Background Noise

[elizadusku-archive]

Sarah Michelle Gellar on Buffy and Spike

[pollotitus]

This was before their relationship turned into a dumpster fire, though.

[glittergirlprincess-deactivated]

Read somewhere that Buffy was considered the least interesting member of the main cast and I was personally deeply offended.

[pollotitus]

That's because she, like most main characters, are the most fleshed-out. There is less room to make-up unsupported headcanons. Supporting characters are unopened presents. From my experience, main characters are often taken for granted by fandoms.

[glittergirlprincess-deactivated]

Read somewhere that Buffy was considered the least interesting member of the main cast and I was personally deeply offended.

[pollotitus]

That's because she, like most main characters, are the most fleshed-out. There is less room to make-up unsupported headcanons. Supporting characters are unopened presents. From my experience, main characters are often taken for granted by fandoms.

[glittergirlprincess-deactivated]

Read somewhere that Buffy was considered the least interesting member of the main cast and I was personally deeply offended.

[pollotitus]

That's because she, like most main characters, are the most fleshed-out. There is less room to make-up unsupported headcanons. Supporting characters are unopened presents. From my experience, main characters are often taken for granted by fandoms.

[wendyliddel]

Buffy re:Faith

Trigger warning: rape mention

Ok, so Buffy fans rightfully talk about how horrific Spike’s assault on Buffy was, but why does  noone talk about Faith?

The scene where she devirginizes Xander made me uncomfortable even at 13 years old, when I first saw it. And the reason is that Xander is clearly uncomfortable. He may have been willing, but, willing or not, she doesn’t give him much of a choice, except where she briefly asks, and he’s hesitantly like “yes, but…”

Then, a couple of episodes later, she assaults him again, though tries to kill him instead of actually raping him.

Then there is the episode where she has sex with Riley while in Buffy’s body, which is a violation (i.e. rape) of both Buffy and Riley.

Now I don’t know if everybody ignores these scenes  because she is a female, because she is popular, because they don’t care about Xander or Riley, or because these scenes were not acknowledged to be the assaults that they were. Maybe some combination of these reasons.

All I know is, can’t stand Faith, and, just like Spike’s assault on Buffy, I have no intention of watching any of the above mentioned scenes again. In fact, I try to avoid those episodes all together.

[pollotitus]

They ignore them because they don’t care about Xander, Riley or Buffy. The only reason they make a stink about Spike is they can use that scene to justify their hatred for him, yet they will make every excuse in the book for Faith.

[wendyliddel]

I don’t blame people one bit for being upset about what Spike did. I am too. But at least he was soulless at the time. Faith doesn’t have that excuse.

If I’m being honest, I never liked Faith, because I didn’t care for her personality. Then the repeated rape attempts, and becoming a killer sealed the deal. Even seeing her redemption arc on Angel didn’t do much to make me like her.

[pollotitus]

I don't blame them, either. I just don't think it's sincere much of the time. I did not care for her arc, either, because I didn't see much of an arc at all. It was a flip of a swtch. She was bad, but now she's good and everyone should just get over it.

[wendyliddel]

Buffy re:Faith

Trigger warning: rape mention

Ok, so Buffy fans rightfully talk about how horrific Spike’s assault on Buffy was, but why does  noone talk about Faith?

The scene where she devirginizes Xander made me uncomfortable even at 13 years old, when I first saw it. And the reason is that Xander is clearly uncomfortable. He may have been willing, but, willing or not, she doesn’t give him much of a choice, except where she briefly asks, and he’s hesitantly like “yes, but…”

Then, a couple of episodes later, she assaults him again, though tries to kill him instead of actually raping him.

Then there is the episode where she has sex with Riley while in Buffy’s body, which is a violation (i.e. rape) of both Buffy and Riley.

Now I don’t know if everybody ignores these scenes  because she is a female, because she is popular, because they don’t care about Xander or Riley, or because these scenes were not acknowledged to be the assaults that they were. Maybe some combination of these reasons.

All I know is, can’t stand Faith, and, just like Spike’s assault on Buffy, I have no intention of watching any of the above mentioned scenes again. In fact, I try to avoid those episodes all together.

