July 2001 posts
Giles and Malone -- Kim,
10:17:18 07/01/01 Sun
I saw the Untouchables on Superstation WTBS today.
The Malone character reminds me a lot of Giles. Especially the
type of advice he would give and his actions (telling Ness how
to get Malone, Shooting the dead guy).
Both Malone and Giles knows that to fight evil you must employ
evil methods.
I liked it when the mountie said "I don't approve of your
methods". Ness responded "you don't live in Chicago."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles and Malone -- Andy, 11:03:15 07/01/01 Sun
Ooh, interesting comparison, but it rings true. Especially Malone's
line, "What are you prepared to do?" And then Ness's
speech to the judge later on about how he fallen to villains'
level, become what he beheld, but was content that he had done
right. He was a long way from being the rigid do-gooder that he
was in the first half of the film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles and Malone -- Sue, 15:40:52 07/01/01 Sun
Giles was prepared to kill an innocent (Ben) to protect the world.
In a way, he became the enemy, breaking the rules (protecting
the innocent) he was sworn to behold. But he knew he was right.
He knew he did what he had to do.
Evil can't totally be defeated without Good people using evil
methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Malone -- Max, 16:01:50 07/01/01
Sun
Giles did evil to defeat evil.
Ness finally realized that the only way he could defeat Capone
was to become like him, and break all the rules (which as a law
man he was sworn to uphold) in order to bring him down.
Giles speech to Buffy about the lengths he would go to in order
to protect the world, and Ness's speech to the judge seemed very
similar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles and Malone -- Rattletrap, 12:57:10 07/01/01 Sun
" I liked it when the mountie said "I don't approve
of your methods". Ness responded "you don't live in
Chicago." "
That scene is especially reminiscent of the conflicts between
the SG and the Watchers' Council. Quentin and the crowd in their
offices and libraries in England don't approve of the Scoobies'
methods, but they also don't fight vampires, demons, and apocalypses
every day. One can almost imagine Giles saying "That's the
Sunnydale way" just like Malone did.
1st
Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Sebastian, 21:01:42
07/01/01 Sun
I hope its okay for me to go ahead and launch this thread - please
feel free to reprimand me if I'm being rude by doing this.;-)
Last week's thread about eye candy was fun to read - and it was
great to see those pics that Masquarade posted.
I thought this week we should do our favorite "scene"
It can be a conversation, fight scene, confrontation, etc.
I'm going to go ahead and name two from this season. The first
was the last five minutes of "Forever" with the arguement
between Buffy and Dawn that strips down their insecurities (especially
Buffy's) layer by layer. I thought the emoting both SMG and MT
did were beyond stellar. It took me back to a similar argument
I had three years ago when I lost my own mother and gave me goosebumps
the entire time.
The second - and more humorous - was the intervention in "Intervention."
"I am NOT having sex with Spike. But I'm starting to think
you might be." was the jewel in the comedy of that entire
scene.
The flow of wit and caustic humor that SMG, AH, EC, and NB showed
was just beyond hysterical in a fantastic comedy scene.
At least for me.... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Wiccagrrl,
00:56:40 07/02/01 Mon
Oh my gosh- so many possibilities.
From Prophecy Girl: the "I'm 16 years old. I don't want to
die" scene.
Sword fight in/ ending of Becoming 2.
Spike's "Your not friends" speech in Lover's Walk
Extra flamey candle scene in NMR
Buffy's "Power" speech in checkpoint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Rattletrap, 06:07:25 07/02/01 Mon
Gotta agree with you about the "Power" speech in Checkpoint.
Buffy throwing the sword at the watcher guy made my season.
Another great one was the confrontation with The Judge in Innocence.
I've always found something incredibly sexy about that shot of
SMG with a rocket launcher. (is that normal?...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Slayrunt,
03:05:30 07/02/01 Mon
I agree with Wiccagirl, there are many but ... here goes.
Buffy going to the Master flanked by Xander and Angel in her nice
dress with the theme music from the last show of season 1.
Spike and Joyce in the livingroom. "Do I know you" "Yeh
you hit me with and axe, 'stay away from my daughter'" Season
2.
Faith's speach to Spike in the Bronze while in Buffy's body season
3.
Spike speaking to the Buffy manniquin with candy and then hitting
it. season 4
Buffy expaining about Dracula changing to a bat, thinking "ah
a bat" season 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Morgane, 05:00:21 07/02/01 Mon
Don't have time to think about it now, but one just came came
suddenly in my head while reading.
The "Out...For...A...Walk...Bitch" scene made me so
much laugh each time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS
Scene -- Rob, 08:32:15 07/02/01 Mon
My favorite scene is the one from "Hush" where Giles
is using the overhead projector to explain things to everyone.
That whole scene was absolutely brilliant, especially the misunderstanding
Buffy and Xander had, when Buffy was trying to ask Giles if she
could stake the Gentlemen. Her...um...hand gesture and Xander's
face were absolutely priceless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite
BtVS Scene -- Humanitas, 11:26:26 07/02/01 Mon
Too many great scenes to pick a favorite overall, but...
Favorite fight scene: Harmony and Xander's slo-mo slap fight.
I fell off the couch laughing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- vampire
hunter D, 13:33:16 07/02/01 Mon
My favorite scene was from "Who are You?" when Buffy
(in Faith's body) was trying to tell Giles who she really was.
The dialog was funny ("Your inching! Stop inching!")
and the acting was excellent. This scene more than any other shows
off ED's talent as an actress, to be able to pull of another actress'
character flawlessly.
btw: stevedor (stee'-ve-dor") n, one who loads or unloads
ships.
I'd also like to nominate just about any scene with Wllow and
Tara togther. Those two are the cutest couple ever. And no, this
is not coming from some perverse fascination with lesbians, those
two really are cute together.
One question: Are any of these posts going to be put up on a website
like the Character posts. I think it would be really cool if they
were.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Deeva, 22:53:11 07/02/01 Mon
I absolutely love the whole second act of The Gift especially
the scene between Buffy & Spike at the her home. The following
lines are just stuck in my head.
Spike: I know you'll never love me.
She turns, says nothing.
Spike: I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man,
and that's...(stops himself) Get your stuff. I'll be here.
Then, of course there's Fool for Love. The whole bit where Buffy
says to Spike that he is beneath her. I could barely watch the
pain on Spike's face. It was heart wrenching.
Deeva
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: bewitched, bothered, & bewildered -- JBone, 16:10:22
07/02/01 Mon
I loved this scene
XANDER I have a plan. We use me as bait.
BUFFY You mean, make Angel come after you?
XANDER No I mean chop me into little pieces and stick me on hooks
for fish to nibble at cuz that would be more fun than my life.
BUFFY I heard about you and Cordy. It's her loss.
XANDER Not the popular theory...
Buffy runs her hand through his hair, looking into his eyes.
BUFFY You know what I'd like? Why don't you and I go do something
tonight. Just us.
XANDER Really?
BUFFY Yeah, we can comfort each other.
XANDER Would lap dancing enter into this scenario at all? 'Cause
I find that very comforting.
BUFFY Play your cards right...
XANDER Okay. You do know that I'm Xander, right
BUFFY I don't know... I heard you and Cordy broke up, I was surprised
how glad I was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene -- Millan,
00:10:36 07/05/01 Thu
I would like to draw everyone's attention to an (in my opinion
often underrated) episode from season 4: Beer Bad.
I like that episode, and it has one (of many) of my favourite
scenes:
Willow goes up to Parker. She's angry and confused, both at Parker
for Buffy's sake and at Oz for her own sake. They talk and it
seems as though she's slowly warming up to him, just up until
he reaches out for him and we see how she really feels: 'Parker,
can I ask you something? Just how gullible do you think I am?!'
It's absolutely priceless! :)
/Millan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: You're Favorite BtVS Scene
-- Millan, 00:12:45 07/05/01 Thu
Sorry for the typo. "They talk and it seems as though she's
slowly warming up to him, just up until he reaches out for him..."
should obviously be "They talk and it seems as though she's
slowly warming up to him, just up until he reaches out for her..."
/M
Monsters in the Buffyverse --
Marie, 06:29:56 07/02/01 Mon
Reading the Glory thread below, and thinking over the earlier
'Cheekbones' thread, has made me think about the various monsters
and Big Bads over the past 5 seasons, and what frightens me.
Take vampires, for example. When I started watching BtVS, about
halfway through the first season, the first vampire I saw was
the Master, and I thought, oooh, horrible! But I've noticed that
I've become hardened, so to speak, when it comes to vamps - Buffy
and the Gang seem to be almost casual in their vamp-killing these
days, like swatting away a pesky fly. Personally, I've always
been more scared of what might be around the corner, the things
you can't see that go bump in the night. Take the Mayor. A brilliant,
spooky villain all the way along, partly because he looked so
normal, until you noticed that gimlet stare that chilled you to
the marrow....and then he turned into the Worm! Not the greatest
special effects ever seen in Buffyland! For the eeew! factor,
give me the Bug Man, Kookookatchoo! A normal-looking, average
guy, and suddenly Mr. Maggots. Urgh!
Angelus in vamp-face form was far less frightening to me than
Angelus smiling after he'd done something - I've mentioned in
a previous post his look through the window at the effect of Jenny's
death on Buffy and Willow.
Adam I didn't find scary at all. I don't know if it's just because
the Mayor was a hard act to follow, or because he (Adam) just
wasn't around often enough or killing horribly enough - actually,
now that I've typed that out, I think it was because he wasn't
a personal threat to the people I care the most about. That is,
the Mayor took Faith and captured Willow and walked in and made
a nasty little speech about Buffy and Angel, etc., Angelus - well,
needn't add much about who he threatened, whereas the only real
personal threat Adam was, was to Reilly, about whom I am ambivalent.
As for Glory - she also didn't make much impact until the last
few episodes. I found her rather naive in her attitude to killing,
in that she took it as her due - she was a god, after all, and
people were as nothing to her, so killing them didn't matter,
did it - in fact they should be glad to die for her instead of
whining about it. Would I have found her more scary if she metamorphosed
into something disgustingly ugly instead of Ben? I suppose so.
Doc was scarier to me because he looked like a grandad, and then
his eyes turned black and evil - so unexpected!
Just a few reflections, really - sorry if it turned into a ramble!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- rowan, 18:19:57 07/02/01
Mon
Not to hijack your post, but the next logical question is: what
would really scare us next? You started off your post describing
what really frightens you. I'm definitely in agreement with your
sentiments. I feel hardened towards the vamps as well. They seem
to be less and less of a threat to Buffy and the SG. It's hard
to imagine Buffy actually losing to a vamp at this point (except
through boredom, inattention, or that pesky death wish as we saw
in FFL: and I think her rebirth will put paid to these notions).
The Master represented a traditional evil of vampire lore: the
vamp with a master plan, who needs to kill their heroine to bring
it into being. He was the stuff of prophecies and dark nights.
His defeat (and that of the Annoying One) essentially ushered
in the age of the modern vampire, Spike, who basically justs wants
to enjoy the sensation of destruction for as long as possible.
Angelus (who IMHO is the great evil of the Buffyverse to date)
was devastating in the sadistic, psychological, imaginative, and
almost intellectual approach he took to crafting his evil. He
was a very personal evil with potential to do harmfully apocalyptic
ill.
The Mayor was a less personal evil (although connected through
Faith), but creepy in what you point out as his good guy surface/demony-desirous
underneath. He was like a nurturing father gone very, very, bad.
Truly the authority figure from hell. He also ironically symbolized
the evil of bureaucracy (hey, he wasn't a politician for no reason,
right?)
Adam represented the evil of soulless technology. Boring. Enough
said.
Glory was a god like the pagan gods of old. She was like a force
of nature clearing a path in front and behind. Her malice was
only personal because somebody had her property. But she had strength
and endurance not previously seen in the Buffyverse.
