apr_p.html TEXTStMl } >)^ x mBIN
April 2001
April 2001 posts
How Buffy defeats Glory -- VanMoodySenior,
13:58:41 04/01/01 Sun
I have given this some thought and I believe the only way they
could destroy
a god is for that god to surrender. How could Buffy do this? She
gets kicked
around every time she meets Glory. I believe the solution is for
Buffy to
convince Ben that leaving our dimension and going back to another
one is the
right thing to do. Once she knows the nature of Glory and Ben,
that they are
of the same essence cohabiting in the same body, she should set
her sights
on getting to Ben. What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Buffy defeats Glory -- Ben/Glory, 15:24:53 04/01/01
Sun
Do we know if they are two beings-one body?
Or are there two bodies out there that happens to frequently change
between
Ben and Glory?
Ben could be the answer. However I think what will destory Glory
is time.
She has frequently mentioned that time is short.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How Buffy defeats Glory -- VanMoodySenior, 15:48:43
04/01/01 Sun
Good point about time. It reminds me of the old Dracula movie
with Peter
Cushing and Christopher Lee. Dracula wants to put Nina in the
grave so he is
digging, but the sun is about to come up. He just ran out of time
and got
fried by the sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How Buffy defeats Glory -- L45648, 12:02:05 04/02/01
Mon
What if in order to kill or defeat Glory you have to stop the
combining of
Ben and Glory. If they are of the same essence that is. If that
could be
done and Buffy could somehow get Ben on "her side" then
maybe he could tell
her how to kill Glory. Since we have seen in the episodes that
Ben isn't
that fond of Glory in the first place.
Vamps & the Cross -- Solitude1056, 17:56:46 04/01/01 Sun
This deserved its own thread, since it's divergent from the Gods
& Demons
idea, I thought...
I have always wondered if Vampires would be scared of religious
symbols in
other religions such as the Star of David, or a statue of Budha.
Or is it
just crosses? It would be weird to see a jewish vampire being
scared of a
cross. Why would they believe it has power as a vampire, when
they didn't
believe in the Christian Faith when they were alive. Please respond
with
your thoughts and anyone else that wants to. VMS
Next week's movie: "Fearless Vampire Killers" by Roman
Polanski.
More later, dinner is ready! *g*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Wiccagrrl, 18:25:22 04/01/01 Sun
It's a great question...one I've wondered for a while now. It
basically
comes down to a question of whether the symbols have power because
people
believe in them, or if they really are empowered by a higher being.
Also,
whether that higher being is the "god" of any one particular
religion, or if
he/she/it is more all-encompassing than that.
I do think other religions' symbols would be equally as powerful-
moreso if
they were they symbols of the religion that the vampire and/or
the person
trying to protect themselves believed in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- JollyJeff, 19:55:28 04/01/01
Sun
I remember hearing somewhere on the show (or from Josh himself)
that
different demons come from different dimensions, that the Christian
"Hell"
doesn't really exist.
But maybe vampires come from a dimensions that strictly follows
Christian
beliefs. Maybe vampires are hardwired to be harmed by Christian
symbols
because creatures from that dimension believe in Christianity.
Who knows,
maybe werewolves are scared by the Star of David but nobody ever
tried it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- SingedCat, 20:25:08 04/01/01 Sun
OK, here's my theory--
At some point in history, vampires as a race ran afoul of that
particular
church, and lost. The old church is fraught with rituals and magic,
not to
mention witchunts. My guess is there was a mass extermination
which may have
nearly wiped out the vampiric populace, and left the surviving
race with a
kind of curse. The ability for the church to do that was probably
lost in
the years of peace afte that, where vampires became folktales.
Looked at
this way, it doesn't make Christianity the one true religion,
any more than
the other cults that can do magic are the One True Whatevers.
Sound good?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooh, I like that. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:30:17 04/01/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- VanMoodySenior, 09:22:27
04/02/01 Mon
I like your theory. It would be a good flashback sequence of Buffy
or Angel.
Just imagine the Master being one of the vampires that survives
such a
vampiric hunt. I have often wondered if they would show how the
Master
became a vampire and show how he got so powerful. It would be
interesting to
watch. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- purplegrrl, 09:40:32 04/02/01 Mon
Christianity is one of the few religions that attempts to conquer
through
belief. However, in some parts of Europe the belief in vampires
was so
strong the Church could not eradicate it. Therefore, the Church
used this
belief in vampires to its own end. Historically, the early Church
told the
vampire-believing masses that the reason members of their community
became
vampires was because they did not believe in God and the Church.
Of course
part of the reason the Church wanted to eradicate or at least
diminish the
belief in vampires was because they drank blood. Blood was considered
sacred
and belonged to God, representing the sacrifice Jesus made to
save mankind
from sin. So a creature that drank human blood would be considered
especially evil. The Church went further in saying that the way
to combat
any vampires that did exist was with the crucifix (or cross),
the Eucharist
wafer, and holy water. Garlic, wooden stakes, and beheading a
vampire were
incorporated from the folklore tradition.
The talismans of Christianity have become so ingrained in the
vampire
mythology that I doubt few people would believe a vampire who
was turned
aside or defeated by a Star of David or Buddhist prayer wheel.
Even Willow,
good Jewish girl that she is, nailed crosses/crucifixes to the
walls of her
bedroom when Angelus was on the rampage. There is a scene in the
movie "Love
At First Bite" where Dr. Rosenburg (Richard Benjamin) shows
Dracula (George
Hamilton) a Star of David. At first Dracula flinches in an attempt
to
protect himself and then realizes what the doctor is holding.
Dracula
suggests the doctor go and find himself an nice Jewish girl. Dr.
Rosenburg
says, "Rats, it's the other one, isn't it!", meaning
that vampires are
frightened/held at bay by a cross (Christian talisman) not a Star
of David
(Jewish talisman). Although this scene is played for laughs, it
does show
how ingrained the idea is in our culture.
Part of what makes Christian talismans so powerful against vampires
is our
belief in them. We believe vampires will be repelled by them.
And because
this belief is pervasive in Western culture, the vampires are
repelled by
the site of the crucifix/cross, are burned by holy water, and
Eucharist
wafer inserted into the dirt of their coffins makes them unusable
for the
vampires. It is my contention that this belief would be effective
even
against vampires that pre-date Christianity, although possibly
to a lesser
degree. Humans believe that Christian talismans are effective
against
vampires, and the vampires believe this too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Malandanza, 10:13:55 04/02/01
Mon
***Part of what makes Christian talismans so powerful against
vampires is
our belief in them. We believe vampires will be repelled by them.
And
because this belief is pervasive in Western culture, the vampires
are
repelled by the site of the crucifix/cross, are burned by holy
water, and
Eucharist wafer inserted into the dirt of their coffins makes
them unusable
for the vampires. It is my contention that this belief would be
effective
even against vampires that pre-date Christianity, although possibly
to a
lesser degree. Humans believe that Christian talismans are effective
against
vampires, and the vampires believe this too.***
I remember vaguely an X-Men comic I read when I was much younger
where the
X-Men battled Dracula. Wolverive tried to repel him with a cross,
but
Dracula brushed him aside as he was an atheist. Nightcrawler succeeded
with
a Star of David because he did believe. I have seen other vampire
movies
where an insufficient faith rendered the cross less effective
against the
most powerful vampires. In the Buffyverse, I believe that faith
in God is
irrelevant to the ability of a cross to repel vampires (think
of human Darla
keeping Angel at bay with a cross). It is possible that the faith
in the
symbol as a proof against vampires is what drives the vampires
away (the
cross acts as a focus for the human will) -- but even here, we
run into
problems. Consider the test Angel had to pass in an attempt to
save Darla --
the crosses on the floor burned him as surely as if they had been
held by
the Pope. But perhaps Angel's faith in the crosses is what powered
them.
Then consider Holy Water -- in Buffy's 18th birthday test, she
switches
regular water with holy water for the insane vampire -- the vampire
has no
way of knowing that he is drinking holy water, so why does he
die?
Similarly, when Angel immerses his hand in holy water, he does
so without
being told that it is anything other than tap water -- yet it
burns him. It
seems to me that, in the Buffyverse, the vampire destroying properties
of
Christian relics are entirely independent of faith -- whether
it is faith in
Christianity or faith in the item. An atheist armed with a cross
is just as
dangerous to a vampire as a born-again Christian or a devout Catholic
wielding the same weapon.
As for other religious items driving off vampires -- I think that
the
Watcher's Council would have, at some point in its history, investigated
the
possibility. Giles would have told Willow "Oh, by the way,
Stars of David
work too" if other religious items worked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- VanMoodySenior, 16:24:47
04/02/01 Mon
I suppose my thinking goes this way. What would happen if a man
became a
vampire and had never heard of Christianity? Let's say it was
in the jungle
wilds of Africa where missionaries had not reached yet. I just
don't
understand how a vampire would be turned away by a cross if had
not heard of
Christianity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Diana Michelle,
18:27:01 04/02/01 Mon
I think it would still work. At least in the Buffyverse, faith
is not needed
to have symbols of (Christian)faith work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Crosses PreDate Christianity -- Scott L, 11:45:12 04/02/01
Mon
The symbol of the cross was used to mark graves and as a device
of torture
and execution long before Christ. It is the fact that Jesus was
executed on
a cross that has made it a symbol of Christianity.
Purple Grrl's theory makes very good sense from a literary point
of view.
For the Buffyverse my theory is whatever meaning the cross held
B.C. is the
meaning that holds the Vamps at bay today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Crosses PreDate Christianity -- Solitude1056,
19:00:55 04/02/01
Mon
Purple Grrl's theory makes very good sense from a literary point
of view.
For the Buffyverse my theory is whatever meaning the cross held
B.C. is the
meaning that holds the Vamps at bay today.
It's still rather disengenious, IMO - since it's not like we've
ever seen
Vamps held back by someone forming a "plus" sign with
two sticks. And then
what explains holy water - which by definition is blessed by a
Xtian priest?
It appears that like it or not, this might be one that's immovable
by virtue
of the accepted viewpoint, hammered in by two centuries of Xtian-viewpointed
writers, who carried on the literary tradition. Hm. Allow me to
introduce
y'll to my pal William of Occam... he has this razor, you see...
*grin* I
don't know if Joss ever intends to play with this aspect the way
he's played
with others in the vampire tradition - the sleeping at night,
direct sun,
etc - but I can hope.
Btw, about that Polanski reference... in it, someone tries to
hold off a
vampire with a crucifix, who looks at it & shrugs. "Vat you
trying to do
wit' that?" the vamp says. "I vas JEWISH."
hehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Crosses PreDate Christianity -- Scott L,
19:27:43 04/02/01 Mon
--It's still rather **disengenious**
God, that's my *favorite* word. So, I have to accept that someone
used it to
refer to my theory
Since the episode that showed Willow using crosses as part of
the
"uninvitation" charm, my roommate and I have done smatterings
of research on
why crosses have been used as markers of death for as long as
they have. We
haven't taken a very academic approach and the most we found referred
to the
four elements and the four cardinal points -- yadda, yadda, yadda.
I promise to step up my research, now that I know that there's
a grown up
audience that has an interest.
Holy water is another issue altogether. I can't remember, do Buffyverse
vampires have a thing about crossing running water on their own
power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Crosses PreDate Christianity -- VanMoodySenior,
22:19:03
04/02/01 Mon
I believe crosses were used to mark graves b/c it was a Christian
that died.