[pollotitus]

They ignore them because they don't care about Xander, Riley or Buffy. The only reason they make a stink about Spike is they can use that scene to justify their hatred for him, yet they will make every excuse in the book for Faith.

[pollotitus]

Season 7 of That 70′s Show really suffers from the writers having an endgame in mind and no real way to buffer the storylines out to 20+ episodes in order to fill the season. While it is nowhere near as terrible as Season 8 (not even canon, IMO), it's really filled with manufactured drama and relies far too heavily on misunderstandings and characters speaking for other characters. I think it fails in large part because what they went into thinking would be the final year turned out not to be, so all the set up never had a payoff.

The seasons core storylines largely revolve around recidivism, particularly of the male characters. That's well and good. They are at an age, right before venturing out into the world, where regressing often happens. It's somewhat typical. You spend your childhood wanting to be an adult but when you get there, it's a bit scary and you want to keep things simple. So while storylines where the guys are back to doing juvenile things like trenching lawns and stealing toys don't necessarily excite me, I get it. Though I do think they suffer from the actors being well past the age of the characters. It's hard to say kids'll be kids'll when the guy looks 25. With this possible writing space in mind, I view things like this...

To a good extent this all seems like the plan, particularly for Eric. He spends the season drifting until being confronted with the fact that he's wasting his life. Eric, IMO, probably has the most well-done arc of the guys in S7. He starts off borderline unlikeable but starts to cleans up his act at the turn to the third act. Given his life up to that point, I think this is rather organic. At that point, he realizes... OK, I've got to do something or I am going to be stuck here forever. It's probably too much credit to say this could call back to Kitty saying as much about the bank job back in Season 5. All in all, I think it was OK. Again, I think this is because, dumbass Africa storyline aside, the writing planned all along for Eric to leave and stay gone. There was no need to alter it much outside of creating a reason him not not show up in S8. Hence, Africa.

Kelso on the other hand seems to relapse quite hard to his old habits after growing a lot in S6. The difference between his and Eric's storyline is we really aren't given a good reason for it, so we're left with the impression he never really changed, that it was all for Brooke. This doesn't reflect well on him and makes it a little tough to watch sometimes. That's not to say he doesn't have good moments, particularly with Betsy but the whole storyline with Hyde's sister... I mean, I know it wasn't a Laurie retread, but it felt like one. It felt like he went nowhere.

Hyde is probably the biggest example stymying growth to create drama. Hyde certainly did throughout the show have issues expressing emotions, so while it's not completely out of nowhere, it's never dealt with throughout the whole season and only seems to get worse. It appeared to be planned as a slow-burn arc, ultimately culminating with him getting over it in the last act. It's known that the showrunners had S7 planned to be the last, then seemingly had to throw together some dangling threads for the S8 (hacks) writers to have something to go with. So Hyde's arc ultimately fails and reeks of dashed expectations because the epic conclusion had to be dropped.

Sure, everyone *else* tells us how he feels. Leo tells us. Donna tells us. Eric tells us. Fez tells us. His sister tells us. This keeps us waiting for the big moment when he finally tells us outright outside of not objecting. More importantly we’re left waiting for him to tell Jackie, who during S7 understandably doesn't know given that he's regressed back his "I don't love people" mindset, how he feels. Without that, the story feels unsatisfying and incomplete because the writers were banking wholesale on the dramatic final moment that, thanks to a late renewal by Fox, wasn't allowed to come.

Speaking of that, the final hotel scene makes zero sense at all. I'm not even confining it to OOCness, it just makes no sense and really comes off as almost slapstick but played straight. I'll preface my comment on this by saying that I don't think we're meant to think anything had happened. They were trying to set up the appearance that something was going to happen in a poor retread of the S5 storyline. I say that because it would be OOC for Jackie for one. Furthermore, if something WERE about to happen, she wouldn't casually say come in not knowing who it was (naked!Kelso wouldn't knock at all), nor would she be fully dressed and reading a magazine if something were about to imminently happen (as an already naked Kelso would suggest). So the whole thing comes off as another 'this looks bad, but it's not what it looks like' scenario. That's pretty much how Mila plays it. Nervous but not horrified as she would be had she actually been caught. So it’s forced, transparent and dumb, highlighted by the montage of Kelso running around 3 Stooges style in the closeout.

