December 2003 posts


Previous November 2003  

More December 2003

My analysis of 'Lineage' is up -- Masquerade, 00:13:24 12/01/03 Mon

Finally am all moved into my new place and life can return to normal. Starting here.

"Destiny" coming soon.

Replies:

[> great way to celebrate your move! -- anom, 01:15:58 12/03/03 Wed

And mazel tov on your new digs!

"The glamor disappears when the cyborg [Roger-bot] is destroyed."

Interesting word choice. "Destroyed" is usually used about an object, not a living thing. How human does such a hybrid need to be to be considered "alive"? Is that what would qualify it to be "killed" rather than "destroyed"?

Fred found the cyborg she examined had biology & technology so intertwined they couldn't be separated out. Even more telling, the one Wesley tortured still has a very human-looking face under the mask, & certainly has human reactions, both to pain & to rational argument. (If anything, of the 2, Wes acts less human in this scene.) Does its (his?) being a cyborg make the torture any more acceptable, pragmatic as it might be? Of course, we later find out that when circumstances demand it, Wesley is equally capable of "destroying" a being he believes is human--& not just any human.

"Eve reminds Angel that Wesley no longer remembers the events that lead to Angel's distrust of him--kidnapping baby Connor and inadvertently letting him fall into the hands of Angel's enemy, Holtz."

Except she doesn't put it in those terms. She makes it sound as though Wes deliberately turned Connor over to Holtz, which is far from what actually happened--& Angel knows it.

"Wesley apologizes to Fred for not protecting her, but Fred doesn't want an apology. She finds his assumption that he should protect her patronizing. She can protect herself."

This is the aspect that bothered me the most about this episode. Is the script any less patronizing to Fred than Wesley--& Angel--is, even though it has her object to being treated that way? She's treated in contradictory ways throughout the plot: She's the "muscle" who demonstrates the weapon W&H is offering to supply to Emile's distributor, but she doesn't have a gun to protect herself. She doesn't like to be treated as being in need of protection by a man, but why is it up to Wesley to make sure she has a gun? Why doesn't she bring one herself when going into a situation she knows is dangerous? She & Wesley have been presented all along as extremely intelligent, & she has survival skills that kept her alive for 5 years on her own in Pylea, yet when she finds Wes & Roger in an armed standoff on the roof, she goes to where she's in easy reach of Roger & stays there even when it becomes clear what side he's on...& sure enough, she's taken hostage, in a cliché situation as simplistic as a Cheerios ad in the days of the Cheerios Kid & Little Sue: "The girl" is captured by the bad guy & rescued by the good guy. In fact, in this scene that's all she's there for. Isn't this the very kind of stereotype this 'verse was constructed to subvert? (This is a sore point w/me, can you tell?)

On Wesley's reactions to his father, it's interesting that he's no more sure of himself in dealing w/his real father after what happened w/the fake one. (Having clocks in LA has nothing to do w/remembering what time it is in England, but it doesn't occur to him to counter his father's putdown.) On the other hand, I expected him to go all businesslike & inform Roger that cyborgs that had access to Watcher records & could take Roger's form had attacked W&H. Instead, he keeps things on the level of the personal relationship, strained though it is. (I hope he did get around to telling about the attack, both to warn his father & to try to find out if the Council was involved in it. But maybe that's something that didn't need to be shown onscreen.)

Finally, I wonder if encountering his father in cyborg form might make Wes think twice about whether his real father would be as capable of killing him as he was ready to believe. Cold & cutting as Roger could be, maybe he wouldn't really have been so willing to shoot Wes on that rooftop. Maybe one effect of this encounter will be to make Wesley reexamine his views of his father. His worst beliefs about him may not be true. In fact, that could be why he's unwilling to fall back on the practical aspect in that phone conversation at the end.

[> [> Agree with much said here -- LittleBit, 10:13:30 12/03/03 Wed

I agree entirely with your comments about Fred. When they first came into W&H to see what the offer was, Fred had no hesitation about arming herself when the opportunity was given. Yet here she not only doesn't do so, she first gets indignant that Wes even thought he was supposed to be protecting her and then remonstrates with him for not providing her with the means to protect herself. If I were Fred, I'd not only have something on me at all times, but I'd be spending time every day at the firing range [something I like to think is part of the recreation benefits at W&H ;-)]. So either she takes the steps to protect herself and avoids stupidity, or she has someone else do it for her. She can't really say don't protect me or keep me out of dangerous situations and then turn around and ask why she wasn't provided with a means of protection.

Regarding Wes and particularly his phone call to his real father I found myself thinking that if my grown son called me from halfway across the world at 4 o'clock in the morning, I might actually think something was wrong. Something maybe I should know about. I don't imagine Wes calling all that frequently in the first place, so for his father's only response to be berating him for the timing of the call seems to say a very great deal about Roger. I found myself thinking that Wes should send his father an official letter on his letterhead (preferrably dictated) informing Mr. Roger Wyndham-Price, Watcher, Ret. that his likeness and image had been copied and used in robotic form, with such detail as to appearance, personality and knowledge, both personal and professional, that his own son was convinced. And that the depth of the detailed knowledge of Roger, Wes and the Watchers' Council might be of concern and interest to those involved. With enclosed pictures and/or video from the surveillance cameras at W&H. Then he should send it by slow boat snail mail so Roger can read it at his leisure. Of course, I can be passive-aggressive with the best of them. ;-)

[> [> [> Re: Agree with much said here -- Masq, 10:31:02 12/03/03 Wed

I found myself thinking that Wes should send his father an official letter on his letterhead (preferrably dictated) informing Mr. Roger Wyndham-Price, Watcher, Ret. that his likeness and image had been copied and used in robotic form, with such detail as to appearance, personality and knowledge, both personal and professional, that his own son was convinced.

How do we know that the former members of the Watcher's Council don't already know this? The identity of the group that spawned the ninja-cyborgs was never revealed. Either that's lazy writing, or they will be revealed later. And I couldn't help think that one viable candidate for this group are what's left of the Watcher's Council.

After all, this group certainly seemed to be targeting demons and death chambers and other bad things. That they used ruthless means to do so doesn't negate the Watchers as candidates, it only means the less scrupulous survivors may be behind this.

[> [> [> [> Re: Agree with much said here -- LittleBit, 11:09:56 12/03/03 Wed

I tend to suspect the WC of having a hand in this as well. There's too much detail about Wes and Roger, especially their personal interactive styles for it to be taken only from psychological profiles and WC records, in my opinion. In addition to that, those records would have to have been copied or removed prior to the destruction of the WC building. RogerBot knew exactly how to push each and every one of Wes' buttons, including precisely how to follow a compliment with the comment that negates it.

I find myself wondering if Roger already knew Wes was willing and able to shoot and kill him. If the WC is involved it would be fairly likely. Now that might change the father/son dynamics.

[> [> [> [> [> Plus.... (unspoiled speculation) -- Masq, 12:12:58 12/03/03 Wed

Why bother not saying who this group is if it's not some big secret to reveal later? I mean, the writer just has to come up with some goofy name like "The ancient brotherhood of outer Dutrovia" or something, have Wesley mention it once while his nose is in a book, and it's a plot device for one episode.

But failing to mention the name of the group makes me suspect the return of the Watchers with some big-time moral ambiguity in tow, gunning for Angel and willing to mess up Wesley to get to him. Some more chewy goodness for season 5!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Anarchy in the UK - speculation -- Ann, 13:59:34 12/03/03 Wed

The WC is in chaos. What would be a more egotistical plan than for Roger to produce these robots in his image? I think this is entirely plausable. I also can see Giles (and perhaps Buffy and other slayers) leading a revolt against them. How's that for speculation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anarchy in the UK - speculation -- Masq, 14:26:53 12/03/03 Wed

Maybe not Roger in particular, but a rogue group of people from what's left of the WC. But that's the basic idea.

But if it were Roger and he sent his doppleganger to nab Angel while being perfectly willing to sacrifice his own son to accomplish the mission (if necessary), Brrrrr. Talk about your "the father will kill the son".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another possible perp (spoiler 5.8) -- TexasGirl, 14:55:21 12/03/03 Wed

Another group that would have access to very detailed info on Wesley is Wolfram & Hart itself. In episode 3.10 ("Dad") we learned they had 35 cabinets of data on Angel, so they probably have a lot on the rest of the A-team too. And the surprise guest at the end of 5.8 might still have access to that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Masq, 15:43:53 12/03/03 Wed

How much would W&H know about Wesley's father??? 'Cause Robo-Roger was a darned good imitation. Good enough to fool Wesley.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, there was that guy from 'Home' -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:25:10 12/03/03 Wed

You remember, the former Watcher who switched sides once the Council was destroyed, taking at least one rare text with him. If they've got one, maybe they've got more, or maybe the one they have brought along the necessary information to do the Roger robot thing (I imagine you could fit several very thorough files like that on a disk).

Of groups or individuals we've already met, the most likely contenders for creating the cyborgs seem to be Wolfram & Hart, the Watchers' Council, or the U.S. government (the Initiative was a specific program to try to control demonic power, making it distinct from the Black Ops agents we've seen). However it's entirely possible that they may create a whole new face to be behind the cyborgs (or it may be left unresolved like the talisman in "Lessons"). If it is a new force at work, I'm thinking it will be another law firm. Come on, there's gotta be another firm out there that also gets itself involved in supernatural as well as legal fiascos.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You mean Sirk? -- Masq, 18:09:18 12/03/03 Wed

He reappeared in "Destiny".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought he looked familiar! -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:43:47 12/03/03 Wed

So, he goes from the Watchers' Council to Wolfram & Hart to whatever the hell it is Eve and Lindsey have formed. I can't believe I forgot to include them as possible creators of the cyborgs! Curiouser and curiouser.

[> [> [> [> [> [> oh, i hope so! & a cyborg weapon q. -- anom, 00:52:07 12/04/03 Thu

I'd like to see more of both the remnants of the Council & the cyborgs. And I'd like to see the real Roger Wyndham-Price--was the cyborg version more true to the reality, or to Wesley's worst expectations?

Speaking of the cyborgs, did anyone else wonder why whoever was using them, having developed the high biotechnology needed to blend human & machine to the intricate degree described by Fred, then chose to arm them with chains? Think of the high-tech weaponry that could have been integrated into the circuitry of their very bodies--energy bolts, lasers, electrical discharges ranging from taser to electrocution strength--yet they fight w/chains, swords, & grappling hooks (& in the Rogerbot's case, a blunt instrument & a gun). The most advanced weapon they're equipped with is their self-destruct mechanism, not anything we saw them use for combat.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: oh, i hope so! & a cyborg weapon q. -- Masq, 11:06:32 12/04/03 Thu

Think of the high-tech weaponry that could have been integrated into the circuitry of their very bodies--energy bolts, lasers, electrical discharges ranging from taser to electrocution strength--yet they fight w/chains, swords, & grappling hooks (& in the Rogerbot's case, a blunt instrument & a gun).

Too much like Adam, our first Buffyverse cyborg pal. Then we'd start suspecting the Initiative was behind these 'borgs, rather than the Council. But the Council, stuffy old-fashioned scholars that they are, might just arm their super-bots with traditional ninja-style weapons.

Say, do you think the Council (or whomever) snuck into the abandoned Initiative facilities and downloaded the Adam files to make their cyborgs?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 1) disagree, 2) don't think so -- anom, 15:17:25 12/04/03 Thu

Adam was assembled from parts, on the macro level. Big chunks of various humans, demons, & hardware--you could even see the stitches holding them together! The cyborgs in Lineage were far more sophisticated, w/bio- & cybertechnology interwoven at what sounded like almost the cellular level. There was nothing Escheresque about Adam. And his weaponry was mostly structures that had been part of the demons that were cut apart to make him. The most advanced weapon we saw on him was that big gun his hand transformed into in Primeval (where did those shells it fired come from, anyway?). He was able to absorb Forrest's blaster fire & was strengthened by its energy in The Yoko Factor, but he didn't use energy generated by his body as a weapon (I'm pretty sure--if anyone knows differently, please remind me).

