May 2002 posts

Previous May 2002  

More May 2002

Go check out the latest updates at my "Annotated Buffy" site... -- Rob, 19:28:24 05/03/02 Fri

I have done a great deal of work on my site over the past week or so, and it is now an honest-to-goodness truly annotated "Buffy," because there is now a Welcome to the Hellmouth transcript, with links to each note, and each note links back to the transcript. It's a very, very cool new layout...and I want to thank d'Herb very, very much for helping me work it out...and help make the site even better!

The new WttH page is at

Check out the Site Updates page for the other updates.

Enjoy...and please give me feedback! :o)


[> Btw, I'm currently working on the "Harvest" update...Should be up by the weekend. -- Rob, 19:29:55 05/03/02 Fri

[> Well, I think it's cool! -- d'Herblay, 04:58:11 05/04/02 Sat

But I would, wouldn't I?

It is important to note that the current layout requires frame-enabled browsers. I will make a suggestion for something Rob can put between <NOFRAMES> tags sometime this weekend.

[> [> Thanks...that would be great! -- Rob, 06:39:45 05/04/02 Sat

Also, you'll notice that I forgot to put the coding to break out of frames on the top navigation bar from the WttH page, but I'll target it to the _top thingy and fix a few more glitches over the weekend. ;o)


[> Re: Go check out the latest updates at my "Annotated Buffy" site... -- redcat, 10:40:39 05/04/02 Sat

Rob, the annotations are great! Thanks for all the hard work (and to d'H as well.)

[> Re: Go check out the latest updates at my "Annotated Buffy" site... -- Slain, 13:23:10 05/04/02 Sat

Excellent, Rob! I've linked to you on my site. I'm pleased that you've got the DVD commentary quotes, too, as Joss always says so many valuable things in then. 'Innocence' is also a great commentary, as he talks about feminism in great detail.

[> [> Thanks, guys! Glad you're enjoying! :o) -- Rob, 23:07:09 05/04/02 Sat

[> [> Oh, and Slain... -- Rob, 23:42:48 05/04/02 Sat

Yeah, I am so happy for the DVD commentaries...they are such a wealth of information! I only wish Joss did one for every episode! I can't wait to get my greedy little hands on the season 2 set for the commentary goodness of "Innocence"...!!! I read the transcript of it here, but I really can't wait to hear it coming right from the horse's...I mean, the Joss', mouth!!


P.S. And thanks for the link! :o)

Joss Talks Buffy Season 7 / Angel Season 4 (no spoilers)!! -- Rob, 20:19:03 05/03/02 Fri

I got this from Watch with Wanda at E! here:

Buffy Creator Joss Whedon Talks Climaxes, Criticism and Angel's Fate

Wanda: Sounds like you've been insanely busy with all your projects this season. [Buffy producer] Marti Noxon said you're like a pig in poo...

Joss: [Laughs.] Sounds like Marti. And yeah, I am like a pig in poo.

Has it been hard to be less involved with Buffy?

I haven't been as hands-off as people like to think. This season, I was there, except when I was shooting the Firefly pilot. But yeah, everything I saw that I could have made better or had a different vision for, I go, "Aaaarrgh!" But then, I've always done that.

This season has been fantastic, as usual, but it has had a darker tone. To be honest, some of the episodes depressed the hell out of me.

This is where we wanted to go...into the dark of the woods. But next year is going to be very different. We're going back to our original mission statement. Back to the positive view of the joy of female empowerment. This year was about adult life and relationships--and making really, really bad decisions. Next year will still be scary and different and strange, but it will be more of a positive outlook. People will stop abandoning Dawn. Willow won't be a junky anymore. Buffy won't be dead.

Your theme for this year was: "Oh, Grow Up." Do you have one for next year?

Yes. It's: "Buffy Year One." It's let's get back to the joy of this very simple concept, that this silly woman no one takes seriously is actually the most powerful woman in the world.

How long do you see Buffy lasting? How far have you planned ahead?

We basically plot every year as a natural ending point of the show. I loathe stories that end in the middle, so we wrap it up at the end of the year. Every year. So, next season, we've figured out the whole arc--who the bad guy is, what the general message is. Next year will be the end. And if there's another season, that will be the end, too.

What about Angel? Are you worried about it being picked up?

No. The WB will pick it up again. I absolutely think so. We'll be staying on the WB for at least another year. Obviously, if the WB drops it, we could do more crossovers. But apart from that, it doesn't really matter.

Speaking of crossovers, any hope for Buffy and Angel diehards?

What I always say is: Guys, they're on two different networks. There's no way. Buffy and Angel physically could not exist. If they were on the same network, we would have done the Buffy-Spike thing anyway. But we probably would have had a crossover moment when they would go, "You're sleeping with whom?!" It became difficult in the third year to truly bring change to Buffy and Angel. People want to watch change. Growth. They want climax.

And we've certainly gotten "climax" with Buffy and Spike. Let's talk about Angel, which has been so great this season. Can you talk about the motive for giving him a son?

We wanted to put him in an emotional space. To give him something that is less about day-to-day living. He needed something to connect to emotionally. Plus, I just love the idea of this embarrassing effect of a one-night stand.

Why did you decide to make Connor grow up at lightning speed?

What are you going to do? Have a baby running around? I don't think so. There were advantages. He got to have a baby. He got to have his child taken away. And then he got to have a full-grown son. That's the beauty of it being a fantasy show.

Buffy and Angel fans seem to be more critical than ever this season. Does that affect you?

It always affects me. At the same time, I need to give them what they need, not what they want. They need to have their hearts broken. They need to see change. They hated Oz, and then they hated that he left. These things are inevitable. If people are freaking out, I'm good. If people are going, "Hmmm...well, that was fine," I'm fucked.


[> thanks again, rob. much appreciated! -- Can I be Anne?, 20:26:55 05/03/02 Fri

[> Who hated Oz??? -- MayaPapaya9, 22:36:22 05/03/02 Fri

Dude I fell in love with Oz the moment he first showed up onscreen! But anyways, I'm really happy with what Joss said would be the message of season 7, Buffy Year One. I'm excited. Okay back to SAT studying now :(

[> [> Re: Who hated Oz??? Not Me!! -- Sloan Parker, 06:27:49 05/04/02 Sat

Come on it was a really cool character! Ok he wouldn't talk much but that's just the way he was! I don't know anybody that hated him, really so I wonder where Joss saw that fans couldn't stand him. He was the best, and the beast! lol Anyway I'd like to see him back on the show for at least one episode. Could it be possible for him to come back and help Willlow going on the right side again? I wish!


[> [> Willow/Xander 'shippers --
Cleanthes, 07:43:24 05/04/02 Sat

[> [> [> Really?!?!?! -- Valhalla, 20:16:22 05/04/02 Sat

Xander always treated Will so badly. Even if Oz hadn't become the epitome of laconic coolness, he treated Willow so well, and acted like a grown-up from the beginning. Ah, well, different strokes...

[> [> [> [> Re: Really?!?!?! -- Claire, 20:33:30 05/04/02 Sat

In an interview with Dreamwatch Joss said he got some comments from fans asking what Oz was doing in the show and saying they wanted to see Willow with Xander. Apparently that was the reason Joss wrote the scene in Innocence with Willow and Oz in the van with Oz refusing to kiss Willow to make the audience fall in love with Oz. He commented that he tried to do the same with Riley (I assume that is in reference to Riley punching Parker?) but the audience became too cynical and complained ME were just trying to make Riley likeable. In response to that he asked "what exactly do you expect me to do" regarding new characters (lol good question). Anyway I doubt there was that much critisicism of Oz as I have never heard it. Perhaps Joss just got a few complaints from the same people a lot? He could have been more sensitive to critisicism in season 2. I think he's become a bit more jaded since than and is taking the attitude that he'll write his story as he sees fit and it's up to the audience whether they follow it or not.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Really?!?!?! -- Cleanthes, 05:37:48 05/05/02 Sun

Thanks for explaining, Claire. I think your speculations are correct. Back years ago, I only read the usenet group, and I'm thinking it only started between seasons 2 & 3? (anyone remember?) No matter - unfortunately for the bulk of the fans, the producers & writers are most likely to hear from the loudest and shrillest fans, by the nature of things. And the loudest and shrillest are not representative.

With regard to Riley and trying to make him "likeable" to fans of the shrill sort - :_:_: - I hope that's not true because it would represent a tremendous lack of understanding of the concept of Irony on Joss's part. The artist must be related ironically to his writing. If not, the objective (in this case, the "likeability of Riley") could not dominate. The shrillest of critics absolutely do not understand irony whatever. So, doing anything at all except mockery in response to them will always fail.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really?!?!?! -- Miss Edith, 17:06:42 05/05/02 Sun

I think the difference in successully making Oz popular and not so much with Riley was all about subtly. The Oz/Willow scene in the van was cute and charming. The scene with Riley punching Parker insulted my intelligence as it made its point wiht a sledgehammer. The Parker romance was obviously intended so that the audience would cheer on Buffy getting it together with a nice normal guy who punched out nasty Parker and was Buffy's hero. They just tried to make Riley heroic. Unfortunately I could never accept Riley becasue of MEs unbelievable stuppidy in airing IWRY during season 4 when Buffy was supposed to be moving on with Riley. Not only did it remind us of the intensity of B/A it also concluded with Angel deciding Buffy couldn't be with a human. Riley eventually proved this in season 5 when he was jealous of Buffy's superior strength just as Angel thought he need to protect Buffy in IWRY. Perhaps Riley was never meant as a long-term boyfriend but was always planned as the rebound guy?