[zen3to5]

So - Season 4 scripts are all done (at least the first pass; some’ll need more work), and I’ve moved on to re-watching Season 5.

I’ve seen some mixed feelings about the fifth season online; some like it, some don’t, some see it as a bounce back after Season 4 while others think it was the beginning of the slide in quality. I haven’t seen anyone outright hate it, but it does seem more popular for individual elements within the season than as a whole.

I’m definitely not in the camp that sees Season 5 as a bounce back, because I don’t have any real problems with Season 4. But not having seen it all the way through in a long time, I’m absolutely a fan of Season 5 as a whole, not just the parts.

My understanding is that this was the season where That ‘70s Show changed showrunners for the first time, and I wonder if there was any prep work done as the forth season wrapped up. The transition is pretty smooth, smoother than I think it’s given credit for. There are some shifts, some inconsistencies, and some retcons; how big a nerd Eric is, the scale of Kelso’s past cheating, Jackie and Hyde’s relationship being completely cut off from what happened to them in Seasons 2 and 3 (hence, this blog); but I wouldn’t say those are any more of an issue than past seasons forgetting Donna’s sister or whether Kelso knows anything about electronics. For the most part, I find the dialogue, the plotting, and the overall tone in Season 5 consistent with the past.

I’d say the same for characterization too. There are changes here, but the biggest ones are motivated. Red and Kitty are two good examples. Yes, Red is harsher on Eric in this season than in past ones… because he’s motivated by a specific set of circumstances, that lead him to push too far, Eric and Donna to push back, and Red to back down and gain a new respect for his son. As for Kitty… well, I should say that I am relatively young, male, and can’t recall that any woman I know has ever even said the word “menopause,” so I can’t comment on how fair or accurate Kitty’s storyline is. But setting that aside, and judging it as a bit of character development in a sitcom that’s not quite a live-action cartoon but a few steps away from everyday reality, it gave Kitty a lot of things to play that she hadn’t played in previous seasons, and a reason to do so. And it complicated her marriage to Red in a way that made sense.

Anyone who’s watched a few sitcoms or cartoons has to be familiar with a certain trap they sometimes fall into after a few seasons: for whatever reason, the writers decide that having the characters be nasty to each other makes for an easy laugh, and they milk that until you, as a viewer, can’t understand how these characters can be in the same state, let alone the same room. I know I can’t be the only one who grew up with The Fairly Oddparents and became thoroughly turned-off when they decided that every episode needed multiple “Wanda’s a nag, Cosmo’s an idiot” exchanges. And I think some people take Red and Kitty’s dynamic in Season 5 the same way. But I don’t find that to be the case at all. At the opening of the season, they’re normal (for them). It’s the pregnancy “scare,” the onset of menopause, and the arrival of Kitty’s parents that shift things, and open up a difficult time for them as a couple and Kitty as an individual. And yes, Red does make a few remarks about lunatic wives and how unpleasant marriage is; most of these happen at low points for him. But I don’t find that it ever gets as bad as in Oddparents, or other sitcoms. The show isn’t absent pleasant moments for them once this storyline gets underway. And just having a motive behind it goes a long way to making it work, in my book.

On the other hand, I’ve seen people object to Eric and Donna’s dynamic in Season 5 as a retread, without sufficient follow-up on their problems from Season 4. I don’t agree with the latter issue, because I think the conversations they do have at the end of the forth season (with each other and others) make it clear that they know what went wrong. Perhaps they could have had a scene early on in Season 5 talking about it, but sometimes in life (and in storytelling) it’s best to bury the hatchet when you already know what it’s about. As for the retread issue; to an extent, that’s unavoidable in a sitcom as conventional as That ‘70s Show. A certain amount of formula and repetition is going to come into play here. But Donna having come around to a long-term commitment, and she and Eric mutually planning for a future together and challenging their families about it, is a new element to their relationship. Their more conventional issues still make good comedic fodder without sacrificing character (though I will concede that the SAT fiasco is something of a retread.) Allowing that I still haven’t seen Season 7 - if my memories of Season 6 prove accurate, I think Season 5 is the last time in the show that Eric and Donna, as individuals and as a couple, really shine.

