June 2003 posts


Previous June 2003  

July 2003

Whedon Interview Part V - Finale Installment (Spoilers S7 Btvs) -- s'kat, 21:41:52 06/27/03 Fri

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/425/425492p8.html

This is the fifth & final installment of Ken's conversation with Joss Whedon.

Oh this sample includes all the stuff on S7 Btvs. If you want to know about Firefly or Future plans go to the link. No real spoilers outside of WKCS for Ats S5 in that interview. I left that out of the sample. It explains the Xander/Anya, Dawn, Giles, Willow/Kennedy and the whole Tara plan.


"IGNFF: I think what's interesting, especially dealing with the potentials, is that I know going in - with the comments you had made previous to the season - my thought was it's going to be a rededication to the core group throughout the season. It seemed the introduction of the potentials - and here's a dozen potentials and new characters accompanying them - that it diluted the core group that we care about ...

WHEDON: Yeah, I think it did, and I had to get to that ending. The problem is it's very hard to find a bunch of people that can suddenly come in and be important, or even just be sort of noise in the frame while you're dealing with your characters and really get it done. Like I said, we found really good people. But, you know, you do want to deal with your core characters. The other thing is, you've been dealing with your core characters for seven years. It's kind of hard. You know their tricks, you know their strengths and weaknesses, and you're trying to drum up a new thing for them to go through, you know, a new thing for them to express, and it's harder. It's just harder.

IGNFF: I know personally, looking at the characters, it's almost like the things that happened to every one of them through those last two seasons - right down to what happened with Xander and Anya - it's almost like the audience was being punished for having an investment in the characters. Can't somebody have a happy ending?

WHEDON: Well, you know, everybody had a happy ending... except, well, not so much Anya.

IGNFF: I can understand relationships tend not to work, but couldn't one relationship work?

WHEDON: Well, Willow and Kennedy worked. Maybe you weren't invested in that in the last one, but they were hanging at the end ... One of my characters will still have a girlfriend when they cancelled the show, and it was Willow.

IGNFF: The Kennedy thing almost seemed more of a predatory relationship.

WHEDON: Kennedy is, as she herself said, a bit of a brat. What I wanted was an anti-Tara. I wanted somebody who was as different from Tara as possible. Tara was very reticent, and she was somebody that Willow caused to blossom. What I wanted was somebody who was further on down in dealing with her sexuality than Willow ever was. Somebody who was totally confident, who was totally not earthy-crunchy, who was a completely different person. What I wanted to explore was the concept of Willow moving on. We did that with the first kiss, that turned her into Warren. The first time they had sex, the things that Willow has to deal with emotionally, her fear of her power and stuff, and Kennedy's kind of involvement in that. That's what Kennedy was for.

IGNFF: In execution, it almost seemed like it was a predatory, stalker type, "I'm always here, you're going to give in to me. You're going to give in to me - I'm in your bed!" kind of relationship...

WHEDON: Well, it didn't seem like that to me. It was more like, "I'm really cute. I think you're cute and let's get it on." People are always like, "Oh, they didn't even have a relationship." They had a long talk about, "When did you come out?" and this whole thing at the Bronze that we had never done with Tara, that we very deliberately saying, "Okay, they're starting a relationship." What I was interested in was Willow's guilt, that her life could go on, that her love life could go on after Tara, because that's a part of living. Quite frankly, that was not plan A. Plan A was to bring Tara back.

IGNFF: I heard there were some failed discussions about that.

WHEDON: Amber didn't want to do it. She wanted to do other things. I had a whole - I used to tell people, "Here's what we're going to do. We're going to have her in a couple of flashbacks, keep her alive, and then at the end ..." I had a whole show figured out that ended with the return of Tara. I used to cry every time I pitched it. It was going to be Tara's her one true love, people are going to be blown away, they'll never see it coming - except on the Internet - and it's going to be just about the biggest thing. Quite frankly, Amber just didn't want to do it - which is her decision. I was like, "Okay, the thing where I cried, and we all cried, and I told you about? That's gone. So, instead, we're going to go out and find somebody really hot, and we're going to make this about moving on, because that's the only option we have. I don't want Willow stuck in typical gay celibacy on TV. I'm interested in where her heart will go once she's lost her true love, so let's do that instead." So, you know, hence Kennedy.

IGNFF: On a side tangent, what was the purpose of the - I hesitate to use the phrase - sort of clumsy storytelling with the whole "Giles not touching things" thing...

WHEDON: It was just us having fun.

IGNFF: It didn't seem to really pan out besides making a lot of people crazy on the Internet...

WHEDON: That was just a fun runner for the diehards, so you watch every episode and you're like, "AH! You're right, he leaned on it, but he didn't touch it!" It was just us having a little mystery fun.

IGNFF: It almost reduced the intelligence level of the characters themselves.

WHEDON: Not really. As soon as they figured out he hadn't touched anything for a few episodes, they ran off and dealt with the problem, and figured it out. Boom. It wasn't like they were being idiots. Fact of the matter was, it really was just something to make people wonder. Just to have a little fun in the sense of pulling a mystery. You know, it was never supposed to be a huge thing. It wasn't about Giles's character, it was just about, "Uh, we don't know where the bad guy is, we don't know where he's coming from. Our trusted mentor could be the bad guy." That's a nice creepy thing to do to people, and playing the game of, "Is he touching something? Why didn't he hug her?" You know, it was an exercise, something to spice things up. It was not like a big, dramatic deal. If it didn't work, then oops - but I don't think it's the most important part of the season.

IGNFF: Are there any characters that you think got short-shrift in season seven?

WHEDON: Yeah. You know, I had wanted to go further with Dawn's character.

IGNFF: It seemed like that's how the season was starting out.

WHEDON: You know, it was. The problem was, again, we had so much work to do to get to the end of the season, that everything else kind of fell by the wayside. Unfortunately, Michelle was like, "Never did get that boyfriend you promised me!"

IGNFF: What was the purpose of Joyce's statement to her?

WHEDON: To rattle her. To make her wonder, and then, you know, it was just this sort of said thing. The First trying to set everybody against each other, was all, and I guess against themselves. But I just think Michelle's extremely talented. In season six, people were like, "Oh, she whines so much." I sort of scratched my head. I was like, "Excuse me, she's been abandoned by about six parental figures. The girl has huge issues." At the same time I was like, "You get it... we sort of run the same note for a while, they're not wrong." We needed to make some changes. I'd hoped to be able to do more with Dawn this year, and the bigger picture just got so goddamn big, that it was hard. You get into a situation that you do like to stand alone, that's about an external character - and we already had so many with the goddamn potentials... people don't like them. You're like, "I'm really interested in this little aspect of Dawn's life" - if it's not part of the bigger picture, people resent it. It's very hard to pull that off in season seven of the giant battle that's coming. "Dawn Goes on a Date" is not something that people would really sit for, unless we really nailed it. So it kind of fell by the wayside. She's not the only one, but she's a prime example.

IGNFF: It seemed almost like the pacing of the season was odd.

WHEDON: I think these aren't questions I can really answer right now, because I have no perspective of it. When you're talking about something like pacing, it's like, "Which episode was which?"

IGNFF: That's true. I can see the point... I retract the question.

WHEDON: You certainly don't have to see the point - I just don't really have a comment. I don't have that much of an overview right now. "


[For the rest of the interview please see the above link]

PS: I left out a section where Whedon discusses how great Tom Lenk was. Sigh. Guess I'm in the minority in hating the actor's portrayal of Andrew, but I also hate Adam Sandler,
JErry Lewis and embarrassing comedy...so there you go.

Enjoy!

SK
[> OK- now more resentful than ever for lack of Dawn! -- Tchaikovsky, 15:16:38 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> There's also an explanation for Caleb and lack of BB's from Lessons -- s'kat, 17:27:47 06/28/03 Sat

"IGNFF: In fact, it would have been nice if Caleb had shown up earlier.

WHEDON: Yeah, I think so, too.

IGNFF: Was that naturally where that was going to be?

WHEDON: No, that was us going, "You know what? We need someone to latch onto." Having a villain who can take the form of anybody - and not being able to afford to hire the guest cast - made that really fascinating, but it meant that we didn't really have anything to push against. We needed somebody, we needed a sidekick. Somebody physical that we can see from episode to episode, and it took us a while to realize, which is why he came in."

Seems casting and budget concerns really did screw them up royally last season.

What's also interesting about this interview and a few others I've read - is the revelation of how truly loosely plotted these shows are. They really had no idea about Caleb until mid-season. Every thing we think we see that foreshadows it or other things for that matter - is either subconsciously there by the writers or wishful thinking on our part. Just as in S6, I've read that they had no clue where they were going with B/S when they hit Dead Things.

Same thing with ATS - which was actually more tightly plotted - they didn't know about Jasmine immediately either.

Interesting writing style - explains a lot. Some things plotted way in advance, some things not plotted for at all and just happen to pop up. Not sure if it's really effective for serialized television though.
Jury is still out on that.
[> [> [> Re: There's also an explanation for Caleb and lack of BB's from Lessons -- Yellow Bear, 17:54:20 06/28/03 Sat

In his recent salon.com interview, Whedon comments that he has major points he needs to hit throughout the season to serve as anchors but he does not plan out the rest in detail so he can react to what he's seeing on the show. I would link to the site but I am total computer doof, however you can access it through a salon.com search. Great interview.

As for Jasmine, my understanding is that she became the BB on ATS only because CC's (loving abbreviation)pregnancy prevented her from fulfilling that requirement so it's hard to blame them for not seeing that far ahead. I think it turned out rather well also as Gina Torres is a far more accomplished actor than CC, who tended toward outright camp in her evil Cordy performance.

I think guest star issues certainly hurt BTVS over the last year. If plans had come to fruition with Tara & Oz, we might look back on this as one of the strongest seasons ever rather than the mild disappointment (in my case at least) it turned out to be.
[> [> [> [> Re: There's also an explanation for Caleb and lack of BB's from Lessons -- Yellow Bear, 18:00:24 06/28/03 Sat

In an EW interview, the producers of 24 noted that they had not planned to kill Jack's wife till the came to the writing of the final episode and that the had no idea who the S1 mole would turn out to be when they created the concept so even shows that shold be heavily plotted out seem to leave these things a little loose.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: 24 Plot Point -- Yellow Bear, 18:31:54 06/28/03 Sat

Allow me to correct myself. '24' producers decided to make Nina the mole half way through the first season. The article can be accessed through EW.com under '24' news section (see post above for my computer incompetence).

I just wanted to clarify what I said but still back up my point that even shows tht would seem to need exceptionally tight plotting tend to play these things loose.
[> [> Even more resentful here for lack of Tara! -- Rob, who blames (but still loves) Amber, 18:27:28 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> [> I was mad at Amber for a minute as well. Sigh! -- Dariel, 18:52:21 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> [> So was I, until I remembered some of the rumors -- s'kat, 22:44:24 06/28/03 Sat

At the time CwDP came out - we got conflicting stories regarding Amber.

1. Amber didn't want to reprise the character as ME pitched it - which appeared to be a version of the FE or a ghost.

2. Amber ran into problems negotiating a contract with Fox.
This was the one Whedon put forward.

Personally? I think it was #2, since I know Fox treated EC so badly, she decided in S6 she was not interested in working on Btvs or Angel after S7 in any capacity, but did want to work with ME. Also Fox wouldn't budget for the Big Bads. And all the troubles Whedon ran into with Fox on Firefly.

So my hunch, and it is just a hunch from reading interviews, is the problems in casting, etc in S7 and S6 had more to do with Fox than anything else. We have no idea how much money Fox got out of the UPN deal and where that budget went. We also have no idea what Amber wanted or needed out of the deal.

So yep, I hate the fact she didn't do it, but I'm not real sure if some of it was beyond her control.
[> [> [> [> Re: So was I, until I remembered some of the rumors -- Rob, 00:12:33 06/29/03 Sun

I'm beginning to think #1 is especially unlikely now...considering that the payoff at the end was going to be Tara returning to Willow at the end. I would think that Amber really would have wanted to be a part of that if she could. Even if she couldn't have done all the appearances throughout the year b/c she didn't want to appear as The First or a ghost, thinking it would be too much of a tease to the audience whom she felt she hurt with Tara's death, I would assume that she would have no objection to, at the very least, returning near the end of the season, or in the last episode, to resurrect Tara.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Disconnect between JW and AB -- Sophist, 11:00:00 06/30/03 Mon

Amber's public comments all mentioned her discomfort at appearing as FE/Tara (RlaM had the same discomfort). I'm surprised she wouldn't have mentioned the possibility of resurrection. More surprised that she would have been unwilling to do it.