So for me, at least: 1) Cyborgs using energy weapons wouldn't seem too much like Adam, & would be a lot less incongruous than chains & swords. They didn't look or act like him, either. And 2) the Initiative's files wouldn't have contained info advanced enough to use for making the cyborgs of Lineage. More likely, magic was used to hybridize living tissue w/cybernetic circuits. Sounds more like something the Council, or someone else besides the Initiative, would do. But I'm sure we'll find out soon enough--oh, wait, scratch that last part...a month is nowhere near soon enough!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1) disagree, 2) don't think so -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:32:38 12/04/03 Thu

Maybe it depends on who the cyborgs were to begin with. Perhaps they were originally human ninjas/warriors/whatever who got augmented by some group or another. They might be using their melee skills for the same reason Angel and Buffy don't use guns: they're more comfortable with the classics. As far as energy weapons go, what makes you think the people who did this had the technology? Take a look at the Meso-Americans: they accomplished great feats of architecture and astronomy before they ever discovered the wheel. Just because some group is able to create a machine/human hybrid doesn't mean they know anything about lasers or the like.

[> [> [> [> There is that other guy (spoiler for Destiny, unspoiled spec otherwise) -- Lunasea, 11:06:47 12/04/03 Thu

Whoever did it knew what Wolfram and Hart had and where it was. Who do we know that knows where things are, like say in "Blind Date" and has a girlfriend/lover/whatever that seems to know an awful lot about the firm?

The good that is done can be as big a misdirect as the bad The Beast did. Do we know this group's motives?

The spell that was put on Willow in "Killer in Me" not only gave her the glamour of Warren, but his personality started to take over as well. The spell that was placed on the Robo-Roger could do the same thing. No knowledge is necessary. That could be another misdirect.

Add into this the symbolism of naked Lindsey having an army of cyborgs to do whatever he is doing. (well, he could be fully clothed when he created them or had them created, but that isn't how I picture it :-D ) On top of this is Eve (there's imagery) who is a puppet for the Senior Partners, or is she?

One thing we know about this group is that they see Wesley as the weak link. Wesley helped to twart the Watchers Council's plans to capture Faith. He is a rogue, an unpredictable element. I don't see them designing a plan to capture Angel around Wesley. The Patriarchy would probably go through the chick in the group, since she would be viewed as the weak link.

[> [> [> i thought he did ask -- anom, 00:13:02 12/04/03 Thu

"Regarding Wes and particularly his phone call to his real father I found myself thinking that if my grown son called me from halfway across the world at 4 o'clock in the morning, I might actually think something was wrong."

Well, we did hear Wes tell him, "No, nothing's wrong." So presumably he did ask. (Wonder why Wes didn't give him the news then? Was he hoping to deal w/his father on something other than the "official" level? But wasn't Roger's asking if something was wrong already on a more personal level? (Then again, I can easily imagine that question sounding very impersonal coming from him.) Maybe Wes just wanted to make that personal connection before getting down to business.

And I think your description of the official letter is perfect!

[> [> [> [> Re: i thought he did ask -- LittleBit, 19:24:35 12/04/03 Thu

I was mostly thinking that asking after having made it clear to Wes that his phone call was most inopportune and unappreciated at that hour before getting around to asking why he was calling seemed, oh, a little cold.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: i thought he did ask -- anom, 22:06:03 12/04/03 Thu

Oh...I taped 5.9 over it, so I couldn't check. Maybe the 1st time I remember Wes saying nothing was wrong, he was still talking to his mother. OK, point conceded. Not that I didn't think Rog was a cold bastard....

[> Re: My analysis of 'Lineage' is up -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:31:32 12/03/03 Wed

You refer to the thing Wesley shot as a cyborg, however I'm pretty sure it was a robot. Granted, I've only seen the ep that one time, but it definitely looked different from the cyborgs we had seen. Instead of a face mask it appeared to have a little mechanical ball on top of a stand. My guess is this was done so that viewers wouldn't think that Wesley's dad had become a cyborg.

As for the cyborg Wesley got information out of, it is worthwhile to remember that Wesley had already given him what was probably a mortal wound during a self-defense situation. As such, I don't think it was quite as morally ambiguous, since, whether cyborgs have a right to live or not, this one was clearly already on his way out. The only ambiguity that remains is Wesley torturing the info out of him (and, considering all the times they've had to beat/threaten info out of someone, and that Wesley was in a pretty desperate situation, I don't have too much of a problem with).
Who is Eve? -- Deborah Rector, 06:41:24 12/01/03 Mon

Could Eve be Linwood's daughter? He said "I like children. The senior partners took mine before I got to know them."

Replies:

[> Re: Interesting theory! -- Ames, 09:25:37 12/01/03 Mon


[> Re: Who is Eve? -- LeeAnn, 12:13:19 12/01/03 Mon

Could Eve be Lilah in another incarnation? She talks like Lilah and tries to act like Lilah. I decided it was just poor writing and acting but maybe she really IS Lilah.

[> [> Re: Who is Eve? -- MaeveRigan, 09:22:27 12/03/03 Wed

I see no need for Lilah to return as Eve, whose only resemblance to Lilah, as far as I can tell, is her position at the firm. We already know that Lilah's contract holds good for eternity, and she's already returned once as herself.

Eve may not be human, but she's almost certainly not a previously seen character.

Of course, I could be wrong!
Future casting spoilers and speculation -- angelverse, 11:05:51 12/01/03 Mon

Date Posted: 10:04:27 12/01/03 Mon
Author: angelverse
Subject: cordelia's return

so, i know cordys comin back and all and then she leaves for good at the end of the eppy, but where is she gonna go? i mean shes a precognitive half-demon. i dont think she can go on as a lone ranger type deal...so my guess is that andrew is staying on until cordys ep and then she leaves with him to go find the gang and meet old friends...at least thats what im hopin for. do you guys know anyhting about this and if tom lenk is going to be in the same eppy as cordy. that would make me feel better, knowing cordys is not going out alone but to find the old gang.

Replies:

[> Re: Future casting spoilers and speculation -- Vickie, 11:08:26 12/01/03 Mon

Sorry, angelverse. I don't have any info for you. You might try the spoiler board link at the top of the page.
Is there a new episode this week? -- Sheri, 12:41:18 12/01/03 Mon


Replies:

[> I wish it was, but my guide has reruns for the next two weeks, at least -- LittleBit, 19:23:00 12/01/03 Mon


[> [> Hey at least we're getting Angel re-runs -- Masq, 19:27:41 12/01/03 Mon

We could be seeing old episodes of "Charmed" and "Gilmore Girls" in Angel's time-slot.

And even if we get no new eps before the holiday break, we got more new episodes than last Fall.

[> [> [> well, maybe the rerun hiatus would be a good time for, oh, gee, i don't know...maybe a book melee? -- anom, 19:51:25 12/01/03 Mon

Whatever happened to those? Eclipsed by the new season, perhaps? Wasn't the next one going to be Hamlet/Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead? Which I've actually read by now? See, a nice long delay can be good for something!

Can we? Can we, Sara, huh, can we, huh? @>)

[> [> [> [> Or maybe resume the Back to the Beginning? -- Vickie, 20:40:23 12/01/03 Mon

Masq, which episode were we on, anyway?

[> [> [> [> [> Is everybody ready to jump on back? -- Masq, 21:49:10 12/01/03 Mon

I think it was "Lie to Me", but people stopped commenting as of "School Hard". So I'm thinking we should start with School Hard, or perhaps even, "When She Was Bad".

Votes anyone??

[> [> [> [> [> [> I was thinking of saying something more about WSWB -- Cactus Watcher, 04:47:36 12/02/03 Tue

It kind of slipped by this summer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I vote for WSWB -- Lunasea, 06:29:15 12/02/03 Tue

I still need to tie it back to "Prophecy Girl" and the pattern that Joss uses

[> [> [> [> [> [> Give it a go, kids. 'Back to the Beginning' is back until the first week of Jan -- Masq, 11:13:36 12/03/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> Yeah, Melee!!! -- mamcu, 10:33:21 12/02/03 Tue

I vote for American Gods (Neil Gaiman).

[> [> [> [> [> Great book! -- Rob, 22:34:26 12/02/03 Tue

I'll add Nabokov's Lolita to the nomination list. I've been wanting to read it for a long time (just bought a copy a week ago in fact), and that would give me a great excuse.

Rob

[> I know 'Smallville' won't be new until Jan. 7th, so I assume the same's true for AtS. -- Rob, 10:52:14 12/03/03 Wed


[> [> New episodes for ATS premiere Jan 7th. (writer spoilers inside) -- s'kat, 16:54:04 12/03/03 Wed

According to WB.com, buffy.nu, ASSB board, new episodes for ATS premiere on Jan 7th. Until then we get a combination of reruns and holiday programming. Conviction is on tonight.
*
*
*
*
*
Here are the writers for the up coming episodes, won't include titles since some people hate that.

5.9 Craft and Fain
5.10 Fletcher ( a new writer, someone we haven't seen before) And yes, this is the episode that will be directed entirely by David Boreanze.
5.11 Drew Goddard and Stephen DeKnight team up
5.12 Written and Directed by David Fury
5.13 Drew Goddard and Deknight again

5.9 will premiere Jan 7.

Speculation is 5.10 will also appear in Jan..
5.11, 5.12, and 5.13 will probably air during sweeps.

Of course since we have a month off - we might get what we got last year which was Angel episodes with hardly a break through Feb-May. We do after all have 14 episodes left.

[> [> [> Cityofangel.com's saying AtS isn't coming back until Jan. 14th...Are they wrong? -- Rob, 09:01:44 12/04/03 Thu

Because I saw Jan. 7th listed on all the other sites.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: Cityofangel.com's saying AtS isn't coming back until Jan. 14th...Are they wrong? -- s'kat, 10:38:46 12/05/03 Fri

Well, ASSB and whedonesque posters reported Jan 7 from the WB site. Wb.com is obviously the most reliable of the bunch.

Cityofangel? Not the most reliable. It's fan run and unofficial. That doesn't mean it's wrong...just that the other sites tend to be more reliable. I've fond whedonesque and spoilerslayer to be the most reliable because these guys scan the other sites - including cityofangle hunting news and filter through it.

Spoilerslayer hasn't posted the new episode date yet, which means he may be waiting for a firmer confirmation. Of the websites out there, spoilerslayers purpose in life is to slay false spoilers and rumors. It's new format makes it possible to go to spoilerslayer without being spoiled.
Just Rewards is to air next week.

[> [> [> [> [> Actually maybe they are right. -- s'kat, 00:52:41 12/06/03 Sat

Zapzit and whedonesque now quote cityofangel - apparently
it's 5.9 on the 14th and 5.10 on the 21st with DB directing 5.10. DB says that JM and the others were wonderfully supportive of him during this effort. The link for the interview is up at whedonesque but has major spoilers, so I'd avoid.

[> [> [> Now there's a duo to dread . . . (writer spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:53:59 12/05/03 Fri

Drew Goddard and Stephen DeKnight! One of these men killed Tara, had Spike try to rape Buffy, sent Buffy catatonic, had Wesley chain a woman up in a closet, made Connor a murderer, and told us that Jasmine was controlling everyone's free will from day one. The other has blown up the Watchers' Council, killed Halfrek, had Anya massacre over a dozen people, told Dawn that Buffy would turn against her, killed Jonathan, made Spike return to his killing ways, had Wood try to kill Spike, killed two potentials Buffy was trying to protect, poked out one of Xander's eyes, and had Wesley try to kill his father.

Is anyone else very, very afraid?

[> [> [> [> We could always compare that to the Tim Reaper -- Lunasea, 10:53:03 12/07/03 Sun

Killed Liam's family, a whole hotel of people went mad, Darla's original vamping, Dru's vamping, Darla's revamping, Darla and Dru's reunion and a nice room full of legal snacks, Angel sleeping with Darla, Kate's suicide attempt, Gunn's gang losing the mission, Misogynistic Wesley, Darla's death again, Holtz's death, Connor's "death."

That is just off the top of my head. I'd say that anyone has a ways to go before they catch up to the Tim Reaper. In one corner we have the man that wrote most of the Angelus arc season 4 and in the other we have the man that wrote most of the Dark Angel arc season 2. Which one should we fear more? Not going to include glorified fan fiction boy in their class, yet.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: We could always compare that to the Tim Reaper -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:08:52 12/07/03 Sun

If we were just going by numbers, I'd have to give Joss the lead over any other writer, then. He's killed Buffy (twice), introduced Angelus to the world, killed Kendra, had Buffy send Angel to Hell, had the First Evil tempt Angel into killing Buffy, had Angel try to kill himself, had Buffy try to kill Faith to save Angel, had Angel fail the first person he tried to help in LA, had Faith sleep with Riley in Buffy's body, had Angel kill a good demon, made Giles a murderer, made Spike crazy, and killed Anya. And, what's more, there's "The Body", which needs several lines all of its own.