And, of course, you have Jackie and Hyde. Again, allowing for not seeing Season 7 and only having distant memories of 6, I think this was their best season too, in the sense that it covers a time of growth and change for them as a couple. This season also has one of the better sitcom/comedy love triangles I’ve watched, though if Ashton Kutcher wasn’t as skilled a performer, it wouldn’t hold up as well.

The way that triangle ends is a little too gimmicky for my liking; Jackie might as well look into the camera and say “tune in next fall!” (Spoilers for Zen3to5 - I’m not planning to rewrite that bit.) And, from what I remember of Season 6, it was elements introduced or reintroduced here that got picked up and run pretty close to the ground there. But on its own terms, and as a continuation of the first four years of the show, I think Season 5 holds up extremely well, and if you want to talk about That ‘70s Show having a “golden age,” I think it’s fair to include the fifth year in it.

[pollotitus]

I think response to S5 largely centers around how one feels about J/H in general because it sort of becomes THE central ship of the show during S5 with 3 characters' arcs revolving around it. While D/E certainly has its share of screentime, there does seem like great deal of retread, IMO. The writers even kind of lampshade it with lines like "we're bad with rings". The issue is not so much that they go over familiar territory, but they use similar devices to explore it. On one hand, it's certainly true people make the same mistakes. On the other, that doesn't necessarily make it entertaining TV. I think S5 starts off strong, but kind of languishes toward the middle with more than a couple eps seemingly all about rejecting 'giving in' or committing to the demands of relationships, whether it be partner or parent. Valid story area, but it gets a little tedious, especially when it's hard to decipher what the story is trying to say. I did quite enjoy the way the longer arcs meshed together. Who knows how much was intended, but they do work. At the beginning of S5, both Jackie and Hyde refuse to really deal with the fallout of S4 and it blows up in the middle with Jackie's slip. It's one of the few instances especially in sitcoms of realistically dealing with the fact that emotional attachments don't just die. That thread plays out through the rest of the year when Kelso starts messing with Hyde. On rewatch, I found both S6 and S7 a lot stronger than I remembered. S6 starts off rather weak, IMO, but once it gets going, there are quite a few good eps, especially at the end.

[thestupidhelmet]

pollotitus said in response to this post:

I find myself of two minds on it. On one hand, I don’t think it’s necessarily OOC at that point because I don’t think the other girl is anything more than a prop used as a kind of leverage. I wouldn’t call it great writing, but I can see Hyde playing tip for tap at the stage. The problem is the setup for the whole storyline is so weak. Seemingly all of Hyde’s paranoia is brought on by Kelso, not Jackie, so it does not come off as genuine. On the other, I am not sure how we’re supposed to see the whole thing. It’s so baffling to me that the writers try to compare the two screwups. They play at the idea that Jackie didn’t really do anything wrong with Hyde admitting he acted poorly, but the story shows otherwise with Jackie, as you say, having to ‘win’ him back and go first in their makeup. So the power-balance is restored, thus rendering it kinda pointless aside from giving them a cliffhanger aside from Kelso getting over it. He could have done that on his own. The whole thing actually reminded me a little bit of when Kelso tried to blame Jackie for his cheating because she made him feel bad. Like… did I miss something here?

You didn’t miss a thing. It’s simply bad writing.

For me, the almost pathological passive-aggressiveness given to Hyde’s character in season 5 is an OOC element introduced to manufacture conflict. The writers clearly didn’t trust Hyde had enough issues to create conflict organically. That new characterization greatly intensifies his capacity for cruelty and maliciousness, the likes of which we hadn’t witnessed before that season (save during “Ski Trip” [1x13]).

Hyde’s behavior toward Jackie in “The Kids Are Alright” (6x01) – when he kisses her passionately, seemingly accepting her choice of him, only to leave with Raquel – is a prime example of this passive-aggressiveness and cruelty. This characterization makes Hyde less likeable and was totally unnecessary. He’s complex enough without having integrated and passing on the abusive behavior of his parents.

