whedonesque"
"How about: Scott, is it true that you're going to sacrifice your son to the comic gods so that he doesn't get in the way of your duties as hall monitor at your facebook site ever again? (No, I don't think that's funny either, but honestly fans say plenty of stupid things; if you want to mock them why not spread the joy around a bit?)"
Maggie, that's a great question. Unfortunately that hadn't happened yet when we interviewed him, but we'll definitely keep it for next time. Thanks.
Maggie,
I think you mixed-up what I was saying. You are welcome to our site any time. As for my reply, just commenting on the multiple comments you made about my bias and trying to clear the air.
Thanks,
Michelle
Hi Eilowyn,
Here we go.
See? It really wasn't so hard. Admitting that there could be construed, on some level, a shipping agenda in your own work couldn't hurt you either, could only serve to make you a better interviewer next time. I'll be a more thorough reader next time, too, and not jump to such conclusions without reading the image captions. Deal?
No, no deal. First of all it's still not true. I'm sorry, but if I start interviewing people with the thought I might sound like a 'shipper of any kind then I'm censoring myself and I'm being dishonest to you.
Next, I've seen your site be capable of acting without bias, so I'm trying not to paint the entire site with a biased brush. I found your review of this issue to be very apt, and agreed with much of it. However, I felt the need to call you out for focusing specifically on something that screams shipper bias, as evidenced by Lucinda's effusive response.
Didn't see the commenter's response and just because they like the question I asked doesn't make me a 'shipper.
What was Allie supposed to say? No, you're totally off base?
Yes, that's exactly what he was supposed to say.
You also picked the shippiest interpretation of a line to ask about, so there is that to acknowledge as well.
To reiterate one point, I now get why you see me as a 'shipper, it's the line I picked. I would say to you that maybe because you are a 'shipper that you see 'shipping any time someone mentions another relationship. Again, it wasn't my intention.
all I'm asking is that you try acknowledging that yes, you may be working with a personal bias you may not be aware of, and at least try better next time. That's really all we can do, and all we ask.
I'm not admitting to shit because it's not true. I honestly don't know how to have a meaningful dialogue with you. It all comes back to 'shipping and I can't do anymore than I have done. You'll see me as a 'shipper or anti-Spike forever because you see things in a totally different way than me.
Thanks for the comment back.
From a very tired,
Michelle
'The fact is Scott Allie gets abused. We asked about it because it's happening. It's not happening because we talked about it.
What supports that is the nasty comment that was posted yesterday about Allie...you know the one. It's one thing to dislike Scott Allie's professional decisions, it's another thing to attack one's family. When that shit stops, we'll won't have any more to say about it.'
Forgive me, but how is that relevant to what I said about it not being entirely fair to make one fan faction the constant butt of all your humor? Is the person who said this very stupid, unfair thing a known Spike fan, or are you just assuming that they are?
*points above*
THAT is what supports the idea that there is Scott Allie hatred.
*laughs*
The person who said the unfair thing on Whedonesque, about Scott not attending his son's event is not a Spike fan. I believe his favourite characters are Willow and Tara. Scott should totally put his son first. The remark was a little surprising.
Both Interviews contained interesting info. I would have liked to know, however, the answer to questions like: Can the Season 9 name for the series be changed to reflect the fact that Angel series is now part of the title. It seems a little unfair to Angel to call it 'Season 9'
Secondly, I'm a little worried that the Angel franchise being absorbed into the Buffy franchise will mean less Angel comics than we have had at IDW. Are Angel fans to miss out?
Thirdly,at IDW, Spike had become a series lead with his own ongoing series, which has now had to be cut to eight issues because Dark Horse now has the franchise. I'm not naive enough to believe that there will be a Spike ongoing, he'll have to join the queue, along with characters like Willow and Faith etc. Is there hope for a mini-series at least, to compensate for the loss of our ongoing and the absolutely wonderful Mr Lynch.
Is there any chance that these questions could be asked at future interviews ?
Hey Kaz,
We'll definitely keep these questions in mind as we move closer to Season 9. Also, maybe Tara and Bitsy can ask Scott at NYCC this year.
Thanks!
Thanks. I've read a CBR interview with Scott and Chris in which the Season 9 title is discussed, but I don't feel any happier about it. After all, it is still Buffy Season 9 and it therefore makes Angel and his Series seem secondary, imho. I still feel sad about losing Brian Lynch and his ongoing series.That Brian Lynch's involvement with the verse will now come to an end, sooner rather than later - To me it seems like a very high price to pay for this move, but I shall read and support IDW comics until they finish. Thereafter, whether I pick up Season 9 is dependant on many things.
Post a Comment