It is just a mark of the persons faith. I actually liked the answer
in an
earlier post which said the cross might have revulsed vampires
before Jesus'
time. I had not thought of that possibility. Thx. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- L45648, 11:56:28 04/02/01 Mon
If you have seen the movie Dracula 2000 you find out that the
dracula in
that movie was a religious figure back when Jesus was alive. (Won't
tell you
who if you haven't seen the movie.) Now I don't think that in
Buffy/AngelLand they went in that direction to explain the fear
of religious
symbols. Maybe the vampires that lived back in those times feared
religious
symbols because it was part of the society the humans lived in.
And since it
was everywhere they found that since they were evil that it had
a harmful
affect on them because they weren't human or because they were
"stuck"
between being alive and dead?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Adam and crosses -- Rufus, 14:22:51 04/02/01 Mon
Last season Adam went to the vampires and got them to work twords
his goal
of destruction. He did say some interesting things about vampires:
Adam: "You fear death. Being immortal, you fear it more than
those to whom
is comes naturally. Vampires are a paradox........Demon in a human
body. You
walk in both worlds and belong to neither."
Adam convinced the vampires that the reason they reacted to the
cross was
because they believed they would. He had them face their fear
of the cross
and work past their fear. They eventually ended up killing people
in a
church and this is what the one vamp said:
Vampire: "It's hard to believe. I've been avoiding this place
for so many
years, and it's nothing. It's nice! It's got pretty windows, the
pillars,
lots of folks to eat. Where's the thing I was so afraid of? You
know the
Lord? He was supposed to be here. He gave us this address. Well,
we'll just
have to start killing off His people, see if he shows up."
Well, He may not have shown up but 2 slayers did. But it's interesting
about
belief. How you can react to something because you expect to.
If these vamps
could work past their fear, is it real, or a leap of faith that
should have
died with their humanity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Adam and crosses -- Masquerade, 14:31:27 04/02/01
Mon
It's not clear he ever got them past their fear or their physical
reaction
to the cross. What he got them to face was their fear of being
in a church,
which we know from Angel's many forays is not ipso facto dangerous
for a
vampire. As long as s/he keeps their hands to themselves. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Adam and crosses -- VanMoodySenior, 22:22:02 04/02/01
Mon
I bet if those vamps had been touched by a Bible,cross, or holy
water it
would have worked. They pretty much stayed in the middle of the
church from
my recollection. I enjoyed your thoughts. VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross -- Jen C., 17:27:12 04/02/01 Mon
I seem to recall that crosses were originally sun symbols - maybe
that is
why they have particular power to harm vampires?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- purplegrrl,
08:28:27
04/03/01 Tue
Okay, since hardly anyone seemed to like my theory that Joss & Co.
are just
following the vampire mythology in making crosses and holy water
repellant
to vampires, I had some additional thoughts.
1. To borrow from Joseph Campbell and Jung: It is part of our
"collective
unconscious" (Jung's phrase) that vampires are repelled by
crosses and holy
water. It is ingrained in us by literature, movies, television.
We don't
have to "believe" in the particular faith symbolized
by the cross to "know"
vampires will be repelled by them. This is best illustrated by
Willow
(Jewish girl) nailing crosses to her bedroom walls to ward off
Angelus. This
may also explain how Adam was able to convince his vampire minions
that they
could enter the church and wreck havoc - he somehow overrode their
instinctive knowledge/reactions.
2. Since magic works in the Buffyverse and religion hasn't been
really
shown, could crosses and holy water have attained the status of
*magical*
objects rather than *religious* objects? This could explain how
they are
able to work against vampires without their knowledge (did Angel
know the
font was filled with holy water in "The Trial"?; a vampire
from the Amazon
rain forest who had never been exposed to Christianity) or belief
(Jewish
vampires, pre-Christian vampires, etc.). Crosses and holy water
are spelled
to react to the undead - a type of "reactive magic."
The spell lies dormant
until it is activated by the touch or presence of a vampire. The
magician/witch/spellcaster does not have to present for the spell
to be
effective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- Solitude1056,
09:44:05
04/03/01 Tue
Okay, since hardly anyone seemed to like my theory that Joss & Co.
are just
following the vampire mythology in making crosses and holy water
repellant
to vampires [...] To borrow from Joseph Campbell and Jung: It
is part of our
"collective unconscious" (Jung's phrase) that vampires
are repelled by
crosses and holy water. It is ingrained in us by literature, movies,
television.
I liked your comments. Not saying I care much for the narrow (one-religion)
perspective in vampire myth, but that's how it is. Like I said
in another
post, there's this guy I know, William of Occam... *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- purplegrrl, 12:42:41
04/03/01 Tue
Well, Joss professes to be an athiest, and he uses Christian symbols
to
repel vampires, so go figure.
[IMO, I think we are so desparate for new episodes that we will
see hidden
meanings and philosophical twists in *anything* pertaining to
the repeat
episodes! ;-) We haven't had a good clothing discussion lately.
:-D How
about the philosophical aspects of hospital food!? Or Cordelia's
shorter
hair? Or why free nachos would attract the morally ambiguous crowd?
Okay,
possibly enough silliness for now.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- Scott L.,
16:30:42 04/04/01 Wed
I completely agree that Joss is using traditional vampire traditions
in
Buffy, and some of that is steeped in things we consider to be
Christian
symbolism. But since it offends my sensibilities so much to ignore
the world
religions and practices that Christianity borrowed a lot of its
symbolism
from, I want to explain away that one path.
If it boils down to Christian symbolism for the sake of Christian
symbolism,
I think we need to keep in mind that Vampires are demon spirits
from heck.
They would have heard of the Christian symbolism even if there
host from the
Amazon hadn't.
I absolutely love your theory that symbolism takes on a magic
of its own so
that regardless of faith or foreknowledge, the symbol of torture
and death
(the crucifix) and the symbol of batism and rebirth (holy water)
would have
power over even a vamp who didn't know it was there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional
thoughts -- purplegrrl,
09:18:13 04/05/01 Thu
I know we're all anxious for new episodes to start, and to a certain
extent
I can understand people's offended sensibilities about only Christian
symbols repelling vampires (unfortunately that's tradition and
I've tried to
explain the historical reasons for it), but I really don't think
there is
anything deeper to "crosses and holy water repel vampires"
than the
mythology was already firmly established and Joss & Co. just used
it as it
was. I don't think this means they have ignored other religions
or world
views. For example, where other Western writers might have made
the big bad
demon who was guarding the pregnant woman a Christian when he
turned to the
side of Good, Joss & Co. made him a Buddhist.
If you think about it, crosses and holy water are just about the
only
Christian symbols seen on the shows. And they are not used as
objects of
worship, merely as talismans against evil. These objects are simple
and
widely understood, even by people who don't believe in their religious
value. I think we would question just as deeply if Joss & Co.
had decided
that crosses and holy water *didn't* work against vampires, or
if symbols of
other religions (Star of David, Buddhist prayer wheel) *also*
worked against
vampires. I think Joss has enough on his hands detailing and explaining
the
workings of the Buffyverse without recreating every part of the
vampire myth
in toto.
Yes, we've seen churches on BtVS and Angel, but they are more
of just a
building where part of the story takes place rather than a holy
place where
the faithful come to worship. They are not central to the shows'
themes.
Angel's redemption doesn't require that he start attending church.
Even
though she is a warrior for Good, Buffy does not have the need
to armor
herself in the "word of God," such as Joan of Arc would
have.
"Religion" as we have seen it in the Buffyverse is really
only about Good
vs. Evil (which is pretty much what all religions are about anyway).
The
Good helps, enlightens, redeems. The Evil hinders, corrupts, destroys.
I hope this doesn't sound too "soapbox-y." :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- Rufus,
17:37:08
04/03/01 Tue
I go with number one about collective unconscious reactions and
add to it
the fact as symbols of good the cross and the holy water repel
vampires as
they are infected with evil. Angel still has the resident demon
somewhere in
there so the cross still works at it reacts to the demon that
Angel still
is. Call the burning of the skin evils allergic reaction to good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- VanMoodySenior,
20:25:42 04/03/01 Tue
Now this is what I don't understand. Are we then saying that the
star of
David is not a symbol of good? Or what about any other religious
symbol? I
kind of like the preJesus explanation. Maybe there was a curse
many many
years ago placed on all vampires and they passed it on to all
the vampires
they made, and so on and so on. Doesn't this just bug the stuffins
out of
ya? Take Care VMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- Rufus, 20:59:24
04/03/01 Tue
The reason that the vampires don't react, that we know of to other
symbols
of good, is simply because we are used to the mythology of the
vampires
being almost always specific on the Cross as a symbol that repelled
vampires. This is only a rule in the Buffyverse and some other
books I'm
sure that there are stories that don't mention fear of Crosses
or any
religious symbols at all. So in the Buffyverse, if it works use
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts -- OnM,
20:44:53 04/03/01
Tue
I would say that both 1 & 2 are correct-- originally it was a
spell cast
that gave these objects the power to repel vampires and/or induce
a state of
fear in them. After that the power of the collective unconscious
(which you
will recall I've essayed about at least twice now in relation
to odd
happenings in the Buffyverse) takes over, and the universe adapts.
It is also quite possible for objects and spell to predate Christianity.
Many factions of Christianity, especially the Catholic church,
adapted
aspects of 'pagan' religions in order to absorb those believers
into it's
own fold of belief. (A classic example is how Christmas came to
be
celebrated on nearly the same day as the winter solstice, a tradional
day of
worship for many pre-Christian religions, even though Jesus was
actually
born sometime in the summer or fall, by most historical accounts.)
The spread of Christianity would only have accelerated the power
of the
collective uncon. to spread the original spell. Soon it is a part
of the
fabric of the 'created' universe, and so all a vamp has to do
is exist in
our universe to be affected.
It would have been interesting to see if those vamps Adam was
teaching did
learn to resist this particular aspect of their existence. Also,
recall from
S1 that The Master had some manner of control over the way crosses
affected
him, and also his bones did not turn to ash when he was dusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Vamps & the Cross - additional thoughts
-- Virgill Reality,
13:30:50 04/09/01 Mon
A reply in general to all the postings made on crosses, holy water,
etc.
It is normally the case in vamp mythology that faith is required
in addition
to the cross to repel a vampire, but as is already know, vamps
in the
buffyverse are repelled by the cross on its own.
It is implied that vampires fear the cross itself, and it is implied
that
vampires have an inherent fear of God, presumably because they
are demons
themselves. One posting made a point of whether or not a vamp
born without
knowing anything of the Christian faith would still be repelled
by Christian
Holy objects. I think the answer would be yes. The reasoning is
that the
behvior of a vampire is independent of the human preceding it,
that person
is regarded as dead when reborn as a creature of darkness. As
the person is
reborn as a demon, he or she also inherits with the demon blood
the inherent
fear of Good (or God) that comes with it.
As for all this about Holy Water being an accidental magic spell,
that is
matter for opinion. The fact is it is blessed in the name of God
and by that
it is able to be used as a weapon against darkness.
Virgill
Anybody catch the preview for the next Buffy? -- AngelVSAngelus,
18:11:22
04/03/01 Tue
There was a scene of a funeral for Buffy's mom, and Buffy looks
to be in
what I like to differentiate as Sad Buffy mode, as opposed to
Angry Buffy
mode. She was crying and saying that she wants to do the things
her mother
used to do, because when she stops she's truly gone. Angel makes
a guest
appearance in Sunnydale to comfort his ex-lover, and the two look
very
benign.