Either AB wasn't aware of JW's proposal (which would be inconsistent with JW's comments), or she felt she couldn't mention it before now for some reason, or both she and JW are putting a polite face on what is actually a contract problem with Fox as s'kat suggested.
[> Andrew -- Arethusa, 19:14:34 06/28/03 Sat

I think ME's love of Andrew is part the fun of the writers projecting themselves on their favorite fantasy, and part of Whedon's love of subversion, to make the hero-type really be a weasel, and vice versa. Perhaps Andrew is Jayne, not Jerry. Alienation from society has produced a malleable, gullible man instead of a violent one, but both are not what they seem. (Plus it was fun to watch Spike and Andrew in contrast. If Spike is Quaismodo, Andrew is one of the little singing gargoyles.)
[> [> Re: Andrew -- s'kat, 21:21:40 06/28/03 Sat

"IGNFF: Oh, but what about Andrew?

WHEDON: Oh, don't get me wrong. Tom Lenk rules. I will hound him to the grave. This man is a genius.

IGNFF: Talk about the perfect sidekick for Giles on Ripper. Talk about an odd couple...

WHEDON: He is just a treasure... he really is a treasure. Believe me when I say he pops up in almost everything. Certainly in all my Aly projects. It's like, "There's Tom!" That's fine with her.

IGNFF: Definitely one of the biggest finds of the past two years.

WHEDON: Yeah, he blew us all away, and he's a sweetheart.

IGNFF: Much to Danny's [Danny Strong, Jonathan] dismay.

WHEDON: Danny, you know - you die, you work more then. That's our rule. No, Danny was with us since the presentation. Danny has been with us that long."

That's what they said. Suffice it to say - I don't get it.
I honestly do not understand the appeal of Tom Lenk. He makes me cringe. It does however go a long way towards explaining why there's so many comedies that I can't stand in cinemas and the videos stores at the moment though ;-)

Not sure what you meant by he's more Jayne than Jerry?
Is Jayne a Firefly reference? Because if so, sorry no just don't see it. I loved Jayne in Firefly. I meant Andrew's like Jerry Lewis in the Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin comedies - the guillible malleable fool that everyone laughs at. The reason I used the analogy was as an attempt to explain why I did not like Andrew and others did. I can't stand Jerry Lewis. That type of comedy is like someone scratching their nails down a chalkboard for me. I can't watch it. Andrew reminded me of that. I find Spike funny. I find Anya hilarous at time. Xander makes me laugh. So does Lilah on Ats - I love her lines. And I've often laughed with Jonathan. Giles is a riot. Andrew rarely made me laugh, cringe is a better word. His jokes seem obvious to me and I roll my eyes. It has to do with the delivery and the joke I suppose. The few times I liked him had nothing to do with tom lenk and everything to do with the actors he was paired with - notably Emma Caulfield, ASH, Nicholas Brendon, Jonathan Levinson, and James MArsters.
It doesn't surprise that others love him - I admit that I've always had an odd sense of humor - more black/dark wit, probably why I'm not writing comedies and other people are.
[> [> [> In other words . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:43:45 06/28/03 Sat

You prefer the people who give witty remarks about the situation or other people to those who inadvertantly make fun of themselves?

Just trying to make certain I interpreted your post right (I always get the nagging feeling I read someone's post the wrong way, especially when they make references (like Jerry Lewis) that I don't understand).
[> [> [> [> Sorry I didn't make it clear...a clarification -- s'kat, 22:11:03 06/28/03 Sat

You prefer the people who give witty remarks about the situation or other people to those who inadvertantly make fun of themselves?

Uhm no actually it's the reverse. I can't stand the witty remarks at the expense of other people. I explained this badly.

Just trying to make certain I interpreted your post right (I always get the nagging feeling I read someone's post the wrong way, especially when they make references (like Jerry Lewis) that I don't understand).

Thanks for asking. You did misunderstand. But, it's my fault, I did a bad job of explaining.

Trying again. Bear with me. It's taken me a while to put my finger on why Andrew bugged me.

1. So to put it another way? The scene where Dawn humilates herself in Him? I could not watch. But the scene where Buffy does macho macho man in Witch made me smile. Why? Because Buffy is atheletic and under a spell and the actress played it for fun. Also she was part of the squad at the time. Dawn's is played painfully. She's so clearly the outsider and there's no one on the scene supporting her.
Xander and Willow come in to support Buffy and give her a way out.

Or better yet? The scene where buffy and spike fight over the rocket launch to me is hilarous. The scene where Dawn screws up at cheerleading bugged me.

2. Actually I did laugh at Xander, Spike, Giles etc - but not when they were making a witty remark about Andrew. Those remarks made me cringe.

Andrew doesn't do physical humor - he has lots of insider joke lines, which were delivered in a high wavering voice and it grated on my nerves. So to me the remarks others made about him annoyed me, just as he did. To me - it felt as if the actor were making fun of effeminate men. Not gay men. Effeminate men - and I've known several and am sick and tired of the Hollywood inclination to poke fun at them - it's become cheap and cliche. JErry Lewis made fun of mentally challenged people - which is equally offensive. I liked Lewis best in his more serious roles. Jim Carey does the same thing. I don't mind if you make fun of yourself - it's when you make fun of someone else and further a stereotype in the process - that I can't watch, it squicks me.

What amused me in those character scenes with Andrew? It wasn't their witty remarks at his expense, those made me cringe and dislike the characters saying them.

It's well the following examples:

Giles' line in Chosen: "I'm reduced to a wounded drawf with the strength of a doily" - that was a witty remark about
Giles.

Spike's line in Empty Places about the flowering onion - that speech is wonderful. That made me laugh, just because it was so ironic coming out of Spike's mouth. I could laugh at Spike. I wasn't laughing at Andrew. The rest of his interaction with Andrew made me cringe. I could barely tolerate Andrew's interogation of the priest or the Spike/Andrew games with the tapestry. It grated.

Anya and Andrew's wheel-chair fight in End of Days. Hilarous. And their little sharing of the booze. Andrew getting tipsey and asking Anya to drive. I liked that scene.
Andrew telling Anya in Chosen about bunnies. And Anya's reaction.

Xander and Andrew saying the line at the same time in BoTN about the Wonder Woman comic book.

Those were funny. The put downs? Never were in my opinion and that's what most of the humor was. All of Storyteller
used that brand of humor. The good sections where Andrew brought out a funny trait in another character? Were few and far between.

Does that make sense?

sk
[> [> [> [> [> A little more -- Arethusa, 16:10:08 06/29/03 Sun

I had a similar reaction to Cassie. That voice, that martyred air...(shudder). But I became interested in Andrew's redemption. It was a rather pathetic, slightly sniveling little redemption, but theoretically his soul is as important as anyone else's.

I like Chaplin and Harold Lloyd, not Lewis and Carrey. But Andrew didn't irritate me very much, so I enjoyed watching him react to a world as fantastic as the ones he had dreamed up and longed to be a part of.
[> [> [> [> [> OK, then I'm not quite understanding -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:49:48 06/29/03 Sun

You express a distaste for humor that is at the expense of others, yet in several posts have described your sense of humor as "dark wit". I'm just not seeing the matchup. Dark humor, by its nature, is humor derived from ordinarily dark and serious subjects. Violence, intolerance, corporate greed, and societal flaws are the chief focus of dark wit/humor. What makes them dark is that they are derived from serious and hurtful things, and surely public embarrassment fits that billing?

On another note, I do agree about Dawn's embarrassment in "Him". I found that painful to watch (and, in fact, when I see something like that on TV, I usually mute it for a few seconds). However, I don't see it as being the same sort of humor used by the likes of Adam Sandler or Andrew. The difference lies in how they react to the embarrassing situations:

Dawn - acts thoroughly ashamed and humiliated, is brought to tears by the situation.

Sandler - doesn't really care about how others view him, feels perfectly free to just be himself and only cares about hurtful comments made by others when they hurt someone else (in such situations he usually goes into berserker rage mode).

Andrew - totally oblivious, doesn't really realize his behavior is considered geeky and annoying, and so isn't hurt by how he is viewed or treated by those around him.

I can laugh at Andrew and Adam Sandler because, while they find themselves in embarrassing situations, they don't act hurt by them; witty remarks or the views of others just seem to bounce right off them. I did cringe at the thing with Dawn, though, because you could clearly see she was in pain. That is where I see the difference.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK, then I'm not quite understanding -- s'kat, 18:32:59 06/29/03 Sun

Tom Lenk and Adam Sandler don't care - because that's not them - they are making fun of a character type they have taken on and pretended to become. They are doing impressions, while Michelle Tractenburg has created an actual character. You see, when I watch Andrew, I don't see a character - Andrew - I see Tom Lenk making fun of effeminant nerdy guys. When I watch Sandler - I don't see the character - I see Adam Sandler the actor doing an impression. I honestly don't "feel" these actors have created a flesh and blood character - more an impression or stereotype. A flat character. Dawn was flesh and blood to me, not just a flat comic relief or stereotype. It's a personal response I had to Tom Lenk's acting style. You may see and feel it differently - but that was my emotional response, which has not changed upon reviewing or reading posts or interviews.

You express a distaste for humor that is at the expense of others, yet in several posts have described your sense of humor as "dark wit". I'm just not seeing the matchup. Dark humor, by its nature, is humor derived from ordinarily dark and serious subjects. Violence, intolerance, corporate greed, and societal flaws are the chief focus of dark wit/humor. What makes them dark is that they are derived from serious and hurtful things, and surely public embarrassment fits that billing?

There are multiple types of dark/black humor and wit, Finn. I can love dark humor yet aboslutely despise humor when it is directed at a certain individual without being inconsistent or hypocritical about it. And it's probably unwise of us to generalize about taste in humor, since tast is a funky thing anyways.

You for instance may love the comedy of Monty Python but hate Benny Hill or love Friends but can't stand Drew Carey -or love Happy Days but despise Mash -why? (Not saying you do, just trying to use examples) Friends and Drew Carey are both comedies about personal relationships, although Drew Carey spends more time on workplace and blue collar humor while Friends is more about young upwardly mobile new york singles. The reason is one deals with situations you may or can identify with and one with situations you may not to be to or can't. Or maybe your emotions find one brand painful and another not? Comedy at its root comes from a painful place - some of the best comedy does, but we all react to stimuli regarding pain differently. Some painful memories we laugh at, some make us cringe and this is different for everyone. While we might attempt to categorize our taste for comedy into brands: ie dark wit, slapstick, situational - it isn't really that helpful, since it's possible to like and/or comedies that fit into each.

For instance: Some people found Dawn's cheerleading tryout hilarous - others cringed is one example. Some loved the episode Him some hated it. That does NOT say anything about those people that is negative or positive.
Same thing about Andrew - some people found his brand of comedy, the geeky high pitched voice, the one-liners, the pop-culture/fanboy references to be hilarous -others experienced this comedy as someone scratching their nails down a chalk-board and were unable to get past that sensation long enough to see or appreciate the character.
Some saw Andrew as a flesh and blood character with a fascinating story-arc about redemption on the screen, while others continue to see him as a cheap flat stereotype that took time away from more developed and more interesting characters.

I happen to like humor derived from dark and serious topics - as seen in the comedies MASH, etc - I like it when it arises from a situation - as in farce or is directed at an organization or idea. I've loved Pulp Fiction, Noises OFF, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Cheers (early seasons), Mash - I don't like it when it is directed at certain individuals and a lot of slapstick turns me off - although when Mel Brooks makes fun of Hitler in The Producers, and in To Be or Not to Be - I laugh. Yet I dislike some of his cruder jokes and have never really enjoyed High Anxiety or Blazing Saddles. (yep I know, I'm weird). So it depends on the individual for me and how the comedy comes across and the comedian.

There's really no clear formula. Although my attempt to find one seems to have only served to further your confusion.

