March 2002 posts
Ok, if you wanna see
me -- vampire hunter D, 13:15:43 03/28/02 Thu
I have posted a pic of myself at amihotornot.com. Ithe url for my rating photo is:
www.amihotornot.com.au/main.asp?emailid=56023
Ok, plkease give me a vote too. Please. I only have one vote so far, and they gave me a 2/10.
[>
Nice....and here's me, if you wanna check it out... -- Nos, 13:29:17 03/28/02 Thu
http://www.angelfire.com/ks/darkhold/Darkdays.jpg
[> [>
Wow. Yowza. -- A Guy, 13:42:37 03/28/02 Thu
[> [>
I agree with A Guy. NICE! -- vampire hunter D, 13:57:26 03/28/02 Thu
Damn, I'm realy wishing you weren't married ;-)
[> [> [>
Hehe...Thanks guys... -- Nos, 14:23:39 03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
Wow, Nos! You're beautiful! Are those professional head shots? -- Rob, 14:36:11
03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks so much....And yeah, they are... -- Nos, 14:37:17 03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [>
Wow... -- Apophis, 15:00:55 03/28/02 Thu
[> [>
Damn!!! Very nice, Nos. -- VampRiley, 18:50:29 03/28/02 Thu
[>
Re: Ok, if you wanna see me -- Ian, 13:44:20 03/28/02 Thu
I'd never heard of "Am I Hot or Not" before, but the people who do the ratings are cruel! Who cares
what they think?
However, nice photo and everything.
[>
you're both beautiful! -- julia, 13:54:05 03/28/02 Thu
[>
I wanna play too! Here's a pic of me! -- Rob, 14:31:56 03/28/02 Thu
Click here!
[> [>
How old do I look? I'm 21, but a lot of people think I'm like 16... -- Rob, 14:35:02
03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [>
You look 21 -- aurelia, 20:19:43 03/28/02 Thu
I still get carded at R movies and when I was a senior in high school someone asked me if I was in
high school yet. So I know your pain.
[> [> [> [>
Re: You look 21 -- Rob, 20:23:48 03/28/02 Thu
Thanks...
Actually, funny story...When the first "American Pie" movie came out, I was 18, and my best friend
was 16. He didn't get carded getting in, and I did! Everyone still always thinks he's older! Grr
aargh!
Rob :o)
[> [> [> [> [>
I feel your pain -- Sheri, 23:29:17 03/28/02 Thu
Going to be 24 in a couple of days, and I'm still being asked where I'm planning on going to college
when I graduate from high school. (And occaisionally junior highschool!)
At least that's better than when my fiance's school buddies saw a recent picture of me and quite
seriously asked, "Why do you have a picture of a 13 yr old girl on your desk?"
[> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL LOL LOL, Oh sorry, but that really is funny. -- Ian, 12:25:10 03/29/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, no! I'm sorry!! That's much worse than my little sob story! -- Rob, 12:43:31 03/29/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
my heart cries for all you poor youngins -- Liq, 12:48:10 03/29/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hey, Liq, you're not that old! :-) -- Rob, 13:14:10 03/29/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I've always had the opposite happen to me. -- Deeva, 13:59:06 03/29/02 Fri
Ever since I was 13, I've looked older than I really am. I've been to over the 21 clubs since I was 16,
no questions asked. (Before you think jail-bait, I really went for the music). I think that in my case
my height helped a little. I'm 5'7" and though that's not really tall, it's a big deal (for other people)
cause I'm Asian. In retrospect, going out to clubs at that age was probably not a very good idea. I
spent a lot of the time trying to stay out of the pick-up radar. Age thing, you know. But it was
amusing. I'd share a pict but I don't know how to do that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hey Deev, reminds me of the time... -- A8, 17:32:38 03/29/02 Fri
...way back in my olden days when I was 17 and snuck into a bar to see a band with a 15 year old
friend and I got carded and tossed (my buddy actually went up to the bar, ordered and was served,
without question, 2 shots of JD). That same year, I was with a large group of friends and was the
only one carded to prove I was old enough to get into a R rated movie!
A couple months ago, I got carded buying a 6 pack of beer at Albertsons. I got very nostalgic, but at
the same time I had a flashback to that cool feeling you experience when you get away with
something (which rarely happened to me in my youth).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Another benefit of looking younger... -- Rob, 18:50:02 03/29/02 Fri
...is when I go up to buy beer, and the guy behind the counter gives me a condescending look. Then, I
take out my ID. It's like a whole chorus of angels singing "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah!"
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, now I look younger than my years. -- Deeva, 21:55:36 03/29/02 Fri
Well, didn't that make me sound all old and everything? Still don't get carded at bars. But I do all
the time at the store. As I understand it though, the cashiers are supposed to card anyone who looks
to be under 40.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hey, Deeva? Here how you post a pic. -- VampRiley, 14:58:41 03/30/02 Sat
The first thing you need is to find the HTML source of the picture you want to post. Many browser
let you do it, as well as many Edit programs. For the Internet Explorer browser, go to View, then
Source. For Netscape, go to View, then Page Source.
You'll end up with something like this:
< IMG align= border= height= src=" " width= > -- with the spaces filled in.
What you next need is the actual address within your computer that the pic is at. For example,
C:\My Documents\ATPoBtVS Posters_files\lagang.jpe.
What you do then is place that address in between the two sets of quotation marks:
<...src="C:\My Documents\ATPoBtVS Posters_files\lagang.jpe"...>
The way this forum is set up, you can go back and forth to fix it if there is any problems.
And I know what you mean. When I was 18, most people that didn't know my actual age thought I
was 15 or 16. I'm 22 now. Some think I'm 18, some think I'm 23 or 24. It has a habit of being both
annoying and good. But at least I haven't been carded in years.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Hmm . . . would help if I had that picture on my C drive . . . -- d'Herblay, 20:19:04
03/30/02 Sat
Let's try this:
<IMG SRC="http://www.atpobtvs.com/images/fool17.jpg">
Will get you:
(A picture of me dressed up, more or less. Ok, more; a lot more.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for the tips. -- Deeva, 22:53:43 03/30/02 Sat
But my sister, she's got the brains and I got the sense of humorin the family, came up with
something else for me.
Click he
re if y'all wanna take a gander.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
VERY pretty! -- Ian, 16:32:04 03/31/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh, that's so sweet of you to say. -- Deeva :o), 23:51:48 03/31/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not bad -- vampire hunter D, 13:23:25 04/01/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What do you mean "not bad".....lovely pic.......:):):) -- Rufus, 19:32:29
04/01/02 Mon
[> [>
I think you look about 21...Nice pic, btw! -- Nos, 14:36:01 03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [>
thanks :o) -- Rob, 20:25:39 03/28/02 Thu
[>
In case no one's ever clicked... -- Masq, 15:02:39 03/28/02 Thu
On my name on the home page of my site, you can see pictures of me with short hair from two years
ago (it's shoulder length now)
Masquerade
[> [>
In the face of such beauty, words fail me O Webmistress. -- Mr. "When I'm not
sarcastic, it still sounds like I am" Ian, 15:06:22 03/28/02 Thu
[> [>
I am sooo jealous.... -- Nos, 16:14:37 03/28/02 Thu
*sputters* Wesley....And he's got...his...arm around you! *faints* Oh, and great pics!
[> [> [>
There's a story behind this one -- Masq, 16:35:44 03/28/02 Thu
At the Bronze posting board party, they had computers set up so that people at the party in
Hollywood could chat with the posters who had to stay home.
So there I was at the computer bragging about my pic with Elisabeth Rohm with my Bronze buddies
when I sensed someone standing behind me. I glanced up to see if it was someone wanting the
computer next, and there was Alexis Denisof, just standing there watching me post!
I offered to help him write a "Hello" message to the Bronze board, and he agreed. So I got to be his
official posting-helper that night.
As soon as we were done, me and everyone around there kept him captive for photo ops for 15
minutes.
[> [> [> [>
Now I'm the one who's jealous -- aurelia, 20:14:11 03/28/02 Thu
mmm...AD
[> [>
I want to meet the cast of Buffy too! :( -- Traveler, 21:09:36 03/28/02 Thu
[>
I'd post a picture, but... -- Apophis, 15:31:18 03/28/02 Thu
... everytime I get photographed, the camera bursts into flames. I'm starting to take it
personally.
[> [>
or you could be me - always the one holding the camera. -- Solitude1056, 17:17:31
03/28/02 Thu
The only good shots of me appear to be ones where there's a camera in front of my face. No point in
broadcasting those!
[> [> [>
I wouldn't want to crack everyone's monitors... -- Cactus Watcher, 19:06:12 03/28/02
Thu
I leave the posting of personal pictures to the young and the beautiful. ;o)
[> [> [> [>
Me, too, CW -- Vickie, 20:37:58 03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
Me, too, CW -- Vickie, 20:44:16 03/28/02 Thu
[>
you guys know i'm saving these for ES, dontcha? -- Liq, 17:35:53 03/28/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Can I have them to put on the main archives page? -- zargon, 17:37:45 03/28/02
Thu
[> [>
oh yea, here's me with a couple of friends -- Liq, 18:21:11 03/28/02 Thu
right here
[> [> [>
Is that a Tootsie Pop and Beer in JM's hand? -- A8, 18:27:53 03/28/02 Thu
Kinda like a typical breakfast from my university days.
[> [> [> [>
Yes... he quit smoking and chain-licks now -- Liq, 18:29:17 03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
I wonder if his oral fixation helps inform his portrayal of Spike.:-) -- A8, 18:40:45
03/28/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
"chain licks".....LOL........no comment......;) -- Rufus, 19:11:55 03/28/02
Thu
[>
All the pics are beautiful..........:):):) -- Rufus, 19:15:14 03/28/02 Thu
[>
The people on that site are nuts -- Traveler, 21:31:08 03/28/02 Thu
Am I more forgiving than most, or what? Some of the women on there I would rate a 10, but only got
an average of 7.5 (with over 1,800 votes)
I wouldn't feel too bad about getting a 2. It probably a fairly average score.
[>
Re: Ok, if you wanna see me -- Sebastian, 09:19:29 03/29/02 Fri
VhD.
Okay - you totally motivated me. I've been wanting to submit my photo to 'Hot or Not' also, and now
that I know someone else brave enough to do it -I'm doing it too. Way cool.
Here's my pic people. Vote for me if you want. :-P
- S
http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=KSBSGQB&key=CKL
[> [>
Hot stuff -- Anne, 10:53:01 03/29/02 Fri
[> [>
Actually, sebastian, -- vampire hunter D, 12:30:28 03/29/02 Fri
I'm on a different site. You put your on hotornot.com. Mine is on amihotornot.com.au. I don't know
which is a knockoff of which though.
Also, there is facethejury.com and ratemybody.com.
[> [> [>
The one you are on is the 'Australian' site, VhD... :-) -- Sebastian, 12:41:27 03/29/02
Fri
I think the one I posted on is for the US. I wasn't sure if you were from Australia or not...
- S
[> [> [> [>
I'm not -- vampire hunter D, 12:51:22 03/29/02 Fri
and btw, I tried posting to the US site, and it wouldn't let me, keeps saying my pic ahs to be less
thatn 100kb. Which is weird since the pic is only 99.9kb. oh well.
Part 17 -- Rochefort,
16:32:07 03/28/02 Thu
Last time....on our round robin Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Buffy: "It's my day off. And look, it's Tara's lost kitty."
Buffy: "I'm going to go skipping down the lane avoiding my adult responsibilities. Spike, you watch
Dawn."
*shot of cat falling out of tree onto Spike and biting him.*
Spike: "I don't know why I bother." (he hits his head over and over into the porch pole, suddenly
something clicks, he vamps out, consumed with a rush of blood lust he spins around in circles and
collapses into the sunlight.)
**Dawn considers, knowing his chip is broken...then drags him inside and out of the sun****
**shot: Buffy on a swing....feral eyes everywhere***
show opens with a pleasently swinging Buffy. Suddenly...
POUNCE POUNCE POUNCE POUNCE! KITTY CATS CLING TO BUFFY LIKE CRABS IN A
CARTOON! SHE SCREAMS!!
Cue the opening song! bummmm bum bum bummmm.... bummm bumm bummmm....
The Loves of a Slayer (general
spoilers) -- lulabel, 17:39:12 03/28/02 Thu
Here is my first attempt at a Buffy essay. Kindness will be appreciated! (Not to say I don't enjoy a
good argument)
The Loves of a Slayer in Triptych- Heart, Body and Soul
In "Into the Woods", a distraught and angry Buffy tells Riley that she has given him her heart, body
and soul. Riley refutes this, and we, the audience know that he is right. She has not opened herself
to him, she does not have a complete love with Riley. In fact, her relationship with each of her
three lovers has been incomplete. Each lover has been her mate, her partner, in one aspect only:
heart, body or soul.
SOUL
The first of Buffy's loves, Angel, is her truest love. Angel is her soul's mate, for of course Angel is all
about Soul. His soul is the one and only thing which differentiates Angelus, arguably the
Buffyverse's most evil of villains, from Angel, a compassionate and loving hero. Of course Angel did
not become noble and heroic merely through the re-establishment of his soul, he was called to the
hero's path through his soul's love for Buffy. She, in turn, loves him deeply, despite the impossibility
of their circumstances.
Angel is and remains Buffy's soulmate only, as their would-be unions of heart and body are corrupt,
damaged. Superficially, they make an attractive, romantic couple. The cold hard facts of who and
what they are, however, make their relationship grotesque, monstrous. Angel is a 240-something
vampire who has spent 140 years of his existence devoted to the art of exquisite cruelty. He falls in
love-at-first-sight with a virginal 15-year old girl sucking on a lollipop. (Lolita, much?) The tragedy
of Angel's curse and its implications for their sexual relationship are not just dramatic storytelling,
but are symbolic of the forbidden nature of their relationship.
As they cannot be mates in body, likewise they are not mates in heart. Buffy states or implies more
than once that she cannot trust him. He does not inspire trust - he is secretive, and makes life-
altering decisions without consulting her. Buffy gives Angel her heart, over and over, and he
returns it to her, broken into little pieces, both intentionally and unintentionally . As the First Evil
tells him in "Amends" - " You were born to hurt that girl". While he loves her with all his heart, he
seems destined to only break hers.
HEART
Riley is Buffy's second love. He represents her heart's mate, she has trust in him. He is a good, kind-
hearted man. Unlike Angel, he wears his heart upon his sleeve - he tells Buffy early and often that
he loves her. Also in contrast to Angel, Riley has a live, beating heart in his chest.