And that surprises me, because they've grown apart in their own
respective
worlds so much that I would have thought they'd have trouble communicating
anymore, or maybe even still have some animosity toward each other
left over
from their previous encounter when Angel was harboring Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anybody catch the preview for the next Buffy? -- VanMoodySenior,
20:32:40 04/03/01 Tue
Death has a way of making very important disagreements fade away.
Will this
be a buffy-angel crossover? The reason I ask is they didn't have
a preview
of the next new Angel show. I watch on WGN out of Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OT - for VMS -- purplegrrl, 08:32:51 04/04/01 Wed
I thought WGN no longer carried WB programming. Or do they have
different
listings for Chicago and non-Chicago viewers? I know I used to
be able to
get Buffy and Angel on both my local WB station and on WGN. But
that stopped
about 3 years ago or so.
Just wondering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT - for VMS -- OnM, 09:08:04 04/04/01 Wed
I thought the same... I used to get my tapes off of WGN via DirecTV
satellite, then they announced the ending of their affiliation
with the WB,
and I had to go back to plain ol' cable.
Are they back on? I'd love to get a sat feed again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OT - for VMS -- VanMoodySenior, 10:55:36
04/04/01 Wed
I think it is a Chicago thing. When I was on vacation in southern
Indiana a
few weeks ago WGN did not carry Buffy and Angel but an Indiana
station did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anybody catch the preview for the next Buffy? -- Marya,
01:30:27
04/04/01 Wed
That animosity was pretty much resolved in The Yoko Factor when
Angel came
back to Sunnydale to apologize. There lives have gone in seperate
directions
but they still respect and care deeply for each other. I think
the next
episode will demonstrate that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just friends? -- OnM, 07:32:04 04/04/01 Wed
Yes, I had thought of the same thing, just could remember the
ep title.
Spike had stated previously that Buffy and Angel could 'never
be just
friends'. Wondering if their relationship could/will evolve into
that, or is
he right, and will they always exist in that state of arrested
romantic
tension?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Wiccagrrl, 18:07:32 04/04/01
Wed
I find it hard to see them ever becoming "just friends"
There will always be
an undercurrent. But I do think that Angel is one of the few people
that
could get through to Buffy at this point in her life. And part
of that may
be because they've been estranged. This is someone she loves,
who she knows
cares very much for her, and is someone she can break down in
front of
because she doesn't have to face them every day... Plus, he's
one of the few
people in her life who she has never really felt she needed to
"be the
strong one" for. She can lean on him. So I think he may be
able to break
through some of the walls she's built up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> All threads lead to Spike -- Traveler,
21:03:30 04/04/01 Wed
I wonder how Spike and BuffyBot are doing? Does he know about
Buffy's
mother? Most likely, he wouldn't be happy to see Angel with Buffy
again in
any capacity. Maybe Spike kidnaps her and leaves the BuffyBot
for Angel :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: All threads lead to Spike --
Rufus, 22:05:47 04/04/01 Wed
Can Angel lose his soul with a robot? Sorry couldn't help thinking
of the
implications of robot lovin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm just _not_ going to go
there! (NT) -- Marya, 00:36:18
04/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Marya, 00:33:22 04/05/01
Thu
I think there is a tie between them that can never really be severed.
I know the B/A shippers are devoted to the idea of their romantic
everlasting love. But I for one am very content with the idea
of a love
based on understanding and respect that is outside of romance.
I was much
relieved when I found out Angel was returning for the funeral.
It signaled
to me that Joss & Co know there is still more to their story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Marya, 00:17:22 04/05/01
Thu
"will they always exist in that state of arrested romantic
tension?"
Ooo, nice phrase. And I say yes. But "arrested" is the
key. They both know
it can't go anywhere, especially Angel after IWRY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Dee, 08:53:50 04/05/01
Thu
But angel could be human someday...yes, I am one of the incurable
romantics
who wants to see them together again. They play off each other
so well that
it's a pleasure to watch them. (Although I could be reconcilled
to them
being apart if Buffy ended up with Zander...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Marya, 14:48:43
04/05/01 Thu
The whole point of IWRY is that even if Angel became human it
wouldn't work.
The Oracles made it pretty clear that Angel's presence in Buffy's
life would
shorten it. Even if you figure the Oracles were just making a
prophecy and
Buffy has beaten those before, it still wouldn't work. Buffy likes
her human
loved ones to stay as far out of danger as possible, and Angel
would really
chaff at taking a back seat to the action. That's one of the big
reaons
Buffy and Riley didn't work out either. Riley was also a man of
action. He
couldn't handle being back-up guy.
When you think about it a lot of Buffy's romance problems stem
from the fact
that she falls for the same type, namely thrill junkies. Angel
in all three
of his personas: Liam, looking for adventure; Angelus, always
wanting
something new; Angel, hero complex. Riley, definately hero complex.
Even her
short lived romances: Owen, "wants to be danger man;"
Scott Hope, attracted
to Buffy as "a force of nature;" Parker, "id boy"
thrill of the conquest.
And she knows it's a problem too. That's why she nipped Owen in
the bud, and
tried to end it with Riley before it started. What she needs is
a stable guy
whose content to just be there for her when she needs him whether
with
inspiring words or a shoulder to cry on and whose self identity
doesn't
depend on doing the manly danger thing. Know any candidates?
Besides I kind of like a love story about two soul mates who by
all rights
should be together but cruel fate has torn asunder. That's why
I hope for as
much interplay between the two shows as Joss & Co can manage.
So we can all
wallow in Buffy and Angel's deliciously painful destiny of being
always
together but forever apart. *sigh* Now that's ROMANCE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? -- Elizabeth,
17:01:06 04/05/01 Thu
"The whole point of IWRY is that even if Angel became human
it wouldn't
work. The Oracles made it pretty clear that Angel's presence in
Buffy's life
would shorten it."
That's not what they meant at all. What they told him was that
Buffy was
destined to (or was very likely to) die in the coming apocolypse,
and that
Angel as a mere human man could do nothing to prevent that. He
asked to be
made a vampire so he would have a chance to save her. That doesn't
mean
Angel's being human = Buffy short life under any OTHER circumstance.
In fact, once Buffy gets to an age where she's past her prime
and hands the
slayer ring to the next slayer (Faith, or Faith's successor) she
could have
a good relationship with a human man (any man, including mortal
Angel), even
if he had a "thrill seeker" streak in him. She wouldn't
be putting him in
the line of fire all the time once she was retired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends? --
Wiccagrrl, 18:12:10 04/05/01 Thu
Gotta agree...IWRY did not mean that it would never work for Buffy
and
Angel. IMO it meant that that was not the time. What was the point
of the
Shanshu prophecy if IWRY meant Angel was never gonna be in a position
to
become human? The decision that was made in IWRY, the lessons
there, had to
do with that particular point in time. It wasn't the right
circumstances/time to walk away from the good fight. At some point,
hopefully, he'll be allowed (and allow himself) some peace and
happiness.
And my little B/A 'shipper heart can't help but equate that with
eventually
finding his way back to Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just friends?
-- Rufus, 19:22:40 04/05/01 Thu
I have been watching with interest Angels progression. Before
I wasn't sure
he was the guy for Buffy because he had a strong streak of pride
that I
could see would continue to get him into trouble. When he is able
to come to
Sunnydale to comfort Buffy it will show not only love but a new
level of
maturity that he lacked before. The old Angel may have just stayed
in LA
unable to deal with seeing Buffy with the added element of grief.
Now he is
able to put his self interest aside and be there when she needs
him. Part of
Epiphany was to show that Angel had faith where there was none
before, now
he has become more interested in the lives around him. He was
a spectator
before, now he is anxious to join the lives he watched from the
sidelines
before. It is not just a gesture to a old girlfriend to come to
Sunnydale,
but one of kindness to put his feelings of longing aside just
to be there.
Add enough small acts of kindness together and what do you get?
I think
Angel just may find the answer to that question in time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel preview -- Traveler, 13:26:04 04/05/01 Thu
straight from tvguide.com:
"Angel Investigations may be together again (under new management),
but that
doesn't mean the family is ready to add a new sister.
While the crew tracks down a cult of vampires led by a former
motivational
speaker (Pat Healy) with a wicked pyramid scheme, Cordelia (Charisma
Carpenter) gets a surprise visit from her old high-school buddy
Harmony
(Mercedes McNab). Unaware her flaky pal's a bloodsucker, Cordy
mistakes
Harm's strange behavior for lesbianism---until the truth comes
out (so to
speak) in a call to Willow. Much to the dismay of her co-workers,
the ever
loyal Cordelia resolves to give her undead friend a chance at
fighting for
the good guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel preview -- AngelVSAngelus, 07:53:02 04/10/01
Tue
That all sounded cool until the part about giving her a chance.
Damnit,
she's soulless! Cordy should know better
Do family members outside of Sunnydale have false memories of
Dawn? --
AngelVSAngelus, 17:47:51 04/03/01 Tue
Here's something I've wondered for a while:
Are Buffy's family members outside of Sunnydale affected by the
spell that
made Dawn human? I was thinking that there would be a funeral
for Joyce, and
that Buffy's family would be there. BUt would they know Dawn as
her sister?
How would Buffy's father react to her? And how would she react
to him, for
that matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have false memories
of Dawn?
-- Leaf, 19:49:59 04/03/01 Tue
I think that other family members well especially her father would
have
memories the monks should have thought that far ahead and cosidered
the
family. but the people who I'm not sure about is the LA crew,
Angel,Wesley
and Cordelia do they have memories of her? We know Dawn has memories
well of
Angel at least but does that extend to him?I don't think any of
them has had
any contact with the Scoobies this season. I'm of the opinion
that the
memories could be triggered maybe when you come in contact or
someone talks
about her. just one of my half cocked theories that don't have
a solid base
(I have dozens of those) *g*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale... -- OnM,
20:25:57
04/03/01 Tue
*** "I'm of the opinion that the memories could be triggered
maybe when you
come in contact or someone talks about her." ***
Hummm, no, Leaf, not a half-cocked theory. Scroll down a mite
and read
through Solitude 1056's thread below, 'Why is Dawn, Dawn?'. Many
theories
abound, yours is very much like mine, and I generally don't publish
theories
unless they are at least 3/4's-cocked, preferably even 90%-cocked.
;)
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale...
-- Marya, 01:36:47
04/04/01 Wed
Maybe we all need to ease off on the cocking 'cause it may be
about to
backfire on us. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't it usually? ;) -- OnM, 07:34:26
04/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: CAUTION - board isn't automatically
noting 'NT' for no
text posts (NT) -- OnM, 07:43:29 04/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have false
memories of
Dawn? -- purplegrrl, 09:33:23 04/04/01 Wed
I think there are a couple of explanations for the memories that
people have
of Dawn.
1. The spell the monks cast was *extremely* intricate and elaborate.
They
introduced false memories into *anyone* who came into contact
with the
Summers family in the last 14 or 14-1/2 years. Everyone from the
Scooby
Gang, Giles, and Angel to Hank's business associates to school
friends, day
care providers, store clerks, etc., were given the appropriate
false
memories of Dawn. The memories of family, the Scooby Gang, Angel
would be
the most elaborate - remembering specific interactions. Other
peoples'
memories would be gradationally less specific - Hank's coworkers
would
remember he had two daughters; store clerks would recognize her
face; school
friends would remember that she sat next to them in class. This
represents a
tremendous amount of work on the monks' part. They had to have
been planning
this spell for a very long time, waiting for a time they needed
it.
