August 2002 Archives - Page 5
Dawn of a New Buffy? (National Post Article - possible spoilers?!) -- RabidHarpy, 06:43:09 08/08/02 Thu
Source: National Post, Toronto
Date: Thursday August 8, 2002
Author: Tara Ariano
Dawn of a New Buffy?
In every generation, there is a chosen one - or, if not a chosen one, the chosen one's "sister" who is actually otherworldly green energy in human form. This is the premise that producers of the cult hit TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer will have to work with if Sarah Michelle Gellar - who plays the show's titular heroine - makes good on the hints she's been dropping about leaving the show. Gellar's contract ends at the end of the show's upcoming seventh season, and in light o the box-office success of Gellar's latest movie, Scooby-Doo - which has grossed more than US$100-million so far - Gellar is seriously considering leaving Buffy.
Marti Noxon, the show's executive producer, has said it would be hard to continue with the show in the absence of its eponymous character, but since 20th Century Fox - which produces the series - may want to attempt it anyway, the show's writers are considering the possibility of making Buffy's sister Dawn the new vampire slayer.
As Buffy fans know, this eventuality would contradict the show's mythology, according to which the Slayer is chosen by a magic from which she also derives her slaying powers. But if trashing what has become a revered sci-fi institution is what it takes to bring the world Scooby-Two, it's all worth it, right? Right? Hello?
[>Huh! Could be interesting. -- HonorH, 12:42:50 08/08/02 Thu
I'm not going to jump on this one, as I really don't think it's going to happen (though ME has surprised me repeatedly in the past), but it could be interesting. They'd need to dig deeper into Dawn's character apart from Buffy in order to make it work. Of course, Buffy's reaction alone could be worth the price of admission, especially if the Watchers dropped in and tried to get *their* grubby mitts on Dawn. No way, British people.
"As Buffy fans know, this eventuality would contradict the show's mythology, according to which the Slayer is chosen by a magic from which she also derives her slaying powers. But if trashing what has become a revered sci-fi institution is what it takes to bring the world Scooby-Two, it's all worth it, right? Right? Hello?"
Really not getting this objection. Why would Dawn getting Chosen "trash" the show's mythology? She's a real human--that's established--and has Buffy's DNA. It's entirely possible Slayerhood *could* run along genetic lines in some cases; we just haven't heard of them. And if you want to get technical, the Choosing of another Slayer after Buffy's first death could be considered "trashing" the mythology as well.
Anyway, I'd be up for watching this one. If it happens. Which I doubt.
[>Don't belive Everything you Read... -- Amber, 00:58:50 08/09/02 Fri
If you still have it could you post the web link for this article. I searched the National Post Site (going back through 14 days worth of headlines) and couldn't find this article, much less any article on Buffy/SMG/or Michelle T.
As someone with three years experience as a reporter I'm a little suspicious about whether or not this is an actual National Post story. The last paragraph just sounds too biased, particularly "But if trashing what has become a revered sci-fi institution is what it takes to bring the world Scooby-Two, it's all worth it, right? Right? Hello?"
I really can't imagine an editor at a major newspaper allowing a line like that to be printed in a news article, which this is supposed to be. It's possible it would be printed in an editorial or a well-known reporter's column, but then the actual information (Dawn becoming a slayer) would be called into question since editorial pieces don't always have all the facts straight.
[> [>Re: Don't belive Everything you Read... -- RabidHarpy, 10:59:22 08/09/02 Fri
Actually, I re-typed that article word-for-word myself from the National Post newspaper we get sent to our office each morning - the date I posted was the date on the paper.
Sorry, I can't tell you much more than that I was holding the actual hard-copy in my hand and what I wrote is exactly what the article said.
Hope that helps...
[> [>Re: Don't belive Everything you Read... -- broderik, 12:09:42 08/10/02 Sat
Wow, I actually have insight into something for once! I feel able to post freely!
Tara Ariano writes a bi-weekly (Monday and Thursday) entertainment column for the Post. You can read the above article here (it's at the bottom of the page, buried under the important important nsync, britney, and american idol news):
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=CB077D27-E872-4503-9E27-EA92B6940082
Angel returns on... -- Deeva, 08:17:09 08/08/02 Thu
Sunday, Oct. 6, 2002, 9 p.m.
This is one week after the "Alias" and "Law & Order: CI" season premieres and a good month before the "Malcolm in the Middle" Nov. 3 premiere.
I'm guessing, however, that Oct. 6 will be the night CBS premieres "Back to the Batcave," its TV movie about the old "Batman" TV series.
Willow! I need service!
That is according to Herc at Aint it Cool.com
[>Wah! -- Masq, 08:55:21 08/08/02 Thu
Right in the middle of my European vacation! I wanted at least one ep before then! Well, time to get the vcr's cranking!
[> [>You, too, Masq? I'm missing BtVS 7.4 and 7.5, and Angel 5.2 & 5.3 -- cjl, 09:11:00 08/08/02 Thu
I'm missing the Vegas episode. NOT HAPPY!
Well, I'll have my minions man the videotape machines. No great crisis...
(cold sweats)
But I'm seeing my godson in Vienna, the vineyards in Slovenia, the steam baths in Budapest and the old city in Prague. That should district me from my Buffy withdrawal. (Mostly.)
[> [> [>Prague -- Maroon Lagoon, 13:21:39 08/08/02 Thu
Hmmmm, Gypsies, Gothic architecture, brooding cathedrals, dark cobblestone alleys, ancient cemetaries, townspeople with creepy accents, fog, a country shrouded in myth and legend.... Why would any of this make you think of VAMPIRES?
Google tells me that a few miles outside Prague in Celákovice there is the only Czech cemetery exclusively for (those who were thought to be) vampires from the 10-11th century. They've even dug up corpses, some with stakes through their hearts, some decapitated.
Forget about any of the cultural or historical significance of Prague, you'll probably just be thinking, "Oh, man! This is where Spike and Dru got attacked by the angry mob before coming to Sunnydale!"
TTFN
[> [> [> [>I can see myself standing in the cemetary now... -- cjl, 13:50:42 08/08/02 Thu
CJL: Beautiful. And eerie...
CELAKOVICE NATIVE: You don't know the half of it. Local legend has it there were REAL vampires here, maybe six or seven years ago.
CJL: Oh come on. You're kidding.
CN: Why would I kid? I'm not saying I believe in this nonsense, but they WERE kind of strange...a dark-haired girl with a bad cockney accent, and the man sort of looked like...the rock star with the blonde hair...I can't remember the name right now...
CJL (growing queasy): Uh...Billy Idol?
CN: Yes! Exactly! Vampires (laughs)...amazing what people believe, even in this day and age.
CJL (looks around nervously): Getting kind of dark. When's the next bus back to Prague?
CN: Maybe another 45 minutes. Why?
CJL: No reason. Listen, could we take a look at the town church again? Maybe examine the altar a little more closely?
CN: You're really into the church architecture. I thought you were Jewish?
CJL: Yeah, well...you kind of feel safe on holy ground, no matter what the religion, right?
CN: I suppose.
[The two men start to walk toward the cemetary gate, when CJL notices something placed on the side of one of the gravestones. It's a doll. With its head torn off. CJL picks up the pace, and they're gone just before sunset.
Twenty minutes later. A figure walks over to the gravestone and picks up the doll.]
DRUSILLA: Bad cockney accent, indeed. (Smooths out doll's dress) Mummy will have to teach the bad man a lesson, won't she, sweetie?
[> [> [> [> [>Origin of tombstones? -- Maroon Lagoon, 17:15:08 08/08/02 Thu
While googling for Czech folklore about vampires, I found one mention* that the reason tombstones are placed above the body's head is to prevent the body from sitting up and escaping the grave if it happens to be reanimated by a returning spirit.
Has anyone heard of this? I couldn't find anything else about the origins or history of tombstones.
Surely there are some folklore experts lurking about. I'm afraid search engines are the extent of my scholarliness.
*Vampire: The Complete Guide to the World of the Undead
by Manuela D Mascetti
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Origin of tombstones? (Minor spoiler) -- Darby, 06:01:35 08/09/02 Fri
I had heard that from a source I would NOT consider impeccable - I think it was an A&E special on the undead - but consider that they were called headstones rather than tombstones. It kinda sounds like one of those ideas, reasonable but totally false, someone has that spreads and becomes "common knowledge."
Anyone up for some research? I hear they've rebuilt the library...
And way off-topic, anyone who is entertaining by those "reasonable but totally false" stories should try
http://www.word-detective.com/
for similar treatment of word origins.
Darby
[> [> [> [> [>ROFLMAO! Brilliant, cjl! -- Rob, 17:30:31 08/08/02 Thu
...Although I gotta agree with Dru (doncha kinda have to? lol)...I like her cockney accent. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>Re: I can see myself standing in the cemetary now...cute, cjl. -- aliera, 04:11:30 08/09/02 Fri
And the trip sound great, enjoy.
[> [> [> [> [> [>If I have some free time, I might actually go to Celakovice and check it out... -- cjl, 06:51:31 08/09/02 Fri
I promise to bring photographs for the board.
(And if you don't see me in any of the photographs, go to my apartment, stakes at the ready--because the CJL who comes back from Europe [dramatic pause] won't be me...)
[> [> [>Something spoilery in above, but in a vague way so I can't tell what it's a spoiler for -- Masq, 13:45:13 08/08/02 Thu
[> [>Masq, say 3 times, 'My minion, the Angel fanatic, has a vcr!' and you'll feel all better! :) -- zargon, 09:06:43 08/09/02 Fri
[> [> [>Are you my minion? I have minions! -- Masq, 14:39:40 08/09/02 Fri
Now I see Buffy doubling over with laughter while Riley cracks a contagious grin.
"Masq has minions!" hee hee hee hee heee hee hee
[> [> [> [>Masq has minions? I thought Masq was my minion! -- Dead Soul, 15:13:04 08/09/02 Fri
With the numbers of FF rewrites I've inflicted on her - minions have it easy!
I owe you big time, Masq!
Dead Soul
[> [> [> [>Re: Are you my minion? I have minions! -- zargon, 10:10:47 08/10/02 Sat
Of course you do, Masq! Well, one anyway....and us minions do important stuff too (besides the watching of the AtS eps for you becuase you don't have the time...) like provide you the laugh of the day! :)
Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Purple Tulip, 08:36:16 08/08/02 Thu
Ok, this is what I have been wondering since reading these 'will Buffy continue without Buffy' posts: how could they plausibly do this? I mean, if you really think about it, how could they feasably get rid of Buffy and still have Dawn? What would the circumstances have to be for Buffy to leave her sister? She would never leave Dawn all alone- even if she did have Spike and Xander and whoever else there watching over her. The way I see it, the only way they could actually do this would be to kill Buffy - for good this time. Maybe she could die all heroic again---what with the saving the world and her green energied, keyed-up sister. Death would be the only way that she would leave Dawn for good. Then I could see them trying to continue the show without her and with Dawn as the title role. But then they would have to change the title wouldn't they? And there have already been many tired posts about the possible new title, so I won't even go into that now. And if they kill her off, then how could she come back and make those cameo appearances that they would obviously want?
I think that if SMG does decide to leave the show after this season, and ME decides to keep going without her, they are really going to have their work cut out for them---not offending, alienating and pissing off their viewers, keeping up ratings, and still mystifying nay-saying critics. Would you all continue to watch if we were suddenly presented with "Dawn the Vampire Slayer: the new Buffyless Buffy"?
[>"Sunnydale" - A Nice Place to Visit...But It's Hell to Live There -- cjl, 09:05:04 08/08/02 Thu
[Above is an ad for the spinoff, circa Aug. 2003. No charge to Fox.]
In traditional fantasy and science fiction, heroes often disappear into the mists, leaving loved ones behind, then miraculously reappear to provide wisdom and/or additional firepower, then vanish all over again. One example that comes to mind is Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, wherein the hero of the first five books, Corwin of Amber, disappears after saving the Golden City and the Courts of Chaos, and only makes cameo appearances in the next five books, giving occasional advice to his son, Merlin. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Joss follows Zelazny's method of passing the torch.)
If Fox wants to continue the franchise without SMG, I don't see why we shouldn't give Joss a chance to take his best shot. But please...if Sarah's not there, don't call it BUFFY.
