July 2002 posts

June 2002  

More July 2002

Deconstructing Buffy (UK broadsheet article) -- Simon, 05:14:18 07/01/02 Mon

an article taken from today's Independent, a UK broadsheet. Not often you see a good critique of BtVs in the mainstream media esp. in the UK.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=31093 7

Deconstructing Buffy
They're writing theses, calling conferences and compiling essays... The academic world can't get enough of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. But it's a kids' show, isn't it? Not quite, says Robert Hanks, who knows why Buffy has the critics by the jugular

01 July 2002

It used to be that a vampire was easy to deal with: you ate plenty of garlic, you waved a crucifix at it, you stuck a stake in it – if you wanted to be fussy about it you could go the whole hog and cut its head off and scatter millet over the corpse, so that if it should happen to reawaken for some reason, it would have to count all the grains before it came after you. These days, though, nobody does anything as straightforward as just killing a vampire: they have to go and deconstruct it too.

Specifically, they go and deconstruct Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the American television series created by Joss Whedon. In October this year, the School of English & American Studies, and the School of Language, Linguistics and Translation Studies at the University of East Anglia will be playing joint host to a two-day conference entitled "Blood, Text and Fears: Reading Around Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (it was originally planned as a one-day conference but, apparently, interest from academics in Europe and the US was so intense that it had to be extended). Last year saw the publication of Reading the Vampire Slayer, a collection of essays edited by the critic Roz Kaveney, with such titles as "Entropy as Demon: Buffy in Southern California", "Vampire dialectics: Knowledge, institutions and labour", and "'They always mistake me for the character I play!': Transformation, identity and role-playing in the Buffyverse (and a defence of fine acting)". You can find out more about these things at Slayage, "the online international journal of Buffy studies" (www.slayage.tv), where you will also be invited to submit contributions for a planned new collection, Monsters and Metaphors: Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The renowned orientalist Robert Irwin is a fan; so is the anti-science polemicist Bryan Appleyard.

There's nothing new, now, about academics treating popular culture with a slightly absurd seriousness: large swathes of North America have been deforested to provide paper for theses called "Meep! Meep! – Roadrunner, Wile E Coyote and the Auditory Dynamic of Despair", and suchlike. But nothing has generated the quantity of commentary that Buffy has, and in a comparatively short time (the first episode was broadcast in early 1997).

A little essential background: Buffy is Buffy Summers, a pretty, fluffy-headed Californian teenager who discovers that she is the Chosen One, the Slayer – latest in a long line of young women endowed with preternatural strength and fighting skills and charged with the task of slaying mankind's supernatural enemies – chiefly vampires. The town where Buffy lives, Sunnydale, is inconveniently sited over a Hellmouth, a portal to other dimensions which acts as a magnet to all kinds of demon. She is assisted by her schoolfriends Willow (a computer whizz and, later, trainee witch) and Xander (whose main qualities are a gift for snappy one-liners and dogged loyalty); by Rupert Giles, her English-born "Watcher", appointed to guide her with his knowledge of the occult; and by a variety of friends, lovers and allies of convenience – notably Angel, a "good" vampire who is the love of Buffy's life, and has been rewarded with his own spin-off series.

Many people are put off by the fact that Buffy is genre fiction. Some Buffy fans complain that this is snobbery, but I think it is quite understandable: genres are defined by a set of expectations, and knowing what to expect is a dubious pleasure. But Buffy rarely settles for satisfying expectations. The scripts regularly add ingenious twists; the expectations are absorbed and transformed. For example, in "Buffy vs Dracula", the first episode of the fifth series (the most recent series on terrestrial television in Britain), Buffy found herself unable to resist the Count's wiles – seduced less by his saturnine good-looks and his ability to control minds than by his sheer celebrity. Knowing what to expect from a Dracula story became the programme's subject.

Tried and trusted tropes of the horror genre crop up on a regular basis: werewolves, fish-men, murderous mummies, human sacrifices; but they are integrated into a larger drama of characters and relationships. Often, the supernatural subplot serves as a neat metonym for the wider drama: when Xander and a group of louder, rougher kids were turned into human hyenas while on a trip to the zoo, a comment was being made on the pack mentality of adolescent boys, the need to get in with the in-crowd. When Oz, Willow's cerebral boyfriend, struggled with lycanthropy, wasn't that just the universal struggle with physical urges writ large?

It's not all just adolescent sex, though. In recent episodes, Buffy's "darker side" has become a focus of attention – a sense of kinship with the monsters she combats, and also an underlying desire to have done with the fighting and killing, an urge for oblivion that culminated, at the end of series five, with her (temporary) death: the tombstone read "She saved the world. A lot". To begin with, the series rested on the contrast between Buffy's night-time life as world-saviour and her daytime life as teenage girl, worrying about boys and clothes and school. But now what is at stake – the pun isn't easy to avoid – are the larger questions of what makes us human, how to be good and why we should bother, and why we should stay alive at all. The bleakness of the themes puts the series closer to Philip Roth, even Samuel Beckett, than to Anne Rice.

All this makes it sound pretentious and heavy-going. But the other point to make about Buffy is that it is deliciously competent. More than 100 episodes have now been broadcast, plus 50 or so of Angel (which is somewhat inferior): that's over 100 hours of screentime now. Over that time, the dialogue has been unvaryingly slick and witty, often up there with the best Hollywood screwball comedies; the story- lines have been brilliantly laid out, within episodes but also over long spans of time. And the characters have grown in ways that are recognisable from life, while wholly unfamiliar to television – Xander has developed from classroom clown to believable builder; shy Willow, who used to worship Xander, has turned out confident and gay.

This is what attracts the intellectuals: the fact that Buffy the Vampire Slayer allows you to choose whether you are going to wallow in mindless, soapy action, or indulge yourself in the luxury of thought. Either way, it is wonderful.

Well, maybe not always wonderful. But four or five episodes of Buffy would be on my list of the 10 best pieces of television drama ever made: "The Zeppo", in which Buffy, Willow and Giles save the world from apocalypse in the background, while in the foreground a neglected, self- pitying Xander is thrown into a maelstrom of demon-slaying and sexual experience; "Hush", in which demons steal everybody's voices, and most of the dialogue is conducted in mime; "Superstar", in which a local nerd bribes a demon to transform reality, turning him into a fearless vampire- slayer and all-round sex-god; and "The Body", which followed the aftermath of the death of Buffy's mother – slow-moving cameras, oddly miked sound and long silences made for the most acute portrayal of the isolation of grief I've ever seen. At its best, the intelligence and compassion on display in Buffy can make you glad to be alive. Or at any rate, undead.

The first five seasons of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' are being shown on Sky One at 6pm, Monday-Saturday, from today. 'Reading the Vampire Slayer', IB Tauris, £12.99

[> Re: Deconstructing Buffy (UK broadsheet article) -- JCC, 11:26:12 07/01/02 Mon

Wow, its great that the show is getting so much publicity at the moment. Hopefully, it will change people's misconceptions of "That goofy kids show".
Although, Superstar & The Zeppo wouldn't be in my top 10 episodes. Thanks Simon.


[> [> One of the problems of selecting a top episode -- DickBD, 12:27:54 07/01/02 Mon

...is that almost none of them stand alone. Superstar and Zeppo are more inclined to do that. My own favorites would include the last one of the first season (I *blush* don't know all the names!), Passion, and Becoming.

I was interested in the comment that Angel is somewhat inferior. I'm even less caught up on Angel than I am on Buffy (which I tape and often re-watch), but at first glance, I am somewhat inclined to agree. But I am not sure all of you would--and perhaps Joss Whedon would not either. It must be difficult to choose among your "children"! I am reminded of Arthur Conan Doyle. He created Sherlock Holmes, but wanted to do more serious stuff. The Holmes stuff has achieved a certain immortality, but the Victorian novels were laughable. In all seriousness, though, I don't think Doyle was the writer that Joss is, and I don't think he had the same grade of intellect either--even if he was a physician!

[> [> [> Finally remembered! -- DickBD, 12:41:42 07/01/02 Mon

It was Prophecy Girl that I was referring to as the "last of the first season." I didn't look it up; it just finally came to me, so I am not completely senile...yet!

[> [> [> Angel inferior? -- Masq, 12:46:02 07/01/02 Mon

I think this is entirely a matter of opinioin, and cannot be taken at all as any kind of objective fact. I enjoyed Buffy seasons 1-3, but since then have found Angel seasons 1-3 more compelling and interesting and artful than their Buffy counterparts in BtVS seasons 4-6.


[> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- JCC, 14:54:02 07/01/02 Mon

I noticed that too, but forgot to include it in my fisrt

reply. I agree with you Masq. I have been more intrested in

Angel than Buffy.
I think Angel s3 has been the best overall between buffy &

Angel. (Maybe a tie with Buffy s3.)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- Masq, 16:15:50 07/01/02 Mon

It's a matter of what speaks to you personally, and Angel the Series/Angel the character speaks to me personally in a way that the characters on BtVS don't.

Not sure why, except I'm a broody socially inept goof-ball who likes to wear black.

But not a champion, *alas*

[> [> [> [> [> [> Piffle!!....you are the Champion of Buffy Websites creators. -- Rufus, 16:58:05 07/01/02 Mon

Of course now I have the visual of a "brood-off" between you and Angel...;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- mucifer, 18:33:56 07/01/02 Mon

Actually, I just cant get into that show. Alexis is a great actor and his character is interesting.But, the writing and the predictability of the show to me seem very inferior to the Buffy series. The humor almost always falls flat. But, that's just my opinion and which show is better is in the end only subjective.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Alexis Denisof rocks! -- Scroll, 21:23:39 07/01/02 Mon

I think you're right in that "Angel" doesn't have the same slap-stick humour Xander provides on "Buffy", but it is not without funnies. I think it's simply focusing on different brand(s) of humour, more play on racial/cultural stereotypes than pop culture references. And I think the greatest strength with "Angel" is it's drama and darkness. While "Buffy" went fairly dark this season, most people had a problem with it, they felt it was too depressing. But "Angel" can balance the darkness within its different characters to create a 'dark' season without drowning viewers in melancholy. But as you say, it's always subjective.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- shadowkat, 07:17:01 07/02/02 Tue

"It's a matter of what speaks to you personally, and Angel the Series/Angel the character speaks to me personally in a way that the characters on BtVS don't."

I think that's exactly it. I'm the opposite, Btvs speaks to me personally. Do like Wes though.

But it's odd...in Season 1, Ats...in some ways I prefered
Angel to Season 4, Btvs. Then in Season 2 Ats - went back to prefering Btvs. Again I think this is a purely subjective

That said - I've discovered this year that if you miss one or the other - you are missing half the story's tapestery.
The shows echo and build on each others themes, often exploring similar themes from different angles.

Example the vengence theme was explored through Holtz, Conner, Justine, Angel (on Ats) and through Willow, Xander,
Anya, in Btvs.

Attempted rape and rape and misogyny were explored on Ats
through Angel's rape of Darla (granted the jury is out on whether it really was, thought they appeared to refer to it as such in the episode on Sunday night - where they take Darla to the hospital) and her subsequent pregnancy, the whole Billy deal, then on Btvs with Warren and the attempted rape in SR.

I give the writers a lot of credit for taking a similar concept and showing it in two totally different ways on two different shows. One show is the epic hero's journey -
the hero who is propelled by fate and has the gods coming down and pushing him in different directions or thrusting stuff on him while the other show is the hero
who finds their own way without anyone providing any answers or telling them much or even helping out all that much. PAths aren't thrust upon Buffy's characters so much as chosen by them. Neither hero is given answers. They just are pushed and prodded differently.

Comparing them is a bit like comparing an apple to an orange.

Some people prefer apples to eat. Some prefer orange juice.

I think we do a disservice to both shows if we try to say one is better than another, just as we do a disservice to the fans of both. The same is true regarding the characters that make up them. Again it is like having a debate over apples vs. oranges. Nature makes both and they are miracles.
ME produces both Angel and Buffy and IMHO they are the best shows on TV.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- Arethusa, 08:43:15 07/02/02 Tue

"One show is the epic hero's journey -
the hero who is propelled by fate and has the gods coming down and pushing him in different directions or thrusting stuff on him while the other show is the hero
who finds their own way without anyone providing any answers or telling them much or even helping out all that much. PAths aren't thrust upon Buffy's characters so much as chosen by them. Neither hero is given answers. They just are pushed and prodded differently."

Well said. Many people prefer the lighter (literally and figuratively) Buffy, and were distressed to see its characters go through so much pain. But "Angel"'s all about the pain, and how it affects the lives and character of the adults in AI. Like Shadowkat said (and I said a couple of days ago) they have nothing to guide them on their journey, and no one to turn to for help but each other. The Higher Powers they encounter are just as likely to be malevolent or uncaring as they are to be helpful. But what does that reviewer consider to be inferior? The gut-wrenching acting as the characters try to make sense out of life, death and birth? The smart, strong full-bodied portrayal of women? The clever, sometimes even melancholy humor that arises naturally out of the superb writing? The sword fights, monster beheadings, tarantula rituals, "lawyer beasts," princesses in sequined bikinis, ballet, slow-motion demon bordellos, smash cuts, widescreen, shocking twists and suprises-I could go on much longer, but time turns kittens into cats. The *only* thing inferior about "Angel" is some reviewers' inability to appreciate it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- shadowkat, 09:14:33 07/02/02 Tue

Agree - just a minor clarification:

I see Btvs as more about choosing one's own path and Angel as more about having the higher powers choose one for you and thrust it on you. Ex: Angel constantly goes to the oracles or powers for advice. Cordy gets visions to tell him how to help people. Angel had the soul thrust on him.
There's a prophecy regarding just about everything Angel
does. Very HErculean mythos in nature. Not inferior, just
epic story - linear in character. Not everyone's cup of tea. And BTW - as far as epic's go - this is the best one
I've seen in a long time. They are hard to do.

Btvs - the characters aren't given advice by the PTB, there are no oracles. Prophecies - well infrequent and Buffy tends to prove them wrong most of the time and seldom relies on them. Buffy sort of thrusts her fist in the oracles face and goes her own way. (Angel follows what the oracles say as does Cordy. Champions follow their bosses - the PTB, slayers - do their own thing - chart their own course. One is predestined or fate, the other a little more existential.) Yes - I know Buffy is the chosen one, but she was also supposed to die. And now there are two. So much for prophecy. Btvs in some ways pokes fun at Angel and vice versa. It's clever when you catch it. The whole Holtz/Justine thing made fun of Buffy/Giles as an example. And Tabula Rasa made fun of Angel and Cordy big time. Also in Angel - he doesn't choose anything - it's thrust on him.
In Btvs - Spike goes after a soul, chooses to help the slayer, falls for her as a demon, and basically ignores Giles when he tells him he has a higher purpose in Doomed.
At times I get the feeling the writers poke fun at their Angel story via Spike and their Buffy story via Cordy...but that could just be me. ;-)

Both seem to be all about pain. Just shown differently.
Both are valid. I think the critics have troubles understanding this genre or appreciating it. They've never given it's due. They never will. Their loss.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with almost everything you said -- Arethusa, 10:17:05 07/02/02 Tue

especially about how Angel has a Seer and the PTB and Buffy is on her own more. But I definitely see Buffy as someone who isn't searching for her path, or for meaning in her life- she's had that ever since she became a slayer. She knows her purpose in life is to defend the world by fighting demons and, especially, vampires. When she dies, someone will step in her stylish yet affordable shoes and take her place. Since all the Scoobies are growing up, they are of course finding their place in the world, but not in the same way as AI.
All the prophesies, Oracles, Hamburger Loa, psychics and Seers in the world can't help Angel solve the basic riddle of his life-why a vampire has become a player in the Coming of Days. He is buffeted by fate, not directed by it. Sure, the PTB sends visions, but sometimes they are too late (That Vision Thing), deceptive (Judgement), or ignored in Angel's despair and confusion (Reprise). Angel is seeking purpose and meaning to a life that once was a celebration of evil and corruption, and to me the core of the show is in the conversation between Kate and Angel in "Epiphany." Quote by psyche.