But where do we go from here? Speculations anyone? Who would frighten
us? What great evil have we not seen yet in the Buffyverse? The
only evil left might be...the evil inside us all, the evil of
a friend turned foe, the evil we do when we try to do good...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- Ben/Glory, 21:48:22
07/02/01 Mon
I don't know how I feel about this but..
We are all having good thoughts about Buffy. For good reason.
She was a great human being, wonderful friend, loving daughter
and sister. The represented what all of us could become if we
tried hard enough. And of course she made the ultimate sacrifice,
in the name of love, and saved her sister, her friends and the
world.
So how would we feel about someone coming back with Buffy's face,
outward mannerisms, etc, and be truely evil? Have sex with Xander
to break up his relationship with Ayna. Tell Dawn that she isn't
real, never meant anything to her as a sister, and is now very
sorry that she didn't push her off that tower. Tell Giles that
he is a silly old man. A better watcher could have saved me. Attack
Willows relationship with Tara. Tell her that she thinks she is
a powerful witch, but the truth was that Buffy was just pitying
her by being her friend, and she is the same pathetic geek she
was in high school. Etc.
Basically talking every good memory we have of Buffy and perverting
it.
I don't know how I would feel about that. I want to keep my good
memories of Buffy. And while this would give SMG a great part
as the Anti-Buffy similar to Angel turning evil, I don't know
if I want to have my memories of Buffy tarnished in that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- Rufus, 18:42:50 07/02/01
Mon
Monsters of the unreal kind can be spooky like The Gentlemen,
in Hush, but they don't really scare me. It has been the evil
that humanity can cook up on it's own that I find far more frightening.
I've already mentioned Kralik from Helpless, he is truly scary
because he is very much the man he was as a vampire, down to needing
the same drugs to calm him. He just carried on with his killing
of a specific type of target. Kralic was still after dear old
scissor wielding mom, even when his heart no longer beat. Giles
said something in Pangs that I remember "vengeance is never
sated", I think of the vampire when he said that. You have
a person who upon becoming a demon hybrid goes about getting vengeance
on the people who wronged them in life. They now have a physical
power to destroy their opponent, but they still can never change
how that person made them feel about themselves. That makes for
one scary monster like Kralic, Angelus,Darla ect. Some vampires
just kill you, some vampires are attempting to settle some long
past score that compells them to forever look to change the past
through detroying the image of it they see in a victim. Now, that's
a monster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse - what's next? -- KendratVS,
19:38:24 07/02/01 Mon
Since the end of season 5, I have been racking my brain, desperately
trying to envision what Joss could throw at the gang for the next
season that would really have an impact and stir up some fear.
Giving us a god as the latest Big Bad really did seem to represent
the ultimate in an externalized villain, and I tend to agree with
many of you that the next foe will have to be something drawing
its fear and menace from within humanity, namely the SG or someone
close to them.
Following are some of my silly ramblings and postulations, just
for fun, as to what could possibly stand as villains in next season
(omitting the likely ones such as Willow, who have already been
discussed)-
-The Watcher's Council decides having 2 non-cooperative slayers
is getting a bit tiresome, so shortly after Buffy returns, they
perform some ancient rite designed to "wipe the slate clean"
and bring upon the next calling of the chosen one. This could
involve the manifestation of something big and nasty that acts
on the Councils orders to seek and destroy active slayers. Think
along the lines of the ritual Ben did to bring the Queller and
cleanse the crazies, but maybe some little known spell that served
the council in the old days when it was geographically too difficult
to hunt down rogue slayers. A bit far-fetched, but hey, just speculating...
-One of Glory's fellow hell-gods decided the hell they hailed
from wasn't so hot and when the Key was used, jumped ship into
the Buffyverse. That portal was open enough time to let some nasty
stuff into the Buffyverse, so maybe this hell-god would be a major
departure from Glory and rather than the sheer tank-mentality
she embodied, would rely on more of the traditional tactics of
villains in the series (could possibly be the catalyst to entice
Willow into a descent into darkness...think magical mentor/protege).
-Along the same portal-theory, perhaps in the demon dimensions
there exist a sort of anti-slayer, an otherwise normal girl or
human whose sole existence is to do the behest of the evil powers-that-be.
It would be sort of fun to see a reciprocal version of Buffy (i.e.
young, often unsure, but otherwise powerful instrument for a higher
power) doing harm but with the same faults and dilemmas the slayer
faces. I know Faith sort of embodied this, but I am imagining
if the whole slayer-mentality were flip-flopped for eons with
the completely opposite purpose. Perhaps anti-Buffy even brings
her evil Watcher on some sort of mission to quell the rising good
in the Buffyverse. This could also give Joss much latitude in
unraveling more of the slayer mythos.
OK, I know some of these are just silly, but I am truly dying
to know what the next season holds for Buffy and the SG. Anyone
else have any wild speculations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse - what's next? -- Andy,
10:07:53 07/03/01 Tue
I think those are some very fun ideas, actually :)
One thing that occurred to me is that now that we've seen Buffy
versus a god, how about Buffy versus THE God? Not in the Christian
sense of the word, I mean, but I'm thinking more in the Lovecraftian
sense of the word (I'm thinking of that Authority storyline here...).
Something that is just hugely powerful and indestructible and,
unlike Glory, something that absolutely can't be related to on
any human level. Just a big, cosmically abstract thing which can't
be understood but whatever the hell it's all about isn't good
for humanity :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- gds, 20:23:13 07/02/01
Mon
What is truly frightening is when the world doesn't seem to make
sense any more. When the rules you use to perceive & interpret
things don't apply. When things happen for no apparent reason.
For this reason the most deeply frightening (as opposed to sickening
& disgusting) thing I've ever seen was Hichcock's "The Birds".
They eventually realized 'what' was happening, but they never
had even a clue as to 'why', or 'was it over' or 'would it happen
again'. I doubt Joss will use this 'world goes inexplicably insane'
approach on a TV show, but he likes to do the unusual, so who
knows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- anom, 21:52:50 07/08/01
Sun
What really scares me is something that happens all the time in
the Buffyverse: having your mind & body taken over. A spell, a
cursed costume or candy, a lobstery thing that taps into your
motor control system...leaving you totally powerless over your
own body & decisions. You know it's happening & you can't do a
damn thing about it. Or you find out later, or maybe not at all,
but there are still consequences of what you did & you have to
deal w/them (did Sunnydale have its own baby boom 9 months after
"Band Candy?"). I'm amazed Sunnydale-ites cope with
it as well as they do. Maybe they're in some kind of denial about
how it feels. Maybe Xander's "no more butt-monkey" outburst
was what happened when he couldn't deny it any more. Me, I'd freak.
At least the 1st time, & a few more.... I'm glad it's not something
that happens in real life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Monsters in the Buffyverse -- spotjon, 20:29:25 07/02/01
Mon
Personally, I thought Glory was a pretty good villan for this
season. I liked this season for the fact that they didn't focus
so much on the bad guy as they did last time. In the fourth season,
they spent too much time building up to a bad guy that wasn't
all that bad in the end. The focus of this last season wasn't
so much on the bad guy, but was more on how the upcoming crisis
affected Buffy and her friends. I guess Whedon & Co. learned from
the last season how to balance the two, especially when the big
bad isn't spectacularly evil and intriguing. I personally thought
that Glory was rather freakishly scary because we didn't know
a whole lot about her or what she could do. She was the great
unknown, a force of nature that would sweep your life into eddies
of disarray. She wasn't really evil, at least not in the same
way that Angelus was sadistic and just plain wicked. She was simply
extremely selfish and didn't see any other living beings as being
worth the time of day. She is what happens to a person with no
conscience and power over others: an unsympathetic tyrant.
I liked Glory as the big bad of this season because she made us
focus more on the Scoobies, and she made them focus on each other.
We were able to learn more about the Scoobies because of her presence,
even though she wasn't much to look at herself, except for when
she was in that tight red dress... rowrrr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Know what scares me? -- Wisewoman, 20:55:11 07/02/01 Mon
Serial killers. Real ones. They're out there.
Now imagine a serial killer in the Buffyverse just lucky enough
to be vamped. Imagine, say, Hannibal Lecter (or Jeffrey Dahmer,
or one of the other real ones) as a vampire with the same motivation
and predilections he had in life.
Now that's scary!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- rowan, 21:03:34 07/02/01
Mon
Wouldn't that be Angelus?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Whoops, you're right! Been there... ;o) -- Wisewoman,
21:06:21 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually... -- Masq, 14:16:12 07/03/01 Tue
Liam of Galway had no killer predilictions in life. The example
on BtVS is Zachary Kralik, a bonafide serial killer of women in
human life who was vamped. They sent him after Buffy in "Helpless"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Rufus, 15:36:29 07/03/01
Tue
I agree that Liam had no killer predilictions in life, but he
had some dark emotions about his family that I think he dealt
with using alcohol. He said in Amends the man he was had always
been weak. When he became a vampire all he did was act out all
the things he thought but never expressed as a man. His confrontation
with his father was so sad because he just didn't get the fact
that his father actually loved him but was lousy at showing it.
Everything Angelus did was born out of how worthless his father
made him feel. With Kralik, you had a serial killer who was an
abused child who grew up to wreak vengeance on all women for the
sins of one. He was a monster alive or undead. He changed little
when he became a vampire. That makes me think what happens when
the soul is removed, with Angelus it made all the difference,
with Kralik there was nothing to corrupt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- rowan, 18:19:56
07/03/01 Tue
The aspects of Angelus that reminded me of serial killers were
his ritualized killing of Jenny and his relentless, stalking pursuit
of Buffy and the SG. I'm not saying he was a serial killer, but
he did share some traits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Rufus,
18:26:55 07/03/01 Tue
Not just Jenny but his stalking of Dru, his methodical way of
wiping out her family to wipe out her mind. Liams mind was a dark
place, would he have acted out any of his thoughts, I don't know.
Lots of people have dark thoughts that they never act upon, becoming
a vampire let Liam express his anger and insecurity without the
consequences of feeling any guilt about his actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Ben/Glory, 21:54:47 07/02/01
Mon
Been done way too many times. (Profiler, Millennium, X-files,
the movies you mentioned).
Almost to the point of being Cliche.
Perhaps though, if the big surprise is precisely that the big
bad beast who we thought to be demon, was actually human.
For example when they slay him, expecting him to turn to dust,
he just bleeds to death.
A slayer would know the difference (though Faith didn't), so it
would have to be one of the SG.
Surprise, not a Vampire. Just a very evil guy who likes to go
around drinking human blood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Rufus, 22:04:47
07/02/01 Mon
There are a few serial killers who got into the drinking blood
thing cause they got it into their heads that they needed blood
to survive. Some of the stuff the real killers do you can't put
into any movie or book(including Silence of the Lambs). We don't
like to think that other human beings are so capable of dreaming
up such horror. Movie monsters are safe predictable, human monsters
are another matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Sean, 22:37:50
07/02/01 Mon
Actually I find human killers quite predictable (at least how
they are protrayed on tv)
Killer gets fixated on some aspect of the victim (hair like mom's
whatever). Goes around killing women with that aspect.
Calls the Detective who is charged with catching him. Taunts her
(or him, but often her). Quotes nursery rhymes. Mails in clues.
Riddles.
More killing. More taunting. More nursery rhymes.
They think they have gotten the guy. Detective goes home. Gets
ready to take a shower Phone rings. It's the killer. He quotes
nursery rhymes. Hickery Dickery, Doc, the Mouse ran up the clock.
The Clock strikes 12 (the time the killer usually strikes, which
is 5 minutes from now) Phone hanges up. Detective traces call.
It's from next door. Oh no, I left the window open.
At the end they go to the killers house. Sees a picture of "mom"
when she was young. Looks like the victims and perhaps even like
the detective.
