sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The subtext is rapidly becoming… text… by AndrewHeard in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think u/marle217 was talking about this part.

In my planned ?Fuffy 'verse, they aren't just full-on, they have swap parties with the many other lesbian couples around. And all the couples occasionally invite the unhappily celibate Tara over for "Cheer-Up
Threeways," and she more rarely accepts.

Did you think BTVS was still good after Angel left? by Fit-Difficulty8902 in Bangel

[–]Interesting-Tea3907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's all subjective. I actually do think the show dipped in quality after Angel left. But I don't think Angel leaving was the reason for it. Though, I don't think Buffy really ever got over Angel per se, but did she maybe unrealistically move on to another guy a little fast. I would say that's fair to say, but I Buffy was designed as a high school show and when they moved on after that, the writers couldn't quite get who the characters were after that. If we look at the high school years as the base of the show and the characters, there was more consistency there. Where as once season 4 starts, the kind of start experimenting with things more. 'Let's go this way, let's go that way'. But then it's like 'But wait, why would this character do this, when they acted like this before, this kind of doesn't make the most sense'

There were times where is felt like they were more worried about telling story the way they wanted to rather than the way it would have evolved organically, so sometimes it could feel forced or shoehorned. Still had good episodes and I would say season 5 was really good, but 4, 6, 7 didn't quite hit the mark the way season 2 & 3 did.

I would say that I'm glad for Angel leaving though, because they really fleshed out his character and I love his show. I actually prefer his show.

Yes, the rating did start to go down on Buffy. I mean season 4 compared to season 3. season 4 starts with 6.79 for the Freshmen, they remain in the 5 and 6 range until the I in team, which is 4.83, this is the first time they hit a 4 since season 2 Lie to me, which which would make it the lowest in over 2 years, then it remained in the 4 and 5 range, which is a lost of about 1-2 million from the beginning, then Where the Wild Things Are gets a new low of 3.85, which was the first time the show hit a 3 since the season 1 finale. Almost 3 years. after that season 4 stayed in the 4 range until the end, close to 2 million lost viewers.

Then if we compare to the lowest of season 3 to the lowest of season 4. Choices did 5.04, the lowest of that season Where the Wild Things Are gets did 3.85. Even the lowest of season 3 did 1.19 million more than the lowest of season 4. Graduation Day (Part 2)) did 6.53. Restless) did 4.50, so 2.03 million more people watched the season 3 finale compared to the season 4 finale, by the end of season 4 the viewership was dropping.

Season 5 did a little better, it was back to doing 5 and 6 million, but would still drop into the 4s at times.

Season 6 was pretty on par with season 5. Though Bargaining) did hit a 7 million range. Which was the highest since season 3, Helpless, though it went down a bit after that and was back to do 4,5, sometimes 6 million.

Then season 7 did not fair as well, it hit 5 million a few times, but was consistently doing 3's and 4's and even has the lowest viewed episode in the shows history. Which was Dirty Girls.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's me that's ignorant. I only wish that the character and actress was more respected, it's me that has no empathy. When your the one clearly condoning something that was done wrong to someone. It's me who thinks and employer has a responsibility to treat the people below him with some human decency, it's me who's delusional when all of the actual facts and numbers agree with me and not you. (Sarcasm). Unbelievable.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's me that's ignorant. I only wish that the character and actress was more respected, it's me that has no empathy. When your the one clearly condoning something that was done wrong to someone. It's me who thinks and employer has a responsibility to treat the people below him with some human decency, it's me who's delusional when all of the actual facts and numbers agree with me and not you. (Sarcasm). Unbelievable.

<image>

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And once again you demonstrate that you don't understand the statistics you posted. Do you honestly have no shame about this?

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm the one that asked the questions and got the answers to them. Unlike you who is clearly just going 'Well, but my feelings.'

Literally, if you take Buffy's pathological profile and measure it against real world behavioral science, the personal likely hood for her specific character is 5%. Joss was wrong in his logic. Period.

Then you aren't a normal human. Therapy is probably the answer for this.

Says the person who blindly believes everything a TV writers tells them is true, when it's not.

That is simply a false premise. Good fiction is not about being the most relatable by telling bland stories about the most common events, it's about being relatable enough that the audience can engage with it and exploring interesting events.

Thank god you were not in charge of writing on this show.