Kate: "I just couldn't... - My whole life has been about being a cop. If I'm not part of the force it's like nothing I do means anything."
Angel, still looking pretty beat up: "It doesn't."
Kate: "Doesn't what?"
Angel: "Mean anything. In the greater scheme or the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win."
Kate: "You seem kind of chipper about that."
Angel: "Well, I guess I kinda - worked it out. If there is no great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."
Kate: "And now you do?"
Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

No meaning of life, no grand plan. Just people clinging to each other in a harsh world, trying to make life livable, one small act of kindness at a time. Not Herculean-in "Judgement" Angel realizes that he's not here to complete tasks assigned by a higher power and get his reward or absolution. "Of course. We shouldn't be keeping score. We're not running a race - we're doing a job - one soul at a time," Wesley says.
Just a different way of looking at the same thing. And its very cool that we can both appreciate and enjoy the same show, while getting different things out of it.

Enough said.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you on Angel now but not Btvs -- shadowkat, 11:42:27 07/02/02 Tue

Okay...you have a point, forgot that scene. And you managed to change my mind regarding Angel. Very good.

But I still disagree with you on Btvs - at least regarding Season 6. Up until Season 6, you're right, Buffy had a purpose. That's adolescence or childhood - the purpose the plan. Actually up until Season 4, she had one...Season 4-5 broke it down bit by bit. Then this year - she realized there were no answers. In the Grave she asks Giles - "why am I back? I was done". Giles doesn't know.

Angel the Series changed in Epiphany when Angel realized
redemption wasn't necessarily prophesied or in the stars.
Wesley had it in Forgiving - realizing prophecies can be changed and can mean nothing. Actually started liking Angel better after Epiphany, the show got less predictable and more interesting. I do miss Kate though. Really miss Kate.
A/K was my ship...sigh.

Btvs changed after Buffy died in the Gift. Why I prefer
Season 6 to any Season of Btvs so far. When she came back, the rules had changed - there weren't any. The purpose became less clear. Even Spike's status changed. Willow and Xander no longer know their roles. Btvs' characters have
jumped into the same existential no man's land as Angels.
Which was one of the many reasons I got obsessed with Btvs
this year.

(The reason I'm not obsessed with Angel has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with actors, characters and writing - which is purely subjective.
Sort of like someone telling you why they hate Tom Cruise..
and prefer Brad Pitt...irrelevant and prone to cause flame wars. ;-))

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're right. -- Arethusa, 14:49:45 07/02/02 Tue

You're right-everything changed when Buffy died, and S6 was existential, especially compared to the earlier years.

Do you remember what Cordelia said about Kate and Angel? "Mr. and Mrs. Spock need to mind meld now."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Forgot that line. Want Angel epsiode repeats! -- shadowkat, 07:01:58 07/03/02 Wed

Oh, I forgot that line...dang, why don't they re-run the
old Angel episodes??? I don't have any of them and they aren't available in US and I can't afford a multiregion
DVD player. (Actually haven't been able to afford a normal
DVD player). Also - I've discovered that Btvs and Ats
episodes are much better on the second viewing. Wisened up and started taping the repeats of Ats this summer, because
WB will never show them again.

Unfortunately the actress playing Kate joined Law and Order,
so my ship never sailed. Dang it! The chemistry between Kate and Angel was electric. This teaches you not to have
ships for tv characters - it's a lost cause.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Want Angel epsiode repeats too. -- Arethusa, 09:03:29 07/03/02 Wed

The reviews of Rohm's performance in L&A that I've read have been largely negative, cast turnover is high(ish) and I also read an interview with Rohm where she said she'd like to do more "Angel", so don't give up-you might get your wish.

I missed most of S1 and part of S2, so I'm dying for reruns too. Can't FX play Die Hard and True Lies fewer times, and show Angel instead?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm making tapes -- Masq, 09:08:53 07/03/02 Wed

Of Angel s 1 and s 2 for Lyonors. Care to put in an order, either one of you?

Doing my part for Angel appreciation!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm making tapes -- Arethusa, 09:38:11 07/03/02 Wed

I appreciate the offer, but I'm willing to wait for the DVDs. I have a file box overflowing with Buffy tapes that I am always tripping over, and I am so spoiled by my DVDs that I don't even look at them.
(BTW I'm still working on "Black Angel: Noir in "Angel." With school out, I have almost no free time any more.) :o(

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm making tapes -- shadowkat, 09:39:50 07/03/02 Wed

Actually...yes. I really want Seasons 1&2.

And entirely agree with Areuthsa.

I think the reason they don't has something to do with their contract with WB. (This is just supposition on my part, have no idea what their contract with WB is,
Doc seems to know more about that topic...;-) ). But my
guess is that WB made sure they had first syndication
rights for the term of the agreement, which means WB
can keep FX from televising it. Actually WB's treatment
of Angel has made me hate the WB network.

First, they tease us with reruns on Thurs then don't come thru, then they give us no reruns during hiatus - all we got was 7th Heaven (Nothing against the show - it's just not
my cup of tea. too sappy for me.) Then they move the show to Sundays opposite Alias, forcing me to give up Alias next year. (yep - Angel and Buffy come before all other shows - the nature of obsession...sigh.) And since Alias is so highly rated and will probably get the emmy nods, Angel
may die next year. ugh!

So if you can provide normal US Vcr copies? I'm in. I want
to see In The Dark, Epiphany, Shanshu in LA, Prodigal,
Dear Boy, the episode he turns human, and A Room
With A View again - dang it! (They were some of my all
time favorites. Actually I liked several of Ats Season 1 episodes better than Season 4 Btvs.) Miss Doyle and

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll put you on my list -- Masq, 12:28:34 07/03/02 Wed

As a fellow FF-ficer, you need to see those flash-back episodes again!


Mwah hah hah!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll put you on my list -- Dochawk, 16:28:32 07/03/02 Wed


I just shipped out a couple of sets (see below), I copied my DVDs, so no commercials. I am in the midst of making another 3 sets. Not hard for me, but up to you.

BTW do you want the commentary tapes? I have 7 Buffy (season 3 and 4 only) and 3 Angel commentaries if you want them?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ME would have been smart to base their addiction storyline on my descent into Commentary Hodom....;) -- Rufus, 17:01:42 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And that would clear up what happened to Doc, he became my commentary pimp...;) -- Rufus, 17:02:55 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not sure what you're offering -- Masq, 21:45:51 07/03/02 Wed


I have three people I've offered to make tapes for, Lyonors, redcat and shadowkat. Are you offering to make the tapes for them instead of me doing it??

'cause of course, I'll just tape tapes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I slip you a chocolate Angelus, can I be added to the list? -- LadyStarlight, 16:18:49 07/04/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If I slip you a chocolate Angelus, can I be added to the list? -- Masq, 20:31:27 07/04/02 Thu

I don't eat chocolate Angelus', but I love to corrupt people with copious Angel: the Series viewage. I'll email you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I love that quote! -- DickBD, 12:40:52 07/02/02 Tue

That is very well put, and I love that quote. When I first heard about it is when I first started watching Angel (late this year). To me, that is an example of good writing by people who have done some deep thinking.

[> [> [> [> Re: Angel inferior? -- DickBD, 14:55:39 07/01/02 Mon

Since you and I agree on "Passion" as being the best or one of the best of the Buffy episodes, I should start catching up on Angel. I do watch now, but I am as much at a loss to figure out what is going on as I was when I first started watching Buffy. (Pregnant vampire? Did Angel not go evil because the sex was with a vampire or because he wan't really happy about it?) I do think that Buffy has better title music, but that may be personal preference, too. And, of course, Buffy is better looking than Angel. (Oh yeah, that probably has something to do with personal preference and our respective gender!)

I guess I will have to resort to ordering the Angel tapes or DVDs, since FX doesn't seem about to rerun the Angel series.

[> [> [> [> [> Perfect despair, not perfect happiness -- Maroon Lagoon, 15:09:20 07/01/02 Mon

This is why Angel didn't turn, regardless of whether he expected to beforehand.

I don't think syndication usually starts until there are about 100 eps or 5 seasons.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another Angel fan -- Brian, 15:46:30 07/01/02 Mon

I never miss either of them. Season 3 of Angel just rocked this year. And I love that the two series have so much counterpoint to each other.

[> [> [> [> [> Where do you live? -- Masq, 16:13:22 07/01/02 Mon

Angel seasons 1 and 2 are out on DVD and tape in the area 2 region (which is Europe, and I'm not sure where else), but not in North America (area 1) yet. I'm thinking Angel season 1 may be released here when Buffy season 4 is (its companion season).

In the meantime, you have to mooch tapes off other fans. I have it all on tape, but I'm on the list with amazon.com to get the DVDs whenever they are released (a year from now? Maybe?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> I hate to disappoint you -- Dochawk, 16:19:49 07/01/02 Mon

But you'll be waiting alot longer for Angel DVDs even though as you sadi they are available in the rest of the world. But the rest of the world doesn't pay $600,000 an episode for syndication rights and neither will FX if they are available on DVD prior to being syndicated. Means you are looking at 6 months after season 5 ends.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well... -- Masq, 16:48:57 07/01/02 Mon

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other to me 'cause I have them all on tape. I just wish all the nay-sayers who didn't watch the first two seasons of Angel can get a chance to catch up.

*sigh*, but it'll be Season 5 of Angel before we hit the magic number 100 episodes and syndication begins!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well... -- Rufus, 17:02:51 07/01/02 Mon

Thanks, I put my e-mail in to be notified...maybe if there is enough call for the DVD we may see it a bit sooner. Of course I have all of Angel on tape but can't live without my commentaries.

[> [> [> [> [> [> South North America -- DickBD, 21:16:01 07/01/02 Mon

I'm in San Diego, which, of course, is about as far south as you can get on the Pacific Rim and still be in the US. That is sad news about the availability of tapes or DVDs, as I am the only one I know that is fanatical enough to tape these things. I have got a younger girl at my gym hooked into watching Buffy, but most people my age simply shake their heads at my complexity (or baffoonery). After all, I am also an opera and Shakespearean buff. (Some people who introduce me to friends say, "This is the guy who thinks sharks and Pit Bulls are misunderstood by the public!" And, of course, it is true (both ways).

You're my only hope for copies. I guess it would be awkward to sell them, but you could at least take the cost of the shipping and the cassettes. That means I would have to give up my secret identity to you. Can I trust you?

[> [> [> [> [> How I caught up with AtS S1 & 2 -- Dead Soul, 00:03:34 07/02/02 Tue

I bought a multi-region DVD player and got AtS Seasons 1 & 2, as well as BtVS Seasons 3 & 4 from the UK. Works a dream, I'm so glad I spent the $s. Now, impatiently waiting for UK release of BtVS S5 UK DVD release.

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How I caught up with AtS S1 & 2 -- Dochawk, 12:12:16 07/02/02 Tue

Thats how I made my tapes. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sigh..... -- Rufus, 03:09:58 07/03/02 Wed

I didn't even know such a thing as a multi-regional DVD player existed.....I'm a failure as a techno-geek....;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sigh..... -- Dead Soul, 11:40:01 07/03/02 Wed

I learned about them here - somewhere back in the archives.

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [> [> Angel Tapes -- Dochawk, 12:08:53 07/02/02 Tue

if you are willing to wait your turn I have a system set up to make tapes. A couple of people have already got them and two more sets are going out tomorrow. It will be a wait though (a month or so).

When you get them I just ask that you donate cost of the tapes and shipping to Nick Brendon's stuttering foundation (its the only charity I could identify that is directly related to the Buffyverse).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel Tapes -- DickBD, 12:25:27 07/02/02 Tue

That would be great. I am patient and reasonably reliable. Thanks.

[> [> [> Holmes -- Rahael, 14:01:28 07/01/02 Mon

Would have to disagree with you about Conan Doyle - I love him. As someone who loves short stories, his are very fine - The Speckled Band for instance is excellent.

He is popular, and a good writer (not mutually exclusive! just as not all television is pap).

I would say that he not only achieved a 'certain immortality' - he has managed to seize hold of the popular imagination in a way few of his contemporaries did. It would be very difficult to untangle his influence from our worldview/culture.

As for his other novels being inferior, he isn't the first author with a widely varying quality in his body of work. Thomas Hardy is famous as a novelist, but he saw himself as a poet. A great many of his poems are superb. Some of them are very indifferent. He wrote so many, that there is a very large amount of each.

It's a good point, I should try Conan Doyle's other novels. It would be worth it for the curiousity value.

[> [> [> [> Speckled Band? -- DickBD, 15:04:43 07/01/02 Mon

Well, since I read all the Holmes short stories and the novels, I obviously enjoyed Doyle, too. So much so that I tried reading one or two of his Victorian novels (his "more serious work" that he lamented was overlooked because of Holmes). Doyle didn't see that his Holmes stuff was of masterpiece caliber, while nearly all the Victorian novels (of other authors, too) were tripe.

As a young boy, I enjoyed the "Speckled Band," but as a former biology teacher, I am appalled that Doyle didn't realize that snakes can't hear air-borne sounds or that he would think they could be trained to come to a trainer utilizing a whistle.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hound of the Baskervilles -- Brian, 15:44:30 07/01/02 Mon

Hey, Rahael, if you are only reading Holmes novels, either save this one for last or read it first as it is the best since it really focuses on Holmes and Watson.
The other novels use them as more framework for another story.

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Sign of Four -- DickBD, 21:46:41 07/01/02 Mon

My favorite is the Sign of Four. Even its title is contentious, as it has appeared as THE SIGN OF FOUR and THE SIGN OF THE FOUR, and fans (most of them mystery writers) have argued about which is the correct title for over a century. It is the second novel, and it solidifies the characters beautifully. Watson gets married at the end, but in the beginning, he is remonstrating with Holmes about using cocaine. Then he gets a lesson in Holmes' deduction ability, a beautiful beginning. And then the mystery begins.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Will do, Brian! -- Rahael, 08:05:58 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> Yet one more thing -- Sophist, 16:50:34 07/01/02 Mon

we have in common. I LOVE Sherlock Holmes. Must have read them all 15-20 times. dH better watch out!