Otherwise, how could they have done such an elaborate spell on
the run, in a
panic, in the short time frame while Glory was breaking into this
dimension?
Also, how would the monks know when they would need this spell?
Was it a
generic "mass false memory" spell that could be tailored
to accomodate
specifics?
2. The monks planted specific false memories in those that would
be most
affected by Dawn's presence - Joyce, Buffy, Hank. Perhaps they
also gave
some false memories to those closest to Buffy - Willow, Xander,
Giles,
Angel, Riley, possibly Oz. However, the monks may have put a type
of
"reactive magic" spell on Dawn herself. That way those
people who come in
contact with Dawn (or if a family member mentioned Dawn - meaning
that the
name "Dawn" in connection with Buffy and her family
would also have to be
spelled to invoke false memories) would have false memories overlaid
on
their real memories of Buffy and her family. They would believe
they knew
about Dawn from whenever they met Buffy or another member of the
Summers
family - living in L.A., their move to Sunnydale, etc. This could
explain
why Angel, Wesley, and Cordelia haven't mentioned Dawn - the false
memories
of her have not been activated. I think this would be a slightly
simpler
spell to work. However, it is still intricate and elaborate. A
lot of
forethought had to go into the creation of the spell. This is
not something
the monks just thought of while on the run from Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have
false memories of
Dawn? -- Marya, 00:57:43 04/05/01 Thu
This spell is indeed intricate. The idea of a "mass false
memory spell"
seems to me impractical. I've always favored the virus approach,
with each
person being infected with the memories when they come in contact
with
someone who already has them. But what stumps me is how the memories
themselves are manufactured once the person is infected. The memories
all
seem to be very specific for everyone, not just generic. One possible
explanation is that the memories are provided by the individual
based on his
or her own preconceptions and experiences. OTOH this would not
explain
shared memories. Where the heck would they come from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: DNA = Do Not Attempt this at home!
;) -- OnM, 20:41:28
04/06/01 Fri
*** "One possible explanation is that the memories are provided
by the
individual based on his or her own preconceptions and experiences.
OTOH this
would not explain shared memories. Where the heck would they come
from?" ***
I figured the same thing, but imagine it like transmission of
DNA from
parent to offspring, except there are many more than one parent/offspring
involved. Each contact presents the total current memory mix,
the new
recipient takes whatever fits, discards the rest, and then interpolates
the
remainder into his/her particular memories. (You add an artificial
intelligence processor to the mix, and the memories all get interpolated,
weighted to the most likely set of occurrances for the new contact).
Hummm, figure about a 1000 GHz processor oughta handle it? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale have
false memories of
Dawn? -- Cleanthes, 13:54:31 04/07/01 Sat
In order to "plant" Dawn in this universe, the universe
had to be altered.
Once that's allowed, why is it any more difficult for all and
sundry to be
affected than for just a few people?
I don't think the monks planted false memories at all. Instead,
they looked
for something that might have been. Joyce might have had a second
daughter.
Then, the monks changed the universe that {was} into the universe
that
{might have been}. EVERYONE was changed, but the insane still
"remember" the
old universe. (which is why they're insane -- eg. not in touch
with reality)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of Sunnydale
have false memories
of Dawn? -- Rufus, 20:47:45 04/07/01 Sat
How does that explain the fact that the monk Buffy spoke with
said they
built the memories in Buffy and the rest of the people involved.
It does
make sense to rearrange reality to accomodate new potential but
I still
think that the people closest to Dawn would have the memories
built in as
Dawn is only about 6 months old. As for the people that are insane
they are
outside reality an fiddling with reality wouldn't effect them.
The fact that
Dawn would be open to detection by snake and wolfe types does
open a
possible storyline for Oz to return. Would he see her as she really
is when
he is a wolf or all of the time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Do family members outside of
Sunnydale have false
memories of Dawn? -- Cleanthes, 13:24:52 04/08/01 Sun
Fascinating point about using Oz to detect Dawn - great catch.
The monk said they "built" the memories? I don't remember
the exact wording,
but that's not quite how he put it, if I remember right..
Anyways, the monk would have access to more than one "might
have been" and
could choose which one to "build" the spell around.
Nothing on the show so far suggests that the monks used the power
of the key
to make the key human --- that's just what I think would be neat.
{smile}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Do family members outside
of Sunnydale have false
memories of Dawn? -- Rufus, 14:44:44 04/08/01 Sun
"Nothing on the show so far suggests that the monks used
the power of the
key to make the key human -- that's just what I think would be
neat."
Actually, yes, the show does suggest your theory of entelechy....in
Blood
Ties Spike says:
Spike(reading from Giles journal): "The monks possessed the
ability to
transform energy, bend reality..." "They had to be certain
the Slayer would
protect it with her life. So they sent the Key to her in human
form...in the
form of a sister."
Nothing suggests they used anything but the power of the key to
transform
the key from potentiality to actuality.
In No Place Like Home the monk further backs up what you say:
Monk: "The abomination...found us. We had to hide the Key...Gave
it form.
Moulded if flesh , made it human. And sent it to you."
Buffy: "My memories...my mom's"
Monk: "We built them."
Buffy: "Then unbuild them. This is my life you're..."
Monk: "You cannot...abandon.."
Buffy: "I didn't ask for this. I don't even know what..what
is she?"
Monk: "Human. Human, now, and helpless. Please, she is..an
innocent in this,
and she needs you."
Buffy: "She's not my sister."
Monk: "She doesn't know that."
So, what else do you think the monks used to make Dawn, but Dawn
herself.
They may have moulded her, determined her form, but Dawn is Dawn
is the Key.
As for the memories, he did say that they were built..so how far
reaching is
their ability to bend reality? I'm surprised that no one has pointed
out
that the monks did what has always been considered a function
of God, create
a person. They would though have to follow a few rules and I don't
think
that they could totally change reality but bend it to accomodate
Dawn...if
they could do much more then they would have been able to defeat
Glory. But
the knowledge alone to make a person and build memories is enormous.
My
question is that if Dawn is now human then why do those outside
of reality
see her as the key? Is the energy of the Key a soul?
It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a poll is in
order. --
OnM, 21:27:11 04/03/01 Tue
Well, only one more week of 'encore performances', and then we
can all get
our fix! ;)
It's been said before, but worth saying again, even though I know
I'm
preaching to the converted ;) -- a Buffyverse repeat is still
better than
most shows' new eppies, something that I was reminded of again
tonight while
watching Angel-- oh, man, what a great ep!
There's that little rush that comes when he shuts the doors on
the lawyers
and one part of you is going yes! yes! yes! they are *so* getting
what they
deserve! -- and the other part of you is going, Oh God, what is
he doing??
Now *that's* craftsmanship!
So, to the subject of the poll: Who do you think are the best
actors in the
B/A'verse? This occurred to me while watching Darla, Drusilla,
Lindsey,
Holland et al do their thing tonight. What gifts these people
have, as do
nearly all the fine people whose talents grace these creations.
It's almost impossibly hard to figure this out, but to make things
at least
a little easier, narrow your choice to just three persons, mostly
turn off
your forebrain, and vote for who, whenever they appear on screen,
at
anytime, for long appearance or short, makes you go 'wow!'
My votes, in alphabetical order, and the eps to drive home the
already
obvious:
Eliza Dushku - This Year's Girl/Who Are You?
Juliet Landau - Any ep she's in, but esp. Redefinition
James Marsters - Fool For Love
So, my fellow Profundits, what think ye?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Nina, 22:18:01 04/03/01 Tue
I've been on the quiet side these last days... unable to come
with anything
worthy to say. So OnM your thread is just perfect for my tired
little grey
cells.
Only three... okay.
Sarah Michelle Gellar in "The body"
James Marsters in "Fool for love"
Michelle Trachenberg in "Blood Ties"
I guess I am pretty impressed when actors are able to show vulnerability!
As for guest stars I'd go with:
Clare Cramer (not sure how to spell her name though) I Love the
way she can
switch from madness to playfulness. She's doing it effortlessly
and it's so
wonderful to see her in action.
And Harry Groener as the Mayor. He got me me riveted to my seat
in each of
his appearences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Rufus, 00:05:26 04/04/01 Wed
Okay I have to pick three? Here goes.....SMG for The Body....ASH
for
Checkpoint and Helpless....Marsters for FFL....with special mention
for JB
and her performance at Caritas because I know OnM enjoyed it so
much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm sorry, this is an impossible poll -- Marya,
01:23:04 04/04/01
Wed
The treasure trove of talent on these shows is just too rich and
diverse to
reduce to "three favorites." So my vote goes to the
production team that
continues to cast so perfectly.
Yeah a big cop out, I know. *grin*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: We feel your pain... ;) -- OnM, 07:18:22
04/04/01 Wed
*** "So my vote goes to the production team that continues
to cast so
perfectly." ***
So true, cop out or no... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Max, 22:26:54 04/03/01 Tue
"There's that little rush that comes when he shuts the doors
on the lawyers
and one part of you is going yes! yes! yes! they are *so* getting
what they
deserve! -- and the other part of you is going, Oh God, what is
he doing??"
He is doing things the Chicago Way!
Too bad he wimped out at the end!
Epiphany. No, he is running away from his destiny. But as Nikita
found out
sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sometimes being Ruthless is necessary for a greater
Good -- April,
23:14:31 04/03/01 Tue
Sometimes ruthlessness is necessary to fight a greater evil.
I was cheering when Angel locked the door. It showed that he finally
understood what it was all about.
However he should have been waiting outside afterwards to make
sure that Dru
and Darla didn't escape. Perhaps set the house on fire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Uh, hijack thread much? -- OnM, 07:25:02
04/04/01 Wed
This topic is already being dicussed in a thread further down
the board.
Please scroll, t'ank yew veery much! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Felix, 23:35:00 04/03/01 Tue
"There's that little rush that comes when he shuts the doors
on the lawyers
and one part of you is going yes! yes! yes! they are *so* getting
what they
deserve! -- and the other part of you is going, Oh God, what is
he doing??"
I don't think "getting what they deserve" should come
into the decision (it
was just an happy side effect). We must not look at the decision
emotionally, but weigh the advantages and disadvantages.
First had Angel been slayed trying to protect the lawyers, that
would be bad
for humanity and good for Wolfram and Hart. But if he saved the
lawyers,
that would assist evil Wolfram and Hart in their war against humanity
as
well. So either outcome would have served Wolfram and Hart's benefit,
and
made them stronger. So Angel did the only thing that didn't serve
Wolfram
and Hart. He locked the door and walked away. He didn't fall into
that
no-win situation.
Had there been some larger benefit to saving the lawyers, then
no matter how
distasteful that would have been, Angel should have saved them.
Has nothing
to do with "deserve", or "fair" but has everything
to do about what course
of action increases or decreases humanity's chances against Wolfram
and
Hart.
But as stated above, had Angel tried to save the lawyers, it would
have only
strengthen Wolfram and Hart's hand. Angel had to walk away.
That was the only rational decision Angel could have made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- verdantheart, 07:15:50 04/04/01 Wed
There are many fine performances in Buffy and Angel, but I would
have to go
with James Marsters. He's the reason that I tune into the reruns
-- to see
how he does it (acting-wise, that is). He's able to do the comedy
without
undercutting the serious aspects of the character. Plus, he's
one of a mere
handful of actors (as in male) who can shed a tear without it
seeming forced
or uncomfortable. He's expressive without being broad; nicely
nuanced.