[> [> the anti-werewolf faction -- skeeve, 07:54:26 05/06/02 Mon

Some folks think that werewolf Oz needs a silver bullet the same way that Xander thinks that Angel needs a stake.

[> [> Re: Who hated Oz??? -- maddog, 08:43:32 05/06/02 Mon

I don't see why anyone would have hated Oz at first. He wasn't impeding on any relationship Willow was having. I see someone put "Willow/Xander Shippers" and that's nice and all, but it was clear that while Xander was ignoring her in favor of the Buffster, she finally got the clue on moved on. As for the anti wolf faction...that's just sad. It made his character unique.

[> [> I sure didn't. And I hope SAT's went well, I had a lot of friends taking those on Sat... -- yuri, 21:10:01 05/06/02 Mon

My friends that are fellow seniors and I all burned our SAT study books and extra SAT papers and whatnot in a big bonfire on the beach after we took our very last ones in November. Beautiful sight. Now that I think of it, we probably should have donated the books or something. Huh. Oh well, hindsight's a bitch.

[> :: Buffy Season 6 and Angel S3 references in that article, BTW ;-) :: -- Slain, 08:08:03 05/04/02 Sat

Many thanks for that article - Joss interviews are worth their weight in chocolate.

When Joss said 'everything I saw that I could have made better or had a different vision for, I go, "Aaaarrgh!"' I couldn't help but think of 'Wrecked'. While Joss does say that he's been involved this season, it seems to me that around the time of 'Wrecked' he let things slip, and that's effected, or possible affected, the whole season.

So the idea of Buffy Year One does excite me, because that's what I'd hoped for - that they'd get back to the original ideas of the show, and stop getting too involved in the soap opera. I think that's a fairly universal feeling among fans, even those, like myself, who've been enjoying most of Season 6.

[> what's your definition of spoilers Rob? -- mucifer, 09:42:20 05/04/02 Sat

so how is this not a spoiler??

Next year will still be scary and different and strange, but it will be more of a positive outlook. People will stop abandoning Dawn. Willow won't be a junky anymore. Buffy won't be dead.

am i missing something? sounds pretty spoilery to me.

[> [> Re: what's your definition of spoilers Rob? -- Rob, 23:05:57 05/04/02 Sat

I don't see anything spoilery about that statement, because it doesn't make specific references to anything in particular. That was all basically a sum-up of the direction the show is going in. I don't see "scary, different, and strange" or "positive outlook" as a spoiler, not any more or less than Joss announcing last year that "Oh, Grow Up" would be the theme of the sixth season.

Joss hates spoilers....HATES spoilers, and he revealed this stuff. If Joss deems it not spoilery enough to give to his viewers, I gotta concede to him. You basically have to figure that anything any of the ME people say in an interview about the future of the show will not be that exact. Last season, we were told this season would be lighter...Well, uh, that didn't happen, did it? ;o)

"People will stop abandoning Dawn."

Not too spoilery.

"Willow won't be a junkie anymore."

Only one that could be interpreted as a little spoilery, but what exactly does this sentence mean? Does this mean she stops using magic all together? Learns to only use it in moderation? Remember, this is a drug metaphor, but it parts in the respect that magic can have good things that help the world...And, again, Joss reveals this now, I would say it's fine.

"Buffy won't be dead anymore."

Again, not a spoiler.


[> [> [> Well, they *could* be interpreted as spoilers (Warning: Potentially Interpreted SPOILERS!) -- mundusmundi, 12:40:47 05/05/02 Sun

For those who had heard the rumor of a Scooby death this season, they do narrow down the list of possibilities.

Unless of course Whedon's choosing slippery language again: "Willow won't be a junky anymore (because she's dead! Mwahahahaha.)"

[> [> [> [> Re: Well, they *could* be interpreted as spoilers (Warning: Potentially Interpreted SPOILERS!) -- Rob, 15:11:28 05/05/02 Sun

LOL...and his repeated statements, from the start, that he would *never* kill Willow.

Dawn, also...maybe they stop abandoning her because she is also...dead!!! Mwahahahahahahaha!!!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: This is spoiler! (Warning: Not Potential It is) -- Dochawk, 16:06:36 05/05/02 Sun

from what he is doing to Willow, he would be better off killing her

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This is spoiler! (Warning: Not Potential It is) -- Rob, 22:42:55 05/05/02 Sun

Until next year of course, when, Joss seems to indicate, the characters will be a little bit happier than this year. ;o)


[> Re: Joss Talks Buffy Season 7 / Angel Season 4 (no spoilers)!! -- Rattletrap, 09:44:05 05/04/02 Sat

Thanx Rob. A great pleasure to read, as are all of Joss's interviews. I especially love his last statement.

[> [> I agree...The last 2 lines are very quote-worthy! - - Rob, 14:26:54 05/06/02 Mon

[> Re: Joss Talks Buffy Season 7 / Angel Season 4 (no spoilers)!! -- maddog, 08:39:26 05/06/02 Mon

I find it amusing that he says if they have a good story to tell for an 8th season that they'll do it while I read articles about Sarah and Nick and they both say, "contracts run out, we're done after season 7".

[> Re: Joss Talks Buffy Season 7 / Angel Season 4 (no spoilers)!! -- mundusmundi, 15:56:05 05/06/02 Mon

Nice interview. Not sure I buy this part though:

We basically plot every year as a natural ending point of the show. I loathe stories that end in the middle, so we wrap it up at the end of the year. Every year. So, next season, we've figured out the whole arc--who the bad guy is, what the general message is. Next year will be the end. And if there's another season, that will be the end, too.

I can see the season finales of S1, S3, and especially S5 as "natural ending points," whereas S2 and S4 conclude more open-endedly. If this trend continues, S6 will end on a slightly ambiguous note. I have always liked the fact that each season is complete in and of itself.

[> [> While 'Angel', on the other hand, always leaves'm hanging... -- Masq, 16:18:20 05/06/02 Mon

Classic Movie of the Week - May 3rd 2002 -- matching mole & OnM, 21:43:50 05/03/02 Fri


Hey! Where’d he go??

............ anonymous



This is usually the spot where your regular movie man does his best to open the weekly flick pick with
some witty or thought provoking excerpt or quote from someone far more clever than he, but this time
around he’s just too doggone tired to do so. Tired or not, he did at least plan ahead, and besides, who
needs witty precedent when you have talent like matching mole available?

So as you did before, please do again, and give a warm welcome to a fellow Buffyphile/cinemaniac who’s
once again gracing my space.

My sincerest thanks to mole for helping me out here, and for this fine review he’s written for a truly
classic Classic Movie. If you haven’t viewed this film for a long time, just like yours truly, it’s time
to visit the video store and correct that injustice. And if you’re a noir newbie, then are you in for a



In a week that has apparently been filled with discussions of the latest (and not re-runnest!) from BtVS, get
ready for a Buffy-free Classic Movie of the Week column! Instead, your humble guest reviewer intends to
relate his choice for movie of the week exclusively to Angel: the series. Although a tendency to root for
the underdog may have influenced this decision, the primary reason is far more pragmatic. I haven’t seen
‘Entropy’ yet, nor will I until the USPS brings me a certain package from the east coast. So if you were
expecting a discussion relating a classic of the silver screen to whatever happens in ‘Entropy’ you will be
disappointed, your hopes dashed by my spoiler free status and lack of cable TV.

I have come across statements about the ‘noir’ nature of AtS many times in the months since I first
discovered ATPoBtVS. This isn’t too surprising-- the superficial resemblances between AtS and classic
film noir are fairly obvious and act to accentuate the fundamental thematic similarities. Angel is a show in
which the hero frequently commits un-heroic acts, and further, is placed in the most stereotypical of noir
settings, a detective agency in California. Despite the sun drenched reality of the locality, most of the show
is filmed in dim, gloomy light. In a part of America that is typically associated with trendy newness, we are
constantly confronted with old and often decrepit architecture that often dates back to the 1930s, 40s, and
50s-- the ‘golden’ (?) age of noir. There are no strip malls, freeways, and parking lots in Angel’s LA, or at
least we don’t see them in other than the high-speed ‘flyover’ shots the photographers use as scene intros
or transitions.

But these are merely surface similarities. Film Noir is an almost entirely American-originated genre
tied to a particular historical period. It started in the late 1930s, towards the end of the depression,
flourished in the 1940s and the early 1950s, then slowly faded away with the passage of time. Noir’s
shady, violent, obsessive, uncertain world was a response to the social upheavals caused by the Great
Depression and WW II. A world of stable, small towns and neighborhood life is replaced by drifting
populations and big city anonymity. The ‘standard’ themes of Noir include: the power of women to
manipulate men, the capricious nature of social forces that can doom an individual through no fault of his
own, the uncertainty of personal relationships, the strong possibility of betrayal by those closest to you,
how well intentioned actions can go awry, and the destructive power of personal obsession. Does any (or
how about all?) of this remind you of AtS?

It is surely not an accident that the far more ‘personal’ big bads of BtVS are replaced in AtS by the
‘impersonal’ evil of Wolfram and Hart with its mild-mannered and constantly changing supervisors. Darla
and Lilah are powerful, manipulative women who dominate their more timorous male counterparts in the
proud tradition of Barbara Stanwyck. Angel’s actions in the service of good are constantly being
sidetracked and misdirected both by his obsessions (Darla, the desire for revenge on W&H, Connor) and
by random events from an apparently uncaring universe. And, the relationships between the AI staff and
Angel himself are constantly affected by the knowledge that the ultimate betrayal is ‘one moment of perfect
happiness’ away.