There are plenty of symbolic clues that Riley is all about Heart. In "Hush", the first episode in which
Riley and Buffy kiss, the Gentleman roam Sunnydale harvesting hearts from their living victims.
The chip that Maggie Walsh implants in Riley and which Adam uses to subvert his will is placed not
in his head, but over his heart. Riley gouges it out of his own chest - a seemingly impossible task - in
order to come to Buffy's aid, to save his heart's love. In a similar vein, (punning, yes) Riley's
technologically enhanced strength originates in his heart. His heart runs in overdrive, and must be
fixed before it destroys him. Adam, Riley's "brother", is destroyed when Buffy tears his heart from
his chest.
Riley is clearly not Buffy's soulmate, as that is Angel role. While it is clearly implied that Buffy
loves Riley, she never tells him directly, she never makes herself truly vulnerable to him. Likewise,
Riley is not her body's mate. Their sexual relationship is comfortable, but ultimately unsatisfying.
Post-coital bliss with Riley is not enough to send Buffy to sleep - she must sneak out for some
aerobic slaying to get her sweet release.
BODY
Last but not least is Spike, the third lover in Buffy's triptych, who is clearly her body's mate. Spike
is all about sex, the Body. Their relationship, whether as mortal enemies , reluctant allies,
confidantes or lovers has always been about "the dance". Throughout each incarnation of their
stormy relationship, there has always been fire and chemistry between them.
Spike's frequent nudity in season 6 is not about beefcake, but about his explicit sexuality, and its
lure to Buffy. Their physical union is passionate, primal and violent. Buffy's attitude toward their
coupling reflects back to Faith's policy of "want, take, have" - gratification without consequences,
without love. Buffy is not interested in a relationship Spike, but she is seduced by her desire for
him. He is a perfect sexual partner for her - he is strong enough to withstand /survive her most
passionate embraces, and he is hedonistic enough to be an enthusiastic, uninhibited and non-
judgmental partner. This is in contrast to both Angel and Riley, who have each expressed dismay
towards Buffy displaying overt, bad-girl sexuality. (Angel in "Bad Girls" and Riley in "Who are
You")
Spike, like Angel and Riley before him, loves Buffy truly and deeply, as evidenced by his reluctant
but heartfelt attempts to fight his true nature as a vampire. However, he can never be Buffy's
soulmate, for the obvious and unsubtle reason that he literally lacks a soul. He cannot be her
heart's mate, for he lacks the basic quality of compassion, the attribute most closely associated with
"heart". While he is clearly capable of love, kindness and caring, they are reserved exclusively for a
small group of people - all women actually - Drusilla, Buffy, Dawn, Joyce, and to a lesser extent,
Willow and Tara. For the rest of humanity he remains indifferent, or hostile.
HEART, BODY AND SOUL
So where does this leave our well-loved but beleaguered heroine? She has had a trio of lovers, no one
of whom has been able to fulfill all of her needs to completion. (Not for lack of trying!) However, this
trio, taken together, form the complementary trinity of heart, body and soul. In this sense, these
lovers become symbolic of Buffy's journey towards a complete love. In light of Buffy's self-
destructive behavior and massive denial in season 6, it is clear that she must first develop self-love
before she will have the maturity to achieve a lasting and fulfilling relationship. Only then will she
be in the position to build a sustaining, trusting and passionate love - heart, body and soul.
[>
Very well done. I totally disagree, but you've said it well. -- Sophist, 18:43:34 03/28/02
Thu
[>
Re: The Loves of a Slayer (general spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 19:01:50 03/28/02
Thu
From your essay the guys are supplying the heart, body and soul. Wouldn't be fair to say that Buffy
couldn't give her soul to Spike or her heart to Riley and she found it was too dangerous to give her
body to Angel? What does this say about her? The right guy has come along yet? There can't be a
right guy?
[> [>
Really good point! -- Caroline, 07:22:10 03/29/02 Fri
These men represent something symbolically about Buffy. They tell us a lot about her state of mind.
With Angel, she really wasn't seeing him, she was really seeing herself as the ultimate lover,
sacrificing herself for love - her whole attitude was 'love and the world well lost'. It was really based
on the projection of a romantic ideal. With Riley, she wasn't defining relationships in the positive,
she was defining them in the negative - 'I will not be involved with a vampire again, I will be
involved with someone normal'. So Riley is rebound guy. Buffy is not projecting a romantic ideal but
a pragmatic one - 'this is what I should have'. As for Spike, he represents a lot of the elements of
confusion with identity in season 6. She's dealing with death, rebirth, transformation and the stuff
Spike is going through this season makes him a perfect projection for these issues.
Additionally, I think that the essay misses a lot of the psychological complexity in the relationships,
esp. Buffy's relationship with Spike and the cross-projections going on there. I also don't feel that it's
so easy to delineate heart soul and body into such neat categories, esp. when the definition of 'soul' is
in flux in the Buffyverse. Joss has tried to define it for us but the original idea of soul=good and non-
soul=bad that was presented in season one of BtVS has been challenged so many times in both later
seasons of BtVS and AtS that it's difficult to make these delineations in the way 'soul' is used in the
Buffyverse.
[>
Re: The Loves of a Slayer (general spoilers) -- Alvin, 19:33:56 03/28/02 Thu
I like it, but where does Parker fit into this?
[> [>
He doesn't... -- Eric, 05:20:47 03/29/02 Fri
Parker was just looking for a good time by seducing naive freshmen girls. He was another Buffy
attempt to find a "normal" guy (I wonder if she ever pondered what "normal" is?) Unfortunately she
undershot "normal" and got substandard. So he went from the Buffy Boink to the deserved Buffy
Bonk. LOSER!
[> [> [>
Re: He doesn't... I agree -- Cactus Watcher, 05:36:19 03/29/02 Fri
Like every guy Buffy's been interested in, including Billy Ford, Parker Abrams isn't what he seems
at first. Like Ford, Parker is just a bump in the road and a learning experience. Not everyone that
passes through her fantasies is worth a major investment of heart, body and soul.
[>
Interresting, but Spike is also very linked to the Heart idea (King of Cups) -- Ete,
05:06:31 03/29/02 Fri
[>
Interesting analysis, but it's more complicated than that. -- bookworm, 07:00:08
03/29/02 Fri
Can you love without involving heart, soul and body? If she loved any of them, all three of them had
to be involved. There's a physicality to her love for Angel -- he's better matched in body than Riley
was -- in spite of the roadblock of the Gypsies' curse. In some sense Angel also received her truest,
most unguarded love because she loved him before she understood how badly he could hurt her. She
paid lip service to her lack of trust for him, but actions speak louder than words. She trusted him
enough to let him suck her dry, which is more about physicality and the love of the heart than it is
the bonding of the soul. I don't think these two were soul mates. They didn't know each other well
enough. I'm not sure that Riley had her heart, her soul or even all of her body. He was definitely the
rebound guy, her chance to be normal. As for Spike ... he's definitely a match and a temptation for
her physically. He's also a soul mate more truly than either Angel or Riley, if you consider that the
soul is the essence of the personality and the way a person acts instinctively as well as the pull
towards immortality. They both know what it's like to die and to be reborn, which is a shared
experience connected to the soul. Spike does have a soul, by the way -- he has a demon's soul. Given
how he acts, I wouldn't be surprised if his human soul was also somehow imprisoned in the body,
controlled by the demon aspect. There's too much of William in him. Aside from speculation, they
KNOW each other in a way that wasn't present with Angel and Riley. It's been the most fascinating
aspect of the relationship since "School Hard."
"Normal Again"
Mirrors Australian (Aboriginal) Tradition. (very fascinating!) -- Joie (d V), 18:57:03 03/28/02
Thu
A friend of mine noticed some similarities between the "Normal Again" episode and a tradition of the
Aboriginals of Australia. Take a look at what he (Del) has to say about this. It's very fascinating!
Let me know your thoughts on this.
~Joie (d V)
***********************************************************
Normal Again
Director: Rick Rosenthal
Writer: Diego Gutierrez
Gutierrez pulled me into this episode at the very beginning by his use of Australian imagery. I was
curious to see why the three nerds used a didjeridu to call forth the demon, who eventually dosed
Buffy with a chemical that caused her to hallucinate and have delusions.
I realized that the didjeridu, an Australian musical instrument, is made by and played by
Aboriginals living in the Red Centre, the centre of Australia.
When a young Aboriginal male becomes of age, he is sent on a "Walkabout". This is also referred to
as "The Dreamtime". The purpose of this traditional ritual is to have the boy, on his way to
becoming a man, walk out into the desert alone for several days. During this personal journey, he is
said to wait for The Dreamtime; a vision, or hallucination, he gets. This vision is to show him the
path of his future; what he is to become and achieve in his lifetime.
This Walkabout is of extreme importance to the Aboriginals of Australia. It is not only cultural in
nature, but religious, as well. I suppose one could say it parallels a Barmitzvah for a Jewish boy, on
his way to becoming a man. Dreamtime is a time for a boy to welcome manhood and to leave his
childhood behind.
One reason I find Normal Again to be such a fascinating episode is because of the similarities
between what Buffy is going through and what Aboriginal youths go through. This season has
shown that Buffy is leaving her childhood behind and is being given more responsibilities. As well,
the delusions and hallucinations she is having in the mental hospital are showing her a vision; her
own Dreamtime. These visions, much like an Aboriginal's, show Buffy what the future holds in store
for her and what she is to become. In the end, she chooses her friends and Sunnydale, as her own
Walkabout has led her there.
-Del
***********************************************************
[>
Re: "Normal Again" Mirrors Australian (Aboriginal) Tradition. (very
fascinating!) -- Calluna, 22:30:58 03/28/02 Thu
I also noticed this connection, but didn't feel I had enough knowledge about the Aboriginal traditions
to really talk about it. Especially since the "First Slayer" from Restless and the dream quest episode
(I have a cold and can't remember the title) looks very Aboriginal. Is there a connection? Was the
first slayer an Aboriginal? Was the didjerido demon from an australian demon dimension? I wonder
if we'll get any answers to this idea.
The part of Wanda's interview
with Marti Noxon that deals with Normal Again... -- Rufus, 22:41:31 03/28/02 Thu
Wanda
grill, gossip & gripe March 29, 2002
Let's start with the episode that really riled up the fans: Did Buffy's trip to the mental hospital mean
the entire show is just a hallucination?
Noxon: We never meant for it to be a statement of the show. If so, it would have been the very last
episode of Buffy. We just wanted to have a little fun and say: "Could it have all been her
hallucination?" It was a brain teaser. We believe in the world of Buffy. Wholeheartedly.
We didn't want to invalidate her whole journey. It was just kind of a what-if, not a thesis statement,
and we're not going to have asylum shows from now on.
Will the show lighten up?
Because of Buffy's mom dying and her dying, this season was darker, since she had to fight back
from that. She'll always have travails, but we are looking to bring her back into a heroic stance.
We're going to throw Buffy a bone or two. And I think, ultimately, people will be happy with the
balance. There's so much cool stuff about to happen--in a way people are not expecting.
[>
I hope there will be some meat on those bones. ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 05:17:01 03/29/02
Fri
[>
Thanks for the link! -- Robert, 09:38:44 03/29/02 Fri
[>
Spike -- DickBD, 13:06:29 03/29/02 Fri
It would be boring for Buffy ever to be stuck with one guy, but the Angel stories were really
compelling, I thought. I hated Riley, but I pulled for Spike. I guess that says something about my
judgement in regard to people (and vamps)! I still think that Spike is a pretty good vamp, and I hope
they don't write him out of the show--or make a real villain out of him (again).
[> [>
Re: Spike -- Robert, 16:45:34 03/29/02 Fri
>> " I hope they don't write him out of the show--or make a real villain out of him (again)."
I don't think Spike will ever be written out of the show. On the other hand, I don't think he was ever
a serious villain; certainly not the Big Bad. Spike was always played for laughs, even when he was
most seriously bad.
[>
And the part that deals with MN's opinion on Spuffy.... -- A8, 17:18:21 03/29/02 Fri
from same interview:
"I think people have forgotten the Spike of two seasons ago. I mean, he tried to kill Willow! Can you
really see Spike and Buffy in a condo deciding what they should watch on TV that night? That's not
our thesis. What we want to show is an independent heroine who is not defined by her
relationships."
[> [>
Should note though, MN generally seems to be comtemptuous of "shippers." --
A8, 17:20:18 03/29/02 Fri
[> [> [>
I bet she's better at catching her own typos though. -- A8, 17:35:07 03/29/02 Fri
Ideas for Best Boink --
neaux, 08:13:07 03/29/02 Fri
I'm randomly picking categories to discuss. Today is Best Boink.
I find Best Boink very amusing because I will accept nominations for sex scenes.. but also for
humerous Boinks! So If anyone gets boinked up side the head with a rock or bone.. I'll accept those
nominations as well. I remember Giles getting knocked unconscious oh a couple hundred times.
[>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- Nos, 08:36:00 03/29/02 Fri
Best humorous boink?
Gotta be...
Spike: This is gunna be worth it...*smack*
Spike and Xander: OOOW!
No contest for that one...
Best sex scene? Hmmm.....
I guess I'll go with smashed, cos it was so surprising.
[> [>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- zargon, 08:52:04 03/29/02 Fri
Giles and Joyce...."You had sex with my mother? On the hood of a police car? Twice??!!" Buffy in
"Earshot"
[> [> [>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink (correction) -- zargon, 08:53:49 03/29/02 Fri
Giles and Joyce...."You had sex with my mother? On the hood of a police car? Twice??!!" Buffy in
"Earshot" referring to the events of "Band Candy" which were implied, but not shown, eh,
explicitly
[> [> [>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- Kimberly, 08:55:32 03/29/02 Fri
Extra points for double boink!
[> [> [> [>
Band Candy/Earshot is both kinds of boink -- Vickie, 09:44:10 03/29/02 Fri
Boinks the first and second: "You had sex with Giles? On the hood of a police
car?.....Twice???!!!"
Boink the third, right at the end of Earshot: (sorry, cannot get to Psyche to get correct quote) "As
long as you're not having sex with my mother."
[> [> [> [> [>
I just like hearing Giles referred to as "a stevedore" during sex. --
LadyStarlight, 12:03:55 03/29/02 Fri
Which is how Fuffy identified herself to Giles. Resulting in much embarassed cleaning of
glasses.
[>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- vampire hunter D, 12:36:49 03/29/02 Fri
best sex scene had to be Faith and Xander in the Zeppo
Best smack in the head (which by the way is a bonk, not boink) was Angel smacking Faith with the
bat in Consequences (which happened while she was violently boinking Xander)
[> [>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- neaux, 16:06:13 03/29/02 Fri
LOL.. Damn Bonks and Boinks!! Always confusing me!!
