October 2001 posts

Previous October 2001  

More October 2001

a Willow theory being kicked around -- celticross, 11:44:18 10/17/01 Wed
A theory I've read on a few other BtVS boards is that Willow's current super-witch status, and the accompanying arrogance, are a side effect of reservee brain-sucking Glory in The Gift. Ok, I'd been seeing her go darker from Tough Love, but the overt declaration of power in Flooded makes me wonder if maybe there's not something else going on in Willow's brain, something she might not even know about. What think the posters?
[> Re: a Willow theory being kicked around -- OnM, 12:11:41 10/17/01 Wed
An interesting theory, and it certainly could be valid, but looking at it from what I imagine the writer's perspective to be, it would be important for Willow to go 'dark' on her own, not with any outside help. It's just too easy to make excuses otherwise, and it's my guess they would want to avoid that.

It's pretty much like the sitch with Buffy being yanked from 'heaven'-- the idea is to point out the reasons why Willow was out of her league and acted rashly in trying to bring Buffy back. If Buffy imagined the 'heaven', or it was just a rush of endorphins, then where's the lesson?
[> [> Re: a Willow theory being kicked around -- darrenK, 12:38:04 10/17/01 Wed
The other thing to consider is that if some of Glory's consciousness found it's way into Willow as a result of the reverse-brain suck, wouldn't Tara have gotten some it as well?

It was her consciousness stuck in Glory. Wouldn't there have been some melding going on?

Seems that way to me. dK
[> Willow, Tara & "Restless" -- Dichotomy, 13:10:27 10/17/01 Wed
"the overt declaration of power in Flooded makes me wonder if maybe there's not something else going on in Willow's brain, something she might not even know about."

I agree. Willow almost seemed a bit taken aback herself after her "don't piss me off" semi-threat. Although I'm not convinced it's entirely Glory related. I've always thought that perhaps Tara knows more about things than she lets on, and I wonder if she may become instrumental in either Willow's flirtation with evil or, later, her saving grace. It made me think of Willow's dream in "Restless":

(Shot of their kitten, playing with a ball of red yarn in slow-motion.)
TARA: You'd think she'd let us know her name by now.
WILLOW: She will. (Looking down at Tara) She's not all grown yet.
TARA: You're not worried?
WILLOW: I never worry here. (Smile) I'm safe here.
TARA: You don't know everything about me.
WILLOW: Have you told me your real name?
(Tara smiles.)
TARA: Oh, you know that.
(Willow smiles, reaches for something.)
(Shot of a paintbrush dipping into ink jars.)
TARA: They will find out, you know.
(Shot of Willow's face.)
TARA: About you.
WILLOW: Don't have time to think about that. (Frown) You know I have all this homework to finish.
(The camera pulls back so we can see Tara is lying face-down on her bed, naked, and Willow is painting on her back.)
TARA: Are you gonna finish in time for class?
WILLOW: I can be late.
TARA: But you've never taken drama before.
(Shot of Willow dipping the paintbrush again, moving it across to Tara's back, which is covered with Greek symbols.)
TARA: Might miss something important.
WILLOW: I don't wanna leave here.
(Tara twists back to look at her.)
TARA: Why not?
(Willow stands up, looking down at Tara. She turns away toward a dark red curtain. Walks over to it.)
WILLOW: It's so bright.

I haven't given great thought to what it can possibly mean, but, again, I think Tara has much more siginificance than just being Willow's devoted lover and friend, and loyal member of the SG. And I think it may be this season that we find out just what that significance is.

Of course, that's just a thought off the top of my head. I usually find that many posters here have much more sophisticated theories than I do and love reading them. Has this been addressed before? And if not, what do some of you great thinkers, uh, think?
[> [> Re: Willow, Tara & "Restless" -- Lunarchickk, 13:52:18 10/17/01 Wed
First off, can I just say? I loved Restless. Year and a half later, and I'm still analyzing it. :)

Anyway, here's an interesting parallel that I noticed in your message above:

TARA: You're not worried?
WILLOW: I never worry here. (Smile) I'm safe here.

TARA: Are you worried?
WILLOW: Worried? Tara, it worked fine. It's all good.
TARA: Hey, Will. This is me. It doesn't all have to be "good" and "fine." This is the room where you don't have to be brave and I still love you. If you're worried you can be worried.
WILLOW: I'm not ... unworried. (...)

An interesting shift from end of Season 4 to beginning of Season 6... Not sure what it might mean, but it's definitely a shift in Willow's perceptions of Tara and what she can share with her.

TARA: They will find out, you know.
(Shot of Willow's face.)
TARA: About you.
WILLOW: Don't have time to think about that. (Frown) You know I have all this homework to finish.

Now this, IMO, sounds like what we're seeing now with Willow... She doesn't have the time to think about what will happen, what consequences she may face as a result of the magicks she is playing with -- at least not until after she's done what only she can do (in her mind, at least), and brought Buffy back.

There's a post around archive 4 (currently) in which I rambled a bit about Willow's dream in Restless... I think it does foreshadow quite a bit of what we're seeing now. "Things aren't going very well," Tara says, later in the dream. If the drama class is Willow's dark path... then it's not going very well at all. She's entirely unprepared for the role she's been thrust into. "Is there something following me?" Willow asks. She could be referring to the spirit of the First Slayer, everpresent in their dreams in Restless; or, is she foreshadowing something external that possesses her in scenes like that in AfterLife, when she drops Tara's hands and tilts her head back, surrounded by a strange aura?

Now I've definitely rambled enough about Restless. Please, somebody else take over! :)
[> [> [> Re: Willow, Tara & "Restless" -- celticross, 18:40:25 10/17/01 Wed
"She could be referring to the spirit of the First Slayer,
everpresent in their dreams in Restless; or, is she foreshadowing something external that possesses her in scenes like that
in AfterLife, when she drops Tara's hands and tilts her head back, surrounded by a strange aura?"

The scene in Afterlife really had me wondering...every other time her eyes have gone black casting a spell, Willow seemed in control of herself and the magic. But in that scene, it didn't seem conscious on her part, like something external made her drop Tara's hands and invoke a totally different spell. Maybe that's just my impression.
[> Re: a Willow theory being kicked around -- Andy, 06:41:09 10/18/01 Thu
I think the problem with that theory is that if you believe Tara (and I don't see any reason not to), Willow was pretty much a super-witch way before she ever did anything to Glory. I can't remember the episode, but the first time I started tweaking to "Dark Willow" was when she cast that light spell when she and Tara were out patrolling. Tara seemed shocked that Willow was capable of doing a spell of that level but Willow blew it off as just something she had been messing around with, which might have been the first sign that she didn't take magic seriously (at least when not in some emotional crisis). I think whatever is wrong with Willow is entirely of her own making and has nothing to do with Glory or anything else.

[> Re: a Willow theory being kicked around -- Juliette, 08:56:23 10/19/01 Fri
I think it would be cool for the brain-sucking to have a side effect like that, but I don't think its the reason for Willow turning to the Dark Side. Willow has always been irresponsible in her use of magic - the first time was Becoming when the plot required someone to perform the risky soul restoration spell, and there have numerous examples since then - Lover's Walk, Doppelgangland, Wild At Heart (almost), Something Blue, Triangle. In Intervention and Tough Love Tara says Willow's strength frightens her and there's the whole resurrection issue in Forever.
If Spike is Love's Bitch...then it looks like Willow is Power's Bitch....... -- Rufus, 13:40:51 10/17/01 Wed
Spike may be a vampire, but the thing that urges him on to do the things he does is love. Without it he seems to be nothing. Love is like any other addiction, used the wrong way it can make us do things like a drunk person. Spike is capable of acting against vampire norm because it isn't being a vampire that is the most important to him (all his bragging aside), but love and what he is willing do to get or keep it. Willow is another story. She is someone who has known the pain of rejection for most of her life. Buffy coming into her life was the best thing to happen to a girl who was mostly invisible to the others. A geek who would always remain the wallflower. On the discovery that she had power, power that could help Buffy, Willow embraced it like a lifeline. Her ability to do magic gave her a place that made her feel wanted and valued. So, what the hell happened to sweet Willow? Power. It's like any other drug....it can make you it's bitch, doing things that you would never have thought of before. Willow is Powers Bitch. Even her relationship with Tara can't break that hold that power has on Willow. Her addiction is not just to what it can do for her, but the recognition she feels she deserves. Giles put a spanner into that last night.

Willow: You have a good talk with Buffy?

Giles: Yes, now that she's back.

Willow: Isn't it awesome?

Giles: Mmm. Tell me about this spell you performed.

Willow:(suddenly excited)Okay. First of all - so scary. Like, the Blair Witch would have to watch like this. (covers eyes)And this giant snake came out my mouth and then there was all this energy crackling and then this pack of demons interrupted but I totally kept it together and the next thing you know...Buffy.

She proudly awaits his kudos.

Giles: (Sadly, quiet) You're a very stupid girl.

Beat. Willow blinks, re-grouping.....

Willow: What? Giles...

Giles: Do you have any idea what you've done? The forces you've harnessed? The lines you've crossed?

Willow: I thought you'd be....(swallows)...impressed, or something.

Giles: Oh, don't worry, you've made a deep impression. Of everyone here - you were the one I trusted most to respect the forces of nature.

Willow: Are you saying you don't trust me?

Giles: Think of what you've done to Buffy?

Willow: I brought her back.

Giles: At incredible risk.

Willow: Risk? Of what? Making her deader?

Giles: Killing us all. Unleashing a hell on Earth. Shall I go on?

Willow: No! Giles, I did what I had to do. I did what nobody else could do.

Giles: Oh, there are others in the world who can do what you did. You just don't want to meet them.

Willow: Okay, probably not - but they're the bad guys. I am not a bad guy. I brought Buffy back to the world and maybe the word you should be looking for is "congratulations."

Giles: Having Buffy back in the world makes me feel indescribably wonderful - but I wouldn't congratulate you if you jumped off a cliff and happened to survive.

Willow: That's not what I did, Giles!

Giles: You were lucky.

Willow: I wasn't lucky, I was amazing. How would you know anyway? You weren't even there.

Giles: (almost yelling) If I had been I'd have bloody well stopped you! The Magicks you channeled are more primal and ferocious than you can hope to understand, and you're lucky to be alive, you rank, arrogant, amateur.

Beat. Giles is done. Willow flatlines, total calm, staring into his eyes. Then:

Willow: You're right. The Magicks I used are incredibly powerful. I'm incredibly powerful. (beat) Angel maybe it's not such a good idea for you to piss me off.

The two just stare at each other. Long beat. Finally Willow relents, back to herself.

Willow: C'mon Giles, I don't want to fight. Let's not, okay? I'll think about what you said, and you...try to be happy Buffy's back.

Giles is right, Willow is a stupid girl. She is arrogant enough to think that the power she uses is under HER control when it comes from a source that has probably used up many stupid girls before her. Her biggest crime at the moment is thinking it's all about her. She doesn't get the fact that wherever this power comes from is leeching away what Willow once was, a sweet, caring person who thought of others before herself. She is now a girl who is pleased about what she thinks are her accomplishments. Giles warned her that she isn't the only or the first kid on the block that can bring back the dead, and , I wonder if it sunk in about what type of being you become to get that power. Willow is in the throes of a need...the need to be more than she was, not happy with the Willow who knew the softer side of Sears. How long is it before Willow moves on from things that are ostensibly for the benefit of the world to becoming one of the things that Giles warns her she doesn't want to meet?
[> Re: If Spike is Love's Bitch...then it looks like Willow is Power's Bitch....... -- JoRus, 15:52:00 10/17/01 Wed
Nice, Rufus. Yes, I couldn't believe Willow thought Giles would praise her and "think she was all cool, and stuff". Obviously the lies and evasions she has been using with everyone are really working on herself...she is really managing to put a glossy layer of denial over anything she doesn't want to deal with. Wasn't powerful enough to de rat Amy at one time? No problem. Let's just not think about Amy ever again. Icky deer incident? Let's call it wine of the mother something and forget all about it. She isn't thinking of the power she wants so badly as requiring any payment, even if the electric and gas companies manage to convince the rest of us that the bill is due.
[> [> Willow the Sociopath -- Dru Kalita, 20:08:29 10/17/01 Wed
I'm starting to think that maybe Willow resurrected Buffy just to see "if she could do it" and not for any real vested interest in having her friend back. Willow is not a psychopath: she knows the difference between right and wrong. She knew that raising the dead is wrong. But she's become so drunk on power that these little moral constraints don't matter anymore. She knows it's wrong, but doesn't care. Willow is a sociopath.

She keeps reiterating about Buffy being in a Hell dimension. But she didn't know. If she was really concerned about the welfare of her friend, wouldn't it have been a good course of action to try and contact Buffy's soul first? Certainly, for someone with so much power, contacting the dead should be a simple thing. And for a rational witch with legitimate reasons to bring someone back, I think this would have been a logical and necessary step to take before the drastic actions in "Bargaining."

Willow is living in her own little world. She ignored the problems in Sunnydale in favor of finding a way to bring Buffy back, and then ignored the potential dangers of resurrection in favor of self-congratulation.
[> [> [> Re: Willow the Sociopath -- Wynn, 21:19:49 10/17/01 Wed
You may be right that Willow resurrected Buffy just to see if she could do it, but I think she also did it because Buffy is(was?) her best friend. When she was trying to convince Xander why they should continue with the resurrection, she showed real emotion and grief over losing Buffy. Also when she thought that the spell hadn't worked, Willow was devastated. Now that Buffy is back, I do think that Willow isn't being considerate to Buffy and the trauma she suffered by coming back to life. Buffy is her friend, and Willow doesn't want to think that her spell caused Buffy pain. That's probably one of the reasons why she is in denial over the danger the spell could have caused and the emotional damage that was caused to Buffy. I think that Giles is right; Willow is stupid when it comes to her magic. But I don't think that being stupid is enough to be considered a sociopath. At least not yet.
[> [> [> [> agreed, wynn. and... -- anom, 22:02:10 10/18/01 Thu
Dru Kalita wrote: "She keeps reiterating about Buffy being in a Hell dimension. But she didn't know."

No, she didn't. And she knew that. And she said so. She was afraid Buffy might be in a hell dimension. Now, of course, Buffy has lied & told her & the others that's where she was, so now she believes & repeats it. I think DK has taken this argument further than anything we've seen on the show (yet...) justifies.
[> [> [> [> [> Some conflict upstairs... -- Dru Kalita, 10:37:25 10/20/01 Sat
::I think DK has taken this argument further than anything we've seen on the show (yet...) justifies.::

I can say it's starting to become horribly obvious that this whole witch business is going to go south *real* fast. I don't like Willow's attitude now, and it's only going to get worse now that she's actually succeeded in something so big and dangerous.

Right now she's on the edge - notice how her personality drastically shifts from moment to moment. One minute she's threatening Giles, then cheerily suggesting they don't fight. It could have been the same with her reasons for bringing Buffy back. One minute she wants to do it because she misses her friend, the next because she can. The girl has some serious mental problems, and she's really starting to scare me.
[> Re: If Spike is Love's Bitch...then it looks like Willow is Power's Bitch....... -- anom, 22:13:26 10/18/01 Thu
"Willow is another story. She is someone who has known the pain of rejection for most of her life. Buffy coming into her life was the best thing to happen to a girl who was mostly invisible to the others. A geek who would always remain the wallflower. On the discovery that she had power, power that could help Buffy, Willow embraced it like a lifeline. Her ability to do magic gave her a place that made her feel wanted and valued."

Except...remember in Welcome to the Hellmouth? As soon as she sat down at the computer she was confident & in control. I think that was when I really started liking her. So she always had this area where she knew she was really good; it's just that it was a very limited area & didn't involve other people much. Considering the way most other people treated her, that may have made it a safe area for her. Maybe what the magic did was give her a feeling of control when she was dealing w/other people.
Buffy's Costume in "Halloween" -- Humanitas, 17:16:34 10/17/01 Wed
A while back we were talking about costumes (I know, big shocker), and somebody asked about the dress that Buffy wears in Halloween. I'd said that I'd weigh in on it after I saw the ep, so here goes (any of the rest of you costume / fashion buffs feel free to add anything I've missed, or tell me if you think I'm off base).

The dress is about right for the time-period (1786, I think), but it's not the gown of a European noblewoman. It's much more colonial in that the skirt is supported by a crinoline, rather than a hoop of some sort. This type of dress was usually worn over a corset, but this one is designed to be worn over modern undergarments (you can tell by the way Buffy falls - not nearly stiff enough to be wearing all that boning). The hot-pink used for the bodice-panel was not available with period dye, either. At least, I don't think so. It looked like an annelin dye to me, and those are pretty modern. Of course, the first Big Hint that it's a costume, rather than a reconstuction, is the zipper in the back!

By the way, I noticed that this costume changed less than most of the others, probably because the darn things are both expensive and a pain in the butt to make. The only change I caught was a little more lace at the sleeves.
[> that's not all. -- Solitude1056, 18:01:02 10/17/01 Wed
Weighing in as someone who's done reenactment for Rev-War and French/Indian War... I can honestly state that the only folks who'd genuinely think it's a "real" style would be a costumer in Los Angeles on a shoe string budget. Let's see.

The neckline was too narrow in at the shoulders, and came up a bit too high. The bodice itself was curved, and had a silouhette far more like a modern prom dress than the sausage-shape or upside-down-cone of Georgian styles. The bodice continued on down to curve out a bit over the hips, vaguely reminiscent of Edwardian styles - albeit filtered through Hollywood, again - and Edwardian's a hundred years after Georgian. The bodice should end in a soft point at the front (and possibly back) for Georgian, riding up higher to the hips on the sides, because the corsets went from under the arms to the hipbones - that also meant hardly any curve in at the waist - those corsets just didn't curve much. Oh, and the darts? No, no darts until nearly a hundred years later; previously it was all curves in the side seams that helped things get nice and fitty. At least they didn't make the hoopskirt obvious, but it's more likely that they stuck a horsehair crinoline under it simply because otherwise the poor actress (as well as the stuntwoman) would've probably fallen over herself trying to do anything but stand still or walk forward, let alone run. The sleeves were acceptable, if a little short and cut more like modern sleeves - the seam goes from the lower chest to wrist-side, not from the armpit to inside wrist. And don't even get me started about the colors - I've managed a shocking pink from pokeweed berries, but only in wool, and even then it washes out pretty much instantly. Trivia: cotton dyed with those pink pokeweed berries turns... mustard yellow, I hear. Bizarre.

So, uh, given that you just got whalloped with too much information, I'll translate for me 'n Humanitas: No, my dear, Hollywood doesn't know jack about "historical" - but it's a cute storyline, and a bad costume won't ruin it. ;-) Unless you're a member of the Historical Inquisition, which I am, dammit, but don't hold that against me. Unless you've got long legs and/or a motorcycle, in which case [CENSORED]. Woo hoo! ;D
[> [> Speaking of that ep. -- The Airborne Apostate, 21:28:14 10/17/01 Wed
I can also tell you that Xander put in a very poor showing as an infantryman in that episode. For one thing, he was way undressed to be equipped with a rifle. More importantly, he completely lacked what's known as fire discipline. Long bursts while waving the rifle around may look cool, but all they do its waste ammo and increase the risk of jamming the weapon. Also, Xander showed poor firing stance.
[> [> [> Also . . . -- Slayrunt, 01:08:13 10/18/01 Thu
the sound was a M60 or M224 machine gun in place of the M16.
[> [> [> [> worst, Willow's ghost impersonation was just so not-authentic! She never went "whooo" even once! -- Solitude1056, 09:52:45 10/18/01 Thu
[> [> Um, yeah -- fresne, 08:42:09 10/18/01 Thu
Odd, looks like the last post I made was about the said same costume. Of course that was 7000 miles of road trip ago (no motorcycles or bleached blondes were involved).

What Sol said.

But yeah, not only would noble (even countrified noble garb) have been difficult to run around in, but lets face it, not exactly slap together quick to make.

Though at least they didn't go for the oh so period color of puce, which I believe was the Sun King's fav color.
[> [> Thanks, Solitude! -- Humanitas, 13:19:14 10/18/01 Thu
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist chiming in on this one, especially since this is much more your period than mine. I'm with the Renaissance Division of the Historical Inquisition. Thanks for having my back. ;)
[> [> [> anytime, bro. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 13:38:03 10/18/01 Thu
[> [> whoa, sol... -- anom, 20:12:08 10/18/01 Thu
...you ain't gonna get to see me in my renfair/medfest costume (yeah, pretty much the same for both...that'll tell you how inauthentic it is right there!).
[> [> [> Not really my time period, but you can avoid Humanitas if it makes you feel better. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 05:56:54 10/19/01 Fri
[> [> [> Hey, now, I'm an Inquisitor With a Soul. Really. ;) -- Humanitas, 13:37:17 10/19/01 Fri
So, anom, what shows do you go to? Not too many places that have both a Renaissance and a Medieval Faire. I promise not to come after you with the thumb-screws. ;)
[> [> [> [> Just the rack -- fresne, 14:35:01 10/19/01 Fri
Because the comfy chair is just too hard to haul out to the fair for a weekend torture.

Bulky, heavy. No definitely the rack.
[> [> [> [> [> No, not the rack! -- anom, 21:08:18 10/20/01 Sat
The rack's great for Addams Family nostalgia, but still too unwieldy for hauling around. Not as heavy as an iron maiden, but bulky & awkward, ya know? For portability, nothing beats a simple set of needles to shove under the fingernails, & if you want hot needles, just keep a candle lit...not that you're gonna get anywhere near me w/any of that stuff! @>)
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey, now, I'm an Inquisitor With a Soul. Really. ;) -- anom, 21:13:17 10/20/01 Sat
The Medieval Festival is in Fort Tryon Park in upper Manhattan (as the flyers say, take the A train...to the Middle Ages!). The Renaissance Fair is a small event held by, & in, a nursing home in the Bronx. So it's all very local. Unfortunately, I missed the first, since it was postponed due to the WTC attack to a weekend I was away, & the second may not be held due to budget problems. So I may go without this year!
Spike, Chips, Vampires, Pack mentalities, and Palov Conditioning -- Charlemagne20, 20:05:50 10/17/01 Wed
Okay Vampires IMHO aren't actually "evil" because they are as Angel so bluntly proved by his visit to Pylea animals. Their spirits like those in the Pack prove all animals have are that to procreate, kill, and feed.

Human spirits are to nuture, grow, and teach.

A Vampire such as Spike is really nothing more than an intelligent predator of humans who posseses all the memories and mannerisms that will allow him to pass himself off as a member of the human race for an extended period in order to feed with ease. It's rather like an evolved Bug zapper...the light attracts you then Bbbzzzzt.

