July 2002
posts
Just how is Dark Willow evil? -- ZachsMind,
15:52:05 07/14/02 Sun
According to NewAdvent.
org there are three general forms of evil: Physical,
Moral & Metaphysical. And yes I'm well aware that Willow
was jewish and may or may not claim to be pagan, but I
needed something to use as a measuring stick and a catholic
website was the first one I found in websearches which
specifically and certainly defined the term "evil" in an
understandable way. Personally I'm an ex-Baptist, so I'm
attempting to look at this in a generic way and not trying
to focus on any specific religion. This is just an example.
Physical evil includes "all that causes harm to man"
on the physical level. It includes potentially everything
from natural disasters to constraints of society upon the
poverty-stricken, to mental anxieties, as well as the more
obvious actions of murder and hate that individual members
of Mankind commit upon one another. Quite a broad brush.
Willow did commit many actions which fit the description of
physical evil. She destroyed property at the police station.
She attempted to use an eighteen wheeler to mow down
Jonathan, Andrew, Buffy & Xander. She sent a glowing orb of
energy through the night sky which attacked Xander, Andrew,
Jonathan and Dawn at the cemetary. Willow committed the act
of murder by dispatching Warren, quite torturously. Oh, and
she almost destroyed the world by channelling mystic
energies into the effigy of a demoness.
Moral evil "is properly restricted to the motions of
will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves." This
is much more vague and depends on which religion one
actually believes, but can be summed up into whether or not
one opts to play God. Willow felt a surge of injustice in
the loss of Tara, and even Osiris knew better than to upset
the status quo of what he believed to be a common human
death by human means. Willow went where gods fear to tread.
She decided to take it upon herself to press judgement upon
The Trio. She succeeded with Warren and almost succeeded
with Andrew & Jonathan. When the latter two escaped her
grasp, she turned her wrath of greiving vengeance upon the
entire planet.
Metaphysical evil is the most curious one. It is
argued that the apparent disorder of Nature is not disorder
at all, but rather all part of a much larger picture. Death
is just as natural a part of the cycle of existence as life.
"it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills
the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as
a relative perfection rather than an imperfection."
Whether one sees The Creator to be an old greyhaired man in
a robe floating above the clouds, or sees The Creator as the
undying and absolute force of the universe which is
reflected in such celestial bodies as the moon and sun, the
effect is the same. An act of mystical power in which a
human being forces one's own will upon the natural order of
things is inherently a blemish if not a complete act of
blasphemy upon the very natural order of things.
The Warnings: This is why Tara and Giles were
constantly cautioning Willow about her frivolous misuse of
her magic power. Every time Willow used her knowledge of
dark magic selfishly, Willow was in effect pissing in the
pool of Nature itself. In seeking vengeance for Tara's
death, Willow was looking in the face of whatever supreme
entity she believed in and telling him/her/it that she
didn't have faith the will of that entity would mirror hers.
She didn't believe her gods would punish Warren properly for
what he had done, so she chose to take the very law of all
reality into her own hands.
The Conclusions: So Dark Willow was in all actuality
evil not only physically, but morally and metaphysically as
well. One can argue that Willow committed more evil to all
reality in her brief time as Dark Willow than Spike had ever
committed in over a century. Not by measure of loss of life
but by measure of her blatant disrespect of the forces of
Nature, compared to Spike's habitual ambivalence to such
forces. Spike has committed evil deeds to be sure, but more
often than not he did so within the confines of physical
reality as it was placed before him. Willow was quite
literally distorting reality to the best of her ability in
order to accomodate her selfish whims.
The Intent: But did she MEAN to be evil? This is the
crux of the dilemma in trying to judge this character, or
perhaps any creature under heaven. It is why many opt to
choose to allow their respective god be judge, rather than
take that responsibility themselves. Willow didn't look at
Tara's dead body and smile, thinking "now I have an excuse
to be evil." Her actions and thoughts never changed. She was
still Willow. However, she was Willow with this insatiable
sudden thirst for justice. Her life as she knew it had been
robbed. When Tara died, Willow felt she had died inside as
well. Happiness was almost stripped from her when Tara chose
to leave her. Willow did what she was asked to do in order
to regain Tara's trust and love. She played fair. She played
the good Willow.
See where it got her? She worked within the confines of the
reality which was presented her, and was rewarded by having
the one soul she loved most taken away from her permanently.
This was more than her soul could bare. Perhaps it's more
than any soul could, or should be asked to bare. Nature, or
Fate, or God, or whatever YOU personally call it,
inadvertently taught Willow a powerful lesson. You be good
and sweet and try not to make waves and you will be rewarded
by being taken for granted, being called a computer geek who
wears silly shirts, and ultimately you will have the love of
your life destroyed in your arms. Being sweet, reliable,
good, kind, helpful, crayon breaky Willow left her empty and
dead inside.
What choice had she in the final analysis? What other choice
could Willow have possibly had other than to turn evil? And
if she can't be evil, and if she can't go back to being
good, what can Willow possibly be now? Is there a choice
left beyond merely existing? And what kind of a life is
that?
[>
Metaphysically Evil -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:14:20
07/14/02 Sun
I diagree with this last term of evil. Yes, Willow didn't
trust any Supreme Being to take care of Warren, but this is
not evil if a)there is no Supereme Being, b)there is no way
to know if a Supreme Being exists, or c)Supreme Being isn't
concerned with justice. In the Buffyverse, c seems very
likely (less so on Angel, since they have the Powers That
Be, but higher powers seem to be very fallible on BtVS and
have their own agendas).
Also, tampering with Nature isn't necessarily wrong. It can
be dangerous and have serious reprecussions, but isn't wrong
in and of itself.
Willow certainly committed physical evil. She also
committed what are commonly called moral evils (there is
never any consensus on right and wrong, though genocide of
the human race is frowned on by most).
[> [>
Genocide of the human race is frowned on by most)?!?
LOL -- Drizzt, 16:36:03 07/14/02 Sun
[> [> [>
That was my dry humor kicking in. =) -- ZachsMind,
18:26:31 07/14/02 Sun
[> [>
Okay so I didn't take aetheists into account. So sue
me. *smirk* -- ZachsMind, 18:25:10 07/14/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Not just Atheists . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
19:49:24 07/14/02 Sun
Also Agnostics, who aren't sure whether god exists.
Also, I believe in deities, but I don't think they're
infallible, or always have the best moral views.
Given we've never seen any of the Scoobies attending a
religious institute, or questioning how their religion fits
with the gods, demons, and monsters of their world, I doubt
any of them really believes in a Supreme Being who will
ensure justice against the wicked. Besides, given how much
they've been exposed to the demonic and hellish
supernatural, divine justice probably seems like a joke.
[>
Interesting. Much to think about. -- meritaten,
17:38:55 07/14/02 Sun
Angel and Siring -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:00:12
07/14/02 Sun
We all know the drill for siring a vampire. The vampire
drains the human's blood. Then, while he/she is dying, the
vampire forces some of it's blood down the human's throat.
Somewhere from a few hours to a few days later, the human
will rise as a new vampire.
The popular way of looking at the siring process is that the
vampire must first drain the human to weaken his/her spirit.
When the human is at his/her weakest, s/he is forced to
drink vampire blood, which contains a piece of the vampire's
own demonic spirit. The demonic presence enters the dying
body and takes over as the human dies out. If this
reasoning is correct, one must ask:
What would happen if Angel sired someone?
It's possible the result would be a regular, soulless
vampire. However, Angel's blood doesn't contain just a
demon, but also a human soul. It's possible that the human
soul in Angel would prevent the demon part of him from
fulfilling its role, thus leaving Angel with a simple
corpse.
But, there's a third possibility. If Angel sired someone,
he might create another vampire with a soul, since his blood
would pass on both human and demon to the person being
turned. With this power, Angel could recruit humans to
fight against the forces of evil by promising them eternal
life as a vampire. They would not be consumed by guilt like
Angel is since they would be soulled from the beginning, and
would have no atrocious past to haunt them.
Unfortunately, Angel will probably never try it since it
could end up killing the person if the third theory isn't
correct.
[>
Re: Angel and Siring -- meritaten, 17:31:28
07/14/02 Sun
"his blood would pass on both human and demon"
If it passes the demon as well, how could he ensure that the
demon could be contained? Angel has to struggle to keep his
demon contained. Also, humans with les than pure intentions
could prove quite a liability once turned!
AS we've seen with Willow, humans have enough 'demon' inside
already.
[> [>
I always assumed that... -- AngelVSAngelus,
22:25:50 07/14/02 Sun
Angel's blood carried the demon infection, but the soul
was something that was not transferrable or able to be split
and passed on in intervals.
The demon infection itself seems to me non-specific, like
a metaphysical plague of evil, a blank template upon which
that individually turned person is written. Whereas, the
soul seems something individual to each person to which it
belongs.
So if Angel turned a person, I always thought it'd go in
the fashion of option one on your list, just a regular
vampire. His blood would infect that host with A demon,
while it could not infect the person with HIS soul.
[> [> [>
Souls -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:36:16 07/15/02
Mon
Actually, in the Angel episode "Lullabye", Darla is affected
by the soul of her unborn, human child. This shows that a
soul is not something specific to a particular person, but
is a generic conscience.
[>
Re: Angel and Siring -- Purple Tulip, 06:23:48
07/15/02 Mon
But does having a soul equal having human blood?
[> [>
Blood -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:44:19 07/15/02
Mon
All vampires have human blood. Biologically, they're human
corpses. It's only on the spiritual level that they are in-
human.
So the blood must really be a conducter for the vampire's
demonic spirit. The issue is whether Angel's blood will
pass on both soul and demon to a sired person.
Crosses on Vampires -- Harry Parachute, 16:11:59
07/14/02 Sun
Hi all, first time poster here and recent Buffy convert. I'm
pretty new to the show, having only seen S1, S2, half of S5
and bitty chunks of S3 and S4.
I must say, it's a great show. When I was home alone on a
miserable day with nothing to do I noticed it was on next
and decided to stay on and indulge my curiousities
concerning what I expected was some teeny-bopper, girl-power
garbage.
Instead I saw the episode, "The Body". Rest was history. Now
my friends look at me as though I belong in a padded cell.
:)
Anyway, on to the point. I was looking in a neat little
reference book of mine called "Dictionary of Symbols" by
Carl G. Lungman, and I suggest it to anyone who's interested
in that sort of thing, and I came across the Latin cross.
What I read might be a way to rationalize how a cross burns
a Vampire like fire and sunlight without subscribing to a
Christian doctrine.
"Before the time of Jesus, [the symbol] represented, among
other things, the staff of Apollo, the sun god, and
appeared on ancient coins. A cross with arms of equal length
was used in pre-Columbian America, the Euphrates-Tigris
region, and other parts of the world long before and was
associated to the sun and other powers that controlled the
weather. It was only when + was used to represent the staff
of Apollo that one of its arms was lengthened to form [the
cross].
Earlier still, in Babylon, the cross was considered as one
of the attributes of Anu, god of the heavens."
Just food for thought. Figured if anyone was interested, it
would be the folks at ATPoBtVS. :)
[>
Re: Crosses on Vampires -- Drizzt, 17:48:33
07/14/02 Sun
Your a newbie Here? Welcome to the site:)
Your post is a subject that has been discussed in depth
months ago on this site. It never hurts to bring up an
interesting subject again though;) BTW, the subject of
"Spike's soul/redemption/morality & the B/S relationship
have been brought up on many DOZENS of different threads on
this board...
You talked about the power of the cross against vampires
having prechristain origins?
I liked your references.
Anyway here is what I remember on options for the power of
the Cross against vampires.
1. Christian symbol; has a power as a symbol of Jesus the
Son of GOD.
2. The references you mentioned.
3. Have you heard of Fray? It is a comic book set in the
Buffyverse. It meantions that a group of shamans created the
Spirit of the Slayer, wich possesses or otherwise gives
human Slayers their supernatural abilities. On the subject
of those same shamans; they eventually evolved into the
Watchers Council, and the relivant part is that the shamans
might have put a curse on vampires.
4. The Powers That Be could have cursed vampires. Powers
That Be=vauge term meaning godlike forces/entities for
order/good. In the Buffyverse supposedly they banished most
demons from the Buffyverse Earth.
5. The power of crosses is simply because people beleieve
they have power, and ditto in the case of vampires.
Curse=vulnerability to holy water, stakes, sunlight, &
crosses. Also inibility to enter a human home without
invitation. In the eps of Angel when Angel went to Pylea he
was not hurt by sunlight; maby the "curse" on vampires only
aplies to the Buffyverse Earth?