I'm glad you debunked my definition of Boink!
[> [> [>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- yabyumpan, 16:38:13 03/29/02 Fri
Actually, being in the UK, bonking is definatly having sex.
When I hear boink being used in that context it has the same effect on my ears as nails scrapping on
a blackboard eewww. Now for me, boinking is what you do on a space hopper!! (if anyone's old
enough to remember them!!) Ok, there's an image to ponder on for you boink=sex people.
[> [> [> [>
boink vs. bonk -- anom, 22:36:53 03/30/02 Sat
"Actually, being in the UK, bonking is definatly having sex."
OK, then what's the sound effect for getting hit in the head? That's what "bonk" means in the
US.
"Now for me, boinking is what you do on a space hopper!! (if anyone's old enough to remember
them!!)"
"Space hopper"? Would that be anything like a pogo stick? Only thing I can think of....
[>
B/S in Smashed or W/T in OMWF? Help. I can't decide. -- Sophist, 13:04:27 03/29/02
Fri
[>
Re: Ideas for Best Boink -- Vegeta, 13:34:16 03/29/02 Fri
Best Humorous Boink: Cave Buffy boinking Parker twice with a log in Beer Bad. (After his boink
and bail)
Best Sexy Boink: Buffy & Spike in Smashed. After seeing that, I must say it didn't take Angel much
to lose his soul...
New Buffy UPN
Promo...Possible Dawn Spoiler -- Rob, 08:17:45 03/29/02 Fri
In the newest UPN promo, the announcer lists each character...
Paraphrasing here..."The Slayer...The Vampire...The Witch...The Smart-Aleck...The Demon...and the
Key to the future of the universe."
I thought that description of Dawn was very interesting, since so far they've assumed on the show
that her key-functions are done. But "Key to the future of the universe" leads me to believe that
something key-ish will be happening on the show soon.
Rob
[>
Re: Spoilers & Speculation -- Darby, 10:05:05 03/29/02 Fri
In Fray, it is said that a Slayer in the 21st Century would banish all demons and magic, but
what is shown is a host of baddies (behind a silhouetted Slayer who might be Buffy)
disappearing into a large dimensional portal. Poofta!
The downside of this actually happening on the series finale of Buffy is, hey, next season on
Angel (the Missing) - Fred pursues people with overdue library fines!
And no movie franchise. And no other spinoffs that aren't period pieces. And not much reason for
ever having a reunion show.
Nahhhhh....
[> [>
Re: Spoilers & Speculation -- Rob, 12:22:00 03/29/02 Fri
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how they handle that...And does the vanquishing all demons thing
mean all ALL? Even nice ones like Clem? Say it ain't so!
Maybe Angel Investigations can become some kind of puppy and kitten rescuing service?
Rob
[> [> [>
No Clem?! -- VampRiley, 13:50:39 03/29/02 Fri
If that happens, I'll be a mightily pissed god.
I'll have to smite Joss & ME for that one.
VR, the fuming one
[> [>
What the heck does the Hellmouth do? -- darrenK, 16:07:35 03/29/02 Fri
No, they'll do the dimensional door, but there will be all sorts of caveats as to why there are still
some demons and vampires on Earth.
It's the same sort of thing with the Hellmouth. Originally, the Hellmouth was the dimensional door.
It was closed and the only demons were vampires. They were demon- human hybrids who got left
behind when the Hellmouth was closed.
Then––without explanation––there were tons of demon hybrids and other hell creatures. They
seemed to live everywhere and especially in LA.
And the Hellmouth, as a barrier, became completely irrelavant. Vengeance Demons seem to travel
from the Hells to here with impunity. The Angel gang went to the Hell of Pylea and, of course, all
sorts of hellish otherworldly creatures from Glory to the Knights of Byzantium seem to get here
without any trouble whatsoever.
It leaves me with the question "What the hell is the Hellmouth for?"
So, I'm sure that Dawn's barrier would only be as useful as the Hellmouth.
Fray #6 also mentions that the barrier was pierced twice...
[> [> [>
I don't have Fray #6 yet, and I didn't see any spoiler warnings in your post!!! -- Robert,
17:55:31 03/29/02 Fri
Alternative Realities & Coming
Back Wrong (Long Speculation) -- Yoda, 09:59:45 03/29/02 Fri
I have a theory. It came to me last night as I was watching OMWF again. At the beginning of the
musical a horny demon sings that Buffy is not half the girl she used to be. A light bulb went off in my
head. What if she truly is only half the girl she used to be?
Remember Buffy jumped into a portal that opened the door to all the dimensions. What if when she
jumped into this portal her essence went into an alternate reality / parallel universe. In this
alternate reality Buffy was sent to an institution and never left.
I think it was David Greenwalt who indicated we would find out where Buffy went when she died in
Normal Again. So my theory is that our Buffy jumped through the portal and her essence merged
with this alternate Buffy in this parallel universe. Remember the doctor in the institution said that
during the summer Buffy was briefly better. That would fit in with the time our Buffy was
supposedly dead. And when our Buffy was pulled back into this reality she described to Spike where
she was.
BUFFY: I knew that everyone I cared about was all right. I knew it. Time ... didn't mean anything ...
nothing had form ... but I was still me, you know? (glances at him, then away) And I was warm ...
and I was loved ... and I was finished. Complete. I don't understand about theology or dimensions, or
... any of it, really ... but I think I was in heaven.
Time didn’t mean anything, nothing had form & she was warm. I think this feeling of contentment
was induced by the drugs that she was being treated with in the institution. This would make sense
if in the alternate universe Buffy was being heavily medicated for schizophrenia.
So Willow decides to pull Buffy out of what she thinks might be some hell dimension. But Buffy is
not in a hell dimension she is in an alternate reality or parallel universe. So Willow pulls our Buffy
out of this alternate reality with her resurrection spell but only half of our Buffy comes back.
Remember Willow’s spells tend to be about 50/50. And her spell did call for the Warrior of the People
to be brought back. That sounds like the Slayer part to me. The human part of Buffy (the non slayer
part) stayed in this alternate reality.
This would explain why Buffy feels so lost and detached. Remember in Flooded when Buffy would
just stare off into space. She seemed to be only half there. And she tells Willow in Normal again how
lost & detached she felt even before the demon poisoned her.
So I think what we have been seeing is Slayer Concentrate. Remember in the Replacement when
Xander was split in two.
GILES: What? No. Um, uh, the rod device, it's called a ferula-gemina. It splits one person in half,
distilling personality traits into two separate bodies. As near as I can tell, Toth was attempting to
split the slayer into two different entities. (Hands the book to Willow)
BUFFY: Two Buffys?
GILES: Yes. One with all the qualities inherent in Buffy Summers, and the other one with
everything that belongs to the slayer alone ... the, uh, the-the strength, the, uh, speed, the heritage.
And when it hit Xander, I think it separated him into his strongest points and his (grimaces)
weakest.
RILEY: But which one's the real one?
GILES: They're both real. They're both Xander. Neither one of them is evil. There's nothing in either
of them that our Xander doesn't already possess.
RILEY: I still don't get the original plan. I mean, why do it? The slayer half would be like slayer
concentrate, pretty unkillable.
GILES: But the two halves can't exist without each other. Kill the weaker Buffy half, and the slayer
half dies.
BUFFY: So the same goes for the Xanders. We lose one, we lose them both.
Here are some of the things that I think point to Buffy being Slayer Concentrate:
1) Buffy seems to be so much stronger than she was before she died. Even when she was still
disoriented from being resurrected she was able to dispatch those demons easily.
2) She is not as kind as our old Buffy. She reminds me of the Buffy in Living Conditions when Kathy
her roommate was sucking her soul out of her in her dreams. Remember how Willow commented on
how Buffy was never mean before that.
Buffy even mentioned in Intervention how being the slayer means being hard and losing your
humanity. The Slayer part of Buffy is hard & ruthless. This would explain a lot of Buffy’s
uncharacteristic meanness this season. She HAS lost her humanity. It stayed in the alternate
reality. It would also explain why she has been so violent this season. Afterall, the Slayer is a
warrior. Makes sense that she would fight tooth and nail. Softness is not the Slayer Concentrates
forte.
BUFFY: I don't know. To slay, to kill ... i-it means being hard on the inside. Maybe being the perfect
Slayer means being too hard to love at all. I already feel like I can hardly say the words.
GILES: Buffy...
BUFFY: Giles ... I love you. Love ... love, love, love, love, Giles, it feels strange.
FIRST SLAYER: You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your humanity.
BUFFY: Does it?
FIRST SLAYER: You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the fire ...
blinding. That's why you pull away from it.
BUFFY: (surprised) I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?
FIRST SLAYER: Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love ...
give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift.
3) Buffy’s intuition has always proved right in the past and she has made it clear that she thinks she
came back wrong.
BUFFY: I didn't come back wrong?
TARA: No, you're the same Buffy. (lightly) With a deep tropical cellular tan.
BUFFY: You must have missed something. Will you check again?
TARA: (concerned) Buffy, I-I promise, there's nothing wrong with you.
BUFFY: There has to be! This just can't be me, it isn't me. (starting to cry) Why do I feel like this?
Why do I let Spike do those things to me?
TARA: You mean hit you.
TARA: I-It's okay if you do. He's done a lot of good, and, and he does love you. A-and Buffy, it's okay
if you don't. You're going through a really hard time, and you're...
BUFFY: (still tearful) What? Using him? What's okay about that?
TARA: It's not that simple.
BUFFY: It is! It's wrong. I'm wrong. Tell me that I'm wrong, please...
4) Plus who is the truth teller in BtVS? Who knows Buffy better than anyone else? Spike, that’s who.
He also says she came back wrong and a little less human.
SPIKE: Don't you get it? Don't you see? (sneering) You came back wrong.
SPIKE: (grins) Came back a little less human than you were.
So in conclusion I think that not only was Buffy in an alternate reality & part of her is still there but
also what we have been watching is also an alternate reality. Remember what Spike said to Xander
in Normal Again about Buffy making him her sodding sex slave and Xander asks him what he is
talking about and Spike says something about alternate realities. He IS her sodding sex slave in this
alternate reality.
Hasn’t everybody been saying how odd this season has been. How it just doesn’t make sense. How
everybody is acting out of character. That is because in this alternate reality Buffy came back wrong
and it is throwing everything out of balance, out of sinc. One persons actions affects everybody else’s.
This makes me think about the speculation going around about a reset. What if they figure out what
is wrong with Buffy and manage somehow to go back to that day Willow did her resurrection spell
and do it right this time. Bring Buffy back in total (Slayer & girl). Everything would change. Just
like everything changed in the Wish. Remember how Spike told Xander in Normal Again that maybe
in an alternate reality Xander did not walk out on Anya. So if in that alternate reality Xanader
marries Anya then maybe Tara doesn’t get killed either. Everything would be back to normal.
What do you think...am I on to something?
p.s. I got to wondering that if what we have been seeing is Slayer Concentrate I wonder what Buffy
the girl would be like without the Slayer part. That would be interesting to see. But then I thought
that maybe we did get to see a glimpse of her in the Buffybot. She was awful nice. We all liked her &
miss her. And you know Spike loved both of them. With one he was able to be dark and violent and
with the other gentle and kind. But you know he has not been satisfied totally with either one of
them. Remember he rejected the Buffybot after Buffy died. And in Gone he told Buffy (Slayer
Concentrate) that he didn’t want her if he couldn’t have all of her. I hope that he gets all of Buffy in
the end. Love like that should not go unrewarded.
[>
Re: Alternative Realities & Coming Back Wrong (Long Speculation) -- Cactus Watcher,
11:19:19 03/29/02 Fri
Wisewoman proposed this idea about the time Smashed was first shown. While it has a lot of merit
(I was pretty convinced when WW first mentioned it) as a story line, I don't see evidence that ME
has given us any further hints, that this is the case. Also Tara's analysis of Willow's spell an ep. or
two ago seems to downplay anything, but a trivial physical change in Buffy when she was brought
back. Something has changed about her emotionally, but ME obviously, wants to keep what that
change actually was to themselves as long as possible.
Wanda and Marti on
Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- Rufus, 17:20:46 03/29/02 Fri
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020329.html
Battling a Buffy-Angel Fan Onslaught and Mapping the Future of Our Favorite Slayer
Death threats. Stolen identities. Smear campaigns. Revenge. No, this isn't the latest episode of 24.
It's my life.
And honestly, I'm beginning to envy Jack Bauer, because even if he has to wear the same thing for
an entire season, at least he isn't facing the wrath of the fiercest faction known to man--Buffy and
Angel fans.
As promised in last Monday's chat, I'm going to run chief Slayer Marti Noxon's responses to your
biggest Buffy concerns--and some drool-worthy news about an upcoming chat guest. But first, we
need to get a few things straight about this battle I've suddenly found myself smack-dab in the thick
of.
It started a few weeks ago, when I rattled off a fun-spirited (or so I thought) column about my Top 10
TV Peeves. I asked you to sound off about the funny annoyances from your favorite shows. I figured
we'd rant, we'd laugh, we'd hug---we'd move on.
Then something unexpected happened in the die-hard Buffy/Angel community: You went ape-dung.
You couldn't stop ranting.
I was bombarded by emails from "Buffy and Angel forever" fans who abhor the Cordelia and Angel
pairing, so I gave them a voice in last week's Your Peeves column. That sent the other side--the pro-
Cord-Angel fans--reeling.
Now, my inbox has become ground zero for the nastiest finger-pointing battle since Stone Cold Steve
Austin and Vince McMahon, with both sides lobbing accusations and multiple email accounts and
fake names to "rig" my tally.
And I'm sorry, but I just have to laugh. Who knew there were people in this world who took TV more
seriously than I do?
Granted, I can argue Buffy theories until I'm blue in the face, and I've devoted much of the past year
to becoming Mrs. Wanda Cooper-Vartan, but I do believe you're crossing the line when you send
someone a death threat because they don't agree on whether two fictional characters should do the
humpty.
So, I will handle this the only way I know how--by saying something I never, ever thought I would:
It's only television, people. Lighten up. This is supposed to be fun.
And besides, we should be able to get along, because we're all fans of good TV. I mean, it's not like
we're dealing with those yahoos crying over the cancellation of Walker, Texas Ranger or something--
they're the ones who deserve a serious ass-whooping!
So, what do you say, can we get back to having a little fun around here? Can I get an Amen?
Now that that's out of the way, it's time to let Marti Noxon, exec producer of Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, field your concerns about exactly where the show is heading. Read on...
Fans have been pretty vocal in their criticism of this season. Does it have an effect?