The thing is, both Whedon and Minear have done a lot of episodes. Tim Minear's got 18 under his belt while Stephen DeKnight's got 13, and Drew Goddard's only got 6. This being the case, the writers with fewer episodes should get some sort of handicap. Drew's only written a third as many episodes as Tim, so it's not really a fair comparison, yet. I'd say that Tim Minear, Stephen DeKnight, and Drew Goddard are the three darkest writers that ME has (or had), and, to my knowledge, this is the first time two of them have teamed up on one episode.

P.S. Personally? I found the Season 4 Angelus arc darker than the Season 2 Noir Angel arc. Of course, in general my opinion of Season 2 is pretty low.
Back from T-Day in Florida with a holiday poem -- Brian, 20:50:33 12/01/03 Mon

CHRISTMAS IN FLORIDA


The date is not 12/25.

The month is not even December.

But I am where land, sky, and sea meet.

The late, afternoon sun still warms my back;

The wind is a cool breeze across my body;

I have a cigar in my hand;

And I stand at the shore, looking East,

Watching the waves gently roll in, white caps in the distance.

Three large cruise ships steam by

Heading out towards foreign ports.

Their running lights bright against the darkening sea.

I turn and walk, cool sand beneath my feet, cool water across my toes.

Overhead the clouds are shot pink from the setting sun.

I puff on my cigar.

Ah, contentment!

Replies:

[> Re: Well, OK -- Wave Rider, 05:48:40 12/02/03 Tue


[> [> Re: Sand and sun and surf -- Florida Lover, 16:26:54 12/02/03 Tue


[> Sun Good! Back to earth - Lancashire winter poem -- MsGiles, 03:14:57 12/03/03 Wed

Second of December. It's raining on Penwortham Hill

Spent last night getting dead leaves out of the blocked drain, chilly in the night, fumbling in torchlight.

Mornings when I leave, the clouds are tinted pink, a heavy pink with the threat of rain.

Windows show the sun I can't touch. Winter Hill, behind slate roofs and chimneys, miles away. Housing estates grow busily like dry rot, cabled tendrils creep, erupt with the first alarming sign: a big placard saying 'Countryside'. But trees still fur the skyline, in Lancs, the Pennines' edge, the hills that ring the fertile Fylde.

Then pink is gone from the clouds, and night has come before it's even teatime. No wonder we crowd to shop in those bright centres, rolling back the dark with shiny credit cards, buying into summer.

[> [> Visit to Wisconsin--Fall/Winter poem -- mamcu, 07:28:39 12/03/03 Wed

Honks, hoots, chattering quacks
wake me as the windows go gray.
Between the yellowing leaves of the poplar and
mist drifting from the pond
winged shadows straggle to the cries
pulling them up to the air

Even if they'll starve where grain's gone,
or if wings weighted with sleet will drag them down,
leaving the sick to flutter on the sand,
the strong ones swim against the wind with heavy strokes,
toward whatever sun waits for them
whatever branches hang with berries, and warm water,
rich with slimy seaweed.
They don't dream of it. All they know is going.
The young don't know where they fly,
the old will not get there.

I've seen their dark V winging over southern marshes,
pure as a jet contrail, too high to hear.

But here so close to their rising, I can hear
their raucous voices shouting the bitter news:
something is coming, something with ravenous icy teeth
roars down and won't be stopped.
The hoots and honks say now!
Get up, fly, now! Beat whatever wings you have and go.

[> [> [> I like the geese: 'all they know is going' -- MsGiles, 04:07:40 12/04/03 Thu


[> [> Re: Lancashire winter poem - Very nice! -- Brian, 07:48:30 12/03/03 Wed

You create a wonderful set of Winter images. Nice use of pink foreshadowing, as well.

[> [> Re: Sun Good! Back to earth - Lancashire winter poem -- mamcu, 12:44:53 12/04/03 Thu

And I like all of this, especially "the hills that ring the fertile Fylde"--love the way the i's and f's echo, like the rings of hills! Neat.

Got any more poetry up anywhere?

[> Thanks for this! A pleasure -- mamcu, 12:47:04 12/04/03 Thu

firefly dvd news -- DirtyFrank, 21:52:41 12/01/03 Mon

dunno if this is the right place to post this, but what the hell. it couldnt hurt even if its old news right? anyways, looks like the release date is in a week. also, the movie is slated for 2005. and a link for the review:

http://www.dvdfanatic.com/review.php?id=firefly

Frank D.

Replies:

[> OT, Buffy marathon on Space Dec.25 -- jane, 00:16:00 12/02/03 Tue

While watching the new(!) episode of Firefly tonight I saw a promo for a 26 hour Buffy marathon Dec. 25. Last 2 Season 6 episodes, then all of Season 7, and the movie that started it all. Something to do while digesting the Christmas dinner.
Good Firefly episode BTW. A hex on Fox for dumping a great show.

[> [> Re: OT, Buffy marathon on Space Dec.25 -- Ames, 10:22:46 12/02/03 Tue

Kudos to Space, but it's a shame a lot of us won't be at home for Christmas to change tapes in the VCR. :-)

I bet they'll have a lot of their Buffy behind-the-scenes bits on between episodes too.

[> [> [> What is Space? -- genivive, 05:16:04 12/03/03 Wed

Is Space a US, UK or Canandian channel? I have DirectTV in the US and haven't seen it.

[> [> [> [> Re: What is Space? -- lenair, 11:04:42 12/03/03 Wed

It's a Canadian channel.

[> Cranky-making Buffy s5 DVD news -- Ponygirl, 11:51:56 12/02/03 Tue

it's worth noting that many fans have been clamoring for the return of the series' "Previously on..."s for quite some time now. I suppose Fox thought that their inclusion would be superfluous, and I have to admit that I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other. Still, they would have been nice to have as a reference anyway, and there are several instances where the music that opens an episode seems abrupt without them. The Gift, which marked the 100th episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, certainly suffers from that jumpy start. Even worse, though, The Gift debuted on network television with an incredibly impressive rapid-fire montage of clips from the ninety-nine episodes that preceded it, and that too has been left off of this DVD release.

This really annoys me. I could care less about the "previously" bits for other episodes but The Gift's was perfectly integrated into the opening shot of the teaser, and was a great summation of the series thus far. I can't understand why it would be left off. Grr.
'Unleashed': The Super-Evil Review -- Honorificus (The Plucky And Pleasant One), 22:15:26 12/01/03 Mon

Well, Fellow Fiends, this is shaping up to be a most interesting season thus far. Indeed, there's so much evil already in evidence that it seems only a matter of time before even the most insipid of Our Heroes will be sucked into the Depths of the Underdark. Great will be the day!

Unless that Joss creature goes and spoils it all, as he's so wont to do. Must find some way to neutralize him.

On to the review!

Fashion Statements
The Good
Shockingly enough, the Victim of the Week had good fashion taste. Good fit, good colors, and all very appropriate for a human female of her age. Now that she's a werewolf, however, she will need some leather.

Wesley continues to look nummy. I rather adored that shirt he was wearing at the end.

Angel's basic black was a little more palatable this week for some reason.

The Bad
That handkerchief-hemmed vaguely pink nightmare hanging off Fred at the end, not to mention that floral monstrosity of a peasant blouse. And when *will* they do something with her hair?

More lab coats. Ick!

Doctor Royce gave me a complete case of the willies fashion-wise. One doesn't even like to admit such creatures exist.

The Iffy
Still not certain what to make of Gunn's hair. It's making him even more babyfaced than usual.

Plot in a Nutshell
Werewolf meets girl. Girl gets bit. Angst, Angel, angst. And while you're at it, Spike should walk through occasionally making unhelpful comments. Oh, wait--he did.

Demonic Quibbles and Comments
There was actually a place like that restaurant in Santa Monica about five years back or so. The head chef tried to serve me up in a lemon-tarragon sauce. Rather a delicious sauce, actually; especially when I served him up to my bridge club smothered in it.

Body Count
One werewolf.

One human thug.

Highlights
I dearly love the paranoid atmosphere they're drowning in at W&H. Soon, there should be some out-and-out fights, and if all goes well, murders and suicides. Fun!

The girl nearly succumbing to bloodlust. So nice to see in one so young. And she had fashion sense!

Angel getting all snippy with his friends and colleagues.

And again, Angel and Co. get all morally murky, letting Dr. Royce get dragged away by those who'd love to devour him. This really does have the potential to be an interesting season--if that pestilential Joss creature doesn't get in the way, that is.

Spike being all pestersome. They deserve it.

Lowlights
Gah! The last couple of scenes. I nearly died of a hyperglycemic reaction. Bleah! Shmoopy girl-goes-home-and-gets-hugged, Angel invites over his friends for some bonding over Chinese food--excuse me, I've got to throw up again.

Burning Questions
So what *will* Nina tell her family?

Will Angel dare to date again? It's gone so well the last few times.

Was Spike just being over-dramatic, or is he really that desperate?

Why did no one mention Oz? Even the Initiative got a sideways mention.

The Immoral of the Story
Don't let Angel rescue you. Often, you're better off dead.

Overall Rating
Complex. A z-quotient over gamma would seem to be in order, but the ending injects a "gleh" to the nth power into the equation. Thus, I'm going to give it a blue/3+peach on the Non Sequitur Scale. They should've left well enough alone.

Replies:

[> why do i have the feeling... -- demanom, 22:35:46 12/01/03 Mon

"Rather a delicious sauce, actually; especially when I served him up to my bridge club smothered in it."

...that for once I'm not taking things overly literally? Like, say..."smothered." Not as satisfying as torn limb from limb, or the way they were going to serve Nina...but in this case, more à propos.

[> Re: 'Unleashed': The Super-Evil Review -- Calebaelin, 18:13:33 12/02/03 Tue

There was actually a place like that restaurant in Santa Monica about five years back or so. The head chef tried to serve me up in a lemon-tarragon sauce. Rather a delicious sauce, actually; especially when I served him up to my bridge club smothered in it.

Why, ah say why, do you think a chicken oriented condiment is a good thing to have around lil' lady? Very few of us could pullet off without risk (that's a joke there sweet-thing, two if you're savvy). Any more of these thinly veiled threats and I shall be forced to declare 'wah' (that's another one, not too quick on the uptake are ya there scaly).

Calebaelin

Who sounds absolutely and totally unlike Foghorn Leghorn.

[> Re: 'Unleashed': The Super-Evil Review -- Vyrus, 09:45:22 12/03/03 Wed

Another lovely review, Honorificus.

Doctor Royce gave me a complete case of the willies fashion-wise. One doesn't even like to admit such creatures exist.

I'm told he's from another planet, whatever that means.

The head chef tried to serve me up in a lemon-tarragon sauce. Rather a delicious sauce, actually; especially when I served him up to my bridge club smothered in it.

What a grotesque story! I despise bridge.

Angel invites over his friends for some bonding over Chinese food--excuse me, I've got to throw up again.

Now, now, if it weren't for Chinese food, Chinese people wouldn't taste nearly so good. (Not to mention that the Atkins diet lets you eat 3 Chinese people a week, as compared to only 1 starchy Brit or Irishman, or 2 greasy Americans.)

So what *will* Nina tell her family?

Either that she has recurrent bouts of 24-hour rabies, or that her PMS is bad enough to require inpatient care.

Why did no one mention Oz?

Angel is reluctant to talk about persons who are cooler than he is. Especially stubby humans.

[> Re: Your burning question (Another marvellous offering) -- KdSwift, 13:32:50 12/03/03 Wed

Sad as it was, neither Angel nor Wesley were ever particularly close to Oz. It would have been better if they had been - such wonderful opportunities for the barely-restrained ultraviolence of all three to erupt. But unfortunately, I'd be surprised if either of them remember him particularly.

[> [> Ah, but I remember... -- Masq, waxing nostalgic, 14:20:07 12/03/03 Wed

Two classic Angel/Oz bonding scenes. First in Dopplegangland when Angel is looking for Buffy in the Bronze and runs into Oz on the stage. The vampires lead by vamp willow attack, and Oz exhorts Angel to go find Buffy because lo and behold, Oz's girlfriend appears to be a vampire.

Second in In the Dark, when Oz comes to LA to deliver the gem of Amarra and Oz and Angel have their "laconic" exchange.

These two were well aware of each other, being the boyfriends of best friends Buffy and Willow is s's 2 & 3, although I don't think Oz's werewolf status was ever much of a topic of conversation between these two like the "monsters in our men" was a topic of conversation between Buffy and Willow.
Angel as Father (no spoilers for our friends across the pond) -- Lunasea, 06:19:49 12/02/03 Tue

First two disclaimers:

1)This post is to address what I perceive as some Angel bashing that has been going on and to figure out a few things for myself. I hope it will make some think and even spark discussion of the importance of Angel as Father and how it relates to destiny.