Given from what we know about Vampires it's quite possible that the Last Demon who left the world and shared it's blood with a human designed Vampires in such a way that they would keep the herd low and/or destroy humans-Almost certainly in fact (one also wonders if Vampires having "other faces" in the Demon Dimension actually are summoned to the universe rather than simply bred each time they are created by another vampire).

Spike is an interesting case because unlike Angel he is not a human being who is trapped in a Vampire's body with a demon pressing him on (as seems to be the case) but is a Demon who has been fitted with Palovian reward system. We have just been assuming that Spike's ability to kill Demons was an oversight by the Doctor but for it to be that selective is obviously by design.

Thus the Vampire spirit which takes pleasure in killing because it eliminates a rival in territory and opens further chances for food is restricted to the sexual like satisfaction it seems to get in Spike's case for destroying fellow Demons as electrical shock is the "punishment" for harming humans.

I know Big deal we knew this.

However viewing Spike as an animal we learn that the figure is becomming less than Angel as an intelligent human being but fufilling what seems to be Doctor Walsh's desire for a trained attack Dog or perhaps even "Demon Sniffer".

Vampires seem to prey on humans and ally with demons mainly because the former provides more blood, more wealth (they seem to be thieves for most of their goods), and pose little physical threat while the later provides little of any three. If we look at Spike as a "wolf" or similar animal the reason larger demons often have vampire followers is because they have a pack mentality and masters are merely those strong enough to enforce dominion. The other vampires follow for security and more wealth.

Spike's conditioning would not effect this pack mentality and because Buffy is not killing him as his natural predator(the Slayer) his instincts would lead to Buffy as a natural "leader" in light of abscence of physical need to procreate as a mate (Vampires I suspect rut not out of physical desire but the pleasures of the mind-leftover memory and instinct if you will).

Hence Spike is not likely to turn on Buffy anymore than he has simply adjusted to being in a new Vampiric pact with his prey now demons and food provided by animals.

[> Maybe a little from column A and s little from column B -- Chew-lean, 21:02:27 10/17/01 Wed
A lot of what you say is reasonable, but I'm not willing to accept that Vampires are purely pack predators. To me, Angel's refined "vampyl" form seemed to be killing to satisfy a mindless appetite for destruction. I feel that way because Fred distracted Angel and had him follow her WITH the collected blood. I mean, why would he not stopped from killing Gunn and Wesley if he was aware that they were just as good blood banks as things to crush? I stand by the notion that Vampires, like most demons (i remember to exclude the balancing demons and the ambivalent/free will/genetic cross-breed demons), have an innate urge to cause suffering to mortal animals.
[> [> Such savagry may have a biological advantage -- Charlemagne20, 21:31:56 10/17/01 Wed
Interesting points.

Wolverines after all are small but deadly creatures, why not Vampires in a land of people who are nearly unkillable and devoted to war?

It's possible also in this case that the land of Pylea was not COMPLETELY black and white as the Host proves. Also the fact Humans are animals yet some Pyleans feel the need to breed with them and deception exists to keep the humans enslaved.

More precisley it's probably TAOistic in that alittle remains of the Vampire in Angel the human as their does Angel the human in the Vampire. Fred might have distracted the Demon because Angel wanted the blood or it's possible that spilled blood attracted angel by it's smell more than the necessity of killing.

(An animal will go for free meat rather than hunt it's own)

The fact that Gunn and Wesley AREN'T grease spots on the carpet of the High Queen C's throne room is the biggest evidence I think that Vampires have no innate urge beyond feeding, procreating, and need to protect territory to kill and destroy humans.

But that is enough.
[> [> [> still not convinced, but much greyer -- Chew-Lean, 22:17:23 10/17/01 Wed
Hmm, but this source demon didn't just evolve in Pylea - True, Wolverine under threat = beserker rage, but we also got the sense that the Source demon had intentions for feeding on a human to the point of death and then feeding it with demon blood in order to infect it with the demon traits. It seems that the writers have either done some backtracking to make the universe more grey or (reaching here) the vampire soul is basic and only complete like the original if the human element(personality/thought rather than soul)is more present. More episodes come to mind like a Buffy s.2 one where Angel adds (after fighting out Egyphon) that the demon inside him had been looking for a good fight.

Again, assuming the predator was going for the food when instead the Demon-concentrate might be lashing out more and more out of malica as well as self-defense. It's not an animals way to go off hunting its attackers, just to fight hard enough to scare them off. He went after the escaped gaurd, leaving the perfectly good downed enemy and food source, and instead nearly took down Wesley and Gunn. Right in the cusp of victory, where i think most predators would not give up on such certain victory, he is distracted by the reminder of his hunger.

Anyways, you're completely right about the balance and impurity of More Van-tal Angel (just checked the shooting script) and More Human Angel
[> [> [> [> well the theory is not perfectly refined yet but it gives I think quite a few ideas -- Charlemagne20, 23:36:58 10/17/01 Wed
If we wanted to fully see what the Demonic Vampyre in it's "pure form" was like we'd have to view one in said form at work and thus far we only have a half-breed specimen in Angel comming closest (and it is possible his human mind led him to "direct" his animal side in Pylea if not control it like on Earth) and the actions of those Animals which have been infused with human traits to pass themselves better off as their prey (at least in this working model).

It's possible that the Source demon was conducting "animal experimentation" however in an attempt to breed what might be construed as a biological weapon against humanity. In fact my best guess is that is exactly what happened with the animal and the man being combined into something much more dangerous to humans as a whole.

As such again we can't tell much about the original Vampyre creature if there ever even was one (the original Vampyre might itself be a weapon developed by demon kind). However I still stand by my view that the Vampire is best viewed less as a sentient creature so much as a predator with human qualities.

Spike's "domestication" thus becomes both much more comical and much more understandable with his affection, patrolling, etc the result of instilled traits very much reminiscent of a wild beast brought to bear. We can understand thus his actions I think and bring them to bear even as we can appreciate Giles's reasons for no longer slaying him.

All in all we can't even use Earth models for studying the Vampiric "animal" because as while you say Earth predators drive off their prey it is possible on Pylea the heightened aggression of demonic animals leads demon-animals like the Vampyre to eradicate all other percieved threats.

Good talking to you
[> [> [> [> [> no, no, thank you - it was fun -- Chew-Lean, 00:18:15 10/18/01 Thu
Thus to sleep well at night, I too stand by my opinion that vampires are more than just predators, they are stained with evil tendencies.

And one last nit-pick, Angel is the result of an earth-dimension vampire, not Pylean

By the way, it was also good to participate in a topic like this. It raises my own thinking quotient up to atleast a 3 out of 10. I don't plan on losing my lurker/"Oz" status soon
[> [> [> [> [> [> And, yes, it was chocked with Intelligent goodies (NT) -- Chew-lean, 00:19:32 10/18/01 Thu
[> I have to go with Occam's Razor -- Greta, 10:20:50 10/18/01 Thu
*A Vampire such as Spike is really nothing more than an intelligent predator of humans who posseses all the memories and mannerisms that will allow him to pass himself off as a member of the human race for an extended period in order to feed with ease. It's rather like an evolved Bug zapper...the light attracts you then Bbbzzzzt.*

This notion is far more complicated and convoluted than the equally plausible notion, from what we've seen in flashbacks for all the major vamp characters, that they retain their personalities if not their souls. So I stand with the concept that, all things being equal, the simpler idea is usually the more accurate.

Moreover, there are several factors that lean more in favor of my conception. First, from the beginning (even before the soul issue was raised, vampires in the Buffyverse have been characterized as human-deman hybrids, implying a mixing of elements from both, rather than demons with human Xerox masks stapled to their forehead.

Second, the vampires we've come to know as characters (Angel, Spike, Dru, Darla, Harmony) act and react in very human ways in their interactions with each other and in what we've seen of their introspections. In fact, Spike changing to human face as soon as Drusilla appeared in School Hard was a major plot element strongly suggesting the humanity of his feelings for her; moreover, the Judge didn't accuse them of playacting humanity, he accused Spike and Dru as being full of it. Additionally, why does Spike sit alone in human face feeling love, guilt, grief, etc. when there's no one around he needs to put up a mask for?

*Their spirits like those in the Pack prove all animals have are that to procreate, kill, and feed.
Human spirits are to nuture, grow, and teach.* - either positively or negatively

And as I've said before, the animal in Angelus allowed him to catch Jenny and snap her neck. The man in Angelus arranged her dead body in Giles' bed. No animal can be as cruel as a human being, or something with some human left in it.
[> [> Vampires do possess human intelligence.... -- Charlemagne20, 10:58:21 10/18/01 Thu
I have little doubt that Spike can enjoy Manchester United along with quite a few other wonderful little things of this world with 6 billion happy meals with legs. I also note that he can feel affection and other points.

However the question comes down to it is that aside from Vampiric "religion" is if demons actually are that different from humans. From what we see in the series it seems that for the most part "intelligent demon/hybrids" suffer from the same problem that Vampires do in that they have animalistic urges/spirits that drive them to a variety of behaviors.

However we don't know that Demon/Hybrids don't necessarily have human souls instead of demons but we do know vampires have demon souls not human (look at the reaction to Angel at the Bachelor party "You invited a vampire?", and the Scourge's reaction to angel "The lowest of the halfbreeds")

As for keeping their human personalities may I point out that their memories/personalities don't seem to affect their basic need to prey or show them signs of guilt or otherwise. Angel murdering his father and sister for instance, Jesse trying to kill Xander, just in general dozens of examples.

Spike and Dru may be "adopting" a lifestyle of humanity but may we note they are still vicious violent killers that it is my opinion the comparison to being "human" is more like a cartoon dog being berated for going soft by a wolf than a spiritual transformation of the soul.

But good points.

[> [> [> See, I think their personalities have an incredible impact -- Greta, 21:24:22 10/18/01 Thu
on who, why and how they kill. Angelus set up slow artistic kills to become the sophisticated artist/man of the world Liam believed (and Angelus still believed) his father prevented them from being. Spike sought out the toughest fights he could find in order to prove to the world and, IMHO, to prove even more to himself that he was tough. There was even a scene where Darla killed a prostitute and her client, which after "Darla," had a definite implication that she was acting out in rage and denial of her own days on the street. Dru I don't know about, but then she's crazy:) Of course she's crazy because her human self was emotionally broken before she was turned.

Also, their behavior, especially Spike ande Dru's, isn't especially conducive to blending in to human society.

I see not just intelligence still active in these vampires, but human feeling. From a purely rational perspective, acting out on these past slights would be both wasteful and dangerous. Yet they do so anyway, giving them motivations far beyond "see, eat, kill," motivations we can relate to on many levels.

[> [> [> [> True but that may be their demon sides reacting improperly.... -- Charlemagne20, 23:39:28 10/18/01 Thu
If A Dog follows a ball into the Street when a car is comming he's simply following the behavior that his previous experience has been telling him is beneficial.

Anger, Resentment, and so forth from those personalities plus given the motivation to kill with no scruples no doubt does make them quite "specific indeed". Yet Angel usually hunted beautiful women it seemed, Dru had a thing for poetic and just people, Darla prostitutes/young men/their clients, that crazy Puritan...christians.

They go unconciously or not after what they both know which may be biology speaking in how even their personalities toward revenge is a biological advantage.

Just a thought. Good stuff.

Jobs for Buffy -- vampire hunter D, 01:15:58 10/18/01 Thu
I've been thinking about what kind of job Buffy could get to support herself. And here's what I came up with:
a) personal trainer: you know, those people at the gym who tell you how to work out. Buffy would be good at his, since we've seen her working out plenty of times.

b)martial arts teacher: This is the one I think she'd be best at. She'd do great teaching classes at some martial arts school. Or maybe teach self defense classes (those would be popular in Sunnydale!)

that's what I've got. Anyone else have any other ideas?

On a minor tangent, I think what she also needs is for Willow and Tara to pitch in. Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong of them to be living off of Buffy's (or rather Joyce's) money? And come to thnk of it, Dawn's old enough to get a part time job too (I say give her something easy, like working at the magic shop).
[> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- Neaux, 04:35:12 10/18/01 Thu
well Dawn is just now proving to the gang that she can research faster than the rest of the scoobies..

It would probably take more "proving" to justify that she could get a part time job.. (but at least she could be watched by Anya if she did work at the shoppe..) while Buffy got a real job.
[> How did Buffy get her martial arts skills? -- poppie, 04:47:55 10/18/01 Thu
is it inherent? like with the previous slayers we've seen glimpses of? You've probably all discussed this to death many times... but i'd love to know if it has ever been really satisfactorily explained.. cos it always seemed to me that the strenght, and the agility were her natural gifts, the martial artistry had to be acquired...
[> [> Re: How did Buffy get her martial arts skills? -- Andy, 06:22:17 10/18/01 Thu
It's never been explicitly explained, IIRC, but from the hints that we've gotten over the years, I believe that it is largely inherent. It seems that the Slayer has a superhuman aptitude for anything that's related to combat, whether it's weapon use, hand-to-hand, or tactics. She does need to train, but I think that's more about honing her natural gifts than actually learning anything new.

[> [> [> Re: How did Buffy get her martial arts skills? -- Michael Van Hoek, 06:46:35 10/18/01 Thu
If you saw the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", she was taught by a watcher named Merrick (Donald Sutherland). Since the movie was also produced by Joss Whedon, I would think that explains it.
[> [> she was trained -- pocky, 07:39:17 10/18/01 Thu
In the movie, Buffy was trained by Merrick. I remember a bunch of scenes in which Merrick was teaching Buffy and drilling her.

Giles also trains/ed Buffy. All throughout the years we see them sparring--often in the library. Giles also introduced different styles of fighting to her as well as different weapons (quarter staff, crossbow, etc.)

[> [> [> But -- Poppie, 08:30:13 10/18/01 Thu
that would kinda mean Giles would need to be a skilled martial arts fighter in his own right ... and he's so not. he's more of a guide just to make sure she stays focussed and in good condition, I thought.

Not that I'm saying Giles CAN'T fight.. it's just all a bit of a grey area to me.

Nope, never saw the movie, who is this Merrick character, along the same lines what right did HE have to "train" Buffy in martial artistry?
[> [> [> [> Re: But -- robert, 09:00:38 10/18/01 Thu
"Nope, never saw the movie, who is this Merrick character, along the same lines what right did HE have to "train" Buffy in martial artistry?"

He was her first watcher and therefore bound by duty to train her.
[> [> [> Re: she was trained -- robert, 08:58:35 10/18/01 Thu
If I remember the movie correctly, Buffy already knew at least some martial arts and acrobatic skills, before Merick met her. Presumably, she received private training paid for by her parents.
[> [> [> [> Re: she was trained -- anom, 13:58:15 10/19/01 Fri
From what I remember of the movie, her "training" before she was called consisted mostly of cheerleading. The rest was instinctual, as shown when Merrick threw a knife at her & she caught it (& got really pissed off at him for doing it). The implication was that she could do that--without specific training--only because she was the Slayer, which is what Merrick was trying to prove to her by throwing the knife. His further training of her picked up at that point & wasn't only about fighting.

Speaking of the Watcher in the movie, if I remember right, there was only 1 (at least only 1 at a time--no Council as in the series), & he had more than the normal human lifespan & had trained/guided multiple Slayers. He wasn't supposed to get involved in the fighting, but he did (& got killed). Why? Apparently because it was Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: she was trained -- Humanitas, 15:34:51 10/19/01 Fri
She did get training in the film. Lots of those montages shown over a pop music score. Some fun sight gags. And, yes, Merrick sacrifices his life to keep Lothos from killeng Buffy, both in the film (which isn't canon) and in the Graphic Novel (which is).
[> [> [> Re: she was trained -- Andy, 10:58:57 10/18/01 Thu
"In the movie, Buffy was trained by Merrick. I remember a bunch of scenes in which Merrick was teaching Buffy and drilling her."

Eh, it's been a long time since I've watched the movie all the way through but it isn't exactly canon.

"Giles also trains/ed Buffy. All throughout the years we see them sparring--often in the library. Giles
also introduced different styles of fighting to her as well as different weapons (quarter staff,
crossbow, etc.)"

Except that Buffy usually trounces Giles within 2 seconds of him doing anything like this, which implies that her physical learning isn't largely dependent on anything Giles is doing for her. I think the Watcher's work in the training is to draw out the Slayer from within the girl and then to try and hone that as best he can through encouragement and discipline.

[> [> [> [> Re: she was trained -- pocky, 16:02:41 10/18/01 Thu
"I think the Watcher's work in the training is to draw out the Slayer from within the girl and then to try and hone that as best he can through encouragement and discipline."

And I think that this discipline would help the Slayer become proficient in training herself, considering Giles could only do so much in the area.

I also remember an episode in which Angel and Buffy were doing Tai-Chi exercises. And judging from how well they work together, I'm assuming that they've spent some time together training...among other things...

[> [> Re: How did Buffy get her martial arts skills? -- Isabel, 19:50:42 10/18/01 Thu
While I have no doubts that Buffy could pound any human black belt into the ground, I don't think that she acquired any formalized martial arts knowledge. (Except the tidbits she learned from her watchers and Angel.) She could not walk into a dojo and ask to teach some classes. They would ask her who she had learned from anyway. And the answer, "I'm the descendent of a line of mystical warriors. I woke up six years ago knowing this stuff" would get her asked to leave.

She could teach self defense classes, but to get the largest class possible, and the more $, she'd have to teach at night. She'd do best with a day job.

I'm betting more on waitress or other unskilled labor jobs. She has no work skills as yet.

As always, just my $.02.
[> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- zilla, 05:25:48 10/18/01 Thu
I think have a point about Willow and Tara. And where was Giles? I think he would have been a better person to take care of Dawn. Willow and Tara understandably stepped in, but didn't Giles have a say? I am starting to get irritated with them anyway...time for a demon to come get them.
[> [> Re: Giles -- Isabel, 19:34:17 10/18/01 Thu
What makes you think he wasn't part of this plan?

#1 He made no secret of his plans to return to England. Moving in with Dawn would only mean he moved twice in four months as well as ripping apart Dawn's life twice in the same amount of time.

#2 He's a middle-aged single man. If he moved in with "Buffy" and Dawn, every busybody neighbor would draw the skanky conclusion that he and "Buffy" were sleeping together. "And with her young sister in the house too!" How long before Child Protective Services started showing up? Imagine a social worker having one unexpected conversation with the Buffybot.

#3 Dawn ISN'T his legal or moral responsibility. Do you think he'd stay out of jail if Hank Summers ever showed up?

#4 Giles would still need Willow to fix the Buffybot. And it looked like Willow worked on her several times a week.

For MT to stay on the show, Dawn has to stay in Sunnydale. For that Hank had to move to Sunnydale (unlikely), Dawn had to go into foster care (which has its own set of plot headaches) or a believable person had to move in to keep an eye on her and the 'Bot. Since Willow had to spend so much time there anyway working on the 'Bot, her and Tara were believable choices.
[> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- anom, 22:54:42 10/18/01 Thu
I thought I'd said this before, but I guess that was in Chat. I think Giles ought to kick in something, at least to tide Buffy & Dawn over. You know, maybe out of that *cough*retroactive pay*cough* Buffy got for him from the Council--he owes her.

Who says Willow & Tara are living off Joyce's (nonexistent) money? Willow may still be getting support (financial if not moral) from her parents, & Tara...hey, what was Tara ever living off, considering her family didn't even know where she was? In any case, I don't what they could pitch in from.

As for Buffy, how about bodyguard? Or (as I also said in Chat), she should be on the Sunnydale municipal payroll. Of course the likelihood of that depends on what kind of administration succeeded Mayor Wilkins'....
[> [> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- amber, 23:13:48 10/18/01 Thu
Hey is it just me or is anyone else wondering where the Watcher's Council is when it comes to Buffy's economic situation.

It's kinda disgusting that they're willing to give Giles his "*cough*retroactive pay*cough*", but they don't provide any financial aid for the slayers. I know it's been hinted at in the past that very few Slayers have survived as long as Buffy, but shouldn't the Watchers have some plan in place?

I know Buffy quit the council back in S3 but with Faith stuck in jail, she's the only one they've got so they might as well start coughing up a salary.

Surely they'd know that a slayer can't maintain a normal life of going to school or having a job. Heck according to Kendra most Watchers discouraged the "normal life". I'm betting a number of Slayers have lost their parents in the line of duty. So how did they survive financially?
[> [> [> Re: CoW money is tainted -- change, 06:27:28 10/19/01 Fri
I think the CoW would be willing to give Buffy a salary, but it would come with strings attached. Buffy would be working for them. They would try to control her again.

Buffy is staying away from them to maintain her independence.
[> [> [> [> Doesn't she wear the pants? -- Isabel, 09:52:53 10/20/01 Sat
Didn't Buffy prove to everyone in Checkpoint that The Watcher's Council works for HER? Without a Slayer, they've got very little to do.

The analogy that pops into my head is the CoW is like the Chef at the White House. Presidents come and presidents go and, unless the Chef gets himself fired, he stays. I remember reading about the White House Chef getting huffy when George Bush, Sr. became President and he (George) declared that he was not eating Broccoli ever again and it wasn't to be served. I'm sure the chef calmed down and did what the President wanted because he'd lose his job. What's four years of not cooking broccoli?

Now that they know that the Slayer knows they work to support her, perhaps sending her $20,000 a year is cheap compared to what happens if they piss her off.
[> [> [> i still say giles should give her some $$ -- anom, 12:57:25 10/22/01 Mon
"It's kinda disgusting that they're willing to give Giles his '*cough*retroactive pay*cough*', but they don't provide any financial aid for the slayers."

Since nobody responded to this part, I want to put it out there again: Giles should help Buffy out with some money, at least until she finds another income source, whether it's the Council or something else. After all, he'd been fired for over a year, right? That retroactive pay must've been a nice lump sum. And she's directly responsible for his getting it. So when I say he owes her, I mean it literally, & he should pay up! If she insists, they could make it a long-term, no-interest loan.

Unless, of course, the Council went back on its word & didn't pay him...wouldn't put it past 'em, at the least they'd probably drag their feet on it, but I think we'd have heard about it if they didn't come through on this.
[> [> [> [> ah-HAH! toldja so! @>) -- anom, 20:14:57 10/23/01 Tue
see, somebody thought i was right about this! even if nobody backed me up on this board *pout*
[> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- Eric, 21:40:40 10/20/01 Sat
Jobs for Buffy? The most obvious would have to be law enforcement. I would suggest the county sheriff, since only municipal Sunnydale attracts supernatural corruption. She could get paid for doing the night shift, however she would have to go to the academy. Another option is Private Investigations - a couple subtle hints could help her gain clients with supernatural problems.

She could not make it as a martial arts instructor until she earns teaching credentials in her chosen form. Or she can get a job at the Gap.
[> [> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- Rattletrap, 04:47:49 10/21/01 Sun
Jobs for Buffy? The most obvious would have to be law enforcement. I would suggest the county sheriff, since only municipal Sunnydale attracts supernatural corruption.