Note; maby there is no curse on vampires, then their
vulnerabilities would simply be part of being in the
"species" catagory...vampire.
[> [>
On Another Note. -- Darby, 06:08:30 07/15/02
Mon
Joss has said that, although he was writing new rules
(vampface to show that Buffy was killing inhuman demons, but
no other kind of expensive FX magical transformations,
dusting so that the heroes don't have to face disposing of
bodies - although dead humans disappear in The
Harvest - or endless return engagements) for the
Buffyverse, he felt compelled to hold over some of the
classic vampire lore just to make the transition easier for
the audience. The tried-and-true weaknesses of stakes,
fire, sunlight, beheading (until Lorne, hard to ignore a
decapitation!) crosses, holy water, and garlic were just
images he used for convenience. And Xander (in the sewers
with Buffy in Welcome to the Hellmouth) became the
expositor as he got "clued in" with the audience.
I've always suspected that Joss avoided giving power to any
other religious symbols was that, back then, he was still a
closet comics nerd (that idea was used in Tomb of
Dracula) and he didn't want to use the ToD corollary,
that symbols only have power when the user believes in them.
But, really, why a cross but not a Star of David?
And, of course, once something slightly illogical becomes
part of the Buffy canon, it's up to us to make it logical.
Your attempt to do this with crosses is an excellent one
(and yet another reason, beyond good taste, why there's
never a tiny little person on any of the crosses in the
show) - it makes more sense than any other explanation I've
seen, and have we seen vamps face off against any other sun
symbols? It'd be neat if they were repelled by a swastika,
and set up an interesting response in, say, Angel's group
when he reacts to one.
Of course, that doesn't explain Holy Water. And in
WttH, Buffy has communion wafers in her trunk, but
we've never seen them used - "I'll hold him down, you pull
his tongue out - watch the fangs - and you stick it on
there..."
Tangentially - Do vampires have saliva?
[> [> [>
Tangentially-Do Vampires have saliva? -- Drizzt,
21:05:37 07/15/02 Mon
Vamps have no sense of taste except for they are conassuers
of the taste of blood...
Vamps CAN eat and drink regular food, however they do not
get any nutrition or other benifits from doing so, except
for texture as Spike explained;) Unlees food dissapears in
some supernatural manner vamps have to go to the bathroom
just like normal humans.
Vamps can breath, but they do not need to.
Saliva? Unknown
Blood or water would have the same functional use as Saliva;
making solid food easier to swallow. I think the other
function of saliva; a minor chemical that is part of human
saliva acts as an enzime to start the digestion process. I
think this part of saliva would be irrelivant for vamps.
[> [> [> [>
I would think they do. -- VampRiley, 06:48:31
07/16/02 Tue
Otherwise, they'd have cotton mouth and when they talk, they
don't seem to have that. But, if they don't, we can always
chalk it up to the magick clause.
VR
[>
Interesting insight, and welcome to the board! --
can I be Anne?, 10:45:31 07/15/02 Mon
Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" -- jbb,
17:53:06 07/14/02 Sun
(Delurking momentarily)
Sorry if this has been posted already, I've been sans 'net
for the last two days.
On "Farscape" (my second favorite show), the main character
(Crighton) says to his arch nemesis (Scorpius) after
discovering him alive when all thought he was dead..
----------------
Kryptonite?
Silver bullet?
Buffy?
What will it take for you to stay dead?
--------------------------
I got a great laugh out of that one.
Back to Lurk mode
[>
Re: Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" --
Amber, 22:44:08 07/14/02 Sun
Cool! There was also a mention of Buffy in Farscape season 2
when John was going to be frozen as a statue for 70 years.
He tells D'Argo something like,"When I'm unfrozen Cameron
Diaz will be dead. EVEN Buffy the Vampire Slayer will be
dead." (Poor John, he left earth before Buffy's Season 5, so
he doesn't know that even death can't keep the slayer
down.)
I think there may have been a Buffy reference back in Season
1 Farscape too, but I can't quite remember. Anyone?
[>
Re: Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" --
LeeAnn, 00:38:26 07/15/02 Mon
That was cute.
Even if I think Farscape sucks donkey dick so far this
year.
(I say it with sadness).
[> [>
Re: Buffy mentioned on "Farscape" -- Rob,
11:08:29 07/15/02 Mon
I don't agree with you so far that it sucks this year, but,
I wasn't enjoying "Farscape" as much this year, until this
past episode, "Promises." I realized that thing that was
missing was Aeryn. Now that she has returned, I am enjoying
this season much more now. I thought "Promises" was a great,
great episode.
Interestingly, I think, while the stories for the first four
episodes this year were weaker than usual on "Farscape, the
character development is at an all-time high.
Also, they are doing something very unusual. Namely not
answering last season's cliffhanger questions until later in
the year. We're already 5 episodes in, and still we don't
know exactly what happened in last year's season finale.
That's an especially risky move for this show, that I think,
will pay off later. Like "Buffy," when you watch an entire
"Farscape" season in a compressed amount of time, it reaps
great rewards. Remember, only two years ago, "Farscape" was
incredibly worried about delaying a cliffhanger's outcome:
the second season premiere, "Re:Union," did not reveal
whether John and D'Argo survived...the producers were
worried that the fans would not like this, so they aired the
second episode of the season, "Mind the Baby" as the first,
and used "Re:Union" as the sixth episode, retitled as "Dream
a Little Dream," and now told in flashback, with opening and
ending scenes of Zhaan telling the story to John. What
they're doing this year, however, is much bolder, more
daring.
So, while I didn't love the first four episodes of this
year, I understand their purpose, and I think they'll vastly
improve when I re-view them at the end of the season. IMO,
the fifth episode was pure perfection.
Rob
Anointed One - what happened to him? -- meritaten,
00:19:16 07/15/02 Mon
I didn't start watching Buffy until sometime in Season
three. I'm still caching up on the earlier seasons.
Anyway, I can't figure out what became of the Anointed One.
I just saw the episode where Spike and Dru arrived. At the
end, Spike put the boy in a cage and then ... I'm not clear
on what transpired. I never saw the boy aagain, but I mgiht
have missed a later episode. CAn anyone fill in the
details?
Thanks!!
[>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? --
buffalupagus, 00:52:52 07/15/02 Mon
Spike supposedly hoisted him to a sunny death from the shaft
of light pouring in overhead (note the smoke in the cage).
We don't know a lot about the A1 and if he has any special
physical powers that could've made the scene a ruse, but
it's possible (note the lack of a rain of ashes).
[> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? -- Purple
Tulip, 06:18:48 07/15/02 Mon
I too had wondered about that. And with next season's Big
Bad supposedly being "everyone's worst nightmare", I was
curious as to whether the Anointed One and/or The Master
were going to be it.
[> [> [>
Slight Spoilers for next season in above post! --
Rahael, 07:01:05 07/15/02 Mon
[> [> [> [>
Re: Ooops! It's Monday folks, haven't gotten my brain
back yet! -- Purple Tulip (tired and not thinking
properly), 07:13:33 07/15/02 Mon
[> [> [>
Dubtfull -- Ete, 09:52:41 07/15/02 Mon
Since the reason the AO was killed in the first place was
because the kid actor playing him was growing up too fast
for a frozen vampire. Now that kid os what, fourteen ?
fifteen ? :)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Doubtful (spoilers) -- leslie,
10:11:59 07/15/02 Mon
Hmm, it seems to me that the Annoying One was meant to be,
in essense, a role rather than an individual (like, there's
a Queen of England, and the current one is Elizabeth II, or,
more pertinently, there's a Slayer, and the current one is
Buffy), so there would really be no reason why another One
could not be Annointed. What you first need is the
Annointer... who appears to be contracted to come back for
S7.
[> [>
Will smike do? -- Darby, 06:54:28 07/15/02
Mon
The final shot of the cage shows smoke wafting from the
floor-bars, implying his demise. I expect showing a kid
bursting into flames was considered maybe not so much a good
idea.
'Course, there's nothing to say Anointing couldn't happen
another time.
It's pretty much have to, anyway, since vampires don't age
and the kid's now quite a bit older (in fact, he'd changed
enough between seasons that it was quickly decided to get
rid of him).
[> [> [>
SMOKE! SMOKE! No, I haven't suggested a new
'ship... -- Darby, 06:57:33 07/15/02 Mon
..where, like in the last Freddy Kreuger movie the actors
interacted with the characters.
SMG and Spike was the only "Smike" that came to mind...
[> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? --
meritaten, 12:29:31 07/15/02 Mon
Thanks!
Now that you say that, I did somehow know that he was a
vampire. However, I never saw his gameface.
Now I understand. Thanks!
[> [> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? -- Finn
Mac Cool, 14:36:21 07/15/02 Mon
Probably couldn't get the child actor to sit still for the
whole three hours it takes to apply the vamp makeup.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Anointed One - what happened to him? -- Amber,
00:29:46 07/16/02 Tue
The Anointed One never did appear in make-up, nor did he
drink blood, but I'm sure the Master mentioned that he was a
vampire several times. Could have been a WB issue. I seem to
remember Joss saying something somewhere about the network
getting twitchy about having an evil kid on the show. Also I
believe Joss didn't want the audience to see Buffy killing a
child (even if he is a vampire) which is why Spike and Dru
got to do the deed.
[>
Another Question -- meritaten, 13:09:38 07/15/02
Mon
In the episode where the boy in a coma caused everyone's
nightmares to come true (sorry, don't know the name of the
episode), was this controlled by the master somehow? The
Master and the Annoying One kept popping up, making comments
on what was transpiring. They seemed to be playing a role,
but I couldn't determine how. Or did their powers of evil
just keep them appraised of what was going on?
Thanks again!
[> [>
The Master -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:40:56 07/15/02
Mon
In Prophecy Girl, we saw the Master had some kind of
hypnotic powers. This implies that he, and possibly the
Annointed One, have enough psychic stuff in them to sense
something big like the dream happening. The Master liked
all this because one of Buffy's nightmares involves him
escaping, which means he actually escapes his prison. Also,
without them there, there would have been five episodes in a
row where the season's arc villain was absent, which didn't
seem like a good idea.
[> [> [>
Thanks! -- meritaten, 17:06:34 07/15/02 Mon
Polices in S2 (spoliers for S2) -- Sang,
02:08:18 07/15/02 Mon
I bought Buffy S2 DVD and quite happy about it. While I was
watching this (for coutless times now), I just couldn't help
to think about plot problems in S2, especially about
Sunnydale police. (I know that they are the most stupid
people in Buffyverse, but still...)
Some people complained about S6 police storylines. I didn't
have much problems about S6. And I don't care much about
plot holes, if it is entertaining. It is a fantasy
anyway.
But in S2, 'Passion' and 'Becoming 2', it is just too much.
It starts to bug me everytime I watched these eps.
Eventhough I love both of them, it bothers me like hell.
How come the polices let go a man who had a dead girl friend
at home who was spoted arguing at their work place before
and had a lots strange weapons in his place, so easily and
so soon? And, why did the same police try to arrest a tiny
high school girl who didn't have a murder weapon, as a
murder suspect in the crime scene which looked like a whole
biker gang in town stormed for hours.
And is there anyone who can explain me, why, even after the
witness and victim (Xander and Willow) woke up and were
talking, Buffy was still wanted for murder?
Also why did the Sunnydale police never confiscate weapons
from murder scene (Gile's home in 'Passion', library in
'Becoming 2')?
I noticed that Joss is the one among the writers who cares
least about plot details, but this one is just so weird.
[>
I forget Principal Snyder's exact words on the
subject. -- Cactus Watcher, 05:41:17 07/15/02 Mon
But, it is an admission by Mutant Enemy, that the police in
their stories are quite stupid. It has never been a secret
that the police in Sunnydale are virtually worthless
boneheads, that act contrary to how real police act
everywhere. It not unusual for police on TV to behave
bizarrely, to make sure someone else is the hero of whatever
show. At least ME admits they are writing it that way.
[> [>
Police -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:25:53 07/15/02
Mon
Actually, in Season 3 we were shown that the police were
really under the control of the demonic Mayor. So they
might suspect Buffy of murdering Kendra because the name
Buffy Summers is one they've been told to watch out for.
And they would still be pursuing Buffy even after the
witnesses woke up because she assaulted a police officer in
escaping. As for leaving Giles alone after his girlfriend's
death with a bunch of weapons, well, owning medieval weapons
is probably pretty common in Sunnydale. By now the cops
must be thinking: "Okay, does the entire town have swords
and crossbows in their chests?"
[> [> [>
Re: Police -- B, 09:49:08 07/15/02 Mon
And why didn't the police ever press charges against Buffy
for assaulting a police officer? Even if you were unfairly
accused you can still be prosecuted for resisting
arrest.