Boring. Been there Seen that. You can only rewrite Silence of
the Lambs so often before it becomes stale. Ask Chris Carter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:41:40
07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Rufus,
15:39:37 07/03/01 Tue
If you want to get picky, all murder is just a re-write of all
murders past. People are pretty consistant in the reasons they
kill, money, sex, escaping detection. I think if you read on many
serial killers they share many traits it's just in how they carry
out their crimes does the difference show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Know what scares me? --
Brian, 05:38:15 07/04/01 Wed
How about something from outer space? After all, Joss made the
robot work in terms of the Buffyverse, and he's already planted
the seed with the quiller demon. This "alien" might
have the power to control minds, turn the Scoobies to do evil
things, make Willow's magic really bad? Who knows?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Know what scares me? -- Scout, 15:06:25 07/06/01
Fri
Ted Bundy. Vamped.
I won't be able to sleep tonight now, thinking about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> my weird idea -- vampire hunter D, 12:20:49 07/03/01 Tue
I've kind of had an idea for a villain in my head for a while,
and so I'd like to take this opportunity to show you some of him
and and seewhat you think.
The villain (actually, this guy would be an apparent villain,
but I'll explain that in a minute) is very powerful and evil.
However, unlike most evil forces in the Whedonverse, he doesn't
have any interest in hurting our heroes. Just the opposite, he
wants to HELP them. Of course, he goes about doing this in the
most disturbing and evil way possible, but in his mind he is still
helping. But his motives are still evil. He doesn't care about
the forces of good, or in stopping evil. But, due to a series
of circunstances, the best way to achieve his agenda (whatever
it is, I'm still working on some of the details) is to help the
Slayer(s). Of couse, Buffy and the Scooobies don't know what he
wants. All they know is that some force is out doing evil (and
not realizing he's doing it for their "benefit"). This
causes a series of encounters where they try to stop him doing
whatever he is doing, and unintentionally making a bad situation
worse.
I doubt this is like anything that Joss has ever planned. I'm
just putting it here to get your opinion. I just really like the
idea that the apparent Big Bad is not really the Big Bad. So,
what do you think? And feel free to be brutal.
btw, this is kind of related to my idea on how to bring back Buffy.
Maybe I'll post more in another thread if you guys are interested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes - post the rest of your idea, please! :-) -- Solitude1056,
12:38:36 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ok, I'll get to it sometime over the weekend
(maybe) -- vampire hunter D, 11:20:21 07/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my weird idea -- Max, 00:17:44 07/04/01 Wed
A villian who does good for evil sake. Kind of a mirror of Giles
who did evil for good's sake.
Here is a related idea. I have often thought that Willow (or Dawn)
might become addicted to magic. At first the effects of their
magic might be good and useful, which of course encourages them
to continue.
But as they continue, they find themselves unable to stop. And
the effects of their magic begins to instead of helping the ones
they love, hurting them. But again, they have gotten in too deep,
and can't stop themselves from doing the magic.
They don't intend to harm others, but again they are addicted,
and are powerless to stop themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my weird idea -- Marie, 02:05:45 07/04/01 Wed
Actually, doesn't this sound a little like the 'Willow-goes-bad'
theory that's been posted recently? (I don't mean that Willow's
motives would've been evil, just misguided).
Myself, I'd quite like to see a sorcerer-type villain - I'm thinking
Black Wizardy, with, preferably, goblins! (And I mean really nasty
Lord of the Ring-types - not silly minions!).
Gift + I will Remember you -- Mav, 07:51:45 07/02/01
Mon
recently I resaw I will remember you, and in it there was this
whole thing with Angel loseing his mortality to save Buffy, so
I was wondering if any of you think this maytie in with Buffs
reserection?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> no -- vampire hunter D, 12:45:03 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Doubtful Angel will be directly involved, if simply because...
-- Wiccagrrl, 19:16:28 07/02/01 Mon
with Buffy moving to UPN and Angel staying on WB, with apparent
bad blood about how things went down, I'm doubting any big crossovers
are in the near future. Now, I am wondering if maybe Buffy will
remember the events of the lost day...but they'll probably wait
to bring that up again until they can have a crossover as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Doubtful Angel will be directly involved, if simply
because... -- gds, 20:09:03 07/02/01 Mon
True, we can (unfortunately!) rule out much in the way of crossovers
for a while, but there is nothing to stop someone giving information
about how something Angel had done had paved the way for her resurrection.
There are at least 2 Angel episodes which could be referenced
in bringing back Buffy. In the first of these episodes he decides
to return to being a vampire & in the second he uses his vampire
strength to earn a resurrection for Darla which she is unable
to use. The Oracles said that the Slayer would die sooner if he
were human. Since that time we have seen nothing he has done to
save her life, so his ordeal for Darla may have been what they
meant. Of course they could have meant she would have died in
a situation which never even materialized because Angel had changed
history - which is a tricky business in an infinitely interconnected
universe. E.g. maybe she would have died protecting Angel, so
merely by removing the need for her to protect him she lived longer.
father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- purplegrrl, 12:07:02 07/02/01 Mon
((I got on this train of thought after thinking how differently
Superman was portrayed by Christopher Reeve in the movies and
by Dean Cain in the TV series, "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures
of Superman." The movies follow the comic book story -- Superman's
biological and adopted fathers are dead. In the TV series Superman's
adopted father is still alive, giving him a role model and a sounding
board.))
I have some thoughts on why it appears that Joss has "father
issues" in BtVS and AtS.
We know that Joss is a big comic book fan. We've already discussed
the influences of Batman (Angel) and Superman (Riley) in the Buffyverse.
Besides the whole crime-fighting, superhero gig, what do these
two comic book characters have in common? Their fathers are no
longer living. This is also true of Spiderman. (I'm sure there
are others. Perhaps some of you can supply the names of other
characters.)
With no father in their life, these characters are forced to become
their own father. In effect to raise themselves, develop their
own code of right and wrong, etc. In most cases, they also develop
a stronger bond with the mother figure (mother/aunt). Because
of the extreme "maleness" of their chosen calling, they
seem to need the nuturing influence of the mother. (I'm not trying
to be sexist here. It's just that most of the original superheros
were male.) Even when they are well past the point of *needing*
a mother.
Also, with no father there is none of the traditional father-son
rivalry. Granted, the hero/superhero has no one to look up to,
but neither does he have anyone with whom to compete.
In the Buffyverse we have two fatherless heroes -- Buffy and Angel.
Buffy "lost" her father when she was 16. Although Buffy's
father is alive, he might as well be dead. She hasn't seen him
or, as far as we know, spoken to him in several years. And now
he is living in Spain with his secretary. Buffy became the strong
protector, needing the nuturing figure (Joyce) but also protecting
her (not telling her mother she is the Slayer -- similar to Spiderman
not telling his aunt he is a crimefighter/superhero).
Angel may have "lost" his father at about the same age,
at a time when he would have wanted to strike out on his own but
his father had other plans for him. Angel/Liam rebelled against
his father, further alienating father and son. His father was
not positve influence in Angel/Liam's life. Of course Angel/Liam's
rebellion leads him to Darla and his siring as a vampire. He then
kills his father. Like Batman, his father's death eventually leads
him to become a hero, but he is constantly fighting the memory
of his father and his death.
Where I'm heading is that it is sort of "traditional"
for the hero/superhero to have father issues. Either because their
father is dead and can no longer give them the advice and support
they need/desire. Or because they are rebelling against what the
father stands for.
Would Buffy's father accept that she is the Slayer? Or would he
have a similar reaction to Joyce's first reaction -- that maybe
she can give this up to be a "regular girl"? Would he
blame Giles for having "done this" to his daughter?
Would Angel's father approve of his son's chosen path? Or would
he continue only to see the mistakes he has made -- being sired
as a vampire, heading down the dark path for a while, his inability/unwillingness
to stake Darla and Drusilla, etc.? If he could, would Angel even
*want* to be reunited with his father?
Other thoughts??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy's dad -- vampire hunter D, 12:41:12 07/02/01 Mon
I'm sure Joss has already asked those questions about Buffy's
father already. Which is why we havn't seen much of Hank recently.
I remember Joss saying in an interview that bringing Hank in would
make things too complicated. That's why he's been AWOL at the
one time his daughters need him most.
I find your thoughts on Angel's father interesting. Maybe that's
somthing Joss should consider for an upcoming episode.
One thing you seem to have missed in your post is that noone on
these shows seems to have a good relationship with their fathers
(see the "What does Joss have against.." page on this
site).
Before I close this, I have one question. Have we ever seen Hank
other than that brief scene in Buffy's memory in "The Weight
of the World"? I can't think of any other time He's made
an appearence (but, then again, I missed a lot of the first two
seasons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's dad -- Rahael, 14:36:09 07/02/01 Mon
Yes, Hank has appeared at least twice - in 'When she was bad'
you see him help Joyce unpack Buffy's clothes, and they talk about
how distant Buffy is. He appears as a fairly decent person.
He also appeared in Buffy's nightmare version of Buffyverse in
S1 - he turns up to tell her that he doens't love her - how could
he love someone like her. All grist to the mill methinks!
But just one point - isn't Gile's a great father figure for Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's dad -- Scout, 02:20:34 07/04/01 Wed
It was in an Entertainment Weekly interview on May 8 that Joss
explained why Hank wasn't around:
EW: Why didn't Buffy's father come back for the funeral? He seems
pretty heartless.
JW: We see him as being increasingly far away and awful mainly
because I wanted to keep things simple. Buffy's father figure
is Giles (Anthony Stuart Head). That's not to say the father might
not appear again, but it complicates things enormously.
It seems to me that Hank has undergone this apparent personality
change for no other reason than Joss simply doesn't want to deal
with the character anymore. I think it's a pity because it would
be interesting to explore Buffy's relationship with her father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What do we expect from fathers? -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
12:48:35 07/02/01 Mon
At the risk of leaping into some trashy pop-psychology, I think
that both Buffy and Angel could be looking for approval from their
fathers. This is common but, importantly, in the case of these
two heroes (and the other characters you mentioned) they can never
get it.
From the little we have seen of Buffy's father and Angel's father,
they are unusually (for Buffy) boring, stereotypical characters.
I think this emphasises the fact that we can never really tell
what they would want from their children - they are simply figureheads,
almost abstract ideas. This could be something that is driving
the heroes on - they can never know the answers to the questions
you posed (and often they assume the worst rather than acknowledging
this).
One other important thing about the absence of their fathers is
that they never got to see their flaws in the way most people
do (unless you take Hank Summers' absence as his major flaw, but
that's kinda different). This could enhance their need to prove
something even more, since they are trying to prove it to an ideal
that was never destroyed.
Maybe I'm only looking at this from a male perspective, but I
certainly think that they are trying to prove something to a missing
father figure rather than rebel against them.
For the best example (IMO) of a father-son superhero relationship,
see 'Unbreakable', which features an extremely clever reversal
in which the father is the hero and the son is trying to get him
to acknowledge this rather than garner his approval.
Better than last time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers? -- Steve, 18:57:19
07/02/01 Mon
(unless you take Hank Summers' absence as his major flaw, but
that's kinda different).
Buffy stayed with Hank over the summer (between season 1 and 2).
Hank couldn't help his absence as he was divorced from his wife
and she had custody over Buffy.
Hank was a good father.
Season 5 Hank was odd. It wasn't the type of behavior from him
that we had come to expect. It leads me to think something has
happened to him (like being turned into a vampire).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers? -- Solitude1056,
20:40:00 07/02/01 Mon
Season 5 Hank was odd. It wasn't the type of behavior from him
that we had come to expect. It leads me to think something has
happened to him (like being turned into a vampire).
Buffy had never mentioned her father having an affair with his
secretary as the reason for her parent's divorce, for starters.