[>Re: Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Robert, 15:05:18 08/08/02 Thu
>> "Would you all continue to watch if we were suddenly presented with "Dawn the Vampire Slayer: the new Buffyless Buffy"?
Hell yes!
I don't watch BtVS just for Buffy, though she is my most favored character. I watch BtVS and AtS because of the story telling. My expectation is that the quality story telling will continue even if the show loses its star actress. As long as the quality of the stories continues to be high, I will continue to watch. If Ms Trachtenberg is given a bigger (or even dominant) role in the show, I could grow just as fond of Dawn. Regardless, it will be difficult to see Ms Geller leave, because her acting skills are such a good fit for the show.
Having written all this, my hope is that Ms Geller makes a clean break from the show, when she leaves. I feel that a portion of the blame for the shameful decline of "The X-Files" rests with the way Mr. Duchovny left the show. Even to the end, the viewing public never really knew whether he was in or out. I think this uncertainty was at least a partial cause for decline in the story telling. It certainly put some strange constraints upon the stories Chris Carter could tell.
[> [>Re: Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Marginal Drifter, 15:25:00 08/08/02 Thu
Yeah, I'll continue watching Buffy for ever and ever and then when it's cancelled I'll watch repeats and vids over and over and quote lines to my grandkids, for better or for worse til death (or being cancelled, whichever comes first) does us part. Well, at least that's how I feel this week.
I won't lie, keeping the series going on for years and years looks dodgy ( I prefer programs that quit while they're ahead, and it would break my heart to see Buffy go the way of the Simpsons), keeping it going without SMG looks dodgy, and seeing Dawn as the Slayer definitely looks dodgy. But then, basing a show on a cheerleader-esque blonde slaying vampires in her spare time looks dodgy. These are talented and imaginative people working on this show, and I feel that if anyone can take keeping a show going after it's central character has left and make it work, it's them.
[>Hey, I've got an idea! -- HonorH, 15:14:31 08/08/02 Thu
Do a "Brats" series! Dawn and Connor share the spotlight, with Spike as resident vampire & British person, then toss in an original character or so and let 'er rip! Or better yet, from my perspective, throw in the Spirit of Tara as their guide. Works for me!
Seriously, I could get into a Dawn series, as I've always liked the girl. They'd have to delve deeper into Dawn's character as separate from Buffy, of course, but MT has the acting chops to make it work.
[>Re: Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Amber, 00:37:33 08/09/02 Fri
I don't think we should be too quick to assume that Buffy would be leaving Dawn. If Dawn is still a "key" that opens mystical doors, then perhaps Dawn would have to leave Sunnydale to fulfill her mission (whatever it is). Buffy has spent the last six years learning about the importance of fulfilling ones duty, etc.
If it was necessary she'd probably let Dawn go (for the sake of good, and being a champion and all the other good vs. evil themes Joss likes to use.)
Perhaps Buffy would be left in Sunnydale to continue the battle on the hellmouth with a few of her Scoobies, meanwhile we the viewers would follow Dawn on her journey in a new show that may, or may not, include members of the current Scooby Gang.
That's my theory, but I'd certainly cast a vote in favour of a Conner and Dawn centered spin-off.
[>What's Dawn done to deserve *that*? -- KdS, 04:56:49 08/09/02 Fri
OK, I wouldn't mind Dawn doing something mystical in the future as The Key, but I really hate the idea of Dawn becoming the Slayer. It seems to undercut the whole last six years and turn the Slayer position into some sort of Golden Ticket to the chocolate factory. If you look at it, BtVS and AtS have always portrayed superhuman powers as a burden rather than a gift (except recently with Cordy, and I'm still hoping for some really nasty downside to turn up in S4).
No sane individual (OK, maybe that might not include Dawn) would take the position on voluntarily, and I can't imagine Buffy allowing, let alone causing, it to happen to her sister. Even with a Scooby Gang, a Slayer's life is pretty much the definition of "nasty, brutish and short" and I've always hoped that the ending would see Dawn as being the one to get all the way out - of Sunnydale, of the Hellmouth, of fighting for your life every other week.
GLORIOUS News re: casting, season 7 (one spoiler for casting; one minor spoiler re: Anya) -- Rob, 09:30:53 08/08/02 Thu
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon told a crowd at Comic-Con International in San Diego that Eliza Dushku had finally found time in her schedule to reprise the role of Faith next year, the Ain't It Cool News Web site reported."
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! I'm doing the Snoopy Dance and the Dance of Numfar as we speak!
"Whedon also reportedly said that Anya (Emma Caulfield) will sing again in a flashback to last season's musical episode 'Once More With Feeling.'"
Also sounds very cool. Yup, I'm stoked for Season 7!
Rob
P.S. I got the info here. Warning! There are a few more spoilers there that are a tiny bit more specific, so you may not want to go there. They are Joss spoilers, though, so, in my book, that's okay. My new resolve is to only read "Buffy" spoilers that Joss reveals. But that's just me...
[>Re: GLORIOUS News re: casting, season 7 (one spoiler for casting; one minor spoiler re: Anya) -- Dariel, 10:53:08 08/08/02 Thu
Thanks for the good news!
It's funny--back when I wasn't that into the show, I didn't like Dushku/Faith at all. She's really grown on me since. I can't wait to see what she and Willow have to say to each other.
My new resolve is to only read "Buffy" spoilers that Joss reveals. But that's just me...
That sounds good to me. Helps me rationalize reading your post when I've "sworn off" spoilers.
[> [>My staunch stance on Joss spoilers -- Rob, 11:21:14 08/08/02 Thu
I've "sworn them off" too, but I decided that Joss himself doesn't like spoilers, so anything he reveals I know will (a) not be the whole truth; (b) have a twist to it; or (c) possibly be an outright lie.
Spoilers from other sources are sometimes word for word accurate, while Joss' never are. That's why I like them. They give me the illusion of having some spoilers, to crave my Buffy-addiction, but don't make me feel sorry when the episode airs that I knew too much in advance.
Rob
[> [> [>I agree about Joss spoilers -- darvangi, 12:54:42 08/08/02 Thu
I do the same thing as you with spoilers, Rob. I'll read only what I consider 'legal' spoiler type info: whatever Joss or Marti say in interviews, and whatever's printed in TV Guide blurbs, because that information is coming out on an official basis. The spoilers that come from sneaky sources like stolen scripts and wild feeds - basically everything Joss doesn't approve of - are the ones I avoid.
[> [> [> [>Re: I agree about Joss spoilers -- Rob, 16:41:11 08/08/02 Thu
Yup, I forgot about Marti spoilers. I'll, of course, read them, too. If it's official, I'll read it, because I know they won't give away information I don't want to know. I like to have my appetite whetted...to get a little hint of what's to come...I do not want a detailed account of every little thing that's going to happen on the show a la Aint it Cool News.
Rob
[> [>Re: ooh ooh - (insert lightbulb over head) -- Purple Tulip, 11:54:50 08/08/02 Thu
What if.....Faith is back as a possible new love interest for Willow??? What you just mentioned above about what they will have to say to each other made me think. And Joss has made mention that Willow might have a new girlfriend this season. I mean, they both have that guilt trip over killing a human, they are both powerful, but in different ways. Of course, there has never been any mention of Faith being gay or bi at the very least, but there never was with Willow either (ok, except for in Doppelgangland). And they would have that former enemy thing going on that Buffy and Spike had this season. Ok, I think this is probably way far off base, but it was just a fleeting idea. Don't really know how I'd feel about this if it were to really happen. Just another possibility in the land of Joss.
[> [> [>Personal opinion (spoilers & spec) -- HonorH, 12:31:17 08/08/02 Thu
Faith has always been *deeply* bi. Her attraction to Buffy was all but maintext. As to her and Willow getting together, it sounds like a Xenite wet dream (at least on the Xena board I still frequent), but dunno about the whole "girlfriend" thing. I could see them having a one-nighter, but I don't think Faith's exactly into commitment. Now:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The rumor is that Faith's two appearances on Angel (also confirmed) and Buffy will end with her death and possibly the calling of a new Slayer. So that would tend to cut commitment short. Besides, I wouldn't want Willow to lose *another* girlfriend.
[> [> [> [>Re: Personal opinion (spoilers & spec) -- acesgirl, 13:19:23 08/08/02 Thu
"Faith has always been *deeply* bi. Her attraction to Buffy was all but maintext."
I totally agree HonorH. Not to mention the chemistry between Faith & Lilah during the "pick-up" scene in Five by Five. There's even a note in the shooting script to the director and actors to mind the lesbian subtext and instructing them to keep it very "sub". So maybe they were trying to turn the Faith is "bi" vibe around? If they were, I don't think it worked very well.
[> [> [> [>Wow! Good spoiler! -- Dichotomy (a total spoiler trollop), 15:00:51 08/08/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>Wow! Good spoiler! -- Dichotomy (a total spoiler trollop), 15:04:42 08/08/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>Re: Personal opinion (spoilers & spec) -- Majin Gojira, 15:08:06 08/08/02 Thu
Man, I hope they won't kill Faith, or if they do, they at least make it worth it. Sure, They've been known to kill off interesting characters. But Faith's story need some good closure, even if she dies. I hope for self-sacrifice if anything. She at least diserves that.
[> [> [> [> [>Well, -- HonorH, 15:09:55 08/08/02 Thu
as to that--look at how they did in Darla. That's all I need to have Trust In Joss.
Low Moments -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:51:45 08/08/02 Thu
Selective fandom has been discussed here before, the concept (odd to me, btw) of viewers watching for a single character or only liking portions of the cast.
Me personally, I've always liked the entirety of the cast. I may not like the directions that they take some of them, but the character itself remains in my good graces for the most part.
However, I've given the concept thought and realized that I've experienced it to a much more limited extent. I was curious to know when, or maybe just if, there has ever been a time, however short, when you just really disliked a character? I think I can list for myself one moment to almost every character, but they lasted an episode.
Buffy - Contrary to alot of people, apparently, there's only been one time when I felt disgusted with the Buffster's behavior, and felt her on immoral ground without sympathetic reason: During the first season of Angel, when she arrived in Los Angeles to find Angel trying to rehabilitate and redeem Faith. She barges into his town, into his life, and has no respect for what he does now: save souls. Then, of course, in Buffy's typically violent fashion, she punches him. I found myself rooting for Angel when he returned the favor. Things became worse when she told him about Riley specifically with the intention of hurting his feelings and gloating. Again, the only time I've ever had animosity for the girl, and it lasted but an episode until the next week.
Willow - Again with the rarities, but its happened. In something Blue I couldn't believe how self centered she was being. Got over it in an episode. In Two To Go, it was one thing to go after two indirectly involved in your love's death, its something else entirely to insult and/or beat up all of your friends. Seemed like there was much more going on there than grief.
Xander - Once more contrary to alot of people, I can't name a single moment when I've been disconcerted by Xander's behavior. He's made mistakes, and I've disagreed with his actions before, but I can't name a time when said mistakes weren't made on sympathetic, if wrong, grounds.
Giles - Same as Xander. I was tempted to say his treatment of Angel in Amends when he asked for help, but seeing the face, if not the same person, of your late girlfriend's killer kind of treads on sympathetic and understanding ground.
Anya - An anomaly. I've never in any moment felt her unsympathetic in any instance, despite the fact that I feel she's just as cold and wrong for not acknowledging her past transgressions as Spike is. Weird.
Spike - I can't really count any of his actions as a villain in seasons 2/3/4. He was made to be a sympathetic villain, the kind you love to watch do his evil thing. It was the snarkiness. In season 6, however, there's the AR scene. That's it.
Dawn - Only when she was somehow almost coerced by the young vamps in this year's halloween ep All The Way.
Angel - Nary a moment. I know some people were apalled and upset with him for the Reunion-Redefinition, Noir Angel period. I found it a mistaken path, but an interesting one, and felt with the combination of Wolfram and Hart driving him mad, Darla and Dru inducing more guilt than he already had, and protecting the rest of the gang from his rising darkness, he was on sympathetic ground.
Wesley - none.
Cordy - much as I'm disgusted with the St. Cordy story arc, I've never been with her character post Sunndydale. When she was there, of course, is a different story.
Gunn - I wanted to be angry with him in The Shroud of Rahmon when he punched Angel, but he was under the influence, so I can't really count that.