MN: We do listen, but we wouldn't let fan opinion change us dramatically. Sometimes, the fans
are going "no, no, no!" and we know we are heading somewhere they will like.
What about the folks who still want Buffy and Angel together?
MN: They call themselves the shippers. These are the people who still have their high school
sweetheart's picture in a frame on the wall. They can't seem to let things go. I think Buffy and
Angel's relationship was idealized. It was like a fairy tale, in the way young girls dream about--to
have this perfect, unattainable man.
But you have to throw curve balls. We gave Buffy and Angel a barrier they couldn't surmount. This
locks it into a romantic ideal, because they never fought over who has to do the laundry. They were
stuck in the first beautifully passionate stage of love, and that's where it will be forever.
Some of the fans want Buffy and Spike together. Does that surprise you?
MN: Sometimes, things don't go the way we intend. It seemed very obvious to us that the Buffy-
Spike relationship couldn't work in the long run, so now we need to reiterate why. We need to get in
there and show people the difference between loving someone who is good to be around and loving
someone who is good.
I think people have forgotten the Spike of two seasons ago. I mean, he tried to kill Willow! Can you
really see Spike and Buffy in a condo deciding what they should watch on TV that night? That's not
our thesis. What we want to show is an independent heroine who is not defined by her
relationships.
How much is Joss Whedon involved in the show now?
Very. He works out the storylines, but we do have a little more freedom with the production.
Right now, he's working on Firefly and the BBC show--plus Buffy and Angel. So, Joss is very busy,
and he loves it. He's like a pig in poo.
[>
Above contains possible spoilers -- Sophist, 17:28:51 03/29/02 Fri
[>
Damn it, Marti... -- Traveler, 20:04:51 03/29/02 Fri
This is just the same kind of response that has irritated me ever since Spike developed a romantic
interest in Buffy. Marti is being deliberately deceptive/manipulative, or she's giving away major plot
points. Either way, I wish she (and some of the other writers) would quit it.
Some of the fans want Buffy and Spike together. Does that surprise you?
MN: Sometimes, things don't go the way we intend. It seemed very obvious to us that the Buffy-
Spike relationship couldn't work in the long run, so now we need to reiterate why. We need to get in
there and show people the difference between loving someone who is good to be around and loving
someone who is good.
I think people have forgotten the Spike of two seasons ago. I mean, he tried to kill Willow! Can you
really see Spike and Buffy in a condo deciding what they should watch on TV that night? That's not
our thesis. What we want to show is an independent heroine who is not defined by her
relationships.
[> [>
Re: Damn it, Marti... -- Rob, 20:09:45 03/29/02 Fri
It doesn't bother me. She has to play that game, because if she gave away the full truth, she'd piss off
spoiler haters. If she gives away too little, she annoys the people who want some spoilers. There's no
real way to win here...
Rob
[>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- aurelia,
20:15:37 03/29/02 Fri
Honestly I don't want to bash and I've worked through most of my righteous anger since last night,
but I thought that the interview damn condecending.
These are the people who still have their high school sweetheart's picture in a frame on the
wall.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a B/A shipper, but a lot of people are. Call me crazy, but I
wouldn't want to alienate fans by mocking them if I were MN.
As for the Spike comments, I tend to think that she's playing the same misdirection game that
several of the writers are.
[> [>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- leslie, 20:44:55 03/29/02 Fri
"As for the Spike comments, I tend to think that she's playing the same misdirection game that
several of the writers are."
And not particularly gracefully, either. Aside from the fact that Buffy and Spike arguing over what
to watch on TV would be pretty damned amusing. (Forget about snacking in an interior decorator, I
think he's been watching a little too much HGTV. There was just an episode of Room for Change
about how to buy rugs that he seems to have taken quite to heart.) Nonetheless, are we seriously to
believe that the epiphany of Buffy's life is to be sitting in a condo watching tv, with or without a
boyfriend? What, she saved the world so that everyone could watch Survivor? Once again, who the
hell *wants* a normal life?
[>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline --
MaeveRigan, 20:34:26 03/29/02 Fri
All right, Marti could have been more tactful, but when you come right down to it, aren't she and
Wanda right about B/A shippers? (hope I don't get banned from the board, but this is supposed to be
Philosophical, not Romantic, after all). B/A will always exist, in the sense that Buffy & Angel may
be understood to have a very special connection, and at the same time (for several reasons, including
the fact that the two shows are now on different networks) they can never be together.
If there are still fans watching BtVS and AtS after 3 years only in hopes that B/A will be reunited,
they may have a greater capacity for denial than Buffy herself.
[> [>
Watch me play Devil's advocate.... -- Traveler, 22:07:45 03/29/02 Fri
"If there are still fans watching BtVS and AtS after 3 years only in hopes that B/A will be reunited,
they may have a greater capacity for denial than Buffy herself."
I'm actually a S/B shipper, but I had to chip in here. I don't think that most A/B shippers are
suggesting that Angel and Buffy WILL get together, but rather they think that the two characters
BELONG together. And I can see their side; personally, I think A/B had a very good, healthy
relationship. The whole gypsy curse thing is a contrivance. In fact, Marti rather insulted ME (and
possibly herself?)when she implied that the purpose of the curse was to keep Buffy and Angel's
relationship trapped in the status of "passionate, romantic" love. Obviously, the curse served many
purposes beyond that, with it's application to real people, and real relationships. In addition, one of
the main features of both series has been the idea that people can grow and change. I certainly hope
that Angel will eventually find a way to work around the "happiness" clause of his curse. Otherwise,
"Angel" would be horribly depressing, about a man doomed to spend eternity without knowing a
moment of true happiness. After that happens, why couldn't he and Buffy reunite? Certainly, they
may have grown too far apart, but the potential is still there in theory. Will it actually happen? I
doubt it. Different network, different stories, and a whole feeling of been there and done that. But
none of that invalidates the claim that they SHOULD be together.
[> [> [>
I just try to avoid Marti Noxon like a pig in poo. -- Rochefort, 22:45:20 03/29/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
It's APRIL! -- Rochefort, 22:56:29 03/29/02 Fri
Marti keeeeeps saying "Cool things are coming, you won't expect it. Stay with us. It will be cool."
And then I bet she runs to the writing staff and says "They're still noticing the writing is a step down
this season. We need something cool! QUICK!" I mean it's APRIL!
Nah, though, really, I thought the last three episodes were a VAST improvement on the rest of the
season (excepting OMWF which rocked and Tabula which was pretty good). I think Normal was fun,
and Xander/Anya's wedding was a total riot. So I'm willing to let them go on the ever promised "cool
things." There have definitely been some cool things. It would be nice, however, if Marti said "Stay
with us, Joss will be writing and directing some episodes." (also I kind of adore Jane Epsons's
episodes. I'd like to see Giles return to the show and reprise his role as a snot demon.)
[> [> [>
Re: Watch me play Devil's advocate.... -- Rob, 00:26:38 03/30/02 Sat
Well, I personally don't think they should be together. I agree with Marti that that was a first
romance, heightened to an almost storybook status, but not the kind that actually does last in
adulthood. It is the first love that, years later, one looks back on fondly, even though, as it was
happening, it felt like the greatest love ever.
Also, the "happiness" clause really isn't the only thing keeping Buffy and Angel apart. It is the fact
that she will die one day, and he will not. By denying themselves the relationship now, they are
saving themselves great pain and torment in the future. And, yes, to us, Buffy's eventual death,
hopefully of old age, may seem very far off, but it's only a short amount of time for a vamp who's
lived for 250 some odd years.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Re: Watch me play Devil's advocate....- Buffy dies? -- wiscoboy, 08:15:29 03/30/02
Sat
There's been much discussion on this board concerning the meanings of Buffy's "resurrection", one of
which is that she is now immortal as the vampires are. Since that question has not yet been
answered(which could be one reason why Spike can now hit her, although I believe it is because she
no longer is borne of this world but has been born thru mstical power), that may not be a reason to
use in your A/B argument.
[> [> [> [> [>
What? A resurrection spell making one immortal as a bonus side effect? -- OtherEric,
08:41:23 03/30/02 Sat
Thats completely speculative based on nothing at all. Why wouldn't everybody want to die and be
resurrected if you get immortality for free in the process. Besides, who would do that to their show
on a structural level?--making it into essentially Buffy the Highlander tv series...Anything is
possible, but is there any evidence at all to theorize that Buffy is now immortal? Sounds like
extreme hopeful rationalization/justification created to bolster fruitless dreams for a Buffy/Angel
reunion.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What? A resurrection spell making one immortal as a bonus side effect? -- leslie, 09:37:12 03/30/02 Sat
"Why wouldn't everybody want to die and be resurrected if you get immortality for free in the
process."
Completely tangential here, but this is actually the premise of a really, really, really wonderfully bad
movie called Psychomania (UK, 1971, dir. John Sharp, starring George Saunders, Beryl Reid, Nicky
Henson, and Robert Hardy). Henson plays Tom, leader of a rural biker gang and son of a psychic,
who discovers that the key to immortality is that you have to commit suicide while really, really,
really believing that you will come back to life. So he does, and then gets his whole gang to follow
(one or two don't make it as a result of last-minute doubts). There is a stone circle involved, and
George Saunders turns out to actually be the devil, rather than a butler. (And for those of you who
are Dr. Who fans, the guy who plays Sgt. Benton in the John Pertwee incarnation has a small part
as a police officer, seemingly still wearing his UNIT outfit.) Naturally, it all ends in tears.... If you
like cheesy hippy-era British sci-fi/fantasy, you will love this movie.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What? A resurrection spell making one immortal as a bonus side effect? --
MayaPapaya9, 10:54:31 03/30/02 Sat
I think you misunderstood wiscoboy, he means that you're immortal because whenever you die you
CAN be resurrected. Not that you just won't die. It makes death lose its meaning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Now this is an interesting thought. Hmm. -- Sophist, 12:11:39 03/30/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Then she'd still age and Angel wouldn't--so it'd be irrelevant anyway -- OtherEric,
17:10:00 03/30/02 Sat
So her life still ends and Angel keeps on existing if that was what was meant by immortality. She'd
eventually die of old age and not be able to be resurrected again, so this type of immortality (which it
really wouldn't be then) doesn't change anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What? A resurrection spell making one immortal as a bonus side effect? -- wiscoboy,
12:15:59 03/31/02 Sun
The misunderstanding comes from the point of view that Spike can now hit Buffy without pain for
either of two reasons: 1) When Buffy was "resurrected", she came back no longer a normal mortal
human being, but came back in a state similar to that of the vampire = in all practicality immortal
with greater strength. or 2) When she was brought back, Buffy was no longer born of this world(in
other words, thru natural reproduction)but is now here, born thru mystical power, thus making her
entire physical makeup different from other humans(and other slayers for that matter), and in its
own way, validating Tara's assesment of Buffy's molecular difference.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What? A resurrection spell making one immortal as a bonus side effect? -- wiscoboy,
12:33:57 03/31/02 Sun
Why wouldn't everybody want to die and be resurrected if you get immortality for free in the
process?
Buffy is the prime example for everyone NOT to. Firstly, look at all her personal problems dealing
with "life". Secondly, she was already immortal in "Heaven", why would anyone want to leave that
concept to come back to her or our dog-eat-dog, imperfect reality? The demons show they want back
in from the reality of their hell dimensions, but anyone who has been to "Heaven" would certainly
abstain from voting to come back.
As far as being hopeful for a B/A reunification you're sadly mistaken, as I am one who has always
felt the show suffered when the focus centered on their relationship for more than 10mins at a time.
It was always a bit too whiney for my tastes.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Watch me play Devil's advocate....- Buffy dies? -- Rob, 08:41:39 03/30/02 Sat
It is a good argument until they prove it on the show. So far, I'm fully happy with Tara's explanation
at the end of "Dead Things."
Rob
[> [>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- lurae,
23:10:46 03/29/02 Fri
I gotta argue the other way...I don't think B/A should be together. This discussion makes me think
of the bit in Ode to a Grecian Urn that talks about the shepherd almost kissing his girlfriend. The
romance is beautiful and eternal because it's static and unfulfilled. The B/A was beautiful and
dramatic and tragic, but it could only be that way because it was frozen in time as an eternal almost.
It was a romanticized tale, with the tall dark brooding stranger and all, and I think that reflects that
it was Buffy and Angel's first love. But both were relatively immature, and have grown up a lot
since then. I'm not a A/C shipper, but I prefer that pairing--it's more understandable, a relationship
between adults. I'd like to think that B/A would always have a special, close friendship, but wouldn't
even want to be together romantically anymore, because of how they've changed and grown. I mean
really, you haven't matured very much if you still want to be with your first boy/girlfriend from when
you were 15.
Regardless, if B/A are reunited, it destroys the storybook beauty and tragedy of their ship. If you
start thinking about them happily ever after, you have to think about their ship in realistic terms.
And that takes it from epic and beautiful to creepy and unhealthy. I mean it started when she was
15, and he was 240, with no purpose in life other than following her around, and his perfect
happiness was having sex with her. Obsessive stalker much? You have to leave the B/A thing as a
beautiful but unattainable ideal, because by bringing into the "real world" you destroy it
entirely.
[> [> [>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- Traveler,
15:29:34 03/30/02 Sat
"I mean really, you haven't matured very much if you still want to be with your first
boy/girlfriend from when you were 15."
This happens occasionally in real life, and it is a gross overgeneralization to suggest that all these
people only reunited because they were immature.
"Regardless, if B/A are reunited, it destroys the storybook beauty and tragedy of their ship. If you
start thinking about them happily ever after, you have to think about their ship in realistic terms ...
You have to leave the B/A thing as a beautiful but unattainable ideal, because by bringing into the
"real world" you destroy it entirely."
It is really strange to me that so many people desperately want to divorce the romantic from the
mundane, as if dealing with domestic issues would automatically destroy all the love and romance in
a relationship. If that's true, why get married at all? Personally I prefer a happy reality to a perfect
ideal. Buffy and Angel never had to deal with "mundane" issues, but that doesn't mean they couldn't
have been perfect for each other in that area too.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline --
celticross, 15:24:19 03/31/02 Sun
I can't speak for everyone, but my personal reason for Buffy and Angel not getting back together -
most of the time, you have to get over your first love. Hurts like hell and you never think you will,
but it happens. They may have been the perfect relationship, but for whatever hurtful reason, it
ended and you have to get over it. That doesn't make every relationship that follows better or worse,
just different.
[> [> [> [> [>
I absolutely agree; I just like arguing :P -- Traveler, 19:10:21 04/02/02 Tue
[>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- julia,
23:30:09 03/29/02 Fri
Well, if you'd like to read a sweet 'n spicy rebuttal of MN's assertion that Spike and Buffy could
never just watch tv together, please take yourself to
http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=689981
and enjoy!