The characters of Andrew and Wood annoyed me. Why? Numerous personal reasons, hard to explain in a constructive manner. Lucky for me? They are just fictional tv, I don't have to watch or comment or post on them. I'll probably never write an essay on them. (Well I already sort of did on Wood, but that was part of a larger work...and came out okay and I have to some extent done it on Andrew here - but I think I've made it clear that these are my own personal views and have not bashed or made fun of anyone elses - if I have? I apologize, I didn't mean to.). I don't watch Adam Sandler movies either. Avoid them like the plague. But I'm well aware that others love them. Several of my close friends do.

Although one friend loves Sandler and can't stand Andrew, so maybe that wasn't the best analogy? I don't know if it's possible to explain it. I know I won't change my mind. It's an emotional reaction not an intellectual one - emotional reactions to art aren't things we can logically reason out, at least not in quite the same way. Take some viewers reactions to Kennedy and/or Spike as an example. How much of that reaction is emotional and how much is intellectual?
I'm willing to bet over 70% of our reactions to characters on the screen is emotional and often beyond our intellectual comprehension.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK, then I'm not quite understanding -- shambleau, 20:37:25 06/29/03 Sun

A little more on the Dawn thing. You seem to be dividing the reactions up into people who found the cheerleading segment hilarious and therefore liked it, and people who cringed because of the pain Dawn was in and therefore hated it, assuming that it was meant to be funny. I seem to be in a third category, because I cringed and loved it.

When Buffy was telling Willow "I can't breathe, Will. It feels like I can't breathe", that hurt. A lot. But I loved that too. When Dawn was being humiliated, it made me writhe and not just remember, but FEEL, just how humiliating high school could be. I don't see feeling Buffy's grief as any different than feeling Dawn's humiliation. In both cases, the writers made me connect with characters in a way I almost never do on any other show.

As for people who found the scene funny, there was a little humor in it actually. Which is not incompatible with it hurting like hell, too. In addition, maybe some of those who found it funny didn't like Dawn and were happy to see her get a come-uppance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Didn't mean to make a judgement call...just using as an ex. -- s'kat, 21:00:39 06/29/03 Sun

Sorry, meant it as an example of what amuses. I'm aware there is humor in it. Some people who had horrible experiences like that - found it funny for that reason.
While others who had horrible experiences like that didn't.
It could also be broken down along gender lines - one of my guy friends reacted to the scene the way you did. My mother on the other hand, can't watch it and fast-forwards, she had to leave the room during it. On other hand, Rob, a guy, has stated he hates that scene and the episode. While I've seen female posters adore it - b/c it reminds them of theri cheerleader tryouts and how they fell on their faces - an event they find hilarous. So different reactions. If you want we could provide an exhaustive list? ;-) All I was attempting, albeit poorly, to point out was how we reacte differently to comedy, and believe me there are more than three or two or one responses. I was only limiting it to two for convience.

sk (who appears to have lost her ability to write clearly in any form whatsoever...and will stop posting on the topic now. )
[> [> [> Defending Andrew and Tom Lenk -- Rob, 21:50:31 06/28/03 Sat

Not sure how much sense this is going to make, because, as you said, this is really just a gut personal feeling type thing, but I love the innocence of Andrew, and how, in every line, no matter how silly or funny it might be, there really is a great deal of sadness and pain. He's one of the few comedic characters that not only makes me laugh, but makes me almost feel bad about laughing at him. Because beneath his pop culture references, he is really a desparate, lonely person. In fact, I would say I usually laugh with Andrew rather than at him. Because I get most of his pop culture and culty references (could anyone get ALL of them? lol! can't wait to annotate some of his lines!) and being a nerd myself, don't feel like I'm laughing at his nerdiness, or at someone who would make all these comic book and film references, but laughing with them, since I sometimes refer to fiction too in everyday life. Usually pertaining to a certain show about a slayer of Vampyres. ;o)

I agree with you. I hate Jerry Lewis. He makes my skin crawl. But I don't see these same traits in Andrew at all, who I see really more as this poor guy you really just want to give a proverbial hug, and help out. He's not an over-the-top slapsticky type like Lewis whose obnoxiousness overrides any sympathy you might have for his supposed character. For me, Andrew is character first, humor second, and so even when he is annoying the other characters, he doesn't annoy me. I really feel his pain.

Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: Defending Andrew and Tom Lenk -- s'kat, 22:36:08 06/28/03 Sat

I honestly think it's how you viewed him. And whether you get the pop culture references. Although I got them, I just didn't find them funny, more self-indulgent. Not my brand of comedy.

Read my response to Finn - it does a better job of explaining how this character came across to me. I saw him that way. I realize reading the boards that other people saw him completely different now...which is actually fascinating b/c it explains why one person will love a character and another hate it. We just see them completely differently. Who knows which of us is right? Probably neither or both?

For instance I adore Spike - but several people despise him.
PArt of the reason is we just don't see the same character when we watch the show. Something about how we are put together biologically, psychologically and socially - makes it impossible for us to see the characters in the same way.
It's amazing, b/c you ask yourself how is that possible?
How is it possible for two people to see two totally different things? Don't know. But it is.

While I can understand that that is how you saw Andrew, heck a good friend of mine saw him the same way, it's not how I saw Andrew. I've tried to see him the way you did, but short of a complete personality over-haul? It's probably impossible. To me - Andrew was like Adam Sandler or Jerry LEwis or Jim Carey - an exaggeration.

Jonathan was the nerd/fanboy to me.
Andrew seemed to be playing an exaggerated stereotype of an effeminate boy or geek. Not a real one. The underlining gay jokes. The high pitched voice. And I just didn't see any depth. He felt flat to me.
I still have no idea who this character was - from what I see on the screen - except a construct.

This is no different I'm sure than how people view popular and divisive characters such as Spike and Cordelia.
OR even Angel and Buffy. Without realizing it, I think we somehow, perhaps subconsciously project something of our own experiences and own self on to what we read or see on the screen. Something about a character reaches out and grabs us.

I've noticed for instance - that there are a couple of people who adore Andrew but hate Spike. I'm the absolute opposite and they don't understand. And none of the reasons they've postulated are why. For the same reason I don't understand why they feel the way they do and none of the reasons I've postulated fit them. In a way, trying to figure out why someone loves a character or hates a character you feel the opposite about - is a bit like trying to figure why one person likes oranges and another apples.

I try not to post on Andrew very much, because I'm not sure if my dislike of the character adds anything. Also, I think it is quite possible that the way the character came across to me was not the writers/actors intent. The fact that I know loads of other people with a similar experience, makes me feel a little better. But it doesn't add much.

I guess, Rob - it's a bit like trying to explain why you despised Kennedy. I had no problems with her. Actually sort of liked her. See? Weird.
[> [> [> [> [> Totally understand how you feel. -- Rob, 22:40:16 06/28/03 Sat

Not sure if I could put into words just why I dislike Kennedy so much, except that she seems to be a conglomeration of about 5 or 6 similar girls who I hated in both high school and college. Similar to your dislike of Wood because of your connection of him with a real-life nasty. ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> Re: Defending Andrew and Tom Lenk -- Malandanza, 07:45:04 06/29/03 Sun

"He's one of the few comedic characters that not only makes me laugh, but makes me almost feel bad about laughing at him. Because beneath his pop culture references, he is really a desperate, lonely person."

But a desperate, lonely person who killed Jonathan, his only friend, during one of his escapist fantasies. However, after Storyteller, this really is not an issue any longer -- he did repent, understood his actions were wrong, and resolved to work for good. His self-knowledge stands in stark contrast to the lack of the same for Willow (who has never addressed torturing and murdering Warren) and Spike (who still wears the dead girl's coat). It's nice that Andrew is no longer lonely at the end of the series, but it's also important to remember how he got there.

"In fact, I would say I usually laugh with Andrew rather than at him. Because I get most of his pop culture and culty references (could anyone get ALL of them? lol! can't wait to annotate some of his lines!) and being a nerd myself, don't feel like I'm laughing at his nerdiness, or at someone who would make all these comic book and film references, but laughing with them, since I sometimes refer to fiction too in everyday life. Usually pertaining to a certain show about a slayer of Vampyres. ;o)"


He also provided an avenue for the writers to show us that the cool characters are nerds at heart. One of the funniest moments like this (which is from Season Six but doesn't involve Andrew) is when Buffy tells Giles and Xander that they're like her "Q", then quickly explains "Q from Bond, not Q from Star Trek" showing she has at least a passing familiarity with ST:TNG, in spite of her fashionable airs. With Andrew, we frequently see that Xander (who's cool) has very similar tastes as Andrew -- and even Spike and Andrew share their culinary nerdiness on the motorcycle ride. Some of the acting was over-the-top, but usually in the "funny" episodes (and we've seen some over-the-top acting from Buffy as well when the directors wanted it -- like when she bursts into tears about Anya/Xander being the perfect couple, destined to be together). But overall, I can't think of any "he just doesn't get it" characters I've seen played so convincingly.

But I think Andrew was valuable in other areas as well, some which were better explored than others.

As a foil for Spike (as Caleb served as a foil in later episodes) -- early in the Season we even see Andrew strutting around time in a leather coat. Hardly subtle. In FFL we see Spike saying "I've always been bad" and "I had to get myself a gang" the get flashbacks of a completely different character, just as the fantasy sequences of Andrew and Willow in the Magic Box show that Andrew has rewritten his past with himself as the hero. We have Andrew tied to a chair as was Spike in Season Four and befriending Dawn, as did Spike in Season Six.

He supports the other characters in ways that they need. Dawn has all sorts of abandonment issues (and this season could have been as bad as last, when Spike quite playing with her to stalk her sister full time) -- at the start of the season, Buffy is very active in Dawn's life, training her, going to school with her -- then drops her when the potentials start arriving. Why couldn't Dawn continue training with Buffy and the Potentials? Xander may "see everything" but usually all he's interested in seeing is Buffy. Andrew was different -- no matter what Dawn said to him, as petty or mean as she pleased, he still thought she was cool. I nice ego boost for her at a time when her self-esteem was low. Anya also had a friend in Andrew. Andrew was one of the only people interested in helping Buffy -- the big boards may not have actually been useful, but he was trying. He also went to get food for everyone when Sunnydale shut down and headed to the hospital (also of his own initiative) to get medical supplies. As one of the few people on the show who didn't just pile his own troubles on Buffy's shoulders, he gets my respect.

Early on, he served as a constant, living reminder to Willow that she murdered Warren. Andrew playing with the snake skin while Willow glared daggers at him (with him oblivious, of course) was a brilliant scene. For whatever reason, ME decided to just drop the Willow redemption arc, but before they let their Season Seven ADD get the better of them, Andrew was important here as well.

He is also a POV character. He is us -- inside the Scooby Gang, watching everything and thinking how cool they are.
[> [> [> [> [> About Willow -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:28:57 06/29/03 Sun

It's interesting: at the beginning of Season Seven, there were some comments on this board saying that Willow's story seemed too focused on redeeming herself and not enough on her mourning Tara's death (Tara's name being mentioned only once in the first three episodes). Some interpreted this as a sign of disrespect towards Tara and called it unrealistic that Willow and the others weren't showing any signs of mourning. Of course, this stopped after "Help", when we got Willow visiting Tara's grave.

Then came the later part of the season (specifically "Killer in Me"), where people complained Willow was focused entirely on Tara and her new relationship with Kennedy and not at all on redemption. And, while this argument has some merit, I just found it interesting since it was the exact opposite of the reaction at the beginning of the season.

Now, I agree that Willow trying to make up for the evil she did was not really given a lot of focus. However, redemption is only one of the possible post-evil phase reactions. It became heavily popularised with Angel, so we've come to expect people who have just comitted great wrongs to act very remorseful and try to make amends, particularly to the people they hurt. But there are other options. The option ME pursued in Season Seven wasn't so much about making amends as it was making sure you don't become evil again. While Willow and Spike didn't show as much remorse or attempts at redemption as some people would like, they did seem very intent on not reverting back to what they once were (moreso with Willow than with Spike). Given that the theme of the season was "It's about power", and power corrupts, once-evil people struggling to remain good seems to fit very well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent point about the struggle not to be evil -- Sophist, 11:39:00 06/29/03 Sun

Personally, I felt that Willow's missing redemption was one of 2 big issues with S7 (the other being Giles's strange behavior). Your post explains this pretty well.