He's the one actor that I'm really looking forward to seeing in
a different
role (OK, I saw him in The House on Haunted Hill, but that was
a pretty
limited role).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- The Godfather, 08:49:17 04/04/01 Wed
SMG: Becoming 2, Amends, The Body
ASH: Passion
ED: Sanctuary, 5X5, This Years Girl
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- purplegrrl, 08:55:50 04/04/01 Wed
OnM, definately agree with you about Juliet Landau. I especially
liked her
scenes with James Marsters and David Boreanaz in Buffy-Season
2. If I hadn't
seen her in something else (an episode of "La Femme Nikita")
I might be
inclined to think she really was mad!
David Boreanaz. Partly because I think he has been underrated
as an actor.
Favorite eps? I Only Have Eyes For You, I Will Remember You, episode
about
the Ring of Amara, episode where Angel only speaks on voiceover
(sorry, I'm
bad with episode names). I know there are others, but I can't
think of them
at the moment.
A tie between Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters. She can
really emote
and he has some of the best lines on the two shows.
Runners-up include: Anthony Stewart Head, Alexis Denisof, Julie
Benz.
The whole cast, crew, and production staff are great. There are
holes in the
whole fabric of the Buffyverse when any of them leave (Doyle,
Joyce)
My two cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Solitude1056, 10:48:53 04/04/01 Wed
Agree about Juliet Landau - at first I thought, what a whacko
character...
but her reappearance this season on Angel seals me as a fan. When
she
remarks about entering the 20th cen., and Angel tells her it's
the 21st,
that quirky way of just passing noting when she says, "oh,
I'm still
lagging." Definitely a comedienne but very subtle - mark
of a true artist
IMO.
SMG in the Body, and Becoming 2, natch.
Michelle T. in whichever episode it was that she discovered she's
the key -
Blood Ties, I think?
Anya in the Body - waitaminnit, ALL of the cast in The Body.
Spike in FFL. Definitely.
Doyle in Hero, Cordy in Room W/a Vu - quite a gamut in the space
of one
hour.
Ooops, more than 3. My bad. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Diana Michelle, 15:26:42 04/04/01 Wed
First of all, I think that all of the four main BtVS actors are
brilliant.
Of the supporting cast and Angel, I am most impressed by:
1. Michelle T., who has made Dawn a wonderful and delicately nuanced
character.
2. Christian Kane, who blows me away with the thin line Lindsey
walks.
3. Eliza Dushku, who is just amazing.
4. J. August R., who has made Gunn such a fun character to watch.
5. Alexis Denisof, who made me first dislike, then adore Wesley.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- VanMoodySenior, 16:29:44 04/04/01 Wed
I like:
James Marsters
SMG
Juliet Landeu
I don't have a favorite episode really. I enjoy them all. Actually
the guy
who played Adam was pretty cool. He was believable. The reason
I picked
James first is when I see him on another show I am so amazed there
is no
accent. He really throws me for a loop when he acts like himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like a
poll is in order.
-- Shaglio, 07:20:20 04/05/01 Thu
I'd have to go with:
1) James Marsters - especially in FFL because I almost didn't
recognize him
at first when they flashed back to 18th century England. To go
from
portraying the Big Bad to portraying the shy, desperate William
shows that
he has good range.
2) Juliet Landau - it's hard enough to "act" like a
normal person, but I'd
imagine trying to act insane is more dificult since in real life
(I'm
assuming) she's sane. It mustn't be easy to act as something your
not, but
then again that's the definition of acting. So my point is
3) Nicholas Brendan - especially in the latest rerun where he
went from
goofy, jovial Xander to caring, sensitive Xander when he was talking
to
Buffy in the warehouse. Plus he sort of remings me of myself :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It may not be very philosophical, but I feel like
a poll is in
order. -- Dee, 08:48:18 04/05/01 Thu
I think you have to first define which season you want to give
the "great
acting" award in, then go to the actors. There are so many
great moments
from the first 4 seasons that I would have to give separate awards
for each
year!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Boreanaz -- Unsung Hero, 14:51:46 04/07/01 Sat
David Boreanaz has shown us many versions of himself on the show:
Angel
Angelus
Overly sensetive Angel(Sense and Sensibility)
Angel as Jay Don as Angelus(The shroud of rahmon)
Drunken lay about Angel
But the biggest testement to his skills was Amends, the only Buffy
to nearly
make me cry, with his dramatic scene on the hilltop, ready to
die. He's
easily the best in my opinion.
Marsters is definetly a close Second, giving us a wholly characterised
villan(who are harder to play than heros) with good and bad points,
a
likable and hateable villan. Christian Kane also does this on
a nightly
basis, being a damned impressive Villan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: allyson h -- iphi, 02:20:38 04/09/01 Mon
Tough one, but after serious consideration
allyson hannigan in döppelgangerland
normal willow pretending to be vamp willow,... wauw
Joss on the Soul from COA... -- Rufus, 21:06:08 04/02/01 Mon
I found this more complete quote on the soul from City of
Angel...http://www.cityofangel.com/behindTheScenes/index.html
The article was written from Swoop, headwriter, COA
Here's the question from the audience member:
Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of
a soul is? And
what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes
clear
from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and
human
attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates
vampires from
humans if it is conscience?"
JW: "Um, very little.(laugh) Essentially, souls are by their
nature
amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided
by. Most
people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good,
you feel
good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star.
They believe
in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe
it in a way
that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can
attach to
someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that
person
happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort
of become, an
example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more
completely
conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the
wrong thing.
His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans,
is the
opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind
of like a
spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions.
But
they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OT to Rufus and any other DCW's -- OnM, 21:33:28 04/02/01
Mon
Saw this article on page two of yesterday's Phila. Inquirer, thought
you'd
appreciate it. Headline:
"Thanks to a cat, Sweden is spared panic"
STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Anyone who has ever lived with a cat can
imagine how
few felines ever make it into the ranks of heroes and martyrs.
But Bits, the late companion of journalist Erik Fichtelius, is
now
celebrated across the Swedish countryside for saving this country
from the
evils of industrialized farming and the livestock diseases wreaking
havoc
elsewhere in Europe.
Bits, named for her affinity for computers -- or perhaps the attention
Fichtelius paid them -- died more than a decade ago after falling
ill in
1985 from pet food that contained pulverized meat and bone meal
from lame
livestock.
*******
The article goes on in more detail, but essentially Fichtelius,
who was head
of the consumer affairs section on Swedish radio, prepared an
hour-long
documentary on the feed industry practices. The report so horrified
pet
owners that the government imposed an immediate ban on animal
additives in
pet food. From there things developed that have led the Swedish
to have what
is apparently the safest, most disease-free livestock in Europe.
"As for Bits, she is now celebrated as the sacrificial heroine
who saved a
national industry", says the journalist, lamenting only that
in her
lifetime, "she never really got her claim to fame".
I would give you a link directly to the article, but I couldn't
find it
listed among the paper's online stuff. The general link to the
Philadelphia
Inquirer is:
http://web.philly.com/content/inquirer/home/
Maybe if you e-mail you could get a link or have them send a copy
to you.
G'nite now!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: OT to Rufus and any other DCW's -- Rufus, 22:06:51
04/02/01 Mon
I bet you never figured that you would be linking a Philosophy
Board to an
article on a martyred Cat....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss on the Soul from COA... -- The Godfather, 12:58:10
04/03/01 Tue
*Yawn* That's a far way from saying that a soul has no presence
and is
virtually useless..it just seems to say that evil can do good
to please
others but not because it's their nature or really even what they
want to
do..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> By that logic -- Greta, 07:47:14 04/04/01 Wed
no one with a soul can become truly evil. The poor dears just
do evil to
please others; they don't really want to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: By that logic -- The Godfather, 08:42:04
04/04/01 Wed
See I don't believe in that. I believe a soul supplies teh ability
to choose
between right and wrong and that's where society divides..straight
down that
line. I truly believe we are predisposed towards more humane emotions
and
benevolent emotions but that we also possess free will which allows
us to
throw away such nusances as predisposition..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Logic of Souls & free will -- Solitude1056,
10:58:01 04/04/01
Wed
Actually, I took Joss' intentions as a bit backwards from Greta's.
If a soul
predisposes you towards good, and a lack thereof predisposes you
towards
evil, we'd have one pretty boring show. But Joss has made it clear
in the
past few seasons - and came as close to heavy-handing the message
on huge
billboard on Angel as he ever has - that humans are perfectly
capable of
doing evil. As a matter of fact, humans - given that they have
the ability
to be/do good - are even more so on the evil half when they choose
to. Why?
Because of the choice thereof.
I'd say, neither evil nor good is natural for humans, but that
the soul
gives us the choice to pick which we'd prefer. Without a soul,
we'd be
predisposed towards evil, and to do elsewise may be choice but
it's fighting
instinct. And instinct seems to be a larger factor than some of
us realize,
sometimes. To a certain extent, you've lost your free will once
an instinct
looms so large over your daily existence (junkies must get high,
vamps must
eat/kill). Sure, you could suspend that instinct momentarily for
various
reasons if they're important enough to you, but it's going to
be a constant
battle with your demon(s).
A soul, on the other hand, does not present this driving instinctual
need -
and by that token perhaps it is what frees us. Perhaps the universal
joke is
that by having a soul, and free will, means that we're not necessarily
predisposed towards anything, and we can - and will - make or
remake
ourselves as we go along. I don't see vamps or any other addictive
personality managing that, not on a continual long-term basis,
because
they're going to be constantly fighting the instinctual need/demon
inside
them.
On the other hand, my existential background may be rearing its
head
again... oh, the absurdities! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free will --
The Godfather, 11:51:14
04/04/01 Wed
I'll subscribe to that.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free
will, credit to tGf --
Solitude1056, 12:24:15 04/04/01 Wed
Heh, yeah, I figured as much - what you saw was the original version.
I was
going to add a remark to the extent that I was pretty much rephrasing
your
comments with added observations... and then error, error, will
robinson!
the servers went funky for several minutes, and when the dust
settled... the
unedited was what you got, sans credit for your comments that
sparked mine.
Blame Canada!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah yes, the beloved
voy.com server -- Masquerade,
13:09:21 04/04/01 Wed
As long as you don't blame me! I've been sending detailed "bug
reports" to
the PTB's here per everyone's comments on such bugs. The virtual
silence at
masqthephlsphr@yahoo.com is deafening.
Hopefully, they're just too busy fixing bugs to bother with me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> As a Canadian I'd like
to protest:):):):):) -- Rufus,
13:25:07 04/04/01 Wed
We are good suppliers of Cats and Chocolate, the computer problems
can only
be attributed to the PTBs....the little scamps...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> bwahahaha. - OT
-- Solitude1056, 13:38:20 04/04/01
Wed
Figured I'd see who wouldn't be able to pass that one up... now
I know! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free will --
Rufus, 13:54:48 04/04/01
Wed
Maybe Spike has some sort of brain damage due to the shocks from
the
chip:):) If a person has enough damage to the brain I think the
demon that
is the vampire would be stuck in an uncooperative shell. With
Spike the chip
has neutralized his evil drive to an extent and he has had to
adapt to the
presence of the chip. He still kills, but he has adapted and switched
from
human targets to demon ones. He said so himself that he's not
too popular
amongst his former mates anymore. He still wants to slash and
bash, he just
has to be carefull of who he goes after.