[> [>
Re: Principal Snyder's exact words -- Robert,
10:35:20 07/16/02 Tue
They were "deeply stupid".
[>
a sloppypop -- buffalupagus, 10:19:26 07/15/02
Mon
I know what you're saying. My first time through S2, I
wanted to climb a grassy hill, rip off my shirt, and shout
to the surrounding villages that I had seen a lovely vision-
-a gem of the species "tele"--wherein pixels were ordered to
speak divinely of truth and beauty. And then the second time
I bleached my hair, shaved my chest, started wearing tweed
bras, and picked up a Carribbean accent with which I scolded
my collection of blind-folded GI Joe's by saying things
like, "Your Gypsy mojo won't work on me, Red!"--it was a
whole character crisis thing, and really I got through it
well enough, so of course I had to give the whole thing a
third try to gain some perspective, but they kept playing
that "Close Your Eyes" music and "Jenny's Theme" with Giles
humming, and I thought what a treat it would be to be able
to hum like that on a show when your lover's just died and
you're standing there thinking what a bastard the fellow is
who stole all the innocence from things, and so of course I
couldn't get any perspective while busy mulling the innards
of passion vs. duty and why hatching creatures are ever
considered scary--I mean, what's a big blob gonna do--it's
too ugly to build a real following and after all Slayers
aren't ever hurt in stand-alone ep's, so why bother trying,
Ted?
So there had to be fourth and fifth times, and by then the
hysteria had rubbed off a little, and I started to get
suspicious--why was Buffy's hair always in her face when she
was fighting? And I could've sworn those blurry people with
swords were not people I knew, and in the middle of Buffy
and Angel's fight they kept cutting away to these other two
people dressed the same and miraculously having a sword
fight of their own in an eerily similar mansion hall thing.
Could this whole Buffy show be a sham? I wondered with some
apprehension. And then I thought of other things: why would
an Irishman mangle his own accent like that, and what kind
of sloppy Slayer trained from birth gets sucked in by a
crazovamp who for all intents and purposes had one hand in
her pocket while the other one was making a peace sign?
Little by little my illusion crumbled. I tried to find a bus
into Sunnydale, but of course it's not a real place, and
didn't I look stupid, and then it turns out it's just a
bunch of "actors" with "scripts"--that's when I really took
the hit, when I figured that out. Damn it! Can nothing be
what it seems? Are we all just puppets in a big conspiracy
script, susceptible to the whimsy of writers who
occasionally knock back a few too many? Actually, that would
explain a lot.
[>
Re: Polices in S2 (spoliers for S2) -- Purple
Tulip, 13:53:38 07/15/02 Mon
You know, I've always wondered about this stuff too. I
mean, when the police are shown, they are nothing short of
clueless fools who seem to have no idea what's going on in
this town. Is that really possible? Could the police exist
there and really not know that there are vampires and demons
running aroung killing people? And when they were after
Buffy in "Becoming 2", (which I just watched the other night
and cried at the end, like I always do even though I've seen
it 10,000 times), they were all "we're gonna get you for
murder"! But that didn't last very long, as they never
followed Buffy out of town, never tracked her down, and when
she came back, it was like all was forgotten. Is that just
for the sake of the story? I don't know....but I know that
with the extreme presence of the police force, and the first
time that we have actually seen someone in prison (Jonathan
and Andrew), that they might be a more focal point next
season. And if we all remember that Buffy's aptitude test
in "What's My Line" said that she would be most suited for
law enforcement---it just makes me wonder if it's possible
that we could be looking at Officer Buffy.
[>
Re: On 2nd thought -- Sang, 14:00:02 07/15/02
Mon
I think the conflict between Buffy and Police in Becoming2
was just a filler. Joss once said, in Season 1 and 2 they
occasionaly wrote an ep too short for 45min, and should put
some fillers. My guess is that Joss's original finale was
too short. So he should write some piece quick. First two
acts of fianle was one of the worst writings of Joss, but it
got remarkably better after Buffy met Spike. And suddenly
all the polices magically disappeared! They are not
patrolling or guarding suspect's house or murder scene. And
all the charges were dropped with no reason (there was no
reason from the beginning).
About watching a show too seriously.
As a scientist who don't believe any magic at all, I enjoy a
fantasy by separating 'real' world and fantasy world. That's
the reason I never liked X-file, it always shamelessly try
to tell us this can happen in real world. Good fantasy, like
Buffy, never try to make that kind of mistake. Only if it is
a good show, I accept other things as an event in fantasy
world and don't mind much about stunt man or strange
F/X.
But I want consistancy inside the story, evenif that is a
just a fiction. Maybe that's the reason that the Becoming 2
is not my favorit season finale. Well, at least Sunnydale
polices have been consistently stupid.
[>
I think the Mayor controlled the police -- Caesar
Augustus, 00:14:06 07/16/02 Tue
There's a line in "Lovers' Walk" about the police actually
covering up Spike's murder of the shopkeeper. I think it's
fair to assume the Mayor has always controlled the police,
and given them some sort of guidelines to cover up the
demonic.
[>
Re: Polices in S2 (spoliers for S2 and for Tales of the
Slayer) -- Robert, 10:47:43 07/16/02 Tue
As Snyder told Buffy in "Becoming, part 2", the police were
"deeply stupid". This leads to the question of why they
were stupid. Mayor Wilkens is the answer. In the story
"The Glittering World" written by David Fury in the Tales of
the Slayer comic book, it is revealed that Wilkens has owned
Sunnydale since it was founded. In fact, Wilkens
deliberately founded the town on top of the hellmouth.
Presumably he deliberately created a police department to
his own specifications -- one that did his bidding without
any imaginative questions. In the season 3 episode
"Choices", it is starkly revealed how the mayor controls the
police department. The Sunnydale police were an instrument
of Wilkens' goal of ascension to full demonhood, not an
instrument of justice and protecting the public.
A disturbing thought for season 7 and a few other
things ( one teensy spoiler from end of season 6) --
Purple Tulip (The faded and wilted), 07:09:49 07/15/02
Mon
Hi all! I've been away from my comp all weekend because my
sister just had a baby on Saturday!!! So I've had a busy
few days. I'm exhausted, but I'm back at work and I've had
a few thoughts about the upcoming BtVS season, and a few
other rambles.
---First---I was thinking about Spike's soul (again, I
know), and what could possibly happen to him in season 7.
Well, this got me thinking about the whole vampire with a
soul thing, and the theme of "back to the beginning". I
posted awhile ago about how I thought that the original
roles of slayer, watcher, sidekicks and vampire with a soul
were going to be addressed, with Dawn sort of taking over
Buffy's role, Buffy assuming more of a Giles-esque role, and
Spike taking over the Angel role, though not becoming Angel.
Ok, so here's the disturbing thought: Buffy was a young
girl in love with a vampire with a soul in the beginning.
If Dawn starts to become a new Buffy figure, and Spike
becomes the recquisent vampire with a soul....see where I'm
going with this? Now, what if Dawn and Spike start to have
a thing and fall in love with each other? What if "what
Buffy deserves" is to see her little sister in love with her
fromer lover because of the way she treated Spike? We all
have been thinking that this soul could mean something good
for Buffy, but what if it's the complete opposite and not at
all what we expected? This thought gave me an icky feeling
in a major way. I am so hoping that they would NOT go this
way for a few reasons: it's wrong, it's gross, in real life
she's 16 and he's 40, and I think that would bother more
than just me, he needs to be with Buffy and no one else,
it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong.
---Ok---well last night I couldn't sleep and was flipping
through the channels when I landed on one playing Nash
Bridges. Now this is a show that I have never seen and
really had no desire of ever watching because of my severe
dislike for Don Johnson. Anyway, what made me stop was that
Emma Caulfield was a guest star on that episode, playing
Geraldo Rivera's assistent, or director or something- so
just for the sheer comedy of it all it was funny to watch.
But I always get so excited when I see BtVS people on other
shows, and I have never seen her in a non-Anya role
before.
---Also, I saw a promo for that show Witchblade (I think
it's on TNT), and that chick had the nerve to say "I think I
could give Buffy a run for her money"!!! Whatever metal-
hand---Buffy's saved the world- a lot---what have you
done??!! Anyway, this got me thinking about what female
action star could possible take on Buffy. I was thinking
that Max from Dark Angel and Sydney from Alias might be able
to hold their own. What do you all think??? I was really
curious about this and about other's opinions on it.
---Ok---that's really about it. I know my posts are severly
lacking in creative, deep, philosophical thoughts, adn I
apologize profusly for it. My brain is just tired and this
is the best that I can do for right now.
---One more thing---James Marsters is the sexiest man
alive;)
[>
Re: A disturbing thought for season 7 and a few other
things -- Earl
Allison, 09:22:14 07/15/02 Mon
In no particular order;
COMIC Witchblade could probably mop the floor with Buffy,
because of her massive amount of powers. Of course, comic
Witchblade was also dressed only slightly better than your
average porn starlet -- but what do you expect from the
Image Comics crew of years ago (when Witchblade was
started)? Yes, I have great loathing for Image comics :)
In fact, one might see great similarities between the two --
with the Witchblade selecting women over history to wield
it, and a new Slayer being chosen whenever the old one dies.
As for Yancy Butler's Witchblade -- if she used her gun, she
MIGHT take Buffy out, otherwise, to paraphrase Dark Willow,
Yancy's Witchblade would "get every square inch of her ass
kicked." That, and I abhor Ms. Butler's acting, at least
from the first few episodes of the series (when I stopped
watching even for the train-wreck thrill of seeing if the
show collapsed).
Other roles -- if Emma Caulfield's role was of interest,
she's also appearing on Beverly Hills 90210 as one of the
love interests. At least, she was this weekend -- no idea
how long her character lasted on the show. Also, Mercedes
McNab (Harmony) will be on tonight's "Walker, Texas Ranger,"
on USA Network at 9PM EST in the episode "Six Hours."
Spike/Dawn/Buffy -- I agree that the idea of pairing Dawn
and Spike would border on the lurid and disturbing, and I
doubt the writers would go there. However, I do disagree
with your contention that Spike belongs with Buffy and no
one else (big shocker, I know). IMHO, Buffy and Spike can
be friends, partners in battle, but that should be ALL. But
to say more retreads old arguments, so I'll leave it
there.
Take it and run.
[> [>
Mild spoilers for Mercedes McNab on Walker, Texas
Ranger -- LadyStarlight, 09:38:03 07/15/02 Mon
I saw the W,TR ep with MMN in it, and about halfway through
it, I though "so this is why she hasn't gotten more
roles."
IMHO, her acting was a pale imitation of Harmony on Buffy,
but without the humourous writing. I was actually rooting
for the bad guy to finish his nefarious plot.
Now, this could have been the plot of the ep, or the
writing, or other things, but I was not impressed by her
acting skills.
To borrow a phrase from Earl, take it and run.
[> [> [>
Re: Mild spoilers for Mercedes McNab on Walker, Texas
Ranger -- Purple Tulip, 10:16:54 07/15/02 Mon
In slight defense of Mercedes, that show is completely
lacking in dialogue and acting- the only thing they care
about is trying to make Chuck Norris look like he isn't
saging too much and can keep up with the young guys. I
haven't seen that show in years, so I really can't say what
it's like now. Anyway, I did see her on both Dawson's Creek
and Boston Public a few months ago, and she was actually
quite good. So do I think she could choose her roles a
little more wisely? Absolutely!
[> [> [> [>
Choosing Roles -- Dochawk, 11:05:09 07/15/02
Mon
With someone like Mercedes, or even someone like James
choosing roles is much easier said than done. As an actor
or actress in Hollywood you have vicious competition for
jobs. And you have to survive, to eat, pay your rent etc. A
speaking role on a regular series pays very well. You have
to have a significant reason NOT to do it. Poor writing is
not one of them.
Obviously this isn't as important for someone like Sarah,
but in fact she has a future to consider too. You don't
take work that goes against your morals (a role that
requires gratiutious nudity for example), but making choices
is sometimes very difficult (SMG did Harvard man for a
chance to work with James Toback, wehn she signed on did she
know the script was going to be turned into a dud?)
[>
In defense of the Witchblade quote -- Vickie,
09:35:58 07/15/02 Mon
If you see the entire ad, you will realize that she's
talking about the fight scenes and not whether her character
could "take" Buffy.