In fact, his characterization prior to season 5 shows him consistently behaving contrary to his mom’s abuse. He’s protective of the vulnerable, to the point of putting his own life in danger. He doesn’t have to like or know a person to give aid; that they need help is enough. But he often disguises his motive for giving help, or that he was helping at all, as a way of protecting himself. He either consciously believes or unconsciously feels in his gut that his compassion could be used against him. His mom and/or dad likely did.

In “Black Dog” (5x09), after Kelso shoots Hyde with a BB gun, Hyde justifies faking a semi-serious injury to Donna and Eric. At the end of this dialogue, he says, “So I’m gonna punish him the way my parents punished me.“

This is the instinct Hyde acts on toward Jackie, too, at the end of season 5 and the beginning of season 6. But when his mom verbally abuses him in “Career Day” (1x18), he doesn’t exact revenge. He walks away from her. In “Eric’s Stash” (2x12), after Eric accuses Hyde of stealing his money, Hyde expresses his anger and feelings of betrayal directly. After Fez accidentally breaks the taillight of Hyde’s car in “Leo Loves Kitty” (4x18), Hyde is angry but doesn’t act out. Instead, he demands Fez pay for a new taillight.

Perhaps most significantly, in “Hyde’s Father” (3x03), Hyde speaks his mind to his reappeared absentee dad, walks away several times, then confronts him angrily (after some prompting from Kitty). If Hyde doesn’t behave passive-aggressively or cruelly toward his dad, I don’t believe for a second he’d to the same to Jackie. He would walk away. He would angrily confront. But he would not do the things he does in “You Shook Me” (5x22) or “The Kids Are Alright”.

That’s why the writers introduced a malicious, vengeful streak into his character during season 5: to set up that Hyde would behave contrary to his previous three-plus years of characterization. They even acknowledge this in “You Shook Me” during Hyde’s exchange with Roy:

Hyde: I told Jackie I don’t want her hanging out with Kelso! I walk in, they’re playing couch-Twister! And I don’t know if something just happened or something was about to happen, but you know what? I don’t care anymore!

Roy: Have you talked to her?

Hyde: No! Come on, man, I’m done talking! I’m just glad I saw them. Now I can be the bigger person and bail before she does.

Roy asks, “Have you talked to her?” because real!Hyde would have. Hyde also indicates that he’s going to walk away from his relationship with Jackie, which would be in-character, too, but he doesn’t. He sleeps with another woman as revenge, as a screw-you! to torpedo his relationship with Jackie and make sure she won’t take him back – in case he’s “too weak” (i.e. too in love) to stay broken up with her.

Despite my dislike of Hyde’s new characterization in season 5, however, my fic Hyde’s Long Way Home probably wouldn’t have been written without it. His capacity for cruelty is a key part of that story. Season-4 Hyde likely would’ve gotten out of the time-loop at lot sooner.

[pollotitus]

I can somewhat rationalize his behavior in S5 to being in new territory. In previous seasons, he by and large had little to lose. His relationship with his parents was already broken and he had already constructed the emotional shell he was in. Jackie broke through that and through her he was vulnerable. Even through their banter-y bickering early on in S5, he was already possessive of her, made clear by the smoldering look and wallop he gave Kelso when he sat next to her on the couch in 5.02. I can see a kid of his age and his mindset panicking and seeing what he wanted to see (or didn't want to see) after weeks of Kelso's goading. I can't really disagree about early S6, especially about the kiss and then leaving. I always end up going back and forth with the idea of Hyde the character having a need to be on the strong side of the relationship* (which I think does make sense given his vulnerability issues) or if it's simply sexism displayed by the writers. Sometimes it's the former but often times the cynical side wins and it the latter wins out. After all, those types of false equivalences weren't uncommon. They tried to do the same with Kelso's serial cheating and Jackie's boss kissing her. *When I am giving the benefit of the doubt, I think there is a bit of a narrative thread going on through S7 with that. It usually takes the threat of losing her that Hyde breaks the rules and admits things. He doesn't say he loves her until he thinks he's lost her in S5. It comes off as manipulative given the timing, but it's shown that he really does. Similarly in S7, it takes him believing that Jackie would actually leave for him to for him to come to a decision to propose.