Kate - Where is she?! Her treatment of Angel as the person responsible for her father's death made me dislike her behavior for a long time. But she came around.
Groo- come on! When would the Groosalugg make a moral mistake? That guy's way too naive for that.
I know this post was really long. I was just curious as to if any one else had these short moments of disdain, as opposed to the "Buffy is a bitch" fan mentality.
[> Re: Low Moments -- HonorH, 13:37:24 08/08/02 Thu
Oh, I've had more than a few moments when I've deeply disliked a particular character. In fact, the whole lot of them are deeply dislikable. I mean:
Buffy--control freak, hits before she thinks, tendency toward self-righteousness
Willow--uses specialized skills to prove her value and, in some cases, to try to put others beneath her (this counts for both computers and witchcraft); lives in her emotions
Xander--is a young Guy. What's to love?
Dawn--is a teenager. Again, what's to love?
Anya--self-centered and money-obsessed
Giles--lives in his head where others are concerned, and his emotions where he himself is concerned; stubborn as all get-out
Spike--until very recently, was a soulless vampire. What's to love?
The reason I love this show, perversely, is that all the characters *have* their totally-unlikable sides, like Real People do. Their flaws aren't token flaws; they're the hallmarks of who they are. Now, I'm gonna turn this around:
Buffy--needs those characteristics I've listed because the whole world's fate rests on her shoulders. She needs to act quickly and believe in herself and what she's doing.
Willow--her emotions and spirit led her to volunteer herself and all she was for Buffy's cause, and she's stuck with it in spite of all manner of badness out of love for her friends.
Xander--is rapidly growing out of his Guy stage and is turning into a fine man.
Dawn--is also growing rapidly into a lovely, strong young woman.
Anya--learned enough in two short years to place her newly-limited life on the line for her lover and friends, and even now, as a demon, has retained enough humanity to continue doing so.
Giles--loves his "kids" more than life itself. Who cares that he can't express it verbally?
Spike--elected to go the hard route instead of the easy one, taking a soul instead of trying to regress to being a pure monster. That puts him ahead of a lot of humans.
Let's hear it for three-dimensional characters!
[> [> Re: Low Moments -- Tillow, 13:56:41 08/08/02 Thu
Haven't been around lately but just had to respond to one of the original points here. That ep, where Buffy goes to "Angel's city" and freaks out over Faith is one of my favorite all time Buffy moments ever from a writer's perspective. They've said that Buffy represents the female side and Angel represents the male. Duh. Yet, somehow their relationship looks kinda similar on both shows until that ep. They are the star crossed lovers who can't be together because of circum... blah blah blah...
Well, that is the first time we get to see Buffy through Angel's perspective and my, my... don't she look a wee bit tainted. It's awesome. Second best use of crossover ever! I hope we get some more in the future.
[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Shambleau, 15:06:42 08/08/02 Thu
Unlurking to say how much I agree with HonorH. Three dimensionality forevah! That said, I can't say I've ever disliked the characters. I've disliked what they've done sometimes, or I've been irritated by some part of their personalities, but that's different. Even if I did dislike them, they simply have to be interesting, complex and well-written. Character likability isn't a requirement for me if you've got the other things.
On Buffy's actions in Sanctuary, I've read posts that make a case for her actions and I agree with them. Everybody, including Angel, is in the wrong and in the right in that scene, and that's why I love it unreservedly.
[> [> Off topic, but short -- Apophis, 15:27:07 08/08/02 Thu
Just taking a short break in my summer-long torpor to say how pleased I am that one of my favorite fan-fiction authors (HonorH) is posting here.
[> [> [> Re: Off topic, but short -- SableHart, 15:34:16 08/08/02 Thu
Ditto to that, Apophis
[> [> [> [> *Chirping* Thanks, guys! -- HonorH, 16:01:40 08/08/02 Thu
So glad to hear that! Feedback gives me the warm tinglies. Now, if I could just tear myself away from this board long enough to finish my latest story . . .
Hey, and if you ever want to discuss writing or need a beta or anything, please do feel free to take advantage of my email. Everyone else does!
My FanFiction.Net Page
[> [> [> Re: Off topic, but short -- Sarand, 19:50:19 08/08/02 Thu
I agree. Loved the ones where the characters comment on fanfiction. Funny. Can't wait to read others.
[> Re: Low Moments -- Rendyl, 15:19:03 08/08/02 Thu
***Buffy - Contrary to alot of people, apparently, there's only been one time when I felt disgusted with the Buffster's behavior, and felt her on immoral ground without sympathetic reason: During the first season of Angel, when she arrived in Los Angeles to find Angel trying to rehabilitate and redeem Faith.***
Grin. What amazes me is how differently each person sees each scene. In the one above she goes to see Angel after Faith has stolen her body, stolen her life, slept with her boyfriend, and nearly gotten her killed. She is struggling to understand how Riley could have possibly mistaken Faith for her (after all, Tara and Willow figured it out pretty quickly) and then 'huge shock' Angel (Mr Perfect Love-who is supposed to understand her in ways beyond words) is actually helping Faith. To be completely honest Buffy's reaction was calm compared to what mine would be in that situation.
Ren - who is glad it was Buffy, not her, on the roof with Faith (cause I like Faith too-grin)
[> [> Re: Low Moments -- Shambleau, 15:30:13 08/08/02 Thu
And Angel tops it off by dismissing her concerns when she said she came because she heard he was in danger, by saying he's always in danger. Maybe, but not Faith-type danger. Faith came close to killing him twice and only failed because Buffy intervened. It was his brusque dismissal of her reasons and feelings that led to her cruelty with the Riley disclosure. It was ugly all around.
As for Faith and Buffy, if the Council goons hadn't intervened on the rooftop, it looked like Faith was getting through to her. I think there would have been some sort of recognition on Buffy's part that Faith was actually trying to change. And Buffy did push Faith to safety when the shooting started.
[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Robert, 21:45:18 08/11/02 Sun
Shambleau, I appreciate your illustration of the ambiguity of this situation.
[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Miss Edith, 09:55:18 08/14/02 Wed
Buffy wanted Faith beaten to death. She never had much sympathy towards Faith as right at the end of the episode even after Faith has turned herself in Buffy says "See Faith wins again". And she claimed to be unlike Faith and Angel because she had never murdered anyone but surely she could have used her killing Ted to emphasise? After all when she kicked him up and down her house she believed he was human and did suffer remorse for killing a human. The writers gave her a cop-out but that scene still makes me think Buffy isn't as different from Faith as she would like to think.
And Buffy was pretty cruel to Angel when telling him how much she loved and trusted her new boyfriend in a way that she couldn't with Angel. What annoyed me about Buffy was when she tried to smack Angel and he blocked her punch and hit back in self-defense. Her eyes started watering, she became a total girly girl and sniffed "you hit me". Buffy has never bugged me more than in that instance. Just the wya the actress played it made me grit my teeth. I love Buffy on her own show though.
[> Re: Low Moments -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:36:31 08/08/02 Thu
I think this is a long needed thread, and I thank you for starting it.
Buffy - never really had a dislike moment. There have been times when I thought her a little stoic, but that's about it.
Xander - In "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" he tried to make Cordelia love him, an act of removing someone's free will. However, I can forgive him since he got karmic retribution up the whazoo. Then there's his lying to Buffy in "Becoming II", but I can see how he came to that decision. While he is not blameless, I have always been able to see his side of the story.
Willow - "Bargaining" - "Wrecked", where she was basically a big jerk to a lot of people. Before that, I never had any real cause to dislike her, and I suppose, with time, she'll make up for that period (if you're wondering at the absence of Dark Willow, I've always thought that she was totally off her rocker at the time).
Giles - Giving Buffy the weakening injections in "Helpless" and leaving in "Tabula Rasa". The first was conforming to a tradition he knew to be senseless and very likely deadly to Buffy. In the second, his reasoning didn't warrant his actions. Him leaving certainly didn't help Buffy grow up. In fact, it furthered her on her downward spiral.
Tara - Never really disliked her, but I never got a lot of depth from her. She always seemed to be Willow's girlfriend, and little else besides.
Dawn - "Gone" and "Normal Again" when she went to annoying outbursts FAR to quickly. Outside of those two instances, I've never found her to be too whiny, as some people claim. Given what she's been through (her mother died, she nearly caused the end of the world, her sister died because of her, she's been heavily ignored and patronized by most of the Scooby Gang) I'd say she whines just enough.
Spike - What can I say? When a character is unrepentently evil, it's hard to be judgemental about him. While I have disagreed with some of his choices (getting a soul, demeaning himself in order to get Buffy) I can't say I ever felt disgusted with his behavior because I expect and desire only the worst from him.
That's my two cents.
[> [> Re: Low Moments -- MN, 07:01:58 08/09/02 Fri
I think this is a great thread as it reminds me of an argument my roommate and I had while watching Wrecked. He was disgusted with how angry Buffy was with Willow toward the end of the episode, claiming "she [Buffy] can really be an unfeeling bitch sometimes." I was really amazed with his reaction, as I have a younger sister myself, and if someone (even a friend) had been responsible for her getting hurt, I would have reacted the exact same way as Buffy, possibly worse. Still, there are always times whne you get fed up with a character...
Buffy: There have only been two moments in the history of the series that I've felt angered with Buffy (and even then I wouldn't go as far as to say disgusted). In Wild at Heart when she confronts Oz, she seems very cold and angered with him, while neither she nor Willow was even willing to listen to his side of the story. Her "trademark stoicism" line really ticked me off. The other instance was the previously discussed Buffy-Faith confrontation in Sanctuary, where I too side with Angel. There were moments in Season 6 where it wouldn't have killed her to treat Spike a little kinder, but their relationship was full of low points for both characters.
Xander: Xander's a different story. I haven't really liked him since the middle of Season 2 when he started treating Buffy so shamefully. There are really too many instances for me to count regarding disgust toward Xander, but if I had to narrow it down, I'd say his little speeches in Becoming Part I, Dead Man's Party, and Revelations all rank high on the list. Oh, and have to include his yelling at Anya in Entropy; IMO, she was right, she didn't owe him anything.
Willow: I've always really loved Willow, but starting in Season 3, she seemingly became quite self-centered (her bitterness toward Faith always got on my nerves, much like Xander's treatment of Angel), and some of her cutesy stuff came off as annoying instead of lovable. Don't get me wrong, I still really like Willow, particularly because AH does such a magnificent job playing her, but if I had to pick a low moment for her, I'd go with either her self-centered complaining in Dead Man's Party, or her treatment of her friends in Something Blue.
Dawn: I liked Dawn in Season 5 as I thought she was a very interesting addition to the cast. It was in Season 6 that she really started to irritate me, particularly because her logic was so incredibly screwed up: buffy slaves away at a horrible job to provide for her, but she thinks of it as being ignored. Low moments for Dawn in my book are her brattiness in Older and Far Away (terrible episode in my opinion BTW), and her bitterness toward Buffy in Normal Again.
Spike: As others have mentioned, it's kind of weird to try and judge Spike because of the whole soul issue. It's also weird because he's so damn charismatic! Anyway, I didn't like his "let yourself live" monologue in Normal Again. Obviously, the things Buffy said to him in the episode would be enough to infuriate anyone, but I still think he could have been more understanding of her mentally unstable situation, given that she hadn't even tried to take the antidote yet. In a way, his comments almost got all of the Scooby gang killed.
Anya: I've always liked Anya too, despite the fact that she's also been a bit too self-centered for my taste at times, eg. at the beginning of season 6 when she kept complaining about announcing the engagement. Anyway, she more than made up for it in the season finale (was it just me or was she, like, MVP for the good guys in Two to Go?)
Giles: None. No, seriously. I can't think of a single instance where I hated Giles. He's the man.
Anyway, that's about it for me I guess. I never had a problem with Tara either largely because I don't think she was ever given enough character development to have a problem with. Keep posting everybody, nothing like thinking about characters all time lows to get you excited about the new highs they're going to reach in the coming season.
[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:42:49 08/09/02 Fri
I forgot about Dead Man's Party. I guess it slipped my mind because everyone was meaner and less caring than they usually are. In fact, they struck me as acting far out of character, and they balanced each other out, so I have a hard time using it as evidence against them.