[> [>
Re: In defense of the Witchblade quote -- Purple
Tulip, 10:23:10 07/15/02 Mon
I did see the entire ad- three times actually- so I do know
what she was talking about. I have never seen the show
because I thought that it looked cheesy, although it may be
very good if that's your thing. What I meant in my above
post, was about the fight scenes, not whether she could
"take" Buffy in general. I'm a Buffy fan, so of course I
would choose her over anyone else to win in a fight. Again,
I have never seen an episode of Witchblade, only the promos,
so therefore I have no idea what kind of strength she has.
I was really just trying to make a joke, so if I offended
anyone by saying this, I'm sorry.
[> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Brian, 10:36:55 07/15/02
Mon
I enjoy Witchblade quite a bit. I like the characters, but
it's a very different show from Buffy. Sarah Pazini is
trying to figure out how to use her powers, and that is the
focus of the show. I'm not sure that the show will survive
it's 2nd season as they have not found the right format yet.
Time will tell.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Drizzt, 20:43:34 07/15/02
Mon
I have not seen the Witchblade show, however I thought the
movie was pretty good.
I talked to a comic geek about the movie; he said that the
Witchblade comic is much better than the movie.
RE Fight scenes; I think that interesting villians and plots
are much more important than the quality of fight scenes,
the Buffy show is awsome in that department. Most of the
Buffy fight scenes are cynimanatic and campy, however they
do have brutally realistic combat on BTVS once in a
while...or at least as brutal as is feasible on a PG
show.
;)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Sofdog, 07:08:53 07/16/02
Tue
Agreed. I love "Witchblade." It's a very adult show and
operates on a completely different base than other genre
shows. The editing is usually impressive, the music is
flawless and the acting is mostly pretty good. All the male
costars make it a positive drool fest.
Can't get through the summer without it.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Witchblade -- Robert, 11:03:33 07/16/02
Tue
>> "I'm not sure that the show will survive it's 2nd season
as they have not found the right format yet."
Yes, I agree that the future of Witchblade is uncertain.
They pulled an audacious stunt at the end of the first
season by having Sarah reverse time, thus nullifying
everything that had happened in the season. The second
season is telling a completely different story with the same
characters, as if the first story had never occured. All
the previous character development was also nullified. This
makes for sometimes a very uncomfortable viewing experience.
Last season Sarah's captain was a murdering crook and now,
this season, appears to be a straight up law enforcement
officer. Last season, Jay was an FBI plant, investigating
corruption. This season, he doesn't appear to be
investigating corruption and there is no indication that he
is an FBI agent and, furthermore, he himself has been
corrupted. Nothing so far has been presented to account for
these differences.
Nevertheless, I find Witchblade to be very interesting and
fun to watch, and I will continue to do so.
[>
We had to live through Spuffy--Spawn couldn't be much
worse. -- Q, 17:16:37 07/15/02 Mon
I know there will be those that will say "Dawn will be the
same age Buffy was when her and Angel became involved--what
is the difference?"
The difference I think that will cause the most ICK from the
audience is simply the medium using to tell the story. If
this was a novel or comic book, that would be a legitimate
argument. The problem is it is a tv show that uses real
actors. SMG was a young 20 something playing a teenager.
Michelle *IS* a teenager. The ick factor ISN'T Spike/Dawn
(Spawn), The ick is James/Michelle!
(The title to this post has nothing to do with the post
itself, it is just another opinion I felt I had to
express)
[> [>
Re: We had to live through Spuffy--Spawn couldn't be
much worse. -- Drizzt, 20:52:52 07/15/02 Mon
Dawn could have one or more boyfreinds that are her age on
the show, then when MT is 18 she could have a non-icky
relationship with Spike.
Spike as fellow outcast.
Spike as freind and confidant for Dawn.
Spike as Watcher/mentor for Dawn if they make a show about
her after season 7.
Spike as the lover of Dawn in season 2 of "Dawn the Bitty
Buffy Vampire Slayer"...if such a show is made MT would be
18 in season 2.
There is a different ick factor that might come up; if Spike
is portrayed as a Watcher/Father figure for Dawn it would be
like B/G...
Personally I prefer Dawn and Spike to just be buddies like
Xander/Buffy.
The S7 halloween ep had Dawn kissing an actor who was
obviously over 18;) What are the odds that a love interest
for Dawn would be played by an actor who is under 18?
[> [> [>
Re: We had to live through Spuffy--Spawn couldn't be
much worse. -- Purple Tulip, 06:18:51 07/16/02
Tue
Probably not very likely, since she's the only one on that
show who actually plays her own age. I'm a Spuffy fan, so
any thought of a Spawn thing happening is just disgusting to
me. Who knows what'll happen---and if Michelle does get her
own show after Buffy's over, then it's entirely possible
that we could see Spawn start to develop. But for me the
ick factor is still there. He should be a father-figure to
Dawn, not a lover.
[>
Maybe "Spawn" is a pov issue? -- Vickie,
11:48:48 07/16/02 Tue
I don't mean your point of view vs. mine. I mean the point
of view from which ME tells the story.
In the early seasons, we saw the Scooby gang from their own
point of view (and, rarely, from Giles'). In their own
minds, they were perfectly capable of managing their own
lives. They were teens, but considered themselves able to
live more or less on their own and make their own
choices.
Buffy, occasionally, explicitly positioned herself as a
teen. "Of course I'm immature. I'm a teen; I have yet to
mature." But generally, she considered herself independent
and capable of making her own choices.
In these later seasons, we're still seeing the gang largely
through their own eyes. And, in those eyes, the kid sister
is and forever will be a kid. Until and unless Dawn manages
a breakthrough paradigm shift for the Scoobs, she'll always
be way too young to patrol, to date (especially a vampire,
most especially Spike), or do any number of things.
Of course, she'll do them anyway. Should be an interesting
season.
Take it and shred.
[>
never mind all that other stuff--mazel tov, auntie!
@>) -- anom, 11:54:36 07/16/02 Tue
If you've ever -- buffalupagus, 12:07:29
07/15/02 Mon
If you've ever rubbed your eyes and yawned as you chuckled
your way through the discussion threads and thought how
smart it would be to sleep and then finally tried and while
you did you subconsciously wondered what subconscious
spanking your mind was getting from the spray of words it
just sifted--like "Tara" and "Willow" and "lesbian" and
"kittens" and "Buffy" and "erotic" (you added that one
yourself)--and naturally did finally sleep but only after
reciting the 144 titles of the Buffy episodes in order
because what else is there to think about and then dreamed
yourself into a camp scenario in which you were mistakenly
placed in the lesbian dorms but you're a guy so that's just
great and it turned out that Buffy and Willow were in the
same room but not Tara because she was shot by the evil
writers who don't even have hands and naturally Willow was
sad because, hey, no lover, and Buffy's like "I'm here, but
I'm not much for the girl sex stuff" but for some reason she
wasn't wearing a shirt and so you were a little embarrassed
but couldn't get past the notion that it was your obligation
to help Willow by grabbing Buffy's breasts which weren't
even real but just some squishy well-formed lovely impostors
mounted on a body harness which you promptly removed from
her and fitted on yourself and then looking down at your new
fake breasts finally at last thought "Hey, something here's
a little askew" but couldn't quite pinpoint what it was,
then man, you've got some issues.
[>
been there, man. -- GreatRewards, 13:30:19
07/15/02 Mon
[>
Re: You're Funny -- Purple Tulip, 13:39:09
07/15/02 Mon
[>
LOL! -- Rob, 14:39:12 07/15/02 Mon
[>
Sandwich Boards -- obvious child, 15:04:54
07/15/02 Mon
I've thought about walking into a church wearing a sandwich
board that reads "Buffy is Near/Xander Loves You (girls)." I
can picture the parishoners sitting stunned and indignant, I
would be very quiet, and pretty much keep to myself, only
with that big ol' sandwich board. And when they asked what I
was doing there, if there was time between the asking and
the spitting sidewalk out of my mouth I would say, "everyone
needs competition, competition is what makes America great,
isn't it?"
[>
ROTFLMAO -- VR, 15:15:45 07/15/02 Mon
[>
I have not done anything similar to that, but... --
Drizzt, 20:33:17 07/15/02 Mon
I did do something very strange and dysfunctional while
watching an ep of Season 5.
PS. LOL on your weird imagination;)
Justifying Vampires -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:53:05
07/15/02 Mon
One basis of BtVS is that human lives are sacred, while
vampires should/must be killed. What if that's backwards,
though?
The people Buffy saves from vampires aren't really being
saved. They have, at most, a few, paltry decades left until
they die. Their lives are by no means sacred, since they
will end with or without vampires. They may as well provide
sustenence for other creatures when they die rather than
rotting away later.
Meanwhile, vampires can live forever. Unless someone kills
them, they're immortal. Unlike humans, their lives mean
something because they might last until the end of the world
if it weren't for Buffy. It is this timelessness that makes
them sacred.
This means that Buffy is really the villain. She kills
vampires, which is a big no-no, to save humans, who really
don't matter except as food.
(Devil's advocate, much?)
[>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Arethusa, 05:48:48
07/16/02 Tue
Some people say that life is meaningless without death-death
gives it form (beginning, middle, end) and purpose (make the
most of your time because it is short). Most people find
their own lives very valuable, and would not enjoy existing
only to be food for others. All timeless things are not
sacred-age is not necessarily an indication of how sacred
something is. Some rocks, trees, buildings etc. are very
old, but they are not sacred unless they are worshipped for
some reason. If we worshipped longevity, we'd revere our
elderly a heck of a lot more.
So:
Humans are not meat sacks, waiting to die before they rot.
Vampires are not worshipped for their longevity. (Unless
you're Ford, and he's dead.) Therefore, Buffy is not a
villian for killing vampires.
[> [>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:01:51 07/16/02 Tue
The main point I was driving at is "why is it wrong to kill
a creature that's gonna drop pretty soon anyway". Suppose
Angel was stranded on a barren island with someone who was
only a few minutes away from death. Angel drinking his/her
blood in order to nourish himself would not be perceived as
wrong. Why not extend that some more? All humans are going
to die pretty soon by vampire standards. What's the point
of letting them live, then?
[> [> [>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Arethusa, 10:30:17
07/16/02 Tue
It's not the vampires' decision-say the humans. Whether
vampires live or die *is* Buffy's decision, but hey, nobody
said the undead life was fair.
It all comes down to one thing-do you believe human life is
valuable?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- meritaten, 12:42:26
07/16/02 Tue
I think the presence of a soul is the key. Humans have them,
vampires don't. ...and, unless I'm mistaken about the soul
in Buffyverse, the human soul IS immortal.
[> [> [> [> [>
Source, please ? -- Ete, 13:02:31 07/16/02
Tue
Where is it said in BtVS or AtS that the soul is immortal
?
[> [> [>
Changing you point! -- Robert, 10:32:44 07/16/02
Tue
>> "The main point I was driving at is "why is it wrong to
kill a creature that's gonna drop pretty soon anyway"."
NO ... THAT WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT YOUR POINT. From you
first posting;
>> "This means that Buffy is really the villain."
Your point was that Buffy was a villain for attempting to
protect her own life, the lives of those she loves, and the
lives of people in general. This is a distinctly different
point than saying that it is not wrong for a vampire to feed
on people.
Vampires do not require human blood for their existence. In
fact, they don't require any blood at all for mere existence
(according to the mythology as given by Spike in season 4).
They need blood for their health (whatever that means), but
it does not need to be human. Angel is proof of that.
Vampires merely prefer the taste of blood, especially that
of the slayer. If vampires wanted to avoid battles with
humanity, then they should have based their diet on a safer
food supply. By the same token, I have little sympathy for
people who get hurt while hunting bear.
[>
Re: Justifying Vampires -- Robert, 10:04:43
07/16/02 Tue
>> "This means that Buffy is really the villain. She kills
vampires, which is a big no-no, to save humans, who really
don't matter except as food."
I'm sure I am an idiot for responding to your obvious
baiting, but here it goes. So, are you arguing that Buffy
should bare her neck for the first vampire to come along, in
furtherance of a noble race?
Your argument appears to assume that people don't have a
right to exist. Some people actually do believe this. There
are those who advocate the extinction of humanity, for the
good of the planet. If however you assume that people do
have a right to exist and that individuals have a right to
live (ie. protect their own lives), then your argument
doesn't hold.
Let us assume that vampires have every bit as much right to
exist as people do. Who then is the villain? It is not
people who eat vampires, but vampires who eat people.
Therefore, people should be allowed to protect themselves
and to have a protector or champion.
By extension, one could argue that cattle have a right to
protect themselves from slaughter. I would agree to this.
Notice however, I never said that vampires don't have a
right to attempt to feed on people, only that people have a
right to protect themselves. The difference is that cattle
lost their war with humanity centuries ago, while the war
with vampires is still ongoing (with several near defeats).