Plus, we already know Buffy likes jelly doughnuts, she has one of the job qualifications down pat.
[> [> [> Insurance Adjuster -- Cleanthes, 09:47:52 10/21/01 Sun
Law enforcement seems too much like other TV shows, alas.

I think she ought to take on a much less high-profile or glamourous job (in Hollywood's eyes).

As an insurance adjuster, Buffy would get steady income commensurate with her education.

What causes most of the property/casualty claims in Sunnydale? - Exactly - Buffy would have a great investigative tool and an excuse for snooping around trouble areas.

Plus, there'd be the outside company people unable to understand the reason that underwriting expenses are so anomylously high in this one town. The bumbling guy from headquarters could provide valuable extrinsic comic relief, possibly relieving some of the "Friends" syndrome problem mentioned elsewhere on this board.
[> [> [> [> Re: Insurance Adjuster -- anom, 21:37:52 10/21/01 Sun
"Law enforcement seems too much like other TV shows, alas."

Plus I think Career Day turned her off to it (even more than she was already).

"As an insurance adjuster, Buffy would get steady income commensurate with her education. What causes most of the property/casualty claims in Sunnydale? - Exactly - Buffy would have a great investigative tool and an excuse for snooping around trouble areas."

Hmm...sounds like a good idea, but speaking of her education, does that job require a college degree?

The other possibility that comes to mind is to work for a newspaper, but that's also been done too often--since Superman at least.
[> Re: Jobs for Buffy -- bible belt, 17:37:24 10/23/01 Tue
Buffy could get a job operating one of those street sweeping machines you see in the middle of the night, sweeping the streets(for reasons I have yet to figure out). She could patrol at the same time.;-D
Cibo Matto? -- Neaux, 08:32:50 10/18/01 Thu
Trying to watch Buffy everyday on FX would drive me crazy... so could you guys enlighten me?

Cibo Matto was performing in the Bronze in one of the early episodes.. Is that correct or was it just one of their songs. I cant remember.. anyway..

I would love to know what episode that was.

I know I'm not making this up.
[> Buffy Ep Music -- Brian, 08:48:35 10/18/01 Thu
Try http://www.buffymusic.net/

You should be able to find what you are looking for.
[> [> Re: Buffy Ep Music -- cjc36, 09:21:20 10/18/01 Thu
Second season opener, "When She Was Bad." They played the song Buffy 'sexy dances' with Xander to.

Cool song.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy Ep Music -- Neaux, 11:18:04 10/18/01 Thu
right.. that's what i thought.. do you know if Sean Lennon was in that show.. He is a sporradic member of the group.
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy Ep Music -- Deeva, 12:34:47 10/18/01 Thu
Yes, Sean Lennon was on that episode. A pretty long shot of him, too. I recognized him immediately.
[> [> Why the hell isn't Christopher Golden the composer anymore? -- AngelVSAngelus, 08:16:53 10/19/01 Fri
What happened to that man? His compositions were brilliant and memorable individually, from Slayer's Elegy (at the end of the Wish) to As Angel Becomes (Becoming pt.1, when Angel's JUST been resouled)
[> [> [> Re: Why the hell isn't Christopher Golden the composer anymore? -- Rattletrap, 15:14:19 10/19/01 Fri
I think you mean Christophe Beck. Golden is an author that's written several Buffy novels, Chris Beck is the composer. I've wondered the same thing, the man was a phenomenal composer, the soundtracks to "Surprise/Innocence" and "Graduation Day" were both amazing. I believe he came back last year to do "The Gift" and maybe one other episode, and still shows up periodically. I gather he is working on other projects of his own and doesn't want to be tied down on a TV show full time, but that is just speculation. Wanker is a decent composer, but not in the same league.
[> [> [> [> Re: Beck's filmography -- mm, 16:37:06 10/20/01 Sat
is here.

No, not there! Here.

Only two pix I recognize on that list are "Bring it On" and "Guinevere." I agree with you wholeheartedly on his "Buffy" work. His score for "The Gift" was sublime, the kind of music that enhances the images without overwhelming them. (Ya listening, John Williams? You too, James Horner?)
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy musically speaking... -- Nina, 19:33:42 10/21/01 Sun
I know I tried to defend Thomas Wanker the best I could last year. I tried to give meaning to his musical themes to satisfy my frustration. But I must say that I have been deeply sadden when I heard the same themes repeated again this year. Same old, same old....all the time. Same fighting themes.... same piano themes that are just so slightely changed that he can't fool my musical ear.

I tried to explain the lack of new themes last year (like we used to have in B,B&B, the Zeppo or so many others...) because they didn't have enough money for the musical department. But they have more money this year...what's the problem?

Maybe for someone who isn't stuck on the music this isn't a big problem, but for me it really ruins the experience now. I try to concentrate on the dialogue and forget that there's any music at all. It is just very difficult because with the syndication I get to listen to wonderful scores all the time. I wish I could still defend Mr. Wanker as I hate to be negative, but until I get to hear new scores on BtVS and not recycled melodies I won't be able to enjoy the stories as much as I'd like to! :(
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy musically speaking... -- Rattletrap, 04:54:52 10/22/01 Mon
For my money, the problem is not the same themes, but the lack of themes at all. Beck's scores had strong melody, a sense of rhythm, and could almost stand on their own as compositions apart from the pictures on the screen. Wanker's compositions don't seem to have any of that, it always seems to me to be just sound behind the action on the screen.
Why Willow needs Buffy -- Brian, 09:22:15 10/18/01 Thu
Willow needs Buffy to validate who she is, and who she is becoming. Buffy was Willow’s first female friend at Sunnydale. They bonded quickly, and appeared to be closer than sisters. This is a natural occurrence given that they are both single children, especially as Willow’s parents appear to be distant and removed from Willow’s everyday life. So Buffy became the cheerleader for her psyche and provided a natural outlet to help her with her fears and needs. Willow has slowly matured with Buffy encouraging her every step of the way until "Willow, you’re my big gun."

When Buffy died, Willow lost her focus, her ability to grow within herself. Tara may be Willow’s love mate, but Buffy is Willow’s soul mate, and Willow was willing to do anything to get her back. The opening scenes of Season 6 demonstrate just how badly they were doing, and how badly they would have done again those Demon Bikers if Buffy had not returned.

Certainly, there will be consequences. Nothing is free in the Buffyverse, except more angst. Willow will suffer, but she will grow. And, in keeping with the theme of this year’s season, she will find a new level of maturity, a new level of personal growth, and a rebonding with Buffy once they reach a mutual level of forgiveness. Each will have to forgive the other for what they have become.
[> Re: Thank You! -- Lucifer_Sponge, 12:27:11 10/18/01 Thu
This is, in part, exactly what I've been trying to say - that Willow had valid, sincere reasons for bringing Buffy back. It wasn't arrogance, hot-headedness, or an "I can do it, so I will." attitude. It was love.

[> [> Can I add my 2 cents? -- SBuffy, 13:17:23 10/18/01 Thu
I also think Willow is trying to prove something here. Willow needs to feel powerful like Buffy. And Willow is. But she has not paid the price for some of her mistakes. Buffy has paid for hers and Willows. Willow needs to learn to appreciate her talent and that it will come with a price.
[> [> [> Re: Can I add my 2 cents? -- DEN, 13:48:29 10/18/01 Thu
And while I accept the "don't mess with the cosmos" wisdom of Tara and Giles, I might point out, as other posters have, that nothing in the Buffyverse suggests the existence of an afterlife that is a place of peace, let alone the beatific vision described in some Christian versions. Willow is like a teenage warior in Belfast, Afghanistan, or a similar part of the world. We accept Buffy's weariness, her thousand-yard stare, in season 5. But Willow's been fighting on the Hellmouth since she was a very young sixteen, and perhaps more than the rest she's been scarred by it. Remember her line in season one: "They took our world and made it theirs!" Is it any wonder that she has trouble reckoning long-term risks? For her, like her real-'verse counterparts, WHAT long-term risks?
[> Re: Why Willow needs Buffy -- Tillow, 12:31:08 10/18/01 Thu
"Tara may be Willow’s love mate, but Buffy is Willow’s soul mate..."

Is Buffy Willow's soul mate or her crutch? They may have been doing badly without Buffy and they may have a very old and deeply developed friendship, but that doesn't mean she had the right to do what she did.

Rather than forgive each other, I think the real challenge for Willow will be forgiving herself.
parental foreshadowing -- John Burwood, 09:55:49 10/18/01 Thu
'What we once were informs all that we become' said Darla, but it occurs to me that what our parents are, or were, informs - or foreshadows what we become. Joyce showed her innate insecurities in Band Candy, Ted, and Fear Itself, and her fighting courage in School Hard & DMP, plus her rather hit & miss attitude to parental discipline, varying from extreme laxity to OTT gestures - all imitated, even down to copied phrases such as 'that makes it all right, then' by Buffy. The hectoring father of Restless was imitated by son Xander in DMP & Revelations. And Sheila Rosenberg's blinkered know-it-all arrogance, and unwillingness to listen of Gingerbread seems to be foreshadowing her own daughter's state of mind.
Just a thought. Take it and run.
[> Take it and run is mine! I may bite you, now :) -- Earl Allison, 10:18:52 10/18/01 Thu
[> [> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! (NT) -- John Burwood, 11:45:21 10/18/01 Thu
[> [> [> S'okay -- that's why the smile :) No worries (but I may still bite you -- very hungry) -- Earl Allison, 02:08:09 10/19/01 Fri
[> Re: parental foreshadowing -- Whisper2AScream, 11:22:42 10/18/01 Thu
I've mentioned this elsewhere, particularly in reference to Xander. He's also acted like his father in getting angry and wanting to take it out on something in the Body. I'll bet there's patched up holes at the Harris household, courtesy of Mr. Harris's fists. (Major reason why he's holding off on the wedding bells for him and Anya. He's afraid alright, afraid that he'll abuse and fight her like his father has with his mother.) Biggest fear for parents is that their children won't learn from the parent's mistakes, and that the children won't do better then their predecessors. And children's biggest fear is that they'll wind up just like their parents.

Interesting note with Buffy and her parents, including her surrogate father, Giles. His own rebellious nature likewise echoes Buffy's. And his need to take on responsibility, again like Buffy has done ever since she began as a Slayer. No wonder he and Joyce got along so well. (Especially in Band Candy. I did an analysis of the main adults affected in this ep. Like the fact Buffy and Joyce both are typically attracted to attractive and potentially dangerous bad-boys. One wonders what Hank was like when Joyce met him.)
Willow, Phoenix of X-Men, and the responsibility of power *spoilerish* -- Sebastian, 11:08:47 10/18/01 Thu
Hi all.

Feel free to knock me on my butt of I'm being redundant and/or illogical.

When I read the review for the season opener of BTVS, in describing the opening sequence where Willow uses the telepathy spell to command the Scooby Gang, Entertainment Weekly made a comparison between Willow and Jean Grey of X-Men fame.

Wolverine: You have to play by the rules!"
Phoenix: "Phoenix makes her own!"

That got me to thinking of a very famous comic book story arc that focused on Jean Grey known as the "Dark Phoenix Saga."

I know Joss is a comic reader - and this struck a chord because of the finale parallels of Dawn/Spike in "The Gift" and Rogue/Wolverine of "X-Men: The Movie" (which Joss had a hand in writing).

In the story, Jean Grey had recently experience a dramatic upswing in her power levels. Originally a telepath/telekinetic, her powers had evolved to the point of god levels - where she could but think - and her thought would become reality.

For a time, Jean subconsciously places "psychic circuit breakers" to keep her powers to a level she can handle safely.

For reasons related to the story, those circuit breakers are destroyed one by one - and she once again undergoes a surge in power levels.

Power: The Ultimate Orgasm

Her mentor, Professor Xavier, realizes that her power has reached a level that she can no longer control. And soon afterwards, her powers do overwhelm her sense of self. The use of her powers acts as the "ultimate emotional/physical stimulant." The more she uses them - the better she feels. And the more she uses it - the stronger she grows.

Like permanent euphoria. The ultimate orgasm, as it were.

Anyway, filled with delusions of grandeur, she allows herself to be overwhelmed by her powers and eventually destroys an inhabited planet.

"Don't piss me off." = "We are now equals."


I certainly don't think our favorite redhead is going to decimate a planet - but the similarities are striking. Willow is undergoing tremendous surges in power. She is clearly getting off on it. She enjoys it. Her threat to Giles shows she no longer views him as a superior. She views him as an equal. She doesn’t feel like getting lectured by someone she now is on the same level with. You can see how Tara now uses diffidence, rather than direct confrontation, to question Willow.

Now the reason I'm theorizing this is that I don't think Willow is going the way of the "Big Bad." I think her struggle is going to be dealing with the very adult responsibility of having power. She’s going to have to learn that she can't abuse it as her leisure.

Willow's character is very much in a gray area right now. Phoenix was not necessarily evil when presented in the comic. Although misguided, delusional and insane - she was presented more as a creature that was corrupted and influence by her powers. She did not commit evil for evil sakes. She committed evil (or in Willow's case, questionable) acts because she was too certain of her powers and what she *could* do - in opposition to what she *should* do.

What does this mean?

Phoenix is not swayed by the enticement of evil. She is swayed by the enticement of what she can DO. She sees no limits in terms of what she can do with her spellcasting – which lies the danger. She’s ambitious and reckless – a dangerous combination to have when you have power at your disposal.

I don't think Willow is going to become evil, but I do think she is going to become corrupted by her power. And when I say "corrupt", I mean she is goingt o let her power levels, rather than her moral compass, dictate her actions. In which, people are going to get hurt. Firstly, herself, secondly the Scoobies (be it physical harm or emotional betrayal; i.e.: Tara)

Its clear Willow feels she should not be questioned about the use of her powers - which lies the entire focus of her storyline. Willow is going to have to learn a VERY hard lesson that "power and responsibility" are not ideas hat can be separate.

[> I agree -- Boxdman, 11:24:39 10/18/01 Thu
[> Re: Willow, Phoenix of X-Men, and the responsibility of power *spoilerish* -- vampire hunter D, 11:29:36 10/18/01 Thu
I like your take on the situation. Most of us have been so into the Willow-turns-evil theory that we never thought of it in terms of learning responsibility. Of course, with either senario, someone is probably going to get seriously hurt before Willow gets a clue and cleans up her act.

But now I have to ask why the rest of us are so into Willow turning evil or being the Big Bad. Is it because we all want to see her in that black leather bodysuit again? Is it that we've enjoyed the other storylines where a member of the groups turns bad (ala Angelus or Faith)?
[> [> With great power comes great responsibility. -- Ryuei, 11:44:58 10/18/01 Thu
Also recall the Spiderman reference at the beginning of Flooded. I think that was another tip-off, because one of the themes of Spiderman going back to his first appearance is that "With great power comes great responsibility." I think Joss even mentioned that line in an interview once.
[> [> [> I totally agree with you. -- Richardqwerty, 13:23:12 10/18/01 Thu
Let's just see who will play uncle Ben.
[> [> [> Re: With great power comes great responsibility. -- DEN, 13:29:44 10/18/01 Thu
I really like the "responsibility" idea, and I too am surprised at the "rush to judgment" on "Willow as evil." Her use of extreme magic has AS A RULE been motivated by the direst imperatives, or from love (Tara/Buffy). She breaks off the Oz/Veruca spell of her own volition. Her pleasure at her success at bringing Buffy back, her wish to be thanked and praised, may irritate us, but is consistent for a character that, as an earlier post in this thread notes,at bottom lacks confidence, and is correspondingly externally defined and other-directed. Besides, Willow is no fool. She KNOWS, better than anyone exept Giles, what risks she took. Her bubbly pleasure at surviving them, and apparently triumphing, is a sign less of malice than immaturity.
[> [> [> [> Re: With great power comes great responsibility. -- maddog, 20:03:42 10/18/01 Thu
I don't think anyone doubts her motives...right now they are pure...but continued use of black magic could cause serious problems...as it is it already has her lieing to them. Not a good start. So I think where people fault Willow as "evil" is more of a projection...what she COULD become if things don't change.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: With great power comes great responsibility. -- Dedalus, 15:41:06 10/19/01 Fri
I for one absolutely doubt her motives. Hearing spoilers about what is to come makes me doubt them even more.

I don't think she was that desperate to bring Buffy back anymore. She was showing off. I literally think that. "You should have seen me, I was amazing." I mean, she didn't seem that concerned when Buffy came back. Unlike Xander, she physically turned her back on her. All she wanted was the attention and to be rewarded for what she had done. She went against Buffy's last wishes, she stole the Gift, lied to her friends, killed Bambi, and now she's threatened Giles. This is Willow, but not the one we know and love.

I just see someone being subverted. She has been hyper ever since it happened. I don't think she's just trying to build her confidence or handle responsibility. She seemed pretty damn sure of herself to me. She's put Buffy through hell, and if she was the person she used to be, she would know that. Instead, she's running around threatening people and talking about how powerful she is.

It may be projection, but Flooded was the last straw for me.
[> [> Re: Willow, Phoenix of X-Men, and the responsibility of power *spoilerish* -- maddog, 19:57:50 10/18/01 Thu
I think the reason people see Willow becoming a possible problem(maybe leading into the big bad role) is not just the fact that she's going to have to deal with the responsibilities and eventually the consequences of what she's done, but also the way in which others will react and be affected by her growth and understanding. Willow's not just going to wake up one day and realize she stepped over the line. Joss doesn't write things that way. She will have to learn a lesson...and it's entirely possible people will get hurt...and people that do get hurt don't always forgive so quickly. It'll be that strain that could push her to do something harsh...or maybe even pull an even bigger stunt that ressurecting Buffy(what could be bigger? Only Joss knows) and making all of their lives ten times worse. So I suppose she could, through specific circumstances either become the big bad or have some hand in finding/creating/bringing out the big bad. You see my point?
[> Or, to mis-quote "Heathers"... -- Humanitas, 14:24:00 10/18/01 Thu
"Why are you such a mega-witch?"

"Because I can be."

[> Big Bad? -- darrenK, 06:02:40 10/19/01 Fri
I agree with you on Willow and Dark Phoenix, but I don't think she has to become evil ala Angelus to be the Big Bad.

She only needs to be so out of control that her power threatens Sunnydale or the world.

Minor *spoiler* coming....

Marti Noxon said in an interview that regarding the Big Bad they're doing something different this year, so it might be an out-of-control Willow.

It's also an off-year. Last year, they did an end-of-the-world, but season 4 ended with Restless. Maybe, we're in for a softer landing this year.

Just an opinion...dK
Why aren't the SG more paranoid? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 12:19:47 10/18/01 Thu
I've been meaning to post something like this for a while, but I've only now gotten the time and inspiration to do it. I've been wondering about this since around the third season, and lately, it's really getting to me.

Why aren't the SG more paranoid? They live in Sunnydale for Christ's sake.

If you lived in a town where vampires and demons ran rampant, wouldn't you be just a little more skittish? Wouldn't you be prone to jump at loud noises and lose large amounts of sleep because you stay up all night wondering if all those creeks and bumbs are really just the house settling? I know I would.

And yet, look at Buffy, Willow, Xander, Tara, Anya, and Dawn.

In Bargaining, Giles leaves Sunnydale. He leaves Sunnydale. He leaves his friends and loved ones... his family alone, without a slayer, in a vertable demonic war-zone. His advice? "Be careful."

WHAT? Be careful?. If I were there, I would have protested. "Oh. Ok, Giles. We'll be careful. I'm sure we'll do just fine without a Slayer and a human demon-dictionary to help us both identify and fight the forces of evil. Yeah. We'll be ok. Don't you worry about us."

In Bargaining, Dawn whines about how Spike always insists on keeping watch over her, wishing she were allowed to stay home alone. Umm... What? Out of all of them, Dawn's the most helpless and vulnerable. If you were her, would you really want to stay at home, alone, in the middle of a town that happens to be a concentrated focus of mystical forces?

In Afterlife, Anya goes out on her own, in the middle of the night, through the streets of Sunnydale, with an interdimensional spectre on the loose and out to get them, to get coffee. Now, that alone leaves me confused, but the fact that everyone let her is even more baffling. "Hey, Anya, you wanna go get us some coffee? Oh, and uh, mind the psychotic ghost-demon while you're at it."

What really bugs me is that aside from Buffy, Spike, Willow, Tara, and to some extent Giles, none of them have any real way to defend themselves. Oh, ok, Anya can hit things with frying pans or baseball bats, and Dawn can scream really loud. Xander has some base-level fighting skills, but none of them have recieved any real training.

Why doesn't Anya take up magic? We all know she'd love to have some sort of powers again. And why can't Dawn do research and practice witchcraft? It'd only increase her chances of survival. Why won't Giles or Buffy give them all some martial arts training or something? It just seems so odd.

Just something to think about...

[> Why the SG aren't more paranoid -- vampire hunter D, 12:42:27 10/18/01 Thu
Because they've lived there long enough to know what to look out for and avoid danger. I liken Sunnydale's demon problem to an inner city crime problem. It's not as bad as it looks. People from outside the inner cities are afraid to go there bcause whenever they hear anything about those places, it's always some report on a crime there. So they assume that the inner city is dangeraus with a crime going on all the time. But people who live there are not afraid (they are careful, but not paranoid) because they know that the problem isn't as bad as outsiders percieve, and they know how to take care of themselves.

Same is true of Sunnydale. All we see are the gang fighting demons, but that's because we are only shown the gang during demon fights (really, would you want to watch an episode where nothing happened during a patrol so everyone went home and wathced TV?) In reality, the demon fights probably don't take place that often, and even when a demon or vamp does show up, the gang is more than capable of handling it.
[> [> Excellent points vhD -- Liquidram, 12:44:23 10/18/01 Thu
[> [> Re: Why the SG aren't more paranoid -- kostadis roussos, 13:25:58 10/18/01 Thu

I call it the "SCIFI license".

In the SCI Fi license, when the heroes land on the planet, the ancient monument is there.

This is kind of like how no vampire has resorted to using an AK 47 on the summer household, hired a hitman to kill buffy with a telescopic sniper rifle, used poisonous gas when fighting the slayer, etc, etc, etc.

It would make the show a lot less interesting if buffy had to run around in full high-tech weapons gear. Turning into a bond-esque high tech gadget fest.

So the vampires only appear when it makes sense for the plot, which is not about killing vampires, but about growing up with responsibilities, war, death, love, friendship, and the nature of existence.

