August 2003 posts

Previous August 2003  

More August 2003

For everyone who likes Queer Eye for the Straight Guy... -- Alison, 18:43:39 08/02/03 Sat

read and enjoy:
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy:Spike

[> I almost like this version better than the Lurky soul makeover. -- Tyreseus, 00:57:07 08/03/03 Sun

[> [> More likely to work, for sure -- mamcu, 19:40:44 08/03/03 Sun

A Quiet Interlude, or perhaps A Massage from the Swedish Prime Minister -- OnM, 20:28:47 08/02/03 Sat

EC: So what happened to the S7 Endless Review Coda thing for last week? I was checking around the
board archives earlier today after I got back from vacation and couldnít find anything. Did Voynak randomly eat
the file or did Masq just shoot it and put it out of its misery?

OnM: How can you come back from a vacation when you donít work? Your life is basically one
endless vacation. At my expense, no less.

EC: (all innocent-like) Hey, you never go anywhere! How am I supposed to broaden my horizons?

OnM: (frowning) You keep eating all those chips and drinking all those brewskis and youíll be plenty
broad, genetically enhanced or not.

EC: (grinning trademark evil grin) Bitch, bitch, bitch... Youíre just jealous, you probably were working
like crazy all last week, werenítcha?

OnM: As a matter of fact...

EC: (covering ears) Donít tell me! Donít tell me! Itís so damn boring! Work this, money
that! Bleah! Itís summertime, why canít you just mow the lawn and barbeque stuff like a normal American?

OnM: (ignoring, having heard it all too many times) Well, getting back to your original question, you
didnít find Coda Part V because I didnít write it last week. Multiple things started to go very badly last Saturday, and
then went downhill from there. I ended up with neither the time nor energy to verbalize Buffywise, so I decided to
give the S7 E.R. a little time off, like the Car Talk Puzzler.

EC: (shocked into speechlessness)

OnM: Yeah, thatís right.

EC: (gradually recovering) Dude, birds gotta fly, fish gotta ride bicycles...

OnM: What can I say? Iím an anarchist at heart.

EC: You are not! You are so predictable! Only predictable people work as much as you do!
(parks self down at computer desk and starts parsing the documents folder) Címon, where is it?

OnM: It isnít, Iím telling you. This... is an ex-review. At least for right now.

EC: (not finding anything) You canít not write stuff! Youíll explode or something!

OnM: No worries. First, Iím not the penguin on the TV set. Second, I have something in the works for
tomorrow night. Something thatíll be a change of pace for everyone, including me. Something summery and

EC: (suspicious) Which is?

OnM: Youíll see. Wait ëtill tomorrow night, about 9-11 PM Eastern.

EC: Ahh! Itís the Coda Part V, and youíre just trying to fake me out!

OnM: Nope.

EC: Is too...

OnM: So is not. (pivot) Donít you need to unpack or something?

EC: I travel light.

OnM: Well, light outa here, because I need to get to work.

EC: (reluctantly gets up, and heads for the basement) Thereís that nasty word again. Please! Iím a
sensitive soul!

OnM: (makes waving gesture at departing Third Evil) Board now...


( Tune in tomorrow for something completely different. OK, partially different. You take what you get,
all right? Sheesh... )

[> Re: A Quiet Interlude, or perhaps A Massage from the Swedish Prime Minister -- aliera, 21:41:32 08/02/03 Sat

ahhh... thanks for the FYI, and did you solve your PC woes?

[> [> PC woes solved in my typical fashion ... -- OnM, 08:42:13 08/03/03 Sun

... namely, I'm using my backup PC when I need something printed and am otherwise completely ignoring the fact that my parallel port no longer exists.

I need to do some memory upgrades and install some selected newer software on the thing anyway, so I'm gonna do it all at once when I get the chance, which will probably be around 2004, give-or-take.

Thanks for asking!


[> For the record... -- Masq, 07:51:52 08/03/03 Sun

I do not shoot long-winded masterpieces.

Catch all the good parts of OnM's essay on Season 7/Chosen in the
June archives

'Today' interview with Alyson Hannigan -- skpe, 07:17:11 08/03/03 Sun

Cute interview mostly about 'american pie'

[> Y'know what? -- ZachsMind, 13:16:16 08/03/03 Sun

I just realized something. There's this thing about growing up in the spotlight that kinda damages a lot of talented young people. Say, Corey Feldman for example, or Dana Plato... Half a century or so ago it was Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland, Robert Blake.. The list goes on. It's tricky for young people who we see grow up before our eyes on television and in film then shed that youthful innocence for a career as adults. In recent years it's become more possible.

Drew Barrymore's certaintly pulled it off, but that was despite great opposition. She didn't just go from E.T. to Charlie's Angels in a day. There were a lot of false starts and crash & burns along the way. Firestarter being one obvious example that comes to mind. God, that was a turd.

But Alyson Hannigan has somehow managed to completely sidestep this whole problem. She started in Buffy season one as a mousy little geeky nerd, and likewise as a band camp patron in the first "American" movie. And both in films and in televisions we watched her grow up both as a person and as her characters.

See, in years past, whoever was running a tv series they'd want to keep their child stars children forever. When one of the girls on Facts of Life started showing boobage, they'd hide it as long as they could until no amount of special effects or tape would do. The Olsen Twins from Full House weren't allowed to grow up until after the series was cancelled. And now, through a series of straight to video movies, they've perhaps grown up too fast. They may never be more than a parody of themselves for the rest of their lives.

But Hannigan has shown versatility, and courage, and a brash sensitivity to humor that is rare and precious, as well as timeless. A lot is riding on what decisions she makes in the very near future, be it a formulaic sitcom or another movie, or a return to the character that started it all for her.

Chances are we won't see Willow on Angel. If we do, it'll be little more than a cameo. Hannigan is too expensive. I don't think Whedon can afford her anymore. I'm afraid we've lost Willow, but even though that's a sad thing, it's great to see Hannigan grow up in a way that won't damage her future as an actress, and avails her opportunities that half a century ago would have been impossible for a child star all grown up.

[> [> It probably helped that . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:09:30 08/03/03 Sun

. . . her character in "American Pie" went from talkative bandcamp nerd to raunchy sex fiend during the course of a movie. When you have an in-movie transition like that, it's probably easier going.

[> [> [> True dat -- pr10n, 21:45:50 08/03/03 Sun

I went the other way, myself, and it made my adolescence difficult. And I lost a band scholarship too.

[> [> [> [> BAND scholarship did you say? -- ZachsMind, 06:40:47 08/04/03 Mon

Y'know? This one time at Band Camp? The entire horn section held their breath for three minutes just to prove how long they could do it. Half of them almost drowned, but I lasted over four minutes! Then I came up for air. From that day on they called me Airhead. *nervous laugh* But I've been down longer than that before. ...Under water, I mean.

*shakes head*

Egad, where'd that come from?

Remember when -- tomfool, 08:41:58 08/03/03 Sun

Remember when you first discovered Buffy?
This morning I got an urgent email from a friend on the tail end of a Season 5 bender. I lent him the tapes two days ago. He started the series unspoiled a few weeks ago and his consumption pace has become scary. I thought his email might bring back memories for some of you. It made me spew my coffee.

i need season 6 like like a fish needs water, like a bird needs air!

I'm knawing my hand off...what the FUCK! Why did they kill Buffy?

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK WAS WHEDON THINKING...IF I EVER GET MY HANDS ON HIM...The whole thing was sheer turmoil...I barely survived the episode of "The Body" and then the bloody finale, "The Gift" just destroyed me...I'm finished...i don't know if i can take this shit anymore!

Is another slayer called? What the fuck?!!!!! Is Dawn the new slayer? I need
help: I NEED SEASON 6 ASAP!!! ACTUALLY...I WANT SEASON 6 & 7 FROM YOU WHEN I SEE YOU NEXT...sorry to write in all caps...but i've finally gone mad...I want so badly to reach out to these characters and help them...

I think I'm going bat shit. I need them to reach out and help me!

I think i've been permanently traumatized by season far the most intense season...makes all the other seasons pale in comparison. You said you didn't like season 6...damn...what do you mean...i remember you telling me that Marti Knox departed from the whole Buffy thing...what the hell...

i'm going to sleep....i'll call you in the ready...
over and out,

I started watching in S6 and remember when I had a whole new season on tape for the first time. I watched 4 at time and it was all I could do to keep from watching the next one. But I wanted to stretch it out. I don't think that will happen for poor Sy.

I wonder if I could be arrested for aiding and abetting?

Oh, and for the record, I love Season 6. It was the season that created my addiction.

[> memory lane -- btvsk8, 10:58:40 08/03/03 Sun

Gotta say I totally relate to your friend! I met (my now friend) a complete buffy fanatic two years ago. She convinced me (an avowed hater of the show) to give it a chance and watch it from the beginning. Thank God i gave it a chance and borrowed her videos- I saw elements I liked in season one, but by mid season two I was hooked. She couldn't supply me with the videos fast enough (including the Ats vids). By the end of season four/beginning of five, i ventured into the weird and wonderful world of buffy internet fandom, sifting my way through to find sites such as this one. I regret only being able to watch season seven as it aired on tv as the anticipation was great, as was having a week for the episode to sink in (we get one every week in the UK, though we have to wait until january for the premire). And then for the show to end so soon after I had discovered it! What a tragedy.

I think it is quite a different experience for those who discovered buffy late, and for those who will become fans in the future. Funnily enough I think they tend to be less spoiled for the epidodes because they don't have those torturous months of waiting for a new season. However I am slightly jealous of my friend who has grown up with the show over the past 7 years. I also think late arrivals tend to be more forgiving than old fans towards seasons 6 and seven and the post-high school years in general. Can anyone back me up on this? I'm not sure why- maybe watching seasons 1-3 over a far more extended time period makes the changes of later seasons more of a shock.
Anyway it was fun going down memory lane, even if in my case it is rather a short lane.

[> [> CAUTION: SpeedBalling BtVS can cause the BP to Spike -- cjc36, 04:54:07 08/04/03 Mon

Pun intened.

[> [> Latecomers -- tomfool, 08:57:15 08/04/03 Mon

I like your description of the relative experience of coming late to the show v. watching in real time. It's easier to be completely unspoiled if you come in late, which I think is the better way to experience the show. I agree completely that latecomers tend to be more forgiving of S6 & 7. As I was watching S6, I had nothing to compare it to, so it had to stand on its own for me. It did.

Starting in S6, I watched in a complete mishmash - S6 live, partial videos from S1 & S2, videos from complete S4, reruns of the Body and the Gift, then dvds from S1, then edited WB weekend reruns of S3 & S5. It was still fantastic, but I never got to experience the completely unspoiled continuity of watching the story unfold from the high school years on. I'm kind of jealous of someone who gets to do that. Also, as you say, of someone who got to experience the whole thing in 7 years of real time.

[> [> [> I'll raise my hand as... -- Masq, 12:45:29 08/04/03 Mon

Someone who saw the show in real time (episode one March 10, 1997, seeing each subsequent episode as it aired) who prefers the early (high school) seasons.

But then my favorite character has always been and continues to be Angel. So that makes a certain amount of sense. I became less attached to the characters as they got older. I didn't relate to them as well.

One thing I noticed, however, when the Season 4 BtVS DVDs came out is that I enjoy Season 4 a whole lot more now then I did when I watched it originally. I remember disliking that season a lot when it first aired compared to Ss. 1-3, and doing a Season 4 DVD marathon this summer, I enjoyed it much more. Maybe it just seems better compared to my assessment of Ss. 6 & 7, I don't know. Or perhaps with a few year's distance, Ss. 6 & 7 will grow on me as well.

Hard to tell. But folks who came to the show in S. 6 or after connected to the characters as they were in those seasons, and found the earlier incarnations of them odd. Folks who came to the show from the beginning tend to have connected to the characters as they were then and found their changes over subsequent seasons sometimes dissapointing or unbelievable.

So I think as a general rule, when you started watching the show can be a predictor of which seasons you prefer.

[> [> [> [> Oddly enough, I'm not sure when to say I started watching -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:59:31 08/04/03 Mon

The first episode I watched was a syndicated rerun of "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered". After that, aside from a couple of other Season 2 eps I found airing on some channels, I went to watching Season 4 on FX (fortunately, my first Season 4 ep was "Doomed", which summarized the Initiative nicely in the first few minutes). Shortly after that, I found the new episodes airing on UPN and started Season Six with "As You Were". Interestingly enough, the FX episode I watched just before that was "Into the Woods", where Riley left, so Riley's return in my first new ep was a very odd coincidence. Theoretically, I should then be the one most likely to have found Riley out of character there, but, oddly enough, didn't.

So, my first ep, the one which sucked me in, was a high school ep, but I went almost immediatly from that to watching half of Season 4, all of Season 5, and part of Season 6, and only after all this got to see the majority of the high school years, by which point I had read lots of spoilers explaining all the background information for the show. So, if someone were to ask me at what point in the show I started watching, I wouldn't quite know what to tell them.