2) I am not going to claim that the writers consciously are saying what I see from the Connor storyline. The elements I am going to talk about could be completely unrelated and just there for an interesting story. The connections I see are just that -- Connections I see. Your mileage WILL (did I stress that enough?) vary. Please share what you see, even if it is to tell me I am full of something that smells rather unpleasant.

Those out of the way, what I want to talk about is how I see Angel as Father fitting into his overall story. Connor was more than a plot device to help him deal with his issues about his own father. He showed a lot about Angel's character and approached the theme of destiny from an angle that is easier to relate to than the Uber Champion Angel is becoming.

First that character. Angel is a hero. He is basically a good guy. When he went dark, we get Season 2. That he even considers that dark shows how basically good he is. He might not believe in himself and he loses his way from time to time, but at his heart he is still good. TNT put it best in the Drama lounge when discussing the show: TNT Interview with Joss NO Spoilers "Yet at its core, Angel remains a meditation on redemption and the qualities that make a hero." The show is about a reluctant hero. His name is ANGEL. He's just moved beyond that and accepts his destiny. Destiny. It is an interesting thing for a third-generation television writer to explore.

Angel's relationship with Connor is summed up best in a single line before he was even born, "Why is it everyone insists on planning my son's future before he's even born?" (Lullaby by Tim Minear) Liam's father (I'm going to call him Liam, Sr) would have wanted Liam to follow in his footsteps. That was the norm for the time. To apprentice him to a trade would have been a step down. A merchant was respectable middle class. Small problem. Angel has no head for business. I doubt he was any different as Liam. I can very easily see a Liam who was eager to please his father (see Spin the Bottle for 17 year old Liam according to Joss) trying very hard at the family business and really sucking at it no matter how hard he tried. Add into that what was going on with the textile industry at the time and how could Liam be what his father wanted him to be? Liam, Sr's disappointment came because he was planning his son's future without considering the son. He let his son know in "word and glance what was expected."

Angel can draw. Can you really see Angelus learning that? I can't. I can see him using it to torture people like he did Buffy, Willow and Giles, but the realization of the talent would have to come pre-vamping. When Angel is trying to work out his feelings about Darla, he draws and draws and draws. He knows how cathartic it can be. I can see a young Liam drawing and either proudly showing his father his talent or his father stumbling across it. His father would not have been happy. I can see his father belittling this one thing that Liam is actually good at and instead harping on business, business, business. Perhaps Liam started drawing because he stumbled across something his father had done as a young man. Liam's father couldn't make a living that way and that was his primary concern. He didn't want his son to have to go through what he did. Maybe he learned it from his mother. Maybe he was trying to doodle some patterns that could embellish the linens his father sold and was trying to contribute to the business the only way he could. There are all sorts of possibilities. The important part is that Liam Sr has an idea what he wants for Liam's future and only that will do.

Take this a couple of centuries later to Angel and Connor. The conflict between Liam and Liam, Sr is because of these plans. Angel is not going to do that. He tries not to shape Connor at all. Connor has no destiny as far as he is concerned. The conflict in Angel when it comes to Connor is his desire to do everything for his son versus giving Connor the freedom to be who he will. "Dad" shows this conflict nicely. It is a conflict that every good parent feels. It is natural to have dreams about what we want for our children. It is only recently that we have started to let them have their own dreams. How do we help them realize those dreams without imposing our own on them?

A parent's job is to protect his child. How do we know which mistakes they can survive and which are jumps off a cliff, a really high cliff with jagged rocks at the bottom? Angel tries to open a portal to Quortoth, but it is Connor that punches through from the other side. Even though we try to save our children. It ultimately has to come from them. If Angel had done it, the whole universe would have gone kaplooie. That is just the way the world works.

When Connor lashes out at his father, it is natural for him to want to lash back and/or rein the kid in. He tells the Connor hallucination in "Deep Down" "I should have killed you." Angel doesn't do this. Instead he allows Connor to try and find his way, much as he tried to do when he left home.

He has no idea how damaged Connor really is until "Magic Bullet." Why should he? The only knowledge Angel has about how Holtz treated Connor comes from "Benediction." In the letter that Holtz writes more for Angel's benefit than for Connor's he says "Your destiny lies with Angel. I know that now. You will have a better life with him. I'm comforted by that certainty and the knowledge that with him you will discover your true purpose and come to know who it is you are meant to be. My only prayer is that I have prepared you well enough for whatever lies ahead. I trust that I have. Be brave. Lovingly, your father." Those are exactly the things that Angel feels about being a father. It isn't for the father to determine our purpose. It is up to us to find out who we are meant to be. A parent can only prepare us and love us.

One thing my husband pointed out is it says a lot about souled Angel that he can't see how evil Holtz has become. He is so genuinely good that he just sees Holtz as raising Connor and believes what Sahjhan says. He doesn't foresee Holtz as tying him to a tree and leaving him there for days. Angel has no idea that Holtz raised Connor for the sole purpose of seeking revenge. His revenge was in depriving Angel of Connor's childhood and then Connor being a reminder of the children that Angelus murdered. He has no idea how bad Connor really has been damaged. Drusilla may be Angelus' greatest crime, but what Holtz does to Connor tops even that.

Angel tries so hard to strike a balance between hovering and keeping an eye on him. It isn't his fault that he doesn't realize how messed up Connor is so that the balance needs to be skewed towards hovering. Lorne leaves (Angel's ability to read people), just as Angel is trying to figure out where to place Connor/Stephen in the hotel and his life. Lorne does warn him not to turn his back on him any time soon. Angel wants to believe in his son, though. Connor knows how to get through Angel's defenses. If it is Connor who wants to be like Angel, Angel isn't forcing him into some mold. Connor is who he is and Angel's dreams are realized. Life is good.

There is more to Connor's story line than this. "The father will kill the son." In season three, the arc is driven by a false prophecy that becomes true eventually. Sahjhan has brought back Holtz to kill Darla before she can give birth to Connor because Connor is supposed to kill him. Another bit of insurance that Sahjhan takes out is to rewrite the prophecy so that instead of Connor killing him, Angel is to kill to Connor. Sahjhan is trying to avoid the destiny of dying, specifically the true prophecy of "The one sired by the vampire with a soul shall grow to manhood and kill Sahjhan." In trying to get out of this prophecy and escape his destiny, the wheels he sets in motion lead to his imprisonment.

Connor is raised to torment Angel. He sees this as the destiny that Holtz is speaking of in the letter. This is a false prophecy written on top of the big destiny that Jasmine has in mind for him. That false prophecy comes true when Angel has to kill his son in order to give him a better life. We have seen how tormented Angel is this season by what he felt he had to do.

Angel's story has been centered around this huge destiny he has. Shanshu is just the icing on the cake. The important part is that Angel is "a major player in the apocalypse." I see Shanshu as a way of letting him know when he's done this more than it being some sort of reward. No shanshu, he hasn't done what he is supposed to yet. Because of this destiny, the PTBs and the Senior Partners have shown an interest in him. They are the ones planning his future. Angel tries to do what he thinks is right while they are scheming.

We can't stop the forces around us from scheming, whether those forces are the PTBs, the Senior Partners or our own parents. The parents that love us aren't trying to suck away our free will. They just want us to be the best we can be. They have ideas about just what that is which makes it look like that is what they are trying to do.

Angel as Father gave him the role not as the person who has the destiny, but as the person that can set it for another. How Angel handled that speaks to his character in a way that just being the one the prophecies are about cannot. Power corrupts, but given that power as Father, what did he do with it?

Replies:

[> Destiny and Free Will: Escher-like Geese arising from Talent -- Lunasea, 13:30:03 12/02/03 Tue

I've been thinking a bit about the role destiny plays on AtS and why an Angry Existentialist Atheist would even address this topic. Is it a metaphor for something or an actual exploration of destiny? Lately the show has really been focusing on free will. How does this fit with destiny? Is that what the show is exploring this merging of seemingly opposites?

I like reading writer interviews for many reasons. One of the biggies is I Iike to hear them talk/gush about Joss. I was really excited when I heard who would write episode 21. Marti is the perfect example of someone Joss had empowered and her life itself was the show's message. I am really looking forward to her show, mainly because genre tv is still a guy's game and I love Marti. The perspective she brought to the show turned Buffy from a hero with boobs into a truly feminist/feminine hero. When her own show was the reason that she couldn't write "End of Days," I was disappointed, but was happy with the replacements. Fury was too busy with AtS, so I didn't expect him to. Instead we got Espenson and Petrie, two people that started as Story Editors and rose the ranks as Joss empowered them and their talent grew.

The way Joss runs his shows are consistent with the message of that show. I love listening to the admiration of his staff. They aren't suck ups. I've been in that sort of presence a few times before and it really affects you. He is talented. We might disagree on a lot of things on this board, but I think we can all agree that Joss Whedon is talented. As Marti said the psychological underpinnings of the show "it's an exploration of being exceptional." BtVS looks at the alienation this brings and how to cope with that. I liked the way the show wasn't about power so much as what to do with that power. It is about learning what is truly important. The show about growing up became mythic because of this underpinning, whether it was intentional or not.

Even so, there are still questions. Top of the list is why the heck am I like this. This question is sidestepped nicely on BtVS with the idea of "The Chosen One." We never do find out why Buffy or Faith or Kendra are chosen. We never find out why the Potentials have Potential. It is just part of the mythology. Theism can sidestep it as well by saying it comes from God, but that just adds another layer. The question then becomes why did God give me these. That is where the idea of vocation comes in. Vocation is a divine calling. That calling can manifest as the particular talents God gives someone. The companion to vocation is destiny. We are given talents, then we are called to use those talents to fulfill some divine plan. That plan is destiny. We have those talents to fulfill our destiny. All of us have some role to play in that plan.

The catch is you have to believe in the plan. For there to be a plan, there has to be a planner. No planner, no plan. No plan, no vocation. No vocation, why do we have talents? The ping-ponging on BtVS was "between the darkest night of the soul and this whole yearning for belief." (Marti Interview) This manifests itself on AtS as a ping ponging between the importance of free will and the importance of destiny. There will be no answer, because there is no answer. If there was, the exploration is over.

There have been several references to Escher this season, including his famous woodcut Day and Night.His work tends to get lumped together as "optical illusion," but they were so much more than that. They are his own exploration of the world. This is why they speak to us more than standard illusions. The tessellating pattern that forms the geese of day and night balances opposites in a way that strikes something within us. The way one becomes the other in a seemingless transition, one gives rise to the other in a way that we cannot answer which came first, that is the show's exploration itself. The play of positive and negative space until we don't know which is which, that is the conflict that beats in the hearts of us all. The geese seem to come from the earth itself, but yet fly in the sky. Escher himself wrote about Day and Night "It is here that the representation of opposites of all kinds arises. For is not one led naturally to a subject such as Day and Night by the double function of the black and the white motifs? It is night when the white, as an object, shows up against the black as a background, and the day when the black figures show up against the white."

Escher spoke about why he created these works.

The ideas that have given rise to these works speak largely about the wonder and astonishment that I have undergone while experiencing the laws of the world surrounding me. When one wonders, he or she becomes conscious of a miracle. Whenever I face the riddles surrounding us in a sensuous and open way, whenever I ponder about my observations, I invariably penetrate the realm of mathematics... I am aware of the insufficiency of my descriptions. Still, I cannot pass this toil on to anyone else since, astonishingly, I have had to come to the conclusion that hardly anyone else has been touched by the things of the surrounding world quite like I have been.

He could not pass his toil on to anyone else. That is the burden of talent. His way of seeing things was part of his talent. He alone could create Night and Day. Is destiny some divine plan we fulfill or is it just what will happen? Just as talent can arise because of destiny, destiny can arise because of talent. When we accept the responsibility our talent brings, whether that is slaying/championing, making art, writing a TV show, or anything else, using that talent means things will happen. Just because we have free will, it doesn't mean that free will doesn't make things happen. Once Escher freely accepts his talent and that he alone can create what he will, those creations are just a matter of time before they are made.

We can decide to reject this at any time, but we do that, we kill what we would have done. Do we have a responsibility to see these things born? Do we have a responsibility to our art, to the world? Angel has free will and theoretically can reject his mission at any time. Is this a reality? Even if he rejects it for a time, like in "Reprise," it comes back to him even stronger than it was before.