So we never ask the obvious question:

Why did Trick when Kakistos was fighting Buffy and Faith not pull a machine gun and just start firing at random.


p.s. I mean this is a show that could have Hong-Style action sequences but would that make the show any better?
[> [> [> Faerie fear of iron/human fear of modern war -- Cleanthes, 13:41:58 10/18/01 Thu
There's absolutely no evidence for this, but, well, the old notion that supernatural beings don't like iron would explain a lot of the non-use of technology by demons.

Of possible greater importance is Hollywood's inability to deal with "The Great War and Modern Memory". Machine guns destroyed, pretty much, the ability to show war and warriors in anything but ironic forms. So, we have pistol packing heroes defeating the bad guys with heavy weapons. (lame) Or, much better, an actual forray into an ironic space of myth and slayage, where the ironic overlay of an intentionally distancing (Verfremdungseffekt)title "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" applies. She ain't: Buffy the B-2 bomber girl dropping laser-guided munitions. That'd not be such a fun show, I don't think.
[> [> [> Re: Whoa, misinterpreting the question there -- Lucifer_Sponge, 15:00:14 10/18/01 Thu
Obviously it would make the show less interesting. That's a given. I'm NOT suggesting they should change anything on the show. I was looking at it from a different angle... In reality, wouldn't they be more skittish and generally freaked out? Wouldn't they be taking more precautions?
[> [> [> [> Re: Whoa, misinterpreting the question there -- kostadis roussos, 17:19:11 10/18/01 Thu

I guess I was suggesting that thinking about the reality of the paranoia would lead you to think about a whole host of other problems.

That's all.

[> [> [> [> Re: Whoa, misinterpreting the question there -- RabidHarpy, 09:04:40 10/19/01 Fri
I understand what you're getting at - if I lived in Sunnydale, I'd be the first one lined up to pay Buffy for self-defence lessons! Not only that, but I would spend most of my time alert to the presence of evil, (ie. locked doors, handy weapons, education on the supernatural, etc.) I would also try to befriend Buffy and the gang - since they have the "ins" and all on this sort of activity - and try to become a useful part of her evil-fighting team. Safety in numbers, my friends...

Better safe than sorry.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Forwarned is forearmed.
The best way to defeat your enemy, is to know your enemy.

Especially characters like Anya (who HAD powers before) - I would want to build up some sort of defence so that I wouldn't feel so vulnerable. The same goes with Xander - there's no point in remaining the "helpless-prankster" - it just makes you a lighter "snack"!

[> [> [> [> [> well, the waiting list for self-defense lessons in sunnydale is probably years long -- anom, 18:03:57 10/20/01 Sat
[> [> [> Re: Why the SG aren't more paranoid -- gds, 16:04:19 10/18/01 Thu
no vampire has resorted to using an AK 47 on the summer household, hired a hitman to kill buffy with a telescopic sniper rifle

Actually they have (Homecoming). In fact she and Faith (but they actually went after Cordelia) were the prey in a hunt by assassins.
[> Because if they were more paranoid they'd go insane -- Charlemagne20, 13:00:05 10/18/01 Thu
I mean seriously...

What's the alternative, stay at home with the flashlight on?

So they pretend it's no big deal.

It's a survival mechanism like forgetting was in Season 1
[> [> Re: Because if they were more paranoid they'd go insane -- SBuffy, 13:06:34 10/18/01 Thu
Caue they are all so secure in the knowledge they will be saved by another of the SC. it has happened time and time again. They may be freaked from time to time. But they seem to feel pretty confinet someone will be there in times of danger.
[> *cough* are we forgetting that we're talking about kids? -- Solitude1056, 17:30:32 10/18/01 Thu
The sense of invulnerability, the idea that "I'll live forever" even when this concept has been smashed in their face time and again, and all other grandiose notions that flit through the head of every average mid-teens to early twenties person? I spent those years on the streets in DC when it was the "murder capital of the world," and you never saw any of us thinking, gee, there were three murders here yesterday, we should be all skittish. Nope, despite going to funerals, we still never thought it could happen to us.

And until Buffy died, the SG could still think that. And in some ways, they still can. Joyce died because of a tumor; Buffy died because she was busy being the Slayer. As none of them are the Slayer, there's probably a small unconcious thought hanging out in their heads that says, "it won't happen to me, cause I'm not the Slayer." That something - the Slayer - stood between them and madness. And now that I think about it, I wonder if that was part of the reason they were so adamant that they couldn't defend Sunnydale properly, on their own. Because to do so would be to admit that they, themselves, might suffer the same fate.

Uh, on the other hand, I dunno. ;-)
[> [> Re: *cough* are we forgetting that we're talking about kids? -- DEN, 19:53:09 10/18/01 Thu
That sense of invulnerability--"it will be someone else who gets it"--is even more common to soldiers, combat pilots, and people in similar long-term high-risk situations of the kind the Scoobies face. Sooner or later, it erodes, and when it does some kind of collapse often follows.
[> Re: Why aren't the SG more paranoid? -- cjc36, 05:21:53 10/19/01 Fri
I had asked a related question years ago in regard to The X-Files: why didn't Mulder and Scully act a bit more--okay, not freaked out, but a bit more careful: secret codes, meeting places, listening device scans, as matter of daily habit. The mean-o'le Smoking Man was after them, and one can never be too careful. I guess why Files *didn't* show any of the above was that it would change the characters in ways that would get in the way of the fans identifying with them. Same could be said of the Scoobies. If each of them could really take care of themselves, then wouldn't Buffy's importance be diminished? I don't know the answer to that myself, but, especially with Xander, there needs to be characters who have no special powers but good heart, people who are proxies for us.
A silly Buffy poem for the Midnight Hour -- Brian, 20:07:08 10/18/01 Thu
Buffy awakes with a feeling of fright,
But her world is peaceful, white.
There are no vamps to slay;
No Demons to filet.
Bad people are banished, gone.
Her heart murmurs with forgotten song.
She may be alone, an army of one,
But she knows now her battle is done.
Time to meditate and quietly sit,
"Why this is Heaven, I’m finally out of it."
[> Re: A silly Buffy poem for the Midnight Hour -- Javoher, 21:14:13 10/18/01 Thu
Lovely. Thank you, I like it very much.
[> soon to be immortalized at Fictionary Corner -- Liq, 21:40:28 10/18/01 Thu
[> Thanks.....:):) -- Rufus, 00:03:48 10/19/01 Fri
[> Yea! More poetry! :) -- Humanitas, 05:42:24 10/19/01 Fri
[> Thanks, Brian...kinda sad... :o( -- Wisewoman, 08:47:07 10/19/01 Fri
...but "demons to filet" was funny!
Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Whisper2AScream, 07:51:58 10/19/01 Fri
Was just thinking about the Inept trio of bad guys-wannabes, and then remembering sometime AI sponser, David Nabbit.

Kind of see Jonathan, Warren, and Andrew as the opposing version of Nabbit. Nabbit's this geeky good-guy wannabe, and they're geeky bad-guy wannabes. One wants to role-play a Lawful good fighter, and the three want to be chaotic evil mages/fighters, to use DnD references (the main thing that links them.)

[> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Brian, 08:26:52 10/19/01 Fri
Just another example of how each series continues to parallel each other in their story lines.

I just realized that the minute Angel hears about Buffy, he is out the door, and the same with Buffy. Cool!
[> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Neaux, 08:41:31 10/19/01 Fri
speaking of D&D (Not that I play) Were they playing D&D? .. that board game thingy..

it looked like this crappy board game Hero's Quest that came out about 10 years ago.
[> [> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Lunarchickk, 10:12:17 10/19/01 Fri
According to the shooting script, they were playing Dungeons & Dragons... But I was wondering what they were playing too. (It was just such a necessity for them to be playing D&D in that scene!)

Then I remembered... recently there was a version of D&D put out with an actual board to play on... trying to make it more accessible than graph paper and character sheets, I guess. That must've been the version they were playing in the flashback.

(And no, I don't play D&D either! Anymore. ;) It's been almost 10 years! I've recovered!)
[> [> [> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Neaux, 11:17:02 10/19/01 Fri
that's what i thought.. cuz I only remember the paper and graph stuff too
[> [> [> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Shaglio, 12:41:20 10/19/01 Fri
Yes that was D&D. As soon as I saw it, I recognized it as the dungeon map from the D&D 3rd Edition Adventure Game. The other side is a blank grid and it comes with 1 inch diameter discs with characters and mosters on them. (And, yes, I do play D&D. Just started a few months ago). When I saw that scene, I thought, "Hey! I play D&D and I'm not a patheic dork like them!" I guess it's all in who you play with.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Isabel, 10:42:48 10/20/01 Sat
I'm a D&D player too. When I saw the Evil Wannabees playing with the prefab board and actual figurines, I thought they HAD to be new at it, or were very stupid with no imagination. (Plus, I was a little disgusted at the writers going for the obvious 'losers playing D&D' gag.) If you had any experience (or brains) you know that a board is more trouble than it's worth. It limits the scope of the imagination.

Plus our group is cool too. We'd never want to take over the world. We're too smart to want it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Malandanza, 09:15:46 10/21/01 Sun
"I'm a D&D player too. When I saw the Evil Wannabees playing with the prefab board and actual figurines, I thought they HAD to be new at it, or were very stupid with no imagination. (Plus, I was a little disgusted at the writers going for the obvious 'losers playing D&D' gag.) If you had any experience (or brains) you know that a board is more trouble than it's worth. It limits the scope of the imagination."

I was an avid AD&Der when I was younger (teen-age through mid twenties) but gradually became disenchanted with the system as they changed the rules and made it PC (no demons and devils). I've played many other RPG over the years, but for simplicity and playability, AD&D was always the best. I know nothing about the "prefab board" or miniatures, but it doesn't bother me -- at some point, you end up fighting and have to break out the figures (our group usually used chess pieces to represent characters, but periodically, we'd get a group member that went overboard and bought and painted his own miniature). It's still mostly a pencil, paper and imagination game.

If all Joss & Co. are using D&D for is a one-time gag, I'll be a bit disappointed. Gaming encourages social activity of just the sort Jonathan needed. In the early days of AD&D, there were wild claims that gaming led to suicide -- in spite of Gary Gygax pointing out that gamers had significantly lower (1%) of the suicide rate as non-gamers precisely because the gamers are part of society (or a small segment of it, anyway). Hopefully, someone on the writing staff has played before (it seems unlikey since Tucker's brother made the comment about staying up late; all hard-core role-players have experienced all-night and into the next day gaming sessions)-- it is a rich area for parody (and jokes that only former role-players would get). The choice of characters for the Troika alone would be funny. (And who's the Dungeon Master? My guess is Tucker's brother...) Plus, all kinds of fun with lucky dice!

And if they really do hypnotize Buffy, maybe they'll make her play a game with them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The way to stay sane and avoid disenchantment... -- Isabel, 21:48:24 10/21/01 Sun
is to ignore the PC rules that don't match your characters' world. It is very money making oriented these days, what with being 'acquired' by Wizards of the Coast, the Magic the Gathering people. (And that God-Awful movie they put out...)

When 3rd ed. came out we groaned and bought it and spent the next 3 months 'negotiating' the old rules we'd be keeping with the group.

Parody would be good. I love the Foxtrot D&D cartoons. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Whisper2AScream, 12:26:54 10/22/01 Mon
I'm wondering if they included as a little dig to us posters who role-play Buffy RPG's in online campaigns. Not that I'd know anything about that... ;) Only GM and play in um, well, several. I bet Joss and some of the other writers were probably hard-core players and DM/GM (aka God) back in the day. Looking forward to Knights of the Dinner Table-style in-jokes.
[> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Shaglio, 12:43:45 10/19/01 Fri
"I just realized that the minute Angel hears about Buffy, he is out the door, and the same with Buffy. Cool!"

I find that cool as well, since (I think) the season premier of Buffy was delayed and I don't remember the season premier of Angel being delayed.
[> [> [> Sneaky Episode Timing. -- Humanitas, 13:30:18 10/19/01 Fri
The timing is kinda neat. AtS premiered the week before BtVS, but the BtVS premiere was two hours, and technically counts as two episodes. Further, the start of Buffy 6.3 follows the end of 6.2 by a matter of minutes. So the series are at the same point in their seasons, and Buffy was reborn sometime around the same time of That Old Gang of Mine.

Xander: You have too many thoughts.
- Lie to Me,
[> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 14:38:44 10/19/01 Fri
I just thought it was wacky fun that previous seasons' "bad guys" show up again to torment our Slayer!!

[> [> Re: Wannabe's in the Buffy/Angelverse (Flooded spoilers) -- Cynthia, 15:31:50 10/19/01 Fri
I thought it was also poking fun at all the "extreme" fans in fandom (name your favorite here). I'm sure both the writing staff and the stars have run into these types of people. You know, the ones that relate their whole lives on how it relates to a non-fiction reality.

Also, it is being used as a contrast to how the Scoobies are facing adulthood, adebt reluctently, while the Troika aren't.
Vampires on the message board? -- RabidHarpy, 09:27:35 10/19/01 Fri
I just noticed that every time I come on the board, (during the day), I spend most of my time catching up on the flood of responses from the evening before. It looks as if most people on the board are nocturnal and only come out to post at night!

Speaking of which, (not witch!) - anyone out there into Goth/Vampyre roleplaying/cultisms? Just curious...
[> Just...um...time zones (yeah, right!) ;o[ -- Wisewoman, 09:41:54 10/19/01 Fri
Nope, no, uh-uh, no vampires here!

Some people in UK and Europe tho' and lots on the East Coast and MidWest, even though the time zone of the Board is Pacific Time. It's pretty much going 24/7!
[> [> I don't know about that .... -- Liq, 13:05:08 10/19/01 Fri
I think Sully's a vamp.... ;[
[> [> [> Re: Y'know, you could be right! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:36:06 10/19/01 Fri
Sully's pretty cool...the strong, silent type, LOL.

If it's not short for sullen, then maybe it's a reference to sullying things? Like reputations? Hmmmmm...
[> [> [> [> nah, I'm sure it's something else :[ -- SJM, 19:50:16 10/19/01 Fri
[> Re: Vampires on the message board? -- Ryuei, 10:27:46 10/19/01 Fri
I'm a big fan of the White Wolf games, not that I ever get to play them anymore. Job, family, and temple tends to push out such extracurriculars. I have toyed around with the idea of running a play-by-mail game though but again time constraints...
[> [> You mentioned... -- RabidHarpy, 10:45:07 10/19/01 Fri
... that you go to "temple" - what "religion" are you, if you don't mind my asking, and do you find that BtVS conflicts with any of your beliefs, or the theology of your particular faith?

Just curious...
[> [> [> Re: You mentioned... -- Ryuei, 14:40:12 10/19/01 Fri
I am a priest in the Nichiren Shu (Shu means school). It is a form of Japanese Mahayana Buddhism. The official website of the Nichiren Shu is www.nichiren-shu.org.

I have a page of articles that a friend set up for me - that can be found at www.crosswinds.net/~campross/Ryuei/index.html

As for whether B:tVS conflicts with my faith, the first thing I have to say is that it is just a t.v. show and anyone who gets worked up about whether a t.v. show or any other form of fantasy or science fiction conflicts with their faith should get a life and/or have their head examined in my opinion. It a little thing called distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

Having said that, however, I will say that many times I have argued that the cosmology of the Jossverse does have many compatibilities and even precursors in the worldview of pre-modern Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. Like the Jossverse, the worldview of East Asian Buddhism is full of ghosts, demons, shapeshifters, gods, and various other beings. There are also many heavens and many hells. There is a celestial beauracracy that mirrors the earthly one (TPTB?). There are many cases of pious "demons" who work for the forces of good or who become human. Read the translation of the story of the monkey king by Arthur Waley entitled "Monkey" and you will see how the folklore of pre-modern Chinese Buddhism is a kind of precursor for what we are seeing in Buffy and Angel. Oh - and if you live near a video store with Asian movies then rent Green Snake with English subtitles. I highly recommend it.

I guess I should also say, that the worldview of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism was as much a product of those cultures as it was of anything authentically Buddhist and not always in line with the Buddhist sutras themselves. But the end result (the popular Buddhism of fiction and peasant piety and superstition) is certainly entertaining if not always edifying or in keeping with authentic Buddha Dharma.
Something I noticed in "Halloween" -- Rob, 09:34:37 10/19/01 Fri
Just rewatched "Halloween" on FX the other night, and I noticed something I thought was pretty funny foreshadowing. When Willow and Buffy were discussing why they shouldn't sneak into Giles' office and take the Watcher Diaries, Buffy's final answer was a cute little "Because it's wrong" which sounded exactly like how Faith said that when she was in Buffy's body! Just thought that was amusing...

[> Re: Something I noticed in "Halloween" -- Cleanthes, 10:01:23 10/19/01 Fri
That's a reference by the old fogies writing this show to the Nixon tapes.
[> also... -- Liq, 13:00:46 10/19/01 Fri
When Willow, as the ghost, was getting all bossy, Cordelia snaps "Who died and made you boss?"
[> [> Re: also... -- Rob, 14:07:54 10/19/01 Fri
I noticed that too!
Witchcraft and Mothers -- Charlemagne20, 10:46:43 10/19/01 Fri
Willow's mom is a psychologist type who seems completely unable to relate to her daughter on any concievable level whatsoever....ironic. Also she seems so self absorbed that she doesn't even notice Willow is even there.

Tara's mom was Crazy and suicidal with her family life very questionable indeed and something happened to her that led to her untimely death.

Amy's mother was crazy and stole her body.

I doubt Anya and Michael's parents were all too sane either.

What's up with the whole "bad mother" homelife thing going on here?

Actually in general what is with Joss and Family in general?

[> Re: Witchcraft and Mothers -- Neaux, 11:32:23 10/19/01 Fri
well.. i would say as diverse as the scoobie gang in terms of Species (not race.. dont' get me on that Friends Tangent)

I'd say the group is a family in itself.. and maybe that's more of the point Joss is trying to make.
[> Was Tara's mom crazy? -- vampire hunter D, 14:00:13 10/19/01 Fri
All that we know about her is that she was a whitch and that she's dead.
[> Joss and family -- Traveler, 19:07:57 10/19/01 Fri
"Actually in general what is with Joss and Family in general?"

If I had a dollar for every person who has asked that question...

I have read in interviews that Joss does base some of the ideas/themes in the series from his own life. So, it seems likely that he has had poor relationships with his own family in the past. Also, there does seem to be a running theme which suggests that family is about more than blood relationships.
[> I'd say that's a radical interpretation of the text... -- Solitude1056, 21:43:50 10/19/01 Fri
This has been bothering me:

Tara's mom was Crazy and suicidal with her family life very questionable indeed and something happened to her that led to her untimely death.

I don't recall Tara mentioning her mother was crazy or suicidal. The first mention of Tara's mother comes at the end of Hush, when Tara and Willow are talking about moving the soda machine together. She tells Willow, that "[I've always been practicing,] I mean, since I was little... My mom used to... she had a lot of power." The next mention of Tara's family comes when she tries to give Willow a doll's-eye crystal, in The I in Team. She tells Willow, "It was my grandma's, I think. Found it a long time ago in my attic."

It's not until Family that we hear any more about Tara or her family. The first piece of news is that Tara was shy to a crippling degree for the majority of her childhood, which comes as no surprise as the details of her family's attitudes unfold through the episode. Later in the episode, her father implies that the family allowed Tara to attend an out-of-state college, with the hopes that "if we let you go you'd get [witchcraft] out of your system." He then gets to the reason for the family's visit to Sunnydale: "You're turning twenty. The same age your mother was when..." but he doesn't finish the sentence.

His statements later in the scene are blunt and crystallize the family dynamics quite succinctly. He reminds Tara, "you can't control what's going to happen. You're my daughter and I love you but you are a demon. You have evil inside you and it will come out." In the episode's final scene, Mr. Maclay explains to Buffy and the rest of the Scoobies, "The women in our family have... demon in them. [Tara's] mother had it; it's where the magic comes from."

As we all know, Spike's quick thinking saves the day and reveals Tara to be fully human; for the best in-dept discussion on this, go look up the character analysis on Tara. But there's no mention of Tara's mother again, until The Body. During her talk with Buffy, while the others are getting snacks, Tara remains reticent on the specific details, allowing only that her mother died when Tara was seventeen, and implying that it was after a long illness. Tara never makes any statements that her mother was crazy, however she describes her own behavior (after her mother's death) as rebellious, confused, and having a certain streak of self-loathing or vague guilt. She refers to this behavior again in Intervention, but as far as the text describes, never refers to her mother as crazy - only to her behavior in trying to deal with her mother's death.

At the same time, we have the earlier implications (from Season 4) that Tara's mother was a powerful witch for the better part of Tara's lifetime, despite the family's insistence that this power was demonic. Tara's given no indication that her mother was necessarily crazy, although if her mother felt trapped in a crazy situation that's an entirely different - and understandable - matter. Additionally, after the revelations of Family, I'd surmise that any significant illness Mrs. Maclay suffered may have only served to further drain her, and she was possibly already beaten down emotionally by the family before she even became ill. In that sort of situation, I wouldn't consider the person suicidal so much as just plain having nothing left with which to fight, and as many doctors will attest, a person's willingess to fight for their life can make all the difference to their survival.

In fact, I'd put Tara's mother in the same class as Joyce, in some ways. A little bewildered by circumstances, but trying to do the best by her daughter (such as teaching her about magick, encouraging her in small ways), but in the end, helpless against the forces arranged against her. (And I draw that comparison based on the excellent theories suggested by the character analysis on Joyce, which I also recommend.)

So in sum, I don't agree with the idea that Tara's mother represents yet another parent-gone-bad, but instead stands as a warning of what can happen when one allows others to limit oneself without quarter. Any impression that Tara's mother was imbalanced to any degree, to me, seems more due to Tara's confusion afterwards, and the tearing of her loyalty between a mother she loved and a family that was (perhaps) claiming that this was the just end for a demon. The fact that Tara's family claims things to be a certain way - when their agenda has been shown to be self-serving and destructive - should raise serious doubts as to the veracity of any other conclusions about their statements. The Maclay family agenda should also be kept in mind while considering Tara's resulting pain after her mother's death, with human intuition giving credence to the notion that Tara's vague guilt stems from their warped attitudes rather than from her mother's actions or mental state.
[> [> Re: minor correction ... -- Shiver, 09:43:36 10/20/01 Sat
I don't think Tara ever specifically said her mom died of an illness ... she commented on "suddenness" but never gave any specifics as to how her mother died.