[> [> [> Re: Latecomers -- Dariel, 13:25:08 08/04/03 Mon

I started watching in Season 5, and like tomfool, have been catching up on the other seasons in no particular order. Not having cable, a DVD player, or any Buffy addicted pals with tapes, I've been catching past seasons on the local UPN station and sometimes Fox.

I am more forgiving of Seasons 6 and 7 than the long-time viewers. However, as I work my way through the high school years, I get madder and madder at ME for all the crap they've heaped on Buffy. Seeing her innocence and love of life in the early seasons makes the contrast of S5 and S6 too stark.

[> [> [> [> Re: Latecomers -- jane, 19:01:59 08/04/03 Mon

The very first episode of Buffy for me was "The Gift". Friends had been trying to convince me to watch for ages, but I was turned off by the title. Guess I thought it was too silly for an adult to watch. When I saw the episode, I was so blown away. Even though I wasn't sure what was going on, I couldn't wait for season 6! Over that summer I caught up when the Space channel started daily showings from the initial Season 1 show. I have been totally and completely hooked ever since. There's not one season I don't love, warts and all.

[> [> [> Re: Latecomers -- ponygirl, 07:59:50 08/05/03 Tue

I got one of my co-workers hooked on BtVS this summer, but he had one of the oddest viewing orders I can imagine. First he bought AtS on dvd and naturally was pretty confused. I told him to start with the BtVS s2 dvds, then he went on to s3. When s4 came out he was watching s6 on repeats. Then he bought s1. But he's hooked.

I've been watching since s2 and I love the later seasons (well not s7).

[> Does your friend have Tourette's? -- Masq, 12:30:29 08/04/03 Mon

This is an adult board, or, to be more precise, an if-you're-old-enough-to-watch-Buffy-you're-old-enough-to-read-this board.

I have no problem with the style of his chagrin.

But that's just me. I curse like George Carlin.

[> [> Re: Does your friend have Tourette's? -- tomfool, 13:31:05 08/04/03 Mon

Yeah, sorry for the unedited version, but it didn't have the same immediacy in the PG edition.

Sy (not real name) is a currently under-employed 30ish waiter/photographer/artist/lay minister. He's got a bit too much time on his hands at the moment, thus the ability to speedball (nice pun cjc). Manic, yes. Tourette's, nah. He never fails to make me laugh.

Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- Cheryl, 13:15:31 08/03/03 Sun

Is it just me, or is someone or something relative to Buffy everywhere you look? A few months ago I started pointing out to a friend any Buffy connection we saw, usually at the movies (and there were quite a few). For example, as we were watching The Matrix Reloaded I pointed out that Laurence Fishburne was married to Gina Torres from Angel, not realizing that a few minutes later Torres herself would show up on screen.

Then my friend went to NY to see a play that Randolph Mantooth was in (weíre big Emergency! fans). This play had 4 actors ñ one of whom turned out to be the guy who played Quentin Travers.

So, over the months little things like these are popping up. And now, just in the last week alone I saw Danny Strong in Seabiscuit, then I turn on the tv the other night and Pleasantville is on, with not only Danny Strong and Marc Blucas, but also the woman who played Joyceís friend-turned-zombie from season 3. Then, I get my Winsor Pilates DVD the other day and who is one of the exercise models (or whatever you call them), but Dagney Kerr, aka roommate from hell, Kathy. And this morning Iím flipping channels and the TVGuide channel is showing clips from the Comedy Central reruns of Conan, etc., and thereís a clip of SMG. Not to mention with all of the American Wedding hoopla, thereís just no escaping AH these days.

Anyone else having these Twilight Zonesque experiences?

[> I find it kinda pleasant... -- ZachsMind, 13:30:23 08/03/03 Sun

It's not gonna stop there either. Charisma Carpenter's got a tv movie this month on the ABC Family channel that might blossom into a regular series if it doesn't crash and burn. This fall we'll have Tru Calling with Eliza Dushku, and coming soon there'll be SMG's Scooby sequel and I'm sure we'll see a lot of her during publicity for that. Seth Green pops up every now and again too, sometimes in the most unlikely places. Hopefully Emma Caulfield will find a vehicle that truly shows her potential, rather than something akin to icky Darkness Falls. I mean honestly! The Tooth Fairy! WHAT was she thinking? And we're not even talking about the times when Wheodonesque-touched talents will be behind the scenes and some of us will take it for granted. Like Espenson's writing, or the special effects team that worked Buffy and still works Angel also doing work for Judging Amy and other tv series. Sometimes we won't even realize when ramifications of the Buffyverse are gonna touch our lives again. Like ripples in the swimming pool.

So maybe it's kinda weird but it's a good kinda weird. I'm just glad to see such talented people whose work I enjoy continue to work even though the thing that once brought them together has passed. It's a good kinda weird.

[> [> Re: I find it kinda pleasant... -- Cheryl, 14:21:52 08/03/03 Sun

So maybe it's kinda weird but it's a good kinda weird. I'm just glad to see such talented people whose work I enjoy continue to work even though the thing that once brought them together has passed. It's a good kinda weird.

Absolutely! I didn't mean it in a bad way. I just find it rather amazing how much of an impact everyone involved in Buffy has on our culture, pop or otherwise, beyond BtVS and Ats.

[> [> [> Whenever I go out drinking -- Ray, 16:51:12 08/03/03 Sun

and I have hard liquor I do the "bleh" like Buffy did, then I make sure to tell everyone in the bar about the episode.

[> [> [> [> Re: Whenever I go out drinking -- ZachsMind, 21:27:33 08/03/03 Sun

Do you notice everybody at the bar inch away from you and ignore you for the rest of the night? Cuz that often happens to me if I even mention my Buffy interests in passing to the uninitiated.

[> Try "About Schmidt" -- Finn Mac Cool, 00:08:29 08/04/03 Mon

There they cast Harry Groener as just this all around friendly, neighborly guy. But, because of Buffy, I kept expecting him to do something psychoitc. They should be more careful in their casting. Only use type-cast actors; it's the only way to go.

[> [> Bite your tongue! =) -- ZachsMind, 06:27:39 08/04/03 Mon

It's the fear of typecasting that's causing many of our favorite Scoobies to seek a continuation of their careers outside of the Buffyverse. Typecasting is EVIL I tell you! EVIL!!!

Or at the very least, double plus ungood. =)

[> [> That was a truly weird experience! -- mamcu, 10:39:54 08/04/03 Mon

[> Hehe... -- pellenaka, 08:21:49 08/04/03 Mon

I always smile when I see them in something else. Sometimes because I can't separate them from their Jossverse role but mostly because it makes me feel good that they got acting jobs and it's great to see more of their range. Good for them.
I usually seek out their performances. I taped Pleasantville when that was on because in the commercial I heard Danny Strong say one of the two lines he had. Marc Blucas didn't have a single line but that's another story...
My sister and I went to see Darkness Falls because of Emma and waited for her to pop up in the end credits before we left. My sister went to see Just Married for Christian Kane and she said he was the best part of the movie.

Hey that's the girl who played Katrina! Isn't that Scott Hope? We have to watch Judging Amy tonight; Tom Lenk is on! (Although I missed that the last time they aired it)-:

Also a great way of remembering what the actors' names. (Amelinda Embry/Smith=Katrina, Fabrizio Filippo=Scott Hope)

[> Oh my god! I *thought* I recognized her! -- Sheri, 09:40:39 08/04/03 Mon

Then, I get my Winsor Pilates DVD the other day and who is one of the exercise models (or whatever you call them), but Dagney Kerr, aka roommate from hell, Kathy.

I was wondering why the chick was making me feel wiggy.

[> [> Too weird! -- tomfool, 14:11:58 08/04/03 Mon

I watched the introduction to the first WP DVD last week and was really bugged by how familiar that woman looked. I couldn't figure it out. Now I'll never be able to look at it the same again. She looks a whole lot better as an exercise model. But then, Kathy was kind of a purposefully creepy character.

[> Re: Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- Alison, 15:47:42 08/04/03 Mon

Vi is appearing everywhere. I've seen her in an ad for the sequel to "Bring it On" (ME actresses and cheerleader movies..hmmm)...and some anti-drug ad, and the Casablanca diet Coke commerical. And the actress that played Sam was in a shampoo commercial recently that tried to use Susan B. Antony to hawk their product.

[> [> Re: Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- Cheryl, 19:16:05 08/04/03 Mon

Vi is appearing everywhere. I've seen her in an ad for the sequel to "Bring it On" (ME actresses and cheerleader movies..hmmm)...and some anti-drug ad, and the Casablanca diet Coke commerical.

That's right! How could I forget the Casablanca commercial? It took a couple of times before I figured out where I knew her from.

[> [> [> Re: Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- Alison, 20:01:42 08/04/03 Mon

I personally am thrilled she's getting so much work. Vi was my favorite potential, and the actress who played her did a terrific job taking her from a girl recognizable only by her hat to a kick ass warrior. Plus, stupid as this may sound...I really like that diet Coke commercial.

[> Just caught Kennedy shilling maxi pads! -- HonorH, 22:00:39 08/04/03 Mon

Kind of a cute commercial, if you can get over the product.

[> [> I saw her the other day on an old ER rerun... -- Alison, 12:18:17 08/05/03 Tue

she must have been pretty young..she still had her baby fat.
And for everyone who has wondered where Robia La Morte went, I saw her last year in a newpaper commerical. If only she could have come back to play the First- I know she had some real problems playing it the first time, but she did such a great job...and her being there would have explained a lot of Giles' actions.

[> Re: Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- btvsk8, 06:54:31 08/05/03 Tue

Anyone catch Ethan Rayne (sorry don't know the actor's name) in the first few minutes of Jurasic Park 3? His daughter got attacked by lots of tiny dino's, poor thing. That was weird.

[> Re: Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- shambleau, 09:54:37 08/05/03 Tue

Marc Blucas is in "I capture the Castle". One local review described it as a movie where male viewers will feel like they're undergoing estrogen therapy. Somewhat more clever than using the sneering chick flick put down, but I thought it was a good movie and Blucas did a competent job.

[> [> Re: Is there no escaping the Buffy universe? -- Cheryl, 16:00:06 08/05/03 Tue

Marc Blucas is in "I capture the Castle". One local review described it as a movie where male viewers will feel like they're undergoing estrogen therapy. Somewhat more clever than using the sneering chick flick put down, but I thought it was a good movie and Blucas did a competent job.

I have been waiting for months to see this movie and now I don't even think it's coming to Phoenix! He's also in The Alamo with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton, supposedly coming out later this year.

[> [> [> so there *is* escaping the buffy universe... -- anom, 20:45:59 08/05/03 Tue

"I have been waiting for months to see this movie and now I don't even think it's coming to Phoenix!"

...if you live in Phoenix?

[> [> [> [> Ohmygosh! You're right. I want back in!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Cheryl, 21:50:26 08/05/03 Tue

An interesting quote from ED -- Dochawk, 13:54:42 08/03/03 Sun

from a new ED interview: "I take each day as it comes. Joss and I discussed the spinoff as an idea, and I want to work with him again, whether it's a spinoff or a film," Dushku said. "I love his writing; he's the man."

At a WB press party earlier in the week, Whedon said he would produce a spinoff starring Dushku if she becomes available. "Absolutely"

Now are we hoping for Tru Calling to Fail??? Its a difficult decision (though given the troubles Tru Calling has had and Fox's penchant to cancel in 3 episodes, it doesn't bode well anyway).

[> I look at it this way... -- deeva, 17:40:10 08/03/03 Sun

not hoping or wishing for Tru Calling to fail but hoping that Ed gets a show that clicks with/for her. Whether it's this or something with JW. Of course, I would prefer the later but that's to expected, no? And I think that we'll eventually get a spin off of sorts out of JW in a year or so.

Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2003 - * Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures * Pt. I -- OnM, 18:57:43 08/03/03 Sun


The artist who aims at perfection in everything achieves it in nothing.

............ Eugene Delacroix


It's a betrayal to the cinema, a waste of resources, and pretty much a piece of trash. But on the other hand, I had fun.

............ Jaime N. Christley, from Film Written Magazine


Art is either plagiarism or revolution.

............ Paul Guaguin


Yep, this is pure eye candy. And as such it usually borders on, well... amazing.

............ Mervius, from Fantastica Daily


The people who make art their business are mostly imposters.

............ Pablo Picasso

If my husband would ever meet a woman on the street who looked like the women in his paintings, he would fall
over in a dead faint.

............ Pablo Picasso's Wife


Males have a lot of trouble not looking at breasts. What is worse, males cannot look at breasts and think at the
same time. In fact, scientists now believe that the primary biological function of breasts is to make males stupid.
This was proved in a famous 1978 laboratory experiment wherein a team of leading male psychological
researchers at Yale deliberately looked at photographs of breasts every day for two years, at the end of which
they concluded that they had failed to take any notes. "We forgot," they said. "We'll have to do it over."

............ Dave Barry, from The Miami Herald


Youíve come a long way, baby!