[> [> Re: Cruciamentum (spoilers for Helpless and Checkpoint) -- Robert, 12:58:20 08/09/02 Fri
>> "Giles - Giving Buffy the weakening injections in "Helpless" and leaving in "Tabula Rasa". The first was conforming to a tradition he knew to be senseless and very likely deadly to Buffy."
"Helpless" was a very interesting episode. The Cruciamentum was not senseless. It had a very sensible purpose (cruel though it was). The purpose was to ensure that the slayer always knew who the boss was. For all of her powers, the Cruciamentum was proof that the Council of Watchers could terminate the slayer whenever it suited them.
This was the first episode where we gained some insight into the Council of Watchers, and how they operate. Do not mistake the relationship between slayer and the Council as paternalistic. As far as the Council is concerned, the slayer is an easily replaceable part. The Council administered the Cruciamentum to assure that the slayer and her watcher would always kowtow to the Council. If the slayer died as a result, that was a small price to pay, as the Council knew that there was always a replacement right behind her.
What I find surprising is that the Council hasn't attempted to assassinate Buffy in the 3-1/2 years since the Cruciamentum. In the only sense that mattered to the Council, Buffy and Giles failed the Cruciamentum. They didn't kowtow to the Council, for which the Council fired Giles. Especially after "Checkpoint", I really expected the Council to take some action against Buffy. In a way, she is more of a rogue than Faith. Since Faith doesn't have the support structure of friends and family, she would be more susceptible to Council discipline.
[> [> [> Why the Council Hasn't Tried to "Take Her Out" (spoilers for S7) -- cjl, 13:16:03 08/09/02 Fri
1) She's doing a heck of a job.
Presumably, the Council is interested in fighting evil, and last year, Buffy took out a Hellgod. Would a new, untrained slayer do nearly as well against the threats the Scoobs have faced down? Would you put a 15 year-old Kendra-type up against Glory? (And would you pay to clean up the mess when Hellbitch eviscerates the poor thing?)
I grant you, it must irk the Council no end to have Buffy give them the good old American middle finger, but she's not doing anything they wouldn't want her to do anyway. She's pounding the Big Evil, staking vamps, skewering demons--what else could they ask for? Watcher Diaries? Heck, Giles can have Willow e-mail him updates. Might teach those old fogies to modernize.
2) I'M puzzled as to why they haven't sprung/iced Faith.
A perfectly good slayer in jail for the past three years. What a waste. Why hasn't the Council and QT used their considerable influence to spring our girl? (With all the spoilers we've been getting, though, maybe it just took a little longer than we thought.) And if they couldn't turn her loose, why didn't the Council kill her and get a new Slayer up and running?
3) They're not done yet.
Giles thinks they haven't got a clue. I think they're planning a surprise for the most powerful Summers woman for S7. (And I'm not talking about Buffy.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to "Take Her Out" (spoilers for S7) -- Tymen, 13:30:01 08/09/02 Fri
2) I'M puzzled as to why they haven't sprung/iced Faith.
A perfectly good slayer in jail for the past three years. What a waste. Why hasn't the Council and QT used their considerable influence to spring our girl? (With all the spoilers we've been getting, though, maybe it just took a little longer than we thought.) And if they couldn't turn her loose, why didn't the Council kill her and get a new Slayer up and running?
-------------------------------
I've been toying with the idea of writing an Angel script based on just such an instance. Set between season two and three. Dealing with the Council's discovery that Buffy is dead.
[> [> [> [> Interesting! (S7 Spec, AtS S4 spoiler) -- HonorH, 13:37:10 08/09/02 Fri
So you think they're going to get into the Key business, eh? Could be interesting. I'd sure like to see them try it, actually; that'd get Buffy going like nothing else.
Now, as ED is contracted to appear in Angel's fourth season, we're apparently going to get her out of jail. Who knows how that's going to happen? Also, some have speculated that Faith will die and Dawn will become the next Slayer. Again, I'd like to see the Council try and get their grubby hands on her. With Buffy as a sister, Dawn wouldn't *need* a Watcher.
[> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- Robert, 14:11:00 08/10/02 Sat
>>> "1) She's doing a heck of a job. "
cjl, you've nailed the reason why the Council of Watchers should be supporting and protecting Buffy. I just don't believe that the Council holds to such altruistic motivations any longer.
>>> "Giles thinks they haven't got a clue. "
This is why I don't believe that the Council is the noble organization that it used to be. The Fray comic books explain the beginnings of the watchers and the ultimate disintegration of the Council. In the intervening centuries before Malaka Fray, the watchers lost their purpose and degenerated into insanity. I happen to believe that the process began before Buffy.
Just look at the absurdity of their actions in "Checkpoint". They were unable of collaborating with Buffy with any authenticity whatsoever. Buffy was an adult at this point (20 years old I believe) and she deserved better than they treated her. I'm a little sensitive to this because I've had bosses who thought it clever to trick subordinates into doing what they wanted, rather than making an authentic request. The end result is that the subordinate feels used and slightly dirty.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- Wizardman, 17:17:09 08/10/02 Sat
Okay, I'm a Buffy/Angel fan, but I've only heard of this "Fray" via this board. Granted, I don't go to the comic stores as much as I used to, but I'm sure that I'm not the only person in this predicament. Is what happens in Fray considered BtVS/Angel canon, or is it a possible future? From what I have heard of it, it seems to contradict what we have going on now, barring some highly devious Jossian stylings.
In any case, your right about the CoW. They are due for a major reality check- maybe we'll even see it this season. It would be a great Giles plotline.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The Role of Fray -- Robert, 19:26:15 08/10/02 Sat
>> "Is what happens in Fray considered BtVS/Angel canon, or is it a possible future?"
Wizardman, I happen to consider the Fray comic books to be a legitimate part of the BtVS continuity (what most people call the "canon"). Fray and the "Tales of the Slayers" are the comic books written by Mr. Whedon. Some of the other comic books and novels were written by or contributed to by some of the other BtVS writers. However, it is not clear to me that Mr. Whedon blessed them as part of the BtVS universe and story ark. By the same token, though the BtVS movie on HBO was originally written by Mr. Whedon, the finished product was very much changed.
My point here is that Joss Whedon is the keeper of the keys to the story ark and the BtVS universe. If he blessed a novel or comic book as part of the story ark (such as the "Tales of the Slayer" stories), then I would consider them to be "canon".
One other point I would like to raise ... again. I'm not convinced that we can describe BtVS and AtS as having one canon. I do not believe that Mr. Whedon is limiting himself to maintaining absolute continuity between the two TV shows.
>> "From what I have heard of it, it seems to contradict what we have going on now, barring some highly devious Jossian stylings."
What specifically have you heard? So far, we've only seen 6 of the 8 issues of Fray to be published, but I don't recall anything that would contradict BtVS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Role of Fray -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:03:55 08/10/02 Sat
Then again, these comic books may be Joss seizing the opportunity to not worry too much about continuity while writing stories in his universe.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Role of Fray -- Wizardman, 17:18:15 08/11/02 Sun
The thing that I heard about Fray is that it occurs after some event that has 'cleansed' the earth of all demonic presences, from big bad demons to vampires to floppy-eared type demons. I'm not sure if that's what actually happened in the series, but that was the impression that I got. If it's true, then it means along with no evil demons we have no Angel, Spike, Cordelia, Anya, Lorne, Clem, etc. So by 'contradict', I mean that it ignores the presence of AtS. Now, if 'Fray' is canon, then Angel could shanshu before this event, Anya become human (again), and Cordelia could lose her half-demon-ness. However, that would leave most of the others to go god knows where. Unless they are killed, most demons would probably go back to their ancestral hell-dimensions. Many demons are evil, but others are neutral or even good. I don't think that Joss is cruel enough to send good people to hell. Okay, he's done it once, but this will be on a far greater scale. That's what I mean by highly devious Jossian stylings- how will he get out of that specific trap?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Banishment of the Demons (SPOILERS for Fray) -- Robert, 21:38:27 08/11/02 Sun
>>I don't think that Joss is cruel enough to send good people to hell.
Hmmm ... I think you're wrong there. Both Angel (not Angelus) and Buffy have spent some time in hell. I think that Joss is more than willing to send good people to hell. In fact, I would not be surprised if Cordelia is headed to hell as we speak. However, let us look at some excerpts.
You can find the following excerpt in issue #3 of Fray. Urkonn is the demon who has taken on the role of teacher for Malaka Fray, since the Council of Watchers are (for any useful purpose) non-existent.
FRAY
Why don't you tell me what happened to the last one?
URKONN
Because I don't know.
It was some hundreds of years ago, in the twenty first century.
What we know is this -- there was a battle.
A slayer, possible with some mystical allies,
faced an apocalyptic army of demons.
And when it was done ...
They were gone, all demons, all magicks,
banished from this earthly dimension.
FRAY
And the slayer? Did she ...
URKONN
I do not know if she lived. But, the demons being gone,
she was the last to be called.
The line continued –- there were girls with
the power, but they were never called,
never trained, which may be why you have
no memories of your heritage.
Several points come out of this passage. First, Urkonn is relaying a legend to Malaka and the details are sparce or uncertain. Second, Urkonn never said that the demons and vampires were banished to hell, only that they were banished from this earthly dimension. Third, the final battle took place sometime in this century, so it is possible that Buffy was the slayer referenced above. On the other hand, there are 98 years left in this century.
Fourth, this passage claims that all demons and magic were banished, regardless of whether it was good or evil. However, I don't believe that this is a contradiction or lack on continuity. Joss Whedon is more than willing to have bad things happen to good people, in his stories. As an alternative theory, maybe only the evil demons were banished. Urkonn says otherwise, but his legends could be incomplete or in error.
The following is an earlier excerpt from the same magazine.
URKONN
Your significance, you heritage, it should have surfaced,
in your dreams, in your --
FRAY
Well it didn't.
So explain.
URKONN
There was once a thing on this earth called magic.
There were demons, monsters beyond imagination, most
of them pure evil. They ruled this dimension as
they did so many others.
FRAY
What's a dimension?
URKONN
Eventually, as mortal animals evolved, under the
protection of certain mages and loranites --
FRAY
What's
a --
URKONN
They left! All right? The demons, most of them, found
more hospitable dimen ... places, and left the earth
to the mortals, for the most part.
Some remained, hidden away, some bred within the
human community, their power weakened throughout
generations. Some assimilated.
And some ...
... infected.
It is not known when they first appeared ...
... but the vampires were a plague.
The elders of several villages met, calling for action.
They invoked the strongest and most dangerous magicks
they could summon, to create a power. A power that
could fight the vampires. A power that lived ...
... in the body of a girl.
This passage is interesting because it explains the beginnings of the vampires and the slayers. Elsewhere it is mentioned that the Council of Watchers descended from the shamans who created the first slayer. What I find interesting is that the demons left, apparently due to competition from the encroaching mortals.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- meritaten, 17:51:43 08/10/02 Sat
The Council is used to being in the position of power. Buffy has denied them that (rightfully so). I've also had bosses who try to trick employees into doing something rather than simply asking. That is also about power, or rather a fear of losing power.
Buffy is not the source of the problem - she just refused to be "co-dependant".
While I'd like to think that the Council is above outright murder, I think that they are realistic enough to realize that they are farther ahead with a powerful and "good" slayer, rather than taking the chance on triggering a new Slayer - one that would require training and could be another Faith.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- Robert, 19:55:42 08/10/02 Sat
>> "While I'd like to think that the Council is above outright murder, I think that they are realistic enough to realize that they are farther ahead with a powerful and "good" slayer, rather than taking the chance on triggering a new Slayer - one that would require training and could be another Faith."
I would like to believe this also, but the behavior exhibited in "Checkpoint" would seem to indicate otherwise. They put their position ahead of the interests of humanity (ie. putting a stop to Glorificus). The episodes "Who Are You" and "Sanctuary" also appear to indicate that the Council is not above murder if it serves their own interests.
[> [> [> [> [> I think we're all prematurely assuming the worst about the CoW... -- cjl, 07:06:55 08/11/02 Sun
I think I've been guilty of it too, considering option (2) in "why haven't they tried to kill Buffy."