The person I'd like to see go through the process of finally choosing
a side
is Lindsey. He was brought up in a home that though poor sounded
like they
were good people. So, will he give into the evil and fear of poverty
and
finally choose evil for good, or, will he give into the instinct
that must
be telling him that people that are willing to sacrifice their
children to
get ahead are not the type of company to keep. It's the traumas
in our life
that sometimes make us change the type of people we are.
JW said that both good and evil were on a spectrum but start at
the middle,
so that leaves alot of room for choice to determine actions. With
vampires
the only variable that can account for the range of choice is
the
memories,and personality, or the philosophical ghost of the host.
In humans,
we can freely choose to be evil. And if you read the paper and
watch the
news you can see that alot of people exercise that choice everyday.
With
people it's greed and lust and fear that can make us go bad. What
would make
a vampire choose good acts but the same emotions. The lack of
a soul only
gives a being the preference for evil, it doesn't guarantee that
every act
the vampire does will be evil.
If a Vampire was all demon I would say that the choice for good
couldn't
exist. The Vampire is the result of an infection of the human
host, so there
is the demon in control, but, it's forced to comply with a human
brain, and
it's memories, and habits from the personality. The Demon corrupts
but
doesn't erase totally the person who once was. Therefore you get
a demon
that is considered the lowest form of demon because of the presence
of the
human it once was. I don't think that the demon can love because
of evil
inside but the love the person who used to be could feel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free
will -- The Godfather, 15:12:46
04/04/01 Wed
See I don't see that the chip has neutralized her will to kill
at all..only
blunted it..he's simply changed targets to ones he can attack..that
doesn't
mean given the opportunity and chance that he wouldn't go after
the ones he
really wants..he's just not stupid enough to want to deal with
a zap to the
brain...
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Logic of Souls & free will --
Marya, 01:05:35 04/05/01
Thu
"On the other hand, my existential background may be rearing
its head
again."
Ya' think?! *g*
who do you want to see back? -- JBone, 21:27:50 04/03/01 Tue
with all the rumors of special guest stars and crossovers and
the like, who
would you like to see come back to BtVS for an appearance or two.
I've heard
the rumors about Riley, Oz, Faith, Joyce, and the cast of Angel
making their
appearances. All of which I would enjoy, but the two that I'd
really like to
see are Robia LaMorte as Ms. Calendar, and Max Perlich as Whistler.
Whistler's appearance on the show was all too brief IMHO. And
Jenny was
always such a lighting rod for the show.
A couple more are Principal Snyder and Ethan Rayne. These were
always fun
characters who were used well. Maybe I should have shut up before
I added
this paragraph, its always the hanging around and adding on that
gets me in
trouble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- OnM, 22:15:54 04/03/01
Tue
The one actress, who if she *doesn't* appear, will really, *really*
leave me
ultrabummed-- Eliza Dushku. She could carry her own series, if
she wanted
it, which apparently she doesn't, but who knows? Angel S3? I'm
currently
thinking about another micro-fanfic to post concerning her (speculative)
fate at the end of this season, but won't post it for another
week or so.
Like your suggestion about Robia LaMorte. Of course, Jenny is
dead, but
since this is the Buffyverse, why should that stop her?
Oz good. See Oz again.
The Mayor. Another dead guy, but see R. LaM above re: so?. Would
like to see
Faith confront his ghost. Would be an interesting conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: who do you want to see back? -- Marya, 00:45:06
04/04/01 Wed
Anyone could come back using wrap-arounds and flashbacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> NOOOOO! NO MISS CALENDAR!!! -- AngelVSAngelus, 07:50:48
04/10/01 Tue
As a comic book fan I am ALL too familiar with the effect that
resurrecting
characters whimsically can have on the integrity of a story. If
a character
is dead they should stay that way unless there is one HELL of
a reason to
bring them back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: NOOOOO! NO MISS CALENDAR!!! -- Solitude1056,
08:23:16 04/10/01
Tue
Alrighty then. I got yer drift - since it seemed appropriate to
"show" Jenny
when Dru bedazzles Giles into giving away the secret so Angelus
could end
the world, etc, etc. But I never really got why it was Jenny specifically
who was chosen as the face of the First Evil. Other than gratuitous
re-visiting by the actress, or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Jenny as agent of First Evil -- purplegrrl,
08:47:14 04/10/01
Tue
I think the reason why Jenny was chosen as the agent of the First
Evil to
entice Angel to kill himself was that hers was the death that
Angel would
feel the most guilty about. Angel/Angelus didn't kill Jenny to
feed on her -
he just killed her. And after he knew that she was working on
a spell to
restore his soul. So if Angel could be guilted into destroying
himself (thus
eliminating his potential as a Warrior for Good), Jenny's face
on the spirit
of the First Evil would be the way to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jenny as agent of First Evil
-- Solitude1056, 11:27:41
04/10/01 Tue
Ah, again I abase myself before The Purple One (no, not the artist
with the
funky symbol, the other one) - thanks for explaining so well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> You are most welcome -- purplegrrl,
13:05:07 04/10/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> bringing characters
back -- JBone, 21:47:22 04/10/01
Tue
After they turned Angel evil in season 2, I was dead set against
bringing
back as a good character. Then I saw the way Joss and Company
did it. Since
then, if I wanted to see a character back on BtVS, I swore I wouldn't
doubt
their ability to do the impossible with established characters,
good or evil
(and Jenny can be either). Here's to the writers of BtVS - "grunt!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- The Godfather, 08:45:47
04/04/01 Wed
Angel, Cord and Wes..and Whis. That's my dream-team guest-star
foursome.
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rats are us -- Brian, 09:28:47 04/04/01 Wed
Ok-Amy's mother having been trapped in a cheerleading award
statue is still in the old destroyed high school when an earthquake
hits and
the statue falls down into the hellmouth, and she escapes, and
returns with
vengence on her mind. In a witchy battle with Willow and Tara,
she is
defeated, and through magic, Amy is deratted, and Mom takes her
place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Lucifer Sponge, 11:55:05
04/04/01 Wed
I'd kill to see Amy come back. Do you hear me? KILL!!!
What I'd like to know is how'd they do it? I mean, would it be
a comical
episode, or an emotional one?
On the one hand, it would be a potentially funny episode. But
on the other
hand... Amy's missed like, 2 to three years of her life. Becoming
human
again and realizing that could be a really traumatic experience.
Although... if they tried to do a really serious episode about
a rat
returned to her human form, I don't think anyone would buy it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Brian, 12:58:25 04/04/01
Wed
And if Amy came back would she still be the same age, two human
years older,
or older by rat years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Marya, 13:03:03 04/04/01
Wed
I've worried about Amy for some time. We haven't seen her little
cage in
Willow's room and no one has mentioned her. I've owned pet rats,
and
although some can live as long as five years, the average life
span is two.
Is it possible Amy has succumbed to old age and the producers
are just
keeping the painful truth from us? Of course there is the matter
of her
mystical nature, so do the rules of normal rat biology apply?
Or can she
continue her rat existance indefinately, until someone can undo
the spell?
When they do, will she have aged as a human or will she be returned
exactly
as she was? And does she know who she is, aware of the dilemna
she put
herself into?
These are the questions that really keep me up at night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- purplegrrl, 14:37:05
04/04/01 Wed
Assuming Amy is still around, I think she is aware of her situation
- a
human consciousness in a rat body. There was an episode (I think
after Oz
left in season 4) where whatever magic Willow was doing caused
Amy to return
to her human form temporarily. She looked pleased that she was
a human
again. But then she became a rat again.
I was kind of thinking about the lifespan of a rat, too. Perhaps
her life as
a rat is magically extended because Amy is not a "real"
rat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Wiccagrrl,
18:01:47 04/04/01 Wed
Well, she was mentioned fairly recently...I think it was in Triangle-
Willow
mentioned having something to try to derat her but that it just
seemed to
make her really smart. So I think Amy's still around. (If she
gets smart
enough, maybe she can hint to Willow how to derat her.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- Marya,
23:52:21 04/04/01 Wed
OK, I had to go check the transcripts on that one, and sure enough
Willow
says what you said she said. Good to know at least Amy's still
with us. Now
sleep I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rats are us -- swyrlz, 13:49:08 04/04/01
Wed
hmmm I bet if that happened, she would run around biting people
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- swyrlz, 13:45:36 04/04/01
Wed
Snyder was fun?
well yes ...if you count the time Buffy insulted him
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: who do you want to see back? -- Luna, 18:51:24
04/04/01 Wed
The Whistler most definitely. I miss him sooooo much. His moments
in
Becoming were so heartbreaking because he knew what was going
to happen and
he didn't want Buffy to get hurt, and you could tell he cared
about Angel A
lot. It's funny how he's never been mentioned by anyone, Though
I doubt
Angel would ever bring him up because it would remind him of his
terrible-*cough* pathetic-*cough* past. And to Buffy he's probably
of the
past.
I want Faith of jail! Yeah she killed a guy, but it was an accident
and I
think her temporary nervous break down is enough of an excuse,
The WC should
get somebody (Angel maybe) to get her into training again.
Oz. Who couldn't love Ozzy-wolfboy, he's infectious. Xander mentioned
him
recently(can't remember which ep) and Will gave him a bizarre
look. Could
there be Willow/Oz tension still brewing under the surface??
Ms. Calender. I only saw the end of season 2 so I never really
got to see
her (as herself you know) And some kind of weird J/G moment would
be
intresting. Hmmmmmm
The Master--Again--I so loved him!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: who do you want to see back? -- JBone, 18:54:45
04/04/01 Wed
well, snyder was pretty funny in Band Candy... what i actually
meant was it
was fun when he was in a scene because someone always had a great
line.
Anyway, I'd like to see Snyder get some post-mortem comeuppance.
But only
for laughs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: who do you want to see back? -- Wiccagrrl, 19:02:22
04/04/01 Wed
Faith, Joyce, The Master, Angel, Jenny Calendar, Cordy (just cause
I wanna
see some good X/C interaction) and Oz.
I know, I'm not asking for much, am I? :)
Vampires' Regrets ? -- Vulpes, 18:26:37 04/04/01 Wed
I just saw the reruns of The Trial and Reunion. After all that
work, poor
Angel did merit some compensation - a roll in the hay with Darla
(Reprise)?
In Reunion, Darla was beating the ___ out of Dru for turning her?
I wished
the writers would have explored Darla's feelings about being turned
again. I
wonder do vampires have any regrets about becaming vampires?
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Vampires' Regrets ? -- Wiccagrrl, 18:55:55 04/04/01
Wed
I think it depends on the vamp and, more importantly, on the circumstances.
I don't think that Spike (or Darla the first time) or Angelus
regreted it.
But they had a certain amount of choice. Angelus turning Dru and
Darla's
second turning are a bit different because they were essentially
forced.
Darla, after her first initial reaction, seemed glad to have been
turned
again. But she lashed out at Dru at first because Dru turned her
against her
will. She clearly tells Angel that she's not sorry he didn't get
to her in
time, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I found it telling... -- Greta, 06:53:53 04/05/01
Thu
That Darla was happy to be a vampire again only after she had
her first
taste of human blood. Then in "Epiphany," she said something
to Angel about
a bitterness where the soul had been (where is that precisely,
slightly to
the left of pancreas?;), but that blood would wash it away.
I want to know more about that space between turning and feeding.
De-rating Amy -- Lucifer Sponge, 19:19:14 04/04/01 Wed
This is a third season issue, but hey... I've just decided to
bring it up
now.
Did anyone notice that in Gingerbread, Willow -didn't- use the
same reversal
spell as Amy did in Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered?