>> "It is this timelessness that makes them sacred."
By that definition, all demons and satan himself are sacred,
which only works if you happen to worship satan. According
to the mythology of BtVS, the vampires are not people made
immortal, but are demons who have taken residence in
people's bodies.
[>
Practically speaking -- Rahael, 10:47:36
07/16/02 Tue
If Vamps were allowed to kill their food source as freely as
they do, they'd starve to death eventually.....
Would they be able to exercise restraint en masse? Or would
they start jumping up and down and talking about ludicrous
pyramid schemes? (a la 'Disharmony')
Anyway, longevity, as has been noted, by itself has no moral
connotations, so that's irrelevant as a consideration of
moral worth.
I persist in seeing Vamps as these metaphor type things, so
they are enshrouded in the mortal fear of death. If they are
frozen adolescents, then they show are their own true fear -
forever dead. Because those who cling to youth, afraid of
death, only end up spending their eternity in the arms of
death.
Buffy's just allowing them to go free!!
[> [>
"Buffy the Vampire Liberator" -- has a nice
ring to it... -- redcat, 11:03:39 07/16/02 Tue
[> [>
An interesting issue...slayer or liberator... --
shygirl, 12:14:46 07/16/02 Tue
If the human soul is "captured" and held "prisioner"
somewhere like in a "well of souls" that a demon like Lurky
has guardianship over... if the body is dusted... does that
liberate the human soul to an afterlife and "unfreeze" them?
It would make Buffy's mission a bit more meaningful than
simply ridding the world of evil vampires!
[> [> [>
Re: An interesting issue...slayer or liberator... -
- Sophist, 12:36:38 07/16/02 Tue
I suggested this in a post a couple of months ago (or maybe
it was in chat). Anyway, welcome to the club. It seems to be
a small one, so far.
[> [> [> [>
and since I read Kristen's review of S6 on Tabla
Rasa.. -- shygirl, 15:30:44 07/16/02 Tue
I really hope that this next season shows her facing up to
her own personal monsters and getting back to the heroine
she was apparently intended to be. In the few early episodes
I have seen, Buffy was a pretty cool heroine...assertive,
funny, and compassionate.
But in S6 Buffy got away with her own version of "evil
behavior" and it appears at the moment that it's scot free.
Spike may be an obvious monster, but Buffy was a monster
too. As Kristen points out in her review which is apparently
a letter she mailed to Joss and ME, because we are so
embedded in gender sterotypes, some excuse her behavior and
insist that she was not any way responsible for the "rape"
scene. I agree with Kristen and I hope ME has read her
letter and understands that putting Buffy with an evil
souless vampire may send the wrong message, but turning
Buffy into an abuser also sends the wrong message. The
being dead thing just doesn't excuse her behavior for me. I
know some on this board disagree with what I am saying about
this, but perhaps they should read Kristen's point of view
before jumping on the evil male rapist bandwagon. Kristen
appears to be a college student who sees more and more of
this type of behavior and finds it disturbing. It was an
abusive relationship... and Buffy was NOT the one being
abused in case no one noticed.
I am very glad they will be going "back" to some of the
lightness of earlier seasons, but, and it's a big but for
me... if they don't resolve some of the dark issues that
came up this year, the light will make the characters look
shallow and irrelevant. I'd like to see all of the monsters
called out and confronted... who knows, maybe a group
intervention! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: and since I read Kristen's review of S6 on Tabla
Rasa.. -- Sophist, 15:49:48 07/16/02 Tue
Kristin's letter was posted here, I believe. If it's the one
I'm remembering, I didn't agree with her.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: and since I read Kristen's review of S6 on Tabla
Rasa.. -- shygirl, 20:29:26 07/16/02 Tue
and I think your opinion appears to be the general take...
although I don't remember seeing that letter on this
board...and that's mainstream when looking at abusive
relationships... women are victims and men are the
aggressors. I used to know the the stats on the reverse
situation but I don't anymore. It's very underreported of
course, but it happens. Men are even more reluctant than
women to admit physical abuse. And that makes sense given
the dominant cultural view of male/female relationships..
But as women become more "emancipated" we seem to not only
be more comfortable with standing up for our rights, we also
seem to be quite capable of taking on what have been
traditionally considered male behaviors some of which are
very negative (have you read anything about female gangs,
it's kind of scarey)... I'm not condoning the behavior, just
pointing out that this particular relationship was turned on
end and perhaps that was deliberatly done. However,JM
certainly holds with the traditionalist view from his
comments about the scene. Personally, I have always felt
that women will never be truly emancipated until men are
too, and IMO a step in that direction is to acknowledge the
same potential in women for the behavior considered
reprensible in a man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The traditional view? -- auroramama, 20:38:13
07/16/02 Tue
I wouldn't assume JM takes the traditional view of
male/female interactions on the basis of his reaction to
Seeing Red. I thought it might just be that he found it
more disturbing to play the aggressor than the victim. That
doesn't mean he hasn't noticed that Buffy's been abusing
Spike, or that he thinks men are fair game for women in real
life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The traditional view? -- Finn Mac Cool,
22:36:32 07/16/02 Tue
Imagine how Marti Noxon must feel. She based Spike's
behavior this season on her own experiences with a "bad
boyfriend". Now she find the fans think Spike is the victim
and the good guy here.
I think it would be best to say that Buffy and Spike abused
each other.
Buffy wanted just the sex part of Spike, and none of the
vampire, evil, or murderer part. Meanwhile, Spike wanted
the sex part, but found he needed/wanted the rest of
her.
"Dead Things" was the only time Buffy physically abused
Spike, and I think there is some significance that it wasn't
a sexually related attack. The other abuse is sleeping with
Spike even though she knows that he loves her, but also
knows she could never love him. This is psychologically
damaging, and is rather uncaring of Buffy.
Meanwhile, Spike knows that Buffy is dealing with some
serious angst over her ressurection and splits with her
friends. Instead of encouraging her attempts to get her
life back on track, he tries to bring her into his "world".
This alienates her from her friends and Dawn. He also
sleeps with her when he knows that she is needy, and will
probably regret it later.
I don't think the rape was out of character. Ever since
Once More With Feeling the delusion that Buffy is secretly
in love with him has been the crutch that's kept him up. In
Seeing Red, Buffy admits she has feelings for him, but that
they are not, and will never be, love. Buffy's frankness
and honesty finally gets through to him here. Spike
realizes that Buffy really can't love him. But, not being
able to deal with the truth, he turns back to his delusion.
In order to blot out the truth, the delusion becomes bigger
until Spike is convinced that all he has to do is have sex
with Buffy and she'll show love to him.
Add the fact that Spike has trouble distinguishing violence
and sex (a notion that is confirmed in his relationship with
Buffy, witness "Smashed" and "Dead Things") and was probably
at least a little drunk in the bathroom scene, and you have
an in character rape.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The traditional view? -- Finn Mac Cool,
22:42:46 07/16/02 Tue
Ooh, forgot to add that Buffy isn't traditionally seen as an
abuser because it is yet to be determined if vampires, even
harmless ones, have any rights. The issue would take on
different tones if Spike were human.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: bathroom scene -- Brian, 02:17:01 07/17/02
Wed
Having just rewatched the last 5 episodes of Buffy, I would
have to restate that the bathroom scene is not about rape.
Rape is about power, dominance, and ego; it's not about sex.
Spike desperately wants Buffy to love him. He tries one last
time to reach Buffy, but she once again rejects him. This
time he realizes that he has hurt her (something he said he
would never do, and Spike is a man of his word), and he is
horrified by what he has done. Back in his crypt he realizes
that he is neither a monster or a man, and he needs to be
one or the other. His quest to Africa is his search for
resolution.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good Lord -- Rahael, 02:24:05 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Rape and PC Sensibilities. -- Darby, 06:23:54
07/17/02 Wed
When did everybody get together and agree that rape is
never about sex? That is one of the most pervasive
myths of our culture. What you're saying is, if Spike had
succeeded in forcing himself on Buffy, thinking that's what
she wanted/needed, because it was about sex it
wouldn't be rape?
I am in no way saying that rape is not about power, or
violence, or any of the horrible things it can be
about, but when do we throw away any pretense toward
critical thinking and agree on these absolutes that are
merely political and ridiculous if given half a thought?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Rape and PC Sensibilities. -- Brian,
07:35:24 07/17/02 Wed
I based my opinion on what I saw in the bathroom scene. I
saw a wounded man trying to communicate with someone that he
loved deeply. In his despair, he made a mistake and tried to
use force to express his love. To me, that is not rape. He
quickly realized his mistake, that he had betrayed his own
beliefs, and that drove him to reconsider who and what he
really was.
The concept of rape being about power not sex is what I have
gathered from reading various reports and articles, and what
I hear psychologists talking about on TV shows.
So I would still say that rape is never about sex.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and PC Sensibilities. -- Arethusa,
07:56:24 07/17/02 Wed
You can't totally divorce the act from its motivations.
Since rape is (broadly) forceable sex, rape is *also* about
sex, virtually by definition. You saw a wounded vampire
trying to communicate with someone he is incapable of loving
(according to Darla and Angel) trying to use forced sex to
get a girl to (falsely) admit she loves him.
Let's just face it-ME (*cough Marti Noxon cough*) screwed
up. They gave us an interesting villian, made him too
sympathetic and likable because he was popular, and then had
to backtrack to force the events to lead to his actions at
the season's end-just like with Willow. Her actions were
manipulated to make her go bad. We can tie ourselves into
knots trying to justify it, we can stop weatching BtVS, or
we can shrug and wait for Sept. 24, hoping ME clears the
mess up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Agree and regarding rape -- shadowkat, 09:03:50
07/17/02 Wed
Agree with you, Areuthsa, except on evil Willow - I actually
saw that as working until they went overboard with the real
world drug metaphor. ME's mistake?? Trying to make the real
world metaphors too obvious. Also for some bizarre reason
they didn't seem to know that "drug abuse" and "fatal
attraction" story lines have already been done too death. We
were all hoping they'd give us a new twist on this time
honored cliche.Up until Seeing Red, I was convinced they
would. They didn't. Dang. But they did make them more
interesting then the stories I'd seen in the past.
So I forgave them. And there was groundbreaking writing...in
places.
"You can't totally divorce the act from its motivations.
Since rape is (broadly) forceable sex, rape is *also* about
sex, virtually by definition. You saw a wounded vampire
trying to communicate with someone he is incapable of loving
(according to Darla and Angel) trying to use forced sex to
get a girl to (falsely) admit she loves him. "
Agree here as well. SR is very complex. But rape legally
means sexual penetration. Attempted rape? Forcing someone
into having sex with you against their will. Forcing
yourself on them. Re-watch the scene again if you can,
Brian, Aresutha & Rah are right -
Spike grabbed Buffy, knocked her on the ground, and kept
after her even though she repeatedly screamed no, tearfully
did. He only stopped b/c she kicked him across the room.
He was horribly shocked by his actions as were we.
Completely and utterly upset. He looked as upset as she
was.
That, however, does NOT excuse his actions. Any more than
beating Spike to a pulp in Dead Things and then looking
horrified and upset excused Buffy's. Couldn't watch either
scene without flinching. Find Deknight's ability to get
across the complexity in both amazing, as both a viewer and
a writer. Yes - it was attempted rape both legally and
figuratively. I wish it wasn't. I would have preferred that
he try to bite her as Spike Lover suggested, but ME wanted
to drop the metaphors and go "real" this year. That
said...
I find it a little hard to go real when it's still a
"VAMPIRE" and a "SLAYER". Now as Areustha put it so well -
Let's move on. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Oh about intent...here's where the debate continues
-- shadowkat, 10:11:43 07/17/02 Wed
(Can everyone tell I'm bored at work today??)
Wanted to qualify the above post with a qualificat
Sophist
made in another thread - legally it is only attempted rape
if there is intent.
Here is where everyone differs. Some are convinced Spike
intended to rape buffy. Some aren't.
Me? On the fence on this one. Part of him never wanted to
hurt her - the William part, part did - the Spike part. He
intended to recreate that violent sex scene in Smashed. He's
a demon, remember. To Spike - sex and violence go hand in
hand. He was taught this by Angelus and Drusilla and Darla.
Angel does it with Darla and yes in that scene there is a
feeling of intended rape - it's in Epiphany. He doesn't have
a soul. OTOH - I think the Spike/demon honestly wanted to
hurt her, to make her suffer like he is.
He even confesses to this conflict in the next scene.
"What have I done? Why didn't I do it? What has she done to
me?"