[> [> [> [> [> Hehehehe -- Rahael, 06:20:07 07/02/02 Tue

There you are d'Herblay, you've been put on your mettle! ;)

[> [> [> [> The Lost World -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:43:07 07/01/02 Mon

I too love Sherlock Holmes. Not only are the stories great, but he has an honorable rank: one of the few fictional characters that everybody on the planet has heard of.

If you want to read more of Doyle, I suggest a book called The Lost World. It's neither serious (it's of the pulp genre) nor Victorian (it was written in 1912), but it is very entertaining, funny, and the lead character of Professor Challenger is very good.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Lost World -- Simon, 01:28:05 07/02/02 Tue

the BBC made the Lost World into a two-part TV movie last Christmas with Bob Hoskins playing Professor Challenger and Peter Falk was in it as well. It very entertaining and fairly faithful to the book. It was released on DVD in the UK and you may be able to view it the US.

[> [> [> [> Laurie King -- fresne, 07:58:11 07/03/02 Wed

And in vaguely (although I enjoy the originals too) heretical way, I must admit to loving Laurie King's Mary Russell/ Holmes stories. They have an incredible sense of period (1915 forward), you can practically smell the air - which in London's case isn't always good.

I won't bore anyone with a description of the books, which always comes off sounding lame anyway. Rather I'll say that while many Holmes purist hate them with a passion of 1000 firey suns (why becomes clear if you read them), I list them among my crack cocaine (7% solution) must have books.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Laurie King -- Rahael, 08:09:33 07/03/02 Wed

Have not heard of them, but they are now on my list of things to look out for.

Crime is probably the only contemporary fiction novels I actively buy and read.

Favourites are Iain Pears and Reginald Hill. I'm almost tempted to buy them hardback.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Laurie King -- Arethusa, 08:44:37 07/03/02 Wed

The Mary Russell books are very good, well worth reading for the mysteries, period atmosphere, and full characterizations.

And to those who criticize what King did re Russell and Holmes: When a playwright decided to do the same thing in a Holmes play he wrote, he cabled Doyle to ask if Doyle cared, and Doyle said do what you want, he didn't care at all. Doyle became sick of Holmes, just as Agatha Christie became tired of Hercule Poirot.

BTW I read The Lost World last month-downloaded it for free off the web on my e-book. Very dated, but fun (one of my favorite books as a teen was Jules Verne's Mysterious Island, and this is in the same vein).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Laurie King -- Anneth, 06:24:48 07/05/02 Fri

"Rather I'll say that while many Holmes purist hate them with a passion of 1000 firey suns (why becomes clear if you read them), I list them among my crack cocaine (7% solution) must have books."

Plus... you have to love the fact that a young Lord Peter Wimsey makes an appearance. If you're a Sayers nut, anyway.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Really? I love Wimsey!! -- Rahael, 06:38:06 07/05/02 Fri

Okay, the really dated class snobbery parts of Sayer's books can annoy me, but I'm still addicted!

I love Vane and Wimsey (as anyone who was around when we played 'Tabula Rasa' in Chat will know.) I entered as "Harriet"

[> Not just a TV show -- shygirl, 16:47:40 07/01/02 Mon

Thanks for posting this article. I've been reading the articles on the website that is involved in this conference. And I must say, I agree with these people. This program is very deep and touches issues, values, hopes, fears, dreams, etc. that are relevant to what is happening in the world today. Buffy is a lens and a focus for some pretty heavy stuff. But I've felt that way from the very beginning... otherwise I don't think it could hold my attention. I bore easily and the simple trials and tribulations of an empty headed California cutie would not suffice to hold me an intellectual and emotional prisoner. LOL Its more than just a cute little blond girl saving the world...and Buffy herself is more than that too....or on the path to becoming...

[> I do prefer BTVS to ATS, but ATS is still my second fav show. -- Rufus, 17:10:46 07/01/02 Mon

Buffy does speak to me more than ATS does. Maybe it's the brooding <snerk> or just the fact that Buffy is such an unconventional super hero. Angel is the type that most people would consider the hero-type, Buffy blows the premise of the Hero as male out of the water..well it blows the idea of the Hero having to have super-powers to a hell dimension. Both shows I love, it is just a matter of personal preference.

[> Buffy is the better show, and I can mathematically prove it, but the proof is too long to fit here -- Fermat, 01:59:43 07/04/02 Thu

[> [> Somebody call Andrew Wiles -- Sophist, 07:57:49 07/04/02 Thu

[> [> heeeeheehee--& fermat buttons -- anom the fermat (& button) fan, 11:48:50 07/04/02 Thu

1. "I have found a wonderful counterexample, but it won't fit in this universe --Fermat"

2. "x^n + y^n = z^n has no integer solutions other than 0 for n>2 I have a wonderful proof, but it won't fit on a button"

There's also a great sf (well, more fantasy, I guess) story about a mathematician who offers to sell his soul to the devil...in exchange for a proof of Fermat's last theorem! Wish I could remember who wrote it. I'll try to check after my trip this weekend & let you know.

How I (want to) spent (d) my (next) summer vacation -- LadyStarlight, 07:08:22 07/01/02 Mon

As I broke up the one millionth (by a conservative estimate) fight between my two angels yesterday, I found myself thinking "Boy, do I need a vacation!"

Hard on the heels of that thought was "Are we still going to get together and watch the finale of Buffy?"

Leaving aside any talk of an eighth season for now, I think the question is still valid. I know I'd love to be able to get away for a while next May and now might be a good time to actually plan something.

I'd like to go on record as stating that I vote for Vancouver as a venue host, for a couple of reasons. 1) I can afford to fly there and 2) My money is actually worth the amount printed on the front of it.

So, now what?

[> Re: How I (want to) spent (d) my (next) summer vacation -- Brian, 07:36:07 07/01/02 Mon

Hey, LS, sounds like a good idea. But finding a venue to watch the Buffy final may be difficult. And I also recall that there was an idea expressed to have a meeting after the Season 7 finale, somewhere in the middle, like Toronto, where there is going to be a Sci-FI convention as well.
But I'm up for anything!

[> Re: S*P*I*K*E*!!!!!.... -- Aquimundi, 08:55:14 07/01/02 Mon

has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of this thread.

That said, LS, thanks for bringing this up! We'd been wondering what was up with the "Big Meet". We've bookmarked a post-finale meeting in our minds and would be open to Vancouver since we've never been there. On the other hand, should a more central location be desirable for everyone, we would love to meet somewhere, almost anywhere, in mid- CanAmerica.

-Aquitaine & mundusmundi

[> I'll be there, just tell me where to fly -- Masq, 09:15:13 07/01/02 Mon

But please make it on the North American continent!

[> I would do my darndest to get there - might wind up hitch hiking though -- Dedalus, 12:33:16 07/01/02 Mon

My wax wings are in the shop.

[> May I cast my support behind Vancouver... -- Rufus, 16:54:42 07/01/02 Mon

WW and I mentioned this very thing when I visited her. I'm unable to travel so Vancouver would be the only place I could possibly make it to.

[> Putting my $$ where my mouth is -- LadyStarlight, 16:59:41 07/01/02 Mon

OK, guys, I'm stepping up to the plate here. Drop me a line, putting in a subject line like 'ATPo gathering' (if I get an email from an unknown person with something like 'Hi', I delete it) and give the answers to the following questions:

1) Would you attend?
2) Where should it be?
3) How long should it be? (couple days, a week, whatever)

If Masq will be so kind to keep this on the board for a few days, I'll post a tally once most of the answers have trickled in. Then at least we have a bit of a baseline to start discussions with.

Sound good?

[> [> Re: Future Get together -- Brian, 19:13:31 07/01/02 Mon

Vancouver is ok by me. I'll be there.
Needs to be a long weekend perhaps?

[> [> Why Vancouver? its neither central nor cheap (except for the few Canadians on board) -- Dochawk, 00:37:06 07/02/02 Tue

If a Canadian city is necessary, Toronto would be more logical, more central and cheaper from everywhere, including LA, but central and cheap puts us in Chicago.

[> [> [> well, you and I anyway.... -- Liq, 01:19:12 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> Doc -- Rufus, 03:44:46 07/02/02 Tue

I put my vote in for Vancouver, the reason I'm unable to travel. Is my attendance at any meet we have vital, no, other people here have contributed far more than I could ever hope to. After all I'm only one of the "few" Canadians on this board.

[> [> [> [> Not vital? There is no big-time ATPo meeting without Rufus! -- The Third Evil, 06:53:32 07/02/02 Tue

We'll come and gitcha, never fear!


[> [> [> [> Re: Doc -- Dochawk, 10:26:35 07/02/02 Tue

Didn't realize you wouldn't be able to travel. And besides if we do it in Vancouver we get it a day early right?

Hey once I get on a plane doesn't matter to me where we are (well Melbourne for NR would be fun, but a little more of a need to plan for that one). I was just noting that Vancouver is not exactly centrally located (but a beautiful city) and once we eliminate LA, which does have some advantages, we could do a "Buffy tour", anyplace is a plane ride, but some are closer than others.

Ded, hitchhiking from Georgia to Vancouver for example.


[> [> [> [> [> Vancouver sounds great, but out of curiosity, why is LA eliminated? -- Caroline, 11:29:58 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vancouver sounds great, but out of curiosity, why is LA eliminated? -- LadyStarlight, 12:10:12 07/02/02 Tue

No city has been eliminated. Vancouver is my & Rufus' preference, for personal reasons. But if you'd rather have it in LA, please email me at the above address & let me know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LA - where there is no tomorrow, no yesterday, only now! -- Brian, 12:54:47 07/02/02 Tue

No wonder Angel moved there.

[> Vancouver gets my vote! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 13:01:20 07/02/02 Tue

Well, yeah, I live here but hey, we gotta have Rufus at the big party!!


[> [> Re: Vancouver gets my vote! ;o) -- fresne, 10:45:17 07/03/02 Wed

Well, while not terribly fair to the central or East Coasters, anything on the West coast is doable (then again last year's vacation was a 7000 mile road trip, so Central is also possible.)

BTW - anyone know how to post a picture here. Copy and Paste doesn't seem to work. I have developed the one and only photo from the little get together in S.F.

[> [> [> You have to use html, like putting a photo on a webpage -- Masq--who wants to see the pic!, 13:51:54 07/03/02 Wed

Which means it needs to be online on some server somewhere.

[> [> [> [> Please don't mind my presumption -- d'Herblay, 17:45:29 07/03/02 Wed

(front) fresne, Masq, Dochawk (rear) Buffyboy
Stolen from fresne herself.

I suppose I know what I'm wearing in August (says the person who always wears his black leather philosophical jacket in Marin and San Francisco counties, but doesn't know what to do with it in Alameda and San Mateo counties, and ends up looking like a sweaty fool).

[> [> [> [> [> Hmmmm seems to be a leather motif...;)...and Herb that's "borrowed"...:):):) -- Rufus, 02:14:31 07/04/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> wow, d'herb, i'm impressed... -- anom, 11:29:01 07/04/02 Thu

...even your jacket is philosophical! @>)

[> [> [> [> [> Whew! Thanks (NT) -- fresne, 19:50:26 07/04/02 Thu

[> Just keeping the thread alive <g> -- LadyStarlight, 07:14:11 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> Vancouver is great with me, LS! (hums "oh Canada") -- julia, 22:22:02 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> [> Noted, Julia. Thx for the input! -- LadyStarlight, 06:34:10 07/04/02 Thu

Totally OT I met Magneto, er Gandalf, er Sir Ian McKellan!! -- Deeva, 09:32:51 07/01/02 Mon

At the Pride parade in SF. I knew that he was the parade Grand Marshall but didn't expect to actually meet him! Very nice guy. Extremely well spoken and gracious. Shook hands with a lot of people and stopped for pics, sadly I had no camera, curses! Just thought I would tell someone, anyone who would be able to appreciate it cause my frineds were like, "Who?"

[> Darn, missed it! -- Masq, 10:51:52 07/01/02 Mon

That's what I get for thinking, "Ho-hum, another year, another parade. Seen two, you've seen'm all". : )

[> [> That's what my boyfriend was thinking, too. -- Deeva, 11:01:05 07/01/02 Mon

When I said, "Come on! It's nice outside and free entertainment, staged or not, and you know you like all that deep fried food!" I wanted to see it all but compromised on just seeing a little and it happened to be when Sir Ian was coming down the route! ;o)

[> Ooh and don't forget James Whale! -- julia, 13:54:05 07/01/02 Mon

How lucky you are! Sir Ian is one of my all time favorite actors. I think I would have turned into "to read makes our speaking English good" and completely lost my cool. I'm glad to hear he's as charming and personable as I dreamed. Sigh....

[> [> Re: And Richard III! -- Jane's Addiction, 15:54:41 07/01/02 Mon

His roles in Lord of the Rings and X-Men really have introduced "Sir Ian" to a whole new crop of movie-goers. I remember going to see "Rings" with a friend of mine and trying not to cough up a spleen when he said "This guy playing Gandalf is really good. Who is he?" After that I introduced him to "Gods and Monsters" and "Richard III".

[> Spoilers for every fantasy movie of the last two years -- d'Herblay, 17:57:36 07/01/02 Mon

I happened to see (finally!) The Fellowship of the Rings the day after I saw Attack of the Clones. I must admit that when Christopher Lee's Saruman was spinning Gandalf around, my gut response was, "What are you afraid of, Magneto? He got his ass whooped by a muppet!"

[> Met him at the Kennedy Center after a showing of RIII -- Mary Ellen, 19:21:41 07/01/02 Mon

Lovely, kindly man! Great raconteur also. His presence after the film was a surprise (he was in town to get an award), and he kindly answered a few questions. (I asked if the ending was copped from Jimmy Cagney's "White Heat," and he *sort* of admitted that it was).

I even asked for his autograph afterwards. Only time I've ever done that in my adult life.

Wish he would bring back his one-man "Acting Shakespeare"-- I'd love to see that again, or an updated version. But I realize he's too busy doing films.

[> Woe, woe. a badly scheduled camping trip took me away for the weekend, and I missed so much... -- yuri, 01:53:48 07/02/02 Tue

Sir Ian
Pride weekend in general (I missed it last year too, boo hoo.)
Renne Harris' free performance at stern grove (any of yall bay area people see it or know of it? Supposed to be tight as shait.)
A few mammoth threads that I'd have liked to get in on!!!

Oh well. I do have to get used to this missing-more-than-one- day-on-the-board thing. It's damn hard if you're not used to it!!!

rebroadcast of OMWF -- isis, 10:11:24 07/01/02 Mon

Tomorrow night they are showing OMWF. Sadly, I will not be watching for fear of my own mental well being. You see, that music has a strange effect on me. Once I hear it, it worms its way into my brain and doesn't let go. I hum, I sing, I dance, and I CAN"T SLEEP because of the noise in my brain. (well, at least I'm not bursting into flames), but nonetheless, it is exhausting!
My question is why? Am I alone in my suffering? Has anyone else been afflicted with this malady? What has Joss done to me? I love this episode!
I've got a therory. No, I really don't. What is it about certain music that does this to people? I know that mere repitition, i.e commercials you hear over and over , can occasionally cause this. But there is something about these songs, these lyrics that consume me. Could it be magicks?