Recent events on AtS relating to the character of Wesley form a classic film noir plot. Wesley is cut off
from his society and his friends at AI. He sees events unfold around him-- the loss of Fred to Gunn, the
prophecy predicting Angel’s infanticide, the tightening of Holtz’s plot around Angel-- but he is helpless to
change them. He becomes singularly obsessed with the prophecy and his obsession prevents him from
averting a tragedy. Instead, he becomes one of its prime instigators. He sees himself forced to choose
between two evils, to betray Angel in one way or another. His obsession prevents him from seeing any
other option.

Which brings me to the film under consideration: The Third Man, released in 1949 and
directed by Carol Reed. This film is not, strictly speaking, an example of film noir. My reference material
(Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style by Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward)
defines film noir as a strictly American form, including only films made in America with American settings.
The Third Man is a film produced by an American studio, and its two lead actors (Joseph Cotton
and Orson Welles) are indeed American. But the film is set in Vienna, the screenplay was written by the
decidedly non-American Graham Greene, and all of the characters other than those played by Cotton and
Welles are European. Still, it contains many classic noir elements and imagery and its themes of conflicted
loyalty, obsession, betrayal, and the consequences of actions would fit in well in any ‘true’ film noir as well
as AtS.

A brief warning for those of you who have not seen this film: It is impossible for me to discuss it
without revealing its central plot development. If you wish to remain unspoiled (and in my opinion the plot
is definitely worthy of being seen spoiler free) then read no further-- just go out and rent or buy it and take
a look for yourself, I can all but guarantee it’ll be worth your while.

The Third Man is set in Vienna immediately after WW II, a time when the city is controlled by four
occupying forces: the French, British, Americans, and Russians. Each force has its own zone, along with a
central zone under joint administration. The city is a complex stew of cultures, institutions, and
economies, both official and unofficial that exist somewhat independently. There is no single authority to
appeal to or to fear, there are instead many. Does this sound similar to the LA of AtS with its
pervasive demon influence and ongoing interaction among many different species?

Joseph Cotton plays a naïve and economically desperate writer of western novels with the improbable first
name of Holly. He arrives in Vienna with the promise of a job in advertising from his boyhood friend
Harry Lime. Upon arrival, he discovers that Lime is dead, having been killed in an auto accident. The
British authorities also tell Holly that Lime was a racketeer and they consider his death a blessing. Holly is
horrified by their indifference and pursues his own investigation into Lime’s death with the intent of
discovering the truth and clearing his friend’s name. His suspicions deepen after discovering that a
mysterious ‘third man’ was present at the accident-- a man who was not mentioned by any of the official
witnesses. The first two-thirds of the film present a gripping portrayal of Holly’s investigation, driven by
his obsessive loyalty to his friend.

At this point Holly makes two key discoveries that turn his world upside down. The first, surprising to
him, but not to the viewer, is that Lime was every bit the evil racketeer that the British made him out to be.
His dilution of stolen penicillin has already killed many and doomed many others to lingering illness and
even madness. The other, as much as surprise to the viewer as to Holly is that Lime is still alive. Holly’s
friend faked his own death, Lime himself was the’third man’ at the accident scene. At this point the themes
of loyalty, betrayal, and the price of actions that we have seen in AtS over the past few months are played
out in the final 30 minutes or so of The Third Man.

Lime has betrayed both his friend Holly and his (Lime’s) Czech lover Anna (Alida Valli) by hiding his true
nature from them even to the extent of trying to get them to help him in his penicillin racketeering without
their knowledge. On the other hand he is motivated by a genuine desire to help them both as long as he
isn’t inconvenienced too greatly. He doesn’t see what he has done as betrayal but his actions have turned
their worlds upside down. The investigation into his death has endangered Anna’s tenuous status in
Vienna and triggered Holly’s obsession.

Holly and Anna are each faced with the prospect of betraying Lime, both to the authorities and with one
another. Which is the greater crime: allowing the monstrous Lime to go free and unpunished or the
betrayal of a friend/lover who has reached out to help you? Should you deny yourself love with someone
truly good out of loyalty to someone who deceived you? The cost of Holly’s betrayal is the blood of his
friend on his hands and the loss of Anna from his life. Anna loses the promise of safety and security by
rejecting the help of the man who betrayed her former lover.

Holly and Harry Lime can be seen as mirror images of one another, much like Angel and Angelus. This
relationship is accentuated by the similarity of their first names. Anna calls Holly Harry at several points,
emphasizing the close relationship of the two men and her conflicted feelings about them. Holly is also
Wesley, seeking to prevent Lime’s destruction and causing it in the end. He also seeks the love of a
woman whose heart belongs to another.

I would rate this as one of the greatest films of its type that I have ever seen. The plot, dialogue, and
characterization are as magnificent as one would expect from an author like Greene. Vienna comes alive
as a fragmented universe of crumbling buildings and anachronistic elegance. The night scenes on the
cobblestone streets are evocative of menace. Faces appear out of shadows, shadows move without
apparent association with bodies, the population vanishes leaving an empty world looking only too ready
for some demon casinos and brothels. Instead we get something far worse, Harry Lime as played by Orson
Welles. Welles doesn’t appear until the film is well over half way through and actually has less screen time
and dialogue (there is only one scene in which he has more than a couple of lines) than many minor
characters. But he fully lives up to the expectations placed on his character in the first hour or so of the
film. Welles creates a figure of menace, a monster, whose evil is generated merely by a bland indifference
to everyone’s welfare but his own and the initiative to act upon that indifference. Lime would have made
an excellent chief executive at Wolfram and Hart.

The film also has a certain wry humour to it. The film’s theme music is played on a zither, a most
un-noirlike instrument. It is almost, but not quite, jaunty. Holly’s adventures in Vienna are punctuated by
bursts of absurdity. For all the tragedy of his situation, Holly is also a ridiculous figure and we are never
completely allowed to forget this. Again, does this seem reminiscent of a certain vampire with a soul with
hair that sticks straight up?

E. Pluribus Noirus, Unum,

matching mole


Technical Key Lime:

The Third Man is available on DVD. (Mole didn’t say what kind of media his review copy was on,
but if you’re gonna make an issue of it, ya big mook, then I’ll just have to get out the brass knuckles and...
oh, wait, that’s a gangster movie cliche, sorry. Never mind! ;-) )

The film was released in 1949, and running time is somewhere between 93 and 104 minutes (depending on
the version, it seems). I don’t know what the original theatrical aspect ratio was, but considering the time
period in which it was made, it is likely either 1.33:1 or 1.66:1. The IMDb lists the original theatrical sound
mix as ‘Western Electric Recording’. (Yeah, it is that long ago). Writing credits go to Graham Greene and
Alexander Korda for the main story, apparently with some contributions by Carol Reed and Orson Welles,
the latter two uncredited. The film was shot in black & white (I certainly hope so! Genuine Noir in
color??) with cinematography by Robert Krasker and film editing by Oswald Hafenrichter.

Cast overview:

Joseph Cotten .... Holly Martins
Alida Valli .... Anna Schmidt
Orson Welles .... Harry Lime
Trevor Howard .... Major Calloway
Paul Hörbiger .... Porter
Ernst Deutsch .... 'Baron' Kurtz
Erich Ponto .... Dr. Winkel
Siegfried Breuer .... Popescu
Hedwig Bleibtreu .... Old Woman
Bernard Lee .... Sergeant Paine
Wilfrid Hyde-White .... Crabbin


A little info on Graham Greene, courtesy of the IMDb::

Birth name: Henry Graham Greene
Date/location of birth: October 2nd 1904, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England
Date of death: April 3rd 1991
Sometimes Credited As: Henry Graham

Writer - filmography:

Quiet American, The (2002) (novel)
Donnie Darko (2001) (story-- The Destructors)
Double Take (2001) (story-- Across the Bridge)
End of the Affair, The (1999) (novel)
This Gun for Hire (1991) (TV) (novel-- A Gun For Hire)
Strike It Rich (1990) (novel-- Loser Takes All)
Tenth Man, The (1988) (TV) (novel)
May We Borrow Your Husband? (1986) (TV) (story)
Monsignor Quixote (1985) (TV) (novel)
Dr. Fischer of Geneva (1985) (TV) (novel)
Heart of the Matter, The (1983) (TV) (novel)
Honorary Consul, The (1983) (novel-- The Honorary Consul)
Shocking Accident, A (1982) (story)
Human Factor, The (1980) (novel)
England Made Me (1973) (novel)
Travels with My Aunt (1972) (novel)
Yarali kurt (1972) (novel-- A Gun for Hire)
Comedians, The (1967) (novel)
Stamboul Train (1962) (TV) (novel)
Power and the Glory, The (1961) (TV) (novel)
Our Man in Havana (1959) (also novel)
Fallen Idol, The (1959) (TV) (story-- The Basement Room)
Quiet American, The (1958) (novel)
Short Cut to Hell (1957) (novel-- A Gun for Sale)
Saint Joan (1957)
Across the Bridge (1957) (story)
Loser Takes All (1956)
End of the Affair, The (1955) (novel)
Heart of the Matter, The (1954) (novel)
Stranger's Hand, The (1952) (story)
Third Man, The (1949) (story)
Fallen Idol, The (1948) (also story)


Miscellaneous & The Question of the Week:

OK, this last weekend was the first time since seeing Lord of the Rings back in late January that
I’ve actually gotten out to see a movie in an actual movie theater, but it was a really good one, so I’m
going to pass it along.

