Dollhouse, Firefly, Angel, Buffy : news, photos & videos

Jane Espenson - Death Becomes Them : The Role of Character Deaths in Television

Webmaster — 2009-04-13T19:03:14Z

With so many high-profile series like Lost, Desperate Housewives, and Heroes proving themselves willing to kill off main characters over the last few seasons (and rumors swirling about many a death on upcoming series by the end of the season), it got me thinking about the role of death on television and whether it's still an important tool in the television writer's arsenal of plot devices or an over-hyped gimmick to force viewers to tune in.

The most recent death on television was, of course, the shocking demise of Kal Penn's Dr. Lawrence Kutner on FOX's House earlier this week. In the April 6th episode, entitled "Simple Explanation," Penn's typically levelheaded character commits suicide very unexpectedly and his absence from work prompts two of the series' characters to investigate his whereabouts ; they discover his body in his apartment with a gun by his side.

Reactions to the episode have divided both critics and audience alike, with some praising the realism and grace with which it was handled, while others, such as The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan, decried Kutner's suicide as a sort of emotional blackmail. Comparing his death to that of former House character Amber Volakis (Anne Dudek), killed off last season, Ryan wrote, "Everything about the death of Kutner [...] smelled of manipulation. And how about that online "memorial" to Kutner that was advertised at the end of the show ? Sigh. It just struck me as cheesy. I have been dissatisfied with House all season, but the death of Lawrence Kutner might just be the coup de grace for this once-great show." (Ouch.)

I turned to some industry insiders about their views on the subject of death on television and asked former Battlestar Galactica and Buffy writer/producer and current Caprica showrunner Jane Espenson about her thoughts on the death of Kutner on House, along with a cable network development executive and a studio current series executive (both of whom asked to remain anonymous for this story).

I asked Espenson about whether writers have overused death as plot device. "Of course the death of a character can be meaningful !" she told me. "Death is a part of life and is perfectly legitimate fodder for drama. It can also be a cheap plot twist. Like almost everything, it's about the execution."

"I loved the House storyline, and thought it was really well done," she continued. "Usually we talk about "earning" a plot development as big as a character death. As a writer, you try to make the death feel surprising, but, in retrospect, unavoidable or logical or necessary. On both Buffy and BSG, we wrote episodes in which characters (Joyce, Dualla) seemed to be recovering from dangerous situations and then succumbed—in the one case to disease, in the other, to despair. Both deaths were chilling and—I believe—earned."

"What House managed to dramatize was the much more difficult unearned-death-because-that-was-the-whole-point," Espenson explained. "It happens—deaths that are impossible to explain happen. And the writers didn't swerve off the road, either—Gregory House's reaction to the death was front and center, as it should be in this kind of show. The episode would still have been legitimate if it had involved a character the audience had never met before, actually. But making it about someone the audience was invested in gave it extra impact—helped us understand the characters' reactions more viscerally. That's what good drama does."

But would the current series executive agree with Espenson ? I asked her the same questions about the House suicide and about death on television in general.

"I think it was a really interesting way to do a character death," she said of Kutner's suicide on House. "It wasn't promoted, and its purpose was more about House and his ability to not figure everything out than about the character that died."

"For me, it's not that I'm against killing off characters ; I'm against killing off characters as a promotional strategy," continued our forthright studio executive. "It seems that so many series these days use character deaths as a way to pick up viewers or bring back old viewers. I would prefer that network showrunners concentrate on making the best show they can instead of picking which character will die during sweeps. I've seen so many commercials and read so many magazine articles that tout the death of a character before it's going to happen. The most recent example of this is Nicolette Sheridan's character on Desperate Housewives. When you promote a death so much, it completely loses all of the dramatic weight behind it."

So have character deaths lost all emotional impact these days ? "I firmly believe that it is still possible to have a character's death mean something," admitted the studio exec. "The element of surprise is always good, but it's the execution that really makes it work for me. I think The Sopranos is a great example. That's a show where the viewer was always expecting a character to die strictly because of the world in which it took place, but it constantly provided jaw-dropping (Ralphie) and gut-wrenching (Big Pussy, Adriana) deaths. They were always done in a way that would result in a very visceral reaction from the audience and that is what makes a character death meaningful."

Our cable development executive was less kind about the subject matter.

"I think it is overused," he said of the use of death as a plot device today. "The networks and advertisers want attention. The easiest way to get everyone's attention is to kill someone off. It quickly becomes cliched. From a development perspective, it is incredibly unsettling towards everything else you are working towards."