I think our expectations are governed quite a bit by what we see of Angel. We are so used to his redemption story that we tend to forget his years of struggle not to be evil. We expect immediate redemption (or at least the attempt) and overlook his struggle just to begin that process.

I do feel, though, that they let both Spike and Willow off the hook pretty easily with the transcendence in Chosen.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent point about the struggle not to be evil -- Malandanza, 06:34:43 06/30/03 Mon

"I think our expectations are governed quite a bit by what we see of Angel. We are so used to his redemption story that we tend to forget his years of struggle not to be evil."

Even the "struggle not to be evil" was remarkably inconsistent. For Willow, the struggle necessarily is all about her use of magic. While they toned down the magic-as-addiction storyline from last season, they did make that point a couple of times during Season Seven that even casual use of magic (like a locator spell) gives The First (and, presumably, other sources of dark magic) access to Willow. Whether it is dark powers taking her over when she zaps the Spider demon (Selfless), The First taking over or Willow sucking power from Kennedy and Anya (BotN) there are times when magic is dangerous and Willow must be extremely cautious about its use. On the other hand, she had no trouble locating the Potential in Sunnydale, summoning a vengeance demon, casting numerous locator spells, or casting the biggest spell ever in the history of the Buffyverse (plus there was that little trip to LA where she ran wild -- but let's just ignore that). So if the struggle for Willow is tied to the metaphor of using magic (and the instances where the magic caused problems were all responsible and necessary uses of magic), the metaphor has her on and off the wagon depending upon the demands of the script. Need a spell to further the plot? No problem -- Old Willow is here and ready to go. Need her to mewl ineffectively about how scary magic is? New Willow is up to the challenge. The big problem with Willow/magic is encapsulated in her last magic scene (quoting from memory, so may not be accurate):

Willow: I'm afraid to do a spell this big, Kennedy. Magic is scary.
Kennedy: C'mon, Willow. Do it for me, 'cause I'm cute and spoiled. Or I'll pout.
Willow: But I like it when you pout.
(Kennedy pouts. Willow brightens.)
Willow: Okay, I'll do it!

They just didn't take their own metaphor seriously.

Spike didn't look much different from Season Six Spike to me. Same unrepentant Spike, obsessed with Buffy. They kept telling us he was different now, because of the soul -- why didn't they show us how different he was instead of having him put the coat back on, saying he killed lots of people's mothers, and anyway, Nikki wanted it.

Before I can take any attempts at reform seriously, I want to see some sort of acknowledgment of guilt -- not the "I feel responsible" sentiment that we got from Willow, but a genuine understanding that flaying someone alive, or killing someone's mother (for sport) is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Willow understood that flaying someone alive is wrong. -- Rob, 08:34:13 06/30/03 Mon

What sane person wouldn't? I don't know. I just think that a character does not have to be shown to wallow all season just to redeem themselves. I agree more with the general message that the show usually has, repentence by changing in the future. You can't change the past, no matter how horrible you may feel, so there is no point to show the character being regretful all season, every episode. That would get incredibly repetitive and dull, IMO.

And "killing someone's mother (for sport)" opens up a whole big controversial can of worms, since that all depends on interpretation. For starters, he didn't kill Nikki because she was a mother. He didn't spot a mother and son and think, "I'm gonna make him an orphan!" He was not just killing a poor, helpless woman. She was the Slayer. The situation is very different there, because both of them are evenly matched. I think Spike showed remarkable maturity in being able to accept the horrible things he'd done as being horrible, but also not willing to be forced to suffer for all eternity for every single victim. There is no way he would be able to live with himself, psychologically, with the amount of killings he'd done, if he allowed himself to feel guilt over every death, one by one. And Nikki is one of the few that was not just a mere killing but part of an on-going mystical battle that has gone on since the beginning of time practically. Vampire vs. Slayer far transcends a mere vampire/victim dynamic. He doesn't (and shouldn't, IMO) feel guilty over Nikki's death, because Nikki, as Slayer, had the power at any point if she didn't want to fight, to use that preternatural Slayer strength of hers and run away. I was very pleased with how they handled Spike this year, because he realized by the time he reclaimed his coat that guilt and remorse over past misdeeds do not have to mean a loss of identity. If Spike walked around moping all year, he wouldn't be Spike...He'd be Angel. ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think Willow understood that flaying someone alive is wrong. -- Alison, 09:30:48 06/30/03 Mon

Agree on Spike dealing with his guilt. I think key factor in why he seemed to move through grief over his victims so much faster than Angel was that he had a reason to. He had someone he loved, and a cause to fight for and hold on to, while Angel had no family or friends, and until Whister showed up, no purpose. Angel had time to brood, Spike had relationships to deal with and a coming apocolypse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About the inconsistency -- Sophist, 08:50:04 06/30/03 Mon

I agree that Willow's behavior was inconsistent and arguably tied to the needs of the script. OTOH, one could argue that a recovering addict -- I'm picturing a smoker in this case -- would progress by fits and starts. She quits for a week, then lapses; quits and lapses, etc. This may be fanwankery, but it does fit an addiction metaphor.

Before I can take any attempts at reform seriously, I want to see some sort of acknowledgment of guilt

I agree with this. Finn's point, I think, was that we didn't get as far as reform. Willow wasn't trying to be "good", she was trying to be "not evil". The only analogy I can make is to Angel drinking the dead guy in the coffee shop. He was struggling with his conscience, not yet capable of being good but trying (and sometimes failing) not to be evil.

Looking at it this way, perhaps we should see Willow's "cleansing" in Chosen as a sign that the addiction is now out of her system and she can start the process of reform. That makes more sense than my original view that we were to see her as somehow redeemed just by that spell alone.

I think Spike's situation is too different to try to cover in this post.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's kinda the point of the final spell -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:13:55 06/30/03 Mon

The point wasn't to impress "magic is bad". Magic didn't symoblise the darkness within Willow, it symbolised her power that could be used for darkness, but could also be used for light. The spell she cast to activate all the Slayers was her finally using magic so large that she couldn't just go a little dark then come back: if she went dark, she'd go all the way. But she didn't. Her personal growth mixed with the support of Kennedy was enough for Willow to shift to the other side of the spectrum and become, for lack of a better word, effulgent.

P.S. As far as locater spells go, the only time the First was able to possess Willow through one of them was when she did one to locate the First Evil. Locater spells done to find non-primordial evils didn't have the same effect.

P.P.S. The summoning of D'Hoffryn wasn't really Willow casting a spell. I think that anyone who knew the right chant could have used the talisman to call on D'Hoffryn, so it really didn't tap into Willow's magic. Just look at "Something Blue": other than her cursing of Olaf, Anya's never shown herself to have any magical abilities, but it was implied that she could have summoned D'Hoffryn if she was able to remember the chant.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: About Willow-agree, well said -- sdev, 17:02:08 06/29/03 Sun

[> Re: Whedon Interview Part V - A Question To the Crowd -- Yellow Bear, 14:10:40 06/29/03 Sun

I was wondering if anyone else out there found this part (specifically the S7 questions) of the interview to be quite hostile. Several of the questions strike me as delorious fanboy rants (specifically, the very odd Kennedy-as-stalker question) and at times, the questions are downright rude with the phrase 'clumsy storytelling' coming to mind.

By interview's end (the S7 section), it's quite clear that Whedon is irratated by the tone of the questions.

To be clear, I don't mind the nature of the questions just the manner in which they are asked.

On the other hand, I did mind the interviewers lack of follow up specifically in regards to the Tara storyline which is dropped so he can complain to Whedon about the Giles red herring.

Am I alone in this? Are people only looking at Whedon's answers and not the tone of the questions? Do people feel the anatagonistic nature of the interview is justified?
[> [> Interesting. I thought the same thing. -- Rob, 14:20:38 06/29/03 Sun

The interviewer does come on way too strong near the end, and may have found he would have gotten better answers about his Season 7 questions had he not thrown in such an accusatory tone about things such as "Is-the-Giles-The-First?" making the other characters look stupid, and Kennedy being stalker-ish. He sounded very well-balanced and knowledgable for the first portion of the interview, but by the end, the interviewer comes across very much like an overzealous fan finally getting to bitch to Joss about all his problems with the last season and barely giving Joss a chance to defend himself before plowing on to the next problem. Because the way he piled on the complaints and the tone, not the content, of the questions certainly would have grated me were I Joss. Had he cooled off, not only might we have heard more about what would have happened with Tara this year, we might have perhaps gotten an answer as to, if Joyce was The First in CwDP, why she appeared differently than any of the other First visitations, and other things like that. It didn't seem like, no matter what answer Joss gave to what, that the interviewer was really processing any of it. Me, I'm mostly pleased with Joss' answers, but wish that he could have expanded more on some of them. And had the interviewer backed off a bit near the end with the accusatory tone, being so down on the seventh season, we may have gotten more satisfactory answers. Although the ones we did get from Joss, IMO, were very good. He was properly defensive over his work, sometimes making small concessions but not allowing it to be totally ripped apart and I admire him for that.

Rob
[> [> [> Re: Interesting. I thought the same thing. -- ponygirl, 18:46:46 06/29/03 Sun

It's such a shame too, because it had been such a detailed interview up until the s7 part. When the interviewer finally had to retract a question I got the sense that Joss was, understandably, getting cranky, losing a lot of the great rapport the earlier portions had had. I wonder what the response would have been if the Giles question had been presented as a question of what Joss felt was going on in Giles' mind this season - something sadly I am going to have to continue to wonder about. And I would like to kick the interviewer for not following up on how Joss would have brought back Tara.

It was a real lesson in why emotions should not be allowed to colour interview questions. Ah well, great interview otherwise, and I'm very intrigued about Firefly.
[> [> I agree with you. -- Sophist, 14:20:51 06/29/03 Sun

[> [> [> Glad to see I'm not alone in this -- Yellow Bear, 20:17:06 06/29/03 Sun

I mentioned this issue at another board and the majority thought I was some kind sycophantic Whedon fan who thought no decesion of his should ever be questioned.

BTW, I literally screamed (a small scream) when I saw that he didn't follow up on the possible Tara storyline. I simply couldn't believe he drooped that so he could complain to Whedon about the Giles-as-The-First red herring.

We won't get many opportunities to hear Whedon talk about S7 in real detail and it was disappointing to see a prime one missed.
[> [> [> [> Re: Glad to see I'm not alone in this -- Alison, 20:39:53 06/29/03 Sun

Not alone, and definitly not alone in your screaming- are you referring to Whedonesque btw? Bc if not, then someone there posted nearly identical thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Glad to see I'm not alone in this -- Yellow Bear, 22:30:45 06/29/03 Sun

I am referring to Whedonesque, actually. I use the name Unitas over there. It was where I first read the story and just thought I would post some thoughts about the interview style. Most people didn't seem to have a problem with it over there.
[> [> Totally Disagreeing -- Sara, 20:44:46 06/29/03 Sun

I thought the questions were great - to the point, and not powder puffy. I really appreciated that the interviewer asked hard questions but they did not come off as rude or hostile to me, just direct. There were some really big issues with S7 and if you're not going to address them why talk about it all? I think Whedon's answer about the Giles red herring was very telling to how much he's lost touch with the story telling of the show. That he clearly saw no problem with having a character behave unnaturally for many episodes, all for the fun of the 'reveal' or twist to the audience, shows that the story telling is taking a back seat to other stuff. I found that the interview really established for me, why the season had so many problems, and those were the issues I was most curious about.
[> [> [> Agreed -- s'kat, 21:25:54 06/29/03 Sun

You put that very well.

I thought the questions were great - to the point, and not powder puffy. I really appreciated that the interviewer asked hard questions but they did not come off as rude or hostile to me, just direct. There were some really big issues with S7 and if you're not going to address them why talk about it all?

I felt the same way. Most of the interviews I've read with Whedon up to this one, disappointed me -- the reviewers seemed to veer away from asking any really interesting or direct questions. And tended to just stroke Whedon or ask about general stuff. Several of the interviews I've read, I wondered if the interviewer even watched the show.

The best one's so far were on salon and NY Times. This interview is even better than those two.