I often wondered if this new absentee style of Hanks was less
that he *was* an absent father, and perhaps more due to Dawn's
inclusion. Perhaps the only way to make sure that Dawn's solution
wasn't to run to her father was to instill memories that Hank
didn't want his kids. I'd always understood Hank to love his children
as much as his wife, and Buffy spent summers with him (and, as
pointed out at Buffy's birthday, so did Dawn) - but in the battle
with Glory, sending Dawn off to be with Hank had to be out of
the question and not just from Buffy's point of view.
IOW, it seemed making Hank unavailable was another deus ex machina
on the level of the chip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers? --
Max, 20:51:44 07/02/01 Mon
I think Dawn is going to have to slay her father (well the vampire
who her father became).
This will be quite difficult as Dawn really, really loves her
father. And also because her father was the last member of her
family. (But if he is a vampire, then Hank is already gone).
Buffy had enough difficulty in slaying an ex. She just couldn't
do it, even though Angulus was different from Angel. But she never
had to slay a family member. Poor Dawn.
Hankulus might be next year's big bad. Joss must have had a very
poor relationship with his own father, as he sure presents them
in a bad light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers?
-- Steve, 20:56:27 07/02/01 Mon
Wait until Hankulus and Spike meet up.
Talk about "meeting the parents."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What do we expect from fathers?
-- Sue, 21:30:33 07/02/01 Mon
I wonder if Hankula will tell Dawn that he blames her for what
happened to Buffy.
"Too bad it wasn't you Dawn. Didn't you know, I always loved
her more than you?"
No one can hurt you more than those you love the most. Buffy had
it real tough being the slayer and all that happened to her, but
poor, poor Dawn. She never seems to get a break.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Coral Cat, 17:58:34
07/02/01 Mon
I'm not comic book literate enough to have a good sense of the
conventions in that genre, but I know that Joss is, so your theory
is a good one.
But Hank has been a more attentive father than most fans give
him credit for. It's only been since "Helpless" that
the writers have intimated that he's been negligent in any way,
and they have yet to come out and actually say that he is. Maybe
that doesn't matter; the point is perhaps that Buffy perceives
him as negligent.
BtVS is, also, a coming-of-age/hero's journey type of story, so
I also see a certain amount of parental/authority figure issues
involved as well. Buffy and her friends have always occupied a
position of special knowlege: The adults and parents in their
lives literally do not understand them and the problems they face.
Giles doesn't count in this equation because he's always been
more 'us' than 'them'; he's the mentor who treats his students
like equals, the token elder who's still the rebel.
Buffy herself also has some major abandonment issues that center
around most of the major male figures in her life (and perhaps
the female figures as well now that her mother is gone).
Joss has said that S6 will focus more on the theme of growing
up and on making the same mistakes that your parents did, so I
expect that this will turn around somewhat and we'll see a more
sympathetic portrayal of parenting next season, if only because
Buffy will have to be doing some of it herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Wiccagrrl,
22:07:56 07/02/01 Mon
The girls have been trying to reach him for months- since Joyce
first got sick. The numbers they have for him aren't working,
he apparently didn't contact Buffy on her birthday. He missed
his ex-wife's (the mother of his two daughter's) funeral, for
gods sake. If he's not dead (which in the Buffyverse is a possibility)
then I'd say he's been pretty neglectful, especially as portrayed
in the last year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Sean,
22:15:17 07/02/01 Mon
Got to believe he is either dead (vamped) or captured by some
sinister forces as part as some yet to be revealed scheme against
our Sunnydale gang.
I am not going to condemn a man as a Father because ONCE he was
unable to take his daughter to the ice capades. That happens to
the best of fathers. And Buffy was able to stay with him over
that summer.
Season Five Hank was totally out of character. Got to believe
that there were forces out of his control keeping him away from
his family at the time they needed him the most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Coral
Cat, 22:17:21 07/02/01 Mon
As far as we know, Buffy's failed efforts at reaching Hank were
restricted to the time immediately after Joyce's death. She mentioned
that he was off in Spain during her mother's illness, but we don't
know if she ever actually talked to Hank then. In any case, at
that time she seemed determined (typical Buffy) to take care of
her family herself. We don't know how much effort she put into
reaching him.
And why was Hank unreachable? And why wasn't Buffy more concerned
about his unreachability? If Hank were my father, I would have
been making all kinds of calls to hospitals and the authorities
in Spain. Given the nature of her life on the Hellmouth, I'd expect
Buffy to at least be worried. Joss could have easily established
Hank as a bad father by having him talk to Buffy and telling her
that she's old enough to take care of things on her own. Instead,
Hank seems to have dropped into the Twilight Zone. (Frankly, I
think Joss is keeping his options open about Hank.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- Sean, 22:24:02 07/02/01 Mon
"Joss could have easily established Hank as a bad father
by having him talk to Buffy and telling her that she's old enough
to take care of things on her own."
Oh, but would that be Hank she would be talking to or Hankulus
(Hankula)?
I hope Joss doesn't make Hank "the bad father". I hope
that he hasn't been vamped, and instead Dawn can save him from
the evil forces that have captured him.
After Season Five the Sunnydale Gang needs some pure wins under
their belt. Especially Dawn. She has had more suffering than Job.
She will be in a mental hospital before she reaches 20 the way
she has been going.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- Wiccagrrl, 22:26:26 07/02/01 Mon
I think she mentions in one of the early eps when Joyce is sick
(Family?) that she's been trying to call him and he hasn't called
back. In Forever it's made pretty clear that she and Giles have
been trying everything they knew to get ahold of him. But, I am
perfectly willing to believe something's happened to him. This
is fairly out of character, he seemed like a caring, if busy,
father before. If he is alive and well, then I'd say he has been
a fairly neglectful father. But I'm thinking something did happen
to him- that he's either dead or vamped or something.
As far as Buffy not being more worried about him, I think she
was just a little overwhelmed with taking care of Joyce and Dawn
and dealing with Glory. And He hadn't been a big part of their
lives recently. She seems to have been somewhat concerned, somewhat
irritated, and eventually just decided the hell with him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited
-- Coral Cat, 23:11:07 07/02/01 Mon
Double checking the scripts, I think Buffy called Hank at least
twice. The first time, when Joyce was sick, he didn't call back
(she must have left a message), and the second time she couldn't
get a connection at all. She seems ready to believe the worst
of him, which given the situation may have been easier for her
than having yet another thing to worry about. I don't blame her,
but in her shoes I would've at least wondered. As far as I can
tell, we simply don't know if Hank ever got any of those messages.
Could have been some weird interference from the monk's spell
too.
I do hope that Hank makes an appearance S6, and I hope that he
and Buffy manage to reconcile to some extent. She has abandonment
issues out the wazoo, and she's never going to have a healthy
adult relationship until she starts dealing with them. Hank would
make a good start, and if next season is going to be about making
the same mistakes your parents make, Buffy's confronting him with
his perceived bad fathering could make for an eye opener, especially
if Dawn turns out to be a handful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures in BtVS
- revisited -- Wiccagrrl, 23:20:18 07/02/01 Mon
From the Shooting Script:
BUFFY I'm phoned out. Can you? I mean, unless it's Dad.
GILES Of course.
Giles gets it. Buffy and Dawn listen attentively.
GILES Hello? Yes... They did. Thank you... The service is tomorrow
at three. Do you know the Brown Brothers Mortuary?...
Giles trails off as he moves into the living room. Buffy's agitated
now.
BUFFY I can't believe he hasn't called yet.
XANDER Your Dad's still AWOL, huh?
BUFFY (nods) The number he left for us in Spain is no good. And
I've left messages all over the place.
DAWN We should try his girlfriend's place-
BUFFY I don't have that number. I told you.
DAWN But we could ask one of his friends at work or something.
Buffy's getting irritated, but tries hard to maintain.
BUFFY Dawn. I tried that. Okay? (to Willow and Xander)
A lot of that didn't make it to the ep, but the part about the
number(s) he left her not working, and her leaving messages all
over town did, if I remember right. Something's up there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures in
BtVS - revisited -- Sean, 00:48:18 07/03/01 Tue
Doesn't sound like Hank.
But it does sound like what you could expect from someone who
has turned into a vampire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: father figures
in BtVS - revisited -- Malandanza, 08:38:32 07/03/01 Tue
"Doesn't sound like Hank."
I do think that Hank has been a bad Father -- we've only heard
about him a handful of times during the show. However, the complete
disregard for his family this season has been a bit out of character.
I would suggest that the monks altered enough of the past to propel
Hank into a different path than he might have otherwise followed.
After all, the first we heard of Hank cavorting with his secretary
was this season. And, perhaps, the monks had to make him less
attentive since the introduction of Dawn into Hank's and Joyce's
life would have necessarily changed the dynamic between them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly
my points - but much better said! :-) -- Solitude1056, 12:33:53
07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> As it relates to reality.......
-- AngelVsAngelus, 22:33:36 07/03/01 Tue
I must ask you all, who seem to have some background in psychology
and philosophy, especially Masquerade, is a good relationship
with your father really required to be a healthy individual? If
your answer is yes, then I must worry... my relationship with
my dad is non-existent, due to his being a condescending, dogmatic,
domineering person. He and my mother divorced before I can remember
(when I was three I believe), and since then he's been like a
blurred silouhuette in my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As it relates
to reality....... -- Solitude1056, 23:05:15 07/03/01 Tue
IME - there's your disclaimer - it's not necessary that the biological
father play the role of "parent". Being a parent, above
the financial responsibilities, is a multi-tasking deal that can
be shouldered and shared by non-blood folks. Bear in mind that
when we're discussing the Buffyverse, we're talking about a universe
created by a guy who's deep into comic books... and many of those
comic books call on a long-standing tradition dating from the
20's of father equals authority, mother equals love. Housewifey
and all that. Ok, so that's oversimplification maybe (and the
more modern comics aren't so cut & dried), but the tradition is
there - Batman and Superman are two examples already cited.
All that aside, the issue of parents isn't whether you have two
parents, or whether you get along with them. It has its biggest
impact on our lives as adults because our relationships with our
parents were the first major relationships we've probably ever
had. My mother the developmental psych professor always used to
say that if you wanted the measure of how a man would be in marriage,
look to how he interacts with his mother. After all, his first
and longest relationship with the opposite sex was via his mother,
and vice versa if it's a woman and her father. If he patronizes
her and belittles her behind her back, that's a bad sign. If she
takes her father for a fool and plays him for all he's worth,
another bad sign. Granted, relationships are more complex than
that, and get even more so as we gain experience, but it's a warning
that under it all may still lurk the quiet belief that "all
men are pigs" or "all women are simpering idiots."
These sentiments, based on our initial relationship with a parental
figure, can be just as damaging as "my father is the perfect
man" or "my mother loves me like no one else ever will."
All of the above are ways to stulify one's growth, but the parental
relationship is a good way to measure one's starting point. It's
not necessarily where one will end up.
It's hard to gauge whether Joss considers such psychological issues
when developing a character - as a former writer, I know all too
well that sometimes characters develop independent of the writer's
intentions. But each character's relationship with the opposite
and same sexes is impacted by their understanding of such relationships
as seen through the lens of their first relationship, with their
parental figures. So it could be a grandparent, uncle, aunt, long-term
next door neighbor, family friend, or even older sibling who imprints
on a person how that person is going to react later to that gender.
We do un-learn such reactions, as we get older (such is part of
growing up), but the instinctive reaction may always be there,
under the surface.
And while Joss has a thing about fathers, as has been noted, I
also wonder if he doesn't have a thing about mothers, too. Look
at Joyce: she'd been divorced how long, and only just prior to
her death was finally going out on a date? The only other time
we've glimpsed Joyce having anything close to a normal interaction
with her peers was that fiasco with Ted. After that, Giles and
the band candy was as close as she got. For that matter, Angel
may have issues with his dad, but his mother is practically non-existent.