The CoW has been around for thousands of years, training hundreds, perhaps thousands of slayers. They obviously believe they know what's best when it comes to battling vampires, and don't take it very well when a teenager stands up, tells them to go you-know-what, and kicks their collective ass out of town. Ancient organizations don't have a high humility factor, and they can get petty about it. When Travers and the CoW came back during "Checkpoint" and tried to intimidate Buffy, I don't think they ever intended to withhold the information about Glory. Travers was going to use it as leverage first (bad Quentin!), but look at the old man when Buffy called his bluff: his shoulders sagged, he sighed in resignation, and he knew he'd lost his little game. He spilled. He was ALWAYS going to spill. He just wanted to do it on his terms first.
Faith is another matter. She committed manslaughter by accidentally icing the mayor's assistant, and the Council had some hard and fast rules when a Slayer kills an innocent bystander. Giles wanted to work around them, but you know ancient organizations--not exactly great with the flexibility either. The Watchers are the self-appointed guardians of a potentially lethal weapon, and they take the responsibility very seriously. If they thought Faith was a menace to rather than a protector of humanity, they felt they had an obligation to keep her locked up or kill her. Not exactly the genteel behavior we expected from the tweedy boys, but logical.
So I think the CoW does want to fight the good fight. Are they stubborn old fogies with questionable methods that sometimes hinder their own mission? Yep. Are they evil? No. There's no solid evidence of true evil-osity. Yet. You never know what Joss is going to pull on us though...
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we're all prematurely assuming the worst about the CoW... -- Robert, 13:15:36 08/11/02 Sun
>> "Are they evil? No. There's no solid evidence of true evil-osity."
No, they are worse. They are an uncaring selfish bureaucracy. Like most bureaucracies, they started out with the best of intentions and slowly devolved into an organization set upon maintaining their power, position and perquisites. Instead of being an active evil, this is the passive evil of laziness and indifference.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we're all prematurely assuming the worst about the CoW... -- Wizardman, 14:38:23 08/12/02 Mon
"Are they stubborn old fogies with questionable methods that sometimes hinder their own mission? Yep. Are they evil? No. There's no solid evidence of true evil-osity. Yet."
Well, if you change 'stubborn old fogies' to 'inflexible soldiers,' then this statement could be applied to the Initiative, and we all know what happened to THEM. The only main difference between the two- other than age- is that the CoW knows not to mess around with demons. The CoW is an organization that is ripe for subversion by demonic forces. It wouldn't be all that hard- just rise to the top, and then slowly turn the Watchers away from their original principals. Or better yet, be a 'power behind the throne' and have some dupe do it for you. Imagine what kind of a threat that, say, Gwendolyn Post could have been if she remained a Watcher instead of openly going rogue- she could have used the organization to look for acient artifacts of powerful magic and then 'confiscated' them for safe keeping. "No solid evidence of evil-osity?" You're right- not yet. But it's coming. Maybe on BtVS, maybe on Angel, or maybe on Ripper- if it ever gets made- but it's coming.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the worst about the CoW... -- Robert, 18:00:04 08/12/02 Mon
>> "The CoW is an organization that is ripe for subversion by demonic forces."
Wizardman, this is a truly delicious thought. I hope that Joss gets around to doing a story based upon this theme.
[> [> [> [> [> Council is a plot device (no real spoilers, but spec) -- cjc36, 01:53:03 08/14/02 Wed
Wow, Watcher's Council (I've never taken to the revised C-o-W version!) talk.
I've devoted an entire fanfic thing on the Council, about an out-of-fashion fundamentalist Watcher and his eeeevil plans, just because the show has left me cold with this one plot angle.
I hope you folks are right - there will be Council activity this season, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. I fear the Council is a mere plot cog and nothing more. No Files-like mythology there, at least so far.
[> [> [> Re: Devils advocate on Cruciamentum -- KdS, 05:08:25 08/12/02 Mon
While the Cruciamentum is undoubtedly indefensible by modern standards of the sanctity of life and individual dignity, I think that Robert 's use of it to utterly condemn the Watcher's Council is a little overstated.
Robert wrote:
"Helpless" was a very interesting episode. The Cruciamentum was not senseless. It had a very sensible purpose (cruel though it was). The purpose was to ensure that the slayer always knew who the boss was. For all of her powers, the Cruciamentum was proof that the Council of Watchers could terminate the slayer whenever it suited them.
This was the first episode where we gained some insight into the Council of Watchers, and how they operate. Do not mistake the relationship between slayer and the Council as paternalistic. As far as the Council is concerned, the slayer is an easily replaceable part. The Council administered the Cruciamentum to assure that the slayer and her watcher would always kowtow to the Council. If the slayer died as a result, that was a small price to pay, as the Council knew that there was always a replacement right behind her.
I think that the false assumption here is that a Slayer who survives the Cruciamentum generally finds out what is going on. If there were a "Gotcha moment" at the end, then all Robert's criticisms would be justified. However, we must remember that Buffy only found out the true situation because of Giles's conscience, which was itself stimulated by Kralik's escape and abduction of Joyce. One hopes that this was not a routine event. I suspect that in the usual way of things, a Slayer who survives would simply remember it as an unexplained loss of powers, which may or may not have been coincidental with a vampire confrontation which would usually be seen as routine.
Given this, I believe that the original point of the Cruciamentum was not a test of intellectual resource in a "get out of that" sense. Rather it was a test of spiritual resource, to see whether a Slayer had the inner strength to face the enemy as herself, with no external powers. A Slayer who survived, in this case, would probably remember the event as a pivotal victory that showed her that her power came from her own personality and courage, rather than being a gift that could be taken away - the exact opposite of Robert's theory. It's poetic justice that Buffy did learn this lesson in spite of Quentin's bungling, and then used it first to break from the Council in GD2 and then to humiliate Quentin in Checkpoint.
While today we would undoubtedly see it as indefensible to expose a person to lethal danger merely as a test, I think that rather than interpret the Council as evil we should think historically. According to Giles in Helpless, the tradition is 1200 years old. This puts its inception in the second half of the first millenium AD. While it has never been explicitly confirmed, it seems to be fan consensus that at this time the WC was largely a European, or at least European-dominated, phenomenon. Although I'm not a theologian, and I accept correction from anyone better informed, I understand that in Dark Ages/Medieval Christian thought, Earthly existence was seen merely as prologue to the eternal bliss of the saved in Heaven. Furthermore, early death from disease, famine or violence was far more common in those times, and life in general cheaper. I think it's possible to argue that to a Dark Ages Christian intellect, the Cruciamentum vcould be seen as a win-win situation for a Slayer, if she passed the test and fought. If she survived, she would be mentally empowered as suggested earier. If she fought and died, she was liberated from her earthly duty and went on to spend eternity, to quote Charles Gunn, "rocked in the arms of Baby Jesus".
Of course, it's very hard to justify Quentin's individual conduct in Helpless/Checkpoint, especially after his subordinates' bungling had placed third parties in danger. However, I do believe that the episodes don't provide evidence to write off the WC as consciously evil. I'd like to second cjl, and argue that if the more extreme anti-Council interpretations are correct it's hard to explain why Faith, if not Buffy, hasn't received a sniper's bullet in the head yet. I don't think even a Slayer could dodge that...
[> [> [> [> I agree, and humbly step aside to advocate the superior post. -- cjl, 06:47:14 08/12/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, and no need to be humble... -- KdS, 07:15:40 08/12/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: Devils advocate on Cruciamentum -- Robert, 08:56:20 08/12/02 Mon
KdS, thank you for the thoughtful response to my posting. You have swayed me toward your position in degree, if not in totality.
I think you are correct about the Council in regards to their noble beginning, and the creation of the Cruciamentum. However, I still believe that the Council has become something loathsome in the intervening centuries. They have become a self-preserving bureaucracy. As you stated, "the Cruciamentum is undoubtedly indefensible by modern standards of the sanctity of life and individual dignity". More importantly, Quentin is indefensible.
[> [> [> [> [> No defending Quentin here... -- KdS, 09:16:07 08/12/02 Mon
Thanks for the rapid reply, and I think we virtually agree now.
Re Fray speculation: given Joss's nasty mind, what if it's Giles/Buffy/Faith/Wesley's well-intentioned attempts to reform the Council that lead to its final self-destruction?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No defending Quentin here... -- Robert, 12:20:46 08/12/02 Mon
>> "Re Fray speculation: given Joss's nasty mind, what if it's Giles/Buffy/Faith/Wesley's well-intentioned attempts to reform the Council that lead to its final self- destruction?"
Could be ...
Joss' sense of poetic justice is somewhat twisted.
[> [> [> [> Re: Devils advocate on Cruciamentum -- Wizardman, 14:55:32 08/12/02 Mon
The Cruciamentum as a primarily mental/spiritual test that has possibly been perverted in the centuries since its origin? Hmm... despite my general distaste for the organization that is the CoW, I buy your theory. It sounds like it came from the same organization that gave us Giles and Wes, rather than that which spawned Quentin. Yes, I do believe that there's a schism in the organization, and it exists between the field workers and the bureaucrats. Giles is a damned impressive person, and Wes quickly became one, once he was forced to think for himself. Even Gwen Post was impressive, in her own way- she played everyone in Sunnydale perfectly. If not for Angel, she might have actually gotten that Gauntlet. There's more to the CoW than we know. And I, for one, want to know. The Fan Consensus might be right about the European phenomenon, but I'm betting that the CoW has to be more international. I'm wondering if the present CoW isn't an amalgamation of many different organizations, one from each country/tribe/region, that formerly dealt with the supernatural/demonic for that region. The fact that it is currently based in Britain might simply reflect the fact that Brtiain was the lead imperial power. But that's just my opinion- I could be wrong.
[> [> [> [> May I suggest a better test for the Cruciamentum? -- Caesar Augustus, 03:05:08 08/13/02 Tue
I've always thought that the Watchers' Council served an invaluable purpose initially. Think of Faith's abuse of power, think of the destructive First Slayer - the Slayer is based in death, and slayers have a tremendous power. If a Slayer reaches 18, I think it would be far more valuable to have some sort of MORAL test (the image that comes to mind, for me, is when Luke goes into the cave on Yoda's planet and destroys the fake Darth Vader - something sort of along those lines), a test that the Slayer fights for what is right, and doesn't abuse her power. The Cruciamentum doesn't prove that, but then again it is "relatively" new - maybe the CoW had already become beauracratic and power-hungry by then, and the test was simply designed from a selfish perspective. But anyway, a test like that would make a helluvalot more sense.
Anyway, enough random ramblings.
[> Re: Low Moments -- Majin Gojira, 18:53:28 08/11/02 Sun
Hmm....
Buffy: Gotta go with the Sanctuary bit - though I am a sadistic bastard and laughed at her entrance at 'Just the right time'.
Xander: Hmm...Let's see. The perpetual screw-up. His lowest moments: Any time he brings up Jenny's death/most things concerning the Angel issue.
Willow: Damn. I can't think of any for her.
Giles: Nope. never been mad at him.
Spike: Oh, let me see: Most of his negative actions durring this season; the rape, the driving away from freinds into darkness, the obsession, the attempted cover-up for murder.
Spike proves that on TV, people with good looks can and DO get away with murder.
Dawn: Hmmm....nope. never hated her. Nor do I find her that annoying - though I liked her better on "The Adventures of Pete and Pete" :D
Well, that's just me.
But as a general rule, I don't really hate characters on TV. I enjoy the evil they show. Sure, I have a vehement hatred for Britney Spears, but that's another topic entierly and it's rooted in hypocracy - you don't often see hypocrites on TV that don't get their come-up-ins at least by the end of the episode.
[> Dead Man's Party -- Dochawk, 16:04:28 08/12/02 Mon
There is only one episode of either Angel or Buffy I refuse to watch again and that is Dead Man's Party. The behavior and utter selfishness of Joyce and especially Xander makes me revile both of them. Willow at least acts conflicted, but Xander blaming Buffy for everything, his total and complete unwillingness to listen or to realize that his selfish actions were significantly to blame for Buffy's departure. It took until Hell's Bells for me to have much in the way of sympathy for his character (not that I had alot before DMP either).
[> [> Hell's Bells gave you sympathy for his character?! -- Caesar Augustus, 16:50:12 08/12/02 Mon
[> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- shadowkat, 10:17:31 08/13/02 Tue
Okay so I'm terribly bored at work and feel need to add to the bottom of this thread...that and attempting not to think too much about yet another job interview (my attempt
to get out of the work situation...)