Those of us who are of a certain age will always associate this singular line with, of all things, a Virginia Slims
cigarette commercial. On the one hand, you could posit that the advertising industry (both then and now) is only
emulating The Almighty, whose favorite invention could very arguably be irony. On the other hand, they might just
be incredibly stupid and singleminded in the pursuit of the almighty (your currency goes here), and understand
from long, practical experience that ënothing succeeds like excessí. You throw out a given concept often enough,
and whatever objective accuracy or truthfullness may be extant falls by the wayside as your brain eventually
submits and slides into the synaptic groove and goes ìUhhh, OK!î with a shiny happy little brain grin. You may
not want a certain turn of phrase or graphic image welded into your gray matter, but short of shutting yourself off
completely from the world around you, itís pretty darn hard to avoid.

To be fair, the best way to deal with this unsolicited brain branding is often to ridicule the ridiculous in turn, but
even then, there be monsters. For example, in the above stated case of ìyouíve come a long way, babyî, the
feminist lefties of the day were quick to rejoinder with ìI havenít come a long way, and donít call me
î Unfortunately, this is much less funny than it sounds at first, and after a brief intellectual effort you will
realize why-- it wasnít intended to be funny, it was intended to be angry. Now, getting overly
angry about something that is inherently absurd often says a good deal more about the respondent than about the
perpetrator, but when your options are limited, itís an understandable response. I mean, you have to do
something! You feel that if you donít point out the fact that lung cancer is not really any sexier if itís
wrapped in a slimmer, prettier package, you are doing society a disservice. Worse yet, implying that women as a
group are making social progress because they can now freely and actively choose to do something stupid just
like the menfolk can isnít supposed to be anyoneís idea of a revolution, now is it?

You may not like this answer, but I have to begrudgingly admit that it sorta is. Please donít assume that your
humble movie man is bandwagoning something as Orwellian as a ìFreedom is Stupidityî campaign. In fact, I
detest stupidity, since on any given workday my very own consumer electronics men and womenfolk cause me
no end of misery for no better reason than ëbecauseí. And thatís just one lame industry among soooooo
very many.

But way on back a few when I did that epic Riley character post, I pointed out that Joss had subverted the
classic Western creation myth whereby Eve (that naughty slut!) tempts the Godly Adam into a fall from grace
when he created the character of Riley. In Jossís universe, itís men who have to be saved by women, and Buffy
is the one who presents Riley with the fundamental dilemma of having to choose mindless obedience and the
consequences of same-- good or bad-- or the right to choose for oneself what one wishes to be, and so bear
alone the same consequences, good or bad. Riley ponders the balance for awhile, and eventually decides that a
little anarchy will be good for the soul.

Granted, it doesnít last forever. Riley eventually decides that he functions at his best when he works within a
firmly structured vertical hierarchy of some sort. He can be a leader, no problem, but at least so far he
isnít ready to be the leader. What is more interesting (from the Jossian perspective) is that Riley is
perfectly comfortable serving under the leadership of a woman, and perhaps even prefers it. There are numerous
psycho-sexual reasons that could be called under examination for this particular subject, but I wonít go into them
here. Suffice it to say that if you present this image/concept often enough, it will start to stick in the collective
mindset, male and female brains alike. Joss understands the power of advertising, heís just far more intellectual
and insidious with the campaign. Itís all about Power, and the power to bend minds (for good or for evil)
can be demonstrated with a simple ìPlop, plop, fizz, fizzî or with a seven year creation of a complex,
multi-layered fictional feminist universe. Either way, what a relief it is.

Which brings us to this very first venture into the newly refurbished (OK, thatís an exaggeration-- truth in
advertising only here at CMotW!) but still very traditional month-of-Augustís ìGuilty Pleasures / Buried
Treasuresî feature, always a big personal favorite of mine for the length of time Iíve been doing this flick schtick.
While there is always something faintly philosophical brewing around this space, this is a chance to let my
intellectual facade stand down for a moí and admit to the hapless liking of some fairly oddball, quirky, or even
mainstream-critic-rejected types of movies. As always, there will be those titles that you may never have heard
of, or that you saw once long ago but now only dimly recall, or the ìyouíve gotta be kidding!! you
really like this bomb? genres to comtemplate. This is a full service (no it isnít-- get real!) movie review
column, and as always, your humble movie man will go the extra distance for your greater viewing enjoyment and
intellectual stimulation.

Donít believe me? Then welcome to this weekís Classic Movie, Charlieís Angels, by director
Joseph McGinty Nichol, who goes by the professional moniker ëMcGí. Starring Cameron Diaz, Drew
Barrymore and Lucy Liu as the contemporary descendants of the original 70ís TV seriesí detective/adventurer
trio, we get to viddy what essentially is three femme/James Bond archetypes on speed. From a feminist
perspective, this film is either insanely insulting or irreverently transcendent. Iím voting for the latter, which is not
to say that I think this is a day-glo Citizen Kane, but it does have its moments, and quite a lot of them in fact.

It also represents a first for me in one other particular way, which is that I would like to recommend that even if
you were disconcerted in a negative direction after seeing this film in the theater, you still need to rent the DVD
just so you can hear the delightful commentary track provided by McG and his cinematographer Russell
Carpenter. While I liked the film (mildly) in its theatrical presentation, giving it about a 6 on a 10-scale, I liked it a
great deal more after hearing the commentary track. Charlieís Angels may be mostly eye-candy, but
make no mistake, this was very carefully crafted eye-candy. There is a temptation to dismiss something this
unrepentantly over-the-top as being a kind of haphazard mess thrown together willy-nilly, but I can assure you
that such is not the case. Even before the commentary managed to expand my appreciation, there were a number
of things I noticed in the film that had me going ìdid he just do what I think he just did?î Yeah, he did.
Hair flip meets Hitchcock, anyone? This is homage city central, and if you are a hard core TV/movie junkie, youíll
have a field day.

The other factor here is the stunning work by Diaz, Liu and Barrymore. Yes, it is stunning, I donít care if this is a
word seldom applied to acting in this kind of film, it is well deserved. These women have power, and they
cheerfully flaunt it every single moment they are on the screen. Itís a kind of amiable power that encompasses
intelligence, physical/athletic capability, unapologetic sexuality and-- most importantly-- self-deprecating humor.
Even when the bad guys (or girls) momentarily get the advantage over our heroes, you know for a certainty that
itís only very temporary. Does it brood about serious human issues at great length in BtVS fashion? Provide
metaphors for the realverse buried in with the fantasy elements? Hell no. It kicks ass and looks good doing it.
This is a female-driven latter-day-James Bondian style uber-popcorn-fest, and it flaunts that too, winking all the
while at itself.

This Charlieís Angels story exists in a universe not unlike the Buffyverse, in that we have to learn to
accept the impossible as possible and then move on with our forebrains just coasting, else our enjoyment quotient
will be greatly diminished. As cinematographer Carpenter mentions in passing near the end part of the
commentary track (paraphrasing), ìIf youíre still looking for logic at this point in the film, youíre watching the
wrong movie.î One of the commonest comments I saw posted in reviews when this film was released (and that
have reappeared in even greater quantity on the occasion of the sequelís release this summer) was that ìthe
stunts/situations are unrealistic!î Well, duh-uh! Of course theyíre unrealistic, the whole damn premise is ludicrous
fer cryiní out loud! If I might return to the earlier argument about the basic right of women to do stupid things just
like men, why doesnít anyone-- or hardly anyone-- say these things about the James Bond films, or the Bad Boys
films, or any of these other recent stunt-filled car-crashy type action extravaganzas? I mean, Arnold
Schwartzenegger in Total Recall? Realistic? Get real.

No, as the technical abilities of filmmakers increase, there is a natural tendency to push the envelope in terms of
what images can be presented to the audience and have them at least momentarily suspend disbelief. Considering
the highly energetic nature of action movies, it all comes down to whether the film attempts to present itself as part
of the realverse or not. Films that try to straddle this line usually fail, with very rare exception, such as movies that
invoke the ëmagical realityí concept. If you are going for realism, then you must constrain yourself to
depicting actions that real humans could reasonably perform or endure. On the other hand, if you are plainly
creating a totally fantasy universe, such as comic books might do, then pretty much all bets are off, as long as you
are consistent within the general intentions of your design. Using these criteria, a film like Total Recall fails
miserably, while Charlieís Angels succeeds gloriously.

And speaking of technical abilities, I was shocked to discover that Diaz, Liu and Barrymore did the vast majority
of their own stunts in this film, including the extensive aerial wirework involved in the numerous Hong-Kong
martial arts style fight scenes. Watching the theatrical release, I just assumed that it was mostly doubles and
digital, because most of the fights are really beautifully designed and choreographed. But ëtaint so-- itís really
reasonably ërealí. The wires may have been digitally excised just like they were in Crouching Tiger, Hidden
, but thatís still Cameron Diaz kick-boxing, landing a foot-- repeatedly, we are told, for take after
take-- within a half-inch of where itís supposed to be to avoid possibly crushing another actors neck. Or Liu
vigorously swinging a heavy chain numchuck style and dodging some elaborate swordplay in another sequence.
Or Barrymore performing a demanding series of stunts over the course of several hours of shooting while
apparently seriously under the weather from some illness or another.

Indeed, McG speaks repeatedly and with huge admiration for the willingness of his actors to do the extensive
and often painful physical training needed (for nearly four months of daily workouts) to make the fight sequences
look visually credible (again, within a purely fantasy context, OK?) Itís true, and use of the slo-mo and
freeze-frame features on you DVD player will reveal that the man knows of what he speaks. Everything happens
so quickly on the first time through the movie that itís easy to lose sight of these subtleties.

As to the inevitable comparisons between the Angelís film (and now a second one) and the original TV
series, Iím afraid that I canít comment very knowledgeably since I found the TV version rather boring and
seldom ever watched it. (McG humorously comments on the TV show-to-movie crossover deal very early on in
the film, when the in-flight movie on a plane is ìT.J. Hooker: The Movieî, and a passenger makes a mildly
disparaging remark about it.) On the limited basis that I did interact with the original show, it seems clear to me
that McG felt about it as I did-- he saw it as a product of and limited by its political and social time that could be
reinvented, and not simply slavishly copied. No matter what one feels about the social and political subtext of the
Charlieís Angels films (assuming there is any), they certainly arenít boring.

Day-glo me up, Scottie.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



Technically, hot chicks with superpowers rule:

Charlieís Angels is available on DVD, which was also the format of the review copy. The film was
released in 2000 and running time is 1 hour and 38 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio was 2.35:1, which
was preserved on the DVD. The film was produced by Leonard Goldberg, Drew Barrymore & Nancy Juvonen,
and screenwriting credits go to Ryan Rowe, Ed Solomon and John August. Cinematography was by Russell
Carpenter & Michael St. Hilaire, with film editing by Peter Teschner & Wayne Wahrman. Art Direction was by
David F. Klassen & Richard F. Mays. Production design was by J. Michael Riva, with set decoration by Lauri
Gaffin, and costume design by Joseph G. Aulisi.

Original music was by a whole big buncha peeps, namely: Samuel J. Barnes, Brent Daniels, Marti Frederiksen,
BeyoncÈ Knowles, Daniel Lenz, Errol 'Poppi' McCollo, Jean Claude Olivier, Joe Perry, Cory Rooney, Ed
Shearmur, Fatboy Slim and Steven Tyler.

Then we have your equally mellifluous non-original music by the likes or actualities of: Damon Albarn, George
Clinton, Bootsy Collins, Jonathan Davis, Thomas DeLonge, David Fenton, Marvin Gaye, Jan Hammer, Jimi
Hendrix, Mark Hoppus, Liam Howlett, Michael Jackson, Gary Kemp, George Michael, Cedric Miller, Freddie
Perren, Anthony L. Ray, James Shaffer, David Silveria, Nikki Sixx, Chip Taylor, Keith Thornton, Brian Welch,
Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson.

The original theatrical sound mix was presented in all the current standard digital formats, namely Dolby Digital,
DTS and SDDS. The sound mix on the DVD version was Dolby Digital 5.1, and is very well recorded, involving
and highly enjoyable. The DVD also sports oodles of extras, including (as mentioned) the very cool directorís /
cinematographerís commentary track.

Cast overview:

Cameron Diaz .... Natalie Cook
Drew Barrymore .... Dylan Sanders
Lucy Liu .... Alex Munday
Bill Murray .... John Bosley
Sam Rockwell .... Eric Knox
Kelly Lynch .... Vivian Wood
Tim Curry .... Roger Corwin
Crispin Glover .... The Thin Man
Luke Wilson .... Pete
John Forsythe .... Charles Townsend (voice)
Matt LeBlanc .... Jason Gibbons
Tom Green .... The Chad
LL Cool J .... Mr. Jones
Sean Whalen .... Pasqual
Tim Dunaway .... Flight attendant
Alex Trebek .... Himself


Departmento de Miscellaneouso:

Some brief comments on the Charlieís Angelís sequel, Full Throttle, probably still playing in your
local multiplex as you read this:

"It's pretty much the same movie as the first one, except more of everything, and this movie has a lot of everything
to have more of."