I highly recommend that you check out Changing Lanes, with Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson.
This is not at all what you may expect it to be, and that’s what makes it so great. The ending was just a
little on the unrealistic side, considering what comes before for nearly all of the rest of the film, but please
don’t hold that against it, 95% of Changing Lanes is wonderful.

Now, odds are that I may be back at the helm in my entirety next Friday, I even have a pretty good idea
what film I am going to review based on some spoilery info I innocently stumbled upon (yeah, right!) at the
Trollup board and the C&S last month. This is a film I’ve wanted to cover for over a year now, but it just
never seemed to be a perfect match up with any eps. The decision won’t be final until after next weeks eps
of course, but... well, you’ll just have to wait.

Now the usual suspects.. err, Question:

Do you get time to get out to watch all the movies that you are interested in seeing in theatrical release, or
do you find that you have to really pick and choose because of seemingly endless time constraints? Do you
make up for it with video, or just not get to see all that many movies in a year’s time?

So, give one more big ol’ thanks to mole for his able assistance in keeping the CMotW afloat for yet
another week, and then post ‘em if you’ve got ‘em, as always.

Thanks, and take care!



[> An addendum -- matching mole, 05:36:42 05/04/02 Sat

First thanks back to OnM who did, as always, an excellent job of editing and packaging the review.

I watched a cheap videotape of the film, one the few tapes of a film that I actually own. I bought it in Phoenix because the video store I frequented at the time didn't have a copy to rent and I wanted to rewatch it. It lists only Graham Greene as writer so my apologies for neglecting Alexander Korda. In his foreword to the novel of The Third Man, I believe that Greene does mention this as being the only fiction he produced primarily for film but I could be misremembering as it has been many years since I read the book.

My main reason for writing this addendum is that OnM's list of Greene's works that have been filmed reminded me of a comment that I had intended make in the review and forgot while actually in the process of composition. In the early part of his writing career Greene's long fiction was divided into two distinct and clearly labelled categories: novels and entertainments. The novels emphasized psychology and character development, the entertainments plot and suspense (although all of his works had all these elements) Greene's first entertainment was Stamboul Train his fourth published novel-length work and the first to be really financially successful. For some time thereafter Greene wrote entertainments to pay the bills and novels to say what he really wanted to say. He applied his talents equally to both but it seems clear that he regarded the entertainments as inferior.

However in later years Greene looked back on his entertainments much more fondly (as did the critics). And I would propose a parallel to AtS and BtVS over the last couple of seasons. If BtVS is a novel then AtS is an entertainment and, at least in my humble opinion, that is no reason for rating one above or below the other except in terms of personal preference.

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - May 3rd 2002 -- Cactus Watcher, 13:01:36 05/04/02 Sat

The title theme from "The Third Man" was a huge hit single. (All the music in the film is played on a solo zither.) In those days the preferred medium for singles was the very breakable, 78rpm record. For those to young to remember them, you may recall Donna Read breaking one of 'Buffalo Gals' in disgust over Jimmy Stewart's apparent disinterest in her in "It a Wonderful Life." Yep that's a single she breaking.

When "The Third Man" was playing regularly on TV, I was too young to stay up late enough to watch it. I was told by everyone who had see it, it was not as good as the popularity of the record made it seem (A few years later the movie "A Summer Place" got the same kind of reviews).

I didn't see the movie until recently, when like mm I bought it here in Phoenix. It was at a drugstore and at a steep discount.

Frankly, the movie does drag quite a bit, and it is certainly not one of Joseph Cotton's best films. But, it does have rememorable moments, especially when Valli or Welles are the center of the camera's focus. The scene on the ferris wheel is one of the best. The sewer scene at the end was considered a triumph at the time it was filmed, but now it seems more than a little dated.

[> Great choice, other mm -- mundusmundi, 17:23:16 05/04/02 Sat

Its non-American mise-en-scene notwithstanding, I'd argue that The Third Man is a true noir. Rich in Viennese atmosphere, steeped in postwar disillusionment, it may be the truest ever.

I also agree that AtS has many elements of neo- noir: a hero with a dark side; a seedy milieu; a femme fatale (Lilah); and enjoyably convoluted plots that frequently don't make sense. It seems to weird to say this, but Angel is really far more hopeful than most noir. The final shot of The Third Man is more wrenching than any season-ending episode of the series.

[> Thanks for your comments -- matching mole, 05:59:09 05/05/02 Sun

Mundus - I think your point about AtS being more optimistic than most Film Noir is very well taken. The rathe dramatic shifts in tone in AtS are a big part of what makes it so appealing to me.

CW - your comments about the Third Man not aging well reminded me of a very funny little bit of satire I once came across (no idea where now) in which film students and amateur film afficionadoes were lured to their doom by film critics heaping lavish praise on 6 hour long silent film epics. I've certainly been there and I've learned that I can't really appreciate silent films (with a few exceptions). My favourite critic may rate something a masterpiece but what I see is a bunch of exagerated gestures and a certain amount of difficulty in figuring out what the heck is going on.

Now with the films of the 30s and 40s the position is reversed. I love those films so much (in general more than current mainstream Hollywood productions) that I have lured people into watching them who were completely baffled by my praise. Having said that I would still hold with my personal opinion of The Third Man as being one of the best films I've ever seen.

[> [> Re: Thanks for your comments -- CW, 08:22:47 05/05/02 Sun

Some of my favorite films are old Russian 'classics' like the silent "Battleship Potemkin' and "Alexander Nevsky." If I watch them too closely the acting is hammy and the story line a tad silly. But, I tend to be more tolerant of the limitations of the silent era, in general, and earlier non- English-speaking talking films. Not fair, but that's life (grin). I have some quibbles with "The Third Man," but I haven't thrown it out, either. And considering what I paid for it, I could well afford to.

[> [> [> My copy of the third man -- matching mole, 08:35:49 05/05/02 Sun

I bought it at Target (for non-Americans a relatively 'high class' bargain department store if such a conflicting description makes sense) for about $5 I think. I wonder if Phoenix is flooded with cheap copies of The Third Man.

[> [> [> [> Must be. Mine was $2. -- CW, 08:39:30 05/05/02 Sun

[> [> Having just purchased the DVD yesterday... -- OnM, 08:37:40 05/05/02 Sun

I may be able to chime in with an updated opinion in some future column-- it's been decades since I saw The Third Man, and my memory of anything other than the overall mood and very general plot outline is very fuzzy.

It does happen that something you saw once and really liked doesn't hold up with the 'test of time', but OTOH there are those films (TV shows, music, art, etc.) that you aren't all that impressed with when you first see them, and then sometime in the future you experience them again, and something just clicks-- Oh, I get it! Cool!!

Musically, I remember Pink Floyd's epic album The Wall was like that. It was very late and I was tired when I heard it for the first time, and I can remember thinking, gee, how disappointing for Floyd. (I was a big- time Floydian in the day, still greatly admire the early to later-middle works).

So I shelved the album for several months, but kept hearing all these rave reviews, so one afternoon I put it on again and sat down to listen.


I generally like the Noir motif, although like anything it can be overdone. Mole is right in the way Angel plays around with the conventions of the genre, while simultaneously paying homage to them. I also liked the comments about Greene and the 'serious works' vs. the 'entertainments'. Buffy may be the 'serious work' and Angel the 'entertainment', but it's a false division-- it's like saying 'apples' and 'oranges'.

They're both tasty in their own right, aren't they? Why should it be either/or?

Anne Rice is certainly best known for her Vampire novels, but many people think highly of the erotic fiction she wrote years ago under various pseudonyms.

So, distance gives perspective, although as always you will have personal tastes entering the mix. I recall Siskel & Ebert giving a huge thumbs up to The Great Santini. I hated it, still do. I just couldn't identify with the character, and perhaps that's because the lead actor did such a good job bringing the character to reality.

(Uh-oh, rambling alert... better stop now!)


The Lawyers of Wolfram & Hart -- SableHart, 11:52:49 05/04/02 Sat

I'm new to the board, so please forgive me if you guys have already discussed this. I noticed a while ago that most of the lawyers working at Wolfram & Hart have the initials LM: Lindsay McDonald, Lilah Morgan, Linwood Murrow, Lee Mercer, Holland Manners (a stretch). The only two who don't are Nathan Reed and Gavin Park. Does anyone have any theories about the possible symbolism behind LM? I thought that it might be an allusion to Lucifer and Mephistopheles, Satan and his lackey in Faustian legend. Does anyone else have an idea, or am I way out in left field?

[> Welcome to the board -- vampire hunter D, 12:31:16 05/04/02 Sat

Let me be the first to welcome you to the board. We always love hearing from new people. Post as often a you like, and be sure to try and join us in the chatroom sometime.

As for the LM thing, it has been noted and dicussed, but none of us know what it means (if it means anything at all. It is possible that it is just a big coincidence). I have a theory that the initials LM may have some sort of personal meaning to either Joss or David Greenburg, and are not symbolic of anything in literature or mythology. But that's just my theory

Entropy--and a parallel in Middlemarch (spoilers for Entropy) -- J.Nina, 15:14:41 05/05/02 Sun

I've been reading the amazing commentaries on this board for a year now, but haven't posted before. Thank you, all, for providing such an imaginative and intelligent forum! I've saved many of your commentaries and am trying to figure out how to use them when I teach (literature, of course). The commentaries on this board are some of the best critical essays that I've read in the past decade, and some--the best I've ever read! (If only academic writing were always this enlightening and alive and passionate--and readable.)