"The networks are constantly scrambling to keep audience attention and especially today when network viewership at an all time low," he said. "More people than ever are watching TV but they aren't watching network TV. There's a massive disconnect. Why are there such huge plot twists ? Why, in 24, is there going to be a nuclear disaster every season ? To keep up audience attention. From a network development perspective, there's a need to keep pushing the envelope in order to keep audience interest there... When you're doing a 24-type show, or even House to a certain extent, each episode asks, 'What is this person going to die of ?' It speaks to a frustrating model that [action, medical, etc.] shows like these are so similar that you have to find a way to do it differently each time because the characters aren't evolving. Why aren't they changing ? Because they don't want to alienate viewers. Why can't you alienate viewers ? Because you don't want to alienate any advertisers."

"We've also reached saturation levels as far as media goes," he went on to say. "Everyone is extremely aware of characters, actors, etc. Remember when Cynthia Watros was on Lost and she got a pilot and then we all knew something was going to happen to Libby on the show ? Everyone knew it was going to happen because it was in the trades. And the trades aren't limited to industry readers anymore because everyone can go on to the Variety website and see what's happening with their favorite actors. People are becoming hyper-aware of who is being utilized or not utilized. We are no longer making TV shows in a bubble, for other little bubbles around the country ; we're making TV shows for a mass audience that is aware and following all of your footsteps."

And yet that does speak a great deal towards what showrunners David Shore and Katie Jacobs were looking to do with Lawrence Kutner's suicide on show. It was unexpected, it hadn't been announced in the trades or in, say, TV Guide or on the cover of Entertainment Weekly (like Edie's death on Desperate Housewives), and it was shocking.

But, while the storyline may yield some character development down the road, its impetus wasn't story-based but rather that actor Kal Penn wanted to leave the FOX series in order to take a position in the Obama Administration. One can't argue that it was a promotional tool, because it wasn't promoted ahead of time, but was the death strictly for shock value or does it open up the series to explore new themes and stories ?

I agree with Espenson that, when a death is "earned," it can be a fantastic storytelling device that potentially offers viewers an emotional wallop to the gut. And I am hopeful that writers can use the unexpected death of a character to further the overall story rather than just sell it as promotional, tune-in gimmick... so long as the media and network promo departments don't spoil it in advance, as they have in the past. (ABC's promos for Lost come to mind.)

Ultimately, death is a huge part of life and shouldn't be abandoned from the writer's toolbox any time soon. But creators and networks need to be aware that character deaths have to be earned above all else and not used as a throwaway storyline to trim the cast or "shock" the audience. Or they run the risk of truly de-sensitizing the audience at large.

What are your thoughts about Lawrence Kutner's death ? Are too many series seemingly using character deaths as a promotional tool more than a story-based one ? Discuss.

Jane Espenson - "Battlestar Galactica" Tv Series - Nytimes.com Review

Webmaster — 2008-12-29T20:05:06Z

NBC Bridges Series Gaps With Online Minidramas

As NBC has cast about for ways to restore its fortunes in the new century, its most prominent ideas have involved making more out of less : “supersizing” episodes of its few popular shows, like “The Office” ; scattering “Deal or No Deal” across the week ; giving five hours of prime time to Jay Leno.

But not everything the network does is reductive. One area in which NBC, and its sister cable channels in the NBC Universal family, have consistently provided more than the other big networks is online : they're the only reliable purveyors of true Webisodes, if we define the genre narrowly as minidramas produced in conjunction with an existing television series.

(To be fair, you can go to cbs.com and watch many episodes of “Big Brother House Calls.” You could also poke yourself in the eye with a stick.)

At the moment, with network television having gone into a profound holiday slumber of repeats and musical specials, practically the only original fiction the networks are offering consists of a pair of online dramas on NBC Universal Web sites, each of which will post a new episode on Monday.

Both of these Web series are bridging gaps in their companion television series's schedules. “The Recruit” (nbc.com/Heroes/video/categories/the-recruit/873822/) falls between “volumes” of NBC's “Heroes,” which returns to the air on Feb. 2. “The Face of the Enemy” (scifi.com/battlestar) leads up to the final episodes of the Sci Fi Channel's “Battlestar Galactica,” which begin on Jan. 16.

The two serial dramas (“The Recruit” will be posting the third of five weekly episodes ; “The Face of the Enemy” the sixth of 10 biweekly episodes) join a library of Webisodes available on the NBC Universal sites, and it's not just science-fiction or fantasy shows that have had these extra resources devoted to them. At usanetwork.com lie six fairly funny Webisodes for “Psych,” which are notable because they feature the series's stars, James Roday and Dulé Hill. They're bare-bones, one-joke videos, however ; two of the six involve the characters sitting at their desks making prank phone calls.