There doesn't have to be a plan for there to be destiny. It is just a series of inevitable events. Why they are inevitable can come from us, our hearts, our sense of responsibility, our beliefs. That doesn't make them any less inevitable. It doesn't make them not free. Free will and destiny give rise to each other, like Escher's geese. When we use our free will, we live out our destines. We freely accept our talent and become what we will.
A bit OT, a bit scary, a bit philosophical -- Ponygirl, 12:03:19 12/02/03 Tue

A piece on billionaire George Soros' role in the country of Georgia's democracy and his future plans.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031129/DOUG29//?query=soros

I find this fascinating. Soros' ideas are something I support, and I'm digging the postmodernism of it all, but the idea of all that power and influence being concentrated in one individual is a bit disturbing. Which I guess is Soros' point with the Open Society. I think he'd make a good role model for Angel as CEO of Wolfram & Hart. At the very least Soros offers a great quote that could be easily applied to an Angel vs. Spike debate: "Doing good may be noble," he wrote, "but fighting evil can be fun."

Replies:

[> Sounds like a good idea to me! -- mamcu, 20:22:56 12/02/03 Tue

Eve -- David, 14:32:51 12/02/03 Tue

Hi I don't know if this has been mentioned before and i'm in the UK so haven't seen the new season of Angel but what is Eve, I know she said she was the liason between Angel and the Partners but I thought that was the conduct, Do the senior partners need a second conduct or did i miss something? Thanks

Replies:

[> Re: Eve -- lisa, 16:03:54 12/02/03 Tue

I think that the Senior Partners think that Angel's gang would benefit by having a human representative between them and Angel. They don't necessary need her, but it's just easier. It's kinda like 7 of 9 when she first appeared.

[> [> Also, they could just ignore the conduit if they wanted to -- Finn Mac cool, 19:42:30 12/02/03 Tue

Eve seems to be there primarily when the Senior Partners want to talk but Angel and Co. don't. If they just used the cat in the white room, our heroes could just never go in there and the Senior Partners would lose all influence over them. That's why they have Eve: if there's a message from the Senior Partners, she can make sure people get it.
The End of Days -- Buffys#1fan, 14:38:13 12/02/03 Tue

Hey, can someone tell me if the end of days that they refered to in Angel, i think the episode was I will remember you, is wolfram & harts apocalypse or the FE's one since Buffy's 21st eppisode was called the end of days?
beast's activities -- angelverse, 22:20:02 12/02/03 Tue

what did the beast have to do with jasmine and what did his activities have to do with her arrival? what did it have to do with connor and hw is it related to connor's situation and/or existence? lastly what did it have to do with sahjan? did the beast really need to written in or was it just filler? how does it fit in the whole scheme of things?

Replies:

[> Re: beast's activities -- LittleBit, 09:27:03 12/03/03 Wed

My take on the Beast is that he didn't have an agenda of his own, but that his activities were distractions. While everyone was concentrating on what the Beast was doing and how to stop him no one was wondering about Cordy's pregnancy. And there certainly was a great deal to wonder about, had they had the leisure to do so. By the time the Beast was destroyed, the gang's attention was on Angelus and how to find and then restore his soul.

Just my opinion.
cordelia's demon-ness (mildly spoilery) -- angelverse, 22:57:56 12/02/03 Tue

have they addressed cordelia's demon-ness in any way other than the fact that she was made part demon? did they say what kind or what powers or weaknesses she possesses? are we to assume that she will still be half demon when she returns and that she will still have her visions?
Blucas redeemed (for me) -- mamcu, 07:31:57 12/03/03 Wed

Finally got to see I Capture the Castle and must say I thought Marc Blucas' acting was better than it was on Buffy--though he was still playing the same character, only richer.

Replies:

[> Never needed to be redeemed for me -- Cheryl, 08:21:08 12/03/03 Wed

I always liked Marc and Riley so his performance in Capture wasn't a suprise to me. I wish Prey for Rock and Roll would play here already, though, because I think that role is quite different than anything he's done previously.

[> Re: Blucas redeemed (for me) -- angelverse, 10:56:40 12/03/03 Wed

what is I Capture The Castle? And do u mean he played 'Riley' or another commando type?

[> [> I Capture the Castle -- mamcu, 12:47:18 12/03/03 Wed

I Capture The Castle is a film about a girl growing up in an eccentric British family--it's most of all a coming of age story. Blucas' character stands out because he's so down-home American, the way that Riley stood out as the down-home Middle-Westerner in California in Buffy. In ICC he's a rich guy who decides to become a rancher. It's set in the 1930's and there are no commandos.

[> [> [> Re: I Capture the Castle -- Cheryl, 19:31:01 12/03/03 Wed

The book is wonderful and they did a pretty good job adapting it to film. It was written by the same woman who wrote 101 Dalmations.

[> [> [> [> Which version--Animation or Glenn Close? -- DorianQ, 23:38:05 12/03/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> Both - Dodie Smith who wrote the original 101 Dalmatians novel -- KdS, 12:25:14 12/04/03 Thu

OT - Question, o ye wise ones, on dictionaries -- dream, finishing her Christmas shopping, 09:03:12 12/03/03 Wed

Completely OT, but I couldn't think of a better group of people to ask. My boyfriend wants a dictionary for Christmas. He is a poet, very interested in subtleties of language, derivation of words, etc. He uses a Merriam-Webster collegiate every day, and has an American Heritage collegiate that he uses for comparison, but considers lousy. He wants a better dictionary, but he would prefer a non-Merriam Webster, so that he can get the best use out of his current dictionary for comparisons. For budgetary reasons, an OED is out of the question - besides, he spends enough time at the library that he can access one if he needs it. So I think I've narrowed it down to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language or the New Oxford-American Dictionary. Can anyone suggest one or the other? Thanks so much.

Replies:

[> How about an etymological dictionary? -- Sophist, 09:18:36 12/03/03 Wed

I use the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. If you combine that with a good dictionary, he should have pretty much everything he needs.

But the OED is still the best.

[> [> Re: How about an etymological dictionary? -- dream, 09:53:05 12/03/03 Wed

Maybe for next year - I'll keep a note of that. But the problem is just that he doesn't really have a good, solid dictionary - the collegiate Merriam-Webster is a little basic for his needs. And I'm not sure which of the standard dictionaries is "best," but I do know that a bad dictionary is infuriating.

As for the OED, maybe someday I'll introduce him to these crazy modern things we call "computers" and he can use a "CD-Rom."

[> [> [> Unfortunately -- Cactus Watcher, 22:10:56 12/03/03 Wed

If the Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary isn't good enough, what he really needs is an unabridged, and you've already said that's beyond your price range. The only 'bad' collgiate-size dictionary I know of is the non-Merriam product labeled plain Websters. I'd thought that had been swept off the market by American Heritage and Random House, but it still might be out there. If he really wants a second collegiate-sized dictionary either American Heritage or Random House would do. What's best is purely personal opinion. (I wish I could say the same thing for bilingual dictionaries!) The idea that the Merriam-Webster is in any way deficient is purely propaganda by the other publishers and those who've spent good money on their products.

The OED is largely overrated. It's a grand dictionary to be sure, but it's not worth the difference in price between it and an unabridged Merriam-Webster for example. The OED is a great thing to use in the library, one or twice a year, but not to have cluttering up your bookself space for the rest of your life.

Personally I, too, think an etymological dictionary is probably a better choice than a second American-English language collegiate-sized which would largely cover exactly the same material in the same way. Merriam-Webster has one in your price range, and your nearest large bookstore probably has others.

[> [> [> [> Thanks! -- dream, 09:27:29 12/04/03 Thu

OT Joss Whedon Rumor -- Kenny, 16:59:03 12/03/03 Wed

Rumors on various comic book boards are pegging JW as the successor to Grant Morrison on New X-Men. I really doubt it's gonna happen (and that it would come out on time if it did), but thought you guys might be interested in the slim possibility of a regular monthly dose of Jossy goodness.

Replies:

[> Re: OT Joss Whedon Rumor -- Seven, 01:59:47 12/04/03 Thu

The only thing tha i have heard was a specualtion in Wizard magazine that he might be a succesor to Grant Morrisson's esablishment. I think his chances were like 100 to 1. I have actually thought that Joss would write a great X - Men but his other priorities make it impossible to keep up with the comic book schedule. who knows though, maybe if we are willing to see Joss go from this season of angel, he could give it a shot.

[> [> but his loads a lot lighter now -- Ray, 05:01:27 12/04/03 Thu

last year he had 3 shows, now he has 1. And adding a comic would mean simply writing scripts. not writing, directing, producing, being on the set etc.

[> [> [> Re: but his loads a lot lighter now -- Seven, 06:48:08 12/05/03 Fri

It's easy to say that he would only have to script the book but there is actually a lot of work to be done on a comic that is not usually talked about. I'm not sure how familiar everyone else is with comic books, but usually, when a writer has numerous other things on their plate, the work suffers. Also, Joss had numerous problems coming out with (something like) 5 issues of Fray in 1 and a half years. A book like New X-Men would require 12 books a year gauranteed. I love Joss but I just don't see it happening soon. Maybe when Angel and the Firefly movie are all done and gone. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[> Re: OT Joss Whedon Rumor -- The Sorcerer, 21:41:14 12/04/03 Thu

Interesting.

I was just reading Grant Morrison's website on magic.

Pretty basic stuff and very much recommended for beginniners, but the uncanny felicity of reading his work, recommending it to someone, and then reading this thread strikes me odd since I have only heard of Morrison a few weeks ago.
Realverse Magic Ethics -- Drizzt, 17:00:19 12/03/03 Wed

I have gotten into an arguement with my freind regarding the ethics of disclosure of paranormal phenomena to the general populance vs. acceptible disclosure to individual students who have passed subjective standerds of morality and self-restraint. Oiy, long sentance;) Would like any alternative veiwpoints on this issue as it could have major world effect at the time of my final desision.

My freind is a witch of unknown specific tradition, but basically wiccan in outlook. He is similar to Tara in that he was taught magic technique, spirituality, and ethical propriety of magic use from the time he could speak. Taught by his grand mother instead of mother, aprox 25 years experiance.

I intend to claim the Randi Prize -$1.1 million, www.randi.org- and my freind says that I am ethically bound to NOT do so.
His reasoning and my counterarguements follow in the next post.

Replies:

[> Ethical Desision -- Drizzt, 17:32:24 12/03/03 Wed

Claim Randi Prize?

My freind says that I should not because it would inspire mean people of the world(specificaly those who currently lack magical ability) to learn paranormal abilty to use for spitefull, greedy, mean etc. reasons and thus cause more suffering for humanity than there is in the present. He also said that for thousands of years magical practioners of all types have concealed there ability for the above reason. And he said I would be directly responsible for this increase in suffering.

My Reply
1. There are hundreds of veiwpoints and traditions of magical teaching allready in the world, therefore anyone with interest can learn magic regardless of my actions.
2. I think it would be a good thing for paranormal phenomena to be accepted in mainstream scientific thought instead of just fringe parapsychology. It would give more legitimacy to this knowladge feild.
3. Currently there is a general superstious perspective in a large part of the world wich is based on ignorance; what you understand is not as frightening.
4. Proof of parnormal would counter materialist scientists who believe that humans are purely mechanistic without souls or life-force, and more importantly it would be indirectly beneficial to all spiritual seakers who doubt the supernatural because of the current consensus reality that only 'special' people have magical/psi ability. It would be inspireing and positive for spiritual seakers to fully beleive that they have more than just the corperal body...Sigh, wish I could explain more clearly the point I am trying to make with this one;(
5. High technology is disempowering to people in some ways; the technology becomes a crutch instead of personal willpower and determination determining life experiance. Tech is usefull, and the freedom and better average quality of life possible with mass production are certainly beneficial, but I think that if all people of the world had paranormal ability actualized it would be empowering and equalizing vs. now there is the Tech Haves of the developed rich nations vs many dirt poor Tech-Nots. Personal magical/psi ability is equalising because material possessions, wealth, education, and available technology have relatively minor effect on psi ability. Thus someone with literally nothing but the clothes they are wearing would still have power and a large degree of relivant confidence in the empowerment of determination of there life experiance with assistance of psi.

Your thoughts?

[> [> Re: Ethical Decision -- dmw, 18:09:09 12/03/03 Wed

I think if you have knowledge, it's more reponsible to share it than to hide it. Secrecy rarely provides security, though it often sustains economic and power differences between the haves and have-nots when secrecy makes important knowledge difficult to access.

Thinking about your other points, it's worth noting that the "paranormal" does not necessarily conflict with materialism. The mechanism for such phenomena might be understood in a completely materialistic way, despite the tendency of believers to not think so.