............ Nell Minow, from Movie Mom

I think it has more to do with mood than with what's on the screen. "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" is more or
less the same movie as the original "Charlie's Angels" (2000), and yet I feel more forgiving this time. Wow, did I
hate the first one: "A movie without a brain in its three pretty little heads." I awarded it one-half of a star. But
what, really, was so reprehensible about that high-tech bimbo eruption? Imagine a swimsuit issue crossed with an
explosion at the special-effects lab, and you've got it. Maybe I was indignant because people were going to
spend their money on this instead of going to better movies that were undoubtedly more edifying for them. But if
people wanted to be edified every time they went to the movies, Hollywood would be out of business.

............ Roger Ebert

OK, Iím gonna leave it at those two, because they kinda make the basic point as I see it regarding Full
. As before, there were a large mixture of positive and negative reviews, and typically very polarized,
as before. The one difference is that on average, far more people seemed to have liked the first film better than
the second. To date, I count myself in the first before last camp, but I did enjoy the sequel and had a good time
watching it anyway. The action parts really were close to overbearing at times, but if you dig the high energy rush
groove above all else, the film assuredly does live up to the title conceit. If you are looking for some infusion of
the logic that was missing from the first flick, youíre really out of luck. Meanwhile, Iím eagarly awaiting the DVD
to see if the commentary lives up to the prior offering, along with the chance to see the film at a more considered

Misc stuff Part Dos:

With an even more outrageous point of departure than Charlieís Angels, Pirates of the Caribbean -
Curse of the Black Pearl
sounds like it should be a big old flopperoonie, but not only isnít that the case, this is
a truly marvelous piece of cinematic wonderment. If by chance you havenít seen it yet, please
make it the very next stop on your moviegoing itinerary! Iíve been a Johnny Depp fan for quite a few years now,
and he has this uncanny ability to work either inside or outside the film mainstream and present fabulous acting
chops. Besides Deppís tour-de-force as one of the strangest and most compelling fictional pirates the world has
ever known, the movie is absolutely sumptuous visually, and is so on a continual basis. There is one fairly
short but totally unforgettable scene in particular in the last quarter of the movie that involves the cursed crew of
the Black Pearl and an underwater moonlight shot that all but made my jaw drop-- it just goes to show that CGI
can be a major force for cinematic good when used by people who understand that technology still needs to
serve artistic vision, not substitute or prostitute for it.

A small masterpiece, and one of the best films I seen so far this year, 8 on a 10-scale. Go! See! Now!! Yahrrr!


Winding down now, we find ourselves in a familiar place. Ahh, comforting, isnít it? Thatís me, the cinematic


The Question of the Week:

( Gee, I wonder if the kind soul who suggested this question-of-the-week idea ever thought Iíd get all this mileage
out of it? See, ya speak up, suggest something, sometimes ya get noticed. Or not. You cast your fate to the wind,
now donítcha? But now itís all the way to a tradition, so a whoo and a hoo! Itís good to be doiní this column
again. I might even keep on going right into September. But I wonít promise, ëcos thatís usually a good
way for fate to rear its chaotic crest and royally foul things up. )

Zee Question ees:

What was the last film that you saw that you really liked that almost everyone else you know-- including
most professional movie critic/reviewers-- absolutely hated? You may go back as many years as you like,
and please do make with all the embarrassing details, unless of course you are/were so incredibly self-assured
that you managed to convince your friends that you were right and everybody else was totally missing the mark.

So in keeping with the prodigal return to my time-honored (or at least vagely repetitive) former fashion, I will ask
once again, kindly post ëem if youíve got ëem!

And Iíll see you next week with yet another guilty pleasure / buried treasure to challenge your perceptions and/or
freak out your friends.



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2003 - * Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures * Pt. I -- Rufus, 00:39:08 08/04/03 Mon

Riley eventually decides that he functions at his best when he works within a firmly structured vertical hierarchy of some sort.

Hey!!!!!!!!!! I can supply that.....;)

[> [> er .. Blade 2? -- MsGiles, 03:51:38 08/04/03 Mon

No-one I know wanted to see this, not even the SF group, surprisingly. Too mainstream for the cult film people, too gory for the gothic types who liked The Crow and the Buffy crowd.

I knew I was OK when the film opened in Prague in the future. Not much like sweetened-up tourist Prague is now, more like Angel's LA with a bit of run-down post-communist Austro-Hungarian in the mix, peopled by underclass types wearing hessian sacks, giving blood for money. And rich party goers, high on drink and drugs. A European styled take on the urban jungle, where the predators prowl the parties, run the blood banks.

Lots of posing, lots of leather. del Toro seems to like blood and semi-biological devices. 'Cronos' had the Cronos device: a diabolic brass insect-like mechanism, that clamped to the heart, gave youth. At a cost. 'Mimic' had the giant insect that could fold itself to mimic a cloaked, standing human, useful in the shadier parts of the subways it haunted. Blade2 has the amazing expanding face device, all the better to chomp you with.

Leather coats. Somersaulting ninjas. What they call a 'thumping soundtrack'. An uberubervamp modelled on Gary Oldman in Coppolas Dracula (the early bit, where he's all cope and wig). Tortuous family relationships, pathos, betrayal. Yay

[> [> [> And Ron Perlman, who was also in Cronos -- Arethusa, 07:36:57 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> I have both Blade films on DVD -- Rufus, 18:00:28 08/04/03 Mon

I made Mr.Rufus take me to Blade 2 when it opened. I think that Joss ripped off Blade2 in season four...I forget exactly which ep but I did mention it on the board.

[> [> Yep. She's got a very firmly structured vertical hierarchy -- dub ;o), 11:20:47 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> **smack** you darn tooting I do....I think....;) -- Rufus, 18:02:11 08/04/03 Mon

[> Re: Thanks OnM -- aliera, 05:13:42 08/04/03 Mon

Happy Monday... there's a CMotW!

Recently: Matrix Reloaded

A little Older: Queen of the Damned

[> Starship Troopers -- CW, 08:08:30 08/04/03 Mon

It was so close to the original story in tone that I couldn't help, but like it. Neil Patrick Harris was hideously miscast, and some of the acrobatics were hilarious. But, any movie that has Denise Richards smiling in it, ought to get an extra half-star just for that.

On the opposite hand, The critics loved American Beauty a few years ago. Have to say it was beautifully filmed, but otherwise pretensious crap.

[> [> Re: Starship Troopers -- ponygirl, 14:21:13 08/06/03 Wed

Hated Starship Troopers but I had one of the funniest movie going experiences ever while watching it.

When ST came out an ad was playing widely on tv for Barq's root beer. It featured a couple characters going on about root beer and ended with one guy urging his friend to spread the gospel of Barq's "you tell 'em Johnny, you tell the world!"

In the midst of ST, in the silence that followed a particularly iron-jawed speech by the leads someone in the theater cried out, "You tell 'em Johnny, you tell the world!"

It was the biggest theater in Toronto and nearly completely full, the place erupted for ten solid minutes. There were cheers and applause.

So I always have a soft spot for Starship Troopers. Never want to see it again, but good memories.

[> LadyHawke -- Anneth, 10:46:59 08/04/03 Mon

I admit, I'm one of the people who bristles at the idea of Charlie's Angels being a feminist movie - but that's a rant for a different day. And your review has certainly made me consider reconsidering my opinion. So, thanks for that, OnM!

My favorite unfavorite movie is the '86 flick LadyHawke, which has about 90 thousand things going for it (including but not in any way limited to: the stellar cast of Matthew Broderick, Rutger Hauer, Michelle Pfeiffer, Leo McKern, and John Wood; unbelievably beautiful cinematography; being set in 12th century Italy; swordfighting; magic; star-crossed romance), but for some reason is universally disparaged. I like it too much to really understand why. Sure, the final fight scene is an exercise in weird, cheesy '80s filmmaking, and the soundtrack is an exercise in weird, cheesy '80s music - but I love it.

[> [> Re: LadyHawke -- jane, 18:49:14 08/04/03 Mon

I love "Ladyhawke" too! I'm just a hopeless romantic at heart. Loved the fabulous black horse as well.

[> [> I love that movie! -- HonorH, 21:57:33 08/04/03 Mon

I bawled my way through it the first time I saw it--and the second, third, fourth, and fifth, too. Really quite a beautiful movie, in spite of the '80s-ness of it.

Though, y'know, I'm really quite unreasonably fond of the '80s.

[> [> [> Nothing unreasonable About it -- fresne, 09:34:02 08/05/03 Tue

And count me in as a Ladyhawke devotee.

Heck, I had the book.

Although, I must admit, I wish I could go in and change the soundtrack to 12cent music, but eh, minor point. Otherwise. The tragedy. The love. The clothes. The horses. The scenery. The funny Matthew Broderick. Michelle P, practically glowed through the whole movie.

As to my guilty pleasure, hmmm...I can have such trashy tastes. Earth Girls Are Easy. Blast fromt the Past. Mortal Kombat, love that movie. The soundtrack being also good bopping fun too.

Let's just leave it at my favorite version of Emma is Clueless and leave it at that.

[> [> [> Me too--esp the changes -- mamcu, 10:02:42 08/05/03 Tue

Loved it when she started to fall (jumped?) and changed to a hawk in mid-air--that's what I'd like to do!

[> [> [> [> Re: Me too--esp the changes -- Anneth, 12:02:07 08/05/03 Tue

Or that scene on the shore of the frozen lake, as he turns from wolf to human and she morphs from human to bird? Gah, gets me every freaking time!

[> [> Re: LadyHawke -- Rhys_Michael, 16:02:20 08/05/03 Tue

I love LadyHawke.

I remember when I first saw it, my best friend and I had walked barefoot to the mall. It was the first time I had gone to see a movie without a parent and it was great.

I loved it then and I still love it. In fact I own two copies of it.

[> Dante's Peak -- dub ;o), 11:18:42 08/04/03 Mon

Pierce Brosnan (yummy), Linda Hamilton (not quite up to her Sarah Connor best, but ok), and the best volcanic special effects you'll ever see. Plus, filmed in BC.


[> [> They filmed that at your house too.....????<g> -- Rufus, 18:03:57 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> "too"?? -- anom, 20:01:40 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: "too"?? -- anom, 20:07:15 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> oops! sorry--not sure how that happened, please ignore the 2nd one -- anom, 09:46:00 08/05/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: "too"?? -- dub ;o), 10:56:34 08/05/03 Tue

Rufus is referring to the fact that our living room is going to be used in a scene for a film that's shooting in September.

The movie stars Emma Roberts (Eric's daughter, Julia's niece) and Rachel Weisz (The Mummy, Enemy at the Gates, About a Boy). Both of them came trooping into my living room on Saturday afternoon, with no notice. Yikes! That's life in Hollywood North.

I'm happy, 'cuz I get an all-expense paid trip to the Island to visit Mom and Dad while this is going on. David is staying here to "oversee production." (OMG)


[> [> [> [> [> OT- Rachel Weisz -- Anneth, 12:05:53 08/05/03 Tue

RW has a special place in the hearts of the astronomy/astrophysics department at the University of Chicago. Part of the (horrible, horrible) Keanu Reeves movie Chain Reaction was shot at the University's observatory, in WI; all the professors fell in love with RW, who played an astrophysicist and was apparently really nice. And purty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT- Rachel Weisz -- dub ;o), 19:49:37 08/05/03 Tue

I can vouch for the fact that she is absolutely gorgeous in jeans, sweatshirt, and no make-up. And she is indeed a lovely person, asked me what the puppy's name was, etc. Apparently she's very smart as well.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I'm officially jealous ;o) -- CW, 07:49:57 08/06/03 Wed

Rachel Weisz can come tramp through my livingroom, too, if she wants.

[> [> [> [> [> WHOAAAA!!! that's really something! -- anom, 23:36:29 08/05/03 Tue

And you were gonna tell us about this when?

Well, have a nice visit w/your folks--hope you have computer access there!

[> Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:39:29 08/04/03 Mon

I just have no clue why so many people hate this movie. Even those who enjoy slasher movies (in fact, it seems, especially those who enjoy slasher movies) hate it. And I just can't see why. In some spots it's funny, in others it's scary, the characters are likable, and it even manages to build up some sympathy for deranged lunatic, Michael Myers. And who can't love the intense confrontation between Jamie and Michael? Someday I'm going to write a review of this movie to explain why I like it, and hopefully get some explanations from others about why they don't.

Now, let's try the flipside of that question: the most recent movie that I hated but everyone else seems to love. That, quite simply, is "The Godfather". Most. Overrated. Movie. Ever! Its fatal flaw was that it stayed too close to Mario Puzo's book (which I personally thought was quite good). This results in a confusing plot and lack of sympathy for anyone on screen (in the book, internal monolouges provide most of the characters' likable traits; the movie, obviously, couldn't have internal monolouges, but its stubborn faithfulness to the book didn't allow it to have any additional scenes to build up sympathy). How this piece of drek got rated #3 on the list of the hundred best movies I will never know.