[thestupidhelmet]

Do you have any knowledge of any motive for the writers keeping Jackie and Hyde's sex life out of discussion in episodes? It's never explicitly stated when they started having sex, though Jackie's 'really dirty' comments 5.1 and her describing it as a 'fling' in 5.2 highly suggest it was before the season began. But there are no storylines surrounding it like Donna/Eric or the other partnerships on the show. No bragging, no pregnancy scares, no getting caught.

Hi! I think the following two metas I wrote might answer your question:

Jackie and Hyde’s Sex Life: How the Show Portrays It 

When Was Jackie and Hyde’s First Time Having Sex: Several Possibilities

[pollotitus]

I have always gone with the pre-S5 version. When they reunite in S7, Jackie mentions liking the feel of his beard and having to keep it a secret made the affair even hotter.

[thestupidhelmet]

@pollotitus said in response to this post about how long Jackie and Hyde are broken up between seasons 5 and 6:

Donna says in 5x23 that they graduate in a week. It doesn’t seem like it could have been more than 2 weeks, probably more like 1.5. Which makes Hyde dating even more absurd but it could be explained that he did it to mess with Jackie. 

So that shaves off a week from my at-most total. Meaning Jackie and Hyde were broken up for 2-3 weeks at the most. Man, the show wrote Hyde so poorly after a while.

[pollotitus]

I find myself of two minds on it. On one hand, I don't think it's necessarily OOC at that point because I don't think the other girl is anything more than a prop used as a kind of leverage. I wouldn't call it great writing, but I can see Hyde playing tip for tap at the stage. The problem is the setup for the whole storyline is so weak. Seemingly all of Hyde's paranoia is brought on by Kelso, not Jackie, so it does not come off as genuine. On the other, I am not sure how we're supposed to see the whole thing. It's so baffling to me that the writers try to compare the two screwups. They play at the idea that Jackie didn't really do anything wrong with Hyde admitting he acted poorly, but the story shows otherwise with Jackie, as you say, having to 'win' him back and go first in their makeup. So the power-balance is restored, thus rendering it kinda pointless aside from giving them a cliffhanger aside from Kelso getting over it. He could have done that on his own. The whole thing actually reminded me a little bit of when Kelso tried to blame Jackie for his cheating because she made him feel bad. Like... did I miss something here?

[thestupidhelmet]

Do you have an guestimate on how long Jackie and Hyde were split from S5 to S6? It doesn't seem all that long. The length of Red's hospital stay plus a day or two?

I don’t think it was that long at all. Jackie dumps Hyde in “Nobody’s fault but Mine” (5x23). “Immigrant Song” (5x24) probably happens a week later and “Celebration Day” (5x25) a week after that.

In “Celebration Day,” Jackie says:

I’ll figure that out [whom she chooses, Kelso or Hyde] after I spend the summer by the pool. I feel this’ll be a lot clearer when I’m much tanner.

“The Kids Are Alright” (6x01) takes place, from all indications, very shortly after “Celebration Day”. In the second scene, Eric, Kelso, and Hyde learn that Laurie went on her and Fez’s honeymoon without Fez. This likely happened within a day or two of Red’s heart attack. Red is being released from the hospital the first day this episode takes place. Taking all that into consideration, this exchange:

Hyde: So, Jackie, you choose between me and Kelso yet?

Jackie: I’m on my way to the pool right now to think about it. Rest assured, when I’m in my most delicious shade of cocoa brown, you will have your answers.

shows Hyde’s impatience and the writers’ ignoring Jackie’s statement in “Celebration Day” that she was going to take the whole summer to decide. Jackie’s  trip to the pool in “The Kids Are Alright” is probably the first that summer. So she chose Hyde within a day or two after being undecided about him and Kelso.

Hyde rejects her passive-aggressively after she tells him she chooses him (which is such bad form – and writing – and a repeat of the behavior that broke him and Jackie up in the first place). Now Jackie has to prove herself worthy of Hyde (total eye-roll).