I just finished reading/teaching Middlemarch, so that was/is still on my mind thinking about Entropy. On another board last year I participated in a few discussions about the similarities between the S/B relationship and Elizabeth/Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, their initial aversion and the dawning awareness of their attraction, and how much aversion each has to overcome in order to connect, and the complexity of the "dance" they engage in as their relationship develops. Though there are some interesting parallels to other literary couples, for me, the Elizabeth/Darcy relationship still offers a relevant parallel, despite how dark and sad Spike and Buffy's relationship has become. What is still evident to me is how much their verbal play embodies their ongoing dance, even when Buffy insists it's over.

So, now, Middlemarch--and Entropy. One of the most amazing scenes in Middlemarch occurs when Dorothea suddenly sees Will and Rosamond together looking like lovers in an embrace. Dorothea is devastated, much the way Buffy looks after she's seen Spike and Anya. Dorothea goes home and cries, and acknowledges for the first time how much she loved Will, and rages and grieves for the loss and betrayal. The reader sees the scene between Will and Rosamund, after Dorothea leaves, in much the same way we see the scene between Spike and Anya. The reader/viewer sees what really motivates both sets of characters. Will has told Rosamond how much he loves Dorothea and now has no hope his love will ever be returned. He feels he must now leave Middlemarch and Dorothea forever. He feels cursed that he can never explain the moment to Dorothea, for many reasons--he doesn't want to correct Dorothea's misunderstanding by betraying Rosamond, and he thinks that any excuse or explanation will seem shabby, will sound like nothing more than a selfish rationalization for an inexcusable affair.

I don't think Spike can explain himself to Buffy either; he has sought to comfort and be comforted in a moment of sadness and grief, has shown the kind of humanity and restraint that we admire and sympathize with. But from Buffy's perspective, Spike's version of what happened would sound like nothing more than a shabby and selfish excuse for sex. She still doesn't believe he's capable of profound feeling. In Middlemarch, it's Rosamond who tells Dorothea what really happened; Rosamond is so tormented by Will's rage (and Dorothea's goodness) that she confesses to Dorothea what really happened. I haven't read spoilers, so I don't know what will happen in the next episode--I hope Anya will tell Buffy what happened, since Spike can't. I think Anya still has a lot of credibility. (It'd be ironically fitting for Anya to confirm Spike's humanity, since it was Xander who challenged Buffy about Riley and the meaning of love last season, at the end of Into the Woods.) And I'm still hoping it's not too late for Buffy to recognize that she does love Spike. It's when she thinks she's lost Will for good that Dorothea realizes how much she loves him; perhaps this will wake Buffy up.

Back to the less real task of grading!

[> fresne, please read! -- Vickie, 18:19:25 05/05/02 Sun

Welcome to the board, J. Nina, and thanks for your thoughtful post.

I enjoyed your comments regarding P&P very much. Last spring some time, fresne posted a link to a satiric P7P with all the Whedonverse characters substituted in for the Austen ones. I hope fresne will see this and give us the link.

I'll be very surprised if Anya or Spike say anything at all to justify their moment. Anya's not in the habit of confiding in anyone but Xander (well, maybe Halfrek), and Spike seems to talk only to Buffy. Time will tell.

A better parallel to Middlemarch, imho, might be if Spike tells Xander what really happened (as I think Xanya is the more solid relationship). I think you'll agree that has almost no possibility of ever happening.

[> [> Re: The link is... -- LittleBIt, 18:52:30 05/05/02 Sun

Joss Whedon's Pride and Prejudice

[> [> [> Re: The link is... -- J.Nina, 21:08:56 05/05/02 Sun

Many thanks for this link. It looks wonderful.


[> Nicely done. Welcome to the Board. -- Sophist, 18:21:15 05/05/02 Sun

[> [> Thank you for the welcome! -- J.Nina, 07:46:05 05/06/02 Mon

[> Re: Other parallels with Middlemarch -- dream of the consortium, 08:18:36 05/06/02 Mon

Though there is no real Causabon figure in Buffy (I suppose I could really anger some people and claim it's Angel), I do think that the Will/Dorothea relationship has some interesting parallels. After all, Will represents Dorothea's acceptance of her own imperfection and, more importantly, her own carnality. Initially she chooses a man for abstract reasons, for the chance to become, through him, a better person, to devote her life to service. There has never been that sort of self-sacrifical idealism in Buffy's relationships, except perhaps in the name of true love with Angel. But with Spike, she allowed herself to be physically free in way she had not with earlier relationships - her desire ruled over her common sense, which is very much what Dorothea finally allowed herself with Will. Also, one could say that Dorothea does actually lower herself. Will is a good man, but hardly a paragon, and I think many readers have been a bit disappointed to find that the perfect Dorothea winds up with just...Will. He doesn't seem to deserve her. Well, he may not, but she loves him and is happy - and she has taken the pressure to be perfect off herself. I don't believe that that is the route ME is going to take with Spuffy, and Spike certainly has much deeper flaws than Will, but you never know. And I certainly hope that the revelation of the Spuffy relationship will bring about something of the same sort of self-acceptance in Buffy that Dorothea ultimately found.

By the way, Middlemarch is my favorite novel.

[> [> Re: Other parallels with Middlemarch -- J.Nina, 19:23:31 05/06/02 Mon

I think those are important parallels that you mention, the ways in which Will helps Dorothea to feel freely, to become herself more fully. (Is this what G.H. Lewes did for M.A. Evans?) Will is always the one who challenges her with painful truths, especially about Casaubon. Most of the time, he's a more gentle truth-teller than Spike, and Dorothea is more receptive than Buffy has been (even though it often hurts a lot).

My students aren't disappointed that she ends up with Will; they love Will (and so do I). Dorothea's family/friends are the ones who are most troubled by her choice; they're the ones who have demonized Will, but they come around, as I hope/expect the scoobies will do, when/if Buffy accepts herself and Spike, with all their imperfections.

I love Middlemarch, too. I think Eliot's insights into courtship/marriage and relationships, art and politics, and hypocrisy and human nature are profound. I was so worried that my students would find her philosophical reflections boring, but they were mostly amazed at how fresh and relevant she is, and really loved the novel.


how was that the price? (spoilers) -- anom, 22:20:44 05/05/02 Sun

I've been thinking (too much?) about this for much of the week, & the more I think about it the less I get it: how was what we saw in The Price actually the price for what Angel did in 2 episodes ago? A plague of shrimp, losing (permanently) a new client, the threat of losing Fred...& the return of Connor. What do any of these have to do w/Angel's trying to kill Wesley, kidnapping & threatening to torture Linwood, & invoking the darkest of dark magics to solidify Sahjhan?

Apparently the shrimp-things' presence, & therefore all the events related to it, had to do w/Connor's impending arrival. They were there because he was going to come back anyway. Now, everything Angel did in Forgiveness was to try to bring him back, but none of it was a direct attempt to do so. As far as we can tell, he's back because Holtz sent him back--nobody at AI or even W&H opened the portal (or whatever it was) he came through. It's more like a case of "be careful what you wish for (or betray your principles for), you might get it." Angel did get what he betrayed his principles for (& classically, not in the form he wanted), but not because he betrayed them.

So how was any of the events of The Price either a direct consequence or a side effect of Angel's actions? And if none of it was, is the real price still to come?

[> Re: how was that the price? (spoilers) -- Dochawk, 07:49:46 05/06/02 Mon

This is the same question I had about Afterlife. Was the appearance of that demon really the price of Buffy being brought back to life? These two episodes are truly very similar and someone with more talent than I have should be comparing them.

[> [> Re: how was that the price? (spoilers) -- maddog, 08:33:31 05/06/02 Mon

I think Afterlife was completely different. The point of the "price" in that case was that it was much more personal(as this whole season has been). The point was that the real price was how it affected Buffy, and the way that destroyed the group chemistry because they were all walking on egg shells and she kept her secret from them. This whole season's about the choices we make and living with the consequences. And that's no more apparent than in this situation.

[> [> don't think it's the same -- anom, 09:28:25 05/06/02 Mon

"This is the same question I had about Afterlife. Was the appearance of that demon really the price of Buffy being brought back to life?"

Well, as Anya said, technically it was a gift with purchase. But at least in that case, it was explicitly related to the use of magic to bring Buffy back.

I don't think that's the case in The Price, despite what maddog says below. Did Angel open a portal to Quortoth? According to Lorne, that's not possible. And Sahjhan was already in this* dimension, so any portal would have been local, so to speak. I suppose we can't rule out that his material substance was in some other dimension, but I also don't see any basis for that, & even if that's the case, there's no reason to think it was in Quortoth. Of course, we can't assume Connor came directly from Quortoth either--he could have been somewhere else in between--but portals we've seen so far have been pretty specific, from one place to another, or at least one dimension to another. (Yes, Cordelia & Lorne's cousin went through the same portal to different locations, but they still went to the same dimension.) For Connor to have been brought through the same portal as Sahjhan (who didn't go to the same location), he would already have had to be in this dimension.

*Meaning Earth, even though Angel & co. don't exactly live in the same world we do. (my first footnote foray!)

[> [> [> Re: The Price is Right or What's Behind Portal #1?(Spoiler for The Price) -- SpikeMom, 11:02:41 05/06/02 Mon

In regards to prices for magic use:

In Superstar, Jonathan's price for his glamour spell was the appearance of a rather nasty demon who was determined to destroy the caster of the spell.

In Wrecked, Willow's price for her magic "high" was another rather nasty demon determined to destroy the person who "called" it.

In Afterlife, the price for the Scoobies' resurrection spell is a "hitch-hiking" demon looking to destroy the spellcaster(s). When it appears to Willow and Tara in the form of Buffy, the accusations it makes seem to refer to the death of the fawn.