This one seemed to really get to the heart of some of the issues, which I've wanted to hear Whedon's take on for quite some time now. Issues such as his educational background, what his take on film really is, where he is coming from, how he felt about S6 and S7, how much control he has on the set, etc.

While I agree with poneygirl on the fact that the interviewer didn't quite followup on or get to the heart of the Tara issue, it occurs to me that he got the best answer he could out of Whedon. I'm not sure Whedon wanted to release the whole Tara story - b/c it was the story he had to nix and he may not have wanted to make Amber or Fox look bad, particularly since he is still dependent on Fox for a budget on Angel and on getting Firefly the movie made. And I'm convinced the reason Amber did not sign has to do with Fox and certain budgetry issues.(Fox is the backer on both Whedon's creative enterprises (Angel and Firefly) and owns the rights, not a good idea to piss them or WB at this point off.) So I honestly think the interviewer got as much as he could out of Whedon. (Actually he got more than any other interviewer ever has on some of these issues. And is one of the few interviewers who was gutsy enough to ask them - it was a phone interview after all - Whedon could have hung up on him or cut him off at ANY time.)

Were the questions a bit on the direct/tough side? Sure. But
at least they were about Whedon's work and not on the personal stuff. A rarity in most interviews. Whedon had to have appreciated that. (Although if I was Whedon I would have gotten defensive and snarky too - have miserable thin skin where my creative work is concerned - which is not good. You need to have the sensitivity of toilet seat if you want to succeed in tv, film, publishing or anything that requires public consumption of your work.)

Another interesting thing - on the other boards where the interview was posted - ASSB (Angel's Soul) and BC&S (Buffy Cross & Stake) the consensus was that this was an excellent interview and the best interviewer they'd seen. They were really impressed with the interviewer's style and the amount of information the interviewer elicited from Whedon, more than any other they'd seen. Have to say, I agree with that assessment and I've read a ton of Whedon interviews.
The next best one - was The Question and Answer one conducted by New York Times and that really only focused on Btvs.
[> [> [> [> Re: Agreed -- Yellow Bear, 22:45:42 06/29/03 Sun

OK, this is really weird. When I posted at Whedonesque and mentioned some interviews with Whedon that I thought posed challenging (but respectful) questions, I used the exact same examples (NYT & Salon) that you did.

I too really loved the early parts of this interview dealing with Whedon's education & experience as a showrunner. However, I think that if the interviewer had found a way to ask his questions concerning S7 like a journalist rather than a disillusioned fanboy, he would have got responses that revealed even more about the direction of the show this last season. Whedon has always been remarkably forthcoming in his interviews (within reason as you stated) so I can only imagine what he might have said to a journalist who wasn't hectoring him with Kennedy-as-stalker questions (not once but three times so I guess that pet theory was worth the follow up).

As for hanging up, reading Whedon's response to the remarkabley vague 'pacing' question - I'm going to lay odds that his finger was on the disconnect button.
Very cool guest star news for AtS:S5 (no plot spoilers, only casting) -- Rob, 00:03:43 06/28/03 Sat

From David Fury interview at cityofangel.com--Emphases are added:

"Some people from Buffy might be coming over. I know Sarah Michelle Gellar is going to come back to Angel for a few episodes and I know Alyson Hannigan would gladly come back for a couple episodes so she can be with her honey [Alexis Denisof]. Also, Mercedes McNabb as Harmony will be back. I enjoyed writing for her a lot on Buffy and Angel."

So, for those of you keeping track, as it stands now, according to this interview, Sarah and Mercedes are definites and Alyson is a very good possibility. I'm happy. :o)

Rob
[> Numfar, do the dance of joy! -- grifter, 04:39:39 06/28/03 Sat

[> Joining in the dance... -- Kate, 09:17:19 06/28/03 Sat

I'm sorry...how awesome is it going to be when Harm and Spike come face to face again. Oh the pure entertainment of the moment. I am now in even more anticipation of S5. Whoo and hoo!! Also excellent about SMG...although I would loved to be surprised on the "when" so as not to see it coming.
[> But...but...what about Clem and Numfar? -- Random, 09:43:04 06/28/03 Sat

[> [> Wither Spike goest, Clem will go... -- dub ;o), 21:14:46 06/28/03 Sat

At least, I hope so.

;o)
[> [> [> I say we convince them to use Clem by offering that tour of Burrard Inlet if they don't....;) -- Rufus, 00:05:14 06/29/03 Sun

[> None of this is definite (no plot spoilers, only casting) -- s'kat, 11:34:32 06/28/03 Sat

David Fury's interview took place in March but wasn't written until May.

Since that time there have been interviews with SMG, AH, which have indicated they may NOT come. See slayage.com.
Also Whedon has stated he's waiting for SMG's schedule.

Another thing? David Fury contradicts most of what he says in the City of Angel interview in his Succubus Club Interview where he states SMG is gone and doing movies.

So, this is no more definite than Amber Benson's possible resurrection as Tara in the fall.

I wouldn't count on either actress making an appearance just yet.
The bloody coward, at the Front (Spoilers to "Home") -- KdS, 08:59:31 06/28/03 Sat

- Where's your husband? Was he in the house?

- He's at the Front, the bloody coward.

alleged exchange between a fireman and a woman rescued from her bombed house, London, 1943.

I must admit, I really liked Home. I've seen it described as the Restless of AtS, and while it doesn't have that episode's ambition, it fulfils much the same role as a placeholder, underscoring the development of each major character, and setting up a significant change in atmosphere for the next season. In deference to those who want to be totally unspoiled, my speculation for next season will follow in the next post. Those of you who feel that you don't want to read that post because of what you assume my reactions will be to a certain reported development, please try. You may be surprised.

I mentioned character development above, but I can see why some people I know feel that Angel didn't get any this season. His actions regarding Connor seem to simply repeat his eternal pattern of cutting himself off from people he cares about whenever the relationship gets too potentially uncomfortable, after The Prom, I Will Remember You, Redefinition and to a lesser and more forgivable extent his cutting off from Wes in S3 and Connor/Cordelia early this season. On the other hand, the new direction of this episode holds the possibility of a break to this pattern. Possibly, if his "public" life is placed in a more morally ambiguous position, he may be forced to pay more attention to his "private" life, instead of using the battle as an excuse to avoid the mess and danger of the home front, as the woman in my epigram half-seriously implied.

The other main criticisms regarding the episode come from the treatment of Connor and Cordelia, and my reactions to those are somewhat different. To be honest, Cordelia has been totally lost as a character since the issue of her demonisation was lost in the plot shuffle of mid-S3. Since her return from Mexico, she's been first incredibly badly written in Double or Nothing (although so was everyone) then unsatisfyingly caught between her sardonic past and unformed future, then rapidly promoted, demoted, amnesiac and possessed. Connor has been much better written and acted, IMO, but in many ways his character devolopment has been dominated by plot convenience to the point where he has had no time to reflect on himself. His kidnapping and aging in S3 was probably driven by the realisation that he could not convincingly develop a personality within the likely lifespan of a TV series, and as a baby and toddler his plot contribution could only consist of becoming a repeated target for threats in a manner that would eventually bore the audience. After his return from Quortoth, the plot of the series saw him constantly manipulated and betrayed in a manner which would have broken anybody, and there was no way of bringing him back at the end of S4 in a way that wouldn't have consisted of four seasons of psychoanalysis, even if there had been any realistic way of restraining him from doing more damage to himself and others. Given the corner he had been written into, rewriting his past would have been the only thing that could be done short of killing him off, and I'm reassured by the fact that recent interviews suggest that the writers themselves were aware of the conflict between Angel's abstract treatment of humanity and concrete treatment of his son. I saw Angel post-Reunion mirrored in Connor's killing of Jasmine, and this episode he seemed to be Angel post-Reprise, convinced of the irredeemability of humanity and seeking only oblivion.

One sign that may be amusing or may be a warning is the extent to which Home can be seen as a recursive dramatisation of the problems that ME themselves faced at the end of this season. They had a three-season arc, begun way back when Darla was first resurrected and apparently not fully plotted in advance, which had become so filled with complexity and chaos that the only thing to do, if the series was not to become utterly inaccessible to non-fanatics, was simply to rewrite and erase it. That continued development and the survival of the series could only be achieved by a new deal with their corporate paymasters, involving various compromises. The way in which Angel does the deal with W&H, disposing of much of his baggage by erasing Connor and leaving Cordy in a coma, (if W&H could erase Connor, couldn't they have brought Cordelia back? And why did Angel not ask them to?) might be some kind of post-modern identification of the character with the series that bears his name. While S3-4 was remarkable television by any standards, despite certain flaws, that does not change the fact that it was increasingly hard to comprehend unless you had a clear memory of the characters' development dating back seven years in some cases. Both continuity and anthology have their advantages and disadvantages, but a really hard continuity model inevitably restricts one's audience in a way that may be sustainable on paper, but not under the economics of television.

Returning to more specific criticisms of the episode, the handling of Wesley, Fred, Gunn and Lorne was excellent. Fred, Gunn and Lorne all have their own temptations to bring them to heel, although the exact nature of Gunn's remains a mystery. Wesley's case is more intriguing. We can debate until the cows come home whether Lilah deserves to be redeemed in the way Wesley attempted, although I believe that a key issue is that she doesn't particularly want to be. However, Wesley had to have made the attempt, because if he had not, then his liaison with Lilah, which arguably led to her death, would have merely consisted of him working out his issues on an evil sex toy either too tough to be hurt, or too deserving of it for it to matter. And Wesley can't let that be true if he wants to be able to regard himself as being anyone he wants to be.


Smaller issues:

Did anyone else find the opening scene of Lilah with the AI crew deeply reminiscent, in characterisation and atmosphere if not actual plot, of Lucifer handing Morpheus the key to Hell in Season of Mists?

Nice to see Fred as the only member of AI who does feel the need to matter-of-factly seek armament during her tour.

The scene of the whole of AI separately waiting for the limousine was predictable but amusing.

Finally: an issue with recent Chosen analysis on the board - a lot of people seem to have been analysing the way in which the pendant activated, and what caused it to activate, on the assumption that it was some mystically good and benevolent object, forgetting that it came directly from W&H. I have my own theories, but like much else, including my speculation on what W&H are actually up to, it will appear in my following spoiler post.

A final word on Angel's shanshu and relations with humanity - paraphrased from many, many retellings of the same tale:

Once upon a time there was a devout man, who dreamed that he was before his god. His god told him to travel to a far-off land, to tell the people there the good news. The man relied that he feared to die alone in a foreign land, away from all his friends and family. His god promised that he would not allow that to happen.

The man travelled overseas and began his missonary work. One day he was travelling down a river alone in a small boat, when he overconfidently attempted to ride some rapids. The boat overturned, but the man managed to climb onto a rock in the middle of the river, which was rising.

Some minutes later, a group of people passed by on the bank of the river, carrying ropes among their gear. They called to the man and offered to throw the rope to him and drag him safely to the bank. The man relied "No, I may not be strong enough to hold the rope and be swept away. And my god has promised that he will not let me die here."

An hour later, a stronger boat passed down the river, and the crew offered to pull the man on board. The man replied "No, I may lose my footing between the rock and the boat and be swept away. And my god has promised that he will not let me die here."

An hour later, a game service helicopter passed over and the pilot spotted the man on the rock. The pilot offered to drop a rope for the man to climb up. The man replied "No, I might fall and die. And my god has promised that he will not let me die here."

And just as he finished his sentence, the man lost his footing, was swept away by the water and drowned.
[> Personal speculation and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings) -- KdS, 09:02:48 06/28/03 Sat

Right, now that all the Spoiler Virgins have run off with virtue fluttering...

As far as I am aware, we have the following data on AtS S5:

Regular cast: Angel, Wes, Gunn, Fred, Lorne, Spike

Possibly recurring: Cordelia, Harmony, Lilah, Buffy, Willow

Particularly interesting reports have it that VK will be doing at most one episode, but CC may be doing five or six.

My first big caveat is that I really hope that we don't have really big guest spots from BtVS characters. This is purely down to my sense of satisfaction that in the last three years, AtS had developed its own identity. Too much pandering to BtVS-only fans who want to see post-Chosen stuff, and AtS will inevitably go down in history as an appendage to BtVS, which would be a shame.