The next episode, where they reconcile, takes place as soon as the next day or as late as a week after the previous episode. So, at most, Jackie and Hyde are split up for three weeks to a month.

[pollotitus]

Donna says in 5x23 that they graduate in a week. It doesn't seem like it could have been more than 2 weeks, probably more like 1.5. Which makes Hyde dating even more absurd but it could be explained that he did it to mess with Jackie.

[lucilleamiel]

One of the best things about the That 70s Show fandom is that everyone always argues over whether Jackie should've ended up with Kelso or Hyde. I'm 10000000000% a Hyde and Jackie fan myself and I believe that season 8 was a dream Fez had after eating a massive stash of candy - I just LOVE that Fez ain't even a thought for Jackie.

[pollotitus]

I'm pretty sure most people fans or not dismiss S8 as a Fezian sugar coma dream.

[thestupidhelmet]

I feel like a while ago you said something about the season 8 show runners hating Jackie? if I'm remembering right, what did you mean? (I've never watched season 8)

Hi!

Jackie is treated terribly by Hyde (her “former” love) and Fez (her eventual “love”) during season 8. Donna, her best friend, questions why she (Donna) is friends with Jackie – in front of Hyde’s wife, Samantha, as a way of putting herself squarely on Samantha’s (and the showrunners’) side. Donna’s also generally more hostile toward Jackie. And the showrunners either dictated or approved of storylines where Jackie would be humiliated episode after episode.

By the end of the series, Jackie is neither in college nor has any of the careers (e.g., professional cheerleader, model, actress, news anchor, etc.) she’d consistently stated she’d hoped for during seasons 1-7. She’s sweeping hair at Fez’s salon. This was the showrunners’ way of “humbling” her – which also suggests what they think of hair-sweepers.

During an interview the new showrunners gave before season 8 (in TV Guide, if I remember correctly), they explicitly stated they didn’t understand Jackie and Hyde’s romantic relationship and didn’t like it, so they were putting Jackie and Hyde back to their season-1 antagonism “as they should’ve always been” during the show.

These statements, at the very least, imply and at most corroborate their dislike of her character, especially when taken in the context of her treatment on the show by the storylines and other characters vs. Hyde’s treatment by the storylines and other characters.

For my thoughts on specific season-8 episodes, please see these posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

[pollotitus]

S8 of the show absolutely drips with antipathy for the Jackie character. Even without the comments, it's clear from the writing itself. By and large I think she suffered from hostility of the runners for her character archetype and as noted in the TV Guide comments, for 'breaking up the band' as Eric once put it. So naturally they reduced her to a failure without friends, sweeping the floor and jonesing after the guy that spent years perving on her. They even go to the trouble of having Kelso insult his friend Fez to point it out, that she was downgraded to a donkey pulling a cart.

[womanaction]

ok thoughts on why giles calls dru a “sometimes paramour of spike” in “lie to me”? besides early installment weirdness. like we don’t have a lot of evidence that dru and spike spent much time actually apart prior to that time…is it just that spike is a troublemaker so they have way more records on his locations?

[pollotitus]

She cheats on him all the time and is described as fickle. How much evidence is needed?

[captainimfangirling]

Do you think Buffy used to be like Cordelia when she was at her old school or do you think she was one of those popular girls who were actually nice to everyone? I wont hate on her if she was like Cordelia because her being nice to Willow and picking her over popularity is character growth.

[pollotitus]

I think she was probably shallow and insulated, but not mean like Cordy.

[comradesummers]

Like half of my posts on this blog are me trying to explain why Buffy Summers is such a good character, and I don’t think I’ve ever actually managed to articulate it to my satisfaction. Like, I really do think she’s one of the best TV characters ever, but regardless of vampire slaying, she’s not like a particularly flashy one. Like she’s not a middle aged man who sells drugs, or a middle aged man who’s in the mob, or a middle aged man who makes McDonald’s commercials, so you really have to make a case for her.

[pollotitus]

The things that make men interesting are things that make women unlikeable. Buffy is usually not even considering a great character in her own show. Meanwhile there are novels written about how Spike liking onions is a high point of complexity.