[> [> Re: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers -- Sheri, 13:14:25 08/04/03 Mon

Now, let's try the flipside of that question: the most recent movie that I hated but everyone else seems to love. That, quite simply, is "The Godfather". Most. Overrated. Movie. Ever!

I felt the same way about "The English Patient". I was just bored silly and did not care at all about what happened in the lurve triangle (I did like the relationship between the nurse and the guy who finds the land mines, though). After awhile I dozed off, only waking up occaisionally to grumble "oh die already!" Why, yes, I am a cold heartless person!

[> [> [> Your real name doesn't happen to be Elaine Benez, does it? -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:43:01 08/04/03 Mon

You're mini-rant reminded me a great deal of an episode of "Seinfeld" where Elaine has the exact same problem: she hates "The English Patient" while everyone around her loves it. She ends up losing her friends, her boyfriend, and her job over it (but only until the next episode aired, naturally).

[> Meet Joe Black -- Alison, 13:06:32 08/04/03 Mon

I adore that movie, but everyone seems to revile it..too serious, too slow, too pretentious. I just don't get it..any movie that can make me like Brad Pitt has to be good.

[> I Bought a Vampire Motorcycle -- KdS, 15:55:06 08/04/03 Mon

Admittedly I saw it rather drunk at midnight in a fleapit at university, but that's when you need to watch those films. OK, the special effects are crappy, but it's deliberately funny and has some really memorable images (the nightmare with the dead guy returning as a turd, the broken headlight "fangs", the sunbeds). Not to mention Anthony "C-3PO" Daniels as a camp biker exorcist.

[> The Big Lebowski? -- Vickie, 21:16:01 08/04/03 Mon

I honestly don't know what the critical reaction was to this film, but almost everybody I know considers it dumb. I love it.

[> Dark Angel: The Ascent --
Cleanthes, 06:20:31 08/05/03 Tue

Buffy fans will know Angela Featherstone as the woman whose naked breasts are fondled by Eliza Dushku in 2001's Soul Survivors. Can't say as I much liked that movie, although Dushku always has loads of screen presence.

Earlier in her career, though. Featherstone did a straight-to-video film for the iffy Full Moon productions. In it she plays Veronica Iscariot, a vengeance demon escaped from a Miltonesque hell. The movie was made for peanuts in Rumania. Everything about it is odd. The Cheese Guy from `Restless` would fit right in. Featherstone owns the screen. It's impossible not to watch her every move as she smites sinners and falls in love with ... well, I won't spoil it.

I doubt it will make it to DVD, but big video stores will still have the tape to rent. A true guilty pleasure.

[> Echoing CW's "Starship Troopers" nod, and... -- Rob, 11:32:35 08/05/03 Tue

"The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle," which was completely torn apart by critics, and didn't fare well in the theatres, nor as a rental on video or DVD (I know this, because I was working at Blockbuster at the time it was released, and it was one of our least popular well-stocked titles of that month.). And yet, I thought the movie was completely delightful. Jason Alexander and Rene Russo were a wonderful Boris and Natasha, and the narrator, interacting with the characters was absolutely perfect. Perhaps not as funny or inventive as the "George of the Jungle" film, which, I believe, was better reviewed and received (incidentally, it is supremely better than the "Dudley Do-Right" film), but I can't help but love a film where Whoopi Goldberg appears playing the aptly-titled Judge Cameo, and Robert De Niro appears as Fearless Leader. I loved the central conceit of the film, that Rocky and Bullwinkle are literally sucked out of their cartoon world and planted in our modern "real" one. And hey, it makes me laugh. No, not Shakespeare, or even as great as the original cartoon series, the first season of which came out on DVD in the US today, but a fun film nonetheless.

Then again, I do have weird taste in movies. While this is probably the most recent example I can come up with of a movie I loved that everyone else hated, my all-time favorite-movie-that-only-I-seem-to-have-liked is "Howard the Duck," which I continue to maintain to this day, is kitschy fun. Yeah, the shift midway from fish duck-out-of-water comedy to dark-toned thriller is a bit uneven, and slightly ridiculous, since again, the main character is a frickin' duck, and the film itself is horribly dated and cheesy, yet it has a sweet-natured charm to it that it's hard for me to put my finger on. And it's fun to see so many familiar faces like Lea Thompson, Tim Robbins, and Jeffrey Jones, in such a lambasted film. I admit it...I loved "Howard the Duck."


[> [> Rocky and Bullwinkle on DVD!?!!! Thanks for the news! -- mamcu, 09:44:36 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> You're welcome!! -- Rob, 10:55:17 08/06/03 Wed

And it's well worth it. The set's great. Well, the video quality isn't amazing, even with restoration, but I doubt it could have looked much better. I assume that it at least it probably looks better than it did on its first run on TV. Comes with the first 26 episodes of the show, the first season, including the first 2 R&B serials (first one is 40 parts, the second is 16), and of course Fractured Fairy Tales, Mr. Peabody, Bullwinkle's Corner, Dudley Do-Right, etc. And the second season set's already in preparation! I'm not old enough to have seen the show in its original run, but I used to watch it every day religiously on Nickelodeon when I was growing up, so this is a nostalgic set for me, too!


[> [> [> [> In the original run... -- mamcu, 17:41:57 08/06/03 Wed

I had an old B&W set, rabbit ears, lots of horizontal scrolling...and it was wonderful! Puns, satire, quick wit---everything that's missing from a lot of jazzy special effects things that are around today.

Sigh, the good old days--but they didn't have Buffy!

[> [> Sorry, Rob--The Rocky and Bullwinkle Movie was awful -- cjl, 13:24:11 08/06/03 Wed

Liked the opening three minutes (the animated sequence), liked Bullwinkle's speech at Wottsamotta U., liked Randy Quaid debating with Bullwinkle at the White House--and that's it. (Oh yes, and Rene Russo was unbelievably hot as Natasha.) Everything else was like nails on a blackboard, especially Robert DeNiro as Fearless Leader.

In the R&B cartoons, you had eight jokes per minute, and even if 75% of them were awful, you laughed twice per minute. In the movie, you had SFX chases for 90% of the movie, with a few scattered jokes in between. I laughed twice. In 90 minutes. This is Hollywood--couldn't they have hired a gaggle of gag writers to barrage us with jokes, just like vintage R&B?

And where the frell was the famed "Alley Oop" maneuver?

I'm going to buy the first season Rocky and Bullwinkle DVD set, and try to completely erase the movie from my mind. And when I'm done with that, I'm going to buy the GOLDEN AGE OF WARNER BROTHERS CARTOONS (4-DVD set) in October and try to obliterate Space Jam.

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 3rd 2003 - * Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures * Pt. I -- Kenny, 14:00:07 08/05/03 Tue

The first time I saw McG in an interview, I thought (based on his appearance and speech), "Oh my god, it's Joss Whedon's evil twin brother!"

That said, I don't really remember the first CA movie, but I dug the second one. I think my favorite part was how the Angels would figure things out. You start with them figuring out, based on the crime scene evidence, that the murderer was a local surfer. They keep doing that, until the point they have pieces of evidence that aren't even tenuously connected and explain to a befuddled Bosley how they were able to put the whole caper together based on these ludicrous facts. I was rolling. The movie is damn fun.

Plus it has that really cool guy from "Mulholland Drive".

[> Dare I say it? "The Postman" -- mamcu, 08:30:54 08/06/03 Wed

Yes, many problems--not a flawless film. As a former Postal Worker myself, I loved the irony. And some wonderful moments--all the mad-max warriors watching "Sound of Music."

Darla vs Trick --
JBone, 20:15:08 08/03/03 Sun

Competition. Competition is a beautiful thing. It makes us strive. It... makes us accomplish. Occasionally, it makes us kill. We all have the desire to win. Whether we're human...vampire...and whatever the hell you are, my brother. You got them spiny-looking head things. I ain't never seen that before.

Two things that are taking me too long: Learning new software that would move the comments and voting to the same site. Learning the tango. Post ye comments here ye, here ye.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I'm still trying to recruit new members for the Tiebreaker Council. I'm not talking to those who have already volunteered and served, I'm speaking to those who vote everyday and haven't bothered to volunteer. I'd appreciate if some more of you stepped up to have your vote count more. Email me.

[> Darla! Darla, Darla, Darla! -- HonorH, 20:57:05 08/03/03 Sun

Trick was a poseur. Darla had more style in her little finger than he had in his entire wardrobe. (We'll just forget about her perverse little Catholic schoolgirl outfits first season--I think the Master liked them.) She lasted 400 years, some of which were spent playing Mama to the Fangsome Foursome. And she went out in the most heartbreaking way imaginable (before her mate went and screwed things up, but that wasn't her fault). Darla all the way!

[> I can't vote for Mr. Trick. -- pr10n, 21:44:36 08/03/03 Sun

I dreamt he was chasing me around a spaceship. I was a little goldfish, and the constant "I'm gonna eat you little fishy!" drove me to distrac... what's that you say? Trick is _NOT_ the Cat? My vote still goes for Darla.

[> [> Never noticed that before, but you're right! -- cjl (humming "Tongue-Tied"), 06:34:59 08/04/03 Mon

OK, you've just given me one of the opening salvos for the 2nd annual Lorne/Sweet Singing Smackdown:

K. Tood Freeman, Danny John-Jules and Hinton Battle, all in costume, singing "What Is Hip?"

[> [> [> did you say "annual"? -- anom, 08:25:47 08/04/03 Mon

Lorne vs. Sweet is gonna be annual? Awright! When's Smackdown II?

[> [> [> [> Hellzapoppin': Lorne/Sweet Smackdown II (December 2003) -- cjl, 08:41:56 08/04/03 Mon

Lorne vs. Sweet in front of a captive audience of 250,000 sentient beings at Fallen Angels Stadium in Hell.

Lorne wins, everybody goes home.

Lorne loses, everybody stays.


[> [> [> [> [> so no stalemate this time around, eh? -- anom, 10:44:06 08/04/03 Mon

Although...depending on who's in that captive audience, maybe it's not such a great idea for some of them to get out. But that in itself could make an interesting plot element.

I'm looking forward to being part of the figurative kind of captive audience for the event.

[> [> [> O/T Backing Sweet I guess, but isn't there an obvious comeback? -- Celebaelin, 04:47:49 08/05/03 Tue

The theme tune to Red Dwarf is, as far as I can tell, based on a song called White Angel by Roy Wood's Wizzard although I'm having trouble tracking this down on the web. In later series this gets metalled up, so much the better. I personally wouldn't go the whole hog but once the point is made you could segue into Evil Eyes by Dio (sax. resembles, and then fades to, distorted electric guitar, would possibly need RJD to sing it unless Lorne has as yet untapped reserves of metalness).

[> Talk about a landslide... -- Tchaikovsky, 01:07:33 08/04/03 Mon

It's 16-0 to Darla- a good sign that people are watching Angel, when she really budded.

Oh, and Jay, if you don't have enough tiebreaker people, my e-mail's above.

[> Darla, she of the myriad faces and impressive cleavage -- cjl, 06:49:43 08/04/03 Mon

Becoming, Part I.

(Yes, I know the outfit gave Julie Benz a little "help," but it was still impressive.)

Strange--I was never impressed with Darla while she was on BtVS. I thought Julie Benz' range was limited, and while I acknowledged her importance to Angel's backstory, I was never particularly eager to see Darla pop up in flashbacks. I think the Fool for Love/Darla crossover finally tipped the scales, and I was happy as a clam to see the whole pregnancy plotline take flight in Angel Season 3. I'd say I was sad to see her go, but I get the feeling she'll be back as long as Julie is willing to make room in her schedule. Darla is eternal.

[> [> "Darla is eternal" -- Masq, 12:23:25 08/04/03 Mon


[> Re: Darla vs Trick -- ApOpHiS, 06:57:27 08/04/03 Mon

Darla was a powerful, charismatic leader who beat death twice, while Mr. Trick was a follower; he took his wages and is dead (yes, it's Name That Poem!). Trick's mercenary nature, while lucrative and relatively safe (things look bad, leave), meant he was unfocused and weak willed. Darla was nothing if not strong willed; she disobeyed the Master, after all, something most vampires didn't survive. So, in summary, let us look back to my ruling on Giles vs. Gavin: Darla is a pimp, while Trick is a ho (fun with irony).

[> 38-1? Jay, this is a slaughter. Put a stake in the vamp--he is DONE. -- cjl (asking the ref to stop the fight), 16:16:19 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> This IS kinda brutal, but there are only a few hours left - Jay -- (not expecting a comeback but leaving a crack open for one), 16:42:16 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> [> Trick got a bum rap -- Masq, 17:36:21 08/04/03 Mon

He was a very cool character. One of the first to come along. He was such a promising villain. Different in so many ways. Then they made him the Mayor's lackey, which went totally against Trick's character the way they had set him up.

Then they dusted him before his time, which I suspect was done for story reasons they had not previous planned on.

Taking off my hat for Mr. Trick.

They brough Darla back from the dust and into our hearts. Why not Trick?