More elaborate are the recent “Chuck” Webisodes at nbc.com, which take the form of mock instructional videos for Buy More, the big-box store where the show's hero, Chuck Bartowski, works. A number of the show's supporting players — the “nerd herd” of Buy More workers — appear in the Webisodes, but Chuck himself (Zachary Levi) doesn't, an absence that seems more pronounced given that the show is named after him.

Even more ambitious is “The Outburst,” a four-episode Web extension of “The Office” posted this month on nbc.com. It's a self-contained narrative about the Dunder-Mifflin workers' raging curiosity when Oscar (Oscar Martinez) has a loud argument on the telephone with an unknown interlocutor.

Clocking in at about 11 minutes total, it's half the length of an “Office” episode and about half as funny, which isn't bad for free desktop entertainment. Much of the regular cast appears in the Webisodes, but not the biggest stars : no Steve Carell, John Krasinski or Jenna Fischer.

All of these comedy Webisodes (or dramedy, in the case of “Chuck”) are diverting, but none are more than diversions. The “Heroes” and “Battlestar Galactica” Web serials are, for better or worse, tied into the story arcs of the television shows, and if they don't advance the plots in essential ways, they still contain information that the obsessive viewers those series attract will want to process and file away.

“The Recruit” spins off the Dec. 15 half-season finale of “Heroes,” in which the Pinehearst laboratory where Mohinder Suresh was working to perfect the superpower formula was torched. The Webisodes follow a particularly inconsequential strand from the show's current tangle of story lines : they fill in the back story of one of the otherwise faceless group of Marines who served as guinea pigs for tests of the formula. As in the two previous batches of “Heroes” Webisodes, the only series regular who appears is Cristine Rose as the dour Angela Petrelli.

The whole effort feels halfhearted ; while Jesse Alexander, a “Heroes” executive producer, gets a story credit, the writers and director of the Webisodes are not among the show's A-team. And like the earlier “Heroes” Webisodes, “The Recruit” amplifies the show's biggest problem, which is superhero inflation. The last thing we need is more characters, with increasingly redundant powers, to keep track of.

“The Face of the Enemy,” on the other hand, could serve as a model of the Webisode genre. It's not something you need to watch if you're not already a “Battlestar Galactica” fan, but those who are will appreciate the serious treatment this minidrama has received, the same kind of care taken with the cult-favorite series itself. The lead writer of “Enemy” was Jane Espenson, a “Galactica” co-executive producer and television veteran with “Gilmore Girls” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” on her résumé, and its performers include series regulars like Grace Park, Alessandro Juliani and Michael Hogan.

The Webisodes, which will conclude on Jan. 12, just before the television series returns, are a self-contained murder mystery set aboard a small spacecraft that has been separated from the fleet. But they also expand on the “Galactica” mythology, through flashbacks, and flesh out major characters. Fans who had wondered whether Lieutenant Gaeta (Mr. Juliani) was gay found out in Episode 1 of “Enemy.” Or they thought they did, until his close encounter with a Cylon 8 (Ms. Park) a few episodes later clouded matters.

Along with the regular Webisodes the Sci Fi Channel is providing “enhanced” versions featuring commentary by Ms. Espenson. They're a revelation in their own right. While commentary tracks on movies or even television episodes tend to get boring or crazy-making long before the show is over, commentary tracks on four- or five-minute Webisodes can actually be entertaining.

Ms. Espenson describes the chaotic, and poignant, circumstances in which the Web serial was filmed : with the television series's final season already completed, the “Enemy” scenes were often the last things filmed on the “Galactica” sets. After a scene was completed, its set would be torn down for good.

Other tidbits — Ms. Park plays two parts in “Enemy” because the “Galactica” star Tricia Helfer turned out not to be available after the story had already been developed — might seem like too much information to have while the serial is still unfolding. But it's really just a sign that NBC Universal is getting at least one thing right. In a world where the possibilities for elaborating your shows online are endless, the true fan wants to see and hear everything.

Jane Espenson - "Battlestar Galactica" Tv Series - Afterelton.com Review

Webmaster — 2008-12-13T17:33:50Z

"Battlestar Galactica" rumor confirmed : Yep, someone is gay !

The blogosphere has been abuzz for several weeks now with news the Battlestar Galactica was going to finally add a gay male character (or two) when the show debuts their new "The Face of the Enemy" webisodes starting this Friday.