Naturally, the inclusion of Spike has hints of that, but given the things I've said about Spike in S7 BtVS, you may be surprised to hear that I think his inclusion on AtS has possibilities. Despite the speculation of certain well-known livejournalists, I think that it will defeat the commercial reasons for bringing JM across if he isn't recognisably Spike from the beginning. How that will work, and whether he turns up as human, souled vamp, or ghostly messenger with a big "G" stamped on his forehead, will have far-reaching effects on how we are meant to understand the business with the pendant. I have very strong suspicions that it was intended to do something to Angel as part of W&H's plans. What exactly that was, and whether that exact thing happened to Spike, will be very interesting. The other potential point of interest is that, although that may not have been intended by ME, I got the impression from S7 of BtVS that Spike believes that he is morally detached from his actions without a soul in a way that Angel never has. If he continues to behave similarly on AtS, it could set up a full-scale ME exploration of the issue of Angel's actual responsibility for Angelus's actions that has been raising questions among fans ad infinitum. Yes, again, I know I hate Spike ;-). However, I have hopes that the Spike who turns up on AtS next year will be a refugee from an alternate Buffyverse in which the S7 characterisations were less melodramatic, in the same way as Willow in Orpheus. ;-)

If VK is only doing one ep at most (and if I was him I'd be waving his work on AtS at every film producer in the USA), then it seems clear that Connor will not end up finding out the full truth. We'll have to just deal with that. However, the chances of Cordelia getting some form of coda and decent send off seem reasonable, and I really, really hope that happens.

As far as the existing regulars go, I think that we have to wait and see what the Senior Partners are actually up to. I personally think that it would be most interesting and least cliched if they were telling the exact truth about giving Angel and company a completely free hand. It would turn the existentialist bias of the show totally on its head if after fighting human and divine authority for four years they had to deal with having the power for themselves. Is the exercise of that power compatible with their morals at all? Far more interesting than them trying to do good and their underlings secretly working for the Partners to corrupt them and turn their good intentions to evil. The idea that the Partners are trying to mould Lorne, Fred, Angel, Gunn and Wes into a new Rah-tet (and yes, that order is very deliberate) is interesting, but a little too mythology-based for how I see S5 as developing.

As far as individual developments go, I mentioned in my last post that I can see Angel having to pay more attention to his personal life now that his public life is less morally black-and-white. I suspect we're going to get a big Frankensteinish if-we-can-do-it-should-we thing with Fred at some point, which may be predictable or interesting. Judging by ME's total lack of understanding of, or sympathy with, science, I do not have high hopes. Wes depends very much on how big a role Lilah will be playing, and whether their tortured relationship actually does have much life left in it. Gunn is the real enigma, I genuinely do not have a clue what is going on with him, as what happened to him in the White Room was left so mysterious. After what happened to Cordy this year, I hope it will be something far more ambiguous than just possession - in fact he might even get the plot Cordy might have got if Charisma's relations with ME hadn't broken down so badly. The big mystery of course, is what will remain of the relationships between the AI crew now that Connor has been erased. Will it be quick-and-dirty with the feelings left the same but the factual memories locked away, or will there have been a "new" S3-4? Again, I think it depends very much on what CC eventually decides to do.

Overall then - sadness for what was lost this season, but cautious optimism about what is to come.
[> [> Bout the Senior Partners' plans -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:21:30 06/28/03 Sat

I think that their ultimate goal is to corrupt Angel and Co. (they freely admited they're evil manipulators in the past; as such, I find it hard to believe that they'd do a favor for someone with no strings attached). However, I don't think it will be a whole "underlings going behind their backs" thing. I'm thinking that the Senior Partners will be relying on the situation to corrupt the AI gang just as it did everyone who came to work for them before. Also, while I do think that Lilah and some others will be acting as the voices of the Senior Partners, encouraging them to take the most ambiguous, it will be strictly in a "devil on the shoulder" capacity, rather than an evil backstabber playing them like pawns.
[> [> [> The first salvo -- Darby, 13:51:20 06/28/03 Sat

Have we been shown already that W&H are willing to let the mere access to power corrupt?

Whose life did Connor take over? Who are those other folks jammed into this fantasy life? After Angel agreed with him (and fought Jasmine over) that choice was the most important thing? The good intentions were that Connor was over the edge, that he deserved a second chance, but wasn't the response a bit on the dark gray side?

After the interesting choices (and a few cowardly ones) made with Jasmine, I'm hoping that Angel's Powers-That-Be are willing to do what they wouldn't on Buffy with Willow, with the First, etc. - show us the true nature of Evil, and how it appears in the acts and the hearts of the "good."
[> [> [> [> Interesting question -- KdS, 15:26:17 06/28/03 Sat

I also wondered about the nature of Connor's new family - has he replaced some existing human being? Unfortunately, as recent reports suggest that VK is doing one ep at most, it may well not be answered.

And as I misread virtually the whole of S7 through believing that the FE actually was representing Evil, instead of just being an everyday Big Bad, I share your hopes.
[> [> [> [> [> The First Evil -- lunasea, 19:28:05 06/29/03 Sun

I never saw the First Evil as Evil. It is the SOURCE of evil. It would have been interesting to explore what this meant, but I think they are saving that for Angel's series finale. It was key to his birth as a savior on Christmas. What exactly it is won't be dealt with until later.

Then again, the metaphor seems pretty obvious to me, just on its appearance in "Amends."
[> [> [> [> [> [> I also saw it as the source of evil. -- Rob, 13:21:45 06/30/03 Mon

Even up to the end, the idea of The First Evil more as the concept and source of evil remained. That's why it couldn't be destroyed. Because as Joyce said, it lives in each and every one of us. Buffy and Co. shifted the balance of power, so the First lost its main source of evil, the Hellmouth, its army of Turok-Han, and worst, now the world is not only protected by one Slayer but countless ones. But still evil itself is not destroyed. The First was "squashed" but not killed.

Basically, I saw the metaphor of the First as the concept of evil wanting to not just be a concept anymore but to be a living, breathing thing, a corporeal being. It wasn't content to merely live inside every one; it wanted to be everyone. IMO, the First could possess Caleb because he was one of the most purely evil people it had ever encountered. Similar to how it was able to temporarily enter another being which was once and still had the power to be a great evil, Willow. The First can enter people who have great potential for evil. It is drawn to and intensifies evil.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I also saw it as the source of evil. -- Debaser, 15:05:52 06/30/03 Mon

I think you're probably right. I also think the First Evil was really more of an 'amateur' Big Bad, it was more suited to quietly manipulating people and perpetuating the idea of evil and when it came to actually pulling off an apocalyptic scheme, it wasn't too great at it.

Compare this to Wolfram & Hart who have been successfuly orchestrating their apocalypse for thousands of years and may have just pulled off their biggest victory yet. They are certainly not amateurs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wolfram & Hart varies from being unstoppable, pervasive evil to incompetent fools -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:36:28 06/30/03 Mon

For example, throughout most of Season 3, Wolfram & Hart was really marginalized in their evil attempts. They were totally out of the loop when it came to the prophecies taking place. They were constantly smacked down by Angel, Holtz, Sahjhan, and Connor. Rivalries among employees and fear for personal safety greatly handicapped their effectiveness. While W&H is sometimes shown to be a mastermind of unstoppable, diabolical plotting, just as often it's shown as a bunch of people in over their heads.

Also, you say that the Senior Partners have been successfully orchestrating their apocalypse for thousands of years. What I have to wonder about is the "successfully" part. Have we ever seen W&H actively try to destroy the world? No. We've seen them go about their evil business and talk about their grand plans, but we've never seen them actually do anything to further the apocalypse. As such, I think the comparison you make to the First Evil isn't really apt, since we saw the First on the eve of its takeover, while the apocalypse the Senior Partners are planning is set far in the future, if they ever get around to it at all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wolfram & Hart varies from being unstoppable, pervasive evil to incompetent fools -- Debaser, 16:20:59 06/30/03 Mon

I dunno if I'd say they were being shown as 'in over their heads'. Even though various things have claimed small victories over them, they have still one over in the end and dispite all their mishaps in S3 and S4 they are still around and aparantly ahead of the game. Also, I'm refering more to the Senior Partners as opposed to the company. I see Wolfram & Hart as just a tool for them, as Angel Investigations is to the Powers.

As far as not seeing their planned apocalypse in action, I think this only reflects their competence. They are making sure that when it comes, everything they have set up will fall into place and things will go their way. None of the other villains (with the possible exception of The Master) put in as much preparation and their plans were ultimately thwarted.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The source of evil lost its source? -- Anneth, being cheeky, 16:29:54 06/30/03 Mon

Even up to the end, the idea of The First Evil more as the concept and source of evil remained... Buffy and Co. shifted the balance of power, so the First lost its main source of evil, the Hellmouth, its army of Turok-Han...

Seemed to me more like it lost its favorite toy. An evil toy. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nah, Evil still has the comfy chair. The evil comfy chair. -- fresne - also feeling with the non sequitation, 16:42:42 06/30/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't forget the bidet of evil... Evil must always have its bidet! -- Anneth, 16:53:42 06/30/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...if evil does have a bidet... -- fresne the facetious, 17:07:48 06/30/03 Mon

Then I wonder if it's like the Japanese ones. All techy and buttons and possibly with a mink seat or is it old school?

And are there tea cozies of evil? Anti-cozies? And do these anti-cozies wear leather pants of EEEviiiilll.

Where does the paper weight of pure evil come into this dicussion?

If a Wolfram & Hart Lawyer, a Bringer and an Ubervamp walk into a bar...no wait. You must hear the humorous conclusion. Where are you going? It involves a duck and possibly the Spanish Inquisition, which was entirely unexpected.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Evil may not have an anti-cozy... -- Anneth, giggling furiously, 17:13:01 06/30/03 Mon

But it certainly has an anti-macascar - which, of course, being an evil anti-macascar, is actually just a macascar. (Just try to imagine that one! A big doilie that purposely leaves oil-stains on one's couch! How nefarious!)

(musingly) I wonder if evil writes poems about towers, lakes, and daisies?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nefarious indeed -- fresne - loosing sanity as I write, 20:13:40 06/30/03 Mon

Tower, lake, daisies

What you mean,

Stands the tower needle,
Menacing silent lake,
Black daisies nod and bleed,
Smile and eat weeping cake.

Yeah, Evil always sat by itself in the lunchroom writing dark, morose poetry that was not only evil, but bad. And possibly dangerous to know.

The jocks would have made fun of Evil, but once they read the poetry, like those who look upon the sleeper who lies not dead but dreaming in Rilea, they went mad. Heh, which was really pretty funny. Uh, I mean, sad and tragic. Ahem...

So, if an anti-macascar and a macascar were placed together, would the universe implode? And if Evil sits on a Love seat, would the power of the tiny couch turn Evil good? If then good, how then shrubbery?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> huh? i thought that was about eye makeup! -- anom, 21:42:31 06/30/03 Mon

Anti-mascara! Clumps eyelashes together, shortens them, & lightens the color.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops! Yes its "favorite toys" does work better! ;o) -- Rob, 17:24:38 06/30/03 Mon

And how fitting that the First Evil would want to bring back demons that were around in its early days, the most ancient vamps, in order to do its bidding. Turok-Han are the ideal vamps, since they don't have even one shred of any lingering pesky humanity, if they were ever human to begin with, which we still don't really know. I tend to doubt it.

Rob
[> [> thank you.... -- Nino, 11:35:44 06/28/03 Sat

For a while there I was thinking I was the only one who cared about Cordy getting a "decent send off." Everyone seemed preoccupied with all of the other season 5 enigmas to take a moment for this character who I love...so thanks for caring too!
[> [> [> For a while we thought she was gone . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:44:09 06/28/03 Sat

The Charisma would be making precisely zero appearances in Season 5. As such, not much thought was paid to giving Cordelia a sendoff. Now that a sendoff seems possible, attention can turn there once more.
[> [> Re: Personal speculation and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings) -- lunasea, 19:23:52 06/29/03 Sun

I have very strong suspicions that it was intended to do something to Angel as part of W&H's plans

With Sahjhan and Connor, they were trying to explore the idea that a false prophecy could be a real prophecy and how a real prophecy is written. Perhaps the PTB could have been using Wolfram and Hart to see that the First was defeated. I think it is interesting if Good could use Evil like that. Jasmine used the good intentions of the AI gang.