Technology doesn't follow general empowering or disempowering trends. For example, broadcasting in many ways was disempowering as it distributes one person's information to many people, while packet-switched protocols like the internet turned that equation around by letting anyone become a broadcaster. Anyone can develop technical or scientific knowledge today, as you suppose anyone can develop paranormal knowledge, and I suspect there will always be those who do and those who don't develop such knowledge.

[> [> [> Re: Ethical Decision -- Drizzt, 18:58:53 12/09/03 Tue

Better to share knowladge than hide it?

I agree with that.

Secrecy in inteligence has validity in some situations, however those in any political or inteligence organisation will increase secrecy beyond reason. Secrecy is desirable because it is much simpler than and less controversial than unpleasant truths.

One other thing about secrecy of technology or paranormal knowledge; if it is widespread then anyone can use it, but if it is hidden criminals and governments can use and abuse it for the purpose of controlling the general populance and the non-paras would have no defence. At least with paranormal being accepted even nonpractitioners would be better able to understand and seek proper help from benign or goodwitches/preasts/psychics if they are under atack by paranormal means.

[> [> Re: Ethical Desision -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:40:16 12/03/03 Wed

I don't think guarding power really keeps it out of the hands of the wrong people. See, eventually, someone's gonna slip through the cracks, get the power even though they may be "mean", and they in turn will pass it down to people they see fit, most of whom will probably share this person's beliefs and ideals, creating a succession of people using the power for selfish or mean spirited reasons. If power is distributed to everyone, well, it depends on your view of human nature. Going on the belief that most people are, at heart, good, then there should be more than enough power in the hands of good people to balance out that of th bad.

I'd just like to ask: if your friend does have Wiccan based beliefs, does he believe in the Threefold Law? If he does, then all that has to happen is for widespread knowledge of the paranormal to include the karmic retributions it carries. I personally believe there are more good people than bad in this world, and many of those bad people aren't ones who will knowingly wrack up a huge karmic debt against themselves in order to hurt people.

[> [> [> Just wanted to clarify this is all my opinion -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:25:01 12/03/03 Wed

Was just looking back at this and realized I hadn't put a single IMHO in the text. Again, just my opinion, you'll have to let your own heart guide you on this.

[> [> [> [> I agree -- Jaelvis, 12:43:13 12/04/03 Thu

I think that the sharing of knowledge is always the best bet. One can't assume that people will use magic for "evil" and probably anyone who wants to do that, is already doing that. There are plenty of books and resources out there for people who want to practice magic for whatever purpose. Just because your friends Grandma taught him all about using "white magic" doesn't mean there isn't someone grandparent out there teaching "black magic". Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the user to wield their power for the good of all. You should share knowledge and hope that people don't abuse their power. Ultimately, I think it is condescending to assume that YOU can be responsible with power and THEY can't.

I think the previous post about threefold power holds true. If someone chooses to do evil things, evil things will come back on them. We all create our own reality and have the freedom to do that and suffer the consequences of it.

Just my two cents.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree -- Drizzt, 12:32:54 12/10/03 Wed

"Ultimately I think it is condecending to assume that YOU can be responsible and THEY can't" Agree with that. Also it is a cynical veiwpoint; I prefer to expect some problems, but hope for them to be minor...I think that is the most practical philosophy.

One thing that is ammusing is that my freind knows that I intend to claim the Randi Prize and he makes such a big deal about it being a bad idea, but he insists on teaching me techniques to more efficiently accomplish my goal;) HA! I think he has two selfish reasons; to have a student of sorts allows him to lecture me, and he wants a partner for practicing energy transfer and perhaps other exercises. He has a rather unusual perspective on many things so even though I have not used his advice yet it is interesting to have a signifigantly different veiwpoint than my own explained. One thing though; he INSISTS I have to do a certain exercise to become aware of my aura and that it is critical before I would be able to progress to more difficult skills. That is annoying because three times I tried to explain my system and reasoning and he dismissed it before I could finish my explanation. His technique is perfectly logical and reasonable, but I think I can get the same results eventually with my own system.

[> [> [> Ummm, countering my own posts;) -- Drizzt, 19:12:06 12/09/03 Tue

Generally for any veiwpoint I try to understand its opposite to some degree...

Okay, I am a paraphysics theorist; got thousands of hours of thinking and research, but I am not a major player in actualised paranormal ability of any type. So, assuming there are a few thousand people that have signifigant paranormal ability compared to me, it is highly likely that at least 25% are 'mean'. IMO for any group of people that are mean there would be a larger group of people that are good and nice relatively that would compensate for the actions of mean(or perhaps even evil) people. The thing is that entropy is easier than extropy or pattern preservation, destruction is easier than creation, war is easier than peace.

Does my freind believe in the Threefold Law? Unkown.

[> [> Re: Ethical Desision -- RJA, 17:55:13 12/04/03 Thu

I dont know about the general context of Wicca and witchcraft, so all I can add is my ignorant opinion.

However, I work in a general bookshop in a smalltown. In the shop we have two large stacks of books dealing with Wiccan beliefs and witchcraft (both serious and jokey). Someone here would have to tell me if none of these pass on the beliefs mentioned, because if they do, they're all ready spread widely and selling very well.

The larger point seems to me about the decision as to who can have which knowledge. As you already say, such decisions are subjective. In many ways I'm reminded of the churches and priests who objected to masses not being read in Latin, i.e. that the general populace could understand them. I see little difference between this and the idea that its dangerous for people to know about paranomal ability.

[> [> Re: Ethical Desision -- The Sorcerer, 21:34:23 12/04/03 Thu

"1. There are hundreds of veiwpoints and traditions of magical teaching allready in the world, therefore anyone with interest can learn magic regardless of my actions."

Indeed, however, despite the ease at which one can learn and utilize magic, it is not so easy or uninvolved that I believe everyone in the world (or even a majority of it) would begin to research it. In fact, that is not even considering the religious fanatics who are obligated to be opposed to such "satanic work".

"2. I think it would be a good thing for paranormal phenomena to be accepted in mainstream scientific thought instead of just fringe parapsychology. It would give more legitimacy to this knowladge feild."

Could this not lead to exactly what you dislike about ``high technology``? I am not sure how I feel about the idea of science meddling in the affairs of magic nor can I comment on my feelings of magic being a tool utilized by nearly every man and woman alive. I believe I prefer knowing there is only a select few in the world who comprehend and manipulate reality with such ease.

"4. Proof of parnormal would counter materialist scientists who believe that humans are purely mechanistic without souls or life-force, and more importantly it would be indirectly beneficial to all spiritual seakers who doubt the supernatural because of the current consensus reality that only 'special' people have magical/psi ability. It would be inspireing and positive for spiritual seakers to fully beleive that they have more than just the corperal body...Sigh, wish I could explain more clearly the point I am trying to make with this one;("

I disagree. I do not see how evidence of magic's existence would validate belief in either a soul or spirituality in general, but that may be because of my own particular beliefs, experiences, and understanding of the topic. I do not think the fact that magic works and works well necessitates the existence in an underlying spiritual reality accompanying this material one.

Morals and ethics are superficially imposed upon magic by magicians. I do not believe magic comes with an unwritten user's manual in which rules are detailed about its ethical use in regards to the world nor do I think there should be. I do not believe magic comes with a Santa "Clause" where if you're naughty, you get hit by a mystical 3x3. Morals may serve a function when concerning magic, but that purpose is entirely up to the magician and his or her tastes. If you think it's wrong (or cannot stomach) smiting an enemy or that rude cashier at Acme, then don't do it. If you can, more power to you.

[> [> [> Amen Sorcerer! Intent and personal responsibility are all that's required. -- Briar Rose, 14:23:32 12/08/03 Mon


[> [> [> Excellant counterpoints! thanks for the flip side of some of my views. -- Drizzt, 12:37:38 12/10/03 Wed


[> Since it's out at least here... -- Darby, 14:11:09 12/04/03 Thu

I'm wondering what you believe you can demonstrate. I'm sure that a couple of the science-types we have here could tell you how we'd design an experiment to test it - you don't want to try to claim a prize without some idea of the test you'd need to pass, right-?

And you don't have to describe how you'll do the deed, just what it's supposed to accomplish. I've got to admit, I'm very curious.

[> [> Paranormal Demonstration? ...Levitation of I lb object from 6' away. -- Drizzt, 12:40:15 12/10/03 Wed


[> Okay.... IME&O: -- Briar Rose, 17:07:40 12/04/03 Thu

First off, I'll start with the bad news, as I see it: James Randi will NEVER accept the existance of the paranormal, yet alone magickal powers.

Sad but true - the man is not a skeptic. He is a professional debunker. Professional debunkers are a different breed from skeptics. They will go out of their way to discount something right in front of them to the point where their "explaination" is ultimatly more confusing and impossible to believe than the actual event/action/whatever they are trying so hard to debunk.*L

Now for the question that you asked and my take on it as a practicing witch with sort of the same background as your friend has and who is NOT Wiccan in any way:

Magick and paranormal activity are not infinitely tied together in such a way that either can't occur without the other's influence.

It is not your destiny to make choices for anyone else other than yourself and those that are closely involved in whatever your actions/intents are.

You only have to focus on clarifying your OWN intent to see what the outcome of the energy you are thinking about putting out will bring back to you.

As to my opinion on your proposed project's outcomes:

By what I am reading (energy wise) in your post - you are already coming from a place of insecurity and unsureness in what you are considering AND dealing with a project more based on glory and greed than for the "Good of all"... I would say that your project is probably not going to bring you your desired outcome. I'm talking about you being a millionare and having a happy life from then on, not just that the experiment would fail because TPTB will ignore you if they figure that you are coming from such a shallow intent.

Sorry to say, it isn't about what the project might bring/not bring to the Universe as a whole. It's that when you go into any project with purely selfish gain in mind, TPTB will shut you down. If I'm mis-reading you - then I apologize, but all I can do is read the energy. Your energy tells me that you are more interested in being right and making money than in any form of "Gifting Human Kind" no matter how I try and make allowances for your enthusiasm and that you are in a disagreement with your friend and seeking ammunition. In fact that just adds to the feeling that I have from your post being correct. If you knew exactly what you were doing was as simpel as it sounds you wouldn't be stretching so far for permission and support.

You have to remember that the energy you put out is what you get back. Not the "Three Fold" crap - because I don't believe in it and 40 years of life experience have confirmed my thoughts on it to be correct, at least for me. But it is true that cause and effect plays a major role in our lives.

As for the fact that I am as curious as anyone here, I would welcome anyone who could prove that paranormal/metaphysical energy not only exists, but is also impossible to prove and I will be the first one to admit that. It's not something you can turn on and off like a tap. It comes when it comes.

Science is not completely anti-metaphysical (except for these DEBUNKERS!) The basis of all scientific theory is sound in metaphysics from step one: Everything is energy. Energy can be bent, twisted and manipulated. It does not die. It transmutes. It can also leave lingering effects even when the object that energy is attached to has left the physical plane.

All scientists know this. Physicists beyond the normal scientist have no doubt of it or that metaphysical/paranormal activity exists.

If there was an easy way to prove that anything paranormal was real and anything metaphysical was real, that money wouldn't be there anymore BECAUSE it is being proven every day in physics labs, in people's homes and in many other places all over the globe. The problem is that DEBUNKERS won't accept that information no matter how common it may be. So the money will continue to sit and never be awarded to anyone. It's set up that way.

[> [> Ouch;( -- Drizzt, 12:49:44 12/10/03 Wed

IMO I am not motivated by glory or greed.
I could reply to your post in detail, but I am very tired right now. Thank you for a nice critique of me AND debunkers;)

[> Ethically bound? What? -- VampRiley, 20:08:21 12/04/03 Thu

Since when? This makes absolutely no sense. The only thing that makes less sense is putting Paris Hilton and her friend on a farm with a family for a month, make a show about it and expect it to be a hit.

Ethically bound maybe for him, if he chooses to be.

Ethically bound my ass.

[> [> LOL! Thanks VR:-) -- Drizzt, 12:51:05 12/10/03 Wed


[> Thank You ALL who replied;) -- Drizzt, 21:40:29 12/04/03 Thu


[> Request for More Info -- Sorting Hat, 12:45:46 12/10/03 Wed

Do you have a private email address where I can ask you some questions? If so, I would truly appreciate it. Thx.
A few thoughts on how When She Was Bad shaped the Buffyverse -- Cactus Watcher, 21:33:28 12/03/03 Wed

At the time, those of us eagerly awaiting the first episode of season two, were expecting more of the same Buffy we were used to from season one. But, in many ways the Buffy of season two was as different from the Buffy of season one as the Buffy of season six would be different from the Buffy of season five. Odd as it sounds, in both cases her death signaled a sharp divide in her life.