(I think she was dead by the time he was vamped, but I'm not sure.
Even if she was, he's never expressed any sign that he even thinks
of her, and certainly not nearly as much as he thinks of his father,
these hundred years later.)
So to bring it around to your question, A/A, if there's a man
in your life, somewhere, who's been your primary male relationship
for the majority of your childhood years... there's your father
figure. Even if this person is no longer in your life, studying
how you feel about that person may reveal undercurrents that still
reveal themselves when you're dealing with the male gender now.
The part played by a biological father who's absentee is pretty
much null, IME, and the child will effectively replace that parental
figure with someone else as soon as possible. The child may never
consider that new person a father, or even anything remotely similar,
but the new person is fulfilling one aspect of the parental role
by providing a relationship which the child will later use as
a basis as s/he grows up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's
mom........ -- Rufus, 00:20:59 07/04/01 Wed
One thing you brought up that caught my eye is Angel's mom and
her role in his life. Angelus came back and killed his family
taking relish in the fact that he had won the contest with his
father. The stuff with dad is easy to understand but it's the
mothers role that is a bit more complicated. At the very least
Liams dad was verbally abusive, she where was mom when all this
happened? The gender roles would have been pretty specific back
then where the man calls the shots in the family. But why show
mom as non existant? Usually when I look at an abusive situation
the mothers role again can be a bit fuzzy, going from "I
didn't know about what happened" to "I had no choice
in the matter". You never get a sense that Liam experienced
any love in his life other than the unconditional love of his
sister(makes me think of Dru). So where is Mom in the Buffyverse?
Dads may be getting taken to task but moms aren't faring much
better. Look to Amy the rat's mom who took over her daughters
body so she could have the youth she missed. Willows mom who only
seemed to exist in Gingerbread. Xanders mom was a voice and that
was it. The only mother that had any impact is dead. Parents are
made fun of in Band Candy. But for the most part they don't exist
much and the Scoobies have had to make up the missing family parts
with each other. I see this happen in real life. Is Joss trying
to tell the older generation something or is he just writing a
good tv series?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The
Scoobies & Peanuts & Ponderings -- Brian, 05:25:08 07/04/01 Wed
I once made a comment to a fellow Buffy fan that the show reminded
me of Peanuts where the adults(parents) are off stage, perhaps
only a voice.
Almost all young people go through a rebellious stage with their
parents as they try to establish a separate idenity from them,
from the family. If they are lucky, after they find out who they
are, what their idenity is, the family ties are reestablished.
Unfortunately many times, once those bonds are severed, they are
never reestablished.
I wonder and worry about the Scoobies:
Xander's parents are fighting alcoholics. Until they get help,
I can't see him getting back with them. Makes you wonder what
the wedding will be like?
Willow's parents seem so remote and over-intellectual. Do they
even know about their daughter's sexual choices?
Buffy's Dad is definitely AWOL. I can't believe that the father
I saw in the first seasons is the same one in season 5 without
some explaination that "something happened" to him.
Vamped? Monked? Mid-life crisis? Aliens?
Anya's parents are long gone. Will she miss having them at her
wedding, the happiest day of her life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Angel's mom........ -- Wiccagrrl, 09:42:25 07/04/01 Wed
Ok, I don't know why, but I always assumed she was already dead
(childbirth with Cathy, maybe?) I know it's conjecture, but something
about the family dynamic and particularly her absence made me
think she was no longer in the picture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Angel's mom........ -- Rufus, 13:11:25 07/04/01 Wed
Nope, I saw her in the Prodigal. I just went to the transcripts
and she is mentioned in there as well. She never said anything,
but she was there. Liam spoke to his sister and father and that
was it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I apologize if... --
AngelVsAngelus, 22:35:31 07/03/01 Tue
I apologize if anyone is offended by that post. I don't really
mean to turn the forum into a personal therapy session or anything,
I'm just curious, since we're on the topic of fathers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I apologize
if... -- Rufus, 00:26:11 07/04/01 Wed
Don't worry about your question it is valid. Sols answer kinda
sums it up. Family is who cares about you, are people you can
count on. Biology does not a parent make, loving involvement does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- rowan, 18:05:26
07/02/01 Mon
Hmmm...this is very interesting. I don't know much, but I'm always
game to share my ignorance for you to mock. ;)
The first thing that naturally comes to mind when discussing father
figures is authority (and feel free to psychoanalyze me -- I know
you already are because of the whole Spike thing anyway). Comic
book heroes often have to deal with authority and in particular,
the relationship of authority with justice and vengeance. These
heroes often fall into two camps (with all the wackiness that
ensues as the dimensional walls bleed): those who rebel against
authority (e.g Batman) and those who establish authority (e.g.
Superman). Perhaps the absence of the hero's main authority figure
symbolically sets up the internal conflict within the hero as
s/he must either rebel against the paternal authority to establish
identity or become the paternal figure to establish identity.
It's basically the battery that makes the hero run like a little
Energizer bunny. The whole identity crisis: am I good or am I
bad? am I just or am I vengeful? Without the paternal figure there
to tell the hero (i.e. give the authoritative judgement), hijinks
ensue.
In BtVS, of course, Hank is absent. Who represents paternal authority
for Buffy? Well, let me hijack Rufus's thread and say that it
is Giles and the CoW. But over the course of five seasons, we've
seen that authority essentially be revealed for the sterile bureaucracy
at its heart. Giles has steadily distanced himself from it to
in some ways take on the more nurturing role of mother or neutral
role of mentor. Finally, in Checkpoint, we see Buffy establish
her authority (the authority of the power of action) over the
CoW, neatly reversing the tables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Coral Cat,
00:58:16 07/03/01 Tue
Hmmm, I like! I have to mull this over for a while, but I think
you might be on to something. My first impulse was to put Buffy
in the Batman camp, and I think S3 & S4 Buffy did belong there,
but on second thought I'm not so sure S5 Buffy is still there.
"Checkpoint" she asserted her authority over the council,
and they essentially acquiesced.
If there is any authority over Buffy at this point, it would have
to be the First Slayer -- the very essence of the primal feminine
-- who reassures Buffy that she is love, but also tells her that
her gift is 'death'. Buffy can challenge that power, but she seems
to also hold her in awe. In any case, she gave the First's judgement
authoritative weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- purplegrrl,
14:08:23 07/06/01 Fri
***the relationship of authority with justice and vengeance***
Rowan, this is pretty much what I was trying to getting at with
this thread.
That, and not so much that Joss actually *has* father issues (although
he may, and that's something else all together), it's that because
a lot of the traditional comic book heroes had absent fathers.
And despite all the psychological quirks we read into that condition,
that is one of the reasons for the absent fathers in BtVS. Also,
BtVS is not about adults or traditional nuclear families. It is
about a group of teenagers growing up and meeting real life head
on, with demons and what not as the metaphor/simile/reality of
that grown-up world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: father figures in BtVS - revisited -- Rattletrap,
06:46:42 07/08/01 Sun
an interesting thread . . .
BtVS is a show that has always been largely concerned with growing
up. The Scoobies are their own family unit, though united by something
other than heredity (Family). Giles acts as a father figure all
the way through. For the first several seasons he is the father
of a group of teenagers, but by S5, the relationship has changed,
they are now young adults. Just like real life--we grow up under
the authority of our parents, but eventually we have to strike
out and make our own decisions and exert our own authority, just
as Buffy does in Checkpoint and the rest of S5. It's not that
the parental figure are gone, it's that the kids have grown up.
Giles remains friend and mentor, but realizes that he no longer
has authroity in the classic sense. He becomes the middle-aged
parent that we visit a couple of times a year and call once a
week. In some ways, Giles going down to recurring next year is
quite fitting.
Buffy or the Buffybot?
-- Jessica, 14:51:59 07/02/01 Mon
In the episode the gift that I recently watched for the 100th
time (I know I'm obsessed), I was left wondering, when Buffy tells
the gang before they leave the magic shop that if the ritual starts
everyone will die and that if anybody gets close to Dawn she will
kill them; is it Buffy or the Buffybot. In the beginning Buffy
is wearing the leather jacket and the leather pants but when the
fight begins the Buffybot is wearing them and it seems that she
didn't have time to change after she told them that and before
the fight; so did Buffy programmed the Buffybot to protect Dawn
at all cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Slayrunt, 16:07:20 07/02/01
Mon
Hi Jessica,
It was Buffy who said that she would kill anyone who got near
Dawn, but I know what you mean. I think Joss & co did that clothes
thing to fool people, so when the Buffbot is beheaded it is a
little surprise.
That is an interesting question about programming the Buffbot
though. Unless Willow changed the program, the Buffbot's main
concern would have been Spike, unless Spike told her to do that
for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- rowan, 18:23:51 07/02/01 Mon
I think it was Buffy who delivered that line. She hung back from
the group a little (they left before her), and I assumed this
was to give her time to change clothes. Glory had seen Buffy in
those clothes in Spiral (need laundering much?) so it probably
was part of the bait and switch.
As for the BuffyBot protecting Dawn, I think that was part of
Spike's programming of the BuffyBot. She had all the slayer programs.
In Intervention, we saw the BuffyBot participate in a mission
essentially designed to go kill Spike to keep him from spilling
the beans to Glory about The Key (granted, she got distracted
alot by his hot, tight body, but hey, who wouldn't?). So the BuffyBot
I think had all the basics to take on Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Nina, 19:07:04 07/02/01
Mon
The way I see it I think that Buffy told Xander and Anya that
their idea of using the Buffybot was good. We don't hear the word
"bot" but it's obvious that they are talking about it.
While Buffy and Spike were away, Willow probably just fixed the
bot. She said in "Intervention" that it would be an
easy fix. I am quite sure she didn't have time to reprogram anything
(which means that protecting Dawn was part of the original programing).
Buffy comes back to the magic shop with a black bag on her shoulders
(probably containing her new clothes), she then heads for the
basement while the others head for the tower. The switch was pretty
quick, but they wanted us to be surprised! Didn't work with me
though. Right when I heard Willow talking about an easy fix, I
knew the bot would be back. At least I hoped so. It was cleverly
done. Enough confusing to leave fans doubt how it was done even
after lots of screening! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Rufus, 19:23:10
07/02/01 Mon
I guess that meant that Willow had to take out the make Spike
happy programs so the Bot would be able to focus on Glory......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- Nina, 20:41:53
07/02/01 Mon
Hmmm.... maybe. But in Intervention the Buffybot helped Giles
over Spike. The slayer part of her was stronger than the "make
Spike happy" part. The slayer had a file to her name. She
was even programed to go slay even when Spike was asleep, so maybe,
just maybe, it wasn't that important to reprogram anything! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot? -- rowan,
21:01:17 07/02/01 Mon
I think Spike deserves some credit for not having made the BuffyBot
a one dimensional SexBot. He gave her all the connections to the
SG as well as her Slayer roots. Even if he didn't intend for her
to get out of the crypt (bad Spike!), he apparently gave her enough
"free will" so that she could choose to help the SG
hunt Spike down with the intention of killing him to keep him
from spilling the Key beans (granted, she got confused alot...darn
his sinister attraction...and that coat...and that hot, tight
body...and have you seen him naked...sorry, Evil Hand got away
from me there for a minute).
Thankfully, the whole BuffyBot incident was not what I spent several
weeks dreading it would be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot?
-- Rufus, 21:22:35 07/02/01 Mon
The Bot did offer to draw Willow sketches.......:):):)In the fight
the bot had with Glory I could just imagine her saying "have
you seen Spike naked?" could have won the fight that teeny
bit faster.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy or the Buffybot?
-- FanMan, 00:58:53 07/03/01 Tue
Bad Spike? Yes Spike is a bad boy, however keeping the Buffybot
in the crypt was because he was embarrassed.
Maby it was because he did not want Buffy to find out and take
away his substitute...that would be selfish and bad.