So recklessly jumping into the fray.
Dead Man's Party is a much malinged episode on this board and everyone hates Xander, Joyce and Willow in it. I found it oddly very realistic. Remember it is shot entirely from Buffy's pov. So you are feeling and thinking what she is.
Something the writers are apparently very good at. Actually they are brillant at placing us so deeply in a characters pov that we have a tendency to think that characters views of the other characters is the valid one or true one.
Nope. It's just one little angle.
The writers do give us snippets in Dead Man's Party and Anne
of what the other characters are thinking and feeling and if you watch closely - you can see that their reactions to Buffy aren't entirely unwarranted or unrealistic or cruel.
They saved the world with her in Becoming. At the end of that two-part episode: Xander barely got Giles out alive,
Willow had just come out of a coma and did an amazingly difficult spell, and Joyce wasn't sure if her daughter had gone off to her death. Buffy just leaves Joyce a note that she's leaving. (Buffy is 17 years of age and Joyce's only child). That's uh more than she left any of her friends with. They have no clue if she's okay, what happened with Angel, etc. As far as they know she and Angel could have taken off together or Angelus kidnapped her. All they know at the end of Becoming Part II? Is the world didn't end.
That's it. Not sure if Joyce shared her note with them or not. Would assume so...but still. That just means, Buffy only saw fit to tell Joyce. Not them.
All summer they fight vampires. Get injured. Try to make things work and try not to worry about Buffy. Has Buffy worried once about her friends? Not that we know of.
Has she thought about Giles? Not that we are aware of.
All Buffy thinks about is Angel. She hasn't sent her mother a note saying she's okay or any word to Giles. Giles in fact has been traveling around looking for her - this we find out in Anne.
So Buffy comes back to Sunnydale. She expects everyone and everything to be the same as she left. Sorry doesn't happen that way. Part of life is dealing with change and dealing with the consequences of leaving without any word or note. Also realizing that other people and their problems no matter how seemingly trival can be important. She was needed and loved by her friends as more than just the slayer. In Dead Man's Party she begins to realize that.
It's really not until the next episode that her friends find out the specifics of how Angel was killed. She tells them little. They on the other hand reveal quite a bit of how they feel. And to their credit? They attempt to deal with her. But Buff is not the sort to discuss her problems. She contains everything and wants to move forward without talking about it. Makes sense - after all up until Becoming she had to keep the whole slaying gig a secret from her mom.
So discussing things? Just does not come naturally.
This causes all the pent up emotions that everyone is trying to contain to erupt. Like they always do. In a very bad way.
I felt sorry for all the characters in Dead Man's PArty and I saw all of them at fault. Giles actually was the most adult but that had more to do with his own unresolved issues of guilt. Xander - had pent up feelings of jealousy, fear, and insecurity motivating him. (How would you feel if your best friend and Crush, disappeared? Not only disappeared but as far as you knew took off with a vampire?
A vampire you hated? He felt abandoned. And probably that she didn't care about him.) Willow - geeze, she is wondering if she did the right thing giving Angel his soul, maybe not, her best friend and only true girlfriend disappears after she did it. She doesn't know what she did wrong. (I've had these types of blow-ups with friends before and for a lot less valid reasons then these.)
Joyce - well, I don't have kids, but I do remember how mad mother got when she hadn't heard from my brother in 24 hours. Can you imagine three months?? And I'm sure she's still struggling to handle her daughter's calling as the chosen one, the fact vamps are running about Sunnydale,
her kid being kicked out of another school, almost getting killed, and oh wait...being afraid she'll take off again when she returns. And this kid is stronger than Joyce is.
Joyce can't do anything to make sure she stays safe.
I objectively think Buffy deserved a little of the ranting she got in that episode, even though from a purely subjective level? I find it incredibly painful to watch and hate the characters while they are doing it to her. And want her to bash them for it. But that's what the writers wanted. They wanted me to view the episode from the least justifiable pov. They do that a lot. Put you in the pov of the person who is actually, once you look at objectivel, in the wrong and make you take their side. Very clever. I've seen other shows do the whole running away theme and usually we are in everyone's pov but the runaway.
BTVS flipped it.
Anyways just another way of looking at it.
[> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- Sophist, 10:58:06 08/13/02 Tue
The problem I have is not that Buffy was completely in the right (she wasn't), but that her friends were so clearly in the wrong.
The main problem was this: not one of them tried to find out what had happened in the mansion or to understand what might have caused her to flee. They never even asked. They were all accusatory (Xander) or self-centered (Willow). And not once did they stop to consider that their own actions may have contributed to the problem. In fact, even when they did find out (at least Willow did in FHT), we never see any apology to Buffy or sense of contrition (at least, none from Xander or Joyce, maybe a smidgen from Willow at the end of FHT).
As for Buffy, I think her silence about Angel was the right approach. She knew her friends had tried to help. If she told them that their "help" was actually a disaster, that wouldn't change the result but it might make them less willing to help in the future.
Running away? Not the best solution, perhaps. I can completely identify with it, though. I find that people fall into 2 general categories: those who work through their problems by talking with others, and those who need to work it through internally and in the absence of others. Both are legitimate; whatever works. DMP portrayed Buffy's choice as wrong, and (worse) Buffy as accepting that she was wrong. It was not that clear.
I'm with Doc on this one.
[> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- shadowkat, 11:22:13 08/13/02 Tue
Actually I think they did try to find out. Remember that
scene towards the beginning where they are all hanging out at Giles' apartment? (Thanks to PSyche of course)
Oz: Hey, so you're not wanted for murder anymore.
Buffy: Good. That was such a drag.
""Xander: So where were you? Did you go to Belgium?""
Buffy: (gives him an odd look) Why would I go to Belgium?
Xander: I think the relevant question is why wouldn't you? (smiles
hugely and giggles) Bel-gium!
They both laugh.
Cut into the kitchen. Giles gets the cups out of his cupboard. He smiles
as he listens to the conversation in the living room, pleased that they
are getting along so well again so quickly.
Buffy: What about you, Xander? What's up with you?
Xander: Oh, you know, same old, same old.
Giles removes his glasses and leans with his arm against the cupboard,
enjoying the sound of his Slayer's voice again after so many months.
Cordelia: Hardly.
Xander: Okay, I lied, a whole lot is new.
Buffy: Well, that's good, isn't it? New is good.
Giles shakes himself out of his reverie and puts his glasses back on.
Xander: Oh, yeah, absolutely, except for the obvious. It's not too
much... (inaudible)
Cordelia: Yeah, 'cause you weren't at the hotel.
Giles lifts up the serving tray and takes it into the living room.
Xander: Cordelia's parents dragged her onto a luxury vacation.
Buffy: I feel for you.
Giles: Here we are then. (sets the tray on the coffee table) Cheer us
up.
He sits down in his chair and takes the teapot. Buffy and Xander each
take a cookie from the tray.
Cordelia: So were you, like, living in a box, or what?
Buffy: Well, it's a long story.
""Xander: So skip the heartwarming stuff about kindly old people and
saving the farm and get right to the dirt."""
Giles: (pours several cups) Perhaps Buffy could use a little time to
adjust before we grill her on her summer activities.
Buffy: What he said.
Xander: Fair enough. In fact, you can leave the slaying to us while you
settle in. We got you covered.
See? Xander asks twice and she fluffs it off. I doubt she told them much of anything. They may have assumed she had a great time in LA when they were worrying about her.
Misunderstandings are weird. I thought all of them were in the wrong. Xander dealt with it poorly. But in this scene he did appear to be trying. Willow also tried. But they were scared. When Willow bursts and starts asking Buffy to stay - she's found her packing. Actually up until that moment, I was highly annoyed with her. But finally she tells Buffy why Buffy is important to her and why she wants her to stay. YEs it comes out wrong - but Willow is 17 years of age, not 30. I actually had more problems with Joyce who was doing her typical avoidance routine. Xander is also only 17, hardly mature at this point. If he had done that whole rant this year? I'd have been annoyed.
But at 17? He reminded me of my brother at that age.
I think we often hold these characters to unrealistic standards.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- Sophist, 15:03:57 08/13/02 Tue
See? Xander asks twice and she fluffs it off
No. My point was that no one asked what happened in the mansion. What Xander asked, twice, was where she went/what she did over the summer. Not the same thing.
What Buffy did over the summer (waiting tables in a cheap restaurant) was not very interesting from an outsider's perspective. What she was really doing was trying to come to terms with the fact that she had been left with nothing but herself:
Whistler: In the end, you're always by yourself. You're all you've got. That's the point.
That wasn't something she could tell Xander then or ever. But it also wasn't the key point in Xander's misbehavior in DMP. That had to do with Angel. And here's what Xander had to say:
Buffy: As if I even could've gone to you, Xander. You made your feelings about Angel and I perfectly clear.
Xander: Look. I'm sorry that your honey was a demon, but most girls don't hop a Greyhound over boy troubles.
Doesn't sound like much effort on his part to understand. And that's leaving out his betrayal of her in Becoming.
As for Willow, she didn't come to the room to understand, she came to accuse Buffy of ignoring Willow's problems:
Buffy: How could I talk to you when you were avoiding me?
Willow: This isn't easy, Buffy! I know you're going through stuff, but... so am I.
Buffy: I know that you were worried about me, but...
Willow: No! I don't just mean that. I mean, my life! You know? I, um... I'm having all sorts of... I'm dating, I'm having serious dating with a *werewolf*, a-and I'm studying witchcraft and killing vampires, and I didn't have anyone (starts sobbing) to talk to about all this scary life
stuff. And you were my best friend.
I know Xander and Willow were both 17. I just don't think that gives them any more of an excuse than it gives Buffy.
I'm not saying that Buffy was entirely in the right. She wasn't. But Buffy is shown to be entirely in the wrong, and, worse, accepting that conclusion:
Buffy: I am sorry.
Willow: It's okay. I understand you having to bail. I can forgive that. Mm, I have to make allowances for what you're going through a-and be a grownup about it. (gives Buffy a slightly smug look)
Buffy: (smiles) You're really enjoying this whole moral superiority thing, aren't you?
Willow: (smiles) It's like a drug!
Buffy: Fine! Okay. I'm the bad.
It's that combination of misbehavior by her friends and Buffy (as usual) taking the blame that makes the episode so difficult.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- shadowkat, 06:52:11 08/14/02 Wed
Okay concede on that point. But...it is an interesting episode partly in how it corresponds with two other episodes dealing with a reunion with friends:
1. When She Was BAd - Buffy in this episode is the cold bitch and everyone else is actually nice and almost gets killed partly to her coldness. (Season 2)
2. Dead Man's Party - traumatized Buffy (she'd just been
to hell - that was actually what I was referring to not the waitressing job, I wondered if she'd told them about that.
Apparently - because they refer to it in Something Blue.)
deals with being kicked out of school and dealing with her life amongst friends again. She'd been alone and in hell most of the summer. (Oh speaking of ANN - did anyone else notice that lily who took the name Ann was reprised in
Blood Money? Then again in the Thin Dead Line? on ATs?)
She gets scewered by her friends and family. To the extent that you are almost rooting for the zombies to kill them.
3. Afterlife - the friends are possessed by a horrible
spirit demon who Xander inadvertently sends off to kill Buffy and Willow makes solid at the last possible moment.
Apparently reuniting and dealing with people and relationships is hell. Not excusable. But highly realistic.
I certainly suffered similar behavior from friends in the past. Forgave them as they did me.
What I find interesting is how ME stretches the theme over an arc of episodes. We start in Dead Man's then revisit the theme of Xander's difficulty with Angel in Revelations, Amends, and Enemies. We start in DM's with Willow's witchcraft problems and her struggles - revisit this in Gingerbread (getting a broader picture which shows how truly insecure and alone Willow really is, unlike Buffy, her mother truly doesn't notice her existence, she appears to have no one outside of the SG and hasn't found a way of handling this - so is resorting to magic to feel important to fulfill herself, Buffy has as you suggested found her own way to deal with being alone inside herself - a way that is far healthier than Willow's), Dopplegangerland,
and Choices. We also revisit Xander's insecurities with group and himself in the Zeppo. It's interesting how the characters flaws are shown then explained and the pov shifts. In DMP - we really don't see why these characters
are acting the way they are. YEs they may be in the wrong and I concede rude and inexcusable. (Believe me - everytime I see DMP I want to bash Xander over the head repeatedly - actually quite a few Btvs episodes make me want to do that..I have issues with Xander. Or the writers do.) But it's really not until the middle of Season 3 that I begin in retrospect to see why they reacted the way they did.