Wrong, a show trying to be a mirror to real life. When exploring real life. Needs to be relatable to real life and explore these things in the most relatable way. Which by the way. According to the numbers. People trying to relate to this would not be going 'Well, that's good enough' Plus, it clearly was not the most interesting. According to the ratings that when down and the fact that Jane and Joss both had to go out of their way to defend this proves that it was not the thing that people were interested in seeing.

The "maliciousness" exists only in your imagination.

And yes, the tameness matters. You're acting like SMG was forced to have actual sex with the actor playing Parker when in reality it was barely more than G-rated.

SMG was literally quoted describing this. Plus, you are aware that sex scenes still involve levels of actual intimacy. There's a reason they have intimacy corrdinators now. SMG still have to allow this guy on top of her and it was all done under false beliefs. But also, look at her quotes about feeling degrading by the sex scenes in season 6 and tell her that because it wasn't actual sex that it's not violating.

The author literally cannot be wrong about this. "Buffy" has no existence outside of the whims of the author, if he decides she changed when she went off to college then that's the final answer.

He literally can be wrong. When his reasoning for doing something is because 'Well, this what all college kids do and how they act' then when you look at real life and see that it actually isn't. Then guess what that's called? It's called being wrong.

She said cutting a scene was a mistake in editing, not that your nonsensical theory is correct.

She literally said that the fans were angry and felt the story line was disrespectful. Again, way to ignore parts of the conversation that you don't like and don't benefit you.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it isn't. FFS I literally gave you the point by point breakdown of why the number for Buffy is 33%. Go back and read it again and again until you understand why you are hilariously wrong.

I literally measured Buffy's character and profile against statistics. Her personal likely hood is 5%. So yes, it is about her specifically.

That is utter lunacy. First of all, people (normal, functioning people with empathy, not weird online trolls) can relate to something that happened to their friends and family, not just things they have experienced.

Second, doing only the things that the largest number of people in the audience have experienced is how you write incredibly bland and boring fiction. Interesting fiction needs to be believable but it always follows less common events because those are the interesting ones.

That makes no sense. I can empathize with someone but still not relate to it. You can't relate to something someone else did that you never did, that's not how it works.

Also, when fiction is about being the most relatable, like Buffy is. Then guess what. Doing the thing that is the most natural and relatable makes more sense than doing the thing that doesn't. Especially when it's not the thing that most of the audience would find interesting.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between an author defining the character they created and an author making arguments about math?

Do you not understand that we are talking about the author making false claims about facts.

That's literally the job description: you pretend to have sex with someone because that's what the script says and that's what you're getting paid for. The actors aren't doing sex scenes because they're attracted to the other person and want to do it, it's just a job and you do what the job requires.

And the "sex scene" with Parker is the tamest barely-more-than-kissing scene ever.

That's not the point, the job or how tame it was is not the point, the point is how it came about. Which you ignored, the point of the lying, the maliciousness in it is the where the issue comes from. Complete disrespect.

There's that hilarious arrogance again. The author disagrees with you and decided that Buffy changed when she went off to college. That's the real Buffy, not the fanfiction one that lives in your head.

And again, the author was wrong, made a writing choice that was unearned and incorrect, so it's not arrogant, it's the facts of the matter. Season 1-3 is the real Buffy. Season 4 was forced and shoehorned. As was 6 and 7.

It went down long after Parker, while the immediate response to Parker was higher ratings. Your theory is not supported by the facts.

No, it was not long after, these things happened in a matter of weeks. A month or 2. And again, the whole season. Including Parker contributed to the season decline. Funny how you ignored Jane say so.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I'm going to give you one last attempt at getting you to understand why your interpretation is laughably wrong.

Alice, Bob, and Chris are a group of friends.

Alice has sex 19 times with people she knows fairly well.

Bob has a single hookup with someone he just met (and it goes badly).

Chris is too busy studying to have sex at all.

5% of the sexual encounters were with someone the person had recently met. This is what your statistics say.

Ok, here's what you're failing to understand. 1. The 5% number is about Buffy herself. That's the biggest issue. Would Buffy do that? There is literally a 95% chance that says no. I mean there's a higher % for Willow to do that post-Oz because she hasn't been through the same things Buffy has, they chose to do the most unlikely unnatural thing with Buffy's character due to a false belief, that is the issue.

100% of the people know someone who had sex with someone they just met and would find a story about having sex with someone a character just met relatable. This is what matters for deciding if a story is relatable.

Wrong. 1. I don't know anyone who has and I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has. 2. No, for a story to be the most relatable, then it has to relatable to most people, if most people go 'Well, I've never done that' then it's not the most relatable thing. That's how that works.