[> Are they... -- GreatRewards, 11:31:35 07/01/02 Mon

trimming it down to fit in the 1-hour timeslot, or are they airing the whole thing??

[> [> As I understand it... -- ZachsMind, 20:12:04 07/01/02 Mon

It's gonna be an edited version, the version which will be used for syndication. I'm afraid to see what they'll cut. I don't see where they could cut.

Well, they could zap the whole dance scene with Trachtenberg but that was her moment to shine. Would be a shame to lose that. They could drop the scene with Giles, Xander & Anya where we see the lady singing about her parking ticket. That's mostly filler, but it's one of the few times when we see how the spell is affecting all of Sunnydale. They'll have to cut out over ten minutes to make it fit the regular time. Those who have already seen it in its entirety may want to skip seeing it again tomorrow.

Fortunately I have mine on videotape, so I can watch tomorrow and then if it really ticks me off I can see the taped version.

[> Could it be those infectious pop hooks? -- Jon, 11:46:07 07/01/02 Mon

You're not alone. Songs from OMWF have kept me up at night, cycling over and over in my head. And I know at least one other person who's had this problem. I'm prepared to take the risk and watch it again tomorrow, though.

[> Maybe it's just good stuff? -- ZachsMind, 20:06:40 07/01/02 Mon

I found the mp3s on the 'Net and made a CD for my car. I'm waiting for them to make an actual album that can be purchased at a store. I'm assuming the quality is better than the mp3s I pulled off the 'Net. They're a little rough. Hopefully someday I'll be able to actually pay for this music. You are right though. It's quite compelling. I enjoy singing to "Rest In Peace" while commuting to work some mornings.

It's very poppy stuff. Purposefully designed to be catchy and fun. "Under Your Spell" is an adorable little crooning ballad. "Walk Through The Fire" is more of a power ballad with some great multipart harmony. "I'll Never Tell" is a brilliant sendup of the style of late 20th century off broadway performances.

The voices of Anthony Stewart Head & Amber Benson gave the overall ensemble a touch of professionalism and style. Emma Caulfield was a pleasant surprise, like chocolate covered strawberries. I think Alyson Hannigan sold herself short. Nicholas Brendan and Sarah Michelle Gellar are not quite as talented as Benson or Head, but they held their own very well, and what Brendan lacked in vocal control he more than made up for in comic timing.

The sheer talent of the cast coupled with some great studio musician work makes the music easily comparable to anything that the big record companies churn out, but Whedon's people engineered something with an added flight of whimsy that makes the music so much more enjoyable.

I don't think you should feel ashamed or afraid to enjoy music that is comparable to the best available today with a unique bent of intelligence and fun. You should embrace the fact you've found something that speaks to you. Touch the fire.

[> Re: rebroadcast of OMWF -- cjc36, 08:54:05 07/02/02 Tue

The music is good and catchy and emotional. Now consider fact that you, I assume, already love the heck out of these characters and think they're as close to best friends fictional characters can get. Good music + Scooby Gang and you get powerfully addictive experience with the music.

Question: Does that make your VHS player a "Buffyverse Delivery Mechanism?"

[> [> Re: thanks for the moral support -- isis, 13:40:36 07/02/02 Tue

Sleeping be dammed. I can't not watch tonight. Infectious pop lyrics, characters I care about-who could resist?

[> Should have stayed home to watch OMWF.... -- cjl, 21:29:53 07/02/02 Tue

But no, cjl had a ticket to the Yankee game tonight and didn't want to disappoint his co-workers by scalping the ticket and indulging in his Buffy obsession.

And what did my loyalty get me?

At game time, it was 95 degrees Fahrenheit and stiflingly humid. Heat index = oh, I don't know...105 degrees? I could feel my precious bodily fluids seeping out of me, batter by batter.

Fortunately, it was an exciting game, and after a rocky start, the Yankees came from behind to beat the Indians, 10- 3. There was a grand slam home run from Jorge Posada, and much haughty second-guessing of the Cleveland manager. (Hint: never turn a switch hitter around to face the short porch in left field...)

But I tell you, at about 8:15 p.m. EST, I was thinking to myself: "Emma Caulfield is singing and dancing in red lingerie, and I'm here baking my buns off."

Real life is overrated.

[> [> Re: Random thoughts about this rebroadcast of OMWF (with spoilers) -- Brian, 06:49:36 07/03/02 Wed

I have seen all three versions of this show. The 1 hour and 8 minute first showing, the second broadcast, and the third (last night). Last night's seem to have the most cuts. I assume to slug in more commericals. So, songwise, they cut the overture,the song after Anya's bunny song, the second chorus of Spike's song, and Dawn's dance with the puppet men. Lot's of dialogue got dumped including Dawn's line about living in this world is the hardest... and most of the dialogue with Xander and Sweet, which really made Sweet's line about "you beat the bad guy" make even less sense.

Sidenotes: Even though I've listened to the songs many times, it wasn't until last night that I caught Anya's line "there's marriage and betrayal, and I want to run and hide," such nice forshadowing.

I also finally realized that in the final song when they hold hands and then break apart, just what a major foreshadowing it was of their disintergrating relationships throughout the rest of the season.

[> [> [> This doesn't address the major Xander plothole, but... -- Jon, 11:58:55 07/03/02 Wed

(Spoilers through Hell's Bells)

I found a new bittersweetness in Xander & Anya's retro- pastiche number this time around. First, knowing that Xander was responsible for summoning Sweet, I saw an anxiety and hopefulness in Xander's performance that I hadn't noticed before as if he was thinking, "here comes our big number - here comes our chance for a happy ending." And their number does kind of end with that happy collapse onto the chair. However, and second, knowing that they DON'T get a happy ending wedding-wise just cast the biggest shadow over the piece. I've gotten weepy over virtually every other song in OMWF (even Marti Noxon's, yes I'm a big sap) - last night "I'll Never Tell" was the big tearjerker.

And another thing: I noticed on the re-broadcast of All the Way that after Xander's scene with Giles (is that right?) on the porch, he rises and approaches the front door of the house and the manner in which he stops, hand on the knob, to take a breath before returning to the party totally mirrors a similar gesture in Hell's Bells before he rejoins the wedding party to mix and mingle. It struck me: that's Xander putting on his "game face." Mr. Easy, Mr. Friendly, Mr. Funny - with a whole bunch of repressed baggage.

And, of course, "I'll Never Tell" is all about repressing the interior world. Man, Xander's arc this season really moves me - major Sweet-summoning-plothole or no.


[> [> [> [> who was it who tried to fill that plothole by suggesting... -- anom, 21:08:42 07/03/02 Wed

...that it really was Dawn who summoned Sweet & that Xander "confessed" to cover up for her? I was out last night but watched the tape of the original full-length version when I got home (which, take it from me, is the way to do it!). In the scene where Tara & Dawn are discussing what the gang has found out about what's causing all the song & dance, Dawn's voice inflections & body language make it sound & look as if she's hiding something (besides all the stuff she's stolen). She even asks if they know who summoned the lord-of-the- dance demon Tara mentions.

Of course, this seems to be contradicted by the sincerity of her denials later. But many guilty parties' protestations of innocence can be quite convincing. So maybe that unknown posters' suggestion was right (care to reveal your identity?): Dawn did it, & Xander isn't responsible for the resulting deaths. And Dawn, as she pointed out to Sweet, is too young to be tried as an adult. @>)

Or maybe ME changed its collective mind about who did the summoning & didn't go back & reshoot Dawn's scene w/Tara so it wouldn't imply she was the culprit.

[> [> [> [> [> begging and pleading -- Dead Soul, 21:46:49 07/03/02 Wed

This is me begging and pleading for a saint and a saviour who could send me a full length copy of OMWF. I only have the version with the most cuts and am now very sad and depressed to know how much I missed.

Pretty please with lots of cyber-chocolate (and postage etc. costs) on top?

Dead (and pining, but not for the fjords) Soul

[> [> [> [> [> [> A version with cuts? Oh, oh -- Caesar Augustus, 23:44:32 07/03/02 Wed

I'm a bit worried the version I saw was not the full-length, seeing as I don't trust Australia's half-assed coverage. Any kind soul mind mentioning what scenes were cut?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> see Brian's post above -- Dead Soul, 00:19:44 07/04/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A version with cuts? Oh, oh -- Isabel, 13:14:45 07/04/02 Thu

Brian pretty much covered it, but his description is kinda vague if you haven't seen it.

Did the episode start with Buffy in bed holding a ringing alarm clock, followed by an overture blend (No Dialog, just music) of Scooby activity before Buffy goes patrolling and goes into "Going Through the Motions"? Did you see Dawn dance a ballet with the puppet men before meeting Sweet? Did you see Spike, on his knees, singing to Buffy that he's her willing slave? Did you see Anya rock singing that it must be BUNNIES!!! or maybe midgets? If not, it was the edited version, if you saw them you probably saw the whole thing.

Those are the highlights of what I remember were cut from the edited version. And I noticed that they cut the 2nd verse of Buffy's "Walk Through the Fire," the part with Tara over-singing her "What can't we face?" It's before Anya's singing "She came from the grave much graver."

No, I don't listen to it too often.... ;) Actually, I do my housework to that music.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks guys -- Caesar Augustus, 16:35:37 07/04/02 Thu

Fortunately, it sounds like I saw the whole thing, although it didn't take 1 hour 8 minutes, which someone mentioned. I'm surprised Australia didn't buy the cut version. Yey!

[> [> Re: Should have stayed home to watch OMWF.... -- shadowkat, 15:54:03 07/04/02 Thu

Have to agree with Brian on this one cjl. I too have seen all three showings. Taped them too. Actually taped over the second one, because of the cuts. Probably do the same here.
This one had the most.

The whole time I'm thinking - okay what happened to that line? They cut part of Buffy's opening number, the overture, I've got a theory was horribly cut, Spike's line about being "you're willing slave, you have thought's you'll misbehave, until you do stay out of my grave"? Very important line btw and heaped in foreshadowing. They've cut it from second and third showing. Also dance sequence and tons of dialogue at the end.

Take my advice - get a copy of the DVD of OMWF when it is released and don't rely on reruns. Highly annoyed by it, because first showing had technical difficulties in some areas. Not mine so much - just a few jarred areas at the end.

I'm sure the Yankees game was far more thrilling. ;-)

New wrinkle in the woes of AngelX vs Fox -- Rufus, 17:32:35 07/01/02 Mon

Cross and Stake

Date Posted: 19:15:26 07/01/02 Mon
Author: AnGeL X
Author Host/IP: spider-ntc-tb053.proxy.aol.com /
Subject: Ugh... more drama with Fox! (Legal people...help!)

I know, you're all dying to hear me rant about Fox, right?

Okay...but see we have a new twist in the little game now and I'm really starting to wonder what's up with Fox's lawyers...

So, I receive a hard-copy version of their "letter" in the mail today. No big, mostly the same letter and I've complied with the majority of their requests. EXCEPT this one comes complete with print-outs from the site to show what sections they have a problem with.

The twist? They sent pictures from the Galleries (duh!) and EPISODE SUMMARIES! No spoiler page in sight!

Now, call me crazy... cause I know little about law, but I'm fairly certain there's no law against episode reviews. Otherwise, every unnofficial Buffy book and fan site out there is in a load of trouble. Even the official site has summaries written by a FAN! Plus periodicals do reviews all the time and give away detail by detail reports of an episode. Now I get the potential for "derivitive works" by a summary but it just makes no sense how a summary of an aired episode, which is something I don't think any standard fan site owner goes without is something to fuss over. Plus, I was kinda under the impression that reviews of TV/Movies/plays/etc., were protected by journalistic rights? Free-use clause and all that?

So, maybe it's not the end of Spoilers on the site as we've known it...or maybe the lawyers lack knowledge of what is a "spoiler" and what is a "review" and mistakenly sent the wrong print-outs (although they sent print-outs of the episode index page, a season index page and a summary from season 1, so obviously...they're thinking something).

Anyone out there have any more knowledge than me about where reviews fall within the law?

Sigh... I need to go to law school.


[> Re: New wrinkle in the woes of AngelX vs Fox -- maddog, 17:58:58 07/01/02 Mon

hehe, I knew they were morons over at Fox. They're fighting a losing battle. Spoilers are everywhere. Give up now guys...you can't win this one! :)

[> Intrepid legal types, to the rescue!...can you go over to C&S and help AnGeLX out? -- Mary Ellen, 19:14:45 07/01/02 Mon

I remember that this mess, when it first started happening, was discussed in greater detail on this board than on C&S, because Michelle wanted to keep the hysteria down.

But now she needs your help!

[> Didn't we already hear this song with X-Files? -- ZachsMind, 19:31:21 07/01/02 Mon

Several years ago now, Fox's lawyers attacked fansites that supported The X-Files. I had started a webpage of my own which featured essays and fanfics I'd written. God that was back in 1996 I think. I was never approached by Fox. Never got one of their annoying letters. I shut down my webpage in protest, and soon after lost interest in the X-Files series. I felt no reason to support a tv series that didn't support its fans. I understand the decision to attack fan sites wasn't officially by Chris Carter. It was by Fox's foolish lawyers. It seems they're making the same mistakes again.

X-Files fan sites fluorished despite those efforts. Fox's laywers made an example of a handful of sites, but were unable to "cease & desist" everybody. Why they're trying to make an example of AngelX I have no idea. I wish there were lawyers on the side of fans, who could somehow put a stop to this insipid stupidity on the part of corporate muckrakers.

[> Very odd -- shadowkat, 06:52:02 07/02/02 Tue

Well I've probably said way too much on this already.

But from what I know about reviewing things and episode summaries? They are okay as long as you don't repeat
copyrighted material in them. Falls under the fair use clause - which is for journalistic, research and educational purposes.

Screen-shots - might be an infraction. But summarizing
an episode isn't, any more than summarizing an article and creating an abstract from it is an infringment.

They can't shut her down over that. If they could - we wouldn't have book reviews, tv reviews, movie reviews, student book reports, student essays, scholarly essays, or abstracts by A & I services like mine. Now there are people out there who think that it is an infringement if you list their name in the phone book - this makes me laugh. Sorry, no. Or it's an infringement if someone wrote and produced
a tv show based on a vampire slayer - sorry nope, ideas can't be copyrighted. Or it's an infringement if I summarize your article and write a paragraph about it - sorry nope. I can do that. I explain this to publishers
all the time and we got into a heated argument on my copyright listserve due to it. But the only court cases that decided against summarizing someone elses work - ie.
said doing so was an infringement - were cases where a substantial portion of the original work was copied or
used in the summary.

Example - say you read a scientific article and it had tons of copyrighted formulas (you can copyright a formula) and you cited those formulas and copied major sections of the article in your summary? Then yes - you are in violation of copyright.

But if you just briefly describe the article, state there are a few major formulas and what they mean to science, then no you haven't.

Masq's episode summaries are NOT a violation of copyright.
They discuss metaphysics found in the show and fill in plot holes. They don't substantially reproduce anything from the show. I don't know about AngelX - only go there for Buffy Cross & Stake Spoiler Board - which I've stayed off of lately because I'm desperately trying to stay spoiler free.