What motivated them to do so. And when I start to see some of the reasons - Xander's lack of any true family life, Willow's similar lack of one - actually once I see this, I'm amazed these two haven't run away. Notice Buffy is the only one who is celebrating the season and holidays with her family in Amends. Willow is attempting to do something with OZ, her parents are nowhere in sight. Xander is camping outside avoiding his. This is when I find myself forgiving them.
Their flaws make an odd sort of sense.
I think Btvs is interesting in the way each episode can be viewed as a stand alone but as well and sometimes better as part of the whole. DMP is an episode that doesn't really
work as a stand alone. I think it works better as part of the whole. And when viewed with the whole enterprise?
It's not so negative.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- Arethusa, 08:11:45 08/14/02 Wed
I've always had enormous sympathy with Willow and Xander despite their faults just because it's so clear they had nobody but each other to support them while growing up. It's no wonder that both looked to Buffy and Giles to feel important and give their lives direction. What's really interesting is that what makes them so flawed also makes them monster hunters. Why, of all the people in Sunnydale who know something is very wrong, do these two kids feel obligated to dedicate their entire lives to helping Buffy? None of the others that Buffy saved, except perhaps Cordelia, did.
I'm slowly working my way through William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, and he states, "...the psychopathic temperment...often brings with it ardor and exciteability of character. The cranky person has extraordinary emotional susceptibility. His conceptions tend to pass immediately into belief and action...." The same emotional susceptibility that makes Xander and Willow insecure and full of self-hatred also makes them unwilling to hide in comfortable disbelief. Having found a source of self-affirmation, they can't go back to the sterile lives they lead before Buffy arrived.
Xander especially, having the more toxic home life, developes an idee fixe regarding monsters, to the point of being unable to tolerate Angel. It's like he has finally found some beings he feels superior to, and I'm still convinced that part of Xander's rejection of Anya has something to do with her having been a demon.
Agree? Disagree? Note: I'm not calling X and W psychopaths-just people with serious self-esteem problems.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points -- Sophist, 08:24:24 08/14/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- LittleBit, 11:35:29 08/13/02 Tue
I find myself in between here. Buffy did indeed just leave everything and everyone hanging. Until she felt capable of dealing with everything.
Joyce had given her an ultimatum. Not one that any of is believed she truly meant from where wa sat, but Buffy wasn't where we were. She saw a shut door at the time.
Giles had just been horribly tortured by Angelus. Was he the one to go to for sympathy because Buffy had to send Angel into the hell dimension to save the world? Not at that time, not from her point of view.
As for Xander and Willow, well we know Willow was risking her life to perform the soul restoration, but what did Buffy now? She knew that Xander wanted Angel dead, and that according to him, so did Willow. What understanding would she be hoping for there? Not much, not when she was in that much turmoil.
So she left, she had to reach her own coping point without help, which was perhaps good practice for this past season. When she was ready (and yes, she was very wrong for not letting anyone know she was at least all right), she came back. After gong literally to hell and emerging whole.
And what happened? Joyce welcomes her home, gladly; but we then overhear that she thought it might have been easier when Buffy was missing. Willow welcomes her and then leaves her waiting, without any message, when they were supposed to have their first one-on-one get-together. Xander and Cordelia aren't available either. Only Giles seems so welcome her unreservedly.
A welcome dinner is planned. Buffy is looking forward to the chance to talk to everyone. And what happens? No one else, except Giles, wants this. They revise the plan to a large enough scale that all conversation of ant consequence is prohibited. When Buffy tries to talk to Willow she is shut out. Xander and Cordelia are clearly otherwise occupied. Oz is playing. Joyce is in the kitchen with the one person actually more annoying then Ted.
Buffy is as effectively 'not there' as if she hadn't come back. And yes, the feelings on both sides needed to be let out. Yes very harsh things were said. And while we saw it from Buffy's point of view, what we also saw was that her point of view was not accepted as having validity. Xander was worried about her. Joyce had been frantic. Willow had to deal with changes all by herself. Buffy needed to tell them how she felt.
But not where, when or how it was done. Not downstairs in a shouting match, not attacking her in front of all those people they decided should be there to insulate them from the situation until they decided the insulation was no longer necessary. It should have happened in the one-on-one Willow skipped on. It should have happened as a small group of her closet friends over a quiet dinner like the one that was planned, but was sabotaged by her friends.
Both parties were wrong here. Buffy for leaving and not letting any of them help her through this. I find that decision understandable, if unfortunate. The other were wrong for first shutting her out and then humiliating her with all her faults in a very public venue. Unfortunately, only Buffy admitted that she ahd been wrong, and only Buffy apololgized. And then she saved them. Once again.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- ponygirl, 11:56:59 08/13/02 Tue
Hmm, maybe the whole inappropriateness of Joyce and Xander calling Buffy on her behaviour in public was the point. It was a kind of stripping away of Buffy's power. From the others' perspective Buffy had been calling the shots first by leaving then by returning, it had all been on her terms. Joyce was trying to assert the control she had lost -- Joyce had played her trump card in B2 with her "if you walk out that door" and Buffy had called her bluff. I'm not saying that the scene wasn't painful to watch and I certainly think that all parties were at fault. But they end up working together, and Joyce gets to see what Buffy deals with on a daily basis. It's interesting that it's Joyce, Willow and Xander up in the bedroom with Buffy for the final battle, Oz and Cordie the people with no issues with Buffy are left downstairs and pretty much forgotten, while Giles who actually seems to understand Buffy arrives late.
[> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- ponygirl, 11:32:55 08/13/02 Tue
Thanks for the defence of DM'sP! It's a slow day at work and on the board so I'm grateful for the diversion.
I too find this episode incredibly painful to watch (abandonment by friends is a scary thing to me) yet in many ways it's the episode that caused me to respect ME the most. It was not an easy homecoming, Buffy may have got the well-deserved hug at the end of Anne but that did not erase the consequences of her actions. We as the audience were in the position of feeling far more sympathetic to Buffy because we had the privilege of seeing what had happened in Becoming and what she had endured in Anne, so to see the abuse that Buffy endures from her family and friends becomes almost unbearable. However the amazing thing is that the episode reverses this and Buffy comes to see that she is indeed at fault, that she needs to ask pardon from those she abandoned.
I usually wonder when watching this episode how things could have gone differently. Buffy goes out to find her friends and encounters Xander on his vampire hunt. There's a moment when they both look at each other all pain and awkwardness. It looks as though so much is about to be said. Then the vampires and the rest of the team arrives, and Buffy handily defeat the vamp while the gang gets knocked to the ground. Almost immediately the inequality of their positions is established. It's as though Buffy is mocking both their slaying efforts and their worry. Since Buffy doesn't offer them even a glimpse of her own pain they aren't going to show theirs. Instead we get the party, a huge amount of noise generated to cover up what everyone is feeling. And that feeling would be anger, with a healthy dose of resentment. Again utmost respect for ME in realizing that homecomings are not always happy.
As mad as everyone usually gets at Xander and Joyce, I give them credit for actually vocalizing their feelings. I get incredibly pissed off at Willow -- she's the one Buffy actually seems to be reaching out to, and Willow retreats first by standing Buffy up for coffee, then by blowing her off at the party. Maybe it's because Willow senses that Buffy will want to deal with her own pain, not Willow's.
There's so much foreshadowing in this episode. Buffy's inability to deal with emotional overload-- here she tries to physically flee, in s5 she will try to escape in other ways, through numbness and catatonia. The Scoobies' attempts at slaying sans Buffy are repeated in Bargaining, and their attempts at immediately forcing normality on an extraordinary sitaution will appear again in Afterlife ("let's order pizza"). And finally all of the characters' huge inability to articulate their issues and emotions will form the basis of that little event we like to call season 6. All in all Dead Man's Party is a great episode, it just makes me awfully sad.
Well, I've certainly had a ramble here! Thanks and good luck on the job interview!
[> [> [> [> Buffy's burden and "Dean Man's Party" -- cjl, 12:05:12 08/13/02 Tue
I was going to write a loooong post defending Xander, Joyce and the Scoobs, and I was two-thirds of the way through when my system crashed. (NYC on hot days. What can you do?) It doesn't matter, because just before I crashed, I typed a sentence that cuts to the heart of everything, rendering the rest of the post irrelevant. ponygirl touched on it when she mentioned the inequality of Buffy and the gang:
Buffy almost left a second time becase she thought what all teenagers think about emotional trauma: "I'm the only one in the world who feels this way, and you'll never understand." Most teenaged girls who say this are advised to GROW UP and consider the feelings of those she would leave behind.
But Buffy is RIGHT.
She is the Chosen One. She's the only one in the world with these problems. How could Xander, Willow, or Joyce understand? Buffy feels alone in her misery because the Burden of Slayerhood isn't something housewives or high school kids can relate to that easily.
So is she justified in her series-long string of emotional implosions? No. Because just as the Scoobs have to realize that Buffy has special problems and special burdens, Buffy has to realize that every one of her friends (yes, even Xander) has his or her own unique emotional journey, special in its own way, deserving of consideration and attention.
It's Season 7 now. They're 22 years old. Maybe it's finally going to sink in. We can only hope.
--CJL
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's burden and "Dean Man's Party" -- yabyumpan, 14:36:25 08/13/02 Tue
I'm not going to get into who was right or wrong, they all were to some degree. I just remember when I first watched it, being very impressed that ME played it like they did. They could have gone along the route of "oh, Buffy, we've missed you, glad you're home, lets go slay and get coffee" but instead they took the much more realistic and painful road of consequences, hurt, anger, pain etc. It was this episode which really showed me just how different and way above everything else the show is. It's one of the most painful episodes to watch but also one of the best.
[> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- aliera, 15:35:29 08/13/02 Tue
And I can understand those feelings; I always hope for better too. But you know, when I look way way way way (OK that's enough) back on my twenties, we didn't do any better (and we were dealing with such world ending issues as getting a 'C' in a core class.) So I too, like the way they made it ring true. I also agree with what Sophist said above, I tend to internalize and limit contact while resolving things and Buffy's responses felt very,very natural to me (for her age) in seasons 2 & 3. Not saying they were the best choices; just spot on for her personality.
[> [> the importance of interior decorating -- skeeve, 16:01:15 08/13/02 Tue
Let's not forget one reason Buffy left: she was wanted for murder in a town where the political system is headed by RIchard Wilkins (III?).
Also, in this case Buffy was the better interior decorator:
"It's mad at the room. It wants the room to suffer."
Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Rufus, 20:33:10 08/08/02 Thu
aintitcool.com
FREAKYLINKS Vet Out At ANGEL!!
I am Hercules!!
David Simkins, announced at the end of May as David Greenwalt's replacement as "Angel" showrunner, has departed the show a little more than two months later. Simkins, whose terrifying resume includes stints as a writer-producer on "Charmed" and as the showrunner of "Freakylinks," has departed over "true creative differences," according to one source close to the situation. "It was a Herculean challenge to come into a well-established show with a deep mythology and prosper."
How will the show deal with the departure of Simkins, who also served as a writer on the terrible first season of "Dark Angel" and the shaky final season of "Roswell"?
Likely by promoting from within. Writer-producer-director Jeffrey Bell an "X-Files" vet who joined "Angel" last season and has already written or co-written five "Angel" teleplays, including such fan favorites as "Billy" and "Forgiving" will reportedly now play a bigger role in helping fellow writer-producer-directors Joss Whedon and Tim Minear oversee "Angel."
I am Hercules!!
[>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Quentin Collins, 23:47:54 08/08/02 Thu
This sort of internal chaos does not bode well for "Angel" this season. I hope the speculation that Jeffrey Bell will be promoted is not true. While his work as a writer on "Angel" has been adequate, his work on "X-Files" was atrocious.