[>
Is the on Buffy and Spike ship camoflaging a storyline? -- Rufus, 02:55:16 03/30/02
Sat
I was listening to the Succubus Club when Angel writer Tim Minear was on. He seemed genuinely
frustrated at the question regarding Buffy and Angel, and I don't blame him. He was right, they are
on different shows on different networks, but beyond that, the fixation of some fans on a ship that
once was, ignores the excellent storylines that have followed on both Buffy and Angel. The same goes
for the ship of Spike and Buffy, there is more to the series than the one ship, and I feel it may
aggravate writers who are telling a story that is beyond the ship of the individual fans choice. They
are telling a story and some of us want them to cut to the chase and focus on one couple. I don't want
to force writers into literary gymnastics to accomodate one ship, I'd prefer to let them tell the
story.....who knows the ship may work itself out in time.
On Buffy, Spike has been the current sex partner but not what I'd even consider a boyfriend as she
has kept him secret from her friends. I go back to that quote from ML VonFranz.....
The word redemption should not be associated with Christian dogma and theology, where it is a
concept with so many connotations. In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where
someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings or events in the story is
redeemed. This is a very different condition from that in the Christian idea.
I bring up redemption because there are some that consider that Spike has finished that journey,
when in fact he is only on the road that may or may not lead him there. But it also goes for all the
other characters in the show. BTVS is all about the process of growing up, growing into what we
become, and through interactions with each other, the characters may find themselves in need of a
little redemption. I'm not talking about Christian redemption, but more like what Von Franz speaks
of, characters who become "monsters" or "saints" and how the interactions with their friends and
others bring them back to a healthy place, or lead them to a place of darkness. If we only relate to
the show through our favorite romantic pairing we may lose sight of where everyones journey is
leading them. In life ships come and go and we can't stop that, Buffy the series reflects the changing
nature of peoples lives by constantly changing as the characters move forward. I'm enjoying season
six and don't care if Buffy and Spike end up happily ever after because it would be a bit to boring for
me. Spike, Buffy and all the other Scoobies are on a journey, and I don't think their stories are over
by a long shot. The saying that "life is a journey not a destination" sums up both shows, we may not
like all the life experiences the characters are going through but there is a reason they are either
suffering or finding joy. It ain't over until they plant you in a box, or Willow brings you back to start
over.
PS: Remember back when DF called Spike a Serial Killer before the ep: Crush....we then got
Intervention......Now Marti is calling Spike evil and we got "The Doctor" in As you were...I wonder
what will happen next....;)
[> [>
Nicely put Rufus -- ponygirl, 06:32:57 03/30/02 Sat
The dirty little secret of any shipper, be they B/S, B/A, W/T, what have you, is that we want the
relationship to work out, god forbid, we want the couple to be happy. I know, it's so wrong, because
once that happens, when all the issues are resolved, the kinks worked out, the story's over. Angel's
curse could really be the curse of any long-running tv show - oh, look everybody's happy, yawn, let's
change the channel.
[> [> [>
Am I the only one to like to see them suffer in angst ? -- sadistic Ete :), 06:44:36
03/30/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>
bring on the pain, Mistress Ete! -- ponygirl, 08:29:51 03/30/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
No ! *evil laugh* -- Ete, 04:21:38 03/31/02 Sun
[> [>
Re: Is the on Buffy and Spike ship camoflaging a storyline? -- leslie, 09:46:00 03/30/02 Sat
"I'm enjoying season six and don't care if Buffy and Spike end up happily ever after because it would
be a bit to boring for me."
For me, this is the reason *why* Buffy and Spike are an interesting long-term pair--I cannot see
them simply settling down to be a happy suburban couple, there will always be issues to be worked
on, they will never be "normal," it will always be a challenge, but there is also the promise that it
would be worth it. This whole discussion is based on the premise that you have a "happily ever
after," that the apotheosis of a relationship is the achievement of domesticity. Buffy and Spike both
have their domestic sides--dealing with the dishes and taking out the trash, decorating the crypt,
running down to the 7-11 for smokes, beer, and blood--but that does *not* domesticate them, despite
their fears that it does; their lives are still dedicated to fighting demons. The demons are never going
to go completely away.
[> [> [>
Re: Great comments, leslie! -- Dyna, 15:18:23 03/30/02 Sat
>>This whole discussion is based on the premise that you have a "happily ever after," that the
apotheosis of a relationship is the achievement of domesticity.<<
This is an attitude that comes through in so many of MN's interviews, and it's really annoying to me.
Never mind whether we can see Buffy and Spike living in a condo and watching TV together--what
about everything we've been taught to see about Buffy's future for six seasons? As far as we know,
she's the slayer until she dies. Where is this stereotypical yuppie domestic life she's supposedly
going to have in the future going to come from? The idea of Buffy in a condo is no less absurd than
the idea of Buffy and Spike in a condo, when you come down to it.
I read an interview with MN in the latest Buffy magazine that said similar things, and the
explanation seems to be that Marti is projecting her own life onto Buffy's. She keeps saying in
interviews that "in our 20s" women date guys who are "bad" and "like vampires," but then in our 30s
we find a guy who's "not a vampire" and marry him. Forgetting that the men we date in our 20s are
the same men who grow up to be the 30somethings that we marry, and that one woman's
"vampire/bad boy" is another woman's perfect mate. Marti does the show and herself a disservice
when she relies on stereotypes and cliches of "what women want" in her interviews.
In addition to which, if she's serious about the direction of the B/S relationship, I consider that a
humongous spoiler, which is infuriating in itself!
[> [>
Well Said!! (NT) -- Goji3, 07:25:03 04/02/02 Tue
[>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- Anne,
04:20:09 03/30/02 Sat
There are a couple of things that bother me about this Marti interview, and they are not dependent
on the issue of whether Buffy should or should not be in a relationship with Spike or anyone else. In
fact, I actually like what she says regarding Buffy being a strong, independent person regardless of
relationships.
However . . .
Sometimes, things don't go the way we intend. It seemed very obvious to us that the
Buffy-Spike relationship couldn't work in the long run, so now we need to reiterate why. We need to
get in there and show people the difference between loving someone who is good to be around and
loving someone who is good.
Here, she's basically admitting that the writers did a lousy job of conveying something, namely,
apparently, that Spike is too evil to be in a relationship with, and now all of a sudden they have to
clean up their mistake. Unfortunately, what this does is produce episodes like "As You Were",
episodes with absolutely no plot-lead in or character continuity, that stick out like a sore thumb from
all the events of the last year or so. They suddenly hit us on the head with "Bam bam! Remember
Spike is EVIL!! Remember back two seasons ago? And forget everything we wrote in between! And
oh yeah, he's really stupid too! We never told you that before, but now you know! Oh and let's just
completely forget about that brutal beating Buffy gave Spike in the alley -- she never needs to
address, acknowledge, apologize for or clean that up at all because Buffy is GOOD and Spike is
EVIL."
Sorry, this is just a matter of doing bad writing to make up for their own previous failure to
communicate what they intended. Instead, I think they ought to realize that once they've got
something up on the screen they're committed to it, and follow through on that. I think, for instance,
that they could and should have done a great Spike/Buffy breakup episode right after "Dead Things",
but it should have come from the internal dynamic of the relationship, which has to do with its
bringing out the evil in both of them. Instead, they had a third party come flying in literally
deus ex machina to show her the error of her ways, before flying back up into the wings.
Second is the TV remark, which belongs together with the mall remark she made in an earlier
interview. First of all, I agree with the above poster who remarks (I'm grossly paraphrasing) that
watching TV is scarcely the most important litmus test for who could and could not be the "long-haul
guy" for Buffy. More generally, it makes me fear that Marti really believes that a "normal" guy is
what Buffy needs, or even that Buffy ought to wind up "normal" herself. Help! If I wanted to watch
"normal" twenty-somethings I'd be watching reruns of Beverly Hills 90210. Regardless of what
happens with Spike, I hope this is not the direction the show is going.
Finally: one of the attractive things about Spike has always been that he loves all the little human
material pleasures: watching TV, listening to music, eating junk food, smoking, drinking. He's
watched TV with Joyce, Giles, and Dawn, why the heck not with Buffy? I'll bet he'd love the mall
(though there might be a little problem getting him to pay for things). There could be a hundred
reasons why Spike is not the right guy for Buffy, but Marti is scarcely hitting on them with these
mall and TV remarks. Even referring back to Spike two seasons ago doesn't do it, because they've
spent two years writing Spike into a very different place.
Anyway, all that said: as far as being a writer of episodes and dialogue, I worship the ground Marti
walks on. I just don't get her interviews, though.
[> [>
Great points. -- Sophist, 12:24:43 03/30/02 Sat
[> [>
Re: Wanda and Marti on Shippers.....Should ships get in the way of a Storyline -- Rufus,
17:10:08 03/30/02 Sat
Here, she's basically admitting that the writers did a lousy job of conveying something, namely,
apparently, that Spike is too evil to be in a relationship with, and now all of a sudden they have to
clean up their mistake. Unfortunately, what this does is produce episodes like "As You Were",
episodes with absolutely no plot-lead in or character continuity, that stick out like a sore thumb from
all the events of the last year or so. They suddenly hit us on the head with "Bam bam! Remember
Spike is EVIL!!
I have to question if they made a mistake at all. At the end of my post I mentioned the interview
with David Fury before Crush......it pissed off many...but then we ended up with an episode like
Intervention......could this be the same thing happening again with just a different messenger? Of
course Spike is evil, but his evil is with a small "e" compared to his evil before....he is like Joss said
"conflicted" about his status as Big "evil" Bad. The stint at the "Doctor" was there to remind us that
Spike is evil.....but his evil deed differs from what he would normally have done a few years ago..like
building the Judge. So, what does this mean? Will Spike just go back to being the Big "Evil" Bad? Or
will there be another fate in store for him that leads him to somewhere unexpected?
[> [> [>
Could "As You Were" be meant ironically? -- Anne, 03:48:46 03/31/02
Sun
I actually agree that they'll probably keep him conflicted rather than having him go back to dyed-in-
the-wool Clockwork-Orange EVIL. But I still think "As You Were" was an awfully awkward vehicle
for reintroducing the theme.
Actually, though, one thing that occurred to me while I was writing the above post is that there's
about a 1% chance that "As You Were" was meant ironically, in which case it would have been kind
of brilliant. That helicopter scene at the end was so odd and so blatant: they literally have Riley and
Sam flying off in a machine, after having intervened in an entirely artificial and external way with
Buffy's psychodrama. So maybe it was absolutely intended to be seen as deus ex machina,
hitting the audience over the head with 'we know that this isn't the way issues like this get resolved;
take this whole thing with a grain of salt'. If the rest of the episode hadn't been played with such a
completely straight face, I'd almost say they were banging us over the head with it.
If this were true, it would mean that the writers were perfectly aware of the thing that is my main
problem with that episode: the fact that under any interpretation, the hole into which Buffy has dug
herself is not the kind that you get out of by having a second party come along, show up how bad
your life has gotten, and then give you a pep talk. Even if you hold to the (to me) less interesting and
shallower Buffy-is-addicted-to-sex-with-Spike interpretation, the way people turn around from
addictions is by hitting bottom, and it's something that they do all by themselves. Other people
may play a role of a tough love sort -- making the addict confront the fact that they're killing
themselves and hurting other people -- but not by telling them 'there there, you're really okay'. So
even under that interpetation, the Riley intervention was absurd.
Under the more interesting interpretation of what's wrong with Buffy, and with her relationship
with Spike, having Riley be the catalyst of a turnaround is even more ridiculous. Buffy's problem is
with her own darkness: she has projected it on Spike (where admittedly, it is well camouflaged), and
then proceeded to beat the shit out of him verbally, emotionally, and physically, in order to try to
deny and defeat it. But just because her problem is with something internal, it is completely
ludicrous for somebody to say it doesn't touch her. No it doesn't touch her -- because it's not
something external, it's inside. You can't just shake the dust from your feet. And she doesn't get to
defeat it by abandoning it underground while she walks into the sunlight -- that's just the latest in a
long series of attempts at denial.
But this walk into the sunlight again may be ironic, following up on some earlier posts about the
symbolic use of light in Buffy (I apologize, I don't remember the name of the poster who brought this
up, but thanks). Although we are used to thinking of light as symbolizing good and dark as
symbolizing evil, I really don't think it's clear that that's the way it's done in BtVS. What have been
the most brilliantly lit venues? The Initiative, Double Meat Palace, the hospital in Normal Again --
places where we have been cut off from the warm, fecund, creative, nurturing aspects of life. And, as
was noted in the earlier posts, in "Hell's Bells" Xander and Anya as Buffy's light at the end of the
tunnel proved to be an oncoming train.
So maybe that light into which Buffy walked at the end of "As You Were" was also ironically
intended. And one thing that would seem to support this is the fact that any turnaround she may
have experienced in "As You Were" appears to have been, in Wall Street parlance, a dead cat bounce.
Sure, in "Hell's Bell" she actually appeared to be capable of having a civilized conversation with
Spike, but by "Normal Again" she was back to her same old sullen, bitchy, secretive, closed-down
self, even telling a bare-faced lie to protect herself and make him look bad with her friends -- um, is
this supposed to be an example of the light?
Or, of course, the latter may be yet one more example of lousy continuity.
But anyway. Here's hoping "As You Were" was meant ironically, 'cause that would make it kinda
neat. In fact I think I'll watch it again to see if I can get any more evidence for that (what else do we
have to do over the next month . . .)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Could "As You Were" be meant ironically? -- Rufus, 17:53:29 03/31/02
Sun
You are most likely talking about the American version of A Clockwork Orange. In that book Alex is
as proud of his capacity for evil as Spik has been. Both may enjoy the sight of beauty but can't resist
the urge to be destructive. The chip serves much the same function as the brainwashing that Alex
went through. Both found themselves in similar situations of going from being the attacker to the
one attacked. Neither Alex or Spike could hit back as they had to choose the worst pain to endure
and the beatings seemed the lesser of the pain options. In the 21st chapter of A Clockwork Orange,
Alex has changed, longing more for a warm chair and a heir to the family name, the violence in him
no longer enjoyable.....could a similar thing happen to Spike, can this neutered vamp find that
chipless he no longer finds the hunt enjoyable? I know that thought makes the people who find the
black and white situation with vampires easier to stomach, but I find that the Buffyverse is more
unpredictable than that.