Two options? I go with the first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> are you guys kidding? -- anom, 21:52:22
07/05/01 Thu
C'mon, folks. Ro-Buffy had a total personality transplant. As
in having one at all, let alone some semblance of intelligence.
Warren's version was a lot like April, with the extremely limited
responses & knowledge about her friends. Everyone who knew the
real Buffy could tell something was wrong, but they attributed
it to a vision hangover. The ro-Buffy that faced Glory sounded
and acted like the real one, & knew stuff about how to fight her
that Spike could never have had programmed into the fake. Sure,
April had fighting skills, but she *growled*. Nothing like the
running commentary ro-Buffy came up with. Willow had to have done
some major reprogramming. (Plus it seemed like all the "Oh,
Spike!" programming was gone.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys kidding?
-- Rufus, 00:42:50 07/06/01 Fri
That would be a ghost in the machine that made April *growl*,
I must admit that when Intervention came on I thought if April
*growls* what the heck will the Buffybot do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys kidding?
-- anom, 23:11:08 07/07/01 Sat
"That would be a ghost in the machine that made April *growl*,
I must admit that when Intervention came on I thought if April
*growls* what the heck will the Buffybot do?"
Huh? They were never in the same episode.
But I was quoting Buffy in "I Was Made to Love You."
Was I the only one who heard those asterisks (or italics, or whatever)
when Buffy said, "You made her so she *growls*?!"
(not to mention the "?!")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys
kidding? -- Rufus, 00:23:46 07/08/01 Sun
I was pretty spoiled by the time that Episode with April aired
and at the end Spike gave Warren his order. So I thought if the
Aprilbot *growls* what the heck could a Buffybot do......plus
I saw the episode twice that night and could reflect upon what
I already knew when Buffy asked about the Bot growling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: are you guys kidding?
Good points and a question... -- KendratVS, 14:49:01 07/08/01
Sun
(ROFLMAO remembering the part about April *growling* and Buffy's
reaction when she confronted Warren! Damn, that series has some
great humor interspersed with all the other goodness!)
My question is fairly trivial, and maybe not worth too much thought,
but right before Glory knocked the Buffy-bots head off, she (Buffy-bot)
was saying "You're about to..." Was the Buffy-bot alluding
to real-Buffy being behind Glory with Olafs hammer, or was it
just part of her fight-banter routine? Until the camera pans back
and we see Buffy, the viewer didn't know, so I am just wondering
what would have come out of the Buffy-bots mouth if Glory hadn't
knocked her block off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No Dawn programing. -- vampire hunter D, 11:33:21
07/03/01 Tue
I don't think Spike gave it any real programming to protect Dawn.
When Buffy (pretending to be roboBuffy) offered to tell Glory
who the Key was (to stop her from hurting Spike again), he didn't
seem surprised by it. He was obviously mad and affraid at the
possibility, but no surprised. If protecting Dawn had been part
of hte original programming, this slip up by Buffy would have
given her whole act away. But that's just my take on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: No Dawn programing. -- Solitude1056, 12:12:19
07/03/01 Tue
That would've involved telling Warren that Glory was bad guy who
was after Dawn, I'd think. And Spike knew the less folks who know,
the better. I didn't recollect that Buffybot had too many details
about Glory other than she's "another bad guy," at most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: No Dawn programing. -- AK-UK, 14:48:59
07/03/01 Tue
I assumed that the Buffybot was programmed to go into a default
mode when not around Spike; she would act like the real Buffy
insofar as her limited programming would allow.Thus she might
well protect Dawn (as long as it didn't conflict with her overiding
wish to serve Spike) I don't think Spike would have been stupid
enough to tell Warren that Dawn was the key, so I'm guessing that
Spike thought the "Buffybot" found out about Dawn's
true identity when she met up with the SG.
Need some technical assistance -- LadyStarlight,
06:02:35 07/03/01 Tue
OK, so I'm writing this new fic and Wisewoman (shakes fist in
air & says "Damn you, Wisewoman! Now I must neglect housework
to write more...oh, right, that's not really a bad thing, is it?)
brings up this little niggling point: Do vampires show up in photos?
Angel proved that they show up on videotape (twice, I think),
so would a photo be the same thing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Need some technical assistance -- Marie, 06:24:23 07/03/01
Tue
When Wesley was trying to prove to the rebels of Pylea that he
knew the 'Princess', he showed them a clear picture of himself,
Cordelia and Angel, so I guess the answer is 'Yes'.
(Begs the question of why Angel was so fascinated by his hair
in the mirror, though - hadn't Wes showed him the picture??).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Need some technical assistance -- Shaglio, 07:25:09
07/03/01 Tue
This question was brought up a while back (maybe it's somewhere
in the archives). I beleive it has to do with the type of camera
being used. Back in the old days, cameras used to work using mirrors,
which wouldn't be able to take a picture of a vampire for obvious
reasons. I don't know much about the inner workings of modern
cameras, but I'm pretty sure they don't use mirrors anymore. Can
anyone else verify this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance -- Solitude1056,
07:55:34 07/03/01 Tue
Yes and no. Depends on the camera. Most 35mm more-than-one-use
cameras still use mirrors, which bounce the image up to the viewfinder.
That mirror then flips out of the way, blocking the viewfinder
and revealing the unexposed film for the duration that the shutter
is open. So technically, while framing the picture, you wouldn't
be able to see the vampire because it's a reflection into the
viewfinder. But once you take the picture, it'd be an image going
straight through the lens and onto the film. (Ok, so maybe not
all cameras. This is ignoring those that have a viewfinder that
goes straight through the body of the camera, and doesn't actually
show you the picture through the lens - most point-and-clicks
and digitals are like this, in which case... no mirrors.)
To confuse issues more, though, I recall an image of Darla from
season one, where Giles shows Buffy what appears to be a reprint
of a daguerreotype. Last time I checked, many of of the older
large-format cameras (pre 35-mm) didn't always have a focusing
viewer, which would usually use a mirror to reflect the image
from the lens up to the viewfinder. The oldest cameras you just
had to guess, but with the long sitting times, the depth of field
was going to be large enough that a great deal of the picture
area would be in focus anyway (just like a pinhole camera now-a-days).
The optics hadn't really caught up to the point where in-focus
and not-quite-in-focus were instantly obvious.
I don't know if there's anything in Joss' schema which has ever
stated explicitly that vampires would or wouldn't show up on film.
If the argument's that mirrors in cameras would prevent us from
seeing the vamp in the final image, then I'm thinking that this
assumption may result from just a lack of knowledge about how
cameras work, for the most part. (And not surprising; it's an
arcane science to many.) In that case, if I were doing a vampire's
portrait, I'd just open it up to a greater depth of field and
put the camera on auto-focus. Just because I can't see the vampire
through the view doesn't mean the camera can't focus on its own,
since the camera's lens-eye has no problem seeing the vamp, even
if the mirror is negating my view.
So basically: old or new, there's only a few cameras which would
involve mirrors within the exposure process itself, and that design
is so rare I'd consider the risk negligible. Consider vampires
as photographable and videotapeable as anyone else... and then
you can start dealing with that old tradition about witches not
showing up on film. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance --
Marie, 08:23:15 07/03/01 Tue
I recall an image of Darla from season one, where Giles shows
Buffy what appears to be a reprint of a daguerreotype.
I'd forgotten that, but you're right, though this was actually
Drusilla, I think, in 'Lie to Me' (after Buffy had seen Angel
talking to her in the park).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance
-- Humanitas, 08:49:43 07/03/01 Tue
Angel also appears in a picture from the 50's in "Are You
Now or Have You Ever Been."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Need some technical assistance
-- Andy, 09:48:01 07/03/01 Tue
I believe what Whedon said on the matter of cameras is that vampires
can be photographed because a camera simply isn't, in a metaphysical
sense, the same thing as a mirror, or reflecting pool or whatever.
So even though mirrors are part of a camera's overall mechanism,
they can indeed be photographed or filmed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, we do too show up! I've been filmed
many times... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:29:39 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> There you go, LadyS. You were right! (I knew they'd know)...
;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:31:33 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> a technical description -- vampire hunter D, 11:24:19 07/03/01
Tue
Alright, I know this has nothing to do with Buffy, but the following
appears in Vampire: the Masquerade Lasombra Clanbook (Lasombra
being the only vamps that don't appear in mirrors): "We do,
in fact, partially appear in mechanical media for recording images
(as opposed to those based on capturing reflections). Videocameras,
colorphotography, security monitors, motion sensors, and any other
forms of mechanical surveillence pick us up, aln=beit as shadowy
flickers. Black and white photography is the exception to this
rule. Perhaps because this form of photography is based on the
absorption of light by a silver based compound (a form of reflection,
perhaps?)."
Don't know if this helps any, but it's interesting(I've always
liked White Wolf's vampires better than Joss'. Maybe Joss should
use this as a basis for his own vampire's weeaknesses.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> not the clearest... -- Solitude1056, 12:10:25 07/03/01
Tue
"We do, in fact, partially appear in mechanical media for
recording images (as opposed to those based on capturing reflections).
Videocameras, colorphotography, security monitors, motion sensors,
and any other forms of mechanical surveillence pick us up, aln=beit
as shadowy flickers. Black and white photography is the exception
to this rule. Perhaps because this form of photography is based
on the absorption of light by a silver based compound (a form
of reflection, perhaps?)."
It's not clear to me whether the WW variant on the tradition is
saying they do appear on b/w film (as opposed to color) - or that
they do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> clarification -- vampire hunter D, 12:31:16
07/03/01 Tue
It said that Lasombra do not appear in black and white photography.
Sorry or the confusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> word from a photographer -- Solitude1056, 12:30:56 07/03/01
Tue
And now for something not quite different, I asked my housemate,
the aforementioned Peanut Gallery, who's also been a pro photographer
for for uh, a lot longer than I'm gonna say here. His response:
1. All photographic film is based on the interaction of some range
of electromagnetic wavelengths with chemicals that have been designed
to be sensitive to that range. True IR, for instance, is a different
set of wavelengths than visible light. There are X-Ray films,
etc. as well.
2. I've yet to hear a non-superstitious explanation of something
you can see with your eye but not with a mirror. The origin of
the "no-reflection" rule had to do with the idea of
seeing one's spirit or soul in the mirror.
3. There are, of course, situations that are the other way 'round:
things you "see" but that don't show up on any recording
device, because they're not really "there" in the visible
sense -- ghosts, for instance (spirit photography notwithstanding).
Now, if you posit a being that does not reflect light at all,
then I suppose it would only be visible, whether to the eye or
a recording device, by the negative space or shadow effect. [Anything]
that could let light pass straight through [itself] would be completely
invisible. There are such things, and much sci fi -- and religion!
-- is based on the idea that some could be sentient [such as]
angels, etc. Depending on which rationalization you accept, an
angel is either only visible because your mind translates the
presence into visual stimulus, or it vibrates at such a high frequency
that it only partially intercepts and reflects light, the rest
passing straight through. I like the second, myself, as far as
angels go, though it's not necessarily an either/or for all creatures.
So first, if vampires didn't have a physical body, they wouldn't
be visible. They do, so that's out. Second, if vampires didn't
reflect light at all, not only would the camera not be able to
see them, but our own eyes would effectively be unable to see
them, because our eyes don't work by "seeing" an object
- our eyes actually interprete the lightwaves bouncing off an
object, and our brain extrapolates this into "seeing"
an object. So if vampires didn't reflect light, we wouldn't be
able to see them in the first place.
To which the Peanut Gallery replies:
Of course, no bounce at all + absorption = shadow; no bounce +
transmission (ie, straight through) = invisible. So my stance
would be that vampires are photographable, videographable, etc.