I'm not sure if Wolfram and Hart knew what the pendant did. They wouldn't want anything to happen to Angel. They won't want anything to happen until they are convinced that he can't be corrupted.

I think what they wanted was for Angel to bring Buffy back to Wolfram and Hart with him. Perhaps they feel he will be more corruptible with her there or they want to take them both down. If Lilah did take care of the curse and then send him to Sunnydale to fight shoulder to shoulder with her, I can see her playing match maker. She didn't realize that Buffy would get in the way (at least until Sweeps).

If he continues to behave similarly on AtS, it could set up a full-scale ME exploration of the issue of Angel's actual responsibility for Angelus's actions that has been raising questions among fans ad infinitum.

If they go with what the fans talk about, then they will have to look at their past sexual history as well. (a side note, does the PPC go after slash fic as well as Mary Sues? Slash tends to tap dance on canon more) I think they will set Spike back up with his immature morality, where everything is black and white and now he tries real hard to be good, but doesn't quite get what that means yet. We might finally get to explore what is good and what is it about the soul that orients us to it. That would fit with the compromise/corruption theme.

I don't think they will revisit Angelus again. Been there, done that. If the fans didn't understand Orpheus, too bad. Angel still has issues, but they won't be explored through Angelus.

I do have one thing that is completely off the wall, but would be interesting. I would love Lurky who gave Spike his soul to be one of the Senior Partners. I would love for them not to be evil so much as choice itself, what Angel just fought for. Without evil, there is nothing to chose from. Lawyers just enable us to make choices.

What is evil, what is good, what is choice's role in everything. Those are things I think we will see explored, especially with Fred. Fred will have to come to terms with ending world peace and not some scheme of global domination. Fred will be a very central character next season. ME is going to need some consultants in order to write the science aspect of the show.

Trust is another thing that will be explored. Can Angel ever trust Wolfram and Hart? I too find it more interesting if they meant what the said and Angel has complete control with no undermining whatsoever. Instead it is having to deal with all that power and how it affects others (should he take their choice away) that will determine if he is corrupted.
[> [> [> Very nice ideas about the Partners -- KdS, 02:45:46 06/30/03 Mon

I don't know about the Partners representing choice. I think that on a lot of occassions we've seen the human members of W&H manipulating people towards evil (what choice did Darla get about being sired again?) so that would have to mean that all their employees didn't get the picture. Very nice ideas about Buffy and Lurky.

And again I agree on hoping for no undermining, either literal or by mystical curse-type things. I don't like that idea because it makes the plot predictable - sooner or later they're going to work it out and then it's inevitable that they'll either walk out or have a big fight with the Partners. If they have a free hand it leaves things so much more open.

And I think the PPC has a Bad Slash Dept. Ask HonorH or Rhysdux, who seem to be the experts.
[> [> [> [> Thanks and more about evil/choice -- lunasea, 09:05:25 06/30/03 Mon

I think that on a lot of occassions we've seen the human members of W&H manipulating people towards evil (what choice did Darla get about being sired again?) so that would have to mean that all their employees didn't get the picture. Very nice ideas about Buffy and Lurky.

It was something I came up with during the Jasmine arc when I was doing all that stuff about the Catechism. Most of the Old Testament, especially Genesis, is considered to be mythology and metaphor by the Vatican. Per the Catechism "The account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primal event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." Dealing with Jasmine this season would lead nicely into a deeper examination of choice as a cause of evil. Then they could examine what causes us to make choices.

The Powers really don't care about their messengers. It could be said that the Senior Partners don't care much about the people/creatures they use. Both have their favorites. Holland is one that gets the big picture. Lee's disloyalty was met with a bullet to his head, but Lindsey's wasn't, even though his was far greater.

Why did the Senior Partners even bring back Darla? Why did they have her vamped her after Angel had reached her? Darla gave Angel a choice. As weird as that sounds, she did. The Powers send a vision and Angel jumps. Angel is the good little soldier. By bringing Darla back, the Senior Partners create something powerful enough that Angel is willing to go dark again. Angel has a strong choice to make between strong options.

To me that is what the Senior Partners are about. They aren't into anything as prosaic as winning. They are into keeping the game going. When Angel steps out of the game by not even considering the alternatives, that is when then try to bring him back. That is what Lilah's speech and giving him the firm seems to be about. He was dead set against it without considering the options. People need my help? Well, I do the best I can and that is all that matters. Buffy needs help? Nah, she can handle things herself (even though we know that isn't the case). You can find Cordy and Connor? I'll find them myself even if it takes a really long time and both need to be found quickly. No compromise. I am good and you are evil.

This season, Angel had to consider the unthinkable option, bringing back Angelus. Until Cordelius tricked him, he wasn't remotely considering it. Angel is on this one-tracked "I am Champion, so here is what I MUST do" kick that to be honest got really annoying. Buffy tends to solve things by thinking outside the box. When have we seen Angel do that?

The human members of Wolfram and Hart are NOT the senior partners. They don't really know what the Senior Partners are after (well Holland did, but he is pretty high up). They are given their orders, and from those they draw conclusions. Lilah still would love to drop Angel into a vat of holy water. She has a completely antagonistic relationship with him. They push each other's buttons and it does get rather personal. Was it that way with Holland?

The Senior Partners are just creating a choice. Humans with our human soul oriented to good have good taken care of. The Senior Partners use their people to create evil in order to give humanity as a whole a choice. Some may have to lose choice in order for this to happen, but it is the big picture that the Powers and Senior Partners are interested in.

The legal system. What an interesting thing that has become. All men are assumed innocent until proven guilty. As such, every single person must have the best defense they can. What would happen if Angel were to stop taking the cases of people he considers guilty? There is a nice dilema that Angel will have to face pretty early. Can Angel allow the resources of his firm to be used to help the guilty in order to keep the legal system afloat?

Shell oil is bad. It pollutes the enivornment and depletes our resources. It also allows for me to take my kids to the doctors in our nice car (or public transportation) when they are sick. It is a very necessary evil. Can Angel become a necessary evil?

Still not sure what side Angel will be on during the Apocalypse. When does compromise become corruption? It should be a very interesting season.
[> [> [> [> [> But Holland was very clear about the Senior Partners -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:44:11 06/30/03 Mon

During his elevator ride with Angel, didn't he say the Senior Partners are "evil beyond imagining"? Not to mention that the Wolfram & Hart employees freely call themselves evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not that I remember. -- lunasea, 11:14:34 06/30/03 Mon

Holland: "That's really the question you should be asking yourself, isn't it? See, for us, there is no fight. Which is why winning doesn't enter into it. We - go on - no matter what. Our firm has always been here. In one form or another. The Inquisition. The Khmer Rouge. We were there when the very first cave man clubbed his neighbor. See, we're in the hearts and minds of every single living being. And *that* - friend - is what's making things so difficult for you. - See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil, Angel. - It works with us. - It works because of us."
And with that the elevator comes to a screeching halt.
The doors open and Angel looks out to see a homeless person pushing a loaded shopping cart across the plaza in front of the Wolfram and Hart Office building in LA.
Holland: "Welcome to the home office."
Angel: "This isn't..."
Holland: "Well, you know it is. - You know *that* better than anyone. Things you've seen. Things you've, well - done. You see, if there wasn't evil in every single one of them out there (Angel watches as some people in the plaza start yelling at each other) why, they wouldn't be people. - They'd all be angels."

(since Psyche is down, I used Buffyworld)

What choice is there between the angel and the devil if there is no devil? Angel's entire speech to Jasmine in "Peace Out" is meaningless without something to choose from.

Some of the people gladly refer to themselves as evil. They wear it like Angel does "Champion." These people are pawns and not what Wolfram and Hart are interested in. They are interested in Angel, Lindsey and Lilah, not Lee or Linwood. Lilah doesn't call herself evil so much as selfish. "The upside of being in it for yourself, Wes-you always end up on the winning team." Lilah isn't evil. That is what makes her so delicious.

Evil does exist in humans. We all have id-boy/girl in us. We also have a higher self, in the Buffyverse our human soul. Buffy calls Whistler not a soldier for good, but "some immortal demon sent down to even the score between good and evil?" I would love if Whistler actually worked for the Senior Partners. Wouldn't that just stand things on their head? Doyle and Cordy were manipulated by Jasmine and the rest of the Powers really don't do a whole lot of anything. We have seen how blaise they can be as shown by the Oracles.

Whenever good really tugs at someone, evil has to act to balance it and vice versa. There is a lot of material that could be explored here. I don't think that ME will just retell Buffy's story over on AtS. It will be more than ditz to hero. I look forward to it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, she really is evil. -- Arethusa, 13:05:32 06/30/03 Mon

Lilah: Look, Angel, I know you've been out of loop for a while, but I'm still evil. I don't do errands unless they're... (grins) evil errands. (Ground State, also from buffyworld)

Lilah's so evil she went to Hell.

I think Manners is saying that evil is man's natural state, his driving force. We know that's not so because Whedon says in the Buffyverse mankind is driven to do good, although of course that doesn't mean mankind will do good.

What exactly is the nature of Angel's choices? Is he constantly having to choose between being good or being bad? Or is he contantly having to choose between selfish and unselfish acts? I think Angel's genuinely dedicted to doing good, but tends to forget that he'll have to deal with the repercussions of his actions. So he makes some bad choices.

I see Wolfram & Hart not so much dedicated to perpetuating evil as committing evil in their disregard of the suffering caused by their actions. They were a business, dedicated to controlling the world to maintain their own perpetuity. They wanted to control the upcoming apocalypse so that they would win and continue their business. And when they lost, they absorped their conquerers into their belly, ensuring that while their methods might change, their state of existance would not. Now, the Senior partners might have another, additional agenda. Based on the amount of power they have, they are probably supernatural. Based on how they use that power, they're evil. On both the Buffyverse and Pylea they maintain orderly yet evil societies. The two divinities that tried to upset the balance, Jasmine and The First Evil, appear to be renegades.

So what exactly are the Senior Partners? What is the relationship between the First Evil and the Senior Partners? Is it the same as that between Jasmine and the other Powers That Be? Is the First Evil the embodiment of or the source of evil? Is there a tug of war for souls in the Buffyverse, or is there an ongoing attempt to maintain balance between the Powers, with human souls just getting caught in the crossfire?

And how does this all affect Angel, who has his own tug-of-war going on?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, she really is evil. -- Debaser, 14:56:09 06/30/03 Mon

I think there can be no doubt of W&H being evil. I see the Senior Partners as filling the role of Satan in the Christian Belief system. The 'adversary' to the forces of good. The First Evil is more to do with the idea of evil. I don't think it would have had much of a role in the grand scheme of things until it saw it's chance to tip the balance. That's probably why the Senior Partners were opposed to it, it was interfering with their own carefully planned apocalypse.

As for the company itself, Wolfram & Hart is a direct opposite to Angel Investigations. One is a business set up to aid the forces of good and help the innocent the other is a business whos purpose is to give aid to evil and help the guilty. While AI recieves 'orders' from the Powers That Be, W&H takes theirs from the Partners.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nope. She is an opportunist -- lunasea, 17:04:28 06/30/03 Mon

1. Hell and Heaven aren't merit based in the Buffyverse. Angel went to Hell also. So did Connor. Buffy even spent some time in a hell dimension.

2. Lilah is willing to work for evil to get her pretty diamonds and limo rides. At the time of "Ground State" evil is winning. When evil ceases to be the safest game in town, she is ready to braid her hair and change her name to Pollyanna. She has no allegiance to any sort of moral compass. She is strictly an opportunist. To just write her off as evil takes away from the richness of the character.

What exactly is the nature of Angel's choices?

Remove good and evil, since they have moral connotations. Instead it is about harm. Angel's decisions are based on helping vs harm. He does consider the ramifications. He is concerned with immediate and long-term consequences (harm/help) that his actions have.

So what exactly are the Senior Partners? What is the relationship between the First Evil and the Senior Partners?