[> [> [> [>
For what it's worth... -- Traveler, 23:31:59 03/31/02 Sun
I thought the episode was meant to be ironic the moment I saw it. It rather surprised me to find out
that not everybody saw it that way. Whatever happens between Buffy and Spike, Riley certainly did
NOT solve all her problems, which was shown fairly clearly in the next episode. Buffy is definitely
not normal again.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: AYW...and Clockwork Orange and theme growing up -- shadowkat, 06:22:05
04/01/02 Mon
Two points regarding As You Were and A Clockwork ORange and theme growing up
1. I agree on As You Were - they did numerous things in this episode.
First they used Riley and Sam to show the idealized image of "perfect adult life" or the one we all
wish for or rather the one the characters do. It's the perfect "grass is always greener deal". She even
says this in the very end of the episode: "You had to wait to come back when your life absolutely
perfect?" He has a job he loves, his wife does it with him, they go to great locals and they help save
the world - this is Buffy, Xander and Willow's dream. Then they go up to the heavens in a helicopter.
Whoa. It's not real though - most of us have to do menial tedious jobs for money, we have problem
relationships, and we struggle. Riley probably does to - but all B/X/W saw was the perfect existence
as did the audience. And boy did we react. It's the child's ideal of perfect life and Buffy doesn't want
to give up her childhood, she wants that ideal. So she goes down to Spike and breaks it up and walks
up into the light - and Xander calls off the wedding...see going for the ideal.
(hee hee hee the writers cackle evilly).
Second in AYW - everyone makes a point of commenting on Sam as an extension of Riley. Riley is
being defined solely by who he's with, so is Sam. You must be doing great because of who you're with.
Remember the scene between Sam and Buffy? Sam: "So are you seeing anyone?" Buffy: "I don't want
to be defined by who I'm with.." Sam:"It's better to be with no guy than the wrong guy..." Sam
misunderstands Buffy's sentence, she does define herself by who she is with. But as an adult you
have to break out of that - you can't let your friends, your parents, etc choose your mate for you, you
do that. You should not be defined by who you are with. (MN's interview mentions that.)
2. A Clockwork Orange - there is a new version out, it came out in the US in 1986 and it includes the
21st Chapter. I have it in my hands. I believe that's the story they are doing with Spike. Why?
Because it is the perfect metaphor for growing up. In a clockwork orange Alex goes from being a
violent thug (extreemly similar to Spike - in the movie Alex and Spike could be twins) to being so
conditioned that he can't do violence without getting ill, to losing the conditioning and thinking he
wants to go back to violence and then in Chapter 21 giving it up. He grows up. He gives up violence
as a childish toy that achieves no true purpose and embraces the moral choice. He is in effect no
longer a clockwork orange - a windup toy for violence. Burgess emphasizes in his prologue to the new
version that this chapter is necessary in showing character transformation - that without that - the
story is an allegory or fable. He states that in essence "A human being is endowed with free will. He
can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then
he is a clockwork orange - meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and
juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or the Almighty State." In
the twenty-first chapter - Burgess' young hoodlum comes to the revelation that "violence is juvenile
and boring. It is the repartee of the stupid and ignorant. (He) comes to the revealation of the need to
get something done in life - to marry, beget children, to keep the orange of the world turning in the
rooker of Bog, or hands of God and perhaps even create something.." This is the perfect metaphor for
growing up, particularly if we believe vampires are a metaphor for adolescence or Peter PAns stuck
in the never never land of teenagedom. And remember - ME uses demons as metaphors, they aren't
real. So if you consider that Angel's theme was about redemption and the quest for forgiveness and
Spike's theme is about growing up - wouldn't it be humanity? Isn't Spike moving towards Burgess's
intended ending where "It is with a kind of shame that this growing youth looks back on his
devasting past. He wants a different kind of future." ?
I think if you re-watch all the episodes of Buffy you'll see the thematic arcs build on each other. I also
think if you rewatch every episode from this year you'll see the same thing.
One more thing - the title As You Were has a double meaning. In military lingo it means relax. In
real lingo, it means go back, I've come, disrupted your life, go back to as you were before I
came...
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent points, shadowkat. -- Ixchel, 15:29:49 04/02/02 Tue
I only hope Spike becomes more human-like and not actually human. I feel that would diminish the
impact of the story. Also, I like "gray" Spike, conflicted vampire.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [>
Me, too -- dream of the consortium, 13:23:50 04/01/02 Mon
Maybe it's because I tend to see so many things ironically, but I assumed the same. Because I made
that assumption, I found the helicopter scene very funny.
[> [>
I agree with you... -- Wynn, 09:20:32 04/01/02 Mon
The inconsistencies of the characters this season has bothered me. We thought that Willow
performed magic because it made her powerful, something more than human. But really she did
magic because she became physically addicted to it (Wrecked). We thought that Spike wasn't so evil
because he looked after Dawn , patrolled with the Scoobies (Bargaining I & II) , and formed a
friendship with and became the confidante of post-resurrection Buffy (Afterlife to All the Way). But
Spike is evil and incompetent (As You Were). People on this board have pointed out that it seems as
though the writers do not know what the other writers are writing. One minute Xander and Anya
realize it's about the marriage not the wedding and that they love each other. The next Xander
abandons Anya because he's afraid of what he *might* become. Dawn is mad at Willow for her
actions is Wrecked for an episode or two then they seem to be best friends again. The same applies
to Dawn and Buffy as well as the rollercoaster of love/hate that is Buffy and Spike. Maybe the
inconsistencies are the point of the season. That people are constantly changing their opinions and
beliefs and relationships between people change from one extreme to the other in the blink of an
eye.
Or maybe the writers don't pay attention to the specifics of the other writers episodes. Maybe it's a
writer free for all. Write the show and the characters how you see them, regardless whether or not
it's continuous with past representations.
[>
Mini-redirect: fan influence (not sure if spoilerish) -- Abby, 12:04:31 03/30/02 Sat
Something that came through in the interview was the idea the ultimately the writers know best- to
allow the fans to influence the direction out of their emotional attatchment to certain storylines is
wrong. But, I can't help wondering if that is being a bit too simplistic- if you build too powerful a
couple/ element into the show you risk alienating a massive part of the viewers if that storyline has
an 'unsatisfactory' resolution.
So to what extent do you listen to the fans? Buffy has managed the B/A break very successfully,
partly due to the nature of the relationship (unattainable etc), however I can't help thinking how
much will be missing with a B/S split. I have invested a lot in the two, and I agree that trying to hit
us with the clue-by-four 'Spike is evil' after all they've done to redeem him is a poor move. But
personally, the character Buffy herself has been alienating me since mid-s5, and I don't know how
they can make her 'likeable' to the extent that, without spike around, I can dedicate myself to
watching and CARING about her.
Back to fan influence; because Joss arcs the whole series, it isn't so much of an issue- we don't get a
chance to really change things. But take 'roswell' for instance. I loved that show in s1, but in building
Max and Liz the way they did, when Max slept with Tess- that was it: presto, the MASSIVE
population of 'dreamers' were alienated. The hero had fallen. They left in droves, and from then on it
just got worse (they've so far destroyed the sets). Should they have paid attention to fan loyalties?
I think so- in respect to understanding how we interpret it all. The writers may have one opinion of
things/characters, but if the majority of viwers see things differently shouldnt they listen up?
Not that I'm saying they need to pander, and re:B/S, they need to tread carefully or there will be a
gaping emotional hole left.
(not to mention a severve lack of cheekbone voyeurism)
[> [>
Re: Mini-redirect: fan influence (not sure if spoilerish) -- leslie, 16:13:50 03/30/02 Sat
"But take 'roswell' for instance. I loved that show in s1, but in building Max and Liz the way they
did, when Max slept with Tess- that was it: presto, the MASSIVE population of 'dreamers' were
alienated."
Not so much that he slept with her, but that he *whined* about it ever since.
[> [> [>
Re: Mini-redirect: fan influence (not sure if spoilerish) -- aurelia, 20:48:24 03/30/02
Sat
and that he's still obsessing about that stupid kid. I'm sorry Max, I know he's you're son and all, but
I just can't seem to care.
[> [> [>
Re: Mini-redirect: fan influence (not sure if spoilerish) -- Abby, 07:42:20 03/31/02
Sun
Exactly- they took the storyline on a tangent that went against the feelings of the majority of
watchers...and the show didn't recover.
[>
Thoughts on interviews... -- Ixchel, 19:28:28 03/30/02 Sat
JMHO, I usually don't read interviews, they just don't interest me. I've noticed that this one has
raised a lot of discussion though. Some people feel insulted, etc.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't this just part of maintaining interest in the show, especially during a
long break between new episodes (stirring people up, that sort of thing)?
As for shippers, surely ME likes confirmation that everyone cares so intently about the characters?
If I created something that people felt so passionately about, _I_ would be pleased.
And aren't the relationships (not just romantic ones) an integral part of the story? I mean try
imagining a story without them.
Personally, I adore S6 and I believe everyone at ME (including MN) is doing an excellent job (at least
from my perspective). I'm sure that however the season ends, I'll love it. For example, I cried when
Buffy died in TG, but I still loved it (after running frantically to the computer to make sure she'd be
back).
Ixchel
[>
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ... -- verdantheart, 13:13:49 04/01/02
Mon
(And in responding, I will be reiterating some of the fine points stated above ...)
Writers have to be very careful about what they say in interviews. For one thing, in saying virtually
anything they risk revealing future plot/arc points. Why do writers want to avoid spoiling the
audience?! Well, if it isn't painfully obvious, the impact of a story is strongest as it is viewed. One
might say, if we know exactly what's going to happen, why tune in?
Of course, fans who become obsessively involved in characters and plots (hey, no offense, that
probably includes me and virtually everybody else here; we're here, aren't we?) often develop such a
voracious desire to know that they crave spoilage. Further, they sometimes (I emphasize not always)
end up wanting to direct the future course of the series. If the writers don't do what they want them
to do with characters, they become upset.
But back to spoilage. Ms. Noxon can afford to be a little direct about past events (the Angel
comments), but has to be extremely circumspect about future events. She can remind us that Spike
is evil -- now (thanks, Rufus et al.) there's nothing that has been aired that unequivocally
flies in the face of that -- but what remains unspoken is where things will go in the future. Her
comments are pretty much limited to the Spike of currently aired episodes.
Should she really reveal what she has planned? Why? So that shippers can determine whether to
tune in or not? Perhaps it is because I have vague asperations as a writer that I believe that one has
a better appreciation of a novel if one starts on the first page, not the last.
Let's look at romance from the dramatic point of view. The kind of stories that really suck people in
are not usually those in which the lovers have a stable relationship. Why? Drama depends on tension
and conflict; happy relationships contain little of either. Even relationships that contain tension are
difficult to sustain over a long-run series (Moonlighting, for example). Could B/A continue without
running out of gas, repeating itself, becoming tiresome because of the simple fact that the pair could
not, as the pair in a movie, fall into eachother's arms? Better to have Angel leave and Buffy move on.
It would be good to see her move on, already (did they try that with Riley?)!
Even if B/S (in some sort of loving relationship) happened, there would have to be obstacles to
overcome; otherwise it might turn into Sam/Riley cheerily fighting demons together. Ho-hum! Should
Buffy immediately accept Spike as a changed demon? She's seen witnessed less of the change in him
than we have and we continuously debate how changed he actually is! Her attitude toward Spike
can't change overnight just because she has an itch only he can scratch. That wouldn't make sense
for her character as it has been drawn over the years.
That said, it's clear that there have been changes in Spike, which Ms. Noxon is careful not to stress
in her interviews. For example, Spike's need for a pep talk to psyche himself up for a simple neck-
munch in "Wrecked" and his discovery that (even not knowing his circumstances) he has no desire to
bite and even lacks an innate sense of his demon nature in "Tabula Rasa." The thing is, we haven't
seen the dramatic "test" of any changes in Spike yet (well, there was the Glory torture test, but we
need a test that goes beyond one that tests Spike's love for Buffy). I don't think that the writers need
let us know if/when/how this is tested.
And even if Buffy ever comes to believe in Spike and love him, there would have to be some kind of
tragedy or obstacle, or drama would evaporate. It's the unfortunate nature of the beast.
Anyway, I don't tend to look for comments by the writers. They can't really say much and I'm not
really that interested in being spoiled anyway. It's really hard for productions to keep things
confidential, nondisclosures and all!
Just MHO.
- vh
Classic Movie of the Week -
March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole* (Yay!) -- OnM, 19:10:20 03/29/02
Fri
*******
OK there movie fans, please put your virtual hands together and give a great big round of
cyber-applause for this week’s Classic Movie of the Week Guest Host, the one and so
far only, matching mole!
( The ‘E. pluribus’ signofficus, technical stuff and ‘Question of the Week’ are your traditional OnM-
age, but all else this week is eminently molian. Enjoy! )
~~~~~~~
I came to the world of popular music rather late in life. Without older siblings and being somewhat
shy I was never really exposed to a broad spectrum of rock music until I was in high school. Even at
that advanced age my interest grew slowly and then suddenly exploded when I was about seventeen.
The key catalysts were the startup of a fabulous radio station, CFNY, in 1978, my purchase of a book
entitled Rock Family Trees by British music journalist Pete Frame in 1979, and the arrival of
Punk/New Wave music as a popular phenomenon in southern Ontario in that general time period.
My record collection ballooned from a dozen Beatles, Beach Boys, and Moody Blues LPs to a hundred
and fifty or more records tending more and more towards the avant garde within two or three years.
Included in my growing library were two releases, both from 1972, by British art rock band Matching
Mole, a band that I once heard described as being ‘so progressive that they had no audience’. As you
might imagine such things were not readily available in an industrial town of 100,000 people and the
thrill of the hunt was part of the joy of amassing my record collection.
I bring this up not because I think that the story of my life is incredibly fascinating. Instead I am
arguing for a peculiar sort of credential to review the two films I have chosen for my guest review.
Both of them feature record collectors as major characters, and by chance I saw both films within
twenty-four hours. Both of them have interesting things to say about growing up and the
relationship between artist and audience-- two concerns much discussed on this board lately. In
addition, they have rekindled my interest in music, about which I’ll have more to say later on in the
review.
The first film I saw was the 2001 feature Ghost World, directed by Terry Zwigoff,
apparently based on a comic book. I’ve seen this described as ‘a teen movie for people who don’t like
teen movies’. The central character is Enid (Thora Birch) who is graduating from high school at the
beginning of the film. She and her friend Rebecca (Scarlet Johansson) are social outcasts and proud
of it. Here is where the film takes a definite leap from Hollywood teen movie conventions. Typically,
outcasts like Enid and Rebecca would eventually undergo a Cinderella-like transformation or
achieve some sort of righteous justice over their ‘popular’ oppressors. Ghost World refuses to
take either road. Enid and Rebecca are outcasts, but they are active and eager participants in their
own social exclusion. They are also bored and appear to derive entertainment only by mocking all
those around them. The portrayals are sympathetic but thoroughly unsentimental.