Well, I just watched the first two webisodes and I can confirm the speculation is true. Find out who is gay and what happens with them after the jump. But only click through if you don't want to be spoiled about the reveal or the two webisodes !

I'm sure it won't come as much of a surprise that the two gay characters are Lt. Felix Gaeta (Alessandro Juliani) and Lt. Hoshi (Brad Dryborough). So how does the big gay reveal occur ? Do Felix and Hoshi host a Mama Mia ! sing-along ? Do the Twelve Colonies try to pass their own Proposition 8 ?

Fortunately, the answer is neither.

We actually learn Felix and Hoshi are a couple in the very first webisode when Colonel Tigh sends Gaeta away for some rest and relaxation. As Felix is leaving the deck, he runs into Hoshi. Felix apologizes for leaving on such short notice but Hoshi only says "Go. Feel better. I'll be waiting." The two then share a brief but sweet kiss indicating they have been a couple for quite some time.

Felix then departs in a shuttlecraft along with a number of other folks, but something goes wrong during the jump and the group finds themselves lost.

In the second webisode, Hoshi — frantic after Felix has been missing for two days — goes to Colonel Tigh and asks for a shuttlecraft to go hunting for Felix. Colonel Tigh says no, but Hoshi is insistent, saying "I know, I know I can find Felix. Me and Felix ... there has been too much loss already." Tigh then says he'll see what he can do.

During that long pause it seemed quite clear Hoshi was struggling with how much to reveal about his relationship with Felix and that Tigh was unaware they were a couple. Hoshi's hesitancy to tell him raises all sorts of interesting questions including how long the two men have been together, how they met and so forth.

Based on the first two webisodes, I'm pleased with what the show is doing and where it might going with this storyline. It was nice to see the characters kiss right away rather than making us wait and it was even nicer to see Hoshi taking an active part in finding Felix in the second webisode. Frankly, after they kissed and Felix left, I was annoyed that the two characters were immediately separated and that it seemed like Hoshi would vanish. Instead, it appears that he is going to play a part in the webisodes and that will be something refreshing to see.

There are a couple of other items that occur in the webisodes that I'm not mentioning here so as not to spoil all the surprises. But two in particular could play out in interesting ways in regards to Felix and Hoshi's relationship — or not at all.

While I am very glad the show has taken this step, I still have to ask why it took so long and why it had to happen on the webisodes rather than on the show itself. With any luck perhaps we'll see the two when the show returns in January.

"The Face of the Enemy" webisodes premiere this Friday at noon on the show's website and two new webisodes air each Friday until the show returns on January 16th for the final ten regular episodes.

Jane Espenson Bids Her Gentle Readers Farewell, Not Goodbye

Webmaster — 2008-12-09T20:41:12Z

Dear Gentle Readers,

As you have probably noticed, the frequency of these posts has declined in the recent months. I have been telling myself that I will recapture the fire and drive that powered this blog for these last several years, but I suspect that it is now time to face the truth :

I simply have said almost everything that I have to say about writing for television.

It used to be the case that every time I wrote a scene — or watched a scene — a little nugget of writing advice would occur to me. But now I find that I'm consistently being reminded of points that I have already made, examples at which I have already pointed.

I have received hundreds, possibly thousands, of letters during the time I blogged here, all of them kind and thoughtful. Thank you. In fact, some of the letters which remain unaddressed may still be answered in this space as I stumble across answers and notions.

I'm not abandoning this space. I will probably post here from time to time as I continue to learn how to write, and I'll pass my realizations along to you. I may also use this space as I originally had planned to : as a place to notify you of airdates and personal appearances.

I hope that I will get a second wind, discover an untapped well of writing wisdom to share — I think sometimes it's necessary simply to practice what one does in order to learn more about how to convey the secrets of doing it.

And, of course, I hope to organize the thoughts I've presented here into a book at some future date.

But in any case, I thank you SO MUCH, Gentle Readers, for your time and attention. I have loved talking with you through this medium and I hope I'll return to it in the future !

Love, Jane (Your Gentle Writer)

Jane Espenson blogs about writing comics

Webmaster — 2008-11-22T11:04:12Z

11/20/2008 : Feverish Comic Book Thoughts

I promised a very long time ago that I would talk about the process of comic book writing. I've already mentioned that comic book scripts vary enormously from author to author and publisher to publisher, so it's possible that the process I'm going to describe is only one way that these things are accomplished, but this is how I've experienced it.