It's possible vampires wouldn't show up on Kirlian (sp?) photography,
which measures low level electrical fields. It's touted as "aural
photography" but in fact all bodies generate an electrical
field as a result of the molecular activity going on - but we're
getting away from my and my housemate's knowledge of photography
and into some murky scientific waters, there. So if you posit
that vampires don't have an electrical field due to the braindeadness
of their bodies, they wouldn't show up on Kirlian. But if the
demon's making the body work - regardless of the power source
- then they'd still show up, perhaps a bit quieter on the print
than most humans. Or perhaps just as vividly.
(If you're wondering, "infrared" film does not measure
how "hot" something is. It's film that's supersensitive
to certain wavelengths outside the normal visible spectrum, but
it doesn't pick up that the person is "hotter" than
the sky - it only picks up which is bouncing back more of a certain
wavelength at the camera.)
And lastly: I don't know about that no-soul or no-spirit as the
justification for witches not showing up on film. Seems to me
that this wouldn't be something to boast about.
1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Rendyl,
23:30:28 07/04/01 Wed
"Well, judging by the outfit, I guess it's safe to come in.
Evil Angel never would've worn those pants." (Cordelia, "Eternity")
Oh, how we love to drool over the leather pants of evil and the
sexy vampire wearing them. As long as we don't have to get any
closer of course, since the vampire wearing them is not our sweet
brooding Angel but instead is Angelus, The Scourge of Europe,
and a legendary evil even among vampires. Cruel, violent, and
sadistic, he is the epitome of a demon.
The question (discussed on many a forum) is how did Angelus evolve
from Liam? As we saw in 'Over The Rainbow' and in 'There's No
Place Like Plrtz Glrb' the demon inside Angel/Angelus is nearly
a mindless animal, with no thought but to kill, eat, and kill
again. It even goes for the blood Fred lures it with, rather than
attack Fred. There are no indications of the cruelty we see in
Angelus.
As Greta from this board put it so well,
"...it makes clear that the it's the vampires' human nature
that makes them "evil." I.E. when Angelus killed Jenny,
it was the beast that let him catch her and snap her neck, but
it was the soulless MAN whose twisted artistic vision arranged
the body in Giles' bed" (Greta, 8:28 5/18/01).
We have Angelus; famous not so much for how many humans he killed
but for how painful and inventive his torture of them was. How
do we get Angelus from Liam? The newly risen Liam is a typical
vampire. He rises, has his first meal, and then slaughters his
village. No grand plans or involved torture here, just some good
(or rather evil) old-fashioned killing and mayhem. Then his memories
begin to influence him.
"What we once were informs all that we have become."
(Darla - 'The Prodigal')
Time to turn on his family. He saves his father for last. He seems
to enjoy the pain his father feels at seeing the family dead and
bloody but he seems most happy at having beaten his father.
"You told me I wasn't a man. You told me I was nothing. -
and I believed you. You said I'd never amount to anything. Well,
you were wrong. " (Liam- 'The Prodigal')
He kills his father and for a few minutes he is happy. Then Darla
speaks the words I believe created Angelus.
Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?" Liam: "Now
I've won." Darla: "You're sure?" Liam: "Of
course. I proved who had the power here." Darla: "You
think?" Liam: "What?" Darla: "Your victory
over him took but moments"... "But his defeat of you
will last life times." Liam: "What are you talking about?
He can't defeat me now." Darla: "Nor can he ever approve
of you - in this world or any other."
With a few words she reduces Liam, who had been feeling frisky
and fine, likely almost high on his new found power over life
and death, back to the drunken worthless son. He not only lost,
he can never win.
My husband tells me that being accepted as an adult by your father
is an important part of growing up. Liam will never have this.
His father never acknowledged him as an adult or as a man worthy
to be his son. Now he never will. Because of this, Liam becomes
Angelus, a vampire who thrives on making his victims suffer, proving
(at least to himself) that he holds power over them. The more
helpless his victims appear, the more powerful he feels.
Angelus never fights a battle he cannot win. In 'Fool For Love',
Spike wants more danger, bigger challenges and the possibility
of losing. Angelus only wants a soft bed, fine clothes, and innocent
victims to torture and eat. If Angelus cannot win a fight he avoids
it, and in doing so he avoids the possibility of failure. As Liam
he failed at most things, including revenge on his father. As
Angelus he is going to make sure he never fails again.
"Eternal torment. - Am I learning?" (Angelus, 'Dear
Boy')
There is a certain amount of speculation on whether Drusilla was
a success or a failure. Angelus was obsessed with her, with making
her believe she was evil. He succeeded in breaking her, but not
(I think) in the way he intended. Ultimately she was able to escape
him by going insane. She was still tormented but the essence of
who she was died when she did. He created an insane demon that
is tormented, rather than a human girl who willingly embraced
evil.
Then we have his obsession with Buffy. There are several similarities
to Drusilla. Buffy is young, innocent, and beautiful. She has
a supernatural ability that sets her apart from her friends and
family. She is uncertain about what she is and where her gifts
come from.
Not enough just to kill her, he wants to torment her, and to completely
destroy her. He tells Spike "to kill this girl you need to
love her" but that love becomes the root of his inability
to kill her. Even without a soul he still loves her. He hates
her for it, but he still feels it. He spends hours watching her
sleep, making sketches of her. He looks for reasons to fight her,
excuses to touch her and be near her, but never takes complete
advantage of her inability to kill him. He kills Jenny and leaves
her as a morbid present for Giles instead of choosing someone
closer to Buffy. He torments her friends but he never leaves them
dead on her doorstep.
Angelus knows if he kills Buffy it is all over. The same applies
if he pushes her too far and it drives her insane. His fun ends
and she wins. So he struggles with wanting to be close to her
while at the same time wanting to hurt her.
In the end his need to be in control, to be powerful, and to win
overrides any thought or reason. He cannot bring himself to kill
her (or to admit that he cannot kill her) and he cannot win if
she is still alive. Enter Acanthla and suddenly Angelus has the
ability to suck earth into a hell. Eternal torment for Buffy seems
like the perfect solution. It is big, showy, and tailor-made for
his reputation. Her pain never has to stop and he insures he will
never lose her, or lose to her.
(Of course he does lose and regains his soul but that is another
topic, for another poster.)
************************************************************ Morning
all! My take on 'he in the leather pants of evil' is posted. Question,
comment, ponder, or dissect him at will. Just don't invite him
in. ;) -Ren ************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party:
Angelus -- Rufus, 03:27:54 07/05/01 Thu
Rendyl....leather pants, gotta be evil.
Angelus is the worst of vampires, he is what the old ones would
have had in mind when they created the vampire. He is the venus
flytrap of lust in leather. The face of and angel that even fooled
his sister.
I take the villiage to be the practice session, his family the
main event in Angelus/Liam's quest for the big win over his father.
Total destruction for his feelings of worthlesness. Darla sure
knew how to pick a monster. Angelus is all about power, he also
sees love as an enemy of power with the ability to drain strength
as it makes him feel vunerable again. The influence of the demon
is that of trickery, fooling Angelus into thinking he is a winner
by killing others. With every victim Angelus loses again as he
is forever stuck, eternally searching for the fatherly approval,
love, he will never get. The more he kills the more he feels that
loss. When Angel fell in love with Buffy then lost his soul, Angelus
became enraged knowing that Buffy could never approve of him just
like dad. The act of killing only giving Angelus power for that
moment before he realizes that his victim has escaped him just
like his father did. Dru escaped by insanity, his other victims
by death. Buffy had the most power over Angelus of anyone, she
is the one person he had ever loved, a power over him that the
ego of Angelus couldn't take. Angelus is a homicidal Peter Pan,
the only thing that stopped him was the return of his soul. Only
then could Angel begin the slow process of growing up.
Great post Rendyl, love the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Wisewoman,
17:45:53 07/05/01 Thu
Really insightful on the role Darla played in turning Liam into
Angelus. Like Rufus, I want now to see the process of Liam/Angelus
growing up into Angel...
Great post, Ren!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Slayrunt,
06:20:45 07/05/01 Thu
Rendyl, great post, I have been a fan of the show for years but,
now that I have found this board and you fine people, I see new
and interesting facets that I would not have on my own.
I can't wait for season 7 to start so I can read all of your ideas
and insights. Thank you all.
I believe that Darla lead Liam to the scene above from 'The Prodigal'.
She is the Col Parker of the vampire world, molding and refining
the rough gem she found in Liam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Rendyl,
08:25:49 07/05/01 Thu
***She is the Col Parker of the vampire world, molding and refining
the rough gem she found in Liam.***
Rofl Slayrunt...no special comments - just thought your idea of
Darla as the Col deserved being in print again.
(my sick-at-home hubby listened to my laughing and now thinks
I am demented, but I am hoping to pass it off as him being delirious-grin)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Sophie,
13:14:16 07/05/01 Thu
I know the obvious reply to this is - but he has got his own series
- but the story of Angelus is one thing that Joss is constantly
revealing and with a lot of focus. Despite the obvious contrast
to Angelus, courtesy of the soul, Joss and co. have not IMO ever
really dealt the issue that this creature came from Liam. The
idea that Angelus needed fatherly approval and reacts like a petulant
child (albeit an evil one) in true 'they f@?# you up your mum
and your dad' style, is an appealing one. However, it is his extreme
sadism that I feel is never really reconciled with Liam. I know
the demon is supposed to take the natural instinct of the individual
to logical extremes but I am not sure I can see this in Liam.
I too think Darla must have had a lot to do with what Liam became.
Immature just does not do evil that well! Anyway that is just
my opinion and thanks for listening - Sophie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I was quoted:) -- Greta, 06:39:11 07/05/01 Thu
I'm flattered.
*He kills Jenny and leaves her as a morbid present for Giles instead
of choosing someone closer to Buffy.*
I never considerd that aspect too much before, but now it adds
a whole new dimension to that arc. Do you think that if Angelus
had killed, say, Xander, Buffy would have been as willing to forgive
Angel?
I also really liked your thoughts on Angelus still loving Buffy
but nonetheless unable to endure the thought of defeat. It's interesting,
and very telling, that he equates love with defeat, perhaps because
love (in any sort of healthy way) involves a certain surrender
of control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- spotjon, 10:30:00
07/05/01 Thu
Nice analysis, Rendyl! It's given me some food for thought for
my "Angel" post, which won't be up until later tonight.
I already have the outline done for the post, but I haven't started
writing it, yet. It'll be up by midnight tonight, Central Time,
I swear! ;-)
In other news, I just picked up the second issue of Fray, and
I have to say that this series is very very cool. I love the characters
and plot, and there are some promised revelations concerning why
the Slayers stopped being called in the next few issues, so what's
stopping you from picking this up? :) I won't spoil any of the
specifics of the story, but perhaps I'll write one of these character
analyses for her once the series is over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Simple question. Is Angelus a sociopath or psychopath???
-- Emcee003, 12:35:39 07/05/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Simple question. Is Angelus a sociopath or psychopath???
-- Brian, 13:21:01 07/05/01 Thu
Not so simple a question. I always thought that a socipath is
someone who could function in society at large, but was a monster
with his family/friends. A psychopath is someone who can not function
in society on any level for very long.
So Angelus, I think,is neither. He is a predator who stalks human
prey. In his vampire world he is fully functional and admired
for his abilities to torture, maim, slaughter on physcial and
psychological levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Simple question. Is Angelus a sociopath or psychopath???
Neither -- Brian, 13:36:38 07/05/01 Thu
I think a sociopath is someone who can function in society at
large but is a monster with his family and friends. A psychopath
can not function in society for any length of time without breaking
down. Angelus is neither. He is a demon, a stalker of human prey.
In his vampire circle he is admired for his abilities to maim,
torture, kill, and destroy people on the psychological level as
well as physical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fantastic post! Thank you. :) -- rowan, 14:37:12 07/05/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Grin and thanks! -- Rendyl, 13:35:49 07/06/01 Fri
*Blush*
Actually you need a thanks for organizing this whole posting party.