Joss could still give us a shocker on that, it could be that her mom died as a result of a spell gone wrong - which is what has given Tara her strong sense of magical ethics.
[> [> [> Re: minor correction ... -- Solitude1056, 13:35:02 10/20/01 Sat
That was the implication, given that Tara's reply was that her mother's death was not sudden. She then amends her statement to say that it's never expected - which I interpreted as meaning that her mother had been ill, to some extent, previous to her death.
A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- ecr110, 19:30:33 10/19/01 Fri
I've lurked on these boards for awhile, but this is my first message that I've written. I was just watching Flooded again (probably for like the sixth time) and I was struck by one thing in particular
- When Spike and Buffy were talking, they both mentioned that they were not ones for groups. Obviously, they are both referring to the Scoobies. Spike feeling out of the loop for not being part of the resurrection is clear. But Buffy has always been a big one for the group- they were pretty much the reason she survived so long. Since she is now feeling so disconnected, how will this affect her slaying?
Kind of a tangent- Buffy only seems to be trying to relate to those who had no part in bringing her back- Dawn, Giles and Spike. This was pretty evident during the part where Willow is attempting to talk to Buffy who is sending out pretty clear 'get lost' signals. If this disconnection continues, the Scooby gang will grow farther apart- is that what Joss meant by "Oh grow up already"? That as we age, we lose our childhood friends and grow away from our families? If this is so, then all the previous seasons would have meant nothing because they were all about building up this family unit of people who had no one else.
[> Re: Mutating friends/families -- Wisewoman, 21:20:37 10/19/01 Fri
Part of the reason Buffy may not feel as comfortable in the group (aside from being yanked out of Heaven!) is that the group now consists of at least two subsets of couples: Willow/Tara and Xander/Anya. The people that Buffy's relating to are the ones who are still solitary, like her.

An argument could be made that Buffy/Dawn are also a family subset, or eventually maybe Buffy/Spike/Dawn, but then, Spike and Dawn seemed to have formed something of a familial relationship while Buffy was dead, so it's possible she feels a little on the outside of that one, too.

Right now the only person standing alone, like Buffy, is Giles, and we know he won't be around for long.

I don't think the SG is disintegrating as much as it's mutating, but time will tell...

;o) Welcome! Glad you decided to de-lurk.
[> Re: A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- Deeva, 22:36:04 10/19/01 Fri
The disconnection may continue but maybe not to such a dramatic degree. The "Grow Up Already" theme is appropriate. We do need to grow up and apart, with a little bit of space between. When we do drift away, what makes it even better is when you find your way back. Don't get me wrong. The support that you get from others (whether it's from relatives or friends) around you is invaluable but learning to be self-sufficient is one of the best things that you can learn. Team-player, yah! Play well with others, woo-hoo! But there is something to be said the one person who can pull themselves up by their boot straps and do what they say they can do.

Buffy has made it this far because of her family. She may eventually go down as the oldest living Slayer because of that. But I think that the group gave her a great start and middle. Who knows when the finish will pop up, but when it does her friends will be there for her. Even in the group though she will stand alone. Like in "The Gift", the gang was assembled and battle ready with a plan, but her decision in the end was hers and hers alone.

As childhood friends, what brings you together are mostly common activities, interests or situations. Then you grow up. I think this season will be about how to reconnect. Buffy reconnecting with the world, Willow reconnecting with the gang after her power trip from the "dark side", the gang coming together some where in the middle.
[> [> Re: A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- John Burwood, 00:33:27 10/20/01 Sat
There is a nothing new in Buffy being sort of semi-detached from the SG, especially in times of great stesss. It is particularly noticeable in the few episodes after Passion - in eps like Go Fish & IOHEFY it is noticeable on occasion when the SG are together in ordinary talking how often Buffy is standing or sitting just a little distance away from the others. The burdens of being so different can not help but inculcate a measure of outsiderness. In extreme cases, like WSWB & post-Becoming, she has of course detached even further.
When you are too different, there is always a limit to how far you can fit in even to your family.
[> [> [> Re: A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- Juliette, 05:24:08 10/20/01 Sat
I don't think if the SG grow apart it will "make the first few seasons meaningless." The gang may grow apart, but they will always be there for each other when they need each other, having shared so much in the past. Just because a friendship has changed and people have grown apart with time doesn't invalidate that friendship. I know I still value my friendship with a friend I've seen only once in four years (I moved house) and we still talk over the phone and stuff - it's not the same but we're still friends. Buffy and Willow may grow apart and not be best buddies any more, but they will be there for each other when they're needed, for support or even just someone to talk to. (Unless Willow turns into a supervillain - maybe that wasn't the best example to pick!)
[> [> [> Re: A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- bible belt, 17:23:28 10/23/01 Tue
I think that explains a great deal about Buffy's connection with Spike. Buffy has always been a few steps ahead of the SG in the maturity department. She dated Angel and Riley who were both older and more experienced, and neither one were a part of the SG. Now she's made this connection with Spike who, like Angel, has literally been around the world. That's what the resurrection seemed to me, the SG trying to pull Buffy back down to their level, or to keep her from becoming too detached.
[> Re: A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- Cactus Watcher, 06:35:55 10/20/01 Sat
Part of it is that before the tower, Buffy spent a good bit of her free time trying to fit in with everyone else. Now that she's back from the beyond, that kind of social interaction doesn't seem to have any meaning for her. I don't know if that attitude will last. She does seem to spend a good deal more time thinking about her own place in the scheme of things, and how she's affecting others; and less worrying about what others think of her. She's ready for deeper friendship, but I'm not sure the rest of the Scoobies are yet.

Buffy would probably love to discuss her new outlook on philosphy with someone who'd listen. Too bad she can't get on Masq's board with us!
[> Re: A thought on Flooded... spoilers -- maddog, 08:34:18 10/22/01 Mon
I don't think the meaning of "Oh grow up" has to do with losing all your childhood friends(though it's a possibility). I think it has more to do with the changing relationships as people mature(or don't mature in some cases). People change, and that fact alone means that their relationship with family and friends will change, even if ever so slightly. I think this season will be filled with tougher choices and harder lessons as they all start to deal with the adult reprocussions to the things that they do...that is afterall what happens when you grow up.
A Companion Piece -- Brian, 20:41:54 10/19/01 Fri
Buffy Remembers a Dream of Heaven

Buffy suddenly wakes. The room is nearly dark, and it’s not hers. For a moment, she panics; she doesn’t remember where she is. Then, she recalls that she is in a motel, and Angel should be lying next to her. She hesitates to turn her head, fearful of finding an empty space, again, or worse. But he is laying there, a comforting figure in the semi-darkness. She sighs gently so as not to disturb him. They had talked for hours, and had finally fallen into bed exhausted. She had told him everything. When she was finished, she felt like a weight had been lifted from her heart. What had awakened her? Oh! She remembered, a dream, a dream from heaven…

She was floating on the white, or she was the white floating. She didn’t really know which was which, but it really didn’t matter. She felt calm, at rest, even peaceful. For the first time in a long time she was happy. What had happened? She couldn’t collect her thoughts. Oh, yes, now she remembered. She died, plunging into that energy field. It ripped through her with massive bolts of energy. Painful, at first. But the pain became acceptable, almost pleasant. Her blood, Summer’s blood, the blood of the Key that could doom the world, had saved the world, the universe, and most importantly, her friends. How she knew this was true, she didn’t know, but she knew it was true. They and the world were safe.

How long has she been here, and just where was here? All her world was white.
It seemed to ebb and flow in a random pattern. She discovered that if she concentrated she could turn the white into something like a TV screen that could capture and project images. Her life passed in a kaleidoscope of moments. Her arrival in Sunnydale, and discovering it was on a Hellmouth. No rest for the weary or the wicked. Her new friends, Willow, Xander, Oz, and even Cordelia. Her new watcher, Giles. And her eventual love, Angel, a vampire, a vampire with a soul. Who eventually left her, because to stay was to risk damnation. Then Riley, whom she had used so badly. The death of her mother. She had thought that it couldn’t get any worse.

The bad guys: The Master who killed her, but couldn’t keep her dead. Angelus, whom she dammed to hell, only to have him return once again as Angel, her one true love. The Mayor, the snake in the garden of Sunnydale, dying with the school. Somehow that seemed so fitting. And Faith, poor Faith. Her own dark soul brought to life in another person. She shuttered with remembrance of her walk on the wild side. Would Faith now be freed to be the Slayer, now that she was gone? Adam and Glory, just another two steps on the path to her destiny. Her destiny that she embraced with acceptance and love. Her sacrifice for her sister. Dawn of a new age, Dawn for the need to have tomorrows. Her final gift.

So this white was now to be her world? She wondered if she would float, be here, forever. It was comfortable. She was happy. She had done what she could.
It was time to lay down her burdens, and merge with this calm wave of eternity. But just as she had that thought, she noticed a small black dot in the swirling white. It seemed to grow larger, consuming the white. She was being sucked down into the blackness, a maelstrom of darkness that pulled her down into oblivion.

Everything was solid and dark and tight. Her head hurt and her whole body was sore. It was hard to breathe. Where was she? Wherever she was, she had to get out. She could barely breathe. Her fist shot up and her felt wood cracking and rupturing. She reached up through the wood and the dirt, and pulled herself up, obeying some deep, buried instinct of survival. She clawed her up into the night air.

The dream ended, and she was back, back in the motel bed, back with Angel beside her. Back to this hell on earth. But she didn’t think that anymore. Her talk with Angel had helped. And there was so much to do. And she could and would do it. She was the Slayer after all. She would think about it tomorrow. For the moment she was happy. The future had potential again. It would be hard, but it not impossible. Snuggling down next to Angel, she remembered that it was possible to have a heaven on earth, maybe not for forever, but at least for now. She smiled and felt herself sliding down into much needed, peaceful and dreamless sleep.
Life without crossovers -- Hauptman, 21:09:15 10/19/01 Fri
"I just realized that the minute Angel hears about Buffy, he is out the door, and the same with Buffy. Cool!"

Yes, it is very cool! But are we going to get to see their reunion? This bites! We didn't get to see Angel at Buffy's funeral (not that we got to see her funeral) and now no reunion. I don't see why the WB and UPN can't get together and allow the crossovers. I mean, isn't the point of making television shows to get people to watch? Who among us rabid fans wouldn't tune in to see Buff and Angel? Ratings, dammit!! We're talking gold, pure ratings gold.

I guess the suits at WB are afraid that if people tune in to UPN for a second they might see another show on the Enterprise network and then it's a slippery slope. They might watch Roswell or, gasp, one of the black shows. Once you go black...etc.

Angel's one true love is back from the dead and the most we are going to get is some cryptic side-speak on Monday. "How's Buffy?" "Good. She said 'Hi'." Then Cordy will have a vision and the show will go merrily hacking and chopping on. At least that's what I expect from a bratty network like the WB. I know, I know. Bitch, bitch, bitch. That's all I do when I am here. Gimme my Buffy and Angle back!
[> UPN is officially referred to as the Devil's whore network in WB-speak -- Charlemagne20, 21:41:01 10/19/01 Fri
The WB hates UPN now more than they love their own mothers from what we've been getting. Including actually have the gall to impose SANCTIONS on Fox for letting the UPN network have Buffy from their lineup....they lost Roswell as a result...to UPN

which I suspect didn't make the medicine go down like a spoonful of sugar any easier.

My hope is that the Buffy movie will have their reunion or that Angel and Buffy will drop and they'll end up together. Joss isn't so stupid now I think to believe the A/B chemistry yet.

[> [> Re: UPN is officially referred to as the Devil's whore network in WB-speak -- Tanker, 06:05:19 10/20/01 Sat
WB didn't "lose" Roswell. They cancelled it. UPN was stupid enough to pick it up. Bet they're kicking themselves now, though.
[> [> It's a little more complicated than that. -- Isabel, 11:44:19 10/20/01 Sat
Crossovers between two or more shows on different networks are NOT unheard of. BUT everyone has to want it and cooperate.

When WB didn't want to renew Buffy at Fox's asking price, they negotiated until the time expired and Fox then took bids from other networks. I heard rumors that ABC also looked into getting Buffy. (Ack, Disney!) But UPN bid the most. The WB had the right to match UPN's offer and keep Buffy, if they wanted. The president of WB said that Buffy wasn't worth it and didn't earn enough points in the WB's desired demographic anymore.

At that point, Joss started speaking up. Buffy helped put the WB on the map. It was their first hit and had just had one of it's best seasons. Joss got upset and said some things. The president of the WB said some things back. Buffy moved to UPN.

After UPN got Buffy they publicly said that if the WB cancelled Angel they'd be happy to take him too. Then backed up that sentiment by acquiring Roswell when WB cancelled it. The two networks have been sniping at each other ever since.

They're NEVER going to allow crossovers between Buffy and Angel. As long as Angel gets ok ratings and attracts the 'good' demographic, the WB isn't going to cancel it. Plus I'd be willing to bet that Angel's ratings would have to tank horribly for the WB to even consider cancelling it because they want to keep it away from Buffy. Once UPN acquires Angel, crossovers happen, ratings go up and UPN benefits.

I've even heard a rumor that David Greenwalt, the other exec producer on Angel, has connections with people at PAX's Mysterious Ways. The news article I read implied that if they could get a plot to crossover Angel and Mysterious Ways, the WB and PAX might consider working together to link the shows. Scary, but the WB might consider it to get a different audience and push Angel even further from Buffy.

Now the items addressed here are both my opinion and hearsay. I can't cite exact news articles, I've been reading them all summer. If you want to check what I've referred to I recommend going to your local library and asking if they pay for a subscription to Dialog@Carl. (It's a mega-database I use all the time.) It has full-text articles to lots of newspapers (among lots of other things) all over the world. Go to the section on Major US newspapers. I recommend the NY Times, LA Times, Atlanta Constitution in particular. But I've read all the others too and some of the articles I'm thinking of may have come from them. Or ask the reference librarian if there's another database you can use.

Hope I didn't bore you all.
[> [> [> Re: It's a little more complicated than that. -- maddog, 08:26:40 10/22/01 Mon
No, the length was good. You brought out some points that haven't been talked about a lot. Like how Fox said the show wasn't worth the money they wanted, which is just totally ludacris. Buffy is the show that spawned all these others(DC, Felicity, Roswell, etc). Without the success of Buffy those shows don't get created and the WB doesn't have their mini success in the teenage female demographic that they seem so proud of. I just wish Joss wasn't the only one to speak up. If someone in television...someone higher up on the food chain....had defended Buffy they might still be on the WB. It's sad to think the execs have so little respect for Joss that they didn't even take his opinion into account.
[> [> [> please, no. (mild rant) -- Solitude1056, 19:47:17 10/22/01 Mon
Not PAX - the xtian channel, the one that does almost twenty-four-hours-a-day reruns of "touched by an angel"? No offense to anyone here, but I get a little grossed out by any religion-based channel. I like the Jossverse the way it is - with limited reference to mainstream religions so no one can claim preference. Playing nice with something like PAX would turn me off of Angel, possibly permanently. To make matters worse, I don't want to have to watch some other show (other than Buffy) to have a clue as to what's going on in one or more episodes. Angel's a stand-alone series, and I like it that way.

Don't mean to sound harsh, but I hope Joss does us better than that.
[> [> [> [> Re: please, no. (mild rant) -- Isabel, 21:13:03 10/22/01 Mon
I think it's extremely unlikely. I was using it as an example of something more likely to happen than a UPN Buffy and WB Angel crossover.

I didn't make it up, by the way. I think I read it the end of August, beginning of Sept. I'm pretty sure it was an article about Keith Szarabajka getting the recurring role as Holtz on Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> great. now I'm going to lie awake, thinking, "so, how *do* you pronouce 'Szarabajka'???" -- Solitude With the Funky Pronounciation, 21:29:47 10/22/01 Mon
[> What are the chances of... -- RabidHarpy, 09:03:52 10/22/01 Mon
...Joss enlisting a third, separate network to air special crossover shows? Perhaps there's some sort of "loop-hole", for example, if they label it as a "movie" rather than an episode, or something to that effect?!?!
Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- OnM, 23:11:47 10/19/01 Fri

Kiddie films are doomed to be dismissed by... professional film critics almost regardless of how good they actually are. And because it's so easy to categorize a kiddie film as something that couldn't possibly be worth seeing -- regardless of what the critics say -- a vicious circle is set up: because you don't see it, you don't recommend it to your friends, who themselves haven't seen and recommended it to you.

Yet whereas most people are willing to take a chance on a film that's similar to one they've seen before, they're resolutely unwilling to consider one that doesn't seem "suitable." We want the "right" kind of action, violence, sex, and story lines, so while we warmly embrace insanely violent and graphic films like Total Recall and soft-core exploitation films like Basic Instinct, we'd never go see a really good horror film.

............ Steve Baumgarten


Well, we are ritualistic about discussing the philosophy of mold.

............ Masquerade


Sure there were dinosaurs in Brooklyn. There were even Dodgers in Brooklyn.

............Mario Mario


OK, nothing like starting off this week’s column by confusing the hell out of everybody. By now, you’ve probably read the above quotations several times, and figure that I’ve gone completely around the bend. I mean, let’s see-- we’ve got kiddee films and implied preconceptions about same, the philosophy of mold, dinosaurs and the Brooklyn Dodgers. I suppose any minute now, you’ll say to yourself, what next-- Dennis Hopper and Mojo Nixon together in the same movie? Has the humble movie man taken leave of his normally erudite sensibilities??

Well, yeah.

Certainly if you are going to go by what at least 80% of the film critics across the good ol’ U.S. of A. had to say regarding this week’s selection. I mean, they pretty much disliked, detested, disavowed and just plain ol’ dissed by whatever flavor, a movie that I personally thought was pretty darn respectable. In fact, when I started doing the research for this film earlier this week, I set out primarily to see if I could find any established and reputable critic/reviewer who gave this puppy even a single friendly scratch behind the ears, the press was so bad.

Coincidentally, it was also earlier this week that I happened to spend a little time in the Ivyweb chat room, and discovered that one of the chatters reported a story about a friend or family member, supposedly a BtVS fan, who so far apparently truly detests Season 6! Now, perhaps this shocks me because I feel I could fairly presume, judging by the stuff posted on the board the last three weeks, that Season 6 has been considered an overwhelmingly well-regarded success story for the creators of the Buffyverse. I mean, I certainly think so, and I like to think that I have both a decent appreciation of what constitutes good taste in the art of popular culture, and a solid logical/technical background that derives from my long term familiarity with the specific genre itself.

Or, stated more succinctly, I usually know good stuff when I see it. This being the case, though, how come someone of apparently equally good taste/experience sees what I see and comes to exactly the opposite conclusion? Going back to the chat room for a mo, Dedalus and I were discussing (what else?) movies, and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and George Lucas et al. Knowing that I had disappointed Ded by dissing TPM back in June, I thought I’d make it up to him by pointing out how much I liked most of Lucas’ cinematic work, especially a film I consider one of my All Time Top 10, his very first feature film, THX-1138. I mean, this is a flick of such stunning intelligence and execution, that I expected Ded would go, ‘oh, yeah, that one is just so amazing, isn’t it?’ or words to that effect, and then we could carry on patting each other on the back (in a cyber-fashion, of course) as to how insightful and clever we both are to recognize it as such. So what happens?

He hates it, that’s what happens. Disliked, detested, disavowed, etc. etc. Huh?

So go figure. You just have to accept that you will inevitably end up being at odds over some things, particularly art and philosophy and religious type things. No matter how much reasoning and explanation you try to apply, and unless you’re a terrorist or Jerry Falwell or a member of the Flat Earth Society, you get over it and move on.

And starting right now, I will move on, to a movie that no less a critical luminary than Gene Siskel placed on his list of the 10 Worst Movies of 1993, the one and only (they-planned-for-a-sequel, judging-by-the-ending, but, hummm, box-office-disaster and all...) Super Mario Bros., directed by Annabel Jankel & Rocky Morton.

Now if you’ve never heard of these two people, it’s true that they aren’t exactly household names, but during my surf time this week, I discovered a nifty little factoid that explains a lot about why I like Super Mario Bros. so much, said factoid being that these floks were the brains behind the Max Headroom series of a few years back. I don’t know what your opinion of Max was, but I remember watching it when it was first out and thinking that, these are people with a vision, and it’s a very hip, and witty, and original one. Yes, I was quite impressed, and ‘Max Headroom’ is another series I am eagerly awaiting the release of on DVD, should such ever happen. Every once in a while I manage to catch it on a syndication run, and I think it still holds up very well.

A great deal of that same off-beat wit and originality shines through in Super Mario Bros., and I am at a loss as to why so many people didn’t like the film. Was it like Buffy, they just assume it is a mindless kid flick, and never check it out? That doesn’t explain the critical reaction, though, since naturally they did see it. Whatever, I’m hoping that you may not have seen it yet, and so prepared by my recommendation, you might withhold your judgement until you’ve viddy’d the thing for yourself. For what it’s worth, I did locate a couple of positive reviews, and one of them is so overwhelmingly positive, and is so not merely in a purely emotional context (oh! I liked it! I really liked it!!), but in a rational, analytical sense, that again I’m going to cheat a little this week, and excerpt part of it here for you to read. I saw elaborated upon in this review a goodly number of the same aspects that I enjoyed, plus picked up on several new ones (such as the way Dennis Hopper holds his hands Tyrannosaurus-Rex-like in a certain way in a number of scenes throughout the film).

From a review by film critic Steve Baumgarten (copyright by same):

From beginning to end, this film flows very smoothly from one entirely implausible situation to the next, and it's rare that the filmmakers content themselves with a generic chase scene, filmed over a backdrop of generic pop music. Often the backdrops themselves are more diverting than the action in the foreground: from the alternate Brooklyn, which is obviously a fond take-off of Blade Runner's Los Angeles; to Koopa's reelection posters (Koopa on the environment: "Don't worry -- we'll get more."); to the police cars involved in many of the film's chase scenes -- all powered by an overhead electric grid. It took me a while to realize that the police cars were little more than glorified bumper cars, straight out of an amusement park, and as such represented for eleven-year-olds the coolest possible design for police cars you could have in an alternate dimension. Small touches like this either make or break a film... it's obvious that the police cars could have been designed as little more than the kind of souped-up police cars you'd expect to see in any city, regardless of dimension. That someone sat down and thought about what kind of police car would be absolutely right for this city impresses me no end.

(Also, there were the...) mistakenly kidnapped Brooklyn girls who, confined as they are in a sub-basement, sit around, smoke, do their nails, and in every way act in perfect, stereotypical Brooklyn girl fashion; to Koopa's henchmen, who trade lines like "You tried five times and failed five times -- what percentage is that?"; to the street food of choice, salamanders-on-a-stick.

He could go on (and does, you can check out the entire review if you like), but these examples serve to make the point-- this is not a thoughtless, stupid childish film. Child-like? Yes, that I’ll give it, but that isn’t a bad thing. No, this isn’t an example of sheer, mind-blowing brilliance like Toy Story, or Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but then how many other ‘kid’s films’ are? Let’s be fair here!