Rob's site is similarly okay - he annotates, using various sources. If he substantially cites something - like reproducing a whole transcript or interview - than yeah could be a problem.

Copyright is a funky thing. Complicated by the fact that
information is quickly disseminated worldwide. We can send an email and get a response from other countries in seconds.
And even though the US Copyright Act was recently updated to
meet the standards of the Worldwide Copyright Trade Agreement (can't remember exact name - do have it somewhere in my office though), we still aren't in agreement over the digital copyright and internet transactions. The World was furious with the US' handling of Napster and Microsoft.
Other countries and rightly so, fear US' companies via copyright are monopolizing the media and entertainment world and threaten the internet as well. So other countries are being tough on what they want regarding internet law.
As a result - it is very difficult for US based corporations to go after websites that come from other countries. So if you operate out of Germany or the UK you might be better off than if you operate out of Seattle.

Because copyright is an issue that is still being fought out in caselaw, legislations, and trade agreements - it is difficult to determine what is or is not a violation.
The best we can do is use common sense and rely on past laws.

So what I usually tell people - is treat information found on the internet like a book you found in the library. If it is wrong to copy off and sell the book to all your friends and pretend you wrote it - then it is wrong to do it with anything you find on the internet. The fact that it is easier for you to get away with it does not make it right.
And why shouldn't you do it? Well if you do it, what's to stop someone else from doing it to you? We don't do things not because someone says we can't but because by doing them we set precedents of behavior that hurt ourselves. Karma
is a bitch.

Okay probably more than you wanted to know. Feel free to email it to AngelX if you want. Hope it helps. And doesn't just confuse everyone further.

Will shut up now, promise...;-)

[> Re: New wrinkle in the woes of AngelX vs Fox -- A different view, 09:36:00 07/02/02 Tue

Cease and desist letters are intended to scare the recipient into changing his/her ways. They are a relatively cheap method of enforcing copyright laws, and they don't have any adverse side effects. Worse case scenario: the recipient ignores the letter and nothing changes.

It is natural, then, that rights holders would use these letters to try to get more than they are entitled to get. This is what is happening here. As 'kat pointed out, reviews are clearly within fair use, so no problem there. In contrast, screen shots are probably not permitted.

Summaries are a little different, and I am not sure how they would be treated. Summaries are different than reviews because they are a re-statement of the original work, not a commentary on it. I suppose an argument could be made that summaries are not within fair use, then.

If you like, and the board is interested, I could look into this issue and get back to you. But, reviews are definitely OK and screen shots are probably not.


[> [> Summaries -- shadowkat, 11:26:50 07/02/02 Tue

I actually have dealt with this issue before - my company creates abstracts which are 100 - 200 word summaries of magazine and journal articles.

Under copyright law you can do this and
the writer of the abstract(summary) owns the abstract (summary).

According to my worldwide copyright listserve, made up of copyright specialists around the world:

you can create a summary/abstract as long as you are not reproducing the actual "expression of words" in the original article. What does expression mean?

Well if you copy this post word for word you are copying my "expression" of this idea. However, if you merely state in a separate post - that summaries are okay under
copyright law for x, y, z reasons and don't use my words -
then you're fine. (not that I care...life is too short to sue people over copying each other's posts...but you get
the idea.)

Another example - if I was to post that Xander will die
in the next episode and my friend said it would probably be by a bullet and by Warren. That is permissible. If I posted
the script, dialogue from the show or an epsiode summary written by the show's writers or someone else? That would be infringement. You can write summaries - what you can't
do is copy someone else's summary or someone else's words.
Or rewrite their article in your words - this is tricky, why can I rewrite a summary but not the article? May depend on the article - some articles really are just a relation of news and can be written in numerous ways, but rewriting a scientific article or essay providing excerpts based on someone else's research and experimentation is hinging on copyright infringement - not that I can see too many people doing this - it's pretty much a first person out of the block gets published issue. But an excellent example of
"plagirism" infringement is a scenerio where a romance novelist literally pulled dialogue and descriptions out of another novelist's work, just changing the plot and the character names. But anyone reading it saw it was the same book. Another example: WB decides to produce Molly the Vampire Slayer, changes names, locations, but essentially the same - and it's clearly not a parody, yep copyright infringement. But if they did a show called The Slayer and
it was just about someone killing vampires, no copyright infringement. Just as it would be okay for someone to do a show about a Vampire in Chicago who ran a detective agency.
The trick is how close it is to the expression of the copyrighted material.

Another more on topic Example: Leoff writes a wildfeed summary - that's owned by
Leoff, his/her expression and opinions of the show are imbedded in leoff's summary. Leoff may say - "Xander attempted to rape Buffy in the PAck. He held her on the
ground and she barely got away from him." While AngelX might state: "Xander held Buffy against a soda machine while under the influence of hyenas. She hit him with a desk." See: two different expressions of the same material. What is copyrightable is the "expression" not the information conveyed: the idea that Xander would attack is not copyrightable. How the Btvs Writers, Directors, Actors, etc chose to express his attack on Buffy - is!

As I said before this is hard to understand. It gives me a headache just explaining it. Courts fight over it all the time. But according to the Feist Case - and other cases - it has been found that you need to have clear "creative expression" for copyright not just "sweat of the brow." For awhile the states were split - half said sweat of the brow, half said clear creative. Feist the deciding case, I believe it went to Supreme Court, said need creative. Combination of both is great. Each state varies on the degrees of course. But the one they all agree on is there must be more than just a repetition of an idea.

Oh "different view" - agree with everything else you said.
Particularly on Cease and Desist - old lawyer trick - send the fear letter first, people really hate to go to court, it's expensive, labor intensive and a huge bother over copyright. (They'll do it, but not unless absolutely have to, seriously doubt Fox will to stop episode summaries...reposting scripts maybe.)

If you can find recent court cases
disproving any of the above let me know. Can't imagine any - copyright listserve has been pretty quiet on the topic. As have all the other business and legal stuff I've read.
But I've been wrong before and so have they...nice thing
about copyright law - nothing's set in stone.

[> [> [> What shadowcat said ... -- Dedalus, 15:15:55 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> Harassment? -- Darby, 12:24:42 07/02/02 Tue

Just a hypothetical here, but if the situation at AngelX is substantially as described, then she's being theatened about specified activities that are clearly not actionable, making the letters a form of unfair coercion. I'm sure a case could be made for lawyer incompetence (that is, to say the notification letter was in error but there are actual legitimate complaints), but it seems like in a perfect world where legal advice wouldn't backrupt her, she could fire back. David does occasionally get that shot in there.

I know that there is a legal defense fund for comics creators, mostly for First Amendment Cases, but is there any kind of similar support for webpersons?

[> [> [> Could be. -- Solitude1056, 13:06:18 07/02/02 Tue

I once countersued on the basis of harrassment. There are several laws that define what a lawyer can and cannot do, and one of them clearly defines (in civil law) that a person can be restituted a certain amount (I believe set by the state of suit) depending on the extent of the harrassment. The original post was clear that this is simply the latest in a string of letters, and given the questionable legality of requesting a removal of summaries or episode reviews based on copyright law, I'd think we're entering the gray area of harrassment. This particular circumstance was, unfortunately, not unusual in the legal world. Send someone letters, call them, and hopefully they'll roll over and do what you want.

My business partner's ex had gotten the car in the divorce and then never made another car payment. The car was repossessed and auctioned, with $4000 still owing on the note. Unable (or more likely, just unwilling) to find the ex, Ford Motor Co's legal team turned to my business partner in hopes of getting their money from the person who'd actually signed the original loan note. Yes, it's true: if you sign a loan note, even though you have papers (divorce or other) saying that someone else is responsible for the loan, the note predates it and therefore you remain liable. On those grounds, they had legal right to demand payment from my business partner.

The problem was that they demanded payment in not one, but SEVEN letters - all mailed within the space of 30 days. After the third letter (while we were still trying to figure out how to find the ex and what to do, since all of our money was tied up in the retail business we owned)... they started calling the apartment we shared as well as the bookstore, about once every four days. Each time I, or my partner, would patiently explain that we did not have $4000, thank you, and here was the ex's last known address, contact her. My business partner faxed the divorce papers three times. Meanwhile, our business' attorney was telling my business partner to declare bankruptcy as the only means to escape having to pay the money! My own personal attorney saved the day. When he got ahold of the situation - and the twelve letters, and the journal we'd kept of the phone call dates and times and content - he turned the tables on Ford Motor Company. When the dust settled, they paid us $7000.

So I'd say, the person who runs C&S needs to get himself or herself a lawyer who specializes in civil law. Some knowledge of copyright or internet law may be useful, but the real bottom line is whether the Fox legal team has the right to repeatedly pester a law-abiding citizen... they don't. If that's what they're doing, a lawyer with savvy understanding of the law will know how to stop them.

[> [> [> Re: Harassment? -- A different view, 15:42:43 07/02/02 Tue

There are fair debt collection acts that would explain what Solitude describes. But, as far as I know, there is no real legal remedy for getting mean letters in the mail. Maybe others can shed more light on this?

[> [> [> My suspicion is that Fox lawyers are using the law to gain info... -- Mary Ellen, 20:25:04 07/02/02 Tue

They know they have no case, and are making unreasonable demands (for experienced lawyers). I believe they want to provoke her into defiance, sue her, and get her under oath in a deposition. Then they will ask who gave her the spoilers last year that apparently annoyed Joss/ME so much.

She couldn't claim any sort of privilege, could she?

[> [> [> [> Re: My suspicion is that Fox lawyers are using the law to gain info... -- Dochawk, 02:25:18 07/03/02 Wed

Nope, she has no possible special privilege and my guess is that she would just tell them if thats what they want, because she clearly broke copyright law. So what's the use of going through the expense if you know you will lose (and the expenses are much bigger on her side, Fox's lawyers would be paid anyway). if your right, then they'll get the info they want.

You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- Dochawk, 00:17:29 07/02/02 Tue

You go The Who concert and Roger Daltry is doing an amazing rendition of Behind Blue Eyes and all you can think of is the Giles acoustic version.

Any more symptoms?

[> ROTFLMAO.........poor Roger.....you are a sick man Doc.....;) -- Rufus, 02:04:14 07/02/02 Tue

Did you notice I put up the latest release date for issue 7&8 of Fray?

I do have to agree I liked the job that ASH did on Behind Blue Eyes....but I already liked the song.

Other symptoms.....gee....The ritual of Sunday and Tuesday night where all calls and doorbells remain unanswered. Finding the first thing I ask a friend when she finds a new boyfriend is "does he have a soul?" The ritual staying up all night on Wildfeed mornings to make sure I can corrupt as many innocents as possible.

[> you spend hours prepping your room-mate on his taping duties before you go on a trip -- Caesar Augustus, 03:56:38 07/02/02 Tue

[> Buffyitis? Doesn't the suffix 'itis' imply some kind of Inflammation? -- OnM, 06:47:40 07/02/02 Tue

I prefer to have a Buffy 'Affirmation', myself... ;-)

In any event, I would say that if I were stuck trying to diagnose a problem in some amplifier circuitry, and a voice in my head that sounded very much like Xander said, "What would Buffy do?", then I will have finally gone around the bend.

So far, this hasn't happened to me.



[> [> Well, on inflammation ... -- Exegy, 08:06:23 07/02/02 Tue

You could have Carpal Tunnel syndrome from spending so much time on the Buffy boards!

Not saying that this has happened to me, but I think shadowkat may be getting close.... ;-P

[> [> [> Addendum -- Exegy, 08:43:13 07/02/02 Tue

I don't mean to offend anyone who actually suffers from Carpal Tunnel syndrome ... I was just being facetious. I joke about this with my boyfriend all the time ... he got Carpal Tunnel from playing the old video games (the kind that weren't adjusted for your hands or wrists). So I guess I'm accustomed to taking the subject matter a little lightly. Sorry in advance!

[> [> [> Hey...I'm only frequenting one board -- shadowkat, 08:59:20 07/02/02 Tue

Not really on B C & S so much anymore. Although...there
is something to be said for back aches due to too much computer usage.

[> [> [> [> This is also the only board I frequent ... -- Exegy, 19:01:18 07/02/02 Tue

I swear--this board completely spoils any other discussion forum for me. (Thank you Masq and everyone involved!) I spend almost all my Internet time here.

I have not had the back aches yet, but I have had the blurry eyes (of course, they could be attributed to other causes, such as never getting enough sleep).

Oh well, I will give up a lot of things for my Buffy addiction.

[> [> [> When hooked on the best (board) why try the rest? (NT) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 12:28:58 07/03/02 Wed


[> [> Re: Buffyitis--Inflammation of the brain... -- yabyumpan, 23:20:59 07/02/02 Tue

...caused by thinking and talking about it waaay to much.

You find yourself grinning innanely on the bus, remembering something from one of the episodes.

Someone at work shows you an ad for the Angel:casefiles and then shrug and say "figure" when you say you got it ages ago

I have more of a case of Angelitis though, I just have break- up-blues with Buffy

[> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- shadowkat, 06:58:40 07/02/02 Tue

When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice.

Other symptom. I'm braving the traumatic commercials of Eight-Legged Freaks to watch Buffy and Angel reruns.

I have a spider phobia... and this silly movie has giant
spider leaping at people (actually people throwing spiders at me as a child, adolescent and in my 20s sort of created this phobia), and like all silly movies it has trailers appearing at commercial breaks on all the channels. This has made tv watching to be somewhat traumatic. Yet I put
up with it to watch my Buffy, how sick is that? (Luckily
Btvs and Angel have veered away from the spider thing, well except for AYW and Choices - two episodes that are not my

PS: Feeling very envious of Doc's viewing of The Who, which is one of my all time favorite bands. ;-)

[> [> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- ponygirl, 10:40:11 07/02/02 Tue

"When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice."

Me too!! Last night I rented The Third Man and found myself thinking that the big reveal of Orson Welles' face suddenly illuminated in the dark alley would be a great dramatic entrance for Spike. I had to slap myself a few times and get back to the movie. It's like my all-consuming obsession is starting to get in the way of other things...

[> [> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- Cheryl, 16:39:13 07/02/02 Tue

"When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice."

Or you see About A Boy and realize that Hugh Grant talks like Spike and it hits you how realistic Spike's dialogue is and how well JM speaks it(if you doubted it before). And then spend the rest of the movie picturing James Marsters in the Hugh Grant role.

Well, you asked, didn't you? ;-)


[> [> R.I.P. John Entwistle -- cjl, 21:22:05 07/02/02 Tue

The Ox.

Big Johnny Twinkle.


One of the most influential bass players in rock and roll history.

I can't see how Townsend and Daltrey can carry on without him...but what the hey, they carried on without Keith Moon.
And they going on with the tour.

By the way, I found Giles' S4 song selection interesting. "Behind Blue Eyes" is a song of rage hiding behind a relatively placid facade ("no one bites back this hard on their anger/none of my pain and woe can show through") and "Freebird," while a rock cliche at this point, gives us a big hint about Giles' eventual departure.