In Angel's Price, the jelly shrimp don't seem to be playing the demon role. To me they are more like rats deserting a sinking ship, or in this case getting out of the way of the Destroyer. They aren't attacking people in this dimension as punishment, they are just trying to find a host to help them survive in a dry and hostile environment. My guess is they haven't seen the true Price for solidifying Sahjan yet. And will there be a Price for whatever it was the Destroyer had to do to open his portal?

Oh and what about Holtz's and Sahjan's Prices for the incredibly dark magics they have been harnessing? So far Holtz is still in a hellish (we assume) dimension by his own choice and Sahjan is just stuck in a jar.

Re the portal question:

It's been made pretty clear (by Sahjan if you believe him)that no one can open another portal INTO Quortoth, but what if it's possible to OPEN a portal (as often as you like) out of Quortoth? None of the characters that I can recall have stated that's not possible.

[> [> [> [> Re: Possible Metaphor in The Price (Spoilers) -- Age, 16:54:29 05/06/02 Mon

The shrimp-like creatures are the demon equivalent of the snow in the snow globe. There is a dichotomy/conflict between Angel's world/the hotel cracking up(as the walls are and the people do when they get dried out) and the hotel(snowglobe) being shut tight(although the cracks mean that no matter how tight Angel shuts the hotel/globe, the water will still get out and the snow/shrimp-like creatures will still dry out). One of the biggest cracks in the hotel/globe is the portal through which Connor arrives.

The creatures are trying to do two things: get back to their wet world, ie get back to the snow globe environment; and, escape something. They express what Angel is trying to do: he is trying to patch up his world, getting back to what it was without Connor, and thus at the same time trying to avoid the pain that is the memory of his son. His moving on is a form of moving back, and puts everyone in danger. He has brought everyone this darkness through his actions, and so it is he who orders the hotel lights to go out.

I assume that Cordelia's deus ex machina bright resolution of the shrimp problem may signify the restoration of the connection to the Powers that Be after the reiteration of her role to Angel(the demon powers represent her having accepted for the rest of her life this role); and/or Cordy's bringing the lights back on may simply represent her influence in Angel's life, bringing him out of his darkness through the influence not only of his love for her, but of her strong character. She simply makes that much difference. The reference to the Powers that Be(from season three of 'Buffy') in regards to the snow of the snow globe may indicate that indeed Cordy and the shrimp-like creatures becoming one to send them off somewhere(?) represents the intervention of the Powers.

When the shrimp-like creatures attempt to get back to what they had, ie get back metaphorically to the water world of the snow globe, they dry out their human hosts. That way lies death, a death very much like what a vampire would experience, except much slower, ie turn to dust.

Hope that helps the discussion.


[> [> [> [> [> welcome back! haven't seen you in (you know i have to...) an age! -- anom, 22:29:55 05/06/02 Mon

Interesting thoughts, as always. Maybe I'll have time to actually respond to them sometime when it's not so late.

[> Re: how was that the price? (spoilers) -- maddog, 08:27:44 05/06/02 Mon

That plague of "shrimp" were a direct result of Angel opening up the portal...and I think the problems they caused(including Gunn having to go to Wesley to find a cure for Fred is a big relation to that) are all what make up "The Price". So he had a direct price to pay(infestation) and an indirect one(putting the whole group in danger).

[> [> Re: how was that the price? (spoilers) -- pr10n, 12:54:27 05/06/02 Mon

I'm thinking along these lines, too -- that whoever works the mojo will pay the Price. That idea points to Angel as the Payer, and therefore to Willow as the Payer on the Buffy side of things. INCOMING, Angel and Willow?

But what happened to Cordy? Filled with light-booming power because she held a glowing shrimp? Mayhaps more there than we've seen, too.

[> [> [> Re: Cordy and Price (spoilers) -- SpikeMom, 13:29:02 05/06/02 Mon

Why indeed did the jelly shrimp disappear when one of them touched Cordy? Were they able to use her (some demon aspect) to open a portal to another safer dimension? Did they actually manage to open a portal BACK into Quortoth because of her? Does that mean the appearance of the demon and the Destroyer immediately after that was because Cordy/jelly shrimp opened the portal, and who's paying the price for that? Was the demon with the Destroyer the "Price"? Oy, my head hurts. Only 7.5 hours til the next Angel episode, thank the Powers That Be!

[> Re: how was that the price? (spoilers) -- Cecilia, 07:59:08 05/07/02 Tue

The price that is often referred to when contemplating dark magic seems to me to be a cosmic realignment or balancing of the scales. There needs to be equal parts dark and light, good and evil (the PTB's are all about balance not the inherent need for good).

I don't think we've seen the price yet for either Angel or Willow. I personally think Willow's is going to be higher as I think resurrection is very strictly verboten. I also think the price will be very, very personal.

The appearance of the see through squid or the hitchhiker demon are, as Anya put it, gifts with purchase, a side affect of the spell as opposed to the cost of doing the spell.

The WC and the other Slayers -- skeeve, 08:57:21 05/06/02 Mon

Just rewatched part of Kendra's coming out party on FX this morning. For some reason, the WC never told Giles about the new Slayer. Did the memo get lost? Also, either another memo got lost or the WC wasn't exactly waiting with bated breath for the report on Buffy's death. The WC would know there was a new Slayer and they know what causes new Slayers.

Another thing. Why isn't the WC trying to kill Faith? It's clear that they want a new Slayer and they know how to get one.

BTW what would Kendra think of Buffy's Class Protector award?

[> Re: The WC and the other Slayers -- SingedCat, 10:24:08 05/06/02 Mon

For some reason, the WC never told Giles about the new Slayer. Did the memo get lost?

That's probably what they told him; I find it as unconvincing as the first time. It has seemed to me many times that the WC is a bureacratic dinosaur that allows political infighting(i.e.they don't like Giles) to get in the way of their efficient operation. What a bunch of stuffed shirts. (that last was just an editorial comment. :))

Another thing. Why isn't the WC trying to kill Faith? It's clear that they want a new Slayer and they know how to get one.

Either they have decided it would be too overtly evil to kill Faith while she's in rahb, or they're taking the long view that another will come up eventually-- or maybe the paperwork just hasn't come through yet. :D

BTW what would Kendra think of Buffy's Class Protector award?

She'd tell her it was a flagrant violation for the SLayer to be publicly recognized, vain & self-aggrandizing besides (if she knows that word) and then tell her it was a sweet thing for them to do, and be happy for her. SHe was by the bok, but she was (eventually) cool about it.

[> [> Duplicate Slayer Problems -- DickBD, 11:06:07 05/06/02 Mon

I think the writers got themselves in a little trouble in regard to consistency with the duplicate slayers. My understanding is that there is only one slayer in all the world. But Faith comes on the scene as though she has been doing it for a while. (The same with Kendra.) Of course, we can blame it on the WC; none of us likes them anyway. And we don't want to admit that JW is infallible--or his writers! (Hey, I'm kinda getting with this acronym thing. I say that with a self-effacing grin, as I am usually puzzling over them.)

[> [> [> Re: Duplicate Slayer Problems -- MikeJ, 13:06:38 05/06/02 Mon

Well, Faith could have technically BEEN doing it before she became a Slayer, depending on how you look at it. It's been suggested in the past [mostly during episodes with Kendra] that the Council becomes aware of girls who have the possibility of being a Slayer should the current one perish. Faith did originally have a Watcher, and she could have been training Faith on how to fight, kill Vampires/Demons, etc. up to and through the point when Kendra was killed by Drusilla, which caused Faith's latent slayer abilities to come to fruition. Then of course, Faith's Watcher got killed, and she ended up in Sunnydale, yadda yadda yadda.

[> [> [> [> pre-slayer training -- skeeve, 14:52:12 05/06/02 Mon

My recollection is that sometimes, it might even be the norm, the WC can identify the particular next slayer before she is called. In Buffy's case, she wasn't even on their list, although Whistler knew about her.

It just occurred to me that that might be why they don't kill Faith. They don't know who, if anyone, will replace her.

The first memo problem was probably accidental. I see no up side to it, even for some petty person with a dislike for Giles.
On the other hand, sending another slayer to Sunnydale without telling the local watcher does seem to be a bit of petty rudeness.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: pre-slayer training -- AgnosticSorcerer, 15:54:40 05/06/02 Mon

If you recall though in the original Buffy movie, Buffy possessed many instincts of a trained slayer. Perhaps training is simply the honing of innate abilities for the slayer?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Some answers from the comics and timing of the slayers -- Dochawk, 18:27:57 05/06/02 Mon

Regarding Kendra and faith having some practice before cming to Sunnydale, Remember that Both had at least 4 or 5 months of being slayer before they show up (Buffyverse works in a warped real time, the three month hiatus is the three month summer vacation). After the master killed Buffy it was 6 months before Kendra showed up in Sunnydale (and obviously her watcher didn't know of Buffy's resurection) and Faith had even longer.

Also the WC often knows who the potential girls are before they are called. They have some special abilities as they are developing and according to the comics, if the WC knows of a potential slayer, they send a watcher to develop her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: pre-slayer training -- Simon A,, 16:21:09 05/07/02 Tue

Perhaps training merely convinces the slayers that not all of their powers are innate, and that therefore they need the WC?
Of course, my theory has been that due to unspecified, off camera internal WC politics, when it was overdue for Giles to get a slayer, they gave him a raw untrained one with an even shorter than average projected life expectancy. Something akin to the habit of the college of cardinals naming somebody realy OLD to be pope when they can't come to agreement. One suspects that they were quite disapointed that Buffy didn't stay dead . It is concievable that Giles may not have disabused them of the notion that Buffy remained dead, perhaps to give himself a freer hand.