[> [> [> [> I agree with Masq -- cjl (board suck-up), 19:35:51 08/04/03 Mon

"He was a very cool character."

Absolutely. He had style, intelligence, and a wicked cool sick sense of humor. He redefined "take out" food long before Buffy went to work at the Doublemeat, and he set up Slayerfest '98, which may have been an inspiration for JBone's apocalyptic elimination rounds.

"[T]hey made him the Mayor's lackey, which went totally against Trick's character the way they had set him up."

Well, not exactly. I thought Trick WAS in character going along with Wilkins' ambitions, because it would have been profitable for him. I thought he'd eventually betray the Mayor when it was convenient, bank his "evil lieutenant" booty in his numbered Swiss account, then high-tail it out of the 'Dale like a truly smart supervillain. Alas, he was staked too soon. Too bad. He would have been a great recurring character, and the possibilities of a team-up with Ethan Rayne or other Buffyverse "contract" players were barely hinted at in Band Candy. Trick must've had one hell of a rolodex.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree with Masq AND cjl -- Q, 09:50:34 08/05/03 Tue

1st season gave us The Master-- a truly orthodox, set in the old ways-- almost RELIGIOUS vampire.

2nd season gave us Spike-- the anti-Master. A live-for-the-moment, a lot less ritual and a lot more fun, do first--plan later, loose cannon, vampire.

3rd season gave us Trick-- completely different than EITHER Spike or the Master. He was very cool and collected, and what really intrigued me-- VERY technologically savvy. The idea of a truly "modern" vampire seemed brilliant to me, and I was so excited to see the threat he presented-- and how the dangereousness of Trick would differ from that of The Master, Spike/Dru, or Angel. I think it was one of the shows early examples of wasted opportunity and unused potential. Sigh.

[> [> [> [> because then we couldn't argue about how people of color are treated on the show -- Diana, 08:40:43 08/05/03 Tue

[> Too bad it's not Darla vs Tick! -- Rochefort, 21:56:34 08/05/03 Tue

[> [> Or The Tick vs. Daria -- d'Herblay, 00:23:13 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> The Tick beats both Darla and Daria. (Spooooooooooooon!) -- cjl, 06:41:02 08/06/03 Wed

Somewhat OT: Question concerning Buffy and Lolita -- Sheri, 08:39:29 08/04/03 Mon

I seem to recall people saying that the way Buffy looks the very first time Angel sees her (i.e. sucking on a lollypop) is supposed to be modeled after the way Lolita looks the first time Humbert sees her. But I was watching the Stanley Kubrick version (yuck to that one with Jeremy Irons) and I didn't see any lollypop licking scenes. So, were parts cut out of what I watched? Or is the lollypop in the book, but not in the movie? I know there's a picture of Lolita with heart shaped glasses and a lollypop on the cover of the DVD I've got, but neither of those seem to appear in the movie.

If anybody can let me know, that would be great. Thanks!

[> Re: Somewhat OT: Question concerning Buffy and Lolita -- Lumina, 18:37:39 08/04/03 Mon

The first time Humbert sees Lo she's sunbaking seductively in her back garden in a two piece swimsuit and non-heart shaped sunnies. The heart shaped glasses and lollipop featured prominently in the original advertising campaign ("how did they ever make a movie of Lolita"), so from the beginning the girl-sucking-on-lollipop image has been very closely associated with the film.

Fray #8 out this Wednesday --
Kenny, 09:00:39 08/04/03 Mon

Just a heads-up for you people needing their WhedonFix(tm). The last issue of the Fray comic, written by JW himself, hits stores Wednesday (Aug 6). If you haven't read previous issues, you might just want to wait for the trade paperback to come out. If you're really Jonesing for some Jossian goodness, however, the (incredibly long) wait for this issue is now over. If you've read Buffy comics in the past and been burned because they're not up to snuff, have no worries. This is quite a bit better, full of the Joss humor and tragedy we know and love.

If anyone hasn't read the book and wants a recap of what's happened, speak up. If no one beats me to it, I'll post a recap of issues 1-7 so you can have some idea what's going on if you decide to pick it up.

[> Love a recap of the Fray Series -- heywhynot, 12:30:58 08/04/03 Mon

Kenny I would be one who would like a recap of the Fray mini-series. From the bits of what I can pick up seems to be a very interesting tale especially given the events of season 7. Hopefully will pick it up in paperback version when it comes out.

[> [> Re: Love a recap of the Fray Series (spoilers for the comic) -- Kenny, 12:58:47 08/04/03 Mon

Previously, on "Joss Whedon's Fray":

Maleka Fray is a thief-for-hire in a not-really-post-apocolyptic(as there was never an apocolypse)-but-still-not-very-cheery future. Flying cars and ray guns type future. She's strong and agile, which makes her a good thief, but she doesn't really think about why.

The old city has been built over, with the rich living up in the towers and the poor living in the dark. Nobody's heard of vampires, but they are terrorized by Lurks, who really like it down there. As mutation is pretty rampant, it's just assumed they're products of science, not the supernatural, which is pretty much dead.

Enter a crazy man who tries to explain vampires to Maleka and ends up setting himself of fire. It's the last of the Watcher's Council (meaning, yes, it looks like they were restarted). She doesn't get much info from him. Instead, she's approached by a demon named Urkonn, who explains that she's the first slayer to be called in quite a while (the series gives an intentionally vague reason as to why). She doesn't take it take it seriously at first, but before long she realizes the threat the lurks present.

She's got an older sister, who's a cop. She also had a twin brother, Harth, but he died when she took him on a job. Not only was he killed, he was turned in the process. The twist is that, while Maleka got the physical aspects of the slayer, Harth ended up with the SlayerDreams. In some ways, he knows more about being a slayer than Maleka does. He's now the big bad, and he's currently in the process of opening a hellmouth-like plot device. Cue issue #8.

[> oooh good -- MsGiles, 05:38:49 08/05/03 Tue

I like Fray. I want the conclusion! My local comics shop guy keeps going 'Fray 8? Joss Whedon *expressive shrug*'
Here's a fansite with some pics and .. anaylsis ..

I'm sure there are more.

Anyone else think Urkonn looks exactly like Giles around the chin area?

[> [> Re: oooh good -- Kenny, 12:04:34 08/05/03 Tue

After rewatching "A New Man" when the S4 DVDs came out, I had to run and find a picture of Urkonn. I was a bit disappointed that Demon!Giles and Urkonn didn't look exactly alike.

gnosticism on the radio today -- anom, 09:36:39 08/04/03 Mon

The Leonard Lopate Show on WNYC public radio will have a segment today (quite soon now, actually) in which "Karen King explains the history and belief system of gnosticism, What Is Gnosticism?" King is on the Harvard Divinity School faculty. You can hear the show by going to
WNYC's website & clicking on either the AM or the FM button under "On The Air Now" at the right side of the screen (you may need to scroll over); the segment should be the 2nd in a show that starts (OK, started) at noon Eastern time. If you miss it live, you can hear it after ~5 pm today at the same site by clicking on "The Leonard Lopate Show" & then on the link for the segment.

[> Thanks for the heads up, Anom -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:26:47 08/04/03 Mon

[> Thanks! -- mamcu, 10:35:59 08/04/03 Mon

She recently wrote a book on that topic--wonder if anyone's read it?

Angel and losing his soul -- Diana, 10:41:15 08/04/03 Mon

I was thinking about what Bit said at the DC Meet Sunday in regards to the danger of Angel losing his soul because of Connor season 3. She has a very good point, but I think that point is addressed by "Awakening." Angel has grown as a person/vampire. No longer will a quickie with the object of his affection induce that moment of perfect happiness. Not even passionate Hallmark Hall of Fame love will do it. Instead before he could lose his soul, he had to straighten out all the crap that was his life. When Connor is born, he is having tons of crap going on. He doesn't lose his soul for those few times we see him actually happy with his son because of everything that is going on in the background.

Could even sex with Buffy break the curse any more? Angel's focus isn't quite so personal any more. He is a champion and how can he be happy when the world truly sucks? How can any of us?

Just a thought. Feel free to agree or disagree.

[> Re: Angel and losing his soul -- dub ;o), 11:26:20 08/04/03 Mon

Could even sex with Buffy break the curse any more? Angel's focus isn't quite so personal any more. He is a champion and how can he be happy when the world truly sucks? How can any of us?

Good point. Also, is there not still the faintest possibility that Willow may have restored his soul in such a way the last time that the curse is no longer effective? Oh, but in that case we wouldn't have Angelus to kick around anymore, and that would truly be a tragedy. They don't have to bring him back every season, but having the possibility that he'll appear is delicious. If the curse was gone ME would have to come up with another way to temporarily dispose of Angel's soul.

dub ;o)

[> [> I fully believe that Angel isn't cursed any more -- Diana, 11:59:25 08/04/03 Mon

When Willow recursed him, I was pretty sure it was no longer a vengeance spell. However, when Lilah said "Isn't it more fun when you handle her," in "Home," I knew either Willow didn't curse him or more likely Wolfram and Hart was offering to take care of that pesky problem and so did Angel, hence his reaction. Either way, the Angel that we saw in "Chosen" wasn't cursed. If he was, talk about acting out of character. When he offered to be in it "shoulder to shoulder" there was a lot of subtext (mostly not-so sub) going on. Would Angel be as happy as we saw him with Buffy IF the curse was still between them? I think it will be interesting what happens if Buffy finds out it is gone (say around sweeps perhaps).

There are plenty of ways to get Angelus out. I would be interested in seeing "Eternity" revisited to see how Angel nows sees this side of himself. There is also the way that the Mayor was going to desoul him in "Enemies." Thing is, other than Jasmine, no one is interested in Angelus. They all want Angel souled. If we see Angelus it will most likely be with the horrid wigs for him and whatshisface :-) That hopefully will also include the female half of the fanged four.

And how is the workshop going?

[> [> [> Re: I fully believe that Angel isn't cursed any more -- Rina, 13:24:36 08/04/03 Mon

I don't agree. I suspect that what Willow did was simply returned Angel's old soul - the one that was cursed.

[> [> [> [> Angel's soul wasn't cursed, Angelus/Angel himself was cursed -- Random, 09:12:17 08/05/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: I fully believe that Angel isn't cursed any more -- random_lurker, 03:48:29 08/06/03 Wed

I agree. When Angel and Company asked if she was sure she could do the spell, she said it was the first spell she learned, and she wasn't likely to forget it. And since we know the first time she gave him his soul back in season 2 it was still cursed, it stands to reason that she kept the curse intact this last time.

[> [> [> [> [> We do know that? How do you figure? -- Random, 10:13:43 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> i don''s why -- anom, 23:23:49 08/05/03 Tue

When Willow was doing the spell, something took over. (I thought it was the spirit of the Gypsy elder who invoked the curse in the 1st place--in fact, I thought we saw her during Willow's spell--but
Masq's analysis says the q. has never been answered.) Willow may or may not have known how to do it w/out the happiness clause, but I don't think it was her doing it anymore, & I think the curse was reinstated w/the happiness clause intact.

(BTW, I'm not sure that link will go direct to the part of the page where this is discussed--you may need to scroll down.)

[> [> [> [> Not the second time -- Diana, 05:00:32 08/06/03 Wed

When she resouls him in "Orpheus" they make a point to show that NOTHING takes over her like it did in "Graduation Day." That was done to show how far Willow had come in her Witchcraft and she is decidedly different when she comes back for "Dirty Girls." Since this is the case, the nature of the spell may have changed.

Really depends on what the needs of future scripts. At this point, I think Wolfram and Hart saying they took care of the curse (much the same way in "Enemies" that the Mage pretends to take Angel's soul), but in reality it was taken care of by Willow would fit with the theme of corruption best.

[> [> [> [> [> my mistake--thought you were talking about "becoming" -- anom, 11:24:56 08/06/03 Wed

In that case, I don't think it's clear 1 way or the other. It'll be interesting to see if--& how--they clear that up in future episodes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> If she removed the curse, I think she would have mentioned it -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:31:21 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow is always conscious of what her magick does, not -- Diana, 11:48:25 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She recited the spell the same way, though -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:31:28 08/06/03 Wed

Any change to allow Angel true happiness would require an alteration of the words, which she would be aware of.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why? -- Diana, 20:08:06 08/06/03 Wed

There was nothing in the words about happiness. It is a vengeance spell because of intention. Vengeance drives the spell. Willow is so powerful that she could drive it with something else. She was there out of friendship, as illustrated by the hug (which may be why it was in the script). That could have just as well been used to drive it.

Just an idea. They showed some specific things with regards to Willow and Angel. Why?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Do you have the exact translation of the spell? -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:47:10 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Do you have the exact translation of the spell? -- Arethusa, 06:01:52 08/07/03 Thu

From Becoming:

Oz: Quod perditum est, invenietur.
Translation: What is lost, return.

Willow: Not dead... nor not of the living. Spirits of the interregnum,
I call.
Willow: Gods, bind him. Cast his heart from the... evil... realm.
Willow: Return. (pants) I call on... (pants)
Willow: Te implor, Doamne, nu ignora aceasta rugaminte.