[> [> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- Isabel, 13:29:18 07/04/02 Thu

"When you go to the movies...like Minority Report and find yourself comparing the themes in it to Btvs after the
movie. Actually I was proud of myself I barely thought
of Btvs once. Well barely...Spike handling remorse over the soul bit did make a rude appearance once or twice."

When I went to see "Attack of the Clones" and during the fireplace scene where Anakin is telling Padme how much he loves/worships her and she's insisting it can never happen. I had a flashback to "Crush" and I thought all we need now is for Anakin to chain her to the wall. And the dialog in "Crush" was written better. (Sorry, Dedalus)

[> [> [> You too? LOL! Mine was Entropy/SR -- shadowkat, 15:39:22 07/04/02 Thu

"When I went to see "Attack of the Clones" and during the fireplace scene where Anakin is telling Padme how much he loves/worships her and she's insisting it can never happen. I had a flashback to "Crush" and I thought all we need now is for Anakin to chain her to the wall. And the dialog in "Crush" was written better. (Sorry, Dedalus)"

Had the same problem. In the middle of the movie, during
this supposedly gripping scene, I'm flashing back to Entropy when she's holding the camera or SR's bathroom scene.

In fact discussed this with a fellow Buffy fan and they said that the acting, dialogue and development was better between Buffy and Spike then between Anakin and Padme.
After much thought, have to agree. (Sorry Ded. I still liked
SW for the myth stuff though.)

[> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- Brian, 10:34:46 07/02/02 Tue

you realize that your job must be on a Hellmouth, or why else would your colleagues be so weird?

[> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- Purple Tulip, 11:34:06 07/02/02 Tue

...You're at work, sitting at a computer for seven hours, and spend most of it reading fan fiction instead of doing actual work, only to close the screen whenever anyone comes remotely near so as not to get yelled at or be questioned about your new faveorite obsession.

...When the only things you ever look for on ebay are Buffy items, mostly tapes of old shows because you just HAVE to have all six seasons on tape to fulfill your slaying needs during hours of boredom or summer re-run hell.

[> your girlfriend is used to answering to the name Buffy -- Caesar Augustus, 15:22:51 07/02/02 Tue

[> Your friends are sick of hearing "You know what Spike would have done in this situation ..." -- Caesar Augustus, 04:59:39 07/03/02 Wed

[> the real reason you fear the Rapture is that you won't get to see season 7 ... -- Caesar Augustus, 04:10:54 07/04/02 Thu

[> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- redcat, 09:24:10 07/04/02 Thu

You're watching the amazing (and deservedly Oscar-winning) performance of Halle Berry as Letitia in "Monster's Ball," and when she says, "My bad" to Peter Boyle's character Buck, your first thought is, "They show Buffy in rural Mississippi?"

[> [> That phrase pre-dates Buffy, I'm afraid -- Sophist, 10:06:52 07/04/02 Thu

It's a term from athletics that goes back to the mid to late 80s. I think dH even posted a link about it, which I can't find right now. But he will, I'm sure.

[> [> [> Re: That phrase pre-dates Buffy, I'm afraid -- redcat, 12:22:37 07/04/02 Thu

You're right, of course, and I even read the thread about it, neither of which negates the fact
that, since I don't follow sports and spent most of the 80's not being exposed to popular culture
(kinda hard to keep up when you're purposely living without electricity, TV, pop radio, most
mass newsprint media, etc.), my only exposure to the phrase has been through Buffy and,
therefore, my thinking what I did when Halle Berry said it IS a sign of my own Buffyitis, which
was the point of the thread, I believe.

Jeez, Sophist, not every joke has to be analyzed...

[> [> [> [> :) -- Sophist, 16:08:39 07/04/02 Thu

[> Re: You know you have Buffyitis when...... -- purplegrrl, 12:54:42 07/04/02 Thu

You see anything with the word "Angel" on it (T-shirts, keychains, bracelets, etc.) and immediately think "David Boreanaz"!!

OT: the full Australian Jedi religion story -- Caesar Augustus, 04:53:31 07/02/02 Tue

After the census had just come out, an e-mail was circulating like wildfire (I must have received about 20 copies of it) asking everyone who got the message to put down their religion as Jedi. The main goal, at least as stated in the e-mail, was to examine the power of e-mail in a mass way.

It was a very popular idea, and most youngsters without strong religious convictions participated. Just to give you some indication of this, considering people between the ages of 18 and 30, five times as many people put down Jedi as their religion as people who put down no religion. All of my friends put down Jedi. I would have except I felt obliged to put down my true religion, since we always like to know our true numbers so that we may gather our strength until the time is right for our rebellion in which we will massacre the infidels and take over the world.
But aaaaaaaanyway, just thought people might like to know the full, rather amusing, story.

[> Re: OT: the full Australian Jedi religion story -- Kate Wiccham, 06:19:32 07/02/02 Tue

Actually the same thing happened in England during the last Census

The deal here was that if enough people put 'Jedi' as their religion then it would have to be recognised as an official religious following such as Christianity (there is this thing about proportions of population don't ask cause i don't know the particulars)

[> [> It happened here in Canada as well. Not quite enough to be made a offical religion, but close! -- Wolfhowl3, 09:32:37 07/02/02 Tue

[> [> [> Australia was easily enough (250 000 odd), so Jedi is an official religion. It's damn funny. -- Caesar Augustus, 16:32:20 07/02/02 Tue

Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? -- neaux, 08:21:28 07/02/02 Tue

Dont ask me what made me think of this.. and forgive me if it has been discussed at length, but could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion?

In Buffy years they have 1 year or 2 till a 5 year reunion would be possible? and Wouldnt it be peachy if that was the premise for a Buffy Movie? or maybe made-for-TV movie if the show ended this next year...

Hell I'm sure its already a fanfict.. but I guess the reason I was thinking about this.. was wondering of the chances of seeing Oz again on the show or Cordelia.. (if that is possible)

anyway.. I'd like to know some fellow posters opinions on this..

please respond to my post and make my workday less boring.

[> Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? -- ponygirl, 08:52:18 07/02/02 Tue

I'm picturing a Romy & Michelle style gathering complete with interpretive dances to late '90s hits. It'd be a tough call the award for most changed, what with Cordelia ascended, Harmony vamped, and Willow possibly showing up all veiny. Oz could handily get the most unchanged award, and perhaps Jonathon could redo his Superstar spell for the occasion just to show everyone up. A sub-plot could feature Amy studying for her high school equivalency exam so she can attend the reunion.

[> Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:08:03 07/02/02 Tue

I've actually never heard this idea before, and it sounds awesome! I'd love if they did an episode or a made-for-TV movie out of it. That would be one interesting gathering. Maybe, in the midst of a reunion, the ghost of Principal Snyder tries to take revenge on all his students.

[> [> Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? -- Alvin, 11:53:21 07/02/02 Tue

And the swim team could show up with pictures of their spawn.

[> [> [> Re: Could Sunnydale High have a 5 year reunion? (spoilers) -- leslie, 15:33:38 07/02/02 Tue

Well, I don't see necessarily why they have to wait 5 years- -if, as is said, the high school is going to be rebuilt for next season, why not use the rededication as the excuse for a reunion of the class that blew it up in the first place? (I can see this going two ways: "See kids, all the wonderful changes that have been made!" or "See kids, it was all a waste of time--nothing's changed!")

I do like the idea of the new school being haunted by the Ghosts of Principals Past--hey, why not bring in Principal Flutie as well as Snyder? And I cannot imagine that those two are the only Sunnydale High principals to have come to a sticky end... hmmm, just occurred to me, both of them got eaten.... a trend?

OT: Please join me in wishing condolences to our friend Sheri -- Liq, 09:56:48 07/02/02 Tue

Sheri lost her grandmother last night, so please join me in sending her family our thoughts, best wishes and prayers.


[> Re: OT: Please join me in wishing condolences to our friend Sheri -- Dedalus, 11:06:31 07/02/02 Tue

Sure thing Liq. Thanks for letting us know.

Of course Sheri has our condolences.

[> My thoughts & prayers are with you, Sheri. -- LadyStarlight, 12:06:16 07/02/02 Tue

[> Our prayers are with you Sheri. -- JCC, 12:38:46 07/02/02 Tue

[> My wishes for strength to you and your family, Sheri -- julia, 13:44:03 07/02/02 Tue

[> Condolences. May you remember all her good with fondness. -- Caesar Augustus, 15:15:41 07/02/02 Tue

[> Condolences to Sheri and her family. -- Rufus, 16:22:48 07/02/02 Tue

[> My thoughts are with you and your family, Sheri. -- Rowan, 17:06:51 07/02/02 Tue

[> Sorry to hear of your loss, Sheri. Best thoughts coming your way. -- Vickie, 18:00:28 07/02/02 Tue

[> My condolences to you and your family, Sheri. Know that we will be here for you. -- OnM, 20:57:35 07/02/02 Tue

[> Sorry to learn of this, Sheri -- Wisewoman, 21:07:24 07/02/02 Tue

Blessed be her passage to the Summerland. My thoughts are with you.

[> Condolences to you and yours, Sheri. -- cjl, 21:45:58 07/02/02 Tue

[> Deepest sympathy and condolences, Sheri -- Wizardman, 22:58:13 07/02/02 Tue

[> Condolences to you Sheri and your family -- shadowkat, 06:47:11 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> Re: My deepest sympathy and best wishes to you and your family -- Brian, 06:54:32 07/03/02 Wed

[> Sending you my sympathy, Sheri. I hope you have happier times in the not-too-distant future. -- Rob, 08:40:08 07/03/02 Wed

[> My condolences to Sheri and her family on their recent loss. -- redcat, 10:03:27 07/03/02 Wed

[> Condolences to Sheri -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 12:25:26 07/03/02 Wed

Dear Sheri:
I had the great good fortune to know three of my four grandparents well -- they are a blessing to have & a tragedy to lose. My regrets.

[> [> Thanks you guys -- Sheri, 14:50:57 07/03/02 Wed

Thanks for all the warm wishes.

Our family is doing well; we're sad, of course, but still doing pretty good.

My big concern was my grandfather, but I think he's going to be all right. Especially after he started pondering when the little old ladies in his retirement village were going to start chasing after him! Apparently those gals don't wait around ("How long were they married? 64 yrs, eh? He MUST be a good catch!"). Oy vey. He's really sad, of course, but has firmly committed himself to continue living, which I'm extremely thankful for.

A quick side note: His downstairs neighbors at ages 88 and 92 are newlyweds. The two are just cute as can be--always holding hands and calling eachother "darling"--and proof positive that things can always get better :)

[> [> [> Very belated condolences - so sorry! -- Marie, 04:34:07 07/04/02 Thu

Unfortunately, it's true that nothing in life is certain but death and taxes. You know it's got to come eventually, but it's still horrible when it does.


[> [> [> [> So sorry, Sheri -- Ete, 08:14:21 07/04/02 Thu

I've also lost my grand-mother recently... all my condoleances

[> [> [> what a wonderful way to take it all! -- yuri, 10:13:13 07/04/02 Thu

A level of peace and maturity I hope I am able to reach. And the downstairs neighbors sound lovely. Heartening. Live every moment, no? Every damn one. I send you even more warm wishes.

Two-part article on Padme Amidala up - OT -- Dedalus, 14:57:06 07/02/02 Tue

Yes, I'm once more making all your analytical dreams come true. Feminism, prequel-style. What's not to like?

The second part also officially jump-starts the Month of Love at the Star Wars suite.

Maybe I can do this link right ...

Suite 101

[> Thanks Ded. -- JCC, 15:38:39 07/02/02 Tue

[> Re: Two-part article on Padme Amidala up - OT -- aliera, 15:44:49 07/02/02 Tue

Thank you, Dedalus. I have to tell you that I am liking the movie better through your eyes than my own.

sarvasam eva mayanam of all the forms of illusion
strimyaiva visisyate woman is the most important

(she is)...the ferry and the goal in one. JC 1962

[> [> Re: Two-part article on Padme Amidala up - OT -- Dedalus, 18:52:07 07/02/02 Tue

"I have to tell you that I am liking the movie better through your eyes than my own."

You're probably not the first person to think that.

And just for the record, I consider myself very analytically dangerous.

[> Hehe -- MayaPapaya9, 19:16:28 07/02/02 Tue

In Hindu mythology, all duality in the phenomenal world is "maya," an illusion.

Duality, really? I had no idea. Neat!

anya's wishes -- LozzieB, 15:48:30 07/02/02 Tue

In season three, The Wish - when giles breaks anya's necklace - he says it should cancel all the wishes she has granted. So why then in Season Six the wedding episode - is a guy she cursed still a demon - why didn't he go back to normal?

[> Re: anya's wishes -- Caesar Augustus, 16:28:58 07/02/02 Tue

Hmmm ... ummm ... well ... you see ...

I don't specifically remember him saying it would cancel out all her wishes, but if you're right, then I would think it's a minor plothole.

It is minor though. It really wouldn't trouble me at all. The important thing to remember is that it is symbolic of Anya's past as a demon catching up with her. She caused a LOT of pain and suffering ... The other thing to remember is that it doesn't affect the storyline much. The fact is that those were Xander's fears for the marriage, and knowing that the visions were not the true future, he still couldn't go through with the marriage. He had issues, and those issues did not arise from Stewart Burns. If not Stewart Burns, there are plenty of other ways ME could've trigerred off Xander's panic attack.

[> [> Giles could have also been misinformed... -- ZachsMind, 18:03:59 07/02/02 Tue

He may have thought destroying the power center would undo the entire millenium of pain and suffering she caused, but because the power center was in the alternate reality at the time it was destroyed, it only affected that wish, and didn't undo the damage done in Buffy's standard universe.

He may have been right under normal circumstances but these were not normal. What I wanna know is, why would a demoness who's been around for a thousand years give her power center to Cordelia like that. It was obviously not a requirement for getting the wish granted. You'd think a powerful necklace like that, Anya'd never let anyone borrow. She wouldn't even let Dawn try on her engagement ring, and being from Xander that was obviously not mystically enhanced jewelery.

[> [> [> Re: Giles could have also been misinformed... -- LozzieB, 21:51:13 07/02/02 Tue

i think that cordelia had to be wearing the necklace when she said her wish - although that wasn't the case with Dawn and season 6 - but giles had the necklace after taking it off cordelia - but then anya is wearing it again when giles summons her. I think the engagement ring thing comes from her human side - the old human sentimental attachment and the greed thing.

[> [> [> Re: Giles could have also been misinformed... -- LozzieB, 21:54:56 07/02/02 Tue

I get the whole symbollic karma thing - just wondering if i had missed the explanation somewhere along the line. In the wish Giles says "In order to defeat Anyanka, one must destroy her power center. This should reverse all the wishes she's granted, rendering her mortal and powerless again"

[> [> [> [> Sophist, where are you? -- Caesar Augustus, 22:14:59 07/02/02 Tue

Yeah, as I suspected, you were right. As far as I'm concerned it's a plothole, but as I said, it's not the kind of plothole that I would lose any sleep over, unlike Xander's OMWF goof, but let's not get into that again ...