Good questions. Part of him wanted to. Part didn't. They
are in conflict. Whether the soul will solve the conflict or
not, remains to be seen. It didn't resolve it completely for
Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh about intent...here's where the debate
continues -- J, 13:11:48 07/17/02 Wed
Well, I'm a lawyer too, and that qualification that Sophist
made is a bit muddier than what you're describing here.
'Intent' in the criminal law is distiguished from 'motive'--
for criminal liability purposes, Spike 'intended' to rape
Buffy if it was his specific intention to cause the result
of having sex with Buffy irrespective of her consent. While
I agree that he never wanted to hurt her, that doesn't mean
that he didn't 'intend' to rape her as that term is
generally defined in the criminal law.
- J
p.s. A couple of qualifications of my own:
(1) I have used the Ohio law definition of 'purpose' when
discussing 'intent'; Ohio law defines the two identically,
and Ohio follows the model penal code approach regarding
culpable mental states.
(2)I actually don't think referencing the criminal law is
all that edifying when we're talking about the complexity of
human interaction. The criminal law isn't designed to
punish or even uncover motives--it's designed to stop or
alter certain behaviors. As a result, courts tend to shy
away from trying to understand why people act they way they
do in difficult circumstances, in favor of just examining
the conduct itself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
California law -- Sophist, 13:33:52 07/17/02
Wed
I made a long post in response to redcat in the Xander
thread above (how the hell did we get from X/A to attempted
rape in that thread anyway?). I'd be curious about your
reaction. Here's where I think we may be differing:
irrespective of her consent.
I would say without her consent. As I interpret CA
law, Spike must have known she was not
consenting, not just been indifferent to her consent. That's
where the problem comes in (IMHO).
The criminal law isn't designed to punish or even uncover
motives--it's designed to stop or alter certain behaviors.
As a result, courts tend to shy away from trying to
understand why people act they way they do in difficult
circumstances, in favor of just examining the conduct
itself.
Yes, up to a point. What we do, as I see it, is infer
mental states from conduct because we rarely have direct
access to a person's mindset. But that means we have to look
at all the conduct that may be relevant. In the case of SR,
and in a real life case also, the entire relationship
between the both perpetrator and victim is relevant. It's
that history which muddied the waters, IMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: California law (mostly OT) -- J, 15:20:23
07/17/02 Wed
I would say without her consent.
Actually, I agree . . . I think I should have used 'without'
even in my discussion.
Moreover, the I agree with the 'infer' aspect of your
comments . . . to a point. Rape shield laws enacted in some
states have rendered 'the entire relationship' between an
aggressor and a victim irrelevant to the question of whether
consent was given or not. In Ohio, the history between the
parties is still relevant to that question.
Watching SR, I think there's sufficient evidence (even in
light of the history between Buffy & Spike) for a reasonable
juror to conclude that Spike acted with purpose to have sex
Buffy and that he had knowledge of her lack of consent. As
I understand it, your argument is that Spike may not have
known that Buffy wasn't consenting based upon their past
history of rough sex. I just don't see that as a feasible
reading of the text, particularly in light of Spike's "I'll-
make-you-feel-it" dialogue.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and Power -- redcat, 09:42:31 07/17/02
Wed
Brian,
Like most of your responders, I strongly disagree with your
interpretation of what happened in the infamous
“bathroom
scene.” Like some here, my reaction to your stance comes
from personal experience. In my case, and in
combination
with other factors, that experience eventually led to more
than a dozen years of academic feminist research, writing
and
teaching, the bulk of it on the issues of sex, gender and
violence against women in all its forms, and literally
thousands
(perhaps tens of thousands, I’ve lost count) of hours spent
working in women’s centers, rape crisis centers, on rape
hotlines and in battered women’s and children’s shelters. I
am not some TV psychologist, but neither am I some scary
“femi-nazi” from patriarchy’s worst nightmare. What I am
is someone who has personal, intellectual and community-
activist experiences on which to base my understanding of
the links between sex, gender and power as those links
are
worked out between women and men during situations of
sexualized violence and violent sex.
Therefore, I agree with Rahael when she argues, “Rape is a
crime of power because it infringes the human dignity
and
personal consent of the human being who is attacked.” As
Arethusa notes, “Since rape is (broadly) forceable sex,
rape
is *also* about sex, virtually by definition.” As these
statements confirm, rape is an act of domination by one
person
over another person enacted, usually violently, through sex,
and is therefore intimately and absolutely *about* sex.
However, it seems that you are working from a definition of
rape that excludes sex or love as either primary
motivators
or goals. As I understand your posts (and I’m trying to be
very clear here and not mis-interpret you), you’re
arguing
that because Spike loved Buffy and primarily wanted Buffy to
admit love for him, what he did in the bathroom when he
tried to force his penis inside Buffy’s body as he held her
on the floor, and as she struggled against him and begged
him
to stop, was not rape because what he really wanted was love
expressed through sex, rather than power or dominance
over her, and that his actions came from his desire for love
rather than from his ego. Well, working only within
your
definition of rape, with which I disagree but which I’m
willing to accept is your own personal framework for
interpreting
the scene, my question to you is this: How does Spike’s
“us[ing] force to express his love” (your phrase) NOT
constitute rape even within your definition? Spike was
using his physical (and emotional, I might add) power to
attempt
to dominate someone else and to force them to do what his
own ego wanted them to do. The use of a specific type
of
force, sexual force, linked to a particular type of
violence, sexualized violence, in an act intended to
dominate another is,
ipso facto and within your own (very limited) definition,
absolutely RAPE.
I’d like to add that it has become quite commonplace in our
society for feminist research into issues of rape, as well
as
sex and gender, to become twisted into apologies or
“explanations” for men’s bad behavior. This seems to occur
most
readily when only the surface of that research gets skimmed
and the hard, time-consuming work of understanding the
culturally-revolutionary potential of that research is
elided. Such is the usual tactic of TV psychologists and
celebrity
pseudo-feminists. However, once one does take the time to
actually do that hard work, and the deep personal
interrogations of one’s own conceptions about the links
between sex and power in one’s own life that often come
from
it, amazing insights are possible. Feminist researcher and
leader in the “men’s liberation movement” John
Stoltenberg
once argued that one of the hardest things for both men and
women in our culture to understand is the way in which,
in
patriarchal cultures, violence, dominance, force and power
MUST BE MADE TO LOOK LIKE sex and love in order
for much of the social inequality of our system to continue.
The notion that “if rape is about power, it cannot also
be
about sex” is grounded in the same putative separation of
them that has been a necessary aspect, for literally two and
a
half millennia, of patriarchal social structures world-wide.
I neither condemn nor excoriate you, Brian, for your
interpretation of the scene. But I do urge you to think
more
carefully, critically and thoroughly about what you saw and
what you make of it. The terms of your own argument
defeat your case.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Thanks for the detail... I was afraid to really go that
deep -- shygirl, 11:40:20 07/17/02 Wed
I agree with your analysis, and I almost made a comment
about penetration and the use of sexual force as a display
of power, but didn't want to get bogged down in an
explanation that I couldn't have done nearly as well as you
have. I particularly like your reference to John Stoltenberg
(recommend something to me). I look around our culture and I
see not just women needing liberated, but men as well... and
the institutions, customs, and to a certain extent the legal
system staunchly maintain the status quo. Because of this,
it is often very difficult, unless you've been there
personally and finally recongnized your own "brainwashing"
to really understand how the culture uses "sex" as a tool of
control.
I should have said that my counseling training did not focus
on rape counseling which from my understanding is a
different kind of counseling. And, I should say, I've not
worked officially as a counselor for a number of years now
either. Burn-out is a *B* and listening to the horrible
things people do to each other and the resulting pain is not
easy to hear.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks for the detail... I was afraid to really go
that deep -- redcat, 12:01:24 07/17/02 Wed
My paraphrase of John Stoltenberg's work is from his
_Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice_, New
York: Meridian Books, 1990. Also interesting and widely
reprinted is his 1990 keynote speech from the 15th National
Conference on Men and Masculinity, entitled "A coupla things
I've been meaning to say about really confronting male
power...."
Just to put him into perspective, he's also a nationally-
famous anti-pornography crusader and was therefore a major
and quite controversial player in one of the major conflicts
among feminists of the 1990s, the anti-pornography v. free
speech debates; is a task force chair for the National
Organization of Men Against Sexism in NYC; and is a major
"queer theorist" among gay political activists. Despite the
controversy around his political activism, his research on
rape and the ideological links between rape and homophobia
is excellent, among the best in the field.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for the references... it will help bring me up
to date! -- shygirl, 15:09:27 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Yeap, 'cause sex is /never/ about power. Right. --
cynical Ete, 10:29:47 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Rape and sex -- Rahael, 08:00:53 07/17/02
Wed
I think (mho) there is a misunderstanding here.
When rape was once considered a sexual act, it contained
these ramifications - that it is just something on the
spectrum of sexual encounters between men and women. That
the woman may have been giving out sexual signals. She may
have been wearing the wrong kind of clothing. She was
wearing make up. She dared to venture out of the house. If a
man fancied a woman, and tried it on, well, that was just
sex, wasn't it?
Rape is a crime of power because it infringes the human
dignity and personal consent of the human being who is
attacked. It is the expression of a human being who at the
bottom, cannot respect the human being who he/she claims to
love (yes, women can rape too).
Saying that Spike was in love with Buffy and that therefore
excuses what happens is to blatantly ignore the fact that he
tried force her to give something she did not want to; that
he infringed upon her rights. (I am trying to be unemotive
and as detached about this as possible. The actual
experience of course, is hard to describe). That is to
ignore the fact that Spike was expressing his strength and
his dominion over a woman in the name of love.
Most of my impersonal experience of sexual assault was the
act of blatant aggression, that of soldiers upon civilian
women. But my personal experience did not have those
overtones. Nevertheless, its lasting effect was the denial
of my human dignity, and all I remember is my terror and
fright. So yes, the bottom line - my powerlessness was the
lasting impression I was left with.
I am no expert however - I have not studied the politics of
rape at any length. This is just gut feeling talking.
I feel scared that people can think that because someone
loves you and is feeling bad, they can do that to you.
God preserve any human from being the recipient of such
love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and sex -- Arethusa, 08:45:39 07/17/02
Wed
Let's step back for a second and look at the big picture.
This is what humans are. This is what they do. The normal
state of humanity isn't a search for enlightenment-it's
beer, cigarettes and sex (insert gratification here). We
are animals-sentient animals, but animals all the same. We
can't accept that, so we try to find logical reasons for our
behavior. Some people try to move beyond the animal, but
most don't.
I could, of course, be wrong. I often am. But after 39
years of thinking about the hidden nature of humanity, I've
come to believe that the only way we can conquer "evil" in
this world is to admit it is a fundamental part of human
nature and drag it kicking and screaming into the light.
(Start satire font) I think I've found the secret to the
universe. Why are we here? Because our parents had sex.
What is the meaning of life? Meaning is an artificial
construct. Are people good or evil? Morality is an
artificial contstruct. What happens afer we die? The same
thing that happens to other animals. Is there a god(s)?
Divinity is an aritficial construct. (End satire font.)
Take it and shred it to peices. Please. I'm not kidding.
(much)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Spike's situation -- Brian, 09:18:54
07/17/02 Wed
I certainly agree that what Spike did was wrong, very wrong,
and he quickly realized how wrong he had been. But I can't
call it attempted rape, even if the writers said they wrote
it to be one. Perhaps it is due to the acting talents of JM,
and perhaps it is more due to bad script writing, just
another example of "forced" writing that seem to twist the
characters into a plot device.
From the other scenes after the bathroom event, it appears
that Buffy didn't call it rape either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Mistreating the deceased equine -- Arethusa,
09:24:30 07/17/02 Wed
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, God says it's a
duck, it's probably a duck. You just don't want to believe
it, which is to your credit.
And I hereby make a public vow to never discuss the AR
again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree with you, and take the pledge -- Brian,
09:34:00 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Artificial just means "created by
humans". -- auroramama, 15:02:52 07/17/02
Wed
I tend to agree with you (agnostic here) but I'm willing to
go with Angel on this: meaning (and by implication morality
and perhaps divinity) is what we're here to create.
"Artificial" includes both good creations and bad. Would
humanity really benefit from discovering a natural
outcropping of meaning, a crater lake full of morality, or a
definition of divinity printed across a rainbow? Even if
these things were somehow incontrovertible to all humans, I
still think I'd be more scared than inspired. After all,
what if the next rock affirmed a moral law that we didn't
agree with? What would we do?