Certainly being a year older and a high school junior not a sophomore meant the Buffy was going to be more adult. But, the change was more than that. Buffy's attitudes in the first season as we have said here before were largely black and white, There was good and there was evil. Doing what was right for your friends was unequivocally good. Doing otherwise was bad. In season one Buffy never did anything wrong on purpose. She was something of a minor rebel to be sure. But, everything she did was for the best. She could fib to Owen and her mother, but the was no underlying agenda other than simply to do good.

But, from the first episode of season two, suddenly Buffy was no longer fibbing, she was out and out lying to her best friends. Where season one Buffy tried to be sweet and kind even as she fibbed, season two Buffy chose the opposite. She decided to make herself so hateful that her friends would leave her alone and she'd no longer be responsible for dragging them into danger every week. The episode pointed out that it was too late for that, that the town was too cursed for that. Her responsibility had not changed, but what had changed was that her attitude toward 'good' and 'bad' grew more unclear. Buffy was no longer a complete innocent. She now had the power as any person of a certain age to choose whether she would be 'good' and follow the rules, or be 'bad' and rewrite the rules.

From When She Was Bad onward characters we knew and loved could be truly bad. Of course Willow had been bad for an episode in I Robot you Jane, and Xander had been bad for an episode in The Pack. But, that was mind control and by the end of those episodes all was well. The uneasy ending of When She Was Bad was a taste of what would happen when the bad didn't go away at the end of the hour.

There would still be a monster of the week to fight and conqueror most weeks, but the next six years were full of problems that didn't go away at the end of the episode. We learned what 'good' was in watcher terms when Kendra arrived for a visit. It was quickly clear that while Kendra was strong and knowledgeable, she lacked the free spirit that clearly made Buffy superior. That free spirit did not always mean good things for Buffy. Buffy was 'bad' again in Surprise. She'd known all along that there was something not right about her love for a vampire. The consequences of her first sexual experience were worse than she could have imagined. Not only did she unleash the beast Angelus, but it led to events beyond her understanding of good in season one. In the first episode of the season she tries to anger Angel into leaving her. in the last episode she literally sends him to hell. It was all done in innocence, but as the episode of that title showed, this was the season of innocence lost.

The third season we saw the opposite extreme from season one. It showed what would happen if Buffy were bad all the time. Faith started out trying to help others just as we'd expect. But her isolation, and her desire to not have to follow the rules of being good, just led her to follow a different set of rules.

In season four it wasn't Buffy that was bad, but rather a person she trusted. Professor Walsh, seemingly lost all emotion for her fellow humans. She had feelings for Riley, but whether they were the feelings of a lover, a mother or just of an over zealous experimenter, we really don't know. Walsh showed her willingness to sacrifice anyone who stood in her way, and quickly became of victim of her own 'bad' work.

In season five the fates and gods turned bad against Buffy. After all she'd done, her deepest emotions became the playthings of others. The bad god Glory would menace and threaten the existence of the world. But, it was the creation of Dawn by supposedly good people and the coincidental fateful and fatal illness of her mother the would push Buffy's sanity beyond the limit. She did eventually save the world, but not before she had chosen that Dawn must live whatever the cost to the world.

In season six Willow slipped into evil without even noticing she was making the choice. The Trio followed a similar decline, but they progressed all the way from comic to pathetic to horrific. Buffy's affair with Spike disgusted her, and would shock her friends. But this sleeping with the enemy was minor compared to the problems Buffy's friends were facing. Buffy's senses were already blurred when she was brought back, and many of us didn't see a convincing change when the season ended.

In season seven Evil itself was the big bad. The fundamental question was how do you fight evil, eternal and immortal. The answer Buffy came up with was to break the rules and refuse to fight alone.

Sometimes it's good to be bad.

Replies:

[> Great Analysis -- Dlgood, 00:52:08 12/04/03 Thu

IMO, "When She Was Bad" may well be the most important episode of the series - as it lays much of the groundwork for the major succeeding arcs: Angelus, Faith, Willow & Xander's growth out of Buffy's shadow, and Buffy's isolation and coldness.

And of course, it highlights a Buffy who has a very layered, complex, and possibly unconscious set of motivations that are belied by her behavior - as will occur with greater frequency as the series progresses. And in fairness to Buffy, what tends to happen to all of us as we grow.

On a technical note, it gets better on re-watch because of the fabulous parallels to Becoming pts 1&2. Despite the Annointed One and Zachary, two fairly lame villains, this is one of the best efforts of the series. Personally, I think it's by far the deepest and best written episode of Season 6.

[> [> Buffy's psychology -- Scroll, 22:07:34 12/04/03 Thu

Personally, I think it's by far the deepest and best written episode of Season 6.

I think you meant Season 2, here. *g*

"When She Was Bad" may well be the most important episode of the series - as it lays much of the groundwork for the major succeeding arcs: Angelus, Faith, Willow & Xander's growth out of Buffy's shadow, and Buffy's isolation and coldness.

Very much agreed. While I often feel not much happens in this episode because of the lame villains, what Joss tells us about Buffy's psychology more than makes up for it. Here is her darkness and her loneliness, and one of the earliest and strongest indications of the "inferiority superiority" complex that Holden later diagnoses in "Conversations With Dead People".

Buffy, as much as she loves her friends, is separated from them by the fundamental difference that she is the Slayer, and they are not. She has died; they have not. Only Angel (and later Spike) can understand what death and resurrection are like, and can sympathise with her. Buffy understands that she is kindred with the vampires in ways she can't be kindred to her fellow humans. Thinking that the spell to resurrect the Master requires her presence, she even says it: "We were close. We killed each other. It really promotes togetherness."

But Buffy also needs her friends to hold her to this world. She needs their human-ness to keep her human as well, I think. Fascinating stuff, and still so early! Even though I had hoped for greater growth in Buffy in S7, I'm glad that she was at least consistent and developed from the core presented to us in these early seasons. Hmm, I really should pull out my old S2 tapes and watch this ep again! Lots of great character moments here.

[> [> [> i'm pretty sure cw said that on purpose -- anom, 22:33:42 12/04/03 Thu

"Personally, I think it's by far the deepest and best written episode of Season 6.

I think you meant Season 2, here. *g* "

Buffy's mood in WSWB prefigures her feelings in Season 6 & would fit in very well w/it. Although CW may also be saying something about how he & many other viewers felt about the quality of S6....

[> [> [> Re: Buffy's psychology -- Dlgood, 02:14:37 12/05/03 Fri

I think you meant Season 2, here. *g*

No. I really didn't.

Here is her darkness and her loneliness, and one of the earliest and strongest indications of the "inferiority superiority" complex that Holden later diagnoses in "Conversations With Dead People".

And the reason I say this with sincerity, is the artfulness and subtelty with which this story is told in WSWB. And furthermore, because Buffy's myriad of emotional issues are nicely interwoven with those of the people around her.
Cordelia doesn't simply observe and snark on Buffy's behavior. Observing Buffy in WSWB influences how Cordelia sees and treats others, very subtlely laying the groundwork for her relationship with Xander (watch how she looks at Xander when Buffy is dancing around him) and in her decision to cast off her own set of fake friends in order to spend more time with people she sees as "real" friends.

Just as importantly, it is shown without being explicitly told. That artfullness and subtlety, sadly in greater absence in S6-7, is amazing to behold and renders this episode fascinating on rewatch.

[> [> [> [> oops, sorry, dlgood--i meant *you* said it on purpose! -- anom, 20:28:46 12/06/03 Sat

I got a little mixed up & didn't go back to check who Scroll was quoting. Let the credit go where it's due.

[> Very nice! -- Ponygirl, 09:21:34 12/04/03 Thu

WSWB signaled that events have consequences in the Buffyverse, that even the victories could scar as much as the defeats. It was my first episode of BtVS and it blew me away, as it still does, with its willingness to treat the characters as complex and conflicted and to raise issues that despite the happy ending of WSWB never really went away through the length of the series. Plus that sexy dance was very sexy!

[> Season Openers as mission Statements -- Darby, 14:17:57 12/04/03 Thu

I think you're onto something. As each season raised various bars and deepened various aspects of the shows, the season openers tended to be the teasers for those changes. When She Was Bad had maybe farther-reaching indications, or maybe it was just the first episode to be made when ME realized BtVS might actually be around for a while, and so needed to set up a more longterm attitude.

[> well said! you make a very good case for wswb's being the whole series' turning point -- anom, 15:29:56 12/04/03 Thu

Spike and Halloween -- Claudia, 12:47:10 12/04/03 Thu

From "All the Way":

"VAMP 1: What is your malfunction, man?!

SPIKE: It's Halloween, you nit! We take the night off. Those are the rules.

VAMP 1: Me and mine don't follow no stinkin' rules! We're rebels!

SPIKE: No. I'm a rebel. You're an idiot. (dusts the vamp) Give the lot of us a bad name."



From "Life of the Party":

"SPIKE: In my day, no self-respecting creature of the night went out on All Hallow's Eve. We left that to the posers, the blighters who had to dress up and try to be scary."

-------------

What is it about Spike and Halloween? Why would a die-hard, non-conformist like the Bleached Wonder, be so particular on how Halloween should be observed?

Replies:

[> Re: Spike and Halloween -- Gyrus, 13:00:38 12/04/03 Thu

Spike is a non-conformist only to the extent that being one enhances his image. Spike's image has always been very important to him; he was anything but cool as a human, so he strives to be the embodiment of cool as a vampire. Going out on Halloween, which most vampires seem to view with the same contempt that Spike does, would sully that image, so Spike observes tradition and stays in.

[> Too close to home -- Rook, 14:24:30 12/04/03 Thu

If Spike believes that "the blighters who had to dress up and try to be scary." are the ones going out on Halloween, then he'd definitely stay in, afraid of being revealed as someone who's doing exactly that (in regards to his transition from nancy-boy William to Spike)

[> [> Re: Too close to home -- Claudia, 16:37:23 12/04/03 Thu

Jeez! What's with the negative comments? I just wanted to know why Spike harbor such beliefs about Halloween, and instead I'm reading hate messages about the poor guy.

[> [> [> Re: Too close to home -- RJA, 17:16:55 12/04/03 Thu

Thats not necessarily a hate comment.

Its canon that Spike changed his whole persona so that he stopped being William the Bloody Awful Poet, and became Spike, the second most destructive vampire after Angel. That was something he actively did, not something that was natural to him.

So I think the comment made by Rook was basically saying that since Halloween is about people dressing themselves up to become more bad, evil and scary, Spike might not be keen to glorify this night because that reflects the journey he underwent, and he wouldnt be keen to be reminded of his past.

Then again, I like the idea that vampires and demons avoid the night that is meant to draw them all out.

[> [> [> [> Re: Too close to home -- Claudia6913, 03:17:20 12/06/03 Sat

Not only the whole William/Spike transition and the fact that all Hallows Eve is a night for the humans...think about this fact bit. All those little happy meals walking around and going straight up to people houses asking for candy...all a vamp needs to do is kill someone and sit at thier house with the porch light on (cuz that's how kiddies know you got candy to give) and wait for the happy meals to come to you. now why didn't anyone ever explore that on the show? you KNOW some vamp out there did just that because even tho vamps don't go out they still need to feed. and anything to make a vamps life easier is bloody of the good...err...bad =0)

[> Although it has to be said -- RJA, 17:23:23 12/04/03 Thu

I dont think its anything that is particular to Spike, rather than a general trend to do with vampires and demons - the irony that they stay away when the humans essential call them.

Certainly, in Halloween, Spike thinks that nothing goes on at Halloween, but he is not adverse to killing and attacking on that night (such as him almost killing Buffy and enjoying the mayhem).

So the no-evil on Halloween seems to be a tradition, rather than something Spike is beholden to observe.
Charmed versus Buffy and Angel (spoilers aired eps) -- TexasGirl, 15:09:18 12/04/03 Thu

Does anybody else here watch Charmed, and if so, have you noticed they frequently steal major plot elements from both Buffy and Angel? It's happened one too many times to just be coincidence. I think it's funny considering Charmed gets better ratings than Angel does.

Examples:
(1) Phoebe falls in love with a man who later is revealed to be a demon. Cole goes bad, goes good again after Phoebe uses a potion on him, turns into a human, goes bad again, ends up in a hell-like afterlife.... At one point Cole says something like "I'm the only demon there's ever been with a soul!". Does this remind you of any other couple we know? By the way, Julian McMahon is a good enough actor to make this work.