Translation: I implore you, Lord, do not ignore this request.
Willow: Nici mort, nici al fiintei...

Translation: Neither dead, nor of the living...
Willow: Lasa orbita sa fie vasul care-i va transporta, sufletul la el.

Translation: Let this Orb be the vessel that will carry his soul to
Willow: Asa sa fie! Asa sa fie! Acum!

Translation: So it shall be! So it shall be! Now!
Willow: Acum!

Translation: Now!

From Orpheus:

(reading) Quod perditum est invenietur...

(reading) Nisi mort. Nisi al finitei. Te invoc, spirit al trecerii...
Este scris aceasta putere este dreptul poporuil meu de a conduce.

Asa sa fie, acum.

The spell looks the same, although I didn't have complete copies of both spells. There are three factors of spells so far-physical items, words, and the state of mind of the spellcaster. We don't know for sure if the words were changed to eliminate the curse. The only item used in both spells were the spell itself and the Orb of Thesulah, which WIllow had. Did her emotional state change part of the spell? In Something Blue, Giles tells Willow that her emotional state can afffect spells.

Willow: I know. I-I've been off. I-I even tried to do a spell last night. To have my will done? I was hoping it would make me feel better. But it just went ka-blooey.

Giles: A spell? I don't think it's wise for you to be doing that alone right now. Your energy's too unfocused.

Giles seems to be saying that she needs to focus to complete a spell safely and successfully. There's no evidence that her emotional state will change the nature of the spell.

And in Lover's Walk, the magic shop owner tells Willow:

Willow: (flustered) No. Oh, I mean, yes! I... I know how to do a love spell, but this is more of an anti-love spell. Yeah. Uh, kind of a de-lusting. The supplies are basically the same, right?

Shopkeeper: (smiles) Basically. (starts to gather things) Although raven feathers tend to breed a little more discontent than canary. Let me just get some things...

This passage shows a spell's ingredients are changed to change the intent of the spell. There is still no evidence intent will or definitely will not change a part of a spell. Perhaps someone can think of another spell that will prove or disprove the theory.

Quotes from

[> Re: Angel and losing his soul -- LittleBit, 09:42:02 08/05/03 Tue

To expand on what I was talking about, in my opinion Angel would not be in danger of losing his soul while having sex with anyone, simply because of his awareness of that likelihood. That knowledge alone would prevent him from reaching a moment of "perfect contentment" or "pure happiness". However, when Connor was born, Angel's happiness with his son was, I think, a far greater concern, because he was not aware of that as a means to breaking the curse, and all it was supposed to take was a moment.

[> [> That makes sense. Sex doesn't have to always equal "pure happiness". -- WickedBuffy, 09:56:21 08/05/03 Tue

Of course, Angel is more champion than humanlike - so maybe he always did have pure joy with all the previous wenches he bedded. And still will 100% of the times he has it.

Which might be how it goes in Jossworld, but not necessarily in ours.

But his preknowledge of what would happen could be a very effective emotional condom.

[> [> Not sure if he could have even a moment, though -- Diana, 16:31:41 08/05/03 Tue

In order to have those moments, I have to concentrate on wiping all the other stuff that goes with having kids, like worrying about their future, worrying about the world they live in, worrying about their safety, worrying about what that smell is and whose turn is it this time. Angel is a much better worrier than I am. Even though Connor made him incredibly happy, I can't see him putting aside all that baggage that goes with being a father.

And he didn't get the benefit of Relaxin. Talk about an amazing hormone. [warm contented sighs as I remember how it felt]

Kids are just more complicated than the action it takes to make them. Harder to have a perfect anything with them.

Just my experience.

[> [> [> I could use some Relaxin now !! Thanks for the reminder. -- Ann, 17:04:28 08/05/03 Tue

My experience also. No perfect moments here as my husband has been out of town for 1 1/2 weeks and the kids have been very much themselves!!
I also remember the warm fuzzy sighs!! I used to sink back in my chair and enjoy. Thanks for the reminder Diana. I needed it.

Anger Much? -- Rina, 10:52:15 08/04/03 Mon

So, I'm supposed to judge from SMG's past resume of movies that she'll flop as a movie star? Gee, anger much! You're not even willing to give her a chance to improve her "resume"? Because I can think of a lot of stars (whether they started out in the movies, or began in television) who went from so-called "bad" movies, to first-class ones. But I guess you're unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance. You seem as if you're pissed by her decision to leave BUFFY and pursue a movie career.

[> Are you replying to someone? Cause the board as a whole has no opinion here -- Random, 21:23:09 08/04/03 Mon

[> Re: Anger Much yourself? -- grifter, 01:01:45 08/05/03 Tue

I can see where you¥re coming from, there¥s a lot of SMG-bashing going on among the Buffy-fans, but certainly not here (or I just haven¥t seen it). There where some threads in which people discussed her possible future career, but certainly nobody was "unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance".

[> [> Re: Anger Much yourself? -- Rina, 10:19:47 08/05/03 Tue

I'm afraid that I've read a good number of SMG bashing posts on this forum. Mind you, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I've noticed that ever since SMG decided to renew her BUFFY contract, there seemed to be some kind of backlash against SMG that rears its ugly head a little too often. I tried to ignore it at first, but it's becoming increasingly hard as more of these backlash posts are popping up.

[> [> [> Then please respond to them, instead of indicting the whole board by initiating a thread... -- Random, 12:39:48 08/05/03 Tue

That speaks directly to the board at large with the 2nd person personal pronoun:

So, I'm supposed to judge from SMG's past resume of movies that she'll flop as a movie star? Gee, anger much! You're not even willing to give her a chance to improve her "resume"? Because I can think of a lot of stars (whether they started out in the movies, or began in television) who went from so-called "bad" movies, to first-class ones. But I guess you're unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance. You seem as if you're pissed by her decision to leave BUFFY and pursue a movie career.

I personally find it rather discomfiting to be accused of stuff I never did...especially since I don't give a damn about SMG's career outside of Buffy anyway, for good or bad. It's not the sort of behaviour that makes for productive posting.


[> [> [> [> Or... -- ponygirl, 13:34:38 08/05/03 Tue

Maybe write in a more general way, like "I believe I've noticed a trend of SMG bashing and it bothers me because..." or perhaps in letter style to a non-specific amalgam of all that upsets you, "Dear SMG-hating stuck-in-the-past freak, this is why you and all your like-minded gaucho pants-wearing [sorry- my issue not yours] friends get stuck in my craw." Nothing wrong with a good rant, just warn a gal so I can duck and cover. ;)

[> [> [> [> Excuse Me? -- Rina, 14:52:50 08/05/03 Tue

Why do I have to read messages like these? Did I indict the entire board? NO. I merely stated that I have read SMG bashing on this board. I didn't state that every member on this bashed SMG.

[> [> [> [> [> trying to understand -- sdev, 15:03:03 08/05/03 Tue

You used a very general and inclusive pronoun "you're" two times in your original post. Obviously by the current post you have indicated that you did not mean it as a general indictment, but I can see where it might be misunderstood.

Was there some post in particuliar that upset you? Can we discuss that?

[> [> [> [> [> Let's try this again and see if you can understand what I'm getting at.. -- Random, 15:44:39 08/05/03 Tue

You did not in any way say that it was only some posts in your original post. I was merely noting that you started a thread in an inflammatory manner. As sdev points out, you use the personal pronoun "you" without establishing an antecedent. As such, since there was no obvious referent from preceding post (since you started a thread with this one), I had no choice but to assume you were lashing out at the board as a whole. My reply wasn't a reply to your second post, it was observing that if you hadn't started with an inflammatory post in the first place, you wouldn't need to backpedal. For example: "Gee, anger much! You're not even willing to give her a chance to improve her "resume"?" Who? Anyone who happens to read your post? "But I guess you're unwilling to give SMG the benefit of the chance. You seem as if you're pissed by her decision to leave BUFFY and pursue a movie career." We do? Again, you expressed your dissatisfaction in the broadest possible terms, not bothering to aim at the proper targets. I was forced to conclude that you intended it as an indictment of the board as a whole, much as you indicted us a while back for not liking S7, which many of us did. As such, I felt a need to tell you that it was unfair and perhaps (unless you're trollish) you could either respond directly to such a post or phrase your accusations in such a way as to not include innocent bystanders. I didn't attack you, nor did I write just to hear the keys on my keyboard clacking. If you feel a need to get upset because I point out what was patently obvious about the first post, then there's nothing I can do except assume you deliberately intended to incite and react appropriately. If you can accept a valid observation, such as ponygirl's, Bit's, or sdev's observations, then everything's cool.

[> [> [> Actually, I wasn't aware of being angry at all -- LittleBit, 13:12:18 08/05/03 Tue

I've seen many posts on this board expressing opinions about a very wide variety of subjects some of which I agree with and others with which I don't. However, I have yet to consider that because the posters in those threads express those opinions they must be speaking for the board as a whole. If I disagree strongly enough to want to argue their points (Note: not to say they're 'wrong' or 'mean') I make my own case in response to theirs.

To start threads accusing the entire board of holding an opinion you don't happen to agree with or like is counterproductive in that there is no dialogue produced.

The recent posts that I saw about SMG's career (and I may not have seen them all) were about her choices of movies and whether or not these choices were going to help her to become a 'movie star', but not that she didn't have the talent to do so. I believe it is as much the right of a poster to state an opinion, if s/he wishes about those choices, as it is to critique the work of the actor/actress or the quality of the film itself. This is not the same as bashing.

And finally, I've been an SMG supporter, liking her performance, even when others were expressing disappointment with it. I love the show. I wish it weren't over. But I don't believe the show is over solely because SMG decided that seven years was enough. I understand that decision. A post like this is merely inflammatory, and makes few if any points that can be discussed, since I don't see it as a defense of SMG as much as an attack on the board in general.

I would like to read a post that would generate or at least encourage a discussion.


[> [> [> [> Beguile the Beguine -- fresne, 13:47:22 08/05/03 Tue

I also am far from being angry. It looks like I may finally get rid of the Technical Architecture (version 15 and counting) and thereís a Fred Astaire marathon on today, which I am taping thus filling that Broadway Melody of 1940 sized gap in my life. The Thief and Yolanda, Iím not so sure about. That movieís just wack. Wackety wack. So, wack that, okay there is this great Technicolor dream sequence with ribbons of cloth, but wack all the same.

SMG is much cooler and I certainly hope for her a much brighter future than whosit from Yolanda. Not Fred, the chick. Though Fredís career could certainly bear emulation. Except the bit where he and his sister were upstaged by trained seals on their vaudeville circuit.

Anyway, I am looking forward to Romantic Comedy, enjoyed Simply Irresistible (psst, I have a copy) and Scooby Doo. Cruel Intentions was cruel and plus, cool corsetry.

So, in an arm and arm amity and peace and fellowship and sistership and something, something, something, I say hey there to all and I wish all a Begin the Beguine tropic splendor of a day.

[> [> [> [> [> Ahhh, Fred! (with a p.s. to Rina) -- Marie, 03:44:05 08/06/03 Wed

I remember, years ago BBC2 also showed all his films, in order, and I taped all the dance sequences, one by one. Then my twin bought me most of the films for our mmmth birthday. Just watching Fred and Ginger dance to 'Let's face the Music' makes my romantic heart go pitty-pat! (Though that may be my hormones at the moment!)


and p.s. to Rina, if she reads this - nobody's trying to inflame you, sweetie, but I also read your original post and thought you'd started a new thread by mistake! If you re-read your post and some of the answers, I'm sure you'll see what people mean.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, la belle, the perfectly swell -- fresne, 09:30:06 08/06/03 Wed

Oh, God, yes, Letís Face the Music and Dance.

My housemate and I burned a CD with like five versions of the song on it.

There may be trouble ahead
But while thereís moonlight
And music and love and romance
Letís face the music and dance.

That little playlet, where Fredís dancing to seduce Ginger into wanting to live again. At first, sheís so passive and then as the music moves her, she begins to bend and swirl skirts on her own. Until that wonderful, final, over the top kick.

Random factoid that Iím sure you know, but I canít resist. In that scene, Gingerís sleeves were weighted with lead weights, to get that perfect fall, and in the first filming, her sleeve wacked Fred in the head. Of course, they kept dancing, cause hey, professionals. However, all the subsequent takes just werenít quite as good, so that is the take that they used.

So, at the get together next year, weíre bringing some musicals right?

And I must confess that I too have a Fred dances tape. A bit more haphazard as I compiled it via tape/broadcast over time. Excellent, for when Iím feeling depressed. Get in a little rapid Slue Foot or stylish Top Hat or sigh, Night and Day. I donít smoke, but hand me a cigarette.

fresne ñ waiting, waiting, waiting for Fred DVDs with dance analysis.