The movie follows Enid through the summer following high school. It has a meandering plot that
details her growing estrangement from Rebecca and also her relationships with two older adults: the
teacher of her remedial art class (Illeana Douglas) and Seymour, a lonely, middle-aged collector of 78
rpm records (Steve Buscemi). Both of them, in different ways, draw Enid out of her cynical shell,
and then both let her down. At the same time she lets them down as well. Enid’s relationship to
Seymour is unusual and refreshing until its ultimate failure, but that failure is probably the most
important thing to happen to Enid in the film. At the end she tells Seymour that he is her hero, and
so for the first time she acts truly unselfishly towards another person.
The film does have its grim moments but it is also wildly funny. The scenes in the art class offer
insightful and satirical takes on art appreciation by the intelligentsia and the general public. Enid’s
match making attempts for the shy and prudish Seymour are both painful and hilarious. Funniest
of all is the scene of Enid attempting to work at the snack counter of a movie theater.
The following night I watched High Fidelity, released in 2000, directed by Stephen
Frears and based on the novel by Nick Hornby. The central character in this film is Rob Gordon, a
man in early middle age who owns a record store, played by John Cusack. Rob analyzes his
problems in many previous relationships with women in an attempt to figure out how to fix the one
with his current girlfriend, Laura (Ibe Hjejle). This analysis uses the thought processes of the pop
music fan. Rob makes lists of best songs and top break ups. He discusses how to make a ‘mix tape’
and relates that to impressing a date. This is a very appropriate metaphor, as Rob’s musical life and
his emotional life are completely intermixed. He keeps searching for the things he did wrong so that
he can avoid these mistakes again. Of course his real problem is that he keeps treating relationships
as problems to be solved rather than as things to be involved in. Rob’s revelation about relationships
is paralleled by his becoming actively involved in the music world.
Like Ghost World, High Fidelity is a mixture of sadness and hilarity. Rob’s two employees,
the obnoxiously opinionated Barry (Jack Black) and the reserved Dick (Todd Louiso) provide us with
interesting insights into the collector’s mentality. Dick’s instant conversion of his girl friend to be
(Sara Gilbert) to music snob by playing a Stiff Little Fingers song is priceless. Barry’s truly
annoying snobbery and belief that only his opinion matters mask the fact, revealed at the end, that
he is truly talented.
Both films comment on the role of the audience in art. At the start of Ghost World Enid is
shown listening to a wild piece of music called Jaan Pechechaan Ho by Mohammed Rafi who,
I discovered later, was a very well known Indian singer. The song is from an Indian film from the
1960s (I also discovered this later as well) which Enid is watching on TV in her room. She is
jumping around the room to the wild rhythms but she can have no idea what the song or the movie is
about. Later in art class, the teacher discusses ‘found art’ and the importance of the intent of the
artist. Enid brings in a piece of found art which is rife with the possibility of misinterpretation, and
of course, misinterpretation is exactly what happens.
Most of the comments deal with music and the collection of music. Enid’s initial contact with
Seymour leads to her purchase of a collection of old blues numbers. One of them fascinates her and
she listens to it over and over. This song, recorded decades before she was born, affects her strongly.
But Seymour is no longer affected by the music. Increasingly he comes to view collecting as a sterile
and isolating activity that is cutting him off from the world rather than connecting him to it. Rob is
similarly suspicious of the activity that has largely dominated his life. Rob and his colleagues
describe a new singer they are going to see in terms of a variety of other singers. I’ve done this
myself because it is very convenient but I think it damages the potential for true appreciation. Not
that noting similarities isn’t rewarding, but fitting artists into cubbyholes, even very elaborate ones,
isn’t. Both Rob and Seymour long for a ‘normal’ life and feel that collecting has kept them from that.
Collecting is an attempt to control and categorize art rather than interact with it. This is the heart of
Seymour and Enid’s relationship and why it ultimately fails. Enid provides a fresh perspective to
Seymour as a reminder of how he used to feel about his hobby. Seymour provides Enid with an
anchor, an avenue in a world in which she can be something other than disdainful and bored. That’s
a good start but it doesn’t really allow either of them to be themselves.
Here is where the two films diverge. In Ghost World, Steve and Enid both get tastes of the
normal world and then turn their backs on it. Rob and his coworkers are all shown to make progress
in becoming more connected to ‘real life’ in High Fidelity. Paralleling that difference is the
difference in the portrayal of setting. Ghost World is presumably set in southern California,
although a locality is never mentioned. The landscape is ghostly and disconnected, full of parking
lots, sidewalks, convenience stores, porn outlets, and diners. The real world is a phantom. In
contrast, High Fidelity is set in a very specific location on the north side of Chicago (the novel
was originally set in London). Conspicuous use is made of real locations such as the Biograph and
Music Box Theatres (I used to live about a quarter of a mile from the latter), at least one club, very
recognizable locations on the L tracks, and so on. My perception of this may be somewhat biased
because of my much greater familiarity with the locale of High Fidelity but Ghost
World does not show anything that I could imagine being a definite location. In High
Fidelity the problem is Rob’s, he has to figure out how to live in the world. In Ghost
World the problem is the world’s, it won’t let Enid and Steve in on terms that are acceptable to
them.
To return to the somewhat more self-absorbed tone of my introduction, watching these two films
rekindled my interest in music which has been flagging in recent years. The Rafi song at the
beginning of Ghost World blew my mind. I had no idea what nationality it was and I actually
thought it sounded more like some hybrid of frenetic surf guitar and latin textures. A quick internet
search later and I found out who Mohammed Rafi was. Now I want the song. The easy solution
would be to buy the soundtrack. But to my collectorly mind that would be much less satisfying than
buying an entire Mohammed Rafi CD/LP. There are rational reasons for this, if I like the one Rafi
song so much then I might well like others for example. But there is also the illogical collector’s
response that somehow owning the song in a more ‘genuine’ form will be more satisfying in some
way. In a similar way I find owning LPs more satisfying than CDs despite the fact they are much
less convenient. But because of their association with my collecting days they have an emotional
attachment that CDs never will.
High Fidelity has a soundtrack full of excellent music, which has inspired me to start trying
out new bands. Yesterday I went to used record store down the street. I bought (on vinyl) two
records from my youth by BeBop Deluxe and Sniff and the Tears. However I also bought a CD by a
band featured in High Fidelity, Belle and Sebastian. They are a Scottish folk rock band. The CD
blew me away, especially one song, ‘Lazy Line Painter Jane’, which caused me to jump around the
room as I haven’t done to new music for probably a decade. I feel like Enid again.
( E. Pluribus Guestibus, Unum, )
matching mole
~~~~~~~
Technically the Ghost of the Golden Age of High Fidelity:
Ghost World and High Fidelity are both available on DVD.
------------------------------------
GHOST WORLD
------------------------------------
Directed by Terry Zwigoff
The film was released in 2001 and the runtime is one hour and 51 minutes. The original theatrical
aspect ratio was 1.85:1, which is preserved on the DVD version, along with being enhanced for
widescreen televisions (anamorphic). Writing credits go to Daniel Clowes (for the original comic
book) and Daniel Clowes & Terry Zwigoff for the screenplay. Cinematography was by Affonso Beato
with film editing by Carole Kravetz, Michael R. Miller and Vincent Mourou. Production Design by
Edward T. McAvoy, with art direction by Alan E. Muraoka, set decoration by Lisa Fischer and
costume design by Mary Zophres. The original theatrical sound mix was provided in DTS and Dolby
Digital. The sound mix on the DVD version is Dolby Digital 5.1. Original music was by David Kitay
Cast overview:
Thora Birch .... Enid
Scarlett Johansson .... Rebecca
Steve Buscemi .... Seymour
Brad Renfro .... Josh
Illeana Douglas .... Roberta
Bob Balaban .... Enid's Dad
Stacey Travis .... Dana
Charles C. Stevenson Jr. .... Norman
Dave Sheridan .... Doug
Tom McGowan .... Joe
Debra Azar .... Melorra
Brian George .... Sidewinder Boss
Pat Healy .... John Ellis
Rini Bell .... Graduation Speaker
T.J. Thyne .... Todd
------------------------------------
HIGH FIDELITY
------------------------------------
Directed by Stephen Frears
The film was released in 2000 and runtime is 1 hour and 53 minutes. Aspect ratio of the original
theatrical release was 1.85:1, and is preserved as such on the DVD, along with being enhanced for
widescreen televisions (anamorphic). Writing credits go to Nick Hornby for the book, and the
screenplay was co-written by D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack and Scott Rosenberg.
Cinematography was by Seamus McGarvey with film editing by Mick Audsley. Production design
was by David Chapman and Thérèse DePrez. Art direction was by Nicholas Lundy, set decoration by
Larry Lundy and costume design by Laura Cunningham. Original music was by Elvis Costello, Bob
Dylan, Elton John, and Liz Phair, with other music by Howard Shore.The sound mix for the original
theatrical version was presented in DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS formats. The soundtrack on the
DVD is Dolby Digital 5.1.
Cast overview:
John Cusack .... Rob Gordon
Iben Hjejle .... Laura
Todd Louiso .... Dick
Jack Black .... Barry
Lisa Bonet .... Marie DeSalle
Catherine Zeta-Jones .... Charlie
Joan Cusack .... Liz
Tim Robbins .... Ian Raymond
Chris Rehmann .... Vince
Ben Carr .... Justin
Lili Taylor .... Sarah Kendrew
Joelle Carter .... Penny Hardwick
Natasha Gregson Wagner .... Caroline Fortis
Shannon Stillo .... Alison Ashmore
Drake Bell .... Rob Gordon, Jr. High
*******
The Question of the Week:
Since anyone reading this probably hangs out regularly at ATPo, it’s fairly obvious what your
primary obsession is! Most people always tends to regard others’ obsessions as ‘odd’, and their own
as ‘normal’. Recalling individuals that you’ve met throughout your life so far, what non-Buffy
‘obsessions’ of theirs did you find the most interesting, peculiar, or downright odd? Did your opionion
change over time, if you knew the person for an extended while? Did you find yourself eventually
drawn into the person’s obsession and take it on as your own?
As is the norm, post ‘em if you’ve got ‘em (and preferably before the archive vacuum sucks ‘em all
up!)
Take care, and see you next week when fellow ATPozen Rattletrap takes over the guest-
hosting duties for your humble movie man, with another great review of another Classic Movie. Be
there or be cubical!
Bye, ya’all!
*******
[>
Woo and a Hoo to *matching mole* -- AurraSing, 21:08:35 03/29/02 Fri
Outside of Buffydom,I am most familiar with Star Wars and Star Trek obsessions.Most of the geeks I
grew up with were into one or the other.Oh yes,there is also the comic book fans that I fell in with
during my 20's....by the time I outgrew that fandom I had something like 6,000 comics boxed up in
my spare bedroom.I stepped out of myself sometimes when we were sitting around debating the
lastest developments in the world of Marvel or Dark Horse and said to myself, "Am I really having
this conversation?" Trust me, for a woman that was considered pretty weird to be even the least bit
conversant about comics back in the 80's.
I think the Trekkers (NEVER Trekkies) were the most rabid in their love.After all,have you ever
been to an ST convention? Now there is a real eye-opener!
PS About "High Fidelity".Loved the movie but was very confused over why Rob was so intent on
Laura-she seemed like the least interesting girlfriend to me and there was little chemistry,at least to
my eyes.Love certainly can be strange.
[>
Bravo! Bravo!!! -- Liq, 22:57:31 03/29/02 Fri
[>
author! author! -- julia, 23:11:42 03/29/02 Fri
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole*
(Yay!) -- Cactus Watcher, 05:52:07 03/30/02 Sat
Most of the people I've hung out with over the years have been pretty smart folks. If they had
zealous passion for something they usually knew enough about it to make it sound interesting, at
least while they were talking about it. For instance, there was the guy in grad school with us who
had an enormous collection of opera records. When people found out, he was asked to guest host the
weekly opera show on the university radio station. My tastes in music are fairly narrow. I like
orchestral music, latin and some other kinds of ethnic music, like Navajo and Greek. My parents
listened to more rock and roll when I was a teenager than I did. The only thing less interesting to
me than the average pop song is opera, but this guy could make it sound interesting.
In general collectors seem to know enough about what they're doing to make it interesting to talk to
them about their hobbies.
The people with obsessions that seem the most wierd to me are the game players. I was a decent
chess player when I was a kid, but I never played a serious chess game in my life. When I got older
and met some serious players I was glad I never got into it that deeply. They were normal enough if
you could keep off the subject of the game. Kids playing Magic: the Gathering are often off the deep
end, too. I became friends with a dealer who sold them the cards and held tournaments. He was
interesting, but the players were mostly zombies when they were in his store. The owner used to say
that when they were playing, a great looking woman could walk naked from one end of the store to
another and nobody would even notice.
[>
Great movie choices!! -- Neaux, 07:14:14 03/30/02 Sat
Wow!! Reviewing anything with Jack Black rules!
PS. Jack Black does one of the voices in ICE AGE!!
as for learning more about others obsessions.. Marriage is a 2-way street of course. My wife has
grown to put up with my video game and anime obsession. She has even went to an Animazement
Convention with me and survived.
I as well now watch alot of cooking shows with my wife that I never would have watched 3 years ago!
Now that's Easy Peasy!! -Jamie Oliver (the naked chef)
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole*
(Yay!) -- Vegeta, 07:50:59 03/30/02 Sat
Mixed bag movie choices, I really enjoyed "Ghost World", however I think I was the only person I
know who didn't really care for "High Fidelity" at all. Being a music geek myself (I have like 550
Cd's mostly rock, mostly obscure) I had really high hopes for that film. Thought, I'd be watching a
movie that reflected some of my own obsessions. Instead, it turned out to be your run of the mill
"chick flick" storyline (maybe, I should of read the book). And I found the main character so whiny
and annoying I could barely tolerate watching his actions. What a wuss...
Anyhow, regarding the obsessions question, I had a group of freinds that recently (like in the past
year) got me into Dragonball Z. I never really gave the show much thought, but stopped at my
friends place during one of their marathons. After a little mythology on the show by my friends, I
got hooked. The show had tons of action and story arc, plus alot of character development. Hell, my
posting name is my favorite character's name on Dragonball Z. To return the favor I helped get
them into BtVS and introduced them to ATPoBtVS. Now they love BtVS as much as I do, maybe
more (that'd be frightning...).