It's one of those plotholes that, if avoided, would simply stand in the way of important thematic issues, which are more important than all the little details. For example, in "Innocence" Buffy's birthday lasts over two clear days, since we see daylight when she accosts Jenny. To remove the plothole, you'd have to take out that scene, which was priceless. Despite the plothole, Innocence is still one of the best hours of television ever. I didn't notice it in the show, and after people told me about it, I was like "who cares? the episode was perfect."

But anyway, where's Sophist when you need to make up an explanation quickly ...

[> [> [> [> [> goof? -- LozzieB, 22:19:11 07/02/02 Tue

Probably since OMWF is one of my all time fav episodes - i don't know what the xander goof was - wanna share?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: goof? -- Caesar Augustus, 03:35:04 07/03/02 Wed

There was a fairly involved discussion about a week ago (see archives) about Xander being the one who summoned Sweet. Motives? Out of character much? As well put by cjl, "the thing about magic: there's always consequences, always" (except for Xander in OMWF). There are long-term consequences but these are very indirect.

Perhaps goof is a strong word, but it definitely seems inconsistent and a bit non-sensical. Still one of my favourite episodes though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magic and consequences. -- Darby, 06:53:00 07/03/02 Wed

What goes up must come down.

Crime doesn't pay.

All things come to he who waits.

Magic always has consequences.

Except when they don't.

Just because all of the characters spout the proverb doesn't make the proverb true. Sometimes the most widely- disseminated cautionary sayings are the least likely to be reliable (see crime, above).

Or, like the "up" and "down" one, the proverb may be basically true but not always apply in a meaningful way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Magic and consequences. -- Dochawk, 09:24:23 07/03/02 Wed

Not only the characters spout it, even Joss does. At the recent ATAS event he went so far to say that the actions of the characters always have consequences, but points out Giles killing of Ben as the one we haven't heard from. I would say no consequences for Xander from OMWF is a pretty large plothole.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Magic and consequences. -- Darby, 10:06:22 07/03/02 Wed

Yeah, he'll be 80 and trying to resolve Buffy magics on the 8th incarnation of Firefly.

[> [> [> [> [> Buffy's Birthday -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:58:50 07/03/02 Wed

Actually, I think the Scooby Gang celebrated Buffy's birthday the day before the actual thing so she could have time with her mother on the actual event.

[> [> [> [> [> LOL. Sound asleep. -- Sophist, 08:34:02 07/03/02 Wed

Sorry, this is a plothole; can't fix it. But you're right -- it's one of those minor details that really doesn't matter to the story line. These are the kinds of things we should just ignore. Like Cindy Crawford's mole or the gap in Lauren Hutton's teeth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL. Sound asleep. -- Arethusa, 08:49:56 07/03/02 Wed

Good comparisons! Sometimes a flaw makes something even more beautiful. From Rm w/a View: (Quote by Psyche)

Cordy points at a wall: “First thing hire someone to take out that wall.”
Doyle: “I though you said it was perfect.”
Cordy: “Yes, and part of being perfect is that there being one tiny flaw for me to fix.”
Doyle: “Ah, must be why you find me so fascinating.”

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not all "flaws" should be "fixed"... -- redcat, 09:56:43 07/03/02 Wed

I am reminded by your and Sophist's comments of Nathaniel Hawthorne's cautionary tale, "The Birthmark," particularly since I find the space between Lauren Hutton's teeth one of her most endearing physical traits, and the fact that she refuses to either hide it or get it fixed among her most admirable personal characteristics. And while Cordelia -- our glorious angel of healthy egotism - clearly believes what she said above, I suspect Joss & ME might have had their tongue a bit in cheek when they wrote that scene. Least I hope so...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love that Hawthorne story -- Rahael, 14:09:51 07/03/02 Wed

I do love my short stories. But then I also like the Scarlet Letter!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Birthday -- LittleBit, 08:22:05 07/04/02 Thu

Maybe I'm being simplistic and unquestioning, but I had the impression that because of her work schedule Joyce was celebrating Buffy's birthday with her on a different day, and that Buffy was spending her actual birthday overnight at WIllow's house. That morning they talk about going to the mall on Saturday, Willow tells her "Happy Birthday, Buffy! - -- not-happy-birthday Buffy?" and they have her surprise party that night. The following night Joycve indicates that they have cupcakes because dhe didn't have time to bake a cake.

Never seemed like a plothole to me (JMHO).

[> [> [> [> But Giles isn't Joss. -- Darby, 06:44:53 07/03/02 Wed

There are some "exposition" things given to Giles that make less sense than this as a plothole.

How would anyone know whether all of a vengence demon's wishes had been nullified? They'd probably only know about wishes with direct impact on them, and even that wasn't true with alterna-Giles. Any speculation about what else might have changed would be speculation, and any info gleaned from demons - well, as Ethan said, they do lean toward hyperbole.

The problem here is fundamental reading of the Script(ure) - anything stated in the script must be true, so help us Joss. But in the hands of good writers, anything a character tells you is limited by what the character knows, understands, and believes. This wouldn't be the first time that Giles believed something that turned out not to be true, and it probably won't be the last.

[> [> [> [> [> character vs. exposition (S6 spoilers) -- tim, 09:08:59 07/03/02 Wed

"But in the hands of good writers, anything a character tells you is limited by what the character knows,
understands, and believes. This wouldn't be the first time that Giles believed something that turned out not to be
true, and it probably won't be the last."

I posted on more or less the same plot hole a couple of months ago, and got basically this response, though you've stated it more eloquently than anyone else I've seen. I'm sorry, but it's wholly unsatisfying to me.

You're right, Giles isn't Joss, and occassionally he gets things wrong. However, there's a distinction to be drawn between Giles speaking as Giles ("Buffy will be better off if I'm not here") and Giles speaking as Expository Guy ("This demon can be killed in thus-and-such a manner.") The former is prone to error, as any human being is. The latter is part of the narration of the story, and so has to be free from error if the audience is to follow the story (unless it's a Memento-like situation in which poor narration is part of the story). In other words, Buffy is, first and foremost, a TV show that must resolve the immediate problem in 42 minutes. Spending copious time postulating various methods of killing bad guys and failing, as would happen IRL, would take too much time (and make for pretty boring television). What to do? Make a character an expert in demonology. Have a bunch of books that tell all the answers. All we have to do is find the right book, and voila! Sure demon death! It's part of the deal we make with the writers: sacrifice a little realism for better story flow.

As you point out, this doesn't always make sense. After all, how would they know? Other examples: in What's My Line, Xander discovers that the Bug Guy can only be killed when broken down into "his little buggy parts." If there's only one of him, and he's still alive, how does the book's author know? In WTWTA, Giles informs the groups that when the repressed sexual energy has sufficiently drained Buffy and Riley, they'll die. This isn't the poltergeist he was expecting; it's something entirely new. How does he know, then, that death awaits?

He knows because he has to know; otherwise the story can't move forward. Similarly, his comment in "The Wish," while nonsensical, must be correct so he can confront Anyanka and save the day. If we allow Expository Guy to be wrong, then we as the audience lose all sense of direction. How do we know, from then on, when Giles is right and when he is wrong? Maybe the stakes weren't really that high in WTWTA. Losing a source of dramatic tension isn't worth the convenience of being able to blame such plot holes on Expository Guy's errors.

Moreover, on rare occasions when they do decide to re-write the canon, my feeling is that they should deal with the change head-on. It doesn't take much; some throwaway comment of Halfrek's in OaFA to the effect of how the effect of losing one's power center gets blown out of proportion would do the trick. (I admit, this is clunky as is; I'm sure ME could make it more elegant.) The fact that they left this open sticks a bit in my craw. (But then, I'm still annoyed that S3 Vengeance Demon Anya looks nothing like S6 Vengeance Demon Anya.) I hope this was at least slightly coherent. It's the mental gumbo of several weeks worth of stew- age.

Obsessing over details,


PS: My apologies if this comes off as patronizing. It's genuinely not intended that way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. -- Sophist, 09:54:33 07/03/02 Wed

I completely agree with the distinction you make. In fact, I made it myself (or intended to) in a thread just a couple of weeks ago arguing that Angel/Angelus were separate entities because Giles and Buffy said so in an expository way.

Since you did so well on this point, I offer a free plothole filler: Giles' knowledge of Anya in the Wishverse was true for that reality. In other words, all the wishes she granted affecting that reality were reversed.

And for those worried about the necklace, just imagine that Anya had 2 necklaces, one she gave to Cordy and one she kept. But don't ask me why and don't bring up OAFA.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sophist comes through again! Well done! -- redcat, 10:12:17 07/03/02 Wed

This is exactly the explanation for Giles' statemet that I've always accepted, but expressed so much more clearly than I could have. Thanks!

Don't agree with you about the necklace, though. I suspect that in different universes, the rules might be different in slight but meaningful ways, and that vengence demons, who must certainly be adept at crossing between dimensions quite regularly, are probably also adept at shifting between dimensional rule-sets without too much brain stress. Anya, no doubt, knows the exact explanation. I wonder if she would, perhaps, be willing to accept a reasonable fee in return for providing Expository Services to the plot-hole impaired?.....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: character vs. exposition (S6 spoilers) -- Darby, 10:04:31 07/03/02 Wed

Totally right about the exposition requirements, but it's the longterm effects that we're discussing, and it's only the within-a-story effects that have to be reliable. So Angel is Spike's sire, and later when that becomes an issue (Spike, like Anya, was supposed to have a very limited shelf life) they expand the meaning of "sire," and when the Mayor is going to Ascend we find out that what everybody calls "demons" aren't really, but that distinction since has so far has not been important. The show's "canon" is whatever they need this week and loosely what they've saddled themselves with in the past - when they hit a wall, Joss likes the, "Hey, It's magic!" escape clause, while I kinda prefer the, "Hey, the books/demon/glowy stick- thingy/Watchers' Council was just wrong about that detail!"

I mean, what part of a rocket-launcher is NOT forged?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said. Either way of thinking about it is valid. -- tim, 10:21:31 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like Buffy's explanation -- redcat, 10:28:20 07/03/02 Wed

YES!! I agree with your light-handed approach to the show's inconsistencies. I think Joss often winds up laughing at himself and then asks us to laugh along with him as he creates this thing we've all grown to love so much.

And LOL about the rocket launcher not being forged. That was my first really big "HEY, wait just a *** minute, that doesn't make any SENSE!!" with the show. But immediately, Buffy gave me an "out" which I've found to be quite useful over the last few seasons in a variety of episodes and scenes --

Buffy to Judge: "That was then. This is now."

Repeating this like a mantra works almost as well as shadowkat's magic interpretive spackle..

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, -- Sophist, 10:56:46 07/03/02 Wed

use of the rocket launcher isn't necessarily inconsistent. The statement was that the judge "cannot be killed" by any weapon forged. However, somehow he got taken apart by an earlier army (using flint axes, perhaps?). Anyway, assuming the earlier army used swords to dismember him, the explosive merely did a more efficient job at that. He is now dismembered ("keep the pieces separate") but not dead.

Alternatively, the explosive powder itself was not "forged". The tube was, and the container was, but not the actual explosive which blew him into little bitty pieces.

As Willow said to Xander in the same episode "You've thought way to much about this."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You rule, Sophist! -- ponygirl, 09:41:24 07/04/02 Thu

Am I the only one who found it an anticlimax that Buffy was "normal" in Dead Things? -- Caesar Augustus, 22:03:57 07/02/02 Tue

I was hoping for more serious "consquences of magic" relating to Willow's spell bringing her back. That weird spirit thing in Afterlife wasn't much of a serious problem.

I realise that the main point of Buffy being normal was to force her to take responsibility for her own actions. But nonetheless, I thought it's been a long time coming for Buffy to be a vampire/demon. Maybe next season.

[> Re: Am I the only one who found it an anticlimax that Buffy was "normal" in Dead Things? -- luvthistle1, 01:57:03 07/03/02 Wed

The first slayer and Drac, have both told her that her slayer powers are rooted in "darkness". So, maybe next season,she would find out why. I think she is part demon/vampire.

[> [> Re: anticlimax (a bit of s6 spoilerage) -- Caesar Augustus, 17:14:49 07/03/02 Wed

More of the "all roads lead to Spike" phenomenon.

But anyway, I guess after season 5 pretty much put on hold the "you think you know who you are, what's to come, you haven't even begun" storyline, I was hoping for it to get picked up in season 6. It seemed that the chance had finally come around in "Dead Things" - but once Buffy was revealed to be normal, it meant that the theme was definitely delayed until season 7. I would have probably liked it better if Buffy was the Big Bad than Willow, mainly because I feel all squirmy inside when I think of season two Willow, the cutest person ever, acting like that.

[> Question answered: Tabula Rasa and a preview of Spike? (spoilers season 6) -- darrenK, 09:14:44 07/03/02 Wed

Actually, the question to what Buffy came back as was answered even before it was asked.

In TR, all the characters were stripped of memory, so that only their essential natures were apparent.

Resurrection Buffy stripped of her essence was the self- proclaimed female hero archetype, Joan. Joan kicked ass with all the grace and aplomb Buffy mustered during the high points of seasons 1-5.

Buffy with her memory back was flat on her face with despair, easily bested by a vamp.

Can we assume from Anya and Gile's vigorous cleaning that the characters remember their memoryless selves?

If so, then Buffy should have been able to answer the essential question, "If I'm normal why do I feel this way?"

On a side note, and as a matter of purely personal opinion, I think Joss and co. should have always had Buffy immune to the power of the chip. This would have preserved the ambiguity presented to us in Restless and Bvs.Drac. (Yes, I do realize that if the chip didn't work on Buffy then Spike would never have been fully tame.) Here's a question for the more observant among you, has Spike's chip always worked on Buffy with the same power as every other human? I can't remember.

An even more interesting Tabula Rasa foreshadowing is that of memoryless Spike giving us a preview of besouled Spike.

Why, if the gang remembers their absence of memory, does no one speculate on Spike's strangely non-vampiric essential nature? If he can't remember the gang or the chip, shouldn't his vampire want to feed?

Notice that 'Joan' chooses Randy as her companion even before she knows he has greater-than-human- strength?

She knows that he's a hero too.

[> [> In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against Buffy ... -- Exegy, 10:09:39 07/03/02 Wed

He leaps on her and attempts to bite her, but the intense pain of the chip prevents him from following through. He's still "neutered" to Buffy.

Same in FFL ... Spike can't touch Buffy. If he does, then pain ensues.

As for the implications of Spike being able to hurt Buffy only after her resurrection ... he can only "touch" her so after all the trauma that she has experienced. The Buffy of Season 5 would have never allowed him such access. Only after her rebirth, when she feels wrong, does she consort with the vampire ... everything she should be against. The outer metaphor reveals the inner development of the characters.

I agree with you on the foreshadowing of TR. The writers definitely knew what the cliffhanger of the season would be. And they also knew to say goodbye to Tara.

[> [> [> Re: In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against Buffy ... -- leslie, 10:56:33 07/03/02 Wed

"Same in FFL ... Spike can't touch Buffy. If he does, then pain ensues."