[> Re: The WC and the other Slayers -- LittleBIt, 14:40:19 05/06/02 Mon

Actually I've often wondered just exactly what the Watchers' Council does. There have been a few hints dropped throughout the seasons.

They definitely identify and train potential slayers, though their mechanism for identification is never described, nor is at terribly efficient since they never picked up on Buffy until she was Chosen, yet Kendra was in training since she was very young. Which means there's probably several young women brought up in societal isolation on the off chance that may be Chosen to battle the forces of evil and die young. No actual time-frame is ever offered for Faith, although the bits of background she does give would indicate that she was found later rather than sooner.

The council also has vast research resources, probably networked worldwide to assist the slayer in her duties. Not that they are very forthcoming with it unless they are also in control of it, but possibly just the gathering of information makes them feel powerful.

There may also be some kind of WC academic training, at least I hope that a thesis on Spike or William the Bloody wasn't the usual presentation at Oxford or Cambridge. They must also provide physical training in a range of fighting techniques from hand-to-hand to martial arts to classic dueling skills. It's not clear at what age the WC brings their students in, although it does seem to be a family business (both Giles' father and Wesley's father were/are Watchers). Not certain if self-righteousnes and arrogance are a special class or just taught as an overall attitude.

Within the council it appears there may be areas of specialization. Some may excel at research, others at physical training, yet others are trained as a special ops unit for handling the council's 'trickier' jobs. It is not clear just what the qualifications are for one to be assigned as a Watcher to a Slayer.

There are disciplinary measures within the WC. Giles is fired when he fails to keep his distance during the cruciamentum; Gwendolyn Post is dismissed when she dabbles too far into teh dark arts; Wesley is ultimately fired as well. It seems that the WC is willing to just toss out anyone who fails to meet their standards without much care for the knowledge they have.

With their excelling at self-importance, political in- fighting and rigid adherence to an archaic rules system, the WC is finding itself more at odds with the Slayers than they ever have. One Slayer has rejected their authority, another has rejected everything they stand for.

Any other thoughts on the WC?

[> [> The WC and the other Slayers -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:37:17 05/06/02 Mon

By the way, Little Bit, my apologies for the excess unacknowledged spoilers in previous entry.

Regarding this topic, I've worked for a major bureaucracy (which will remain nameless.) One of the most realistic parts of BtVS is that the Watcher's Council has been able to convince itself that what is really for the institution's own good is essential for the world's welfare. It's all too easy for intelligent people to fool themselves into believing that their own interest is identical with the ostensible mission of the organization. Kudos to JW & Co.

[> [> Excellent post, LittleBit. -- Ixchel, 19:17:07 05/06/02 Mon

I completely agree with your assessment of the CoW. The only thing they ever really did for Buffy was send her Giles (a watcher who cared about her and didn't treat her like a clever attack dog). And then, when they discovered what they had done (and apparently other watchers had made the "mistake" of having a bond with their Slayer), they tried to take him away from her. I think the CoW's policy of finding potential Slayers, isolating them from family, prohibiting friends and ensuring a detatched watcher was completely to _its_ benefit. The psychological wear and loneliness of their lives without the support (and important help) of loved ones seems to guarantee Slayers a short life. An endless sequence of naive, confused, and (most importantly) _isolated_, teenage girls (who live one to two years and are then replaced by the next girl) are (in theory) far easier to control than a confident, knowledgeable, woman.


[> Re: The WC and the other Slayers -- Cecilia, 07:46:00 05/07/02 Tue

I would assume that Giles would make regular reports to the WC and that would include Buffy's untimely death and resurrection. Of course they are aware of Kendra's calling as well as Faith's, again because Giles probably reported Kendra's death to them.

By the very fact that Buffy was able to be drowned then be revived and still retain her Slayer strength and abilities while the lineage of Slayers passed on to Kendra and then to Faith shows that all "potential" slayers must have some abilities prior to being chosen.

This is how I see it: Some girls have the potential to be Slayers and the WC is able to indentify some (but clearly not all in Buffy's case), contact and work with them. But the passing on of the true Slayer power is beyond their knowledge, control and probably their comprehension. In their "pre-chosen" state these girls likely have some strength and ability to fight vampires and becoming "chosen" means some kind of spiritual awakening of the total power they hold within. Kind of like a key. If this was not the case then logically after Buffy drowned she would not be able to regain her strength and "Slayerness", so it must have been something innate within her that, once realized, can never be undone.

I find the statement "There is only one Slayer" less than credible because you have to look at the source: The Watcher's Council. They are rather well known for taking a stand on a subject and not changing their opinions, ever! (For instance, their attitude towards Angel-if they were truly interested in fighting evil instead maintaining their bureacratic control over slayers, they would jump at the chance to at least study him-don't you think?)

Alexis Denisof answers a few questions-- character/actor paralells?(spoil- free speculation!) -- SingedCat, 09:20:54 05/06/02 Mon

Just found this, and really enjoyed reading about AD. Very charming. It's neat that he's dating Allison Hannigan. (or was last time I checked)

Denisof did this questionnaire almost a year ago. As I read it I can't help but remember that the writers on both shows tend to work the issues of the actors themselves into the scripts. Which makes his comments on Hamlet, and Wesley's sense of right,(at least) kinda stand out, whaddya think?

What word best describes you?


What is your all-time favorite line of your character?

"Dear God... that's...yummy." (After drinking blood as Angel).

What aspect of your character would you like to have?

His intelligence and his certainty of what's right and wrong, good and bad.

If you could play any other role on The WB, who would it be?

No, I like Wesley, I'll stick with him.

If you could have one superpower, what would it be?

Ability to breathe underwater- you get two for one because it feels like flying when you swim underwater, plus you get to hang out with fish and dolphins and sea lions and stuff.

Define the perfect day?

The perfect day must include:
Wake up with the person you love.
Something good to eat.
Somewhere cool to go.
Something cool to see.
Something cool to do.
A hug.
A nap.

Which person - living, dead or fictional - do you most identify with?

Hamlet. We both think about things too much and try to make decisions in the present that will determine the future. It doesn't work, the future is unknown.

What quality in yourself would you like to improve?

I really can't think of one - hey! I must be perfect! Just kidding, there's too many to list.

What book or movie title best describes your life so far?

Everybody Poops.

If you could only eat one type of food for the rest of your life, what would it be?


What's your favorite movie of all-time?

That's impossible to answer.

What's your biggest complaint in life?

The 24-hour day is a little too short.

Who are your favorite actors?

Marlon Brando, Alec Guinness, and Peter Sellers.

Name your greatest achievement.

Admitting when I lied.

Name your greatest regret.

When I lied.

What do you like most about Hollywood?

Palm trees.

What do you deplore most about Hollywood?

Air quality.

If you weren't in show business, you would be?

A glass blower.

What's something in the world you'd like to see outlawed?


What do you like most about the holidays?

My family being together - it feels safe somehow.

its just TV - - 110v3w1110w, 10:53:24 05/06/02 Mon

i just watched seeing red and it deeply upset me and i came to realise that i actualy care about and get upset when things happen to them which is what worries me. is it normal to care about and feel emotions about fictional characters ? its not as if i am totaly lacking other things in my life buffy and angel is the only thing i watch on TV apart from the news and some MTV and that is it. i have a job that i quite like and have a good social life and other shows that i have watched in the past never made me care it was just entertaining. i was just wondering if anyone else feels anything about the characters or maybe i need to stop watching i am thinking about seeing a shrink. hope this isn't to off topic if it is then sorry

[> Vague Spoiler in above Post -- DickBD, 11:17:20 05/06/02 Mon

You know, I think part of the charm of the show is that there is depth to the characters. You get so you feel like you know them. You're normal (again!), or we're all crazy. I have personally grown so attached to the Scooby Gang that I don't think I would care to meet the actual actors. I think I would have really been upset about Oz leaving if I had been watching then. If they can upset us by killing off a character (like Joyce), they've done a good job. And we know that is true. I think the depth of the characters is the reason for all the shippers.

[> Vague Spoiler in above Post -- DickBD, 11:17:31 05/06/02 Mon

You know, I think part of the charm of the show is that there is depth to the characters. You get so you feel like you know them. You're normal (again!), or we're all crazy. I have personally grown so attached to the Scooby Gang that I don't think I would care to meet the actual actors. I think I would have really been upset about Oz leaving if I had been watching then. If they can upset us by killing off a character (like Joyce), they've done a good job. And we know that is true. I think the depth of the characters is the reason for all the shippers.

[> Re: its just TV -- Deeva, 11:54:07 05/06/02 Mon

Anytime you involve yourself with anything it will affect you. The degree of feeling depends on how much you actually like the show, character, movie or book. And people who don't have a"full" life aren't necessarily the "victims" of such feelings. Like you said, "It's just tv." That can be said to just about anything. It's just a car. It's just a dog. It's just "fill in the blank". But it'll still touch you in someway.

I love this show and its characters. I could talk about it till...the cows come home. Even then I would still talk about it. (Hey, Bessie, you're stepping on my foot there.) You're not imagining things, nor are you alone, when you feel a little crazy over the fact that you care about these characters. We all feel it, just some do more than others.

[> There's nothing wrong with feeling deeply attached to fictional characters... -- Rob, 11:59:26 05/06/02 Mon

A well-written piece of literature or television show can, and should have that effect. That means that the author and actors are doing their job...Convincing you that these are three-dimensional, fully realized, flesh and blood characters, who you can care deeply about, and feel profound sadness when they get hurt.