If we choose to assume that the nonsentient universe is
morally neutral, that if we want goodness to exist we have
to generate it ourselves, that we're all we've got, maybe we
can get cracking.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Rape ain't sex.....and I say this because... --
shygirl, 11:12:12 07/17/02 Wed
I was trained as a counselor and I can assure you that all
of the literature on the subject I was required to read
indicated that rape is NOT about sex.. it's about power and
dominance and the rapist is often someone who has
significant self-esteem issues.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape ain't sex.....and I say this because... --
Arethusa, 11:26:34 07/17/02 Wed
Then why do men rape those over whom they already have power
and dominance? Like children.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Why does a dog take a daily whiz all over his
territory? -- shygirl, 11:44:42 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- Arethusa, 11:54:38 07/17/02 Wed
There are many ways to claim dominance-controlling someone's
actions, physical beatings, verbal abuse, mental
manipulations, etc. A personal can do all of the above, and
sometimes does. But to make a sexual attack-that's adding a
new dimension, something that is not solely expressing
dominance. The act of rape satisfies something specific in
a person that must-must-be related to sexual satisfaction.
I can't explain it, but it's there-otherwise, why rape?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- shygirl, 14:27:38 07/17/02 Wed
When I studied counseling, it was at the beginning of the
modern (read 60's-70's) feminist movement. The challenge
then was to get the definition of rape OUT of the realm of
sex. Back then, it was considered a bad thing, but the woman
was most often blamed for what happened to her. We worked
very hard to get the "establishment" to understand that it
was an act of violence based on a need for power and
dominance by a man who basically felt powerless,hated women,
and made them victims because they were the "weaker sex." I
am simplifying the argument of course, but that's pretty
much where we were then... I hate to see sexual satisfaction
put back on the table for fear of what that will mean for my
little granddaughters when they become young women. Of
course, each generation must find it's own way and define
it's own experience. But it makes me a little sick to my
stomach to hear a woman express the opinion. Having said
that, you have to believe what you have to believe and I
respect your right to that opinion. It's a complex issue and
every conversation about it holds the potential to add to
our personal understanding of ourselves and how we relate to
our lives and the world at large. Sophist gave me an insight
on the subject today that has apparently been nagging me for
a very long time. It was a deeply appreciated gift.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- Arethusa, 15:00:42 07/17/02 Wed
You should fear for your little granddaughters right now.
CNN is filled with accounts of little girls raped and
murdered. Was this done just so the men could express their
dominance over 5-year-olds? Back in the seventies, families
put into incest counseling sat in a group meeting to feel
the pain of the perps, then everyone had a big group hug.
And no, I am not kidding. It was following the studies of
the time on how to deal with the problem. Of course, the
therapists didn't exactly know what they were doing then,
and nobody does now either. I just want everything out in
the open, so the situation is finally dealt with correctly.
That can't happen when we refuse to examine every aspect of
the problem, especially the nasty bits.
I don't mean this to be a personal attack, and I'm sorry I
made you sick to your stomach. I'll stop writing about this
now. This isn't really the place to do that, anyway.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why? -- redcat, 15:56:23 07/17/02 Wed
shygirl,
First, I’d like to say that your name confuses me a bit
since, from your posts, I take it that you are not a girl
and you
certainly are not shy. But I do think you are always quite
sincere in your responses to other people’s posts.
However, I’ve been reading (and contributing some) to this
and a few of the other sub-threads currently on the
board
about issues of rape, intent, the law, contemporary history
and society, and the now-infamous bathroom scene in SR.
I’m quite puzzled by your response to Arethusa, above. In
my reading of what she says, she neither condones rape
as
merely an act of sexual satisfaction, nor dismisses the
interpretation that rape is primarily an act of domination
and
power. I read her as making some important and necessary
corrections to the early feminist interpretations that
you
write of, by arguing that rape is a *sexual* crime that is
both distinct from (because of its sexual aspects) AND
related
to other types of crimes of domination and abuse. I do not
know if it was your intent (reference intended) to mis-
understand her, although I suspect that you did not intend
to silence her on this issue, as you apparently have done.
But
may I suggest that a more objective, careful and nuanced
reading of Arethusa’s posts in just this sub-thread,
sustained by
reading her posts in other related sub-threads, would have
led you to realize that your accusation of her – “But it
makes
me a little sick to my stomach to hear a woman express the
opinion” – is based more on your mis-reading of her than
on
her own stated opinions.
Personally, I think you owe her an apology.
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Yeah, well, when you've been on the receiving end -
- Someone who doesn't know this from books!!, 11:42:57
07/17/02 Wed
of all that power and dominance being forcibly shoved up
into one of your sexual organs over and over and over while
you're being forcibly held down, it sure does FEEL like sex
-- just not like love. Are you sure you're not confusing
the two?
And since when does saying that rape is a crime of power and
dominance equal the same thing as saying that it's not also
a crime of sex?????
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Yeah, well, when you've been on the receiving
end -- shygirl, 11:46:05 07/17/02 Wed
I have been there and it didn't feel like sex at all... you
shouldn't assume.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Rape and accepted definitions -- Darby,
12:33:45 07/17/02 Wed
The reason I started this with the "PC" label is exactly
underlined by shygirl's remark - the current literature
virtually ignores the sex aspect of rape, which to me blinds
them to a critical aspect of it. Sexual assault is not
equivalent to any other type of brutal assault, but to
remove sex as a factor puts it there.
The primary motivator is what I generally call "The Pendulum
Effect," although I'm sure that I haven't coined that - when
a concept has been swung to an unreasonable extreme, the act
of "righting" it has a tendency to swing it out almost as
far (or farther - this is human behavior, not physics) to
the other side. Since for years it was perceived that the
culture regarded rape with too much of a "men will be men,
it's just about sex" attitude, so much insistence was made
on looking at the non-sexual aspects of it (and they are
there, I would never deny that) that somehow the generally-
accepted concept became that rape wasn't really ever about
sex at all, which is just as skewed an attitude as saying
it's only about sex. And, as we can see anecdotally
in this very thread, it is a continuum of both. Kind of
like Ete pointed out from a slightly different
direction.
I'd put Spike's act on the "it's about sex as an indicator
of feeling, pushed forcefully as part of a prevailing
pattern" end of the continuum - it is so close to fitting
the B/S established foreplay that many of us treat it as
only "sort of" attempted rape. Very far removed from the
metaphorical rape perpetrated by vampires on the show over
and over, which even then has aspects of sexual-type
satisfaction in the perpetrators as a prime motivator.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Just a general comment -- Caesar
Augustus, 21:35:18 07/17/02 Wed
I'm certainly no expert, but it would seem to me every rape
is different. Different rapists have different motives - for
some it's certainly about power - for some about owning
property - for some it is about the sex. Likewise, different
victims would react and interpret the events in different
ways. I think it's fairest to analyse a particular rape,
e.g. the Spike incident, as an isolated incident with its
own motivating factors, rather than assuming things about it
from other incidents.
[> [> [> [>
p.s. I think you posted the idea on this board... -
- shygirl, 15:46:41 07/16/02 Tue
because I didn't do chat, but have read past messages... and
I like the idea very much. No one should be condemned to be
a killer, even in a good cause... of course we need a
definition of what that good cause really is! ;-)
[> [> [>
well, dracula seemed to think so! -- anom,
14:21:55 07/16/02 Tue
"... if the body is dusted... does that liberate the human
soul to an afterlife and 'unfreeze' them?"
Dracula as played by Bela Lugosi in the original movie, that
is. "To be truly dead...it must be...glorious!" It's been
too long since I read the book--anyone know if that line is
in it?
[>
Holes in Logic -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:10:51
07/16/02 Tue
I know that my logic has holes in it. That's what happens
when you try use a viewpoint that justifies the murder of
human beings.
However, I would like to see this point brought up on Buffy.
Religions have been founded under less logic, so we might
see a new, slightly less dorky vampire-worshipping cult.
[> [>
Re: Holes in Logic -- Robert, 14:57:05 07/16/02
Tue
>>> "... so we might see a new, slightly less dorky vampire-
worshipping cult."
What vampire-worshipping cult are your speaking of?
[> [> [>
The cult from "Lie to Me" of course. --
Forsaken, 21:23:52 07/16/02 Tue
[>
This may sound crazy ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 18:05:51 07/16/02 Tue
but I think it's a moral issue .... not a length-of-life
issue. Y'know what with vampires bein' evil 'n all.
[> [>
Re: This may sound crazy ... -- Finn Mac Cool,
22:50:46 07/16/02 Tue
When saying vampires are evil, you are doing so based on a
certain definition of right and wrong. Numerous views on
good and evil exist. And some of them paint vampires as the
good guys.
You must consider, if a creature is going to die sooner or
later, what difference does it make if it is sooner? And,
if it happening sooner helps someone, namely a vampire, why
shouldn't it happen?
Of course, all of us, being humans, are probably gonna
disagree with this. I do, too. But still, there is some
logic to it.
[> [> [>
Re: This may sound crazy ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 01:05:14 07/17/02 Wed
To be picky, the PtB created the slayer, so it's really
based on their sense of morality, but your point is well
taken. There's no objective way to say that human morality
is the "right" morality but vampire morality is wrong. We,
as humans, do kind of have vested interests.
[> [> [> [>
to be REALLY picky... -- tim, 06:17:54 07/17/02
Wed
If we take Fray to be part of the canon, then the
ancient shamans who became the Watcher's Council created the
Slayer, not the PtB. Which really takes things more back to
Rob's point about us having a right to defend ourselves.
--th
An odd spoiler for next season -- Alvin,
05:23:27 07/16/02 Tue
The post below about the Annointed one got me wondering
what, if anything, the kid who played him has been doing so
I went the Internet Movie Data Base and was shocked to see
that Tim Curry is listed in the credits as Uther, The First
Vampire(2002-????) ! (I guess the first vampire would fit
in with the theme of Back to the Beginning) Anyway, I
usually check out the spoiler boards, but I hadn't seen
anything about Tim Curry before. How reliable is the IMDB
and where do they get their info?
[>
imdb can be unreliable -- Rahael, 05:33:15
07/16/02 Tue
It's information comes from people who write in, as I
understand it. There have been numerous mistaken casting
reports re Buffy on there.
You might want to check out www.spoilerslayer.com
[>
And consider... -- Darby, 05:53:33 07/16/02
Tue
Tim Curry is committed (and maybe should be for it) to
Family Affair. Although I'm figuring five eps tops
before it gets axed, I'm sure the producers have him
contracted through this season and beyond.
Curry does have the talents to be a good Buffy
villain, though. And if Giles was around, we could have the
Battle of the Frankenfurters! Maybe David Arquette could be
worked in as well. That's something UPN would promote the
hell out of! Make some sort of WWE theme
week...Star Trek has used wrestlers before, why not
tranvestite wrestlers?
[> [>
Curry is brilliant but -- Arethusa, 06:00:52
07/16/02 Tue
thanks to his many campy roles, he might not be a good
choice as villian. I'd love to see him as a Watcher,
though.
I grew up watching the original "Family Affair." My sister
had a Mrs. Beasley doll. I give it three weeks.
[> [> [>
Re: Funny Curry Movie -- Purple Tulip, 06:22:36
07/16/02 Tue
Tim Curry cracks me up--- I agree with you that he would
make a great watcher- I could deffinately see that. If you
want to role on the floor laughing, watch The Worst Witch
with Curry and Faruza Balk. It's hystericaly funny and sooo
bad---my friends at school and I watch it whenever we want a
good laugh.
[> [>
Re: And consider... -- CW, 07:02:08 07/16/02
Tue
Way O/T. Wasn't the name of the younger girl in the
original Family Affair, Buffy?
[>
Re: An odd spoiler for next season -- Arethusa,
06:54:37 07/16/02 Tue
I just read in our local paper (their motto: We're the only
paper in town, so you have to read us!) that Tim Curry has
guest starred in BtVs. Somebody did a google search instead
of doing his homework-tsk, tsk.
More on artistic responsibility. (Spoilers for
American Gods, sort of) -- Darby, 08:36:41 07/16/02
Tue
My motto: anything worth beating to death with a stick is
worth beating for at least a week. Hell, it's still
wiggling, let's take a shot.
Anyway, my wife is reading American Gods and
mentioned that it gets quite raw in places, not for prurient
reasons but enough that she doesn't really believe it
appropriate for anyone but adults - too much stuff that
would present a very distorted view of adult sexuality for
someone with no or limited experience. She understands why
the passages are there but, since our son would really like
the rest of the book, wishes they weren't. It's an adult
novel, Neil Gaiman certainly had a right to include adult
themes.