Actually, there's an interesting distinction made there--if he tries to hit her with intent to hurt her, he experiences pain; if he goes at her without intent to hurt, it doesn't. Despite Tara's explanation that Buffy's has returned with a slightly altered molecular pattern, I still believe that the real reason he can hit her is that, as a result of his love for her, the real intention to hurt--as in, cause physical damage to the object of the act--has disappeared. Coupled, of course, with the equally metaphorical, if somewhat contradictory reason that he can hit her physically because he can hurt her emotionally--i.e., she *does* love him, even though she refuses to allow herself to see it. After all, he only discovers he can hit her after she has clearly begun to develop an emotional dependence on him.

[> [> [> [> Re: In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against Buffy ... -- shadowkat, 12:55:52 07/03/02 Wed

"Despite Tara's explanation that Buffy's has returned with a slightly altered molecular pattern, I still believe that the real reason he can hit her is that, as a result of his love for her, the real intention to hurt--as in, cause physical damage to the object of the act--has disappeared. Coupled, of course, with the equally metaphorical, if somewhat contradictory reason that he can hit her physically because he can hurt her emotionally--i.e., she *does* love him, even though she refuses to allow herself to see it. After all, he only discovers he can hit her after she has clearly begun to develop an emotional dependence on him."

Interesting perspective. So is it the "intent" that chip prevents? This would explain why he can drink from the already dead girl in Crush and also why he can fight with Buffy in Fool For Love. It also explains why the chip goes off when he points the gun at Xander in Yoko Factor (not
realizing of course it's not loaded.) On the other hand
this explaination does not explain the manipulation he uses in Yoko Factor to hurt them? Well wait, maybe the intent has to be "physical" harm not emotional or mental? After all the neural transmittor would have to be awfully superior to act on that level - and Spike would be the puppy dog, Joss wished to avoid. Personally I think Joss lifted the whole chip idea right out of Stanley Kubrick's
A ClockWork Orange - which I'm pretty sure he saw. If this is the case - he tempered the chip to only affect the intent to do physical harm. (IF it worked to the extent
that Alex's conditioning does in Clockwork Orange - Spike would be the helpless bunny rabbit Buffy refers to him as in the beginning of Doomed and in Something Blue. Which would have been boring and taken away the whole pt. of not
going with a soul early on.)

Now that we've established the boundaries of the chip.
Assuming you are right and the chip still prevents him from harming her and the only reason he could hit her back without pain - is he didn't intend to really hurt her?
How do you explain: The Seeing Red Attempted Rape Scene?
That he got carried away and was renacting Smashed?
Then how do we explain Smashed? They beat each other up.
He seemed at the beginning of that fight, truly pissed
and wanting to harm her? Or did I misread that?

Don't get me wrong - I don't think Spike wanted to actually
hurt Buffy. But he is an emotional demon and things get out of hand and there are times even people you love make you want to blast them into the next county. And it seemed to
me that even though he may not have intended to hurt her
in SR (on the fence on that one), he definitely seemed to during their battle in Smashed, just as she intended to hurt him.

More than willing to be convinced otherwise.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: In OOMM, Spike's chip is still operative against Buffy ... -- leslie, 14:34:42 07/03/02 Wed

Well, honestly, this is one of those explanations that a) really only work on a metaphorical level and b) therefore gives the chip--a physical piece of hardware--some kind of sentience. On the other hand, trying to work out the workings of the chip only in terms of some kind of rational, real-world, physically and technologically sensible mode of operation invariably leads to a mess, so what the hell-- let's get metaphorical! The chip seems to read Spike's unconscious and makes its determinations of intent based on his unconscious feelings--feelings that may be completely inaccessible to him at the time he is committing the action. Thus, the chip, like many of us in the audience, reads the attempted rape as resulting from Spike's frustrated love for Buffy rather than from a sincere desire to injure her--the physical injury is a side effect, not his primary intent. (Which is a reasonable reading, since his remorse and self- disgust, despite his attempts to rationalize by blaming her, directly follow on his realization that he *has* physically hurt her.)

The chip does seem to be solely concerned with *physical* harm, which is why Spike's sole amusement, in his first months of chipdom, is in screwing with people's heads. Nothing to stop him there. But the chip, in turn, is screwing with Spike's head. Initially he's reasonably self- aware of his motivations, but over time, and the more he loves Buffy, the more inaccessible his motivations become to him. He perceives his own actions and tries to reformat his self-image in order to incorporate them ("I've changed," "I can be good") but everyone around him refuses to accept this new image ("You're just a dead thing," "You're evil"). Finally, after the attempted rape, he just gives up on trying to figure out what his motivations are and trying to incorporate them into his self-image, and falls back on his old image of The Big Bad. This is when he goes off to Africa, and this is the state he is in when he undergoes his trials, but by now there is a complete disjunction between image and reality. The demon, *like the chip,* reads his unconscious motivation rather than his conscious statements, and gives him back his soul. Interesting that the bit of technology and the primordial demon *both* act out of Spike's unconscious, suggesting that they are (again, metaphorically) one and the same. At the same time, while the chip is responsible for monitoring Spike's physical actions, the demon, in restoring his conscience as it were, is monitoring his spiritual actions. The chip and the demon are therefore not so much identical as complementary, as one would expect from a piece of hardware and a supernatural entity. Body and soul, in other words--together making a whole. However, we have seen that the chip, by modifying Spike's physical actions, has had an effect on his spiritual/psychological state; the question that remains to be answered is how the modification of Spike's spiritual/psychological state will effect his physical state. Because what I find really fascinating about all of this is how it illustrates that you can't completely separate mind and body (or mind and brain).

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, leslie and 'kat, for the additional points. Nice posts. -- Exegy, 22:20:01 07/03/02 Wed

[> I know that the season's over...but that's still a big ol' spoiler in the subject line! -- Rob, 11:43:40 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> Sorry *slaps himself on wrist* (mutters to himself "Bad Emperor!") -- Caesar Augustus, 16:57:14 07/03/02 Wed

Let's clear this (Dawn) thing up! -- Magus777, 22:10:36 07/02/02 Tue

Isn't it possible she was just held back to Freshman year? I mean c'mon, with the Glory thing, and all the absents. I figure this is Joss's excuse, or what he planned along.

[> Don't be surprised... -- Darby, 06:35:00 07/03/02 Wed

...if Dawn's a sophomore, like Buffy was when she came to Sunnydale. Wasn't the Joss' quote something like, "She'll be starting at Sunnydale High?" That would be true no matter what year she is, since the school's just re- opening.

And, at any rate, you gotta figure that at some point the Continuity Police will point out that she was confirmed as a Freshman this past season. They can't really flunk her without invoking the dreaded Social Services Storyline, so I expect to see Dawn in the 10th Grade.

[> [> Re: Dawn's a Sophmore, just like Buffy was - Let the hijinks begin! -- Brian, 07:00:55 07/03/02 Wed

I imagine that while they were rebuilding Sunnydale High, the city officals had assigned the ninth grade students to be part of the middle school which was still standing (7th, 8th, and 9th). Those students in the 10th - 12th were probably bussed to nearby regional schools as a stop gap measure.

[> I've been thinking a lot about Dawn (Speculative Spoilage) -- shygirl, 07:15:16 07/03/02 Wed

I know some think Joss writes himself into corners, but I actually think he knows exactly what he is doing with his characters and it only looks to us at times like he wrote something a certain way and was then stuck with unexpected consequences. I believe he didn't want us to notice Dawn too much this year because it was so important to deconstruct all of the other characters. He made her so bratty and whiney that no one wanted to pay attention to her.

In a very real way, all of the characters underwent tests this year… not just Spike at the end. We can say it's part of growing up, which is the easy and obvious answer, or perhaps it is part of a greater plan in Joss's head. Dawn is still the key. I'm not even sure how complete a human she is, but someone else may be able to enlighten me there.

But here are some elements that everyone knows, but are continuously glossed over: There are so many unanswered - Whys?
1. Dawn has never ever been afraid of Spike. He even tried to scare her and she laughed at him. She has always felt safe with him. I know some will say that she won’t feel that way anymore because of the bathroom scene, but I’m not convinced of that… her connection with Spike has been consistent over time. I don’t think one incident, no matter how horrible will destroy that… although I do believe that she will look at him with a greater awareness. Dawn has been an innocent up until now and I think that will end this coming season. She is a primordial force manifest in human form… and I vaguely remember that the Knight’s feared that force becoming human.
2. Spike has always consistently been protective of Dawn and in Masq’s character description the word paternal was used. He has never, to my limited knowledge, threatened her in any way. He certainly does use the kind of affectionate paternal nicknames one would expect from a parent toward a favored child. It easy to say he only takes care of Dawn because of Buffy and perhaps that is true and I’ve just not read enough and seen enough episodes to know it. But what I have seen indicates a connection to Dawn that goes beyond Buffy… not a romantic one though he wants her good opinion. He would die to protect Dawn and not just because Buffy has charged him with protecting her, at least not anymore. I find that very interesting. They have a very complex relationship. And then there is the fact that Spike is not like other vampires and apparently never was… he still seems to retain some kind of memory of humanity that causes him to be fascinated by humans.
3. Buffy trusts a monster to keep her sister safe over her friends. Even after he attacks her, she still trusts him with Dawn. There is also the consistency that she will not kill him, nor will she allow anyone else to kill him. That also is very interesting. It may not be love, but it may be an awareness of Spike’s connection with the Key and an importance we don’t yet understand.

So here we have a kind of “unholy trinity” that doesn’t make any sense on the face of it and doesn’t seem to have any connection or integration into the storyline that is obvious. Then there are the Scoobies. They have been tested this year most strenuously, and guess what, they aren’t perfect. But, they have looked into the dark corners of their own souls.

Now, I don’t know a lot about the Watcher’s Council… in the two seasons (5 & 6) that I am familiar with (still catching up on early stuff) they don’t seem to be much in evidence. My limited understanding though is that they are supposed to be advisors of some sort??? And this makes sense. A Slayer would need all the wisdom at her disposal that was available. But I seem to remember an episode where she sort of fired them??? Am I right? Well, even if she fired them, she may still have need for good advice… and it’s obvious Giles is not always going to be around. It also seems to me that without a council to advise her, things are out of balance. But in order to have a wise council, the members need to have an understanding of themselves and the world…. Thus this season of deconstruction… they have earned a hard won wisdom through their personal failures and shortcomings. They can now advise Buffy from a place of compassion, and an understanding of human weakness. It is also interesting that this new council is made up of a witch, a demon, and a human…. Kinda brings all points of view to the table.

Like everyone else I have hunches about where Joss is going, but I don’t really want to dissect them… I want to hold them close and see what unfolds. But I think the storyline of the Key needs to be resolved and a balance brought back to the mission of the Slayer…This may not have been what you were looking for as a response, but it’s been on my mind for a while and I appreciate the opening to get it out of my mind… Now perhaps it will not obsess me so much! LOL Thank you kind readers for your tolerance and patience with the newbie who is just learning the ropes.

[> [> Re: I've been thinking a lot about Dawn (Maybe a bit more than, Speculative Spoilage) -- Dochawk, 09:20:51 07/03/02 Wed

A few comments:

1. "Dawn has never been afraid of Spike" - Dawn has never known anything but a neutered Spike, by the time she was made Spike was chipped. In fact, besides a few things with her sister she really hasn't seen the killing machines that vamps are (until Halloween this year had she met any other vamps than Spike, other demons yes, but vamps?)

1a. (Hard speculation coming up) At least three writers have talked about the difficult nature of the Dawn/Spike relationship in the next season. She doesn't forgive Spike nor really should she.

2. Spike would die to protect Dawn. You are speculating that this is anything more than his obsession with Buffy. Altho I tend to agree with you, there is no direct evidence that he would do so after he learns of Buffy's resurrection, previous to that there is his "promise to a lady" which was part obsession and part guilt.

3. Spike is different from othr vampires. Clearly other vampires have shown the ability to love and to have obsessions. And as Rufus et all will explain much better than I can, being a vamp reflects on the human you once were. Spike was a romantic poet, so he has much of that human characteristic remaining in his vamp nature. Dalton for example was a bookworm in real life and the Judge senses the humanity in him and kills him. Also, we know more about Spike than all other vamps combined (except Angel, Darla and Dru) so its hard to say he is different than other vamps without that kind of knowledge.

[> [> [> What's interesting about Dawn -- Sophist, 09:38:44 07/03/02 Wed

is that, of course, she didn't exist prior to S5. The monks implanted in her memories of the SG and of Spike. They also implanted in Spike memories of Dawn. Who knows where those memories came from or what they might mean. But those memories -- whatever they are -- will certainly color the relationship between the two.

[> [> [> [> Maybe the monks made *everybody* want to protect Dawn. -- Arethusa, 09:41:24 07/03/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> ahh the implanted memories... forgot about that. -- shygirl, 11:19:34 07/03/02 Wed

yes, I agree that the implanted memories will definitly color how Dawn deals with Spike and his behavior at the end. Only people who really love each other can hurt each other. Spike can hurt Buffy emotionally and she can beat the crap out of him physically or even kill him if she feels like it. How the affection between Dawn and Spike holds up after the bathroom scene will be interesting and dependent on their entire relationship, not one moment of it. I am betting on the human capacity to forgive... not forget, but forgive. I've been where Buffy was and you can get past it if you choose too and if you work at it...it's not easy and shouldn't be, but at least to some extent we can choose our viewpoint. I think they call it free will.

[> [> [> The Spike/Dawn Relationship -- cjl, 10:30:06 07/03/02 Wed

While I agree that Spike's protectiveness of Dawn could be construed as an extension of his obsession with Buffy, I think it has more to do with the unique relationship between Buffy and Dawn. Buffy said the monks "made her out of me," and given Buffy's track record with intuition, I'm going to take that at face value. So Spike might actually be responding to a quality in Dawn that he's responded to in Buffy. Given Spike's nature, this is probably entirely instinctive.

Of course, the $64,000 question is: exactly HOW was Dawn "made" from Buffy? What is the ephemeral quality that brings out the protector in Spike? Did the monks break off a piece of Buffy's soul? Did they incarnate Buffy's innocence/inner child? Or was Buffy merely a genetic blueprint? (Nah, ME wouldn't be that prosaic.) There's so much we have to learn about Dawn and her origins; once we get some answers there, we might understand Spike's motivations a bit better.

[> [> [> [> Re: The Spike/Dawn Relationship -- leslie, 10:45:05 07/03/02 Wed

Given that Buffy's blood is an acceptable substitute for Dawn's blood in The Gift, I think we have to assume that the monks literally used some part of Buffy's body to generate the flesh of Dawn as a vessel for the Key--the ever-popular nail clippings, perhaps--there's a REASON folklore tells you to be careful when disposing of your nail clippings, people! I also wonder if they stole a little of Joyce while they were rummaging through the Summers trash cans--it would explain Joyce's own protectiveness toward Dawn, expressed when she realizes that Dawn is not literally her daughter.

[> [> [> [> [> Greater minds than mine explained this before -- Vickie, 11:47:51 07/03/02 Wed

As Dracula being some kind of sending by the monks and not the real deal. He tasted Buffy (getting some of her blood). When he returned to the monks, they got the blood to make the key into Dawn.

Explains why the prince of vampires was so lame. Remember, Anya and Spike (the only ones who could have identified Drac) didn't meet up with him.

Current board | More July 2002