AMY said "Goddess of creatures great and small, I conjure
thee to withdraw.
Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart."
WILLOW said "Diana, Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart.
Goddess of
creatures great and small, I conjure thee to withdraw."
This has been pestering my since the first time Gingerbread aired...
is this
the reason Willow can't cure Amy? Because she can't even get the
incantation
right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: De-rating Amy -- Diana Michelle, 16:02:24 04/05/01 Thu
You mean that she's just got it backwards and threw in an extra
goddess.
Sheesh. Wasn't anyone listening when Amy de-ratted Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: De-rating Amy -- ENDER, 16:31:57 04/05/01 Thu
"AMY said "Goddess of creatures great and small, I conjure
thee to withdraw.
Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart."
WILLOW said "Diana, Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart.
Goddess of
creatures great and small, I conjure thee to withdraw." "
I checked the shooting script to see what it said, and actually
both Amy in
BBB and Willow in Gingerbread use the same incantation- the second
one you
listed.
"Diana, Hecate, I hereby license thee to depart. Goddess
of creatures great
and small - I conjure thee to withdraw!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: De-rating Amy -- Lucifer Sponge, 20:19:29 04/05/01
Thu
That's what the shooting script said, but that isn't the line
they shot.
Sometimes they wind up changing things somewhere between the script
and the
actual shooting of the script. I think that's what happened here,
because I
-memorized- what Amy said in BBB, and was -real- confused when
I heard
Willow say it so differently in Gingerbread.
Native Earth (regarding Reunion) -- Vickie, 19:06:19 04/05/01
Thu
I know that Jos is not using the whole vampire's native earth
tradition. But
watching Reunion (AtS) last evening, I thought it would be really
fun if he
did.
Then Darla's native earth would forever be SuperSoil or
something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Native Earth (regarding Reunion) -- Solitude1056, 19:58:31
04/05/01
Thu
I'm not sure what you mean - "native earth"? Is that
like that particular
dirt is your own home or something? (I don't usually do the vampire
literature routine, which is why it surprised me when I got hooked
on
BtVS... so forgive my cluelessness!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Native Earth (regarding Reunion) -- purplegrrl,
08:34:08 04/06/01
Fri
I think the "native earth" thing started with Stoker's
"Dracula." Basically
it is that vampires must spend their resting/sleeping (i.e., daylight)
hours
in or connected to soil from their country/locale of origin. This
is why
Dracula has numerous boxes/coffins of Transylvanian dirt shipped
to Carfax
Abbey when he moves to England. Dracula sleeps in these dirt-filled
coffins.
(Which ultimately leads to his downfall, as Dr. Van Helsing & crew
are able
to track Dracula via his trail of dirt-filled coffins in various
locations
around London.) I think the sleeping on native soil thing has
something to
do with re-newing a vampire's undead existence.
However, since "Dracula" not all vampires have been
shown needing to sleep
on their native soil. Others have been shown to only need a sample
of their
native soil kept close to them (I think Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's
St. Germain
does this).
Joss chose to not require his vampires to sleep in coffins like
many of
their literary predecessors. They also don't require their "native
soil." I
think what Angel meant when he said that Drusilla was a traditionalist
and
what Drusilla was doing by burying Darla in the nursery planter
was burying
the body so the vampire could rise from the grave, not that Darla
had be
connected to her "native soil" in some other way. (Which
could beg the
question, where is Darla's native soil - Virginia where she was
originally
human and first vamped, or L.A. where she was magically reborn
as a human
and then re-vamped.)
Buffy and Dawn relationship -- Jessica, 14:11:27 04/06/01 Fri
I love the interactions between Buffy and Dawn and since Buffy's
mom is dead
Dawn is technically the only close family that Buffy as. This
season it was
interesting to see Buffy with a sister because it was a new kind
of
relationship and I did like seen how she was jealous of the relations
Dawn
had with Joyce. Now Buffy will have to be a parent to Dawn so
new
responsabilities and new stories, plus Dawn will keep Buffy grounded
and
prevent Buffy from having a death wish now that her mother is
dead since she
as to take care of her. I just hope that Dawn will be there for
the next
season and many more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Dawn relationship -- FanMan, 14:59:12 04/06/01
Fri
Remember "listening To Fear"?
Joyce could see that Dawn wasn't "real"
But she told Buffy that Dawn still felt like a daughter.
Joyce asked Buffy to be like a mother to Dawn if she died.
Buffy was distruaght over her mothers'illness and didn't
want to think about Joyce dead.
I think she will remember that conversation in one of the
episodes after THE BODY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Dawn relationship -- Jessica, 18:45:57
04/06/01 Fri
I think so to, Dawn will be the main reason Buffy has to go on
because she
promised her mother that she would take care of Dawn. I think
she might
remember that conversation when her father comes to town to take
Dawn.
Who I would like to see back -- VanMoodySenior, 15:35:23 04/06/01
Fri
I wanted to start my own thread b/c it seems when you are on the
bottom of
the pile nobody gives any interaction. I would like to see Angel's
father
again. There would have to be some way Angel is contacted or contacts
him,
and then they can get some things out in the open. I was watching
the
prodigal last night, and Wesley was talking to Angel about not
getting
involved with Kate's Dad because he knew that what he was doing
was illegal.
Angel says something very interesting to him, "Wesley sometimes
the price we
pay for the choice we make is not commesorate to the offense".
I think what
Angel was talking about was his choice to leave home. Since he
left he
became a vampire who killed and tortured people, regained his
soul and
wallowed for 100 yrs, lost his soul again, went to hell for a
100 or so Hell
years, and now is getting kicked around by demons night after
night.
I would like to see Angel and his Dad patch things up. Darla said
he would
never approve of him in this life or the next, but what if Angel's
dad knew
that he was a warrior for good? Could he then get some type of
approval from
his father he never got when he was alive? I think it would be
a good show
and very touching. Angel could deal with issues he has. Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who I would like to see back-Why not -- FanMan, 16:48:33
04/06/01 Fri
That would be cool.
I think that the only way that would be realistic would be using
a mediam,
or a seance.
They could tie it in with Epyphany,by having Angel say that part
of his new
perpective on life includes selfanalasyss of himself and what
about his past
makes him the way he is.
Another way would be seeing Buffy dealing with her mother's
death, and all the flashbacks/regrets that accompany it.
This could make Angel think about his relationship with his own
parents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who I would like to see back -- Rufus, 17:37:33 04/06/01
Fri
Liams relationship with his father was at a stalemate, neither
man was going
to budge. If Angel was able to meet his father again what difference
would a
few hundred years make? For one, Angel has had a chance to grow
up. He now
thinks more of others than just himself. His circumstances are
so different
now that I imagine he would be able to see what time he wasted
battling with
his father. I'm sure his dad would be able to hit a few hot buttons,
but,
Angel is different, the times are different. One fact that wouldn't
change
would be that the demon in Angel killed his whole family, it would
be a very
sad meeting. I do wonder if Angel would see his father much differently
after so long being an unpleasant memory? And how would the reality
of
murder taint the meeting? Could or would there be understanding
and
forgiveness by both parties?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Who I would like to see back -- FanMan, 18:27:03
04/06/01 Fri
Good point Rufus.
Angel meeting his father now would be very auckward.
Liam's father remembering being murdered by his own son.
That would be hard to orgive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Who I would like to see back -- Unsung Hero,
17:17:13 04/07/01
Sat
However, according to most sources on the idea of heaven, peace
is achieved
by people who go there. Traditionally, transcending into Heaven
comes hand
in hand with acceptance and forgivness, and by those standards,
Liam's
Father probably has already forgiven him, and it very proud of
the work
Angel is doing in LA.
the real big bad -- JBone, 22:35:17 04/06/01 Fri
By my own personal estimate, there is only one season where the
obvious big
bad turns out to be the big bad for the season. I speak of, for
example, the
master of season 1. Spike and Dru looked liked the big evil for
season 2,
but that turned out to be Angel. Season 3 came back to the middle
a little
with the tipped off Mayor, but a brassed off slayer in Faith.
Quatro has the
Initiative and Prof. Walsh being upstaged by the demon-cyborg
Adam.
I have no spoilers, nor would I want any to trespass this thread.
As far as
I'm concerned, spoilers ruin the experience. My point being....
who will
ultimately be the big evil for the year? The past seasons just
about rule
out the obvious (meaning Glory). If you don't have any spoilers
but great
speculation. I can't help but believe that Faith would have something
positive to do with the finale. That whole 7-3-0 speech just was
too
pointed. Since I can't accept Glory as the "big evil",
I could be convinced
of many other things. There are only 6 episodes left in the season.
And I am
dying to view it.
God, I love this show. I've been thinking too much. Love that
soccer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the real big bad -- Wiccagrrl, 23:39:28 04/06/01 Fri
There has usually been a switch, although this year we've passed
the point
where the switch usually occurs (during Feb Sweeps, around the
13th or 14th
ep)I think it's possible that Glory/Ben/the Third Hellgod (who
we haven't
seen yet) will turn out to be the big bad this year. The only
other real
possibilities I see are Spike (who had a serious change in his
circumstances
recently) or possibly Anya (getting her powers back) but I would
have
thought that would have happenned a bit earlier in the season
if they were
gonna go that direction.
They've done the big switch pretty regularly, it would almost
be a bigger
shock if Glory did turn out to be the real threat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the real big bad -- Traveler, 01:21:36 04/07/01
Sat
Call it a hunch, but I really doubt that it will be Spike. Firstly,
I don't
think people can quite see him in that role anymore. Secondly,
he still
seems to have some not completely malignant fixation on Buffy.
sort of small spoiler below
.
.
.
The tvguide.com preview of the next Buffy mentions that Spike
will help Dawn
try to resurrect Joyce through black magic. (Although how he can
help her do
THAT is anybody's guess)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the real big bad -- Wiccagrrl, 10:51:29
04/07/01 Sat
I also tend to doubt it'll be Spike, but I could easily see this
obsession
of his on the slayer turning very ugly. Love and Hate can be very
closely
related, and in this case possibly more so than usual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Don't be too surprised.... -- Unsung Hero,
14:45:28 04/07/01 Sat
I wouldn't rule Spike out. As far as being "The Real Big
Bad" this season, I
wouldn't say it's Spike(Glory is way more dangerous just by exsisting,
seeing as how he's just a Vampire), but don't be surprised if
Spike turns
out to simply be the same thing he always was: A killer.
I don't really want to get into Spike redemption stuff....I'm
all for seeing
Spike a good guy.....I'm just saying don't be too shocked if it
happens.
Remember the Fox and Scorpion parable: A Fox reluctantly agrees
to carry a
Scorpion across a river, and half way across the Scorpion stings
him. The
Fox asks: "Why did you do that? Now we'll both die."
and the scorpion
replied
"It's my nature"
Nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the real big bad -- Ramo, 13:23:01 04/07/01 Sat
I agree with you that though it seems Glory/ the Demi-gods appear
to be the
problem of the season, Spike and possibly Anya might also pose
a threat.
Despite seeing Spike very sensetive and human-like this season,
I would
think he's starting to give up on Buffy. The episode "Crush"
felt like a
turning point, and now he seems to be building the Buffy Bot,
which probably
won't turn out well.
Anya--well I think she's having some identity issues. After Joyce's
death,
she must be scared of dying herself and might consider going back
to the
path of immortality.