First, I come up with a story, remembering that it generally has to be quite simple. You can't get a lot on a page, so you have to keep that in mind. I also try to make the story more action-packed than I normally would do in a similarly long stretch of television. It's worth thinking, too, about things that would be hard or expensive to do on TV, since this is your chance to, say, make a character shrink or fade away or turn inside-out, or make a city burn, crumble or float. You can think big on the comic book page. (Although some things stay the same — huge crowd scenes can still sometimes be problematic, I was told, since you're burdening the artist with a very complex drawing.)

Next, I try to carve my story up into roughly page-sized pieces. I will find out during the writing process (every darn time) that I've overestimated the content of each page and I'll have to simplify the story. Presumably, a better writer would learn how to anticipate that.

It's a good idea to look for act-break like little moments of suspense at the end of each odd-numbered page so that the reader is compelled to turn the page. But, honestly, I don't sweat these too much. If I can make it happen, great. But I don't want to twist the story around to the tyranny of the page break.

Some parts of comic book writing are incredibly specific to the genre, like sound-effects words. You get to figure out how (and where and when) to suggest the sound of a body hitting the ground or a bullet being fired, or a blob of taffy flying through the air. (Answer key : k'thumph, blamm and fweeee !)

My scripts give pretty detailed descriptions of what I imagine for each panel, so when I'm writing the script I have to think visually. I picture an action, and then have to figure out if there's a single snapshot that would capture that action, or if I'll need to spread it out over multiple panels. If there's a conversation, I have to boil it down to its essentials so I don't have pages of nothing but drawings of two people on a park bench. It's a challenge. If you read a lot of comics it will undoubtedly come easier to you. As in all writing, there is no need to re-invent anything. Others have worked out a lot of this already and you can learn a lot by studying how other writers have tackled these challenges.

Once the script is turned over to the artist, I get to communicate back-and-forth with him or her. Artists are, of course, uniquely equipped to tell you what will and won't work to communicate your idea visually, and they have loads of creative ideas of their own. Let them run with it ! I find it's best to just make clear what I was HOPING to convey and then let them convey it, because their ideas about this are always better than mine. (On my most recent effort, I got to work with Georges Jeanty, who is a genuine genius — fantastic.)

I got to weigh in on preliminary drawings and even colors during the latest issue I wrote, and it's fascinating, seeing it all come together. Comic books feel both very autonomous and very collaborative at the same time — it begins entirely under your control, without the limitations of a filmed production, and it ends entirely in the hands of others. It's one of the most satisfying final products, too, for a TV writer, since it's both a physical object and a lot faster than a novel.

Lunch : juice and Tylenol (home sick with flu)

Jane Espenson - "Battlestar Galactica" Tv Series - Season 4 mid-season finale

Webmaster — 2008-06-16T18:47:31Z

(Warning ! If you haven't watched the latest episode of BSG yet, thar be spoilers ahead !)

After last Friday's episode, a lot of us had questions about what we saw. Was that Earth ? Are humans and cylons really bonded together, after all this time ? Who is the final cylon ? I finally took the time to throw a slew of questions toward writer and co-executive producer Jane Espenson about this episode, and she had a few things to say (though nothing quite as revealing as I had hoped).

Rather than get into what I had to say, I'll let her letter back to me speak on its own. As you'll quickly see, she's not a woman of few words when it comes to this show. I'm hoping she'll have just as much to spill when I ask her questions for our Buffy Retro Squad week next week.

Holy cow, I love this episode beyond the saying of it, and 'thank you' to the fans who have been going out of their way to tell all of us that, too. Adama's reaction to the reveal was stunning — my gods — and Starbuck— her face said it all. A thunderclap. Simply beautiful. You wouldn't want more and you can't imagine less. I'm stating the obvious when I say that a more labored reaction would've attenuated the emotions, given the characters a chance to gather themselves before the big blow that was to come, which certainly would be a mistake. And there's a difference, of course, between finding out that your XO is a Cylon if he's handing you a giftbox filled with a fertile verdant Earth, and finding out that he's holding a cinder-planet. I think the *real* reactions are yet to come, just like in life. The beauty of this episode is in its urgency, in the tumbling breathless slide that lands us on that grim gray unfamiliar beach... It's so gray, in fact, that I think it earns the British spelling. It's grey, which is even worse.

And — oh — that haunting devastated city there, with the massive ruined temple and our people trying to find their footing in a strange dead city I did not recognize... that image just kills me. Every time I watch this episode, I well up with hope, and it lasts right up through that handful of soil, and then the radiation counter breaks my heart all over again. I do not easily tear up, but the race to the planet — don't the ships look like they're *running* ? I always think of running... Anyway, that race and then the reveal brings tears to my eyes in a way I'm not sure I've experienced before during a television show. Someday I'll see those images without having to blink through them. Right ?