The Senior Partners represent the choice to do evil. The First Evil is what allows people make that choice. It is one thing to have a choice. Unless something compels you to make that choice, you won't make it. The First went overboard by trying to completely eliminate good. In doing this, there is no longer a choice. The Senior Partners could easily take Angel's soul and make him evil. Instead they want him to choose evil.

Is there a tug of war for souls in the Buffyverse, or is there an ongoing attempt to maintain balance between the Powers, with human souls just getting caught in the crossfire?

Souls are our moral compass. There might be some sort of battle for spirits, but souls are oriented to good. In order to discuss Buffyverse concepts, we have to divorce ourselves from Christian ones. I do think it is all about balance to provide humanity with the necessary frame work to evolve in. Jasmine wanted to kick our evolution up a few ticks. (actually it is just a framework for Joss to tell his story in and I don't think he gets into it this deeply) Every now and then one side makes a bold play in order for humanity to rise to the occassion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think -- KdS, 17:33:28 06/30/03 Mon

That the FE is the source of evil in the core Buffyverse dimension, and the Partners are an external force from another dimension trying to take over. JMO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why the Senior Partners don't desoul Angel -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:43:42 06/30/03 Mon

There are prophecies which say the vampire with a soul will play a major role in the apocalypse, but no one knows on whose side. They don't mention Angel by name. If the Senior Partners desoul Angel, all they've got is another vampire on their side. But, if they corrupt him with his soul still intact, then they have control over a key player in the apocalypse.

P.S. You define Angel's choices in terms of helping vs. harming, rather than good vs. evil. I can only speak for myself, but I always pictured helping being synonymous with good and harming being synonymous with evil. But that's just me.

P.P.S. "The First went overboard by trying to completely eliminate good." But evil, by definition, is the drive to destroy that which is good. Thus, it is in the nature of evil to destroy good, and thus choice. Which makes sense: choice is a good thing, so it makes sense that evil wouldn't want there to be choice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lilah and evil -- Arethusa, 19:43:55 06/30/03 Mon

1. Hell and Heaven aren't merit based in the Buffyverse. Angel went to Hell also. So did Connor. Buffy even spent some time in a hell dimension.

Granted. Although Lilah does say, "I'm just a messenger. That's all. They'll be sending me straight back to hell once I'm finished here.

But my point remains-Lilah committed evil acts knowingly and eagerly. She did it for money, for security, because she felt she had to. "You don't get it, do you, twinkie?," she said to Cordelia in Calvary. "I'm what I believe in. And you think I got this far by sticking my head in the sand?" To just write her off as an opportunist takes away from the richness of her character.

Remove good and evil, since they have moral connotations. Instead it is about harm. Angel's decisions are based on helping vs harm. He does consider the ramifications. He is concerned with immediate and long-term consequences (harm/help) that his actions have.

Deciding between helping and harming is a moral decision, so I don't think I should throw out morality. Again, Angel has many times chosen to commit an act that has potentially damaging consequences-releasing Billy and Angelus, sleeping with Darla, using black magick to tear a hole into Quar-Toth, etc.

In order to discuss Buffyverse concepts, we have to divorce ourselves from Christian ones.

I agree. ;0)

The First Evil is what allows people make that choice. It is one thing to have a choice. Unless something compels you to make that choice, you won't make it. The First went overboard by trying to completely eliminate good. In doing this, there is no longer a choice. The Senior Partners could easily take Angel's soul and make him evil. Instead they want him to choose evil.

I really don't think Evil such as the Senior Partners cares about humans having the power to make choices. They did everything they could think of to stack the deck in their favor. Only the Good side wants people to have choices, as the three-way conversation between Connor, Darla and Cordelia in Inside Out showed.

I do think it is all about balance to provide humanity with the necessary frame work to evolve in. Jasmine wanted to kick our evolution up a few ticks. (actually it is just a framework for Joss to tell his story in and I don't think he gets into it this deeply) Every now and then one side makes a bold play in order for humanity to rise to the occassion.

That's my question-is it all about humanity, or are people merely collatoral damage in the games gods play? Jasmine wanted humanity to evolve, but the other PTB evidently weren't in any hurry. We still don't know for sure if they have a goal for humanity at all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lilah and evil-Question -- sdev, 21:02:41 06/30/03 Mon

"Buffy even spent some time in a hell dimension."

When?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's lunasea's statement- -- Arethusa, 21:14:56 06/30/03 Mon

I think she means when Buffy went to the hell dimension in "Anne."

Tara said there's lots of heavenly dimension, and I suspect there's lots of hell dimensions too. I don't think, however, that they are the same as, say, Quar-toth, even though it was commenly called a hell dimension. After all, you didn't have to die to get there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In the heaven Buffy described, she was incorporeal -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:13:09 06/30/03 Mon

Which makes sense, given that her body was lying dead in the real world. However, all the hell dimensions we've seen people cross into and out of have been physical in nature. Thus it seems pretty likely to infer that any sort of hell people are sent to after death is incorporeal, and so not of the same variety of Quortoth.

This raises the question, though: if there are physical and non-physical hell dimensions, are there physical as well as non-physical heavenly dimensions, dimensions that are utopian models just as Quortoth and the like are dystopian models?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, she really is evil. -- Miss Edith, 19:29:41 06/30/03 Mon

Lilah talks of doing evil errands sure, but what does that really mean? She works for evil, she will carry out evil acts for her own gain. But does that actually make her an evil person simply because she is willing to commit evil? As a human being with a soul she meets the criteria in the Buffyverse of someone who can be saved. I would call her a gray character more than an evil one. I mean even the most righteous people, such as Buffy, have committed evil acts (stabbing Faith) without actually being evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think that, like the Existential Scoobies, if she considers herself one, she is one. ;) -- Arethusa, 19:51:57 06/30/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, she really is evil. -- yabyumpan, 23:17:53 06/30/03 Mon

Yes, she's EVIL. She was quite happy to try to kidnapp Connor to have him disected while still alive and when that didn't work, tried to get Angel to eat him. She sat there smiling as she chopped Linwood's head off and laughed along with Lindsey at the thought of Darla and Dru 'having a massacre'. She tried to get Bethany Chalk raped to bring out her power, had Cordelia tortured to release Billy, knowing full well what he was and complained and showed absolutly no compassion when she heard the security guard being killed by the Beast in HC. She has never shown any regret or remourse for any of the suffering she's caused unless it's effected her personally and right up to her death mocked AI for actually trying to make a difference, even though at the time they were giving her shelter from the rain of fire.
I don't see any greyness or moral ambiguity in her, or any richness in character. She's nothing more than a witty sociopath.

But does that actually make her an evil person simply because she is willing to commit evil? As a human being with a soul she meets the criteria in the Buffyverse of someone who can be saved. I would call her a gray character more than an evil one.

Would Pol Pot, Stalin, Ted Bundy, Dennis Nilsen et al be considered just 'grey' in Buffyverse? All of them are human beings with souls.
[> [> [> Re: Personal speculation and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings) -- Rina, 08:40:38 06/30/03 Mon

Spike never struck me as the type of person, whose morality was immature. When it came to morality, he seemed a hell of a lot more mature and frank than many of the other characters.

Another person commented that Spike seemed to believe he is morally detached. Huh? Was this person watching the early episodes of BtVS's Season 7? Or believe he has to do a repeat performance of Angel's remorseful brooding? Or is that person still judging Spike for not going into an emotional tailspin of remorse over Nikki Wood's death? Still paying more attention to his words, than his actions, I see.


In several essays, people have pointed out that Angel has acted as Spike's Ogre Father - on the same level as Anakin Skywalker was Luke Skywalker's Ogre Father. If this is true, I see Spike being an instrument of final redemption for Angel, by the series' end.
[> [> [> [> Not sure the writers would agree -- lunasea, 09:32:10 06/30/03 Mon

Joss has even said that one thing the soul imparts is a more mature morality. That is why you can have sweet adorable kitten eating Clem.

Spike is Id-boy, like any other vampire. His id got complicated by the chip, which was handled well in OOMM. Vampires don't have super-egos when they are soulless. Their morality is based on this. Spike tends to see everything very black and white. Again, not the height of maturity in the Grey Buffyverse. He got along so well with Dawn because they are both kids and could relate.

Not saying that Angel's was that much better when he was on BtVS. I am weak, therefore I must die isn't exactly the height of maturity. He, too, tended to see things very black and white. It isn't until after "Amends" when the spin-off is being set up that Angel actually starts to grow up. Faith was very important to Angel's development, both in Consequences and on his own show.

Don't confuse his ability to speak his mind with maturity. "At least I'm man enough to admit it" was not the mature thing to say. Same with "You see, unlike you, I had a mother who loved me back." Part of Spike's fun is in his immaturity. He isn't even Oedipal, but pre-Oedipal.

So which actions should we look at that show a mature Spike? Sid Vicious was not what one would consider a good role model.
[> [> [> [> [> Your Opinion . . . Not Mine -- Rina, 10:13:56 06/30/03 Mon

I guess you and the writers would agree about Spike seeing the world in black and white. I don't. I have my own interpretation of Spike's characters.

Contrary to what writers may think, they should realize that a movie/television viewer, or a reader, may have his or her own interpretation of a character or scene, regardless of the writer's intent.

Look at the situation regarding Spike's trip to Africa at the end of Season 6. Many viewers are still divided over whether his original intent was to either get rid of the chip or gain a soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's fine -- lunasea, 10:38:27 06/30/03 Mon

But season 7 is written on Spike going to get his soul, not the chip removed. If the viewer holds tight to their own interpretation, scenes like "Beneath You" don't make as much sense.

I was one that thought Spike went to get the chip out. When he didn't, I figured he meant to get the chip out, but Lurky sensed what Spike really wanted and gave him that. Joss came out point blank (which he rarely does) and said what he meant. Since that is what the rest of the show is written on, I will go with it.

My husband is a Quartermaster and teaches other Coasties about navigation. His rate has just been merged/taken over by the Boswainsmates. The BMs navigate the small boats for shorter distances. My husband has crossed Atlantic. In Long Island Sound, a five degree course deviation isn't that big a deal. You will get to where you are going or damn close to it. If you are going to the Caribbean, five degrees and you will hit another island or end up in the middle of the Atlantic.

Spike is an emotional topic. What about some other issues in the Buffyverse? What if people held tightly to Oz being Willow's true love? Would season 6 make any sense whatsoever? Why is Willow going so nuts over someone she really doesn't love?

Then there is Dawn. How many initially refused to accept her as Buffy's sister? How much of what followed depended on that? It is a testament to ME's writing ability that the main criticism of Dawn is that she wasn't developed enough.

Then there is my favorite character Angel. What if we held tightly to Angel is Buffy's true love (well he is) and she is incapable of loving anyone else, ever? Forget Spike. Buffy being able to move on is important to Riley. So what if he left? She didn't really love him. It just sucks the heart out of that story.

There are a million and one things in the story that could go either way. We come here and debate them. Sometimes something is important enough to the story that a writer, usually Joss himself, will make a statement about it. If the viewer holds tightly to what they saw, they tend to go "but X doesn't make sense now." X makes sense if we go with what the writers said. That is why I will drop my side in such a case and go with what the writers say. Being right isn't as important to me as the story is. I want to make it to a specific point that the writers are trying to take me to. We aren't crossing Long Island Sound. 7 seasons is a trans-Atlantic voyage.

When we interpret literature, we tend to have the whole thing, so that we can make sense of these points where it could go either way. We can interpret it in the context of the entire text. Until recently we didn't have that opportunity. Now that we do, it is fun to make things make sense and figure out Joss' story. Restless is particularly fun.

That is just me. I'm sure nothing I have said has convinced you of anything.
[> [> [> [> Re: Personal speculation and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings) -- Miss Edith, 19:47:26 06/30/03 Mon

I would hate for Spike to start with the Angel brooding! Now personally I think Spike's morality is still very fluid. I don't agree with those saying they see no difference between Spike with a soul or without. But I sure don't feel comfortable with Spike walking around wearing the coat of a woman he killed. Spike is my favourite character because I prefer the more morally flexible types, rather than the big heroic champions. I live for episodes like Reunion (Angel leaving the lawyers to die) and Lies My Parents Told Me, hence a character like Spike appealing to me.

I do think Spike's morality is immature to a point. Still IMO he has integrated his demon and huma