I wondered, when I dug out my copy of Super Mario to watch again last night, would it still hold up, now that over a year had passed since I saw it? About 10 minutes into the show, I noticed for the first time the inscription on the side of a van belonging to the Scarpelli Bros. (a competitor to the Mario’s and of course all-around kinda bad guys) that read ‘Scarpelli Construction - London / Paris / Palermo / Beverly Hills / Brooklyn’, and began to chuckle. Later on, when Mario and Luigi discover Daisy has been dragged into the alternate dimension of Dinohattan, the CGI effect of a face made out of sand immediately conjures up memories of The Mummy-- which was made over five years later, and ballyhooed muchly it’s special effects work. Uh huh, been there, done that, and who knew?

So, as we wrap up this week’s recommendation, please be generous, assume for the moment that I haven’t gone over the edge, and give this one a chance. At the moment, circumstances beyond my control force me to place this one into the ‘guilty pleasure’ category of my film library, but then, I also remember this other movie from quite a number of years back that was made by a largely unknown director named Ridley Scott, starred a largely unknown actor named Harrison Ford, and that the critics didn’t care for, and that the public stayed away from in droves. Today, that same film is considered a masterpiece of modern cinema.

And it doesn’t even get into the philosophy of fungus. Hah!

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



Technicus Fungus Plumbus:

Super Mario Bros. is not available on DVD according to the Internet Movie Database. The review copy was on laserdisc, and of course the film is available on standard VHS. The film was released in 1993, and running time is 1 hour and 44 minutes. The aspect ratio of the theatrical release is 1.85:1, and is preserved on the laserdisc edition. No info is available about the VHS version, but it’s rather likely to be a pan’n’scan version. Visual effects were designed by Christopher Woods, and the director of photography was Dean Semler. Costume design was by Joseph Porro. Music was by Alan Silvestri, with additional material provided by George Clinton and Don Was, Divinyls, Roxette, Queen, US3, and several others. The sound mix is standard Dolby Surround. Writing credits go to Parker Bennett & Terry Runte. The production company goes by the name ‘Lightmotive’, which I thought was a rather clever little piece of wordplay, but hey, that’s just me.

Cast overview:

Bob Hoskins .... Mario Mario
John Leguizamo .... Luigi Mario
Dennis Hopper .... King Koopa
Samantha Mathis .... Princess Daisy
Fisher Stevens .... Iggy
Richard Edson .... Spike
Fiona Shaw .... Lena
Dana Kaminski .... Daniella
Mojo Nixon .... Toad
Gianni Russo .... Scapelli
Francesca Roberts .... Bertha
Lance Henriksen .... The King
Sylvia Harman .... Old Lady
Desiree Marie Velez .... Angelica
Andrea Powell .... Brooklyn Girl


Maybe you didn't read that properly... DENNIS HOPPER and MOJO NIXON in the same movie!

............ Reid Fleming


Miscellaneous and whatnot:

Betcha didn’t know that plumbing is a really popular topic for movies? Well, I’m as surprised as you are, me bucko, what can I say? Courtesy of the IMDb, a list of movies that aim to plumb the depths (or heights) of this old and respected trade:

Plumber's Daughter, The (1925)
Plumber's Helper, The (1924)
Plumber's Helpers (1953)
Plumber's Life (1926)
Plumber of Seville (1957)
Plumber, The (1914)
Plumber, The (1921)
Plumber, The (1925)
Plumber, The (1967)
His Blowout ...aka Plumber, The (1916)
Instalator, Ha- ...aka Plumber, The (1986)
Work ...aka Plumber, The (1915)
In the Plumber's Grip (1915)
Once a Plumber (1920)
Gossipy Plumber, The (1930)
Jake the Plumber (1927)
Why Is a Plumber? (1927)
Oswald the Plumber (1933)
Passionate Plumber, The (1932)
Lonesome Luke, Plumber (1917)
Adventures of a Plumber's Mate (1978)
Princess and the Plumber (1930)
Captain Jinks, the Plumber (1917)
When We Called the Plumber In (1910)
So You Want to Be a Plumber (1951)
Misadventures of Bill the Plumber, The (1911)
Plumber, The (1979) (TV)

This last film, BTW, isn’t on video as far as I know, but it’s by none other than famed Aussie director Peter Weir, and it’s quite, quite amazing. The basic plot: A doctor's wife is terrorized by a strange plumber who is working in her house. I have this on another old tape-off-cable. If you ever find it, SEE IT!! Really.

And if the singular form isn’t sufficient, we now merrily present, the plural!!!

Peaches and Plumbers (1927)
Pick a Peck of Plumbers (1944)
Tom and Jerry Plumbers (1932)
Plumbers, The (1919)
Plumbers, The (1920)

OK, enough of that.

Star Wars Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace is finally out on DVD. There are no plumbers in it, although there may be fungus. There is also very likely some Lucasian philosophy. Out of respect for my friend Dedalus, I intend to purchase it and viddy it once again. (I saw the film in the theater when it was first released). I will leave it up to the rest of my gentle readers to decide for themselves what course of action to take, but I will point out that Ded says there is a lot of director commentary on it that is very plot and character driven, and is quite interesting.


Wrap-up, and the Question of the Week:

For what, IMHO, has to be one of the strangest reviews I’ve ever read of Super Mario Bros., check out the one posted for it at the IMDb. The link should be:


But if it doesn’t work, just do a search for the title, and then scroll down the page to the mini-review. Draw your own conclusions!

Question of the Week:

Back in August, I asked this before, but there are a lot of new visitors/posters to ATPo in the last month, so this is worth asking a second time, and it’s an easy one, at least if you aren’t shy about looking like a goof in front of your fellow philosophiles:

What movie or movies would you class as your favorite ‘guilty pleasures’?

Post ‘em if ya got ‘em, and see you next week. Take care!

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- Rufus, 00:51:24 10/20/01 Sat
My guilty pleasure is "Fright Night", not a classic movie, but it has Roddy McDowel, one of my favorite actors. Another guilty pleasure is a film he did in the sixties called "Shock Treatment"....I like anything he is in...even that movie about the Apes.....:):):)
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- Neaux, 14:48:26 10/20/01 Sat
How is Fright Night NOT a classic movie? where is your head? Fright NIght IS a classic. And the folks at AMC seems to agree too for showing it on their station.
[> [> Rufus... tell me you didn't jump out of your skin the 1st time we saw the vamps in Fright Night? -- Liq, 23:00:59 10/20/01 Sat
[> [> [> Re: Rufus... tell me you didn't jump out of your skin the 1st time we saw the vamps in Fright Night? -- Rufus, 13:18:09 10/21/01 Sun
There certainly was no mistaking the fact that they were monsters. I'm not the jumpy type when it comes to monsters, it's the real stuff that gets to me.
As for the film, brought it home as an innocent movie....it did have McDowel in it......never counted on the 5 sec (if that) topless scene early into the movie. My dad hit the roof blaming my brother for getting a dirty movie.....I kept trying to tell him it was me that picked it out to no avail...my brother was a purveyor of porn that day....all for a few seconds of flesh. Surprised me that no one would believe me that I (with the squeaky clean image) could have picked a naughty movie..so much for confession. Must be my innocent face...;)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- Andy, 05:52:40 10/20/01 Sat
"Coincidentally, it was also earlier this week that I happened to spend a little time in the Ivyweb chat room, and discovered that one of the chatters reported a story about a friend or family member, supposedly a BtVS fan, who so far apparently truly detests Season 6!"

Heh. I have a friend who despises season 6 as well. She's looking forward to the musical episode but otherwise she's said that it's "too bad that Buffy is now as atrociously horrible as X-Files" :)

"And starting right now, I will move on, to a movie that no less a critical luminary than Gene Siskel placed on his list of the 10 Worst Movies of 1993, the one and only (they-planned-for-a-sequel, judging-by-the-ending, but, hummm, box-office-disaster and all...) Super Mario Bros., directed by Annabel Jankel & Rocky Morton."

Huh. I could have sworn it was directed by Roland Joffe...anyway, I'm not sure I've ever seen it all the way through but I do remember that it didn't seem as horrible as a lot of critics said it was. Hell, it was based on an absurd video game. What were they looking for? :)

"Star Wars Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace is finally out on DVD. There are no plumbers in it, although there may be fungus. There is also very likely some Lucasian philosophy. Out of respect for my friend Dedalus, I intend to purchase it and viddy it once again. (I saw the film in the theater when it was first released). I will leave it up to the rest of my gentle readers to decide for themselves what course of action to take, but I will point out that Ded says there is a lot of director commentary on it that is very plot and character driven, and is quite interesting."

I was on the fence whether I should get it or not - I was thinking of waiting until I at least saw Episode 2 and getting a better feel for how this trilogy was progressing - but I decided to go ahead and pick it up. It still has truly awful-even-for-a-Star-Wars-movie dialogue, and the performances are more wooden than I remember, but I have to say that the dvd medium does good things for the CGI effects work, which never looked right on film to me. I haven't listened to the commentary yet but the documentary, The Beginning, is *excellent*. It almost justifies the purchase all on its own.

A guilty pleasure for me is Mission: Impossible 2. I really don't like Tom Cruise and this movie is probably the most narcissistic film he's ever done, which is saying quite a lot. But at least it seems to be vaguely aware of that fact, and the story has the good taste to rip off my favorite Hitchcock film, Notorious. Because if you're going to rip something off, might as well do it from the best. And Thandie Newton is pretty cute and I like Dougray Scott's work as the villain. So if I'm ever in the mood for Notorious with explosions, I watch this dvd :)

[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- OnM, 14:48:47 10/20/01 Sat
* Roland Joffe was one of the producers, along with Jake Eberts, according to the dust jacket on my copy of the film.

* Commentary tracks, the add-on bonus feature that first started with laserdiscs years ago, has become one of my real faves as it has continued and even expanded its usage with the advent of DVDs. Indeed, some flicks that are just on the edge of being interesting are worth purchasing just to get the commentary! (See 'Charlie's Angels' for a good example of this). The Buffy DVDs planned for January are supposed to have greatly expanded commentaries relative to the earlier, overseas issues, if current sources are accurate.

* Very much liked MI-2. Narcissistic? Maybe, but Cruise does have style, and so does Woo. I consider the film an homage, not a rip-off as some have claimed. Had a darn good time watching it in the theater, bought it as soon as it was out on DVD.

* X-Files? Very, very disappointed in last season, but I was loyal to it for many, many years, so I'll wait to see what they come up with this year before throwing in the towel.

* Just purchased SW/TPM less than an hour ago, viddy it tonight if I get a chance, otherwise tomorrow. Reserving any possible changes in opinion (or not) for afterward.
Was not impressed with anything other than the obviously superb technical work done on it when I saw it in the theater.

Stay tuned...
[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- Andy, 17:50:28 10/20/01 Sat
* Commentary tracks, the add-on bonus feature that first started with laserdiscs years ago, has become one of my real faves as it has continued and even expanded its usage with the advent of DVDs. Indeed, some flicks that are just on the edge of being interesting are worth purchasing just to get the commentary! (See 'Charlie's Angels' for a good example of this). The Buffy DVDs planned for January are supposed to have greatly expanded commentaries relative to the earlier, overseas issues, if current sources are accurate.

It would be nice. I've heard nothing but great things about Whedon's commentary in particular. My personal favorite dvd commentaries are the ones on the Evil Dead films. Bruce Campbell is always fun to listen to (and his autobiography is great). Speaking of Campbell, people often talk about who would make for good guest appearances on Buffy, and he'd be a natural, IMO.

* Very much liked MI-2. Narcissistic? Maybe, but Cruise does have style, and so does Woo. I consider the film an homage, not a rip-off as some have claimed. Had a darn good time watching it in the theater, bought it as soon as it was out on DVD.

Well, I tend to use the rip-off term with tongue in cheek, since I think it gets thrown about too much these days. Paying tribute to what came before is just so common in movies today, it's almost expected to have bits that are reminiscent of some earlier classic. Buffy is no exception with all of its pop culture influences informing its style.

* X-Files? Very, very disappointed in last season, but I was loyal to it for many, many years, so I'll wait to see what they come up with this year before throwing in the towel.

I haven't watched X-Files in awhile, but I did talk to my friend this afternoon and she said she quite liked Flooded, so maybe she hasn't fully condemned Buffy just yet :)

* Just purchased SW/TPM less than an hour ago, viddy it tonight if I get a chance, otherwise tomorrow. Reserving any possible changes in opinion (or not) for afterward.
Was not impressed with anything other than the obviously superb technical work done on it when I saw it in the theater.

I listened to the commentary just a little while ago. The Lucas sections are interesting since he's very focused on story but the FX people speaking made me weary. I think it's basically a fun movie with some significant flaws. And thanks to the miracle of chapter-skipping, if I ever get bored with some section of the film I can just skip right ahead to the lightsaber battles :)

[> [> Notorious with explosions? -- Rahael, 14:59:23 10/20/01 Sat
Ok, you've persuaded me Andy, I shall look out for MI2 even though I can't stand Cruise.
[> [> [> Re: 'Notorious' with explosions? Why not, we have Joseph Campbell with vampires! ... ;) -- OnM, 15:07:41 10/20/01 Sat
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- LadyStarlight, 07:13:45 10/20/01 Sat
My "grown-up movie guilty pleasure" (although I haven't watched it for a while) would have to be From Dusk 'til Dawn. The combination of George Clooney, a witty script, and interesting direction just gets me.

My "kid's movie guilty pleasure" (in keeping with the theme) is The Last Unicorn. One of my truly happy childhood memories is sitting in the theatre and being transported by the movie. Also the reason why I joined Columbia House for the first time. :)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- Rendyl, 08:16:00 10/20/01 Sat
Hmmm...Mario....Well...It is not the best movie I have seen but I sometimes wonder if movie critics (exempting OnM of course) miss the point of movies. It really is okay if a movie ends up just being fun. And it was fun.

As for guilty pleasures (is this where we embarrass ourselves?) I would have to list 'Escape from New York'. Everyone I know gives the "Why did Kurt make THAT movie???" comment in a tone of voice that suggests they just found alien sludge growing in their carpet. I don't care. I love this movie! I love the set, I love the tattoo, I love Adrienne B's gown, I love the cab....I love the last shot of him pulling the tape out of the cassette...

Another would have to be 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid'. (I am a HUGE hard-boiled detective book-movie fan so it is less of a guilty pleasure and more of an obsession)
OnM could probably fill pages with technical comments on fusing the old movie scenes with the actual shot footage but I am happy just cracking jokes with my husband about sucking bullets, java you can chew, and adjusting..er..things...

[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- OnM, 15:02:18 10/20/01 Sat
'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid' is excellent, though the humor is drier than some people like. Actually, I couldn't comment too much on the technical work, except that they did a wonderful job, the blends of old and new film were pretty seamless, and that is not easy to do, not at all!

'Escape' does have it's moments. Good 'popcorn' movie, just like 'Super Mario'.

One reason critics seem to come down hard on many films is that they get to see a lot of films, and the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of really, really bad films out there. This starts to color your perceptions after a while, you can't help it. It's very different when you do what I do, which is what most people do-- I, and they, select what they want to watch, and that by it's most basic action tends to 'thin the herd'.

Critics, if they are pros, see almost everything, and so Sturgeon's Law comes into play-- '90% of everything is crud'.

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 19th 2001 -- Humanitas, 11:11:02 10/20/01 Sat
My favorite "guilty pleasure" has got to be the fantasticly bad Ice Pirates. Cheezy, shclock sci-fi, with nothing more than some good casting to recommend it. It's so much fun!
[> You bring me back! -- Liq, 23:07:35 10/20/01 Sat
SMB hit when I had a very young little boy in the house, so of course we had to watch this film 3 or 4 times A DAY for about a month (and several times a year since.) It definitely was a staple in our household.

My guilty pleasures:

Blue Lagoon (I was much younger then, but I still love the music from it... I looked EVERYWHERE for that music box :)

Krakatoa, East of Java (one of my old time favorites and I just got the DVD!)

While You Were Sleeping (am I the only one who thinks Pullman is sexy?)

Ever After (because of the small female in this house, we watch this weekly ... that's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.)

Current: Chocolat (A delectable book and film)
[> [> and how could I have forgotten ... -- Liq, 23:10:25 10/20/01 Sat
Desperado .... blood and Banderas... ahhhhhh
[> Interesting stuff on a new movie coming out by Richard Linklater -- OnM, 08:53:45 10/21/01 Sun
Found this today in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The link is:


Involves a new type of animation-over-live-action filming, and sounds rather intreguing.

(You may recall Linklater as the director of Slackers.)
[> [> Re: New Linklater: "Waking Life" -- mm, 12:08:02 10/21/01 Sun
Haven't seen it, but am hearing many good things.

Gotta plug: This weekend I rented Amores Perros, which is simply a great movie and a remarkable debut (can't remember the director's name, but I definitely should). Best described as a cross between Pulp Fiction and Kieslowski's Three Colors triology, it depicts the lives of several characters in Mexico City, circling around an accident that involves them all. Great to see MC bursting with color and energy, rather than making the entire town look like dirty dishwater (as in Traffic and other flicks). The guy is a major new filmmaker.
[> [> [> Re: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu -- mm, 12:32:15 10/21/01 Sun
Is the director of Amores Perros.

Oh, and the title roughly translates to "Love's a Bitch," which would make a pretty good alternate title for "Buffy" also.
On the will to power -- kostadis roussos, 01:20:15 10/20/01 Sat

Something I have been thinking about for a while is the nature between the fascist/nazi notion of the "Will to Power" and the "Superman or UberMensch" and Willow.

Can we see Willow as the "superman"?

The notion is that the will is supreme in making reality, and that the powerful need not justify themselves to the meek.

Can Willow be a morality play of that nature? And if so, why would Willow be the most likely of the Scooby gang to go down this route? Can it be, because she saw the powerful impose their reality on her, she feels that "might" ultimately makes right?

[> Man and Superman -- Rahael, 14:46:41 10/20/01 Sat
Interesting Kostadis, I shall have to think about it.

Though I wouldn't want to use the Nieztchian (I've spelled it wrong, I know!) phrase 'superman' because it means something different from the Nazi notion of it.

Neitzche was talking of a 'superman' who could act in the world disregarding the traditional Christian notions of humility and piety, which asked victims to suffer in return for a heavenly reward. His sister twisted his work to make it fit the Nazi version of an amoral force which sought to stamp its iron boot over everything.

Actually its interesting - Cordelia suggested in the past that Buffy needn't observe 'ordinary' rules because she was a superhero - shouldn't she get special privilges? Xander I think answered something like, yes of course - in a Fascist society.

So yes, I think it is a prime moral concern in Buffy - how should the powerful act? The story of Faith, and Buffy, and now Willow show that they must be held to the same account - no special privileges. Willow does indeed seem to see nothing wrong with manipulating reality - even though she is interefering in the very fabric of other people's lives.

Willow is interesting because she used to be meek and humble and self effacing - and magic has allowed her to travel to being arrogant and uncaring. Just as Macbeth (a formerly honourable man) murdered sleep, I think Willow did not just murder a fawn - she murdered Buffy's eternal rest and innocense in the Buffyverse.
angel and cash -- DeeJay, 02:51:02 10/20/01 Sat
just wondering, angel owns his own successful investigation firm. i was thinking, angel must get paid alot because he's able to pay for both cordelias and wesleys salaries and also own his own building. it also hit me that in one episode angel was able to buy cordelia a "hell of alot" of clothes to make up with her. so just asking, how much did you reckon angel earns on a hypothetical basis.
[> Re: angel and cash -- Neaux, 12:10:16 10/20/01 Sat
He also has those really Shnazzzy Business Cards too.

that's expensive.
[> Re: angel and cash -- change, 05:22:10 10/21/01 Sun
The writers have been very inconsistent about Angel and money. Angel's only paying client so far has been David Nabbit in War Zone. There have been suggestions in the series that Angel doesn't have much cash. Cordelia told him he needed to get a bank loan in one of the season one episodes, and, in That Old Gang of Mine, Cordelia said that Angel did not make wise investments.

However, Angel never seems to be short of cash, pays both Cordelia's and Wesley's salaries, and was able to buy a hotel in L.A. (property in L.A. is not cheap) which he lets stand idle.

My guess is that the writers have not addressed this issue yet because having Angel run out of cash could potentially make for a good episode, or even contribute to a season story arc, so they want to leave things open.

However, the only thing that makes sense is if Angel has money that he is hiding from Cordelia and the others.
[> [> Re: angel and cash -- JM, 12:30:33 10/21/01 Sun
Is all of this coming out of Angel's pocket? I was under the impression that salaries would come out of AI's budget. They haven't complained about money this year so they are probably doing all right (there are probably plenty of cases that we don't see). They made some rich contacts in the Angel-less days, they probably still get some nice gigs from wealthy wizards, etc. Plus, Angel just took a three month vacation. He doesn't really have a better claim on the income from those months than the others. The paper work angle is probably left over from the fact that Angel was the one who started the business originally. Doyle and Cordy probably had no credit rating, Angel probably had some underworld contacts that helped him the initial stuff. They can't transfer it to Gunn because he's got a record, Wes may not even be legally in the country anymore, and Fred may not still have legal status. (Just fanwanking here.) They have been pretty ambiguous about money: how much there is and where it's coming from, but I don't think that there's any indication that it's all Angel's.
[> [> [> Re: angel and cash -- random visitor, 16:36:25 10/21/01 Sun
In the episode "Are you now or have you ever been..." (second episode of season 2), didn't Angel find a bag of money that he hid in the 1920s. Couldn't he have used that money to rent the hotel and/or pay the salaries? I don't know exactly what he did with the money but I don't think he gave the money back to the bank where Judy stole it from, on account of it being 80 years ago.
[> [> [> [> I was thinking the exact same thing... -- RabidHarpy, 09:13:53 10/22/01 Mon
Yes, Angel did find the bag of money she had stolen, and conincidentally bought the hotel shortly thereafter...
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I was thinking the exact same thing... -- Isabel, 10:53:59 10/22/01 Mon
Wasn't it only $70,000 or so? That's a nice down payment, but it can't last 4 people for very long. Plus, 1st and 2nd season Buffy, Angel had his own apartment in Sunnydale, with nice furnishings and electricity. How did he pay for that?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was thinking the exact same thing... -- DEN, 15:38:57 10/22/01 Mon
In over two centuries as a vampire, Angel had many chances to acquire and stash away money, even though he's never been described as acquisitive in Anya-like terms. Spike too never seems critically short of cash, though he boasts of stealing much of his stuff.
[> [> [> [> You're right. I forgot about that (NT). -- change, 10:07:05 10/22/01 Mon
sympathy for the willow -- kat the cat, 07:00:20 10/20/01 Sat
Hey, am I the only one who feels sympathetic towards Willow. Here she is, going through all this suffering to save Buffy (from Heaven, but how was she supposed to know that!) and no one appreciates it. I would snap at Giles too.