David and Bradley (David Weddle and Bradley Thompson, our writers) did an excellent job throughout this rocketsled of an episode - the writing had to be so delicate, precise and emotional... and they also did such a good job doing little things like dealing with the fallout from my episode the previous week. Baltar saying he loves living is such a gem of a moment among a cascade of gems — thanks for that, David and Brad ! And then, of course, the big stuff starts happening and never ever lets up.

When we screened this episode at Ron's house, months ago, we all sat stunned, and then agreed it was perhaps the best the show had ever produced. And seeing it Wednesday and again Friday night with fans in attendance bore that out... every time the blue clouded planet was revealed, I could hear the inhales of hope, despite the lack of indication of any continents — and I knew we were about to break some hearts. But, I hope, they only broke like mine did.

I wish we could bring you the next episode right away. In my mind the two fit together so closely so as to almost be a two-parter, and I have that awful sense of having had a phone call cut off mid-sentence with so much left unsaid.

There's so much left unsaid.

Thanks to the fans from me, but especially from David and Bradley — these two episodes are their babies, and they are so grateful for the appreciation they've been receiving. We all put our hearts and tears and then more hearts into these episodes, and they become parts of us like our flesh. So thank you. Very much. We have the best fans in television.

(And you cannot trick me into revealing the identity of the Fifth by pretending you don't care ! I won't fall for that ! Not again.)

Smiling, Jane

Jane Espenson talks Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) themes in Sci-Fi World

Webmaster — 2008-04-09T09:12:44Z

In a galaxy far, far gay.

Sci Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica enters its fourth and final queer season.

When we're introduced to Lieutenant Kara “Starbuck” Thrace, we find her chomping on a cigar while playing poker with her fellow soldiers. Her superior officer, Colonel Saul Tigh, enters. They argue, she slugs him and, moments later, she's locked up in the brig. It's an auspicious moment for LGBT viewers—our first glimpse into Battlestar Galactica's cool queer world.

Starbuck is not a lesbian. In fact, there are no out characters on Battlestar, or even LGBT-specific themes for that matter. But the Sci Fi Channel's popular remake—in which mankind's only survivors crisscross the universe in search of a mythical place called Earth while pursued by their nemeses, the robot Cylons—is a gay favorite. It's easy to see why.

For starters, Starbuck's toughness makes lesbian viewers swoon. Her character also has a gender-bending twist : In the original series, Starbuck was a man ; as one Battlestar devotee put it, “They kept the masculine characteristics of Starbuck, but she has a vagina.” Then there's the men on the show : buff, often bare-chested military dudes who just happen to be sensitive and emotional. The ship's tactical officer is the dapper and ambiguously gay Felix Gaeta (pronounced gay-ta…hmm), and in a casting coup, lesbian icon Lucy Lawless has a recurring role as Cylon badass D'anna Biers.

Battlestar's gay following hasn't surprised its creative team. “I think that it's a natural match,” says writer and co–executive producer Jane Espenson. “Look at the Vulcan symbol [in Star Trek], the idea of infinite diversity, infinite combinations. Diversity is built into sci-fi.” Indeed, gay themes and subtexts have long been part of the sci-fi/fantasy genre : Homosexual sex is mentioned in sci-fi scribe Robert Heinlein's 1973 novel Time Enough for Love ; gay themes were frequently addressed both literally and metaphorically in the Buffy universe, including Buffy's own “coming out” as a slayer ; and Dr. Who spin-off and current BBC hit Torchwood features Captain Jack Harkness as the bisexual protagonist (played by out actor John Barrowman).

Not unlike those old soft-core Abercrombie ads, sci-fi encourages the imagination to run wild. When actor Tom Lenk played the fey comic-relief Andrew on Buffy, a genre favorite that featured prime time's first in-depth lesbian relationship, his character's sexual ambiguity drove viewers nuts. “I'd have fans coming up to me all the time at conventions and asking if [Andrew's] gay or not,” Lenk says.

Also key to sci-fi's queerness is that it's often set either in the distant future or in an alternate universe where racism, sexism and homophobia no longer exist. “Differences are truly treated as unimportant in the idealized worldview that sci-fi has,” Espenson says. “It's sort of inevitable that sci-fi/fantasy do that because to look at your own world, you create this parallel one, and so it allows you to comment on it.”