[>
Wonderful, mm! Can't wait to see "Ghost World" now! Oh, and OnM... -- Rob,
09:16:18 03/30/02 Sat
...I'm working on a Classic Movie of the Week column right now...Is it too late to be one of your guest
writers in the upcoming weeks?
My e-mail is morningperson_2000@yahoo.com if you want to e-mail me about it.
Rob
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole*
(Yay!) -- Rahael, 10:11:20 03/30/02 Sat
Saw and liked High Fidelity, and this is now the second recommendation I've had for Ghost World
from a poster here. So its on a list of things to watch for me> This is a much shorter list than my list
of things to read, so I might actually see it!
As for obsessive interests, I've had a myriad. Seems, I don't just like things by halves. I either love,
or hate something.
A former best friend used to be obssessed by music of the indie rock persuasion. Together, we
listened to Blur and Pulp before they became mainstream, and sighed over the Bluetones, Ash,
Suede, MacAlmont and Butler, Menswear, Gene et al. It's been my only vague brush with being 'in
tune' with what my contemporaries listen to. My friend and I went to different universities. She's
now going out with a drummer from one of the bands she idolises, so I guess she's happy.
I still listen to Pulp but everything else has fallen by the wayside. I'm now much more likely to listen
to Le Nozze de Figaro or La Traviata (though the Buffy soundtrack has been a rare foray into
rock/pop again.)
But I would say the most inspiring person who had an 'odd' obsession (cos lets face it, listening to
indie music was much cooler than anything else I've ever done by a long way) was the philosophy
teacher at my high school. I used to get a 2 hour lunch break. THe best friend who listened to cool
music used to do Philosophy during one of the hours, and I used to accompany her. At first, it was a
way to fill in a boring hour, but soon the class itself sucked me in.
The teacher was notorious for never teaching anything in the syllabus. We used to have discussions
on almost everything. I got introduced to the poetry of Robert Graves, and finally found in the
philosophy teacher a fellow obsessive of George Herbert's poetry. He gave me sage life advice of the
most detached kind. Obviously he was a charismatic teacher, who instilled in me (and everyone else
who bothered to listen to what he was saying) a healthy respect for reasoned argument, and taught
us to spot the ridiculous in the world around us. He was also the person who introduced me to
Wittgenstein.
So not only did he introduce me to so many of the things I love - taking pride in thinking,
Wittgenstein, Robert Graves and overanalysing poetry - he also taught me to respect and value
myself. Looking back, its another remarkable aspect of his integrity that our relationship was at
once both totally professional, and personal. Nothing was out of bounds of discussion - my personal
life, or my latest essay or his own life. All of it was useful material in our discussions. He showed me
that one could be highly moral, but also humourous and non-pompous in dealing with life.
And to cap it all, he wasn't even meant to be teaching me! I got all this wisdom without doing a
single bit of homework or exams for his class. At the end of the two years he was worried that
perhaps he hadn't really given a thorough enough grounding in philosophy itself, but I shall always
look back at him as a hugely influential figure in my life. That class was the most dignified thing
about my awkward and horridly embarrassing teenage years.
(on a side note, Boat race! yay to the Dark Blues!!!)
[>
Great MM -- Rufus, 17:11:16 03/30/02 Sat
Saw the movie and loved it.
[> [>
thanks to all for their kind comments -- matching mole, 21:06:45 03/30/02 Sat
I can't stay online at the moment to comment further but wanted to thank you all in case this gets
archived overnight.
[>
Great Choices MM and fine review! -- A8, 22:00:35 03/30/02 Sat
To anyone who liked Ghost World, I would recommend Zwigoff's documentary about Robert Crumb
(and his off center family) simply titled "Crumb." It's a real eye opener as to the sources of creativity
and how it relates to a person's innner demons. You get a glimpse into the dark worlds of the three
Crumb brothers-one whose art seems to bring some stability to a very unsettled life, one whose art
seems to be almost a symptom of his mental instability, and another whose art reflects his declining
hold on reality and eventually documents his demise.
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole*
(Yay!) -- Rattletrap, 05:41:58 03/31/02 Sun
Good review, mole. I still haven't seen Ghost World but one of our local newspaper critics
also raves about it, so I'll probably have to rent it.
[> [>
Further thoughts -- matching mole, 06:41:03 03/31/02 Sun
Both of wife's grad students expressed mixed opinions about 'High Fidelity' for reasons similar to
Vegeta's. They found John Cusack's character annoying. To the extent that he is a Woody Allen
neurotic knock-off I do regard him as the weak link in the film.
I bought the 'Ghost World' soundtrack last week, mainly so I could get the Mohammed Rafi song.
Zwiegoff (the director) provides extensive liner notes in which he reveals himself to be a collector of
old 78s like Seymour and quite the musical snob (like the Jack Black character in 'High Fidelity').
The soundtrack is largely old blues, jazz, and ragtime material from Zwiegoff's own collection,
including several songs that weren't in the film. Background hiss is quite audible on several of them
which some might find annoying but I found charming.
I guess I'm kind of like Rahael - I tend to get obsessed with lots of different things. All parts of the
rich and multi-course meal that is life. The people that have impressed me the most are the ones
who have extremely varied interests rather than a single deep one. For example, one of my best
friends from graduate school is an ornithologist and avid birder with all the obsessional activities
associated with that hobby (i.e. list keeping). But he is also interested in literature, music, and
Buffy. Just yesterday he revealed to me that at the age of 16 he was in a band called the Jimmy
Buffet Coughdrop Experience.
[> [> [>
P.S. thanks to OnM -- matching mole, 08:49:58 03/31/02 Sun
For generously sharing his venue and for his editorial acumen!
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole*
(Yay!) -- Lilac, 08:01:22 03/31/02 Sun
I have to agree with your assesments of both of these pictures. I saw "Ghost World" a couple of weeks
ago and really loved it. So different from most movies made about teens these days, so much more
realistic even though it is a very stylized presentation. I particularly enjoyed her goofy art teacher --
rewarding high concept over technical achievement, a definite type these days.
I also really enjoyed "High Fidelity". As a Chicagoan (well suburban, ,but close), I loved seeing the
city portrayed as it really looks to most people, instead of the glitzy lake shore scenes used in most
movies. My favorite part of this movie was the lead's two employees in the record store -- hysterical. I
have read reviews claiming that the movie suffered from being made away from the London scene
used in the book. I have also read the book, and felt that, except for the names of locations being
changed, the feel and content was kept remarkably loyal to the original.
Someone down the line recommended Crumb, by the director of Ghost World. I would second that
recommendation. It is disturbing in many ways, but a fascinating inside view of the way a particular
artist's mind works.
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - March 29th 2002 - with Guest Host *matching mole*
(Yay!) -- yuri, 12:16:17 04/01/02 Mon
Last year at a small gathering at my friend's house, a guy put on a mix tape and one of my favorite
Tribe Called Quest songs came on. I squinted and asked him "hey - what album's this on again?"
"Uh, the anthology album," he said. "Oh," I said coldly, and looked away. He grinned at me and made
a very snappy comment about music snobs and their dislike of best hits cd's and whatnot. I was
embarrassed, but laughed at myself. It was really funny how unconsciously dismissive I was because
of that one comment. Since I've pledged myself to become a proud but forgiving music snob. It's good
to hear others talk about it, too.
As for obsessions, in my experience when a friend's obsession has rubbed off on me, it wasn't like
they totally introduced me to this thing and got me hooked. Usually, their obsession lets me know
that it's "okay" for me to be obsessed with the thing they're obsessed with, that I already dig. Hey!
that's what happened with this board! I'm a much more unabashed buffy lover than I was
before.
[> [>
P.S. great job, mm! (how could I forget to say that?!) -- yuri, 12:19:01 04/01/02 Mon
[> [>
Music snobs, cool kids, and the limits of open-mindedness -- dream of the consortium,
13:47:00 04/01/02 Mon
This thread had me chuckling over an incident from my life just a few weeks ago. I was hanging out
with a friend of mine and a friend of hers. They both pride themselves on their openmindedness, and
they were talking about the quirky music they like. Both are "rock chicks," into Bob Dylan,
Metallica, Morphine and James Brown, but they were discussing the "uncool" music they love
anyway - Elton John, Leslie Gore, and so on. They were laughing about being thrown out of the
music snob union for admitting to such tastes. I decided to throw in my "uncool" musical favorite into
the mix: "I love Stan Rogers - he's this Canadian folk singer who does a lot of sea chanties and songs
about empty fishing villages." Silence. You could hear a pin drop. Apparently, there are limits to
how uncool your tastes can be. I found this very funny. If only I could have played some for
them.....
The people I love most are those whose interests are genuine and a little obsessive. I like to see
people fall in love - with a person, a hobby, a band. I have friends who are obsessive about bike-
riding, origami, bonsai, games, diners (okay, that's me), Dylan (far too many, actually), TS Eliot,
Tom Waits, cheese and cheese-making, fishing, typewriters (I'm not kidding), and Nabokov. And,
yes, I've developed a much greater interest in all thopse things as a result of being around people
who care about them.
[> [> [>
I love Stan Rogers too! -- matching mole, 14:26:43 04/01/02 Mon
Seems to me that Stan should definitely be considered less uncool, if it's possible to quantify such a
thing, than Sir Elton. Consider the following.
Stan died in a plane accident while Elton is still alive
Stan is fairly obscure, except among folkies, while Elton is, of course, world famous.
Stan's songs are full of social commentary, albiet fairly muted, while Elton is a knight and has
apparently played a social gatherings hosted by royalty
Stan also wrote a marvellous song (forgotten the name), a parody of folk songs about mining which
was about the life of a drone in the computer industry - at least twenty years ago.
Now before I am attacked by the Elton John defense league I should say that I am not stating my
personal opinion here - just how SR and EJ might rank on some sort of objective coolness scale. You
have a fairly obscure, ahead of his time, socially conscious singer who died in dramatic circumstances
vs. a living symbol of the acceptance of modern pop music by the most traditional elements of society.
Who should the rock intelligentsia allow to ener the pantheon of cool?
Of course Stan never had costumes like Elton but that's ancient history.
[> [> [> [>
O, boys, can't ya code it... -- OnM, 18:24:36 04/01/02 Mon
Program it right
Nothin' ever happens in this life o' mine
Been a-poundin' out the data on the Xerox line
Where else but on this board could you easily find:
* At least 3 people who actually know who Stan Rogers is.
* Someone who remembers an obscure paraody song he composed.
* Someone else who can-- from memory-- recite the main chorus of said obscure parody
song.
Bless you, Stan-- you are very much missed.
Anyone who likes folky music stuff, PLEASE check this guy out. You won't be
disappointed.
[> [> [> [>
Lack of irony? -- dream of the consortium, 07:30:09 04/02/02 Tue
I think you're allowed to like Elton John in a wink-wink sort of way - you're being ironic, but because
you grew up with that stuff and do actually like it on some level, you're also not being ironic. I
suppose I could confess to loving the BeeGees (I don't) or the Monkees (I do) for the same reason
without repercussions. But sincerely liking a singer who is himself completely sincere? Who sings
about fishing? From Canada!?! Not very cool, I'm afraid.
The complex rules for being hip are absolutely exhausting. As a result, I decided a few years back
that I would no longer attempt to identify myself as a hipster, or even a Bohemian. I am, instead, a
proud eccentric.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Lack of irony? -- yuri, 08:22:00 04/02/02 Tue
I have felt the "limits of cool uncoolness" many a time, most often in how I dress (which I get a lot of
flak for on occasion), like hippie chic is okay, but if you cross the line into actual hippie - uh oh. Or
punk cool is very nice, until you start wearing tight tapered pants or anything that looks like it could
actually be dirty.. I've felt it with music too, but it's funny that my friends would adore anyone who's
music could be called sea shanties. Upon all the rave reviewes, I've decided to download all I can find
of Stan Rogers as soon as I get home.
[> [> [> [> [>
Life is Grand -- matching mole, 09:44:40 04/02/02 Tue
Excellent point, dotc. While I appreciate Seinfeld reruns and the Sex Pistols as much as anyone the
idea that you have to be angry, cynical, ironic, or some combination of the above in order to produce
art seems to me to be as limiting as the sentimentality of mainstream culture that alternative music
is supposedly an alternative to. Sorry for the extremely long and convoluted sentence. My post's
title is a Camper Van Beethoven song about this very topic in which they predict that acknowledging
that life and love can at times be wonderful things will lead to their falling from favour with those
who are the arbiters of cool.
One of the most horrifying things I have ever read was a review of Japanese band Shonen Knife. For
those of you unfamiliar with SK think of what the Ramones might sound like if they were young
Japanese women who could barely speak English. While the reviewer was quite positive he said that
a band like SK could not come from the US because their earnest optimism and joy of life would be
morally impossible as an artistic statement in American culture.
Of course Stan Rogers wasn't so optimistic but he was, as you point out, earnest and sincere. Kudos
to anyone who calls themselves an eccentric. A thoughtful eccentric is someone who thinks for
themself.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Love Camper Van, too! -- dream of the consortium, 11:11:01 04/02/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Music snobbery is one of the more obvious forms of pseudo-intellectualism. -- A8,
13:28:35 04/02/02 Tue
If a person can't open his or her mind to all forms of expression, no matter how lightweight or
contrived they may appear at first, it is doubtful whether his or her love of any music or art is
sincere at all in the first place.
Anyone who dismisses any form of music as "uncool" has a very weak intellectual foundation upon
which to build any credible credential as a person whose opinion on anything should be taken
seriously. The value of any form of expression is in the ear and soul of the beholder. These people
tend to fall into the WTTH Cordelia world of logic in which a thing is valuable not because it is
expensive, but because it costs more.
Speaking of sea shanties, there's a great segment of the documentary film "Grateful Dawg" where
Dave Grisman and Jerry Garcia's widow discuss Mr. Garcia's love of sea shanties. The gist of the
commentary was that the music was so powerful because it was inspired by real life and death
experiences. As much as I love Metallica and Bob Dylan, it is hard to argue that any of their music
has the same heart or urgency as a good sea shanty. You should remind them that Mr. Zimmerman
changed his name to Dylan to create a "cool" mystique, establish a folk identity which he felt his
middle class upbringing undermined, and to divert his audience's attention away from the fact that
he shared very little in terms of the depth of life experiences with Woody Guthrie the man whose
music he was initially trying to emulate.
The bottom line is--if it affects you in a way that has meaning in your life, then the music is
important regardless of its source, the motivation for its creation, or how many people admit to
liking it.
Sorry for the sermon.
A8
Current board
| More March 2002