Seaclock wrote:
> Rob Jensen wrote:
>
>
>> I try to be patient with s6, given that they didn't think they were
>> going to be renewed in the first place and also given that they were
>> more than likely trying to establish story threads in the first half
>> of s6 that could last through hypothetical s7 and 8. I had less of a
>> problem with the core characters not interacting all that much with
>> each than with the stories not allowing the characters to evolve or at
>> least add anything new to our understanding of the characters -- with
>> the exception of Dawson, who was the core character I was least
>> interested in. I thought that Dawson maintained the Capeside feel by
>> trying so hard to keep it in his work no matter how much the reality
>> of the biz smacked him upside the head. It's too bad that the show
>> didn't last long enough to make any of the rest of the points it was
>> apparently trying to make, tho.
>>
>
> I think the next time S6 comes around on TBS I'll try to give at another
> try. I admit my first experience with it made such a bad impression I
> probably have a residing bias against it. I'm interested in reading
> your further thoughts on your last sentence above. Where do you think
> it would have gone in another season?
>
I'm not sure where it would have gone, but given that they couldn't
resist bringing Eddie back when they shouldn't have *and* they restarted
J-P with the Career Op****tunities riff, I *suspect* that the end of a s6
leading into a s7 (and therefore not capped by "All Good Things") would
have resulted in a J-P-E triangle and showdown, possibly with Dawson
playing referee. I also think that Dawson would have ended up at least
dating Audrey for a substantial part of s7, 'cause the potential for
irony in that hookup screams to me that the writers hadn't yet *begun*
to address the real reason they wanted Audrey to hit that rock bottom
that way or the sideways attraction that Audrey was just starting to
develop for Dawson with the rehab episode (and which they curtailed once
they announced the show's cancellation). The symbolic im****tance of the
Leery house being destroyed by one of the core characters (and by that
point, Audrey was well-established as a core character) suggests to me
that they were on the verge of a storyline that would have put Dawson's
"moral authority" to the test -- just *how* many times could Dawson
"save" everyone around him, and what would happen if *he* fell further
off his pedestal (with or without Audrey) than *anyone* in the group had
gone before? Not necessarily anything like Audrey's drug/alcohol abuse,
but something just as alienating -- or even *more* alienating to the
gang than Audrey's meltdown.
To use a Buffy analogy -- I think they might have been steering Dawson
in an s7 to a place similar to Buffy in her s6, minus the Ick! factor
that I love so much about Buffy s6. Would any of the gang *want* to
save him if he somehow went *that* far off the deep end? He was the
only one of the seven core characters (D, J, P, Jack, Jen, Andie,
Audrey) to not be the center of their own pitch-black storyline at some
point in the series, although the immediate fallout of Mitch's death
came close. And by pitch-black, I mean either a grand moral failing or
the blackest of psychological issues and personal dilemmas. Examples:
Jen-substance abuse & *** issues, Andie-mental breakdown, Jack-coming
out(not a moral failing, but a stressor of nearly the level of Andie's
meltdown), Audrey-substance abuse, Pacey-Andie's breakdown and his own
parental psychological abuse, Joey-her father. I don't think they'd
even begun to make Dawson run through the dark places they seemed to
want to take him.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?
|