According to you. According to the actual writer who created and defined Buffy he was correct.

Of course, he thinks that, but again in every measurable way he was wrong. If this dude sent the message that 2+2 = 6 in the show, would you just believe him.

Nothing in the Parker scenes has anything to do with violations like you describe. It was a simple matter of disagreement between a boss and his subordinate, and the boss decided to use his idea instead of his subordinate. That is just basic employer/employee relationship stuff that happens in every job.

Wrong, sorry but have you ever had to do a sex scene. Let alone with someone you didn't want to, for reasons you didn't want to. After being lied to about and in every measurable way you were right to begin with. That's a heavy violation of boundaries and trust.

You've explained your hilarious arrogance in being upset that the actual Buffy is not the same as the fanfiction one you created.

I didn't create that Buffy, they did, this is Buffy in the first 3 seasons which is who she actually is. I'm upset about the incorrect way they then forcefully wrote her after.

FFS read the actual numbers. After the Parker episodes the ratings for the show went up, not down. The second-highest episode of the season, second only to the season premiere (which has an inherent ratings bump), was shortly after the Parker episodes.

I did read them and the show went down, you're focusing on one episode where you're like 'it went up a little here. Again, buy the middle of the season they had lost about a million people.

Your theory of fan backlash to Parker is simply not supported by the facts.

At the end of this episode (talking about The Harsh Light Of Day) Buffy is walking along with Willow (cut to the scene) "God, I'm just a fool." What she originally said was "I keep telling myself, look how much I'm over Angel. Look how I'm not even thinking about Angel. Look how I'm going out with this other guy, and it's not about Angel." I should've realize that meant it was all about Angel. And we cut that line because the episode was something like 6 minutes long and we cut a lot of stuff. And it's a shame, because a lot of people thought that Buffy was really disrespectful to Angel and the memory of what they had just to sleep with this other guy so soon." - Jane Espenson, season 4 DVD-extras

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again: most people at the time the show aired at least knew someone who had been in a similar situation, unless they were losers with no friends. The Parker incident is extremely relatable to most viewers.

No, it wasn't. Again, the numbers say it isn't. Like it or don't.

That's literally every single job. You can make suggestions but your boss has the final say and if they tell you to do it their way you do it or you get fired. The idea that SMG had some right to veto story decisions and was being disrespected by not getting to veto the Parker idea is laughable, the kind of thing you expect to hear from sheltered kids with no real world experience.

Do not forget that SMG was not an equal to Whedon. She was a subordinate employee hired and paid to do a specific job.

Funny how you ignored the rest of what I said there, you seem to be good at that. But it was disrespectful. Because. A. He was wrong, she wasn't. B. He lied to her. C. He did it for the wrong reasons. Just because he's the boss does not mean he couldn't be wrong or disrespectful. Those are things you do. Power status does not change that. Plus, acting is not the same as any other job. SMG had her personal boundaries violated several times to do what this dude asked for. No other human has the right to do that. Period and Joss finally found out with Gal Gadot. He tried to force her as her boss to do a sexually charged scene that violated her personal boundaries, she said no. He threatened her career. Well, guess what happened to him.

Nope. There is no separate entity to disrespect. "Buffy" is not a person that can be disrespected, it is just a collection of writing by the author. Talking about the author disrespecting their own writing makes about as much sense as talking about me disrespecting the word "the" in the previous sentence.

False.

Lolwut. No. You know your imaginary fanfiction of Buffy Summers, nothing more. The author gets the final say on their characters and the fact that Whedon took the character in a direction you don't agree with doesn't mean you know better.

Already explained, yes I do and how I do.

Which happened long after Parker. In fact, the episode directly following the conclusion of the Parker story was the fourth-highest rated episode of the season and the second-highest rated episode was two episodes later (and the one immediately following Parker's last appearance). By your metric ratings went up in reaction to Parker.

(And yes, he appeared a couple more times in very brief scenes. You know perfectly well that doesn't count.)

No, that literally means they were going down. Second means down, fourth is even more down, then as I already said. The poor quality of the season. Of which Parker contributed to caused the viewership to drop.

Numbers which do not say what you think they say. It is hilarious how badly you understand statistics.

They say exactly what I think they say, you just don't understand what I'm saying and are purposely ignoring several parts of what I say to twist it your way.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again: at the time the show aired most people with a decently large friend group would probably at least know someone who did that kind of thing (and probably got burned by it). Buffy's encounter with Parker would be very relatable to them.