(2) Piper, distraught after Leo leaves her, calls down storms and lightning to destroy San Francisco because she's in so much pain she can't stand it anymore. It was strongly reminiscent of Black-haired Willow.

(3) A glimpse 25 years into the future revealed that Piper and Leo's baby Wyatt was kidnapped by someone evil and grew up evil as a result. Someone came back in time to try to prevent this from happening. Connor, anyone?

Replies:

[> Re: Charmed versus Buffy and Angel (spoilers aired eps) -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:49:03 12/04/03 Thu

Regarding the first two, I think no one writer or group of writers can lay claim to those plots. The boyfriend-who-turns-out-to-be-worse-than-she-imagined-but-she-manages-to-redeem-him-or-she-tries-and-fails storyline has, in the eyes of some, almost become a cliche. Buffy didn't create it, although it had one of the better uses of the story I've seen. Also, literature is filled with people who, upon losing the ones they love, go psychotic and lash out at the world. Again, it predates both shows.

Regarding the Connor Wyatt comparison, we don't actually know what turned Connor evil. He could have been kidnapped, he could have been infected by a demonic force, or he could just have decided to become a ruthless tyrant all on his own. Also, it's worth mentioning that having the future version of a character be a villain predates Charmed and Buffy as well (it has a long history in the comic book medium).

However, I will concede that Cole describing himself as "a demon with a soul" is a pretty big comparison to Angel, so much so that I think it may have been intentional. Also, there is a very big similarity between Buffy and Charmed that I can't just explain away: they both rely on demons to form the majority of villains. OK, yes, no one has a copyright on demons and many other forms of literature have used them, but Charmed, Buffy, and Angel are the only TV shows I can think of to use demons as their primary adversaries (at least in America, I think I may have heard of some in Japan, but I'm not sure).

[> Re: Charmed versus Buffy and Angel (spoilers aired eps) -- Claudia, 16:39:54 12/04/03 Thu

"By the way, Julian McMahon is a good enough actor to make this work."

Julian McMahon was the only reason why I had continued to watch CHARMED, following the show's Season 2 . . . which sucked, by the way.

[> Re: Charmed versus Buffy and Angel (spoilers aired eps) -- Alvin, 05:42:46 12/06/03 Sat

Did you also notice that evil adult Wyatt had the line "It's all about power." ?

[> It isn't that simple (Spoilerish) -- Sofdog, 13:20:52 12/06/03 Sat

Both shows are noted for borrowing plots from other well known sources. The difference being that Buffy sticks more to the classics, while Charmed does more obvious riffs from popular films (Ladyhawke, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone).

It isn't fair to accuse Charmed of stealing from Buffy/Angel without acknowledging that the reverse appears to be true. In the same season that Buffy did "Normal Again," Charmed had already done the same demon-induced insanity plotline in "Brain Drain." We all know that the B/A people don't cobb stories from other shows so we have to face the fact that this is mostly coincidence.

If you look at the progression of the storylines it seems that they arrive at similar points for varying reasons in their own natural evolution. Phoebe loves a demon who becomes a man who is manipulated into becoming the Source of All Evil in order that he and Phoebe will create a child that will allow the Seer to become the Source. And this happens during the same season that Darla turns up pregnant and Holtz arrives from the past to avenge himself on Angel and Darla. The tussle for the phenomenal children isn't terribly original. And children borne of evil well, there'es "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Omen" for starters.

I was actually working on a piece that never got finished considering that the well of supernatural plotlines was being overused by the variety of genre shows on the air. I had a spreadsheet comparing everything from X-Files to Birds of Prey. I mean come on, how many overloaded by pain empaths, and blind seers (Cordelia, Chiana) can you have before it becomes obvious the well is running dry?

Charmed is pretty obvious in its rip-offs (discussing naming Wyatt, Potter after HP right before going to a demon marketplace?), so I don't think it would bother with ripping off it's contemporaries.

[> [> Oh, it bothers. ;) -- Arethusa, 20:45:22 12/08/03 Mon

The problem arises when a show doesn't use the previous source material to add meaning and depth, which Charmed seldom seems to do. Steve Martin remade Cyrano de Bergerac and Silas Marner, but his versions were still meditations on lonliness and emotional connection. Wesley might be partially based on Hamlet, but the character is rich and resonant in his own right. How did loving and losing Cole affect Phoebe? I'm still not sure, but maybe I'm too infrequent a viewer to see any emotional change and/or growth.

[> [> [> From what I've seen, most 'Charmed' fans were dissapointed in that storyline -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:04:16 12/08/03 Mon

The end to Cole's run on "Charmed" has recieved scorn from the vast majority of "Charmed" fans; perhaps not with the same anger "Seeing Red" created in "Buffy" fans, but more widespread, I'd say. So even people who usually like "Charmed" were often left unsatisfied by that particular storyline.

[> [> [> [> No argument here... -- Sofdog, 16:44:23 12/09/03 Tue

It wasn't his overall storyline. It was that it went on too long. When he was insinuating himself into the Sisters P's lives and causing a rift between, that was fine. And when true love won out and he became fully human, that was fine. It was when the storyline went all the way 'round again, that things got funky.

Basically, they brought in Paige and used Cole to further set her up as a Prue replacement. They don't call her that, but the characters are actually very similar in history, attitude and motivations. The twist of the Seer having manipulated everything for her own gain was interesting, but we'd kinda already done a year of that. (Reminded me of an old song we dug up for a sorority skit years back, "God help the man that gets between and my sisters/ God help the sister that gets between me and my man...")

And when Cole still managed to be alive after all that...well, I threw up my hands in disbelief. He should not have survived into his final season.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: No argument here... -- Claudia, 12:42:06 12/10/03 Wed

[It was that it went on too long.]


I disagree. The problem wasn't that it went on for a long time. I mean, after all, he was a regular on the show. They could have stretched his storyline for the next few years - along with the other characters.


The problem was that his storyline ended on a badly written note. The whole "Cole gets alienated by Phoebe and goes insanely homicidal" was absolute crap. And when it was infused with a lot of fluffy nonsence like superheroines, fairies, sirens, leprachauns, mermaids and Super Baby Wyatt, the show became absolute crap. It pissed off a lot of the show's fans - including me. Which is why I had stopped watching the show, nearly a year ago.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: No argument here... -- skeeve, 09:58:21 12/11/03 Thu

Cole didn't survive into his last season.
He died at least once.
He just got better.
Or worse, depending on how one thinks of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No argument here... -- Sofdog, 10:47:21 12/11/03 Thu

Pardon my semantics. There was an afterlife and he didn't go to it, instead he accummulated new powers and returned to the living world. Which was ridiculous.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Even More Ridiculous . . . -- Claudia, 12:15:46 12/15/03 Mon

"Pardon my semantics. There was an afterlife and he didn't go to it, instead he (Cole) accummulated new powers and returned to the living world. Which was ridiculous."


Even more ridiculous and almost criminal was the fact that the sisters killed Cole without bothering to discover how he had regained magical powers in the first place. They jumped to conclusions, because of his past, and killed him. That really turned me off.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not so ridiculous -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:57:31 12/15/03 Mon

While they may not have been clear on the source of his new powers, they did know that he had killed people, was working with demons, had made very pointed attempts to ruin their lives, and attempted to turn a mystical Nexus to the side of evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not so ridiculous -- Sofdog, 13:36:55 12/16/03 Tue

I thought he explained that he was gathering powers from vanquished demons and avoiding being sucked into the afterlife. I can't remember how he returned to this realm, but I'm sure he reached out to Phoebe begging for help. Which tortured her further.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, that was made pretty clear -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:04:08 12/16/03 Tue

But it was left uncertain whether Cole went into the exact specifics of how he got his powers beyond "in the Wasteland".

[> [> Re: It isn't that simple (Spoilerish) -- Claudia, 12:35:54 12/10/03 Wed

[It isn't fair to accuse Charmed of stealing from Buffy/Angel without acknowledging that the reverse appears to be true. In the same season that Buffy did "Normal Again," Charmed had already done the same demon-induced insanity plotline in "Brain Drain." We all know that the B/A people don't cobb stories from other shows so we have to face the fact that this is mostly coincidence.]

The real problem with CHARMED isn't how much of its stories are copied from other sources. The problem with CHARMED is that its writing is basically mediocre in compare to BUFFY or ANGEL. And it has recently declined even further in quality.

[> [> [> Let's get real... -- Sofdog, 10:55:22 12/11/03 Thu

It was never that good to begin with. The show has definitely had it's moments, but largely it has fallen short of the great premise. Any number of things have added to it's overall mediocrity including but not limited to:
- the change from realistic wardrobe to Halloween costuming (see Phoebe)
- the emergence of the weekly cleavage festival (see that time Phoebe/Prue wore little more than nipple-tassles for shirts)
- the infusion of slapstick comedy (again Phoebe)
- a complete failure to blend the grab bag of villains with an uplifting and relatable storyline
- Piper's transition from sweet mediator to whiny bitch
- and let's not forget Prue becomes a man or dog

[> [> [> [> Re: Let's get real... -- Claudia, 12:07:03 12/11/03 Thu

You know . . . I think you have a point.

The odd thing is that I had spent over four years watching CHARMED (up to Julian McMahon's departure in January 2003). Looking back on most of the episodes now, I cannot help but wonder how I could have been so impressed by it. Mind you, it did have its share of pretty good episodes, especially during the McMahon seasons (Seasons 3 and 4, specifically), but after picking up on BUFFY and ANGEL since last year, sometimes I cannot help but believe that I had over four years of television viewing.

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks everybody! -- TexasGirl, 15:17:19 12/11/03 Thu

Thanks to everybody for the interesting discussion! It brought up a lot of ideas I hadn't thought of with my original message. But the question remains that no rational person seems to be able to answer: Why does Angel struggle in the ratings compared to Charmed considering they both deal with similar subject matter and Angel is so much more consistent, better-written, and in general better-acted?

I know that the audiences are different. Charmed audiences are mainly young women and teen girls, while the majority of Angel viewers are male. But I don't think the demographics tell the whole story.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks everybody! -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:28:31 12/11/03 Thu

Well, from what I know, I think the demographics do matter in this way: women are more likely to be comfortable watching something with fantasy elements than males, who are more likely to see such an interest as too geeky. Since "Angel" appeals primarily to men, and men are less likely to wach a fantasy based show, it will naturally not get as many viewers as a fantasy show aimed at women. Also, since "Charmed" stars three attractive women who typically wear scanty clothing, so it also gets a male demographic that has an excuse for watching a fantasy show: "I just watch it for the babes."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Show placement is the answer.... -- Briar Rose, 16:43:16 12/11/03 Thu

Angel is across from the West Wing and Jake 2.0(which also shares the same demo as Angel would appeal to) and a slew of other shows that are all vyng for the dwindling audience watching network TV.

Charmed is the only thing on Sunday night that isn't either news or some "family affair" movie, or the Fox line up, which is getting kind of old for many people and definitely filled with an over abundance of RERUNS. Other than the nights with new Simpsons, King of the Hill or some other Fox cartoon, Charmed is the only show that has to split a demo in that hour. Hot chicks will normally win over cartoon hi-jinxs with both male and female demos.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I would've said cleavage and lip gloss... -- Sofdog, 20:13:47 12/11/03 Thu

Having been with Charmed, Buffy and Angel since the beginning, I always assumed it was a matter of the cleavage/gloss combo that Charmed employs shamelessly. When it first began I told friends it was the best show they weren't watching. Lived to eat those words.

Charmed has always outperformed B/A to the best of my knowledge (which is limited). In the early seasons it was the #2 show on the WB behind "7th Heaven."

Over the years, both Charmed and Angel have suffered from frequent scheduling changes. They were teamed up last season on Tuesday nights. I don't know that affected Angel's ratings, being against "Alias." I'm probably one of the few who dropped "Alias" to stick with AI. Then it got switched to Wednesdays with almost no promotion informing viewers of the move. A lot of people had no idea.

Possibly some credit can be given to the fact that all of the original Charmed sisters had established fanbases of their own (Doherty and Milano, even my mom said she loved both of them). Boreanaz and Carpenter had Buffy fans, but a lot of them didn't follow both shows. And the later members brought no real clout with them. I never heard of Acker and only recognize Richards in small roles now that I'm familiar with him.

Who knows? I'm just irked that someone else thought of Charmed, succeeded at keeping it on the air and did such a shabby job of exploring speculative fiction. I mean really, that mermaid story? Just another cleavage excuse. Valkyrie in skins and high heels? Um... no... If Whitelighters are dead people, angels, why are they able to have children and live