[> [>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- grifter, 04:18:24 08/09/02 Fri
But Simkinsī resumee sounds rather questionable too, so maybe itīs for the better anyway...letīs just hope that Joss will show Bell the way to greatness...
[> [>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Robert, 13:02:43 08/09/02 Fri
>> "... his work on "X-Files" was atrocious."
Can you site some examples? The reason I ask is that I have deeply personal experience that the quality of a person's work will be no better than his/her boss will allow. In other words, it may not have been Mr. Bell's fault.
[> [> [>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Arethusa, 13:29:31 08/09/02 Fri
He wrote "Rain King," about a weatherman who inadvertently could control the weather, and "Alpha," about a werewolf and a naturalist who tried to save him. Both episodes had some good Mulder-Scully interaction, some romance without being overly sentimental , and interesting supporting characters. He directly a movie called "Radio Inside," which I (and, evidently, everyone else) didn't see.
I can see why some would not like Bell's work-both episodes had a character who had a crush on Mulder, which makes me squirm, and not in a good way. They were fanciful episodes, for the "X-Files."
[> [> [> [>Re: OT - Rain King -- Brian, 13:51:29 08/09/02 Fri
One of my X-Files favorites. But I always liked the silly episodes anyway.
[> [> [> [> [>Me too-the vampire one was hysterical. -- Arethusa, 13:56:12 08/09/02 Fri
And it had Luke Wilson, too.
[>Creative differences? I'm not surprised. -- CW, 05:48:16 08/09/02 Fri
As I feared, Simkins must have been trying to bring Angel in line with mainstream pap, er, entertainment. Hope the new guy understands better.
[>Thanks Rufus!! -- Rahael, 06:30:09 08/09/02 Fri
I am focusing on the positive!!! Tim Minear to oversee? Great!
[> [>Its All About Minear! -- AngelVSAngelus, 08:57:34 08/09/02 Fri
So I'm glad to hear the news. Bell seems to be just there to aid in what Minear and Whedon are already doing. Makes me worry alot less. I mean, the Simkin's fellows resume gave me a heart attack thinking that he would influence my fav character's tales.
Freaky Links? CHARMED?! *heavy sigh of relief*
[> [>Can't help but like Minear....he has cats.....;) -- Rufus, 14:29:26 08/09/02 Fri
Joss Whedon on Season 6 -- Bachman, 20:53:09 08/08/02 Thu
After seeing how you people keep taking this show SO seriously, I asked a friend (well, former friend) of mine who watches Buffy to show me a tape of the show. Maybe there's something more to it than a pretty girl strutting around and fighting lame monsters.
Nope.
Come on! Cowboy vampires, monsters in eggs, the lame this-egg-is-your-child health class experiment! It's totally camp. And, what's more, it's not even good camp. It may as well be animated and show on Saturday mornings. So, stop being all philosophical about this flaky trash and GROW UP!
[>--- Insert Monty Python's "Is this the right room for an argument?" skit here. --- -- OnM, 21:00:36 08/08/02 Thu
[>I love it when a troll crawls out from under the bridge... -- ZachsMind, 21:16:40 08/08/02 Thu
Whoever started you on BtVS by playing "Bad Eggs" really steered you wrong. He might as well have played "Restless" backwards for you.
I'd recommend "The Zeppo." A much better episode to start people off with. Or "Hush" which is one of the best produced episodes they've ever done. And if you can watch "The Body" for the first time without a tear in your eye, you're a more heartless one than I.
[>Funny, doesn't sound like Joss... -- LittleBit, 00:27:54 08/09/02 Fri
[> [>Ah, but Joss likes playing tricks on us, so maybe... ;P -- grifter, 04:12:57 08/09/02 Fri
[> [>Maybe this is like...... -- Non-Hostile Seventeen, 12:26:03 08/09/02 Fri
Maybe this is Joss doing his take on the Saturday Night Live skit with William Shatner where he attended a Star Trek convention and started making fun of all the Trekkies. Best part was when he pointed to Jon Lovitz who was dressed in a Star Trek uniform and was wearing Spock ears and said," you there...have you ever KISSED a girl?" Funny stuff. Any maybe this is Joss doing that? =)
[>You're baching up the wrong board here, man. -- NR, 01:38:09 08/09/02 Fri
[>If you don't like the show, why are you here telling us? -- JCC, 04:46:17 08/09/02 Fri
Plus, Bad Eggs- Bad Episode. You're entitled to your opinion, but this board is a form of getting away from small minded people ranting about something they know nothing about. If you don't like the show, then run along.
JCC severly tempted to qoute OnM here. See top of ATPoATPoBtVS board :o)
[>If that's the episode they showed you... -- CW, 06:05:13 08/09/02 Fri
the timing of when you ceased to be friends may be somewhat different than you think. Or did you just ask to see a 'bad one' to have a teensy bit of info when you came back to bother us again. Yeah, I remember your posting name from last time.
[>Re: one rotton apple... -- Purple Tulip, 06:21:09 08/09/02 Fri
You know, why does one person have to come in here to our happy little place and put us down? If you don't like the show, can't appreciate it, fine---you're not alone; a lot of people don't get this show and refuse to watch it. I have no problem with that, really, but you can keep it to yourself---it's not like we're imposing our thoughts and beliefs on you, so stop imposing on us! Anyone else with me on this?
BTW: isn't this the same guy who came in here before and said some nasty things along the line of "this show sucks, grow up"? Really dude, get a life---and find some other outlet for you misplaced hostility.
[>Trollish Bachman, Trollish Bachman, -- Arethusa, 06:35:17 08/09/02 Fri
How's by you? How's by you?
Very glad to see you
Whaddya care what we do?
Goodbye, gone. Goodbye, gone.
(Sung to Allan Sherman's "Sarah Brackman.")
And I can't wait until it's aminated, and on Sat. mornings!
[> [>ROTFLOL!!! And I sang it out loud too!!!! -- LittleBit, 06:48:42 08/09/02 Fri
Thanks for a very fun start to the morning!!!
[> [> [>And speaking of Allan Sherman... -- LittleBit, 07:22:32 08/09/02 Fri
I've occasionally thought of "You're Getting To Be A Rabbit With Me" as the Xander/Anya theme song.
But then again, I've been told that I am evil. :-D
[> [>Isn't that a bit like . . . -- d'Herblay, 07:30:18 08/09/02 Fri
. . . singing "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General" to the tune of Tom Lehrer's "The Elements"? Which works surprisingly well!
The tune is "Frere Jacques."
[> [> [>I could have used that in high school biology. -- Arethusa, 07:44:30 08/09/02 Fri
When my history class was tested on the preamble to the Constitution, every one of us was singing the "Schoolhouse Rock" version under our breath.
[>Are you impugning cartoons....? -- Caroline, 08:01:09 08/09/02 Fri
because I can still remember that moment of revelation as a child when I realized the SUBTEXT, SATIRE, METAPHOR under the surface narrative so many of my favourite 'toons. And I still watch such cartoons (esp early Pinky and the Brain - total fave) with the same awe, joy and delight. Can someone please deliver a treatise on cartoons and comic books as modern Literature with a capital T? If Bachman is going to be our guest, we may as well share with him/her!
[> [>comics and cartoons as Literature -- shadowkat, 09:16:51 08/09/02 Fri
"Can someone please deliver a treatise on cartoons and comic books as modern Literature with a capital T?"
You are taking me back to my undergrad days. While writing my own thesis comparison on James Joyce's Ulysses and
Faulkner's Sound and The Fury - comparing the female themes in each and using Freudian and Jungian analysis to do so.
(I went way over my head and my profs..LOL! Pretentiousness is english majors middle name.)Anyways - next to me sat a young man who was writing his thesis on Frank Miller's
The Dark Knight Returns and on the Batman Series Year One,
and something on Watchman. All three were dark satirical works on our society, vigilantism, law and order, and hero worship. But not considered as WORTHY as Joyce or Faulkner.
Why? because they were shudder the thought - comic books.
Being a comic book and cartoon lover myself. We got to chatting. We discussed the mighty English Canon and how incredibly subjective and pretentious and snobbish it was.
Also at times racist and misogynist. But that's another topic. People have a tendency to put down or push aside something that either threatens them or they don't understand. I don't like it - so it's bad. Gee - who made you the expert? Have you written some great work? Having some issues that you need to deal with? Narrow-minded much?
All of these thoughts come to mind.
Hate to say this - but some of our most prized works of literature were serials at one time. Came out as brief snippets in magazines. I know Dickens wrote in this manner.
Shakespear's works were for the masses.
How do we know what is a quality work? Is it because it appeals to us personally? We can analyze it? What makes something literature with a capital T?
Is it the awards it receives? I hope not. Some of the best movies have never won an Academy Award and are long remembered, maybe longer than the ones that did. I'm pretty sure North By Northwest never did. Nor did Wizard of OZ.
And Star Wars didn't win that year. Would you say any of these were lackluster or forgettable films? (Ok - watch someone tell me I'm wrong - if so I'm sure we can list numerous great films that never won: Alien, Dr. Strangelove,
Clockwork Orange, 2001, Psycho.)
Books are the same. I read one critic who sat on the board of the Booker Prize (This is the UK's equivalent of the National Book Award) state that most of the panelists didn't even read the books - it was all about politics.
So awards mean zip.
I think what makes something great Literature is how it affects the viewer, reader, watcher etc. How we interact with it. Great art - will garner some response. Not so great? May just sit on a bathroom wall as wallpaper.
Great comics? They find their way into our subsconsious or collective consciousness. Their characters become part of our culture. Did you know that the term superhero is trademarked by DC? It didn't exist before. So is the word Superman. Batman is equally trademarked. And how often do we use Superman to describe someone or something? To describe the ideal man?
The X-Men have become symbols of the disenfranchised hero. The minority in culture. And I've seen them referenced in numerous articles that have nothing to do with comics.
Buffy was listed in a government paper. Hmmm...has anyone written about the West Wing in this manner?
Before we put art down as pedesterian or plebian - perhaps we should take the time to sample it and to look at how it has influenced the culture around us. I do hear Buffyspeak.
Joss made up his own slang which somehow seeped into our culture. More fanfic has been written online about Buffy than any other tv show - just look at the numbers on fanfic.net. Buffy appears in articles about gay rights, violence and government warfare. Universities have conferences on it. And academics discuss it's influence.
Why is that? Because the writers explore through the medium of science fiction and fantasy dark issues affecting us all.
Issues like guilt, rejection, sexual violence, mob violence,
etc. And they do it through layers of metaphor.
If you don't think metaphorically - it may be difficult for you to see it. And perhaps Buffy or a comic book or a cartoon isn't your medium. All these mediums speak with visual metaphors. But stomping on something we don't understand or don't appreciate is a little pedesterian and plebian don't you think?
(Sorry, Caroline - don't mean you of course. And I'm not sure I answered your query which may have been rhetorical.
It's just the English canon of Great Literature has always been one of my personal pet peeves.)
JMHO. And as Earl would say - take it and run.
[> [> [>Re: comics and cartoons as Literature -- Caroline, 09:45:33 08/09/02 Fri
Thanks shadowkat. My question was not rhetorical - I did want someone (everyone!) to come out in defense of toons and comics. You remind me of an experience I had several years ago. I was at a work dinner with colleagues and their families. I was talking to the high-school age son of my manager about Buffy (he was a huge fan) and comic books and Pinky and the Brain, and we were discussing themes, metaphor and about the post-modernist stuff about no such thing as 'high' and 'low' brow art etc (he really got this stuff). A colleague and his wife were listening to our conversation and the wife expressed shock because she thought (and I quote) that 'Masterpiece Theatre and West Wing' would be more my taste and what was I doing watching cartoons and reading comic books (West Wing - ack!! as Bill the Cat would say but do love MT - why can't I love both MT and Buffy?). I tried my standard defense of the abovementioned as speaking to us about our universal concerns - morality and ethics, growing up and making choices (or not), emotion/affection, desire etc, as well as the way speak to us - satire, subtext, metaphor which I happen to find rather entertaining. I kinda got carried away with my spiel and got into examples like Roger Ramjet which was basically created by a communist to say something about the nature of the political witch-hunt and anti-communist views prevalent in the US in the 1950s. I got blank stares or was teased good-naturedly for my 'juvenile' tastes. (lesson - you can be in a room with a bunch of people but you can also be really alone