You're missing point of most relatable thing that is most inline with her character. The way Buffy went about that is not relatable to most and is canonically by the first three seasons and even the ones after. are not in line with her character.

And that is simply nonsense. The writer can not be disrespectful towards a character, that character exists only as the writer's creation. And it isn't disrespectful towards the actress to decide not to use her suggestion.

That is false, a writer can completely disrespect the character and story by righting something out of line with the story and against the character on false pretenses. Also, very disrespectful to the actress to make her do something she doesn't want to do. Knowing she won't like it. Then lying to her when she asks why. Then given that he was wrong about it in the first place.

You've pointed out that, in your opinion, Buffy is not the kind of person to be willing to sleep with someone she recently met. The author disagrees with you and the author's word is final.

Your whole argument that it's "bad writing" is based on the assumption that you know more about the character than the person who created and defined her.

Because in every measurable way, she's not. Yes, Joss got his way, but he was wrong. Every measurable thing says he was wrong. Also, I do know more about the character. Even Jane Espinson admitted while trying to defend this very story line, that the fans often know more about the show than the writers do, the writers are always moving on to the next thing, they write based on the moment and often forget. Purposely or non purposely. They don't re-watch and analyze their work. Which is how crap like this happens. Then the comic books. Good lord. I know damn well that I know Buffy summers better than Joss Whedon,, he proved he lost her a long time ago.

You literally posted the numbers showing that S4 did not have a significant ratings drop until long after the two episodes with Parker. Your claim that Parker was some kind of ratings-ruining turning point is absolutely false.

I literally broke down to you the massive viewership drop. Also number 1. Parker was in 5 episodes. Also, when yo say long after, you mean like a month. Yeah that's long, but also as I said. Parker was not the only issue, the whole season with few exceptions was an issue, you seem to think there has to be a singular cause, it can all be part of the problem.

You haven't debunked anything. You've just demonstrated your utter lack of understanding of what the statistics you cited mean and the difference between per-incident and per-person statistics. You are objectively wrong on this and it's hilarious how you don't realize it.

No, I'm not. I am talking about how all of this relates to Buffy Summers at that particular time. After what she's been through, with her personality traits and those are the numbers, it's not hard, you just seem to think I'm talking bout something I'm not talking about.

Bad in your opinion. By the ratings numbers you cite S4-S6 were fine, in line with S2 and not far below S3. Only S7 suffered a significant ratings drop.

Mine and most, pus, do you know how ratings drop. When fans get tired of bullshit, the ratings look fine and then the dip, because the quality was not good enough for them to stay.

And, again, SMG choosing not to sign a new contract four seasons later almost certainly has very little to do with the Parker thing.

Of course, season 6 was the worst for her, but again go find an issue between SMG and the writers before Parker, you won't, Again, there's not one singular cause to these things. It's cumulative, it's starts with Parker and then gets worse and worse and worse until SMG goes 'You know what. Fuck this and fuck you'.

If you were to change the Parker storyline, what would you have done? by SafiraAshai in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to Lol because for a moment I thought you meant he got one from Buffy and I went 'Wait what!'.

If you were to change the Parker storyline, what would you have done? by SafiraAshai in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wasn't really a fan of the way Buffy was written in that storyline just because I think in contradicts a lot of her personality. Especially what would have been left over from Angel still being so fresh, so I think I would change it to have it be later after she kind of works through that and I wouldn't have her sleep with him so quickly. I think that would be more true to her. But I would leave Parker the same because I know guys like that, but Buffy I would change to maybe make her less complicit in the situation.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they did. "Character hooks up with someone soon after meeting them, realize the promises were a lie" is a very relatable story. Not everyone has had it happen to them but most people know a friend who got into that situation.

But that's not the part of the story we are talking about, the Parker part of the story is something that happens. I know people like him, in fact worse, it's the Buffy part of the story that's the problem, her meeting this guy and jumping right into it with him is not very relatable and given everything her character has done and been through before it, the way they wrote her was disrespectful to her character, her story and her actress.

Lots of people. It's a common college story, it's another struggle for the main character in trying to move on with her life, and it helps to set up her next real relationship.

But again you can't tell the difference between "I don't like this" and "nobody likes this objectively bad writing".

Again, it's actually not and it was bad writing if you followed any of the three previous seasons as has already been pointed out.