On Battlestar, for instance, gender roles are neutralized : A woman is president, the battleship's locker rooms are coed and soldiers refer to commanding officers as “sir” even if that officer's a woman. And it's no big deal. While Espenson doesn't offer any clues to Gaeta's alleged same-sex attraction, she does say that it isn't an issue. “I don't think that's the kind of thing that would lead to someone getting beat up in the locker room on Battlestar,” she says. “In the Battlestar world, [being gay] would not get you kicked in the ass.”

One thing is clear : Sci-fi/fantasy's impact on queer culture can't be ignored. Lenk recalls meeting two fans who thanked him for Buffy's explicit gay story lines, in particular the Willow character's coming out. “[It gave] these women the confidence to come out themselves,” he says. “In some ways it's just amazing what it has done for people.”

Battlestar Galactica returns Friday 4.

Why We Write essay ala Jane Espenson

Webmaster — 2008-01-16T20:23:18Z

Number 19

Today's piece is written by Jane Espenson, writer for “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and Co-Executive Producer of “Battlestar Gallactica.”

I had a lot of Barbie dolls when I was a kid. Close to a dozen, I think. I remember that I loved them, but looking back, I'm not sure why. I knew at the time, vaguely, that I was supposed to make up stories and act them out with the dolls, and I actually remember trying to do that, and failing. The problem was that I didn't know these girls. I didn't know their backgrounds, their quirks, what distinguished one from the other. I didn't get the premise of how eleven identical ludicrously-shaped teenagers had met. But most of all, I didn't know their voices. Without that, I was uninspired.

The dolls I REALLY played with were the characters from M*A*S*H and Welcome Back Kotter and Barney Miller and The Odd Couple and The Love Boat and Starsky and Hutch. I would fall asleep making up stories for those shows in my head. But I was a brutal audience. I couldn't enjoy the made-up stories if I couldn't make myself believe them. And I couldn't believe them if the voices weren't right.

So I would keep tinkering, reworking the same scene over and over in my mind every night until I could hear it. I assume that I was doing the same thing that impersonators do when they learn to take on the voices of others. I was just doing it silently.

I'm not old enough to have gotten my start writing for the radio. But I wrote as if I did. Because I was so focused on the word, the image meant less to me. I've since learned the power of the image, but deep in my heart, finding the exact right word for that character is still, to this day, the most important thing.

Even now, when I'm stuck on a line, I'll lie down in a quiet room. And I'll listen, just like I did when I was ten. If I'm lucky, I'll hear the line. Heck, I'll hear the whole scene. Then I just have to type it. Note that this is why I don't write at The Coffee Bean. It's not quiet enough and they don't let you lie down.

I've been lucky, during my working life, to get to write for Ellen, Buffy, Lorelei, Starbuck and so many more unique characters. Getting to step into their voices has been incredibly fulfilling. The fact that Buffy has continued beyond its televised run into the world of comic books is amazing and wonderful to me. Her voice lives on. Starbuck, of course, has also not finished saying what she has to say. When a fair agreement is reached, I look forward to listening to more of what she has to say. And writing it down.

Are there kids out there somewhere now, writing lines for Apollo and Starbuck in their heads as they fall asleep ? Am I not so strange that there can be other kids like me ? I hope so. And I hope when those kids start pursuing careers, that there's one here waiting for them.

"The Secret to Selling Sci-Fi" by Jane Espenson

Webmaster — 2007-08-08T08:55:57Z

It's difficult to sell a show with hard sci-fi or fantasy elements. It doesn't matter that the biggest summer movies (Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Caribbean : At World's End, Transformers, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) and book (Harry Potter again) are sci-fi or fantasy, or even that "Heroes" was the highest-rated new show on TV. Try pitching a purely sci-fi/fantasy show with a spaceship or an elf and see how it goes over. Put an elf on your spaceship and you might never recover. Even the SCI FI Channel seems reluctant, as they look toward a post-"Battlestar Galactica" era, to dive too deeply into Asimovian or Tolkienish waters. Non-cable networks are even more wary. And their reasoning isn't terrible. Networks are still in the business of broadcasting, not nichecasting. You simply cannot make a hit show by attracting only viewers who also attend Comic-Con, no matter how hard it is to move down a San Diego sidewalk in late July.

And yet, there is a certain kind of fantasy story that seems to be able to reach beyond the edges of the normal fandom. It seems to be able to cross the boundaries and appeal so strongly to people that they sometimes don't even notice that they're enjoying fantasy. Harry Potter is an example of that kind of story. The people who don't like Harry Potter seem to be the ones who haven't tried it yet. It's universally appealing, like pie and Anderson Cooper. That means, of course, that Harry has something to teach those of us who want to write, create, air or sell sci-fi/fantasy television shows.

