They tend to forget a lot of the crap they pull. And it goes the opposite way too. Cordy gets a lot of crap for being the cruel bully and her better qualities are ignored
You're right it works both ways. I admit - mea culpa, I didn't appreciate Cordy until - well, actually until she was impaled, then lying in the hospital bed and told Xander to go away. That was the first time I really appreciated CC's performance. Now when I go back and rewatch I enjoy her more. (the scene where Buffy asks if Cordy would drive her home and Cordy's "of course", no questions asked, is beautifully underplayed; or Cordy's offer to Giles "What can we do to help?" in Ted. I've overlooked a lot of those moments myself, which is why rewatches are so rewarding.
OTOH - thanks to ITW / AYW I have a hard time remembering why I liked Riley in the beginning. (Then again rewatching Doomed I thought "Buffy, girlfriend, just walk the other way from someone who patronizes you like that.") I have to make myself remember that yes, he had some good qualities and yes I liked him once upon a time.
In terms of "overreliance on the metaphor" - maybe it depends on which metaphor or lens someone relies on? A lot of what I write or post here is a reaction to fandom's (starting with a year ago on the AV Club) focus on one metaphor with disregard for another possible reading or for the text/story itself. (ie Ted is ALL about Buffy misusing her Slayer powers against a human and that's the only subject of interest, while the story of a girl whose divorced mom brings home a creepy and dangerous boyfriend is ignored. And that makes no sense to me; S1-3 was still also about exploring tropes and themes of horror films, high school films, as well as RL issues that young people face. It's all in the mix.)
But one of my primary lens for thinking of the show is "dysfunctional family dynamics as an expression of the theme of power (the misuse of it) on a micro scale; the Initiative and the WC are the macro level, but same dynamic. If that's not someone else's lens, then I can't dictate what lens they should see it through, but I can say "this is how I see it". (That said, there's still things I am very reluctant to talk about. "let's see, how can I talk about the show, about how the early and late seasons and Buffy's journey all connect and come together without ever mentioning Spike because, you know, badness." That's a tricksy one. *le sigh*)
I liked Helpless as an episode, but I do think it was a pretty big dropped ball.
How so, and who did the ball-dropping?
I guess it's the "everyone loves S3" factor.
Not everybody (hence the quote marks, amiright?) The other day I looked at some of the ways in which people describe S4 - which supposedly isn't as well-loved, and you can use nearly all the same phrases to describe S3 as people generally do S4, honestly. I actually find S4 more interesting, in hindsight at least, because it marks a shift in the show to a more psychological, inward journey for Buffy. But that's just me.
At the time I didn't care for mocking fans, but I guess I've become more mean over the years
Heck I've become more mean - or jaded, whatever - just in the past year. At the same time, there's a line that can be drawn, but it's a fine distinction or maybe none at all, "laughing with" vs "laughing at". And then how you achieve that makes a difference too. (Tearing down beloved characters to make your point - you know what I'm talking about, right? - still seems unnecessarily mean-spirited.
Both Spike and Angel arguing over who gets credit for helping save the world in S2 is hilarious, especially if you've read some of those SvA debates. They're arguing over who's better...she's moved on--her story is beyond them and isn't directly tired to them.
The more I've thought about it - or rather read descriptions of that ep - I can see the point being made. But again, just a few months in this fandom and reading a lot of fanfic and conversations etc in which it's "all about the boys" and Buffy's just a footnote, helps to that end, whereas I couldn't see it just coming fresh from Chosen.
no subject
You're right it works both ways. I admit - mea culpa, I didn't appreciate Cordy until - well, actually until she was impaled, then lying in the hospital bed and told Xander to go away. That was the first time I really appreciated CC's performance. Now when I go back and rewatch I enjoy her more. (the scene where Buffy asks if Cordy would drive her home and Cordy's "of course", no questions asked, is beautifully underplayed; or Cordy's offer to Giles "What can we do to help?" in Ted. I've overlooked a lot of those moments myself, which is why rewatches are so rewarding.
OTOH - thanks to ITW / AYW I have a hard time remembering why I liked Riley in the beginning. (Then again rewatching Doomed I thought "Buffy, girlfriend, just walk the other way from someone who patronizes you like that.") I have to make myself remember that yes, he had some good qualities and yes I liked him once upon a time.
In terms of "overreliance on the metaphor" - maybe it depends on which metaphor or lens someone relies on? A lot of what I write or post here is a reaction to fandom's (starting with a year ago on the AV Club) focus on one metaphor with disregard for another possible reading or for the text/story itself. (ie Ted is ALL about Buffy misusing her Slayer powers against a human and that's the only subject of interest, while the story of a girl whose divorced mom brings home a creepy and dangerous boyfriend is ignored. And that makes no sense to me; S1-3 was still also about exploring tropes and themes of horror films, high school films, as well as RL issues that young people face. It's all in the mix.)
But one of my primary lens for thinking of the show is "dysfunctional family dynamics as an expression of the theme of power (the misuse of it) on a micro scale; the Initiative and the WC are the macro level, but same dynamic. If that's not someone else's lens, then I can't dictate what lens they should see it through, but I can say "this is how I see it". (That said, there's still things I am very reluctant to talk about. "let's see, how can I talk about the show, about how the early and late seasons and Buffy's journey all connect and come together without ever mentioning Spike because, you know, badness." That's a tricksy one. *le sigh*)
I liked Helpless as an episode, but I do think it was a pretty big dropped ball.
How so, and who did the ball-dropping?
I guess it's the "everyone loves S3" factor.
Not everybody (hence the quote marks, amiright?) The other day I looked at some of the ways in which people describe S4 - which supposedly isn't as well-loved, and you can use nearly all the same phrases to describe S3 as people generally do S4, honestly. I actually find S4 more interesting, in hindsight at least, because it marks a shift in the show to a more psychological, inward journey for Buffy. But that's just me.
At the time I didn't care for mocking fans, but I guess I've become more mean over the years
Heck I've become more mean - or jaded, whatever - just in the past year. At the same time, there's a line that can be drawn, but it's a fine distinction or maybe none at all, "laughing with" vs "laughing at". And then how you achieve that makes a difference too. (Tearing down beloved characters to make your point - you know what I'm talking about, right? - still seems unnecessarily mean-spirited.
Both Spike and Angel arguing over who gets credit for helping save the world in S2 is hilarious, especially if you've read some of those SvA debates. They're arguing over who's better...she's moved on--her story is beyond them and isn't directly tired to them.
The more I've thought about it - or rather read descriptions of that ep - I can see the point being made. But again, just a few months in this fandom and reading a lot of fanfic and conversations etc in which it's "all about the boys" and Buffy's just a footnote, helps to that end, whereas I couldn't see it just coming fresh from Chosen.