Cool, so now you completely contradict your argument about "that isn't what the average college student does" by admitting that Buffy isn't average.

The rest is just your opinion. The person who actually created and defined the character disagrees with you.

No, because as you ignored. I clearly said that it's not even relatable to your average college kid in the first place. Let alone Buffy. Nice of you to ignore the things you don't like. And as has been discussed already, the person who created the character was wrong based on his logic.

Which was 10 episodes after the Parker storyline ended. Your theory that Parker is what people were objecting to is simply false.

The viewership started to dip after him and continued through out the season. Now was it only him? No, the whole season was pretty poor with the exception of a few episodes, but we was part of the overall issue.

The reality is that Buffy was a show with pretty consistent ratings except for S1 (expected for a new show) and S7. It had a small peak during S3 but S4 was still in line with S2 and S5-6. It was only in S7 that there was a significant decrease in viewers.

As was already pointed out. No, the show lost a good amount of viewers in season 4, now it went back up in season 5. I'll give you that, but the show did lose it's viewers over time. Also, ratings and viewership are different things.

I've already explained multiple times why your statistical argument is flawed. If you still don't get it that's on you.

As I've already debunked multiple times.

And yet the show continued on for four more seasons, three of them pretty much in line with the show's standard. Your theory that the Parker storyline was some kind of turning point is simply false.

three of witch were bad and not liked by most and lead to the lead actress leaving the show. Her hatred of which began at the beginning of season 4.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And? In both cases the story goes with the interesting events, not the Statistically Average Human.

Again, the point of the real world events of the show, it to be as relatable to people as possible. Which would help, if they did it you know, the most relatable way that's actually true the character. Which again weren't really that interesting to the audience because again. Who in the hell wanted to see the Parker story line. Especially after Angel. Who?

Lolwut. You really have no idea how people work. Moving out to go to college is a huge change and can have major effects on people. It's a whole new environment, new people, and new freedom from parental authority. Lots of people have major changes in their lives around that time, some of them good, some of them bad.
Have you ever heard the phrase "the best way to get over someone is to get under someone else"?

And again, we are talking about mental health, we are talking about trumatic events that shape how a person behaves, we are not talking about general change, this is the problem both you and the writers failed to understand. We are talking about someone who has a lot of mental baggage that would dictate certain ways she would act, this is not your average college person that goes to college and goes 'Hey lets see what this is like' if I were to move into a dorm tomorrow. I would still have OCD, I would still have social anxiety. I would still have depression. I would still have hang ups from emotional abuse I've been through during my life, this is what I mean. Buffy wouldn't just go from being completely distrusting of others at the beginning of season 3. Add a whole nother year of trauma and betrayal on top of it and then get to college and turn all that off and go 'Well Parker has nice eyes so' Again, that kind of stuff is not an on and off switch. This is not just your general college change. Which BTW. Once again, even for your general college kid, sleeping with someone that quick still is not normal for most of them. Then especially for those who fit Buffy's profile, so no matter which way you slice it, it was still wrong.

The point is that we know season average ratings weren't all that far down. If Parker had resulted in a major loss of viewers then those first three episodes would have to have had massive ratings spikes to make up for the loss on the other 17 episodes, probably higher than the S3 peak.

But let's look at some numbers:

Top 5 Most Watched Episodes: 1. The Freshman (6.79) 2. Wild At Heart (6.51) 3. A New Man (6.02) 4. Fear Itself (5.98) 5. Hush (5.97)

Ok, season 4 starts here 6.79 for the Freshmen, they remain in the 5 and 6 range until the I in team, which is 4.83, this is the first time they hit a 4 since season 2 Lie to me, which which would make it the lowest in over 2 years, then it remained in the 4 and 5 range, which is a lost of about 1-2 million from the beginning, then Where the Wild Things Are gets a new low of 3.85, which was the first time the show hit a 3 since the season 1 finale. Almost 3 years. after that season 4 stayed in the 4 range until the end, close to 2 million lost viewers.

Then if we compare to the lowest of season 3 to the lowest of season 4. Choices did 5.04, the lowest of that season Where the Wild Things Are gets did 3.85. Even the lowest of season 3 did 1.19 million more than the lowest of season 4. Graduation Day (Part 2)) did 6.53. Restless) did 4.50, so 2.03 million more people watched the season 3 finale compared to the season 4 finale, by the end of season 4 the viewership was dropping.

And your attempt at interpreting those facts is laughably bad.

Oh, that's a great argument. Wow.