When I tell people what I like about Harry Potter, I usually start out by saying something about how thoroughly-imagined the world is. And for a while I thought that this was why Harry Potter appealed even to people who don't like sci-fi and fantasy, that it is set in a world that seems as real as our own. But it's not a satisfactory explanation. I could cite lots of sci-fi and fantasy shows that constructed seamless imaginative worlds but didn't lure viewers to walk around in them once a week. In fact, the detailed creation of other worlds can sometimes be part of what puts a lot of people off fantasy ! They don't want to know the histories of fictional tiny races and their fictional languages. I have an intelligent well-read friend, confusingly also named Jane, who says this about why she doesn't like sci-fi and fantasy : "The reason I don't like those books is [that] I don't understand them. I miss the metaphor ; I can't remember who's who and what the androids and robots are called and what, for that matter, it even means to be an android versus a robot. And I also kind of don't care to." And yet, she also admits that as a child : "I was a big, big fan of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach and I think the Harry Potter books touch on that sense of longing and sadness and looking to pull yourself out of a bad situation."

Yeah. That's it right there. Charlie and Harry and the emergence from a bad situation. That's what it is. It's something about the actual Harry Potter narrative that makes it cross the boundary. It's a very specific type of Hero's Journey, the most potent sub-case. It's told over and over again, and it works, over and over again. Dorothy Gale, Buffy Summers, Harry Potter, Charlie Bucket, Luke Skywalker, even Peter Parker, they all fit a very specific pattern. They're living a life, sometimes a fine one, often a troubled one, but certainly one governed by ordinary rules, when suddenly the curtain is pulled back and a whole new world, or a new set of rules of this world, is revealed. And what's more - and this is the important part - in that new world, they are something special. They are The Chosen One.

I would argue that these stories have a more universal appeal then, say, "Star Trek" in its various incarnations, or "Firefly," or "Battlestar Galactica," as much as those shows all own my heart (and to some degree, pay my bills). And it's no wonder. The Chosen One paradigm is the most positive, most comforting, most affirming metaphorical version of change, of growing up, that I can imagine.

It has obvious inherent appeal to children. They know that they're going to have to move into new worlds as they grow up, and they're scared. A story that tells them that when they arrive they're going to be recognized for the extraordinary person they hope they are, and that they're going to overcome all obstacles even if they're scared ? Wow. That's like one of those brain probes they can hook up to lab rats so they can zap their own pleasure centers.

And, of course, the big secret is that grown-ups are every bit as terrified of change as kids, and even more eager to imagine that the ordinary world might be replaced with somewhere in which their specialness is suddenly obvious. In fact, we might even need it more. Kids have potential. Adults have accomplishments. Which of those feels more magical and limitless ?

So here's what I think we need to do if we want to write a sci-fi or a fantasy show and give it appeal way beyond the normal boundaries of sci-fi/fantasy fandom. We need to start with an empty page of notebook paper, write "The Chosen One" across the top and start brainstorming. At least, that's what I plan to do.

Jane Espenson is a former writer for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and has written episodes for shows including "Angel," "Firefly," "Gilmore Girls," and others. She's currently under a development deal with NBC Universal television while working as Co-Executive Producer on "Battlestar Galactica." She blogs at janeespenson.com.

Jane Espenson blogs about good and evil

Webmaster — 2007-06-19T14:48:52Z

You know one of the amazing things about Battlestar Galactica ? There is no one character who always manages to do the right thing. There are characters who try, but they don't always succeed. And the right path isn't always obvious, and outcomes are unpredictable. Even the bad guy is really only disastrously selfish, not evil. Even the robots are human. This gives the writers lots of opportunities to write the very best kind of fights. The kind where both sides are right.

On the surface, this might seem like a lessening of conflict, but it really isn't. It's more like a— like a realification of it. Both sides in a real conflict are always working from a place of incomplete knowledge, simply because none of us knows the future. And we all hold opinions based on our own subtle list of priorities which may not be at all the same as the person we're arguing with. Even the good guys can differ — do you do the right thing, or the smart thing ? Real fights are complex and painful and wonderful. If you've got a fight in your script, try putting some wrong on the right side and some right on the wrong side. Let both sides shine. It's an antidote to unseemly moustache-twirling and unbearable saintliness.

Human nature can be glorious and it can be very very dark. I direct you to this for some words from Joss on humanity, its failings and its potential. Please check it out. It's important stuff. (Thanks to reader Samantha for calling my attention to this.)

Lunch : salad with warm chicken pieces