So far it has been a lot of fun, Masq needs a thanks because..well
just because it is her board, (grin) and everyone else needs a
thanks cause their replies have been very cool.
I would have jumped into the discussions more (for Angel and Angelus)
but I seem to have caught (sigh...I hate feeding Solitude's ego
but here goes) a stomach bug. So instead of waxing philosophic
I have been stuck on the couch watching cartoons and soaps. Hmm,
maybe I posting partied to hard? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Stomach Bug -- Brian, 15:50:19 07/06/01 Fri
YOu have my sympathy and best wishes for a speedy recovery. I
had it for about ten days, no fun, but it has only slowed me down,
not stopped me from missing work. Rats!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- sollig, 14:56:38
07/05/01 Thu
Okay, I don't mean to be dim, but I still don't quite understand
the Angel/Angelus dichotomy. On another posting board I once asked
why it was impossible for Buffy to love Spike, yet she could love
Angel. (And by that I meant, in regard to her morals, what allowed
her to love Angel.)
Most replies said that Angel is worthy of her love because he
has a soul, and that Angelus is really a separate entity sharing
the same body. Angel is therefore "good" and not responsible
for the actions of Angelus. Spike, on the other hand, is just
plain evil and only does good deeds because of his chip. (I feel
this is debatable and fodder for other discussions; I'm really
not trying to turn this into a Spike thread!)
Huh? Is that the general consensus here? Or was I just terribly
mislead about the nature of Angel/Angelus? Help me out here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Rufus,
15:08:05 07/05/01 Thu
Buffy fell in love with the Angel that had time to consider his
actions via the gypsy curse. He was never meant to be happy, he
was supposed to be in torment. And tormented he was until he saw
Buffy. I think that was the intervention of the PTBs through Whistler
to goad this unpredictable character onto the side of light. The
Scrolls say that it's not certain exactly which side Angel is
on when the final battle happens. It's ironic that a curse was
Angel's start to redemption. The reason that Buffy finds it hard
to love Spike is that to contemplate loving a soulless being starts
a paradigm shift in the vampire situation, and these shifts aren't
easy and are hotly contested as it's hard to go against all you
have been taught to feel and believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Angelus -- Liquidram,
01:37:09 07/06/01 Fri
I believe Buffy justifies her love for Angel because she loves
him which is not that much different than a mother believing her
child can do no wrong regardless of ample proof because of the
unconditional love she has for her child.
The Spike/Buffy storyline is more than likely a prologue into
Joss' Season 6 Grow Up theme. Buffy is older and presumably wiser,
yet she still refuses to acknowledge feelings for Spike (which
I believe she has).
We, with the privilege of knowing more about Angel and Spike than
Buffy does via those flashbacks that she is not privy to, understand
that Angelus was far more evil than Spike. We also know that if
Angel loses his soul, he instantly becomes Mr. Super Evil whereas
Spike potentially will remain good even if the chip is removed
because of his ever increasing feelings for Buffy, Dawn and the
SG because he has chosen goodness. It has not been forced upon
him.
Buffy's analogy of the serial killer in prison was clever, but
not really applicable since Spike could still be very evil by
association with other demons and chooses not to be.
Back to the Grow Up theme. Buffy and the SG must now acknowledge
that things are not always black and white. This has been discussed
in previous threads, so I won't repeat everything here. The main
point being that all humans are not necessarily good, and the
demons ain't always bad. Buffy can no longer justify that killing
demons is automatically acceptable because they are all evil.
Her love for Angel and her acceptance for Anya (and even for Tara
before Spike punched her (and was his pain real or did he fake
it for a person(s) he respected and cared about?) show that she
is willing to look beyond the past. Her refusal to acknowledge
feelings for Spike or even accept that there is a possibility
of feelings will hopefully be addressed as part of her growth
in Season 6.
I really hope that Joss can find a way to work a few crossovers
into the new season with the UPN move. Angel and gang are a very
big part of the Buffyverse and it will be pathetic and sad if
we lose that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Wisewoman, 17:58:19 07/05/01
Thu
Okay, I'm getting confused here...we have Liam, a human being
with, presumably, a soul, who becomes Angelus when he is demonized,
and Angelus has no soul. Then Angel, while still demonized, gets
his soul back.
Well, how come Angel, with both soul *and* demon, seems to be
a *better* human being than Liam was? I take the point that Angel
had lots of time to become who he is today, but did he get a different
soul than Liam had originally, or what?
Would Liam, had he remained undemonized, eventually have grown
into the sort of *good* man Angel is? It wouldn't appear so.
What's the deal here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Slayrunt, 18:32:33
07/05/01 Thu
Would Liam, had he remained undemonized, eventually have grown
into the sort of *good* man Angel is? It wouldn't appear so.
I don't think so, Liam would have continued to be the kind of
man his father wanted, which was worthless. IMO he would have
gone through his life as a drunken whoremonger trying to live
down to his father's expectations. It is doubtful that Liam would
have ever been as evil as Angelus and I think that evil was the
thing the soul rejected.
IMO family can really screw with your mind and if you become a
good person, it is in spite of it, not because of it. But when
Angelus got his soul back it was the evil acts he committed that
made him seek redemtion not the cause of the evil act which were
Darla and his father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Rufus, 19:08:40
07/05/01 Thu
Actually I think that Liam could have become a better man if he
got out of the pubs. He was young enough that the intervention
of the right type of influence could have made all the difference.
Unfortunately he met up with Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- AK-UK, 19:29:18
07/05/01 Thu
Wisewoman, I think the answer lies with the demon. Let me explain:
it has been said time and again on BtVS that when a human becomes
a vampire, the demon that enters their body warps aspects of the
human's personality and forms a new personality. What we tend
to overlook is that the "demon" probably had some personal
characteristics of it's own. So, I'd say that the demon was probably
more intelligent, more insightful than Liam. Liam appeared to
me to be incredibly self centred. Therefore I'd say that Angelus's
ability to pyschologically torture his victims, preying on their
fears, etc etc, came from the demons ability to look beyond itself;
it's ability to see and understand other creatures hopes and fears.
So, when Angelus's gets Liam's soul back, the soul warps the demon's
"personality" and Angelus becomes Angel. Angel is now
able to look beyond his own desires. He has a greater understanding
of what makes people tick, but now, because he has a soul, this
new found awareness leads to empathy, rather than hate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Rufus,
20:18:58 07/05/01 Thu
In the eps that occured in Pylea it became clear that the demon
was quite primative. It needs the personality and memories of
the host to function. What happens is that the soul of the human
is gone taking with it the natural tendancy to favor good, feel
good about doing good. The demon gives the vampire the desire
to create chaos. The thing that makes a vampire act is the personality
of who it was/is. Liam may have changed his name to Angelus but
he is still Liam, still insecure, weak, with an extreme need for
approval. As the worst vampire around he got that approval by
the reputation he got. When he got his soul back Angel is what
remained of Liam and Angelus. The demon is still in the man, but
it's clear that it's the man the makes the choices be them good
or evil. What Liam was missing was the ability to love. For whatever
reasons Liam was incapable of love, he was too busy in the contest
with his father. When Angel found Buffy he found out what love
was, he was finally acting on another emotion other than pride.
He told Buffy it was the man that was weak, the man that was the
problem. Having a soul made it less likely that he would do evil,
but not a guarantee, as he needed an Epiphany this season. "What
we once were informs all we become"(Darla the Prodigal).
You may be able to kill the person but you can never get rid of
who they were, they are all who they once were with a demon inside
directing them to act out on all of their past hurts, and grudges,
their moral compass no longer giving them the preference towards
good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul?
-- Wisewoman, 20:48:04 07/05/01 Thu
"What happens is that the soul of the human is gone taking
with it the natural tendancy to favor good, feel good about doing
good."
I guess my point is, even with his soul Liam didn't seem to have
the natural tendency to favor good or feel good about doing good.
That seems to have come, paradoxically, as AK-UK points out, from
his demon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul?
-- Solitude1056, 21:52:04 07/05/01 Thu
I guess my point is, even with his soul Liam didn't seem to have
the natural tendency to favor good or feel good about doing good.
That seems to have come, paradoxically, as AK-UK points out, from
his demon!
I'd say it came not from the demon, but from experience.
Liam's been on this planet now for almost 250 years... that's
a long time by anyone's standards. And our glimpses into post-soul,
pre-Whistler show a guy who doesn't want to kill but doesn't know
what he wants to do instead. The guy who left those folks in the
hotel with the paranoia demon isn't exactly someone I'd want to
meet in a dark alley, soul or no soul.
I've gotten the impression that few on this board qualify as youngsters
without much experience, so I don't think I'll be leaving most
in the dark when I say that many slackers I knew in high school
have turned out to be quite productive folks. At some point, something
happened and they decided to move along to a different way of
being - it's called growing up, I hear. The first catalyst of
this sort that Liam ever met just happened to be Darla, but it
could have easily been any of a number of other things, like joining
the military, getting thrown out of his house, or falling in love.
Frankly, no matter how much I love this life and this world, eternity
sounds like a pretty grim thing. I recall the characters in Johnathan
Swift's novel, in the land where certain people are born with
some sort of signifying mark that identifies them as immortal.
They've grown old from seeing so much, and are pitied by the mortals,
because everyone is aware that the immortals are doomed to watching
their loved ones eventually die, and all that they knew will pass
away... and they don't even get the release of a long sleep at
the end of a full life. Knowing they'll live forever, there's
no reason to do anything but mark time, which they have plenty
of. A vampire, to me, seems like that - something to be pitied,
because there's no eventual goal, no destination: just mark time,
another victim, another night, another decade.
But I digress... point is, Liam's inside Angel (and you can hear
it at times, when DB lets a soft lilt into his voice when the
character is especially comfortable), and he's grown as much as
those slackers I knew in high school. Anyone can change, given
time, and it doesn't take a demon (or 200 years) to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon vs
Demon/Soul? -- Rahael, 03:08:10 07/06/01 Fri
There's something that has always puzzled me.......when the Gypsies
restore Angel's soul, which presumably was Liam's, where had it
been all that time? Heaven? or Hell? Or was it just in a peaceful
nothingness?
What happened to it when he lost it again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul vs Demon
vs Demon/Soul? -- LadyStarlight, 05:52:03 07/07/01 Sat
Something I've always thought interesting: when discussing Angel's
soul (or the lack thereof) the term used is always "a soul";
not his soul. This sort of makes me think that perhaps souls are
interchangeable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul
vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Cynthia, 11:56:34 07/07/01 Sat
Maybe the soul isn't lost just deeply buried under tons of resistance.
I pasted a stone wall the other day and between the layers was
a young tree sapling sticking out, growing despite the rock and
concrete.
Perhaps, Liam's soul, (and Spike's also as another example) although
greatly influence by the presence of the demon and the experiences
of both Angel and Angelus, is growing and gaining strength despite
the length of time it took or the adversity it faced. Perhaps
it not soul or demon but a intergration of both? Sorta like the
blending of two personalities in split personality cases, two
halfs become a new whole.
In one case, the growth is forced by external forces (gypsy curse)
and the other it seems to be coming from within. It would be interesting
to see if the different reasons make for different outcomes; like
is one stronger and more likely to survive adversity than the
other?
One could argue that this is rarely seen since most vampires not
last to long. Either thru lack of intelligence and/or bad luck.
And the passage of time doesn't always allow the opportunity for
soul to find a footing (i.e. The Master). But given an opportunity
(curse/chip/major emotion) and time, it could sometimes happen.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Soul vs Demon vs Demon/Soul? -- Rahael, 10:34:53 07/08/01 Sun
Thanks Cynthia!
I think your right about the soul being present all the time.
After all, it would make Angel's remorse all the greater, if he
had been a horrified onlooker the whole time. And when Ang