And I think if I had witch powers I would over-use them a little too. Would you be able to restrain yourself? And who hasn't kept a secret before?

I think that the thing that makes it so shocking is that Will used to be such a morally pure person. And now she has normal human "grey areas" of pride and lies.
[> Re: sympathy for the willow -- Brian, 09:23:18 10/20/01 Sat
I'm with you. Willow has saved all their butts many times. Let's have some gratitude. Cut the girl some slack! She's not evil: she's magically challenged!
[> [> Re: sympathy for the willow -- Solitude1056, 13:36:34 10/20/01 Sat
She's not evil: she's magically challenged!

More like she's ethically challenged - with that, I'll agree. ;-)
[> [> Re: sympathy for the willow -- RabidHarpy, 09:19:28 10/22/01 Mon
"...she's magically challenged!"

[> Yay, someone who agrees with me -- Lucifer_Sponge, 14:42:02 10/20/01 Sat
[> Re: 'morally pure' Willow? -- John Burwood, 01:37:35 10/21/01 Sun
I don't think Willow was ever exactly all that 'morally pure' - generally good & nice, but way less than 'morally pure'. In WttH she revealed that she had practice at illegal hacking - with no scruples whatsoever about doing it, & her reluctance to make sexual advances on Xander or dress sexy in Halloween was nothing to do with moral purity & everything to do with lack of self-confidence. There is a big difference.
[> [> Re: 'morally pure' Willow? -- Rattletrap, 04:45:22 10/21/01 Sun
Good point John, I was watching "Teacher's Pet" last night and noticed that Willow is perfectly willing to feed answers to Buffy while the teacher is asking her questions--not exactly moral purity; she then follows this up by hacking into the coroner's computer, and its made pretty clear that isn't legal. It seems what we're seeing in S6, then, is the continuation of a pattern: Willow is perfectly willing to bend rules--or break them outright--so long as she believes the end is "good." Schoolroom cheating and invasion of privacy don't put anyone else in direct, physical danger; but magic can, and is much less forgiving to those who constantly push on the edges of good judgment. There is also a bit of a problem in conflating sexual purity with moral purity--the two can overlap, but are far from being one in the same.
[> [> [> Re: 'morally pure' Willow? -- Allison, 20:18:44 10/21/01 Sun
I've never posted here before, but I felt the need to write a few words in defense of Willow, as she's one of my favorites =) Many people seem to take issue with the fact that she's been making some risky and morally compromising decisions lately (perhaps always to a lesser extent)but actually I think that such behavior is fundamental to being a moral person. I mean, think of what it would have meant if Buffy had been trapped in Hell when she jumped into the Portal. A beloved and heroic friend enduring eternal and unimaginable torture. If there was even the slightest possibility that this was happening, and Willow had the power to stop it, then I think she was obligated to act. Now, as it turns out her actions had very negative consequences for Buffy. But I don't think we can judge Willow too harshly for that. There's this concept of "moral luck" - for example people who drive drunk suffer a lot less if they don't kill anyone than if they do, though the actions are the same. Similarly, I suspect that many people would be more willing to support Willow if Buffy really were in Hell. But I'm not sure this is fair; after all, Willow did have some reason to think otherwise, and being temporarily separated from Heaven is not nearly as bad as being eternally banished to Hell.
I'm also suprised that so many people take issue with her killing the fawn. When I saw that the first think I thought was "Wow, that's a big step for her." I saw it as an entirely positive development. Historically, Willow's compassion (while I love it) has threatened to keep her from doing the morally nessessary thing. Remember "don't shoot the horsies" and the whole Thanksgiving episode? I think that being willing to make such hard choices when nessesary is part of being moral - or at least the case can be made. Anyway, it does appear that Willow is being set up for a fall from grace, but I don't think she's there yet, and she still has my sympathy =)
That said, I really enjoy this forum and all the facsinating posts - so, thanks! And sorry this is so long - I just got really into it.
[> [> [> [> you reminded me... (spoiler for star trek:tng) -- anom, 20:55:28 10/21/01 Sun
Welcome, Allison! What you said about hard choices makes me think of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Troi is preparing to qualify for promotion to command level & can't until she is able (in a holodeck sequence) to order a crewmember/friend into a situation that they both know will kill him in order to save the rest of the crew. It goes against all the personality traits & training that make her a good counselor, but she has to get past that to get to the next level of leadership.

Willow's one of my favorites too, & it bothers me to see how many of the posters are so ready to assume the most negative possibilities & attribute bad motives to her, well beyond what's justified by what we've seen so far.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: you reminded me... (spoiler for star trek:tng) -- maddog, 08:00:50 10/22/01 Mon
I don't think people are assuming anything...I think they're speculating as to what could happen if Willow continues along the path that she's currently on...digging into the darker magicks and feeling compelled to lie about how she's getting them done. But it's all speculation as we don't have a clear "big bad" in front of us. I'm a huge fan of Willow's. Always have been. I'm just afraid of the direction her character seems to be heading in.
[> [> [> [> [> [> *some* posters definitely seem to be assuming, not just speculating -- anom, 09:51:28 10/22/01 Mon
[> [> [> [> Willow is playing God, like Dr. Frankenstein -- Whisper2AScream, 09:23:14 10/23/01 Tue
The thing is, the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," applies here to Willow. Just because she intended good by her way of reasoning, doesn't mean it is good. One of the most common rules of magick is: 'Do as thou wilt lest it harm none.' And what she was doing was causing great harm. Particularly to herself, through testing. She might have damned her own soul, possibly Xander's, Anya's, and Tara's as well through their association with the spell. She's playing God, and reversing the laws of nature themselves.

In Milton's Paradise Lost, Lucifer fell because he saw himself as an equal of God, and he was punished becuase of it. Now Willow herself is being consumed with her addiction to power and magick, and is falling as well. As for her sacrifice of the fawn, it's not the act itself, but the fact that she herself considers it wrong, and refuses to say anything about it. She's hiding from her friends, and trying to cover up for herself.

Some people have mentioned that according to Restless, she was hiding from others. Only it wasn't that she was hiding her shy HS persona, but her own God-complex and power-lust. We're continuing to see indications of this.

Also keep in mind, the group knew Angel was in hell, and being tormented, following the events in Becoming. Yet no one, including Buffy, who was the only one to comprehend that the Soul Restoration spell worked, made any attempt to return him. In fact, she was starting to let him go, and get over him. But in true Whedonian irony, her release was the catalyst for his return.

But here, Willow was obsessed with getting her friend back. I think on some sick level, she was using Buffy as an unsuspecting guinea pig in an experiment to raise the dead. Willow here, is the obsessed scientist who plays God, and ultimately loses. Rather like Dr. Frankenstein, who similiarly made an attempt to raise the dead. The only difference was that he used science, while she used magic, but their motives were the same. It wasn't so much that she wanted her friend back, she wanted to prove that it was possible. She wanted to stretch herself to learn the limits of her burgeoning powers. Her reaction in Flooded only prove this. She was proud of herself, and elated that she could do that. To her, her experiment was a success. And like many scientists, she was only thinking of solving the problem, not the ethics involved. To paraphrase a line from Jurassic Park, she was so obsessed with if she could, she didn't stop to consider if she should.
[> I just have to answer as you are a cat and all........:):):) -- Rufus, 00:52:53 10/22/01 Mon
Willow is being a human being, with faults and good qualities. She is also being tested by the lure of power. Giles pointed out that what she did by raising Buffy is not a new thing in the world of magic, she didn't do anything more than rediscover the wheel. Giles knows about the lure of power and I think we only got a taste of his struggle in "The Dark Age". He went running back to the council when he realized that power has a price that is too steep to live with. Is that what Willow may discover? What will make her understand that there is always someone more powerful, willing to go that bit extra to keep what they got? Giles inferred that he has seen people that routinely do the magicks that Willow now prides herself on, he noted that she wouldn't want to meet them. That brings me back to Maggie Walsh, she wasn't always the monster that played Lego with human and demon parts. I'm sure that the people Giles spoke of didn't start their lives as monsters. They were formed by their actions into what they became. Willow is at a cliff, she survived a jump, how many more can she make before there is no longer a safe place to fall to?
[> Re: sympathy for the willow -- maddog, 07:43:57 10/22/01 Mon
The main reason I don't feel sympathetic is because she's only had one person really snap at her...it's not like the SG is ganging up on her. And she really needed to hear what Giles had to say. Cause she's floating a little to close to some magicks that are going to get her in danger this season.

You ask how she was supposed to know Buffy was in heaven...she couldn't...but did she even stop to think that because Buffy did such a heroic thing and because of her calling in general that she might end up in Heaven? I don't think she did.

Powers would definitely be cool, but they do come with responsibility. It's a lesson Willow may have to learn the hard way. Just because we all keep secrets doesn't mean that it's a good idea....she kept a potentially harmful secret...a mistake any of us could make, but one that could come back to bite her in the ass.
About Willow (*SPOILERS*) -- Wynn, 08:52:56 10/20/01 Sat
Hey. I've responded to a few posts, but this is my first original post. Hello to everybody! Anyway, I've read the spoilers/rumors that Willow will die this season, possibly in episode 8. Could Willow's 'death' just mean that the Willow we all have known since episode one 'dies' and is replaced by DarkWillow? Or maybe Willow will be turned into a vampire or a demon? I have a hard time accepting that Willow will die (like Joyce or Ms Calendar). Not on top of the death of Joyce, Buffy's death and resurrection, and Giles' leaving. I'm probably wrong. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
[> Re: About Willow (*SPOILERS*) -- vampire hunter D, 09:41:38 10/20/01 Sat
I've had the same thoughts myself. I find it hard to believe that Joss would write out such an essential character unless the actor had to go for other reasons. So far, the only major characters we've seen written out have been Angel, Giles, and Oz, and they had to go because the actor didn't want to do this show anymore. But I've heard nothing about Aly wanting to leave the show. So, Willow's death may not be *the* end of Willow, just the sweet, funny girl we've known since season 1.

However, I don't think it will happen in episode 8. That sounds too soon in the season to write off a character.
[> [> Re: About Willow (*SPOILERS*) -- maddog, 07:35:53 10/22/01 Mon
You forgot Cordy and Wesley, and I wouldn't say those two, along with Angel really wanted to leave. I think they saw the opportunity to do what was supposed to be more adult oriented storylines(seeing as at the time David and Charisma were both on the verge of 30).
jenoff's review of "Flooded" -- mundusmundi, 13:25:55 10/20/01 Sat
If anyone's interested, here's a review of "Flooded" by one of the most thoughtful, incisive, infuriating, and self-contradictory TV critics around. ("Not much interesting happened in this episode, except A, B, C, D, E, F, and G." ;)
[> Alan doesn't seem to like "fluff" episodes -- Tanker, 11:15:11 10/21/01 Sun
He'll call them a waste of time, then list a bunch of stuff that he liked, thus proving himself wrong. Heh. On the other hand, he often finds a metaphorical meaning to an episode while others are whining about "lame monsters" or "no plot" or whatever. Since David Hines went off the deep end of bitterness, Alan has been my favorite reviewer.
[> Re: jenoff's review of "Flooded" -- Aquitaine, 15:08:31 10/21/01 Sun
What I enjoy about the reviews is that they never go over the top either for good or for bad. In the case of "Flooded", after stating at the outset that he found the episode lacking in substance, he chose to accentuate the positive aspects he was able to uncover. IMO, that's the true nature of criticism. After all, why waste time whining at length about the perceived shortcomings of someone or something?

Especially if you *know* you'll be tuning in next week anyway. *g*
[> [> Re: Well, whining can be fun....;) -- mundusmundi, 15:39:58 10/21/01 Sun
I'm a sucker for smart, biting satire, especially for a target that's clearly full of itself (The West Wing springs immediately to mind). I think the true nature of criticism comes closest to what Lester Bangs (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) suggests in Almost Famous: "Be honest and unmerciful." When a critic hates the work, I want him to tell me why he hates it (and if he can give me a chuckle, so much the better). When a critic loves something, I want him to convey his enthusiasm to the fullest, to get me caught up in his passion. Some critics go overboard with the unmercifulness, e.g., a few of the "Paulettes" over at Salon. But in a way it balances out the knee-jerk raves from the I-Like-Everything corps angling to get their names in the ads.

I think jenoff's pretty good, on the whole. But OnM's better.
[> [> [> Re: Well, whining can be fun....;) -- Aquitaine, 17:19:56 10/21/01 Sun
Oh dear. I must confess to having a double standard:) One standard for shows I like and another for shows I am indifferent to or dislike. LOL. Isn't that a terribly immature stance on my part? Mwahahaha.

And, of course, I agree with you. No one beats OnM. In keeping with his sobriquet, he is greater than he appears;)
[> [> [> [> Re: No, no, I see what you mean -- mm, 17:51:20 10/21/01 Sun
I must confess to having a double standard:) One standard for shows I like and another for shows I am indifferent to or dislike.

"Buffy" has maintained enough high quality over the years to be pardoned a few bad eggs (heh). As I think Ken Tucker once wrote, a grade "C" Buffy episode still beats an "A" Nash Bridges. :) I really can't think of any Buffy ep I've completely despised. (Even "Where the Wild Things Are" had one classic scene -- the gang stumbling on Giles singing "Behind Blue Eyes.")
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, no, I see what you mean -- Cactus Watcher, 11:18:44 10/22/01 Mon
A second station in my area (Phoenix, AZ) has started Buffy reruns, so I'm getting to see the first season shows, that I haven't seen in years. The ones that didn't show up in the boxed sets, look pretty primitive now. But, they were so much better than everything else that was on at the time.

I really dislike the episode I was Made to Love You. Jane Espenson, the author, started the ep off very well and finished off in a binge of male bashing and gratuitous emotionalism (I know many feel different about that). I give it an F as a Buffy episode, one of the worst ever. But, as TV in general, I have to admit I'd still give it a B-. Everything is relative!
[> [> [> [> Uhh, OK, you guys are starting to scare me now! Repeat after me... -- OnM, 20:02:05 10/22/01 Mon
...this is just cyberspace, and he's just a fan with a computer!
...this is just cyberspace, and he's just a fan with a computer!
...this is just cyberspace, and he's just a fan with a computer!


Gotta long, long way to go before I get into jenoff's class!

But thanks anyway, the thought that counts and all.

[> Spike in "flooded" -- anom, 19:21:15 10/21/01 Sun
"Spike does something really important in this episode. He makes Buffy smile. A big part of any relationship is making the person you care for feel better."

Yeah, but then he blew it by making that remark about "Knew I could get a grin." That put him into the category of people trying to prove to themselves that Buffy's OK, or at least getting there. It doesn't help Buffy to try to make her feel better if she's not ready to yet, & she isn't, not by a long shot. What happens next between them depends on whether Spike picked up on her reaction to the grin remark & backs off for a while. Or not so much backs off as leaves things open to what Buffy needs rather than trying to get a particular reaction from her.

"Spike...is the only one she has trusted with her secret."

So far. I think a big question over the next few eps (or maybe just 1) will be whether she tells Giles. OK, maybe just how soon. I wonder if Spike might tell him 1st, or at least encourage Buffy to. It could set up quite a conflict in him, both about whether to let anyone else in on something I'm sure he values sharing exclusively w/Buffy & about whether to go ahead & tell Giles without asking her. I don't think Giles was included in Buffy's "They can never know," & I think Spike's telling him could be something that would make her feel betrayed at first but that she would appreciate some time afterwards.
What is Angel's necklace in Teacher's Pet? -- sasha, 11:48:46 10/22/01 Mon
I saw 1.3 Teacher's Pet for the first time last Saturday (thanks FOX!), and was wondering....in the Bronze, when Angel puts his jacket on Buffy, what is the charm on the long necklace he is wearing? Most of it, including the charm, is hidden under his t-shirt, and the charm looks sort of like a cross to me, but as I know that can't possibly be right (or else its a major boo-boo), does anyone here know what it actually is? A sword? A spike?
[> Celtic charm I believe -- Lost, 16:00:12 10/22/01 Mon
I remember reading an interview years ago where he said the Claddigh (sp?) ring and necklace he wears on the show were gifts from his then fiancee (they are since divorced). She was Irish, and apparently he thought the jewlery went well with his character, an Irish vampire. Unfortunatly, I don't know exactly what it is.
[> [> Re: Celtic charm I believe -- Wisewoman, 16:20:54 10/22/01 Mon
A Claddagh is an image of hands holding out a crowned heart. It means different things when it's worn as a ring, depending on which hand you wear it on, and whether the crown is worn up or down. It's sometimes used as a wedding ring in Ireland, I believe.
[> [> [> yep -- pocky, 18:07:28 10/22/01 Mon
My Economics teacher and his wife (both Irish) each wears a Claddagh ring instead of your normal gold wedding band. I asked him once if he knew what it meant, and he did, apparently. He also cheated on the meanings by having the jeweler engrave several hands-holding-a-crowned-heart alternately pointing in opposite directions. Smart guy. lol

[> [> [> [> that one I'd like to see -- Solitude1056, 19:36:20 10/22/01 Mon
Since the meanings are pretty basic, and if you flip the heart around it looks kinda the same as having the heart the other way.

- Right hand, ring finger, heart pointing out (away from self, if hand is stretched out, palm down): free, unattached.
- Right hand, ring finger, point in: seeing someone (or, alternately, "promised" - translates as "seeing someone with intention of getting engaged.")
- Left hand, heart pointing out: engaged.
- Left hand, pointing in: married.

It's not the direction of the hands that make a difference but the way the heart is pointing. Leastaways, that's the way I was instructed by several Irish lovers. No comments on comparison with the legendary French... since I don't want to inadvertantly start a flame war on an off-topic subject.

Muahahahahah. *cough* Ahem.
Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- celticross, 21:31:57 10/22/01 Mon
Something that struck me while watching Angel this evening was Lorne's attitude when the AI team and the Burkles come looking for Fred. My first thought was, "wow, he's bitchy", but then I realized, he's got a point. (not that it was very nice of him to kick Gunn out, but that's a different thread) He was providing a service that he felt was useful and neccesary; the reading of auras. And what does he get for his trouble? A trashed place of business (and home), and nobody asking how he is. Just wanting more help. No wonder he hasn't fixed the place up yet.
So are we gonna see a slightly nastier Host, or does Lorne just need a shoulder?
[> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- Deeva, 22:43:03 10/22/01 Mon
Nah, he just want hear that people don't think that he's a slot machine, no wait, that's vending machine! *g*
[> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- Rufus, 01:03:52 10/23/01 Tue
I don't blame Lorne. He has been kicked around a fair bit lately. How many times can a guy rebuild after an apocalypse type event? Everyone that comes through the door of his club want something from Lorne, not the other way around. It's enough to send any well dressed demon straight to terrycloth and smokes. It's time for the gang to realize his contribution to the cause and help him clean up his place and make him feel better......Angel could start by doing his clean up bit in leather pants(NOT pleather either). So it's time for some Aretha and a clean up party.......no other singing........Lorne deserves a night off.;)
[> [> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- celticross, 06:16:31 10/23/01 Tue
"So it's time for some Aretha and a clean up party.......no other
singing........Lorne deserves a night off.;"

He was looking rather pained at Fred's "Row Your Boat", wasn't he? :)
[> [> [> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- RichardX1, 14:37:07 10/23/01 Tue
"He was looking rather pained at Fred's "Row Your Boat", wasn't he? :)"

Weren't you? ^_^
[> [> [> [> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- celticross, 15:12:57 10/23/01 Tue
Maybe just a little. :)
[> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- Bambi Slayer, 22:49:29 10/23/01 Tue
He didn't kick Gunn out. Gunn volunteered.

Gunn hasn't lost perspective. Angel is a blood sucking vampire (he said so in "Fredless" remember). The Host is an amoral demon.

The rest of Angel Investigations has lost perspective. They have mistaken the word ally for the word friend. They will be caught off guard when interests change and alliances shift.

Lorne has helped Angel and crew out of several occasions. But he also gives advice to the Demons who sing for him. He has never pretended to be their friend. They have misinterpreted their relationship with him.

I think for Angel, it is confortable for him to have someone like Gunn around. Angel is mature enough not to have the need to be "liked" by everyone. He knows that since he and Gunn aren't friends, he can count on Gunn to do what needs to be done if and when Angelus re-emerges.

I think Gunn is also a very practical person. He knows that some things do stand in the way of relationships with people. He knows that there are some people you can't be friends with simply because of who they are and what they represent. He could never be friends with a vampire, even one with a soul. But he knows what is important is being an ally as long as Angel Investigations remain on mission.

I thought one of the most noble things I have ever heard was the way he explained it to his friend. You are my friend, but I can't stand by you because you are off mission. I can never be friends with Angel, not his fault for he can't change what he is. He isn't my friend, but I stand by him and against my friends because my friends are off mission, and he has the mission.

Gunn left because he understood that the Host hates him. That't ok. Feeling is mutual. Not that the host isn't a nice guy and all, for he is. But he is also an amoral demon. And there is no way past the point. At least not for the moment. Just like there is no way for the Host to get over what Gunn's friends did to the lounge. At least not until Lorne admits to himself that they were right in what they did.
[> [> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- Naomi, 02:28:01 10/24/01 Wed
It's not right to destroy someones establishment for kicks and attempt to justify it by saying that the owner deserved it. It's an immoral thing to do regardless of the morality of the Host. Randomly attacking people based on there appearance is also wrong. There are a number of evil demons but there are good demons to and I'm guessing that its a lot easier for a human to choose to do good than a demon. Demons appearances leave them with little choice as others have perconceived ideas about them. That was the whole point of the episode and Gunn's gang were not meant to be sympathetic characters. There lust for killing showd that they were hypocrites and losing perspective.
And how do we know that the Host is immoral. I'd have thought that he was a character to be admired for having the strength to escape his bloodthirsty home. He has helped Angel a lot in the past and even stopped the world from ending. Yes he advices demons to but the scoobies never killed Spike. They used him for there own purposes despite knowing that it was possible that he could get the chip removed. He can also be evil indirectly. He helped Adam and associates with Harmony. He could have got back with Dru and let her kll victims for him. And Willy has worked with Spike and other demons in the past and runs a bar frequented by demons. Yet Buffy is affectionate towards him and has saved his life in The Zeppo. I'm guessing that if he was a demon that people would approve of Buffy killing him but killing an evil person is wrong! Associating with demons is a hazard of the job so why should only the Host be condemned. Because he's green and has an easier relationship with demons than Buffy might?
[> [> [> Re: Lorne and Caritas *spoilers for Fredless* -- Riley's Ghost, 06:48:24 10/24/01 Wed
"And how do we know that the Host is immoral?"

Not immoral. Amoral. He refuses to take sides.