[> [> [> [> Probably Going to Get Kicked Off -- Rina, 15:00:39 08/05/03 Tue

I'm probably going to get kicked off this board eventually, so here it is:

AGAIN, I didn't accuse the ENTIRE BOARD of SMG-bashing. And I wish people would stop accusing me of something I didn't do. Again, I stated that I have read SMG-bashing messages on this board. I didn't state that everyone posted them. Jeez!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Probably Going to Get Kicked Off -- fidhle, 15:37:49 08/05/03 Tue

Don't leave. I think the mistake you made was to post what appears to be a response to a specific post as a new message thread. Thus, the pronouns "you" and "your" which, I think, refer to the poster or posters to whom you are responding, sound like you are criticising the entire board. You should have made your post as a response to a specific post, rather than posting it as a new message.

Remember we need to have respect for all of the posters to avoid things like the recent unpleasantness on the board. JMHO.


[> [> [> [> [> Rina -- Rufus, 21:30:39 08/05/03 Tue

You're post comes out of nowhere, is accusatory and doesn't reference a specific post. Basically it looks like an invitation to a pissing contest. If you think there is some anti-SMG sentiment going on here it would make more sense to post in a thread where there is some actual anti-SMG posts going on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rina -- Rina, 10:31:03 08/06/03 Wed

[You're post comes out of nowhere, is accusatory and doesn't reference a specific post. Basically it looks like an invitation to a pissing contest. If you think there is some anti-SMG sentiment going on here it would make more sense to post in a thread where there is some actual anti-SMG posts going on.]

I read an anti-SMG post on this board and pointed it out. Someone stated that there were no anti-SMG posts on this board. I corrected that person and stated that I have read anti-SMG posts on this board. And now, everyone is pissing on me. And by the way, I posted my original message as a repsonse. For some reason, the message popped up as a new message, instead of a response. Please spare me the lecture. Thank you.

[> you who? -- anom, 22:01:27 08/05/03 Tue

When I read this, I just figured it was meant as a reply in another thread & was posted as a new one by mistake. But as it is, the "you" is entirely ambiguous, & given the tone of the post, I can certainly understand people reading it & thinking "Who, me? Why's she pissed at me?"

So who did you (Rina, that is--just to make sure it's clear) actually mean by "you"? In a new thread coming out of nowhere, who did you expect we'd think you meant by "you"? Was it a mistake (it happens, just today I replied to myself w/the same message over again), or did you mean to start a new thread? Your replies seem very defensive, & they don't clear up the question.

[> [> You Know What? -- Rina, 10:33:09 08/06/03 Wed

Please do me a favor and drop me from this board. I'm getting sick of all of these sanctimonious crap about my attitude. Fuck ALL OF YOU!

[> [> [> Okay, now I'm sorry I responded to you in your other thread...A mistake I will not make again. -- Rob, 10:39:06 08/06/03 Wed

[> [> [> i was trying to say i understood how the misunderstanding could've happened... -- anom, 11:20:36 08/06/03 Wed

...& give you a chance to let us know what you intended. I didn't give you any crap about your "attitude." I see in another of your replies that you say you did mean the original post as a reply to another, but you don't clarify what was said in that other post. I still don't know who the person you were correcting was, or what they said that you were replying to. Your "Anger much?" post doesn't sound like a reply to just a statement that there aren't any anti-SMG posts on the board, so there's no context for understanding what you say in it.

You say in your reply to Rufus, "For some reason, the message popped up as a new message, instead of a response." The reason is that you put your reply in the reply space at the bottom of the main board rather than the one for the post you meant to reply to. It's been known to happen, but usually the poster follows it w/a post saying, "Whoops, the above post belongs in x thread after y post." Then we can get that context & have some idea what you're talking about. I for one can't keep up w/all the posts on the board & find quoting or at least a reference to whose post you're responding to helpful.

It's not up to me to drop you from the board. People hardly ever get kicked off, either. If you don't want to post to or read the board anymore, that's up to you.

[> [> [> This is a test, right? -- dub ;o), 12:53:56 08/06/03 Wed

Y'know, after what we've all just been through here recently, I'd think you would know by now that no one just gets "dropped" from this board. Not without a heck of a lot of soul-searching, discussion, and yes, argument about it. And all that is in public, right here for all to see.

So, I'm thinkin', you've been around here for a while. You must know this. Why are you taunting Masq to ban you? Just to see if she finally will? This is a test, right? Ha!

dub ;o)

Thinking out loud... -- ZachsMind, 11:36:01 08/04/03 Mon

One of my dream plotlines for a season seven episode was that Xander, Willow, Giles & Buffy of season seven get mystically trapped in a pocket dimension that consists of their season one-three counterparts (played by lookalikes in a campy melodramatic way) and at first they assume it an illusion of some kind, but as they seek a means of escape they find that it's painfully and dangerously real - an actual self-contained pocket dimension, roughly the size of Sunnydale itself, created before any of them were born. Something the pocketD Giles refers to at one point as a "stunted offshoot from the fractal repeater dimensions" and also a "false terminus shard" but that _our_ Giles waves off as poppycock.

The reasons are left kinda vague, but it is hinted that it's waiting for someone's death. I'd want the audience to contemplate who it might be intended for, and whether or not it'd ever get used. And whether or not some of the entities discovered in there are already inhabitants being tortured for eternity, or just part of the pocketD's disturbing surreality. The idea would also be played at, that this is where Buffy was for at least part of her after life, and that she might go back there.

I also couldn't decide if Tara or Dawn would appear there, or other post season three characters. Or whether there would be Angel, Angelus, or both simultaneously.

It's a fanfic idea I've batted around in my head but has yet to coalesce, because I wanted to introduce the idea without adversely going against canon. The idea is that this pocketD replays aspects of seasons one through three over and over again, but not always in order. Different variables all exist simultaneously in a way that makes twisted sense within itself but not in the normal continuity. The season seven counterparts would interact with their likenesses in the pocketD, and would have to work with them to accomplish something inside the pocketD in order to find a way out.

The working title was "Private Little Hell" - an homage to STOS's "Private Little War" where the starship Enterprise visits a more primitive planet and learns a few things about mutual cultural interference. I never finished it but I might go back to the idea some day.

[> This fascinating, Zach! Write it! -- Scroll, 19:51:23 08/04/03 Mon

[> [> Gee thanks... -- ZachsMind, 21:34:15 08/04/03 Mon

[> Agree with Scroll. Write it! -- HonorH, 08:14:49 08/05/03 Tue

Could be really good.

To all my DC meet buds... -- Rob, 13:04:57 08/04/03 Mon

I arrived home about an hour ago, and I just wanted to tell everybody again what a fantastic time I had. It was so amazing to meet and hang out with all you guys. I had such a terrific weekend...and now I'm even more excited about next year's Gathering. And hey, I finally got to see the Hamster Dance!!! :o) :o) :o)

Oh, and to Ran and Bit, my hotel "slumber party" friends, I hope you had (or, as I'm writing, this, perhaps still are having) a really safe, enjoyable ride to your respective homes.

*sigh* Tonight will be the first time in 3 days that RanBitRob will have to sign into chat as separate units.


[> Hamster Dance -- Diana, 14:42:50 08/04/03 Mon

My youngest daughter adores it and we have seen it at least a dozen times today. It is hard to turn down a two year old when she says "Again eeee-die-dee-do." She even does the Angel dance now.

I had a great time and it was sooooo good for me. Thanks a bunch guys. I made it home in THREE hours, listening to OMWF the entire time. Can't wait for the next one.

So how bad was Taboo?

[> [> *shivers* Bad. Very Bad. -- Rob, 16:16:25 08/04/03 Mon

...although we did have quite a fun time trying to deconstruct the names of the characters, after the film was over, in an attempt to dredge any depth that we could from this otherwise completely worthless (verging on wretched, or, um, maybe not verging) hour-and-a-half of celluloid.

Oh, but it was almost sorta kinda worth it to see Amber Benson play a complete lush.


[> [> Oh, and P.S. to Di... -- Rob, 16:21:49 08/04/03 Mon

I didn't realize you had such a long drive home or I would've wished you a belated safe trip, too!


P.S. Chocolate. Ice. Cream. ;o)

[> [> [> [blushing] -- Diana, 17:28:33 08/04/03 Mon

See the lengths I am willing to go to see my buds?

And I figured what dance was missing, which is incredibly stupid of me to miss, since I AM Buffy while under the spell in "The Witch." I'm sure my buds will verify this for those in doubt.

Still think Dawn's anchoives from CwDP would have been nice, too. I have seen that thing waaaaaaaay too much today. Or from "Five-by-Five" Faith's dance with the cops. An awesome, incredibly creative product nonetheless. I wish I could do that. I will just have to content myself with writing sex scenes that have no actual sex in them.


[> It was lots of fun -- Random, 21:36:38 08/04/03 Mon

Little or no sleep, awful, awful movies, tight squeezes...oh hell, it was great. I loved meeting everyone, and had the time of my life. Look forward to doing it again real soon. Hugs to everyone.

~ Random

[> [> Not only was it lots of fun -- LittleBit, 09:36:11 08/05/03 Tue

But I have the blackmail pictures to prove it!

Just Wondering (OT) -- jbb, 17:48:36 08/04/03 Mon

Is anybody watching "dead like me" on Showtime. For me, it's lessening the withdrawal from BtVS. In a lot of ways it reminds me of S1, with uneven but mostly excellent writing and great performances from a young and mostly unheard of lead actress. Give it a try if you haven't already.

[> *sniffle* I don't get that show here. -- Rufus, 17:57:14 08/04/03 Mon

Maybe in time they will bring it here so I can see what all the fuss is about.

[> Re: "Dead like me" on Showtime is a good cure for those summertime, Buffy's over blues -- Brian, 20:41:13 08/04/03 Mon

And for those folks who need a silly TV fix, try Nip/Tuck, a very over-the-top drama that manages to redeem itself each week just when you thought it was "hopper" bound.

[> Dead Like Me is wonderfull, yeah -- grifter, 00:55:50 08/05/03 Tue

I love the very dry humor of the lead character, and the supporting cast (even the Happy Time-woman) grow on you.

Buffy it is not, but very good tv anyway.

Doyle vs Quentin --
JBone, 20:05:33 08/04/03 Mon

Well, that's the thing, you see. Glory isn't a demon... She's a god.

yesterday's results

This has been a pretty good night for me. Three hours of American Chopper on Discovery and I get to bring back Doyle. Nice. Oh, and post comments here. Or email me.

[> Please... -- Alison, 20:10:20 08/04/03 Mon

Not only is Doyle stronger than Quentin, but he had a spark of humanity for all his half-demoness that Quentin lacked. And at least Doyle got incinerated in a respectable way.

[> Doyle. -- HonorH, 20:15:49 08/04/03 Mon

Doyle would figure some way to make this a no-holds-barred drinking contest. Quentin wouldn't have a prayer.

[> A study in contrasts -- cjl, 20:32:42 08/04/03 Mon

Doyle: a former schoolteacher, pressed into the service of Powers he barely understood and tormented by a demonic nature he hated. Quentin: master of all he surveyed, self-assured to the point of arrogance, secure in the belief that he knew everything he needed to know to fight the dark forces surrounding him. Doyle, working with his friends, found the courage he thought he never had and died a hero; Quentin, tight-lipped, sclerotic bureaucrat, moved too late, and died a fool. Doyle.

[> Re: Doyle vs Quentin -- ApOpHiS, 20:46:19 08/04/03 Mon

Ahh, Doyle. Of all the Irish half-demons I've known, he was the best. In a physical match, Doyle would first be reluctant to utilize his demonic nature, but Travers' smug attitude would goad him into delivering a good old-fashioned Finnian/Brachen ass-kicking. However, I agree with HonorH in that Doyle would find a way to turn the match into a drinking contest. Choose the battlefield and make your enemy come to it; Doyle knows his Sun Tzu.

[> Re: Doyle vs Quentin -- Anneth, 22:15:55 08/04/03 Mon

Mr. Green-pokey-faced-sneezy-half-demon-man wins on principle. Cordy never woulda kissed Quentin, for crissakes!

[> Doyle -- KdS, 03:03:20 08/05/03 Tue

Poor Doyle - one of several people whose punishment was out of all proportion to his crimes, which were mainly of omission.

I had some sympathy for Quentin when I thought he was a lone low-ranking idealist in an utterly corrupted organisation. Then, of course, it turned out he was the corruption. Hope Doyle beats the crap out of him.

[> Re: Doyle vs Quentin -- Celebaelin, 03:41:50 08/05/03 Tue

In a contest more about psychology than physicality and amidst the gasps of the audience Doyle collapses in the fourth screaming something about 'prolifatorum crucimentum' or some such. The not so cute QT calmly walks over, places some sort of pre-constructed fetish about Doyle's neck and it's all over, with one of the biggest anti-clamaxes yet seen. Travers explains in an unexpected post bout victory interview that 'it was an exhibition regarding the use of power'. A large number of smug Watchers Council survivors show up later for the celebration with copies of the Council's Standard Proceedure (revisited and revised 1971 by you know who) and strange little cases containing hypodermics. Amidst allegations of a fix Doyle supporters request an inquiry/re-match.

Current board | More August 2003