To the point. Say there is a Buffy movie, and the
story Joss finds he wants to tell - after all, the Scoobies
are still largely adults now - is much more explicit than
what has been allowed on television. Given for this
discussion that the cast and studio is willing, is it
reasonable for Joss to go ahead and create his hard-R
version of the Buffyverse, and younger fans be damned?
[>
Re: More on artistic responsibility. -- Robert,
09:21:14 07/16/02 Tue
>> "... is it reasonable for Joss to go ahead and create his
hard-R version of the Buffyverse, and younger fans be
damned?"
This question has a much greater scope than just Mr. Whedon
and BtVS. Some individuals (such as Roger Ebert) have argued
for years that artists should be allowed to create movies
which tells adult stories and exclude children (under age
18) from viewing them. Ebert specifically has lobbied for an
adult movie rating which is not tainted by pornography. The
X rating became so tainted because the MPAA never protected
it (with trademark or copyright) as they had done for G, PG,
PG-13, and R. Consequently, the pornographers were allowed
to use the X rating in any way they chose in furtherance of
their dubious artform.
Contrast this with the opinion of some that there should be
nothing on the TV or movie screen which in not suitable for
children. My parents hold this opinion, though I do not.
Neither of these two extremes addresses your question of
whether Mr. Whedon can reasonably create an R rated Buffy
movie. There seems to be two parts to your question. First,
is it reasonable to make a Buffy movie which excludes the
teenagers, who make up the core of the viewership on the UPN
show? Second, if Mr. Whedon did create a R movie, should he
bear the responsibiliy for all the children who snuck in and
saw the movie anyway?
The first question addresses both the marketing of such a
movie and the responsibility Mr. Whedon may, or may not,
hold toward specific demongraphics of the viewing public.
The second question is an indication of how screwed up the
whole movie industry, and this country in general, is. If
this country is serious about preventing children from
seeing R rated films, then maybe we shouldn't let children
see R rated films. As it stands, there is nothing to stop a
determined child from seeing such a film, and our society in
general doesn't have a problem with that.
Having said this, is it fair to blame the writer or producer
of an R rated film, when a child sees the film in the
theater or on DVD? I would like to suggest that either
everyone is to blame, or that it isn't such an important
issue after all. My personal belief is that by the time a
child is 14, he or she should be making their own reasonably
informed decisions about what movies they view.
The conclusion is that I believe that it is quite reasonable
for Mr. Whedon to make a R rated Buffy movie and I believe
that parents should take their teenage children to see it
(assuming that it is any good) and then discuss what they
saw afterwards. If the movie is truly a work of art, then
the gore, violence and sex will not be gratuitous.
[> [>
Good Question... here's the answer you don't want to
hear -- neaux, 10:56:29 07/16/02 Tue
I guess I'll answer your question with another question.
Dont ya hate that!!
Have you ever seen a television to Big Screen translation
get higher than a PG-13?
(although I just heard today they are thinking of making a
Big Screen version of The Sapranos which would definately
get an R.
[> [> [>
Re: Good Question -- Robert, 11:19:34 07/16/02
Tue
>> "Have you ever seen a television to Big Screen
translation get higher than a PG-13?"
I don't know why you think I wouldn't want to hear a
question in answer to my question. It is quite an effective
way to lob the ball back into my court.
In answer to your question, no I haven't seen any movie
versions of TV shows go any higher than PG-13. I can see
likely reasons for this. It is a marketing decision in an
effort to garner the greatest revenue. In the same vain,
most of the tv shows which have been selected for adaptation
have been child or teenage oriented to start with.
I tend to agree with your implication that a BtVS movie
would also likely be PG-13. Again, it would be for
marketing reasons, instead of some moral imperative. If Joss
Whedon could finance the film with his own resources, then
he could make it any way he chose, though he would still
have to find distribution. But, as long as it is somebody
else's money, then such decisions will also belong to
somebody else.
[> [> [> [>
Yeah.. I totally agree.. and do wish so. -- neaux,
11:52:50 07/16/02 Tue
Yeah... I'm sure everyone would rush to see an "R" rated
Buffy. I know I would at least.
But when it comes to alienating fans... the younger crowd
would get left out in the cold, and like you said, there is
the money issue as well. The movie companies need their
dollars... and ad tie ins work better with PG-13 and lower
titles.
in fact, has there ever been a rated R movie tie in with a
fast food chain?
[> [> [> [> [>
If there's gotta be ad tie-ins... -- Dariel,
17:59:20 07/16/02 Tue
I think I'd rather skip the whole thing!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Then you can skip Minority Report, too. Ugh! --
Can I be Anne?, 08:53:27 07/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Re: Good Question -- cjc36, 07:49:14 07/17/02
Wed
And in this imaginary R-rated BtVS movie: Not only does Joss
have to keep the studio/distributor/theater chains happy, he
has to keep his stars happy, too. Say SMG wants this, and JM
wants that, and AH threatens to walk, and ASH doesn’t' care,
but his new bossy agent does, etc. There would be way to
many cooks in the kitchen for any movie, much less a
'radical', narrower interpretation of a broader story
universe, to really work and still have Joss being auteur-
guy.
By the time it's done, I wouldn't be surprised if what comes
out of the sausage machine resembles very little of what we
loved of Buffy the series.
Star Trek has had, what, nine movies? Only one, IMHO, really
captured the feel of the classic series, and that's II.
[> [> [>
Sopranos would be a different case, though... --
Rob, 11:43:25 07/16/02 Tue
...since, if any episode of the regular series were taken
directly off the television and screened as a theatrical
release, it would be rated "R." As it is now, HBO rates it
TV-MA (mature audiences only; for violence, sex, language,
etc).
So that show would be an exception...and the film rating of
"R" wouldn't be any higher (or more adult) than the TV show
content. Same goes for any HBO show, should any of them ever
be given the big screen treatment.
Rob
[> [> [>
Sopranos would be a different case, though... --
Rob, 11:46:23 07/16/02 Tue
...since, if any episode of the regular series were taken
directly off the television and screened as a theatrical
release, it would be rated "R." As it is now, HBO rates it
TV-MA (mature audiences only; for violence, sex, language,
etc).
So that show would be an exception...and the film rating of
"R" wouldn't be any higher (or more adult) than the TV show
content. Same goes for any HBO show, should any of them ever
be given the big screen treatment.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Damn! Damn! Double damn! -- Rob, 11:48:10
07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Damn! Damn! Double damn! -- Masq, 12:04:42
07/16/02 Tue
I was going to erase one of your double posts (hey, I'm
bored here at work, it's something to do), but your response
to it is so amusing, I don't think I will.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Why, thank you! :o) -- Rob, 14:47:04
07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Please don't tell me "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With
Me" was PG-13!!!! -- leslie,
12:23:57 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Re: "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" was rated
R -- Brian, 13:08:30 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [>
Good Catch.. but look at the numbers. -- neaux,
13:47:25 07/16/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Good Catch.. but look at the numbers. -- leslie,
14:26:13 07/16/02 Tue
I think it makes the point that the rating of a movie of a
television series corresponds to the "rating" of the series
itself. As another example, I would say that the X Files
movie was about as sexy (i.e., not so much explicitly) as
the series; likewise, I found it interesting that in the
interviews that came out around the Scooby Doo movie, it
appeared that the possibility of "upping" the rating with
sexual suggestiveness (especially Velma's putative
lesbianism) was considered, and then dropped, apparently to
conform to the perceived rating of the original series. When
a movie seriously breaks the tone of a series it is (claimed
to be) based on, it tends to enter the realm of parody.
Consider "Flash Gordon" versus "Flesh Gordon" for
instance.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
However. -- Darby, 14:46:07 07/16/02 Tue
My point was not really about what is most likely to
happen, but given Joss' attitude toward what happened to
Tara (greatly discussed here), I don't think that it is
beyond imagining that he could decide that, in order to do a
movie significantly different from the show (or what's the
point?) he might decide to explore themes just touched on
this past year. Could Spuffy, or Warren, or Dark Willow
have been clear "R" extreme? And, if he decided that this
was the Story He Wants to Tell, do reservations by those
"considering the audience" have any impact at all, or should
they? You could make a case that such considerations should
have arisen going into S6.
And also, I'm not invoking the ratings system except as
shorthand - I figured everyone would understand what a "hard
R" was.
[> [> [>
Monkees and Head -- parakeet, 22:22:43 07/16/02
Tue
The Monkees followed a PG-type show with an R-Rated feature
called Head. It tanked, of course, but has survived as a
cult favorite, apparently. I haven't had the opportunity to
see it, but it was written by Jack Nicholson. It's
interesting because, arguably, the Monkees were already over
as a phenomenon. They might have extended their initial
popularity with a PG hit movie, or it might just have seemed
like a pathetic attempt to avoid being has-beens. A PG
movie would have probably been the smarter move, but I like
the thought of the darkly psychedelic Head being out there.
It makes them seem a little cooler now, even if they didn't
mean it that way. Heck, go out with style.
Sorry, I'm too tired right now to tie this in with
Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
oh, and artistic responsiblity -- parakeet,
22:40:52 07/16/02 Tue
So the kids couldn't see it then. They do grow up, you
know. If they snuck in and grew up a little sooner (or got
confused), well, what is the yardstick for such things? The
responsiblity should lie with the parents and, ultimately,
the adults that the kids (hopefully) grow up to be. I'd
hate to live in a society where culture is always aimed at
what is appropriate for the little ones. The ratings system
is reasonable enough protection of delicate
sensibilities.
[> [> [> [> [>
Head -- dream of the consortium, 08:35:02
07/17/02 Wed
It's pretty entertaining on some strange level. Definitely
worth watching as a cultural artifact if you're interested
in the late sixties. Rather tame, though - it certainly
wouldn't get an R-rating today. Maybe there was some brief
female nudity, I don't remember, but I think, other than
that, there were just a few jokes about pot and slightly
steamier kissing than the tv allowed. The boys are quite
obviously stoned through most of the film, maybe that was
the problem. They certainly had a lot of fun poking at
their own image - one scene had a waitress address Davy
Jones thus: "Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight year
olds."
Yeah, so I was a Monkees geek in my youth - what of it?
On artistic responsibility - I'm pretty traditionalist. I
believe an artist is reponsible to, well, I guess you'd have
to say Truth and Beauty. Parents are responsible for their
children and what their children are exposed to. Of course,
studio executives are responsible for creating a product
that will sell, and complications (perfectly legitimate
ones) will no doubt result, if Joss feels that the material
he needs to cover is adult. Personally, I would love to see
more adult material in movies. Not more sex and violence,
there's plenty of that, but it's generally very adolescent
sex and violence, laid on just to get the adrenaline going,
with very simplistic underlying themes (if any). I've said
it before, I'm saying it again - Buffy this year explored
sexuality in ways I've never seen on television, ways that
were adult in the best sense of the word. I would hope that
tendency (to look at adult issues in adult ways) would
continue onto the big screen.
[> [>
Movie Ratings -- Rattletrap, 15:09:16 07/16/02
Tue
Censorship in movies has been a thorny issue for nearly 100
years now, that seems unlikely to change. The present
system was an attempt to _inform_ people about content
without attempting to _control_ that content and was, in
that respect, a significant departure from the heavy-handed
moralistic censorship laws that predated it. How successful
it has been remains open to debate.
Robert wrote:
"This question has a much greater scope than just Mr. Whedon
and BtVS. Some individuals (such as Roger Ebert) have argued
for years that artists should be allowed to create movies
which tells adult stories and exclude children (under age
18) from viewing them. Ebert specifically has lobbied for an
adult movie rating which is not tainted by pornography. The
X rating became so tainted because the MPAA never protected
it (with trademark or copyright) as they had done for G, PG,
PG-13, and R. Consequently, the pornographers were allowed
to use the X rating in any way they chose in furtherance of
their dubious artform."
'trap responds:
The MPAA attempted to address Ebert's concerns in 1990. On
27 September of that year, they introduced the NC-17 rating.
Jack Valenti explains that they decided early on not to put
a trademark on the "X" rating so that producers could self-
apply it without submitting the film for rating to the MPAA
like they had to for a G, a PG, or an R rating. Over time,
however the X became associated with pornographic filmmaking
and the MPAA decided to replace "X" with "NC-17". Unlike an
"X", filmmakers cannot self-apply the "NC-17" rating. While
this does not _strictly_ mean that an NC-17 film has
"artistic merit" (whatever that means), most pornographic
filmmakers don't bother submitting their stuff to the MPAA,
they just continue to use a self-applied "X" designation.
More on this subject at the MPAA's website here
. Valenti's version of the history of the rating system
tends to be a bit self-congratulatory, but it more or less
tracks with everything else I've read on the subject.
Just my $.02
'trap
[> [> [>
Re: British video ratings --