But in the war against evil, one can't be neutral.
[> [> [> [> Amoral does not mean 'refusing to take sides'. -- Rahael, 07:27:21 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Demons supposed basic evilness. -- Naomi, 08:24:21 10/24/01 Wed
The Host has a sense of morality from what I can see. And as for refusing to take sides what about all the assistance he has given Angel. He is working for the Powers after all. Buffy and Angel are exceptional fighters for good. Just because other people don't help fight evil because they prefer to ignore it/see it as someone elses problem doesn't make them ammoral. Just perhaps not particularly nice or helpful. Even Joyce would have prefered Buffy would quit slaying. And of course Joyce developed a friendship with Spike. Does that make her immoral or is a person only immoral if they refuse to reject their demon heriage? If all demons were evil than I would disaprove of the Host opening a bar for them to frequent. However the fact is they're not and things haven't been that simple/black and white for a long time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demons supposed basic evilness. -- Riley's Ghost, 19:39:12 10/24/01 Wed
The Host also helps Demons.

Cartias is also a favorite haunt of Wolfram and Hart lawyers. He gives them advice as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demons supposed basic evilness. -- Naomi, 12:04:41 10/25/01 Thu
But does he advice them? Sorry if I'm wrong but I thought that the host simply predicted people/demons futures if they sung for him. Presumedly your future is predetermined before he reads it so I'm not sure how that's helping evil. And he has taken a side as he is helping the powers advice Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Amoral does not mean 'refusing to take sides'. -- Riley's Ghost, 19:35:23 10/24/01 Wed

not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or
traditionally held moral principles.


1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply b : lacking moral sensibility
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals

For example you can be considered immoral if you do something KNOWING it is wrong, with the intent to hurt someone.

You can be considered Amoral if you don't even take the time to consider if what you are doing is wrong or not.

In the end evil is evil. An amoral person who helps an immoral person is just as bad in my book. Every time Lorne harbors evil, or gives evil demons readings to help them, he is assisting in an evil act. Perhaps Lorne doesn't take the time to consider the consequences of his actions, but he should.

Neutrality in the face of evil always serves the cause of evil.
"Fredless" - First thoughts **Spoilers** -- Humanitas, 04:58:54 10/23/01 Tue
So, the episode starts, and I thought, "Oh, no, here we go again. A re-hash of Family." How delightful to be wrong!

Part I: Fluff

Let me start with the off-screen meeting between Buffy and Angel. Now, I know that all the B/A shippers out there are just quivering with curiosity, right along with Cordy. Me, I'm willing to at least wait until tonight's BtVS episode to see if she says anything. I'm betting she doesn't say much more than Angel did, though. Did anyone else get the impression that Angel's "That's right" was Joss giving the fans a friendly raspberry? ;) Cordy and Wes' little melodrama had me giggling the whole way through. I kept flashing back to Spike's infamous voice-over in After Dark. Very funny, and Angel seemed to take it in stride.

So, Angel gets back from seeing Buffy, and what's the first thing he does? Takes Fred out for ice cream! He's either really over Buffy, or he's a heck of a player.

OK, enough of the shippy goodness. Let's get to the meat of the episode...

Part II: Fred

This episode has been necessary since the start of the season. They had to do something to abvance Fred's character, and I, for one, am glad they decided to do it sooner rather than later. The crazy cave-girl bit was cute, but it was about to get really old. Plus, I've been waiting to see if Amy Acker was more than a one-trick pony. The jury's still out on that one, to be honest, but her work towards the end of the episode gives some hopeful signs. She did a good job of showing clarity of thought, and love, and pain, and all those other things she described to Angel, without losing the character in a storm of change. Future episodes will hopefully show if she can keep that up.

The advancement of Fred's character was well-delineated, I thought. To go from wanting to be saved by Angel, to knowing that Angel can't save her, to saving Angel by the end was a very solid arc, and the audience gets to follow along every step of the way. We also got some insight into the nature of Fred's madness, in the scene where she finally confronts her folks. Her massive denial, and her need to face up to the reality of the last five years are quite touching.

Part III: Family

This episode returns to Joss' favorite theme of family. We've seen this before, of course. The point is the same: the family you choose is often more important than the family that you're born into. Of course, Joss never serves the exact same entre twice, so this time there's a twist.

Well, it's a twist if you're a fan, anyway. We're so contitioned to think that the appearance of normality always masks some evil, demonic underside, that we're taken completely by surprise when Fred's "very normal" parents turn out to be exactly what they seem. Who would have thunk it? A pair of well-adjusted, loving parents in the Buffyverse! The AI team is certainly surprised. I thought the scene of the four of them sitting at the hotel after Fred leaves was quite telling. None of them has had any experience with this sort of thing. Angel hated his father, and eventually killed him, Gunn has been on his own since he was little, Cordy's folks were the sort to buy their child's affection, and Wes, well, his issues with his father are pretty clear, aren't they? In a way, Fred's family is almost more bizarre than the demons that generally populate the team's everyday life. What's scary is that we, the fans, share those expectations. I kept expecting Fred's parents to shed their mortal guises and reveal themselves as demons. But they never do. On the contrary, they are what one might wish parents to be. They love their daughter, are ready to defend her, but they also want her to stand on her own, and not only respect her decision to stay in LA, but also respect her for that decision. Only on these shows is humanity a twist!

Part IV: Folks

One of the things that made the famliy theme work is the clearly-drawn charaters of Fred's parents. I can't remember their names, I'm afraid (that part wasn't so clear), so I'm calling them MamaFred and PapaFred. ;)

PapaFred is the realist. He's concerned for his daughter, and belives what he sees. I loved the fact that once he was confronted with evidence of the existance of demons, vampires, etc., he doesn't waste a second in denial. He instantly adjusts his worldview to include new evidence. Nice little bit of poking fun at the usual stereotype of Texans.

The reference to Alien: Resurrection was fun. I actually liked the movie, but I know Joss hated what they did to his script, and it was funny to see him jab at it. But the best part about it was that it made sense for MamaFred. When she hit the demon with the bus, my first thought was of the Alien movies. Then to have her refer to them, now, that was a neat trick. It showed her as a mama-bear. Not necessarily aggressive, but utterly fierce in protecting her daughter. Even though her line refers to PapaFred being the Alien fan, it seems as though she identifies with Ellen Ripley more than a little.

Part V: Finally

After all the gloom-and-doom going on in Sunnydale, it was nice to have an episode of one of the shows that leaves you with a warm fuzzy. With the shows on different nights now, it's harder to balance the two against each other. Still, after last night's AtS, I feel fortified and ready to see tonight's BtVS.
[> Your post, H, ... -- Marie, 05:58:38 10/23/01 Tue
...(as usual) is going in my 'To be read again just before the episode airs in the UK' Box. As that implies, all you interesting posters, I 'print you off' and save you for when I can see what I can't respond to at the time. It's going to be so interesting....

...is that as sad as it sounds?

[> wonderful post! -- celticross, 06:24:57 10/23/01 Tue
As usual, more articulate and better thought out than me. :) I really liked this episode, mostly because of Fred's great parents. As a Texan myself, it's nice to see my fellows presented in such a nice light. And it's so refreshing to see a decent set of parents in the Jossverse. The Burkles love their daughter and each other, they're well adjusted, and utterly unflappable when they discover she's living with a vampire and a crew of demon fighters. I only hope my parents would be as supportive if I decided to take up demon killing for a living.
[> You pretty much said it all ... comments on B/A ahead .... -- Liquidram, 10:16:00 10/23/01 Tue
Regarding the/A offscreen meeting, a lot has been said about the relationship being dead because of how Angel seems to have blown off the meeting. My feeling, aside from the certainty that ME is leaving their options open come the day when the WB cancels AtS and UPN takes over (*deep breath break*) is that Angel's attitude indicated that he is simply happy that she is alive and can move on in his life, at least for today.

Of course, knowing the pain Buffy is in right now deflates that explanation a bit, but we can only hope that she made peace with him, they comforted each other and then went back to their real lives, still as friends. I also believe that Spike was wrong in Lover's Walk. Buffy and Angel, especially after Forever have mellowed into a true friendship that is based on abiding love and respect, if no longer romantic love.

And whatever happened to the total lack of chemistry between Cordy and Wes? Their little mock-up last night was frought with it .... Lord that was a perfect TV moment... and Angel's "That's right" was excellent & so coy that you would have missed it had you still been laughing too hard.

IN fact (hmmm, where did all this RANT come from??) I thought last night's ep was swimming in chemistry all over the place.... Gunn's hug and looks at Fred, Wes's hug and looks at Fred, Angel and Cordy ("I'll sooth your ass off"), Gunn's shame and Lorne's animosity (and kudos to the writers for the multi-layers we're seeing with our favorite Host) ... jeez... there was emotion all over the place. While the BtVS gang are splitting up, taking sides and choosing weapons, the AtS gang are getting closer every week. Regardless of who ends up with who, there is great love in the room.

I haven't cared that much for Fred, but I believe I will from now on. My son was so sure that Fred's parents were not as they seemed, and I mentioned that the biggest joke on us would be if they were totally normal, loving parents who just found their daughter after 5 years. Think about it, how would you act, especially seeing the distress she was in.... we were played all the way... Wonder how much Lorne actually saw for Fred and the gang?
[> [> Re: You pretty much said it all ... comments on B/A ahead .... -- Cactus Watcher, 13:22:04 10/23/01 Tue
I liked Fred's parents, too. As soon as I saw the bus coming, I wondered who was driving? The door opens and, hey, that's great! Now if they'll just let Fred do something more often.

I also thought it was interesting that Cordelia was described as the heart of the Angel group, just like Xander in the Scoobies.
[> Fred's anti-Kafka Metamophosis -- Cleanthes, 13:31:06 10/23/01 Tue
In Kafka's book, Metamorphosis, the hero, Gregor Samsa turns into a giant insect. He has no will-to-power and he cannot break out of his gloomy mental trap.

Other Kafka books deal with issues that must have oppressed Fred in her fugitive existence in Pylea. Fred's comments about Cordelia's princesshood make it clear that she (Fred) did not see or understand any of the rules of the Pylea society or the remote lords of land. This resembles the situation in The Castle.

Unlike Kafka's heros, Fred found a way to break free, and she did so in a seemingly homely & trite way that was not at all trite because, as you say Humanitas, her family provided both the incident of her denial of the reality of the demon-infested world and, her means of return. She had an anchor to reality and, perhaps, a way to assume some control over her surroundings.

MomaFred, quite appropriately, smashed the bug that Fred might have become.
[> [> Re: Fred's anti-Kafka Metamorphosis -- Cleanthes, 13:32:46 10/23/01 Tue
Damn, I need to edit my subject headings for spelling, too!
Musings on Spike (and Willow) from a confused Brit. -- Captain Nemo, 13:04:55 10/23/01 Tue
I've just seen Afterlife & Flooded (impatience got the better of me; Season 5 is far from finished over here [UK] ). Forgive if me what I'm writing about seems old hat, but I'm behind sadly.

I don't think I've ever been so moved/manipulated by an episode of Buffy. After seeing Afterlife I was in awe of Buffy (for Sarah's acting), in awe of Dawn (for being so wonderful - 'Back off!'),and in awe of Spike (well, more like perplexed - I still don't get 'New Spike'). However, I was astonished at how much this episode made me HATE Willow (and the rest of the SG). Somehow, her every dippy utterance, her every mannerism, and her every mention of 'puppies' made me want to throw my laptop against the wall. I don't think there's any ambiguity here; what Willow did was unforgivable. Buffy's bitter description of 'being pulled out by her "friends"' almost had me in tears... How dare they?!

Given the moral unambiguity of Afterlife, I was surprised to see things get back to 'normal' so quickly in Flooded. Buffy versus the Sorcerer Geeks? Who cares? The issues raised by her resurrection are so BIG that everything else seems trivial to me. I sincerely hope that the demon brought back with Buffy isn't the sole consequence of Willow's (& SGs) actions.

Does anyone else think that the Scooby Gang doesn't really matter anymore? I've lost interest in them completely; I've become obsessed with the whole Buffy/Dawn/Spike thing.

Is Willow doomed? I'm not sure if I even care anymore (especially after she threatened Giles).

Anyway, I need help with the whole Spike thing. I like 'New Spike', but he seems to be stretching the limits of plausibility in vampire terms.

This post isn't about Spike's character or motives (fascinating though they are), but what about Spike IS (and what Vampires ARE). Spike just doesn't seem to be consistent with the old 'vampire demon being born into a dead person's body' idea. If William is truly dead, then why is Spike becoming more and more like William with each episode? Is the chip doing something other than just making him incapable of harming humans?

I just don't get it. When Spike thought he had the chip removed, the first thing he did was try and kill Buffy. If he had the chip removed now, would he try and do it again? Maybe he wants to sire her? Tum-te-tum...

Maybe it is just self-interest... Spike wants to live, and befriending The Slayer and protecting The Key is just self-preservation. I just don't know. However, I just feel that this explanation for Spike's 'humanity' is getting more and more stretched. Something has to give; either Spike is going to revert back to his old blood-sucking evil self, or he is going to become more 'human' (maybe fully so). Is there any precedent for the latter (other than Angel)?

I'd appreciate any thoughts/musings on this.

I'm just finding it harder and harder to see the demon in Spike anymore, even though I know its there. Vampires confuse me anyway. Most of them are just violent idiots; nothing more than blood-sucking zombies with the IQ of a pizza. The ones with 'personalities' just mess with my mind.
[> I think Spike is towing the line the same way a puppy is domesticated -- Charlemagne20, 13:31:04 10/23/01 Tue
A vampire is a pack predator I think we've scene and unlike in Anne Rice or other books vampires appear to hate to be alone. They also from Angel and other places seem to be the preferred minions of demons and have a fairly strong "pecking order" established with one master vampire and a whole lot of followers.

Spike has a need to kill in order to feed and apparently has a bit of a guard dog mentality towards him. He has a need for social acceptance which led him to challenge and kill two slayers and a need to protect a strong female ideal.

(His Vampiric "pack-alpha" instincts arn't apparently very strong and he prefers to be dominated though only a she figure as demonstrated by his submissive/dominating attitude toward Drucilla and even Harmony in a way)

Spike doesn't feel remorse for killing, raping, torture etc but he is able to feel empathy and affection as we've scene. In this case the Scooby Gang provides him with a pack, hunting oppurtunities, and food that demons and fellow Vampires no longer can provide him (he was kicked out of their circle in the barfight long ago)

He doesn't LIKE them it seems any more than he likes other Vampires and Demons but it's really not a change. He has no instinctual dislike of humanity but knows their delicious and easy to pick on.

Hence Buffy, Willow, and etc are just another pack of demons to him and he loves kissing up to the pack-alpha in Buffy whom his need to protect and guard is as strong as Drucilla's now...and he can get their approval.

In effect the chip served as a rolled up newspaper to a wild animal until he was house trained.
[> [> Ambiguity -- Rahael, 16:06:03 10/23/01 Tue
A late convert to the cause of Spike here! So perhaps I'm biased. But we can't 'see' the soul of anyone in the Buffyverse (except for Angel's glowy eyes). We are meant to judge from their actions. Angelus without a soul, wore the leather pants of evil, and acted evil.

What are we to make of Spike? He wants to get Buffy's approval, he wants to keep his promises, he gets hurt by the attitudes of the Scoobies, he feels a great love he knows will probably not be returned. Resigned, and yet still faithful.

Perhaps talking of a 'soul' is meaningless in this context. Unless of course Joss has yet another evil trick up his sleeve! Lol.

I am watching (or rather, reading the wildfeeds)with interest. I think the very ambiguity of the situation makes it a more compelling story.
[> Re: Musings on Spike (and Willow) from a confused Brit. -- Rufus, 21:56:47 10/23/01 Tue
I still care about the Scoobies, they are Buffys best friends that acted in her interest. Willow was compelled to bring her friend back out of love. Her actions after that don't cancel out the fact that her intent was the best. Buffy understands the need the Scoobies feel to have, for once, saved Buffy. Only Willow understands that there were things about the spell and the consequences that would have made the others chicken out. Buffy may feel resentment that her friends took her from "heaven", but she can't punish them for their good intent. She now has a secret that is painful and the only one privy to it is Spike.

Now to the plausibility of the Spike situation. The more you get to know someone the more you get a feel for their potential as a person. Vampires were generally seen as an opponent to kill first and ask questions as you sweep up the remains. Angel was the first to change that as we got to know the man with the monster inside. The return of his soul gave him the ability to feel regret for all the things he did....it took an Epiphany to truly connect with the reason why he should care at all. So, what does that have to do with Spike? Easy.....what they once were informs all that they become. With Angel, he was a troubled young man who took vengeance on everyone when he got the power to dominate others. With Spike, there was a caring man who was capable of love and empathy. But Spike still acted out of revenge when he lost his soul, the difference between the vampires was the ability to love anyone. Angelus could not, Spike could.
The return of Angels soul(conscience) gave him the ability to understand what he had done was wrong and feel torment for his acts(great curse). The Gypsy curse was designed to make Angel suffer, not rehabilitate himself. Once Angel was able to get a brief respite from that suffering that soul was again to be lost. For Angel to feel anything he needed a conscience, or soul. For Spike to feel love, he doesn't. Both vampires are still capable of doing great damage to others and have chosen not too. Spike because his love for Buffy and attachment to Dawn. Angel, because he finally had an Epiphany after doing something only a remoursless killer could do(the lawyers in the wine cellar). So now we are left with the soul, what does it guarantee in life? If we are capable of deceit and murder, what is it's importance in the equation? Do all beings need a soul to be no danger to others? I don't think the answer is simple, or our prisons would be empty. Look at a monster and all you see is an exterior that may be frightening to look at, consider a human monster and all you may be able to do is tally the body count. In the Buffyverse the worst monsters sometimes have the face of an Angel, or are like a Maggie Walsh, very normal looking.
So, will Spike resume his evil ways? I don't know. But we can never really say what anyone will do.
[> [> Re: Musings on Spike (and Willow) from a confused Brit. -- Naomi, 02:53:03 10/24/01 Wed
If Willow had good intentions and wanted to save Buffy from hell then why is she boasting about hoe amazing she was and expecting praise/gratitude (from Giles and Buffy). Willow seemed to think that she should be worhipped for what she did. I don't think her intentions were as pure as she'd like the other to think. It has been strongly suggested that Willow is starting to see herself as a type of God who can manipulate situations and people to suit herself. IMO part of her motive for getting Buffy back was to stretch her abilities and prove that she could do it. Her motives were by no means selfless. I am also suspicious of how much the scoobies really believe that Buff was in hell and how much they are lying to themselves. When Spike questioned Buffy's return Xanders reaction was over the top and suggested that he was trying to repress feelings of guilt. Buffy's attitude is also not right. If you rescued someone from hell would you expect them to be fine? Angel became animilistic following his return and Willow at least knew this. Yet the scoobies expected Buffy to return to normal. In fact they almost demanded it and I could understand Buffy feeling pressure to say that she was fine. The scoobies were not understanding. None of them have encouraged Buffy to talk about her experiences or recommended counciling. If a friend of mine was raped I would help them recover by being patient and recomending counciling. Going to hell is worse than any pain on earth so why is Buffy fine? The scoobies haven't addrssed that qustion because they suspect that they may have made a mistake. Willow needs to address this and stop gloating. I mean for a start she could try apologising to Buffy for leaving her in her coffin whilst performing the spell.
[> [> [> Re: Musings on Spike (and Willow) from a confused Brit. -- Rufus, 04:22:41 10/24/01 Wed
Willows original intentions were good, her subsequent actions come from her inflated ego. Willow has made a mistake in thought. She thinks because she was capable of bringing Buffy back, she is amazing.....but the magicks used need more than just Willows desire for action to be realized. Giles warned her that she was being a stupid girl and I agree. It also shows how power can change people and make them act in ways we would never thought they could. Willow got an idea and based her spell upon the assumption that she was "saving" Buffy from hell. Giles told Buffy that the torment in hell would make anyone mad.....so I think that the Scoobies were expecting Buffy to show the effects of "hell", not understanding she is now "in" hell. The others may have questioned Willow but they went along with her plans leaving out the people that may have changed their minds. Giles knows that there will be a price, he suspects that Buffy isn't being forthcoming with her death experience. It shall become a big mess. It will be Willows fault. I wonder how she will feel if she finds that she yanked Buffy from peace bringing her to the Sunnydale hell dimension?
[> Cold Shower (slight spoiler?!) -- RabidHarpy, 06:44:12 10/24/01 Wed
I share your feelings regarding the "quick" change between the profound implications of Buffy's confession to Spike in "Afterlife" and the light-hearted humour of "Flooded" - I felt as if I had been doused with a bucket of cold water myself!

At first viewing, "Flooded" reminded me of all the "silly" pre-mortem antics of Buffy before "Bargaining" and I was quite disappointed. How could Joss ignore all the tension he had built up at the end of "Afterlife"? How could Buffy possibly return to her old self so quickly? The transition was such a shock to me - I had expected a little more time for introversion and some good 'ol fashion brooding, yet we were thrown right back where we left off before Season 5 (practically)! AAAHHH!!! It left me very dissatisfied! (By the 2nd viewing I enjoyed the episode more, but still felt a little "hollow"...)

This week's episode was much of the same - a little "cheesy" in parts, but basically light-hearted - until we got to the end conversation with Giles...

I consider "Flooded" and this last episode as the "Yorrick Interlude" - an infusion of humour so that BtVS fans aren't mourning and flogging themselves over Buffy's loss (heaven), and a brief side-journey into the ridiculous so that we can remember the "good times" before "Bargaining".

If I'm not mistaken, next week's episode should be a little more emotionally substantial, (with the possible departure of Giles?) - and we'll get another glimpse of what's really going on behind Buffy's tentative smile...

(I have a feeling we're all going to be needing those
tissues again...) :(
[> [> Intermezzo -- Cleanthes, 12:23:16 10/24/01 Wed
The moment of truth, or the realization of the existential insight, takes but an instant. Aristotle set out the the Poetics the assertion that sudden moments of realization make the strongest element in a good plot.

But, sweeps month doesn't begin until November. Real life consists mostly off all those moments that pass while we're waiting for the dénouement.

So, who is Buffy? Only the character she shows at the moments of greatest crisis? Or, someone fun and funny?

Call me greedy, but I want (and usually get) both.
[> Re: Musings on Spike (and Willow) from a confused Brit. -- maddog, 09:44:43 10/24/01 Wed
I don't think Spike ever strayed too far away from William when it came to love in itself...I mean look at the way he treated Drusilla. She was always his number one priority when she was weak(back in season 2) and he was always trying to make her happy after that(with the exception of when she was drooling over Angelus at the end of season 2). Now, he's not exactly in love with another vamp...that I can't explain...but the love part makes sense to me.

Current board | More October 2001