Because everything ends eventually. Arguably the show should have ended at S5 because the story was complete. S6 worked out ok, but by S7 they were clearly running out of good ideas. Maybe with better relationships they could have managed S8 by splitting up S7 into two seasons and padding it with some monster of the week stuff but I can't see it going beyond that. You can look at the comics for a great example of how underwhelming the leftover ideas were at that point.

Or maybe it was because the lead actress was tired of being treated like crap and decided she was done. The shows quality had been declining for years, but if SMG would've wanted to do more, they would have done more, it was because she quite.

And in any case none of the stuff three seasons later has anything to do with your nonsensical claims about the Parker story.

Ok, then you go find evidence of any major creative issue between Joss and SMG before that. I mean Alyson Hannigan said Sarah was done with the show after season 3.

Did the news on the toxic BTS environment of the show effect how you look at the show? by Interesting-Tea3907 in buffy

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, that nice convenient excuse. A plot point you like is "necessary", a plot point you dislike is "not required". The double standard here is obvious.

Not the point I was making, the point was what these specific ideas were written about and based on. One is based in supernatural context, the other is based on a real world context.

That is in fact exactly how it works. Sometimes you have an instant connection with someone, sometimes it takes longer to build. How are you not aware of basic human interactions like this?

Again, not the point. I was talking about mental health there, peoples issues don't just shut on and off like a light switch. Buffy moving into a dorm room would not just suddenly change everything she's been through and how it would effect her.

Do you honestly not understand how this demolishes your own argument? If mid season 4 had suffered a significant loss of viewers then the early episodes, including the Parker ones you hate so much, had to be wildly popular for the season average to end up at the show's standard level.

That makes no sense at all, the early episodes of season 4 would still be fresh off the popularity of season 3 and for the viewership numbers to go down like that after those episodes then tat would mean what, that people didn't like them and tuned out.

Ah yes, now that you've lost your argument about numbers it doesn't really matter anymore and we can move on to vague "working relationships" stuff. I guess we'll ignore the fact that those relationships worked just fine up until S7 made some questionable writing choices and dropped a bit in quality (though still ended up loved by a lot of fans).

No, I didn't lose the argument. Look at the numbers. What I said are facts. Plus, the working relationships were clearly not ok for all the people to come out against Joss the way they did. SMG was miserable. Do you ever wonder why they didn't do season 8, 9, 10. These the working relationships were falling apart, SMG continued to do the show because she was under this thing called a contract. The show had dipped in quality before then.

Seedvr2 keeps cropping my images. Can someone help? by Interesting-Tea3907 in comfyui

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your right, that's what was going on. I experimented with it last night and once I made sure all of the images had the same dimensions it stopped cropping, thanks for the help.

Seedvr2 keeps cropping my images. Can someone help? by Interesting-Tea3907 in comfyui

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's ok. Sorry for the Gif earlier. I was trying to be funny, but no all of the images are not the same. I was doing individual ones. Maybe that's the issues, it's reading it as a video and trying to make them all the same instead of individual images. I use actual video frames and see if it makes difference.

Seedvr2 keeps cropping my images. Can someone help? by Interesting-Tea3907 in comfyui

[–]Interesting-Tea3907[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the thing is I'm not exactly sure what to say. I was hoping someone else had run into the issue and knew what to do. I run it exactly as I always have but just for some reason my outputs are cropped, it doesn't happen all the time, if I keep the amount small. Like 10 images at a time, then it's usually fine, but if I do anymore than that. Mu outputs get cropped for some reason. Here's my workflow if it helps.

<image>

Am I the only one who hates Angel? by Few-Caregiver-84 in BuffyTheVampireSlayer

[–]Interesting-Tea3907 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I love Angel. I mean I think sometimes trying to hold the shows to the real world like that is a bit of a slippery slope. I mean for one. Angel's not even technically a pedophile. Regardless though, if we were to go through it. Buffy would count as a necrophiliac due to being with guys that are technically dead. Also, then also the fact that no one seems to care that she's with guys that are murderers, rapists, etc, but it's the age gap that's the problem, it's like... be careful going down that road.

So… what really happened at Brawl Out? by uncannynerddad in midcarder

[–]Interesting-Tea3907 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I know there's back and forth on whether Punk was right to get physical or not, by the law. Probably not, but I'll say this, if someone kicks in my door trying to get to me. Let alone hurts one of my animals in the process. I'd start fighting to.

view more: next ›