I also think that every season has its theme, last season's theme
being
freedom (first year of college). This year's theme is Buffy's
identity, as a
slayer. Buffy's been trying to discover more about her slayer's
powers this
season through Dracula, Spike, and the end of last season's first
slayer. I
think the theme of slayer identity will be stronger than any other
theme
from the other seasons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the real big bad -- Max, 23:57:06 04/07/01 Sat
If Faith does return, I believe it will be to Angel, not to Buffy
(she has
worn out her welcome in Sunnydale).
Perhaps she can give Angel the courage to do what needs to be
done. Put
things back into the proper perspective.
Angel has shown he that she can be one of the good people. She
does have
within her the ability to do good. Now she must show Angel how
he can
fullfill his destiny.
I think she can play the same role of mentor for Angel as Madeline
played
for Nikita. Show him that there are more important things at stake
then
personal principles. Angel is so focused on "saving his own
soul" he forgot
about others and the need to save humanity as a whole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the real big bad -- Liz, 00:50:01 04/08/01 Sun
Madeline thought herself a bad person after accidentially killing
her
sister. But somewhere along the way she found out that she could
be a force
of good in the world.
Faith as well, through the help of Angel, has now realized she
can be on the
good side.
I think you are correct about Faith assisting Angel now that he
has lost
focus due to Holland's mind games. She can show Angel that sometimes
to be
kind you must be cruel.
I would love to see her pitted against Lindsey. Somehow, I think
if that
happens, it wouldn't be a hand he would have to worry about losing.
Buffy telling her father about the slayer thing -- Jessica, 18:49:42
04/06/01 Fri
I wonder if Buffy will tell her father that she is the slayer
and that Dawn
is the key to make him reconsider taking Dawn away. Legally he
would get
custody of Dawn, maybe that's what will help change is mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy telling her father about the slayer thing -- Wiccagrrl,
20:06:15 04/06/01 Fri
She'd have to have some serious proof, or else he's more likely
to think
she's gone over the edge after her mom's death and fight even
harder to get
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy telling her father about the slayer thing
-- FanMan,
20:21:59 04/06/01 Fri
Also there is not enough info on Buffy's father to say how he
would react to
anything supernateral.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy telling her father about the slayer
thing -- imCJfatone,
22:15:00 04/06/01 Fri
He lives in LA. Refer to the IWRY ep. Shouldn't he know about
Supernatural
stuff.
LOL, I mean if your in the buffyverse you should know, you know.
Like how
you know the sky is blue.
No seriously now.
B is in a state of "wiggieness" and I don't think telling
her father about
her being the choosen one will help in her current situation.
I just think
it would add on to the big bag of bricks B is carrying on her
back.
It sucks, I hate the fatalism. You know it's like hero = fatalism..
Whats
that about.
Bai.
Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc. -- imcjfatone,
23:08:18
04/06/01 Fri
QUINTON TRAVERS: Glory isn't a demon.
BUFFY: What is she?
TRAVERS: She's a god.
GILES: ... Glory and two of her fellow hellgods ruled over ...
one of the
more seriously unpleasant demon dimensions.
BUFFY: Okay, so, we know where Glory's from. What do we know about
her? You
know, she's tough, yeah, but, but no bolts of lightning, no blasts
of fire,
shouldn't a God be able to do that kind of stuff?
GILES: Uh, usually, yes, but um, being in human form must be severely
limiting her powers. All we have to worry about right now is she's
immortal,
invulnerable, and insane.
XANDER: A crazy hellgod? And the fun just keeps on leaving.
GILES: From what I've been able to gather, her living in this
world is ...
seriously affecting her mental state as well. She's only being
able to keep
her mind intact by, uh, extracting energy from us. Well, from,
from the
human brain.
So. Is she a God, Godling, Demigod, Diva or Avatar, etc.???
The term they use in the BU is 'Hellgod.' Let's break it down.
Someone
please :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc. -- Wiccagrrl,
23:33:50
04/06/01 Fri
Well, the implication seems to be that in her natural state, she's
a
full-blown god (with a small g as opposed to the Christian "GOD")
Even now, with her powers severly limited, she's still immortal
and
invulnerable. So a case could be made that she's still a god,
just in human
form. Demigod usually means "half-god", as in one parent
god, the other
human. That doesn't seem to apply. And people have discussed the
term Avatar
far better than I could, so I'll let them tackle that one, but
it doesn't
seem the best description of Glory's condition to me.
There is so much we don't know about Glory- what she does and
where she goes
when Ben is around, what the key does, if she'll regain her powers
when/if
she gets the key. So I think a lot of those answers (which we'll
hopefully
get in the next few eps) will help clarify what Glory really is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc.
-- Rufus, 23:49:30
04/06/01 Fri
If Glory is a god (small g)what is more powerful than a god? Did
the demons
from her dimension get fed up with worshipping and decided to
rid themselves
of that obligation? If so, then why send her here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars
etc. -- Wiccagrrl,
00:04:25 04/07/01 Sat
Or she or one of her fellow hellgods did something that backfired
and led to
her current situation. She (they?) may be powerful but not necessarilly
infallible. She certainly isn't all-knowing, at least not in this
world.
(She's seen Dawn twice and still doesn't seem to have a clue that
this is
her key)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars
etc. -- imcjfatone,
00:15:52 04/07/01 Sat
"what is more powerful than a god? "
The higher ranking ones.
The ones that deal with issues of divine foreknowledge, omniscience,
and
timelessness. Somewhat like the Trandtional Christian God. Ya
know.
Glory appears to be low class god material. Word. Like upper class-
middle
class-low class. She falls in low class. When I mean class I'm
talkin' power
based.
I mean if she can get to a point of being in her god form aka
not human form
with the limitations. Why not stick with that and use your power
to the
maximum potential and flip sunnydale upside down to get the key.
Rather then
messin' around with lower beings. I mean come on even the Oracels
didn't do
that. And they weren't gods.
Glory should change her tactics, fooling around with mortals thats
so low.
LOL.
But I guess she can only stay in Buffy's reality in human form.
Couldn't she
just use her god inherent abilities in her other reality when
in full-god
form to effect Buffy's reality?
I'm assuming when in this full-god form. She has certian limitations
as
well. Yes, she can cause earthquakes and bolts of lightning yada
yada. But I
guess she really can't get the key that way since its in Buffy's
reality. Or
she could just be choosing to do it this way for the kicks. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas,
Avatars etc. -- Unsung
Hero, 14:37:57 04/07/01 Sat
My theory is that since the key was sent to Earth(mortal realms),
Glory had
to go there. Now, way back in Season 3 Anya said that we had never
seen pure
demons before until The Mayor changed. Perhaps reality isn't stable
enough
for a true god like being to just walk around. There have to be
rules that
keep the world from exploding, a sense of balance(hence the Powers
that Be
and the warriors) that keeps her from being big god-like being.
In this case, Glory and Ben are gods, but not neccesarily Gods.
Isn't it
possible that "god" with a small "G" could
be a status symbol, like King or
Queen? They rule a certain dimension, but aren't neccesarily Omnipotent
in
any way. They have said that this dimension is pretty damned nasty,
but it's
not "Hell" exactly, as in the place where bad people
go after death. It
could be all talk. I mean, we know they're older than written
word, so
perhaps they just got here first? I mean, you can raise children
to believe
anything as long as all the pieces fit. Glory,Ben and this third
hellgod
could have started thier hell dimension, gathered demons and said
"Oh,and
we're gods. Check this out..." and burnt things to a crisp,
tortured people
and generally made themselves look like bad mama jammas, and no
one's going
to challenge that they're not gods.
I believe it's simply a case of a powerful creature that loses
it's source
of power, or a weapon of some kind, and has to depower itself
as part of a
basic metaphysic law to come after it, forcing it to take on a
human form
that limits it's abilities. We're not talking satan or anything
like that,
just a very powerful force that claims god-hood that needs "The
Key", and
has run up against a common Vampire Slayer, who is going to prove
a little
more than they can handle.
That's all rather scatterbrained, but I think it might make sense.
:-)
nate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas,
Avatars etc. -- OnM,
15:12:58 04/07/01 Sat
I've posted about some of this stuff before, but a quick summary
of my
thoughts, and then an observation or two:
godhood = ability to manipulate matter/energy by force of will/mind
alone.
Could be technologically or metaphysically based.
It logically follows from the above that you could manipulate
your own
personal matter/energy (i.e. your body or form) to effectively
achieve
immortality.
An 'advanced' god might also have the ability to manipulate specetime,
which
could allow for prescience or the ability to exist corporeally
in higher
dimensions than the 3 or 4 we occupy.
If a god conventionally exists in higher dimensions, it may require
giving
up some abilities to exist corporeally in lower dimensional states.
First
think of describing a cube to someone who only exists in two dimensions.
Now
think of the cube actually *existing* in two dimensions, and you
see the
dilemma. This leads to the following theories:
1 > Glory is analagous to a hypercube projected into 3D (cubical)
spacetime.
2 > The brainsuck is not extracting 'sanity', but is refreshing
the 'pattern
buffer' Glory needs to exist as a 3D manifestaton in our reality.
3 > If the pattern degrades too far before refreshing, an alternate/previous
pattern emerges (Ben?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings,
Divas, Avatars etc. --
Virgill Reality, 12:02:27 04/09/01 Mon
A lot of complicated theology comes into play when pondering Glory's
true
nature. Travers implied a distinction between demon and god, but
how exactly
do the two differ when dealing with powerful beings? Throughout
the series,
demons have been worshipped as much as gods/goddesses, so how
does this not
give them godhood? If the definition of a god is a being able
to influence
this reality, then by this demons would also be gods as they have
given
power to some of the show's villains.
In the Hindu Pantheon, there are over 3000 "gods" and
"goddesses" but in
truth there is only one Supreme God and all other powers answer
to the One.
This may also be the way it works in the Buffyverse, woho knows?
In
Christian theology, some argue satan to be a god, but he still
has his
limitations.
There was also some implication in the Angel episode "I've
Got You Under My
Skin" that demons in Buffy's continuity answer to satan,
so it may be that
in the buffyverse there are "head powers" if you will,
for both the forces
of Good and the forces of darkness.
Even if Glory answers to neither Power, she is still a rebel,
and may still
be described as "fallen." By this reasoning, I think
it's logical to treat
Glory as one of the more highly powerful demons, rather than a
god.
Virgill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings,
Divas, Avatars etc. --
purplegrrl, 08:37:39 04/10/01 Tue
Not that I necessarily think that computer analogies are the answer
to
everything, but this makes a certain amount of sense.
Isn't there a sci-fi short story about a two-dimensional creature
who
witnesses a three-dimensional creature/object passing through
his
two-dimensional universe? If a cube intersects with a two-dimensional
plane
with its side, the cube will appear to be an unchanging square.
However, if
the cube intersects the plane with an edge or corner, it will
appear to be
constantly changing. Or the two-dimensional creature may think
that what it
sees of the cube is a series of unrelated creatures or events.
If a creature
of four dimensions moves through our three-dimensional world,
we can only
observe it and explain it in terms of three dimensions. This could
explain
Glory, Ben, and a third hellgod to be named later. When Glory
changes into
Ben, and vice versa, we may be experiencing a different portion
of the
four-dimensional object that is the hellgod triumverate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very cool analogy, pg!
-- Masquerade, 10:31:16 04/10/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gods, Demi-Gods, Godlings, Divas, Avatars etc.
-- Solitude1056,
06:53:36 04/08/01 Sun
Wiccagrl said:
Avatar ... doesn't seem the best description of Glory's condition
to me.
I'm not sure, but I think I disagree! Can't be certai