The only psychological danger can be if one substitutes this fictional world for true socialization in the real world, as a crutch, and that doesn't seem to be a problem for you. I think it's good and healthy to be be so in love with a work of art that truly inspires and touches you. I have not yet seen "Seeing Red," but there are episodes of "Buffy" that have truly affected me..."The Body"..."Becoming"..."The Gift"..."Tough Love" name a few...

And I'm already buying extra supplies of Kleenex for tomorrow night!

Don't worry about it. It's no coincidence that most popular shows, most popular movies, and most popular books out there are fictional. Through fiction, one can examine one's owns trials and tribulations by watching them be played out for others. One can, in short, gain a greater grasp and understanding of one's own humanity by surrendering to a piece of art as profound and moving as "Buffy."


[> [> Agreed! It's not only normal, it's what every artist hopes for. -- Dyna, 13:28:53 05/06/02 Mon

Rob said it best, so I'll just add a little bit: It's totally human and normal to respond to characters in a story in a personal way. It's the hope of every artist that their work will touch others like that, and we love it when it happens--it's what keeps us reading and rereading literary classics, crying when characters die and thrilling when they succeed. We see ourselves in them, and them in ourselves. It's true that not everyone will respond in the same way to a story, and what's deeply affecting to one person will be uninteresting to another. But you're not alone in having a strong emotional response to the characters in "Buffy"--I think the existence of this forum and many, many others devoted to spirited discussion and appreciation of the show and the characters is testament to the power of this particular creation over its audience.

I see it as a very positive thing, a blessing, to be so affected by a work of art. In fact, I think it's pretty much the whole point!

Dyna :)

[> [> [> More agreement -- cynesthesia, 14:33:50 05/06/02 Mon

The playwright John Osborne once said something along the lines that when people saw his plays he didn't want them to think, he wanted them to feel.

I'm still not sure how I got so emotionally invested in this show that honestly isn't even my usual genre of choice. (Not knocking any particular genre, it's just personal inclination.) As has been said, I think it's because the characters are so compelling and alive, er, even when some of them are technically deceased.:)

There are books and movies that continue to haunt me years, sometimes decades, after the fact. I feel like I've been given a gift when I encounter something that powerful.


[> [> [> [> and more... -- redcat, 16:02:32 05/06/02 Mon

This is a bit of a personal reply and I hope it doesn't sound maudlin, or an attempt to elicit sympathy, as that's not my intention. But I empathize with the intensity of 110v3w1110w's emotional relationship to the show and its charcters.

I missed a big chunk of season 5 because I was taking care of my best friend, my older sister who raised me, as she went through the final stages of aggressive, predatory bone cancer. I thus missed the story arc about Joyce’s illness and death the first time those episodes played. “The Body” was telecast just three weeks after my sister died and I was not yet back into watching TV then. When I tried to watch the episode later in re-runs, I found that I couldn’t sit through it. I have it on tape now and, although it’s been over a year, I still find it difficult to watch. Every single thing about Joyce’s illness and death is different than that of my sister -- except the emotions.
The line that always hits the hardest for me is Tara’s last line to Buffy in the following exchange, during the scene where just the two of them sit in the hospital waiting room (thanks to Psyche’s transcripts):

BUFFY: Was it sudden?
TARA: What?
BUFFY: Your mother.
TARA: No. (thinks) Yes. (pauses) It's always sudden.

I don’t think this is the only reason, but perhaps good literature and art can touch us because they say something real, something that captures and expresses a truth that we know, or one that we need to know. And if we’re not affected by that, perhaps it’s because we’re not listening hard enough. So celebrate your humanity! And be glad that you can still feel, cry, laugh, grieve and chuckle - it means you’re paying attention. (Or as Spike would put it, you're "other than dead.")

[> [> Well, how deep are we talking here? -- SingedCat, 16:48:03 05/06/02 Mon

...Because about a week ago it was pretty intense for me. I know that a lot of this has to do with your own definitions, but at least one episode had me preoccupied the whole next day, and on and off for the rest of the week. I actually started writing a fic, and that's intense for me.

Of course you factor in that I recently moved to a new city and it's been hard making new friends, maybe that could count as mitigating circumstance... I just don't want to be one of those people who gets all wrapped up in TV because they're low on human company. But I guess as long as its temporary, I can deal. :)

[> Re: its just TV -- Drizzt, 12:31:16 05/06/02 Mon

Your name is WEIRD!:)
What does it mean???

RE your emotional reaction to the show, I have you beat; I watched The Body from season 5 multiple times. I cried when watching the scene where Buffy discovers Joice's body and vowed "I will find you Buffy, I will heal your mom"

Several posters here have recomended I see a shrink, wich I currently am. I have mentioned my goal to find Buffy to him several times; he does his best to change the subject, instead of actually talking about my goal. I will not mention it to him anymore.
Dear Sub
Existential Magical Theorist

Hope this makes you feel less upset about how much the show afected you...

[> [> Never give up, never surrender ! :) -- Ete, 13:06:57 05/06/02 Mon

Courage, Drizzt, I trust that somewhere, even far far away, Buffy is waiting for you to find her and help her !

[> [> Re: I think her name is the liscense plate version of "I LOVE WILLOW" -- dochawk, 15:49:29 05/06/02 Mon

[> [> [> Re: I think her name is the liscense plate version of "I LOVE WILLOW" -- 110v3w1110w, 17:03:38 05/06/02 Mon

well first i am a guy which is why i am worried cause i don't want to turn into a big girl :) just kidding about the big girl but it is worrying secondly Drizzt i guess you must have once played ultima online :)

also sorry about the overuse of smileys

[> [> [> [> Re: I think her name is the liscense plate version of "I LOVE WILLOW" -- Drizzt, 19:54:59 05/06/02 Mon

You think I must have played Ultima Online?
True, but I do not know what that has to do with anything?

To clarify my goal; I intend to learn how to travel to another universe where Buffy exists as a physical REAL person...I do not see what an RPG game has to do with that.

Unless you were answering my question about your name; then I am still confused because I did not get the reference either way...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think her name is the liscense plate version of "I LOVE WILLOW" -- 110v3w1110w, 21:15:30 05/06/02 Mon

7h15 15 c001 d00d 741k 1n u0
at least that is where i picked it up i guessed that is where u did to wasn't having a go at you or anything btw did you play on europa as Drizzt fishing ?

[> It's literature: spoilers: MASH (TV), books, including All Quiet on the Western Front and Bambi -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:32:38 05/06/02 Mon

Concur with those who acknowledge the goals of an artist; to make people FEEL about the fates of non-living characters.

I still remember the episode of MASH (1975) when Col. Henry Blake well, left the show. He never existed. (In fact, in many ways, the character was a caricature.) But people in my own family had similar results from their military service. Resonance equalled impact.

In Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" the fate of his hero, Paul Baumer, had a massive impact not only on casual readers but on pacifist movements of the 1920-1939 era. And BAUMER NEVER EXISTED! But the fact that similar events happened to real people had an impact; ties between fictional characters and real people create resonance. Drizzt, below, refers to loss in his own family; that's where many of these feelings come from. Resonance.

Hell, the death of Bambi's mother affected the views of millions of people regarding hunting and ecology. And not only did Bambi's mother never exist, she was NOTHING LIKE A REAL DEER! Anthropomorphic resonance.

So let yourself feel; and remember that while these characters are fictional, there are enough real people around who suffer similar fates to justify real feeling.

[> [> Great examples, Fred! -- Rob, 18:46:16 05/06/02 Mon

[> [> Bambi's mother -- matching mole, 19:46:34 05/06/02 Mon

is one of my earliest memories (or at least earliest memories of a movie). Very upsetting. And the final scene of that episode of MASH had a similar although somewhat less traumatic effect on me (difference between 5 or 6 and 14 I guess).

Great examples

[> [> [> Re: M*A*S*H -- LittleBIt, 19:51:23 05/06/02 Mon

I remember seeing Radar's face and not wanting to know, yet already knowing.

[> [> [> [> Re: M*A*S*H -- mundusmundi, 20:18:20 05/06/02 Mon

Reportedly, the writers didn't tell the cast in that scene what was going to happen. Only Gary Burghoff knew, so what we see are the spontaneous reactions of the actors/characters in the moment. Very effective.

[> [> [> Re: Bambi's mother -- sTalking Goat, 21:08:25 05/06/02 Mon

Everyone says they cried when Babmi's Mom was killed.

This may be strange but I distinctly remember seeing Bambi at the age of 5, and I distinctly remember not crying (because my cousin who was with me did) when Bambi's mother gets shot.
I don't know if I've always understood the distinction between fantasy and reality or if I've always been emotionally detached.

[> Re: its just TV -- Dedalus, 19:13:29 05/06/02 Mon

I personally wouldn't watch a television show that didn't involve me deeply and cause me to care about the characters.

Buffy has made me cry on at least five different occasions.

Like many people have said, like Joss has said ... you know, kind of the point.

O/T Thank You -- Wisewoman, 19:56:57 05/06/02 Mon

I've reached the point in my recuperation where I can look back with at least a touch of objectivity, and I absolutely marvel at the support and affection I received, on a daily basis, from the members of this community.

I discovered this discussion board just over a year ago and didn't lurk for very long before I started putting my $.02 (US) in, and I was impressed then by the warm and gracious reception I received. No other experience I have had on the 'net has come close to matching my experience here. I found my fellow posters to be welcoming, polite, intelligent, rational, erudite, exciting, hilarious, and inspiring. I came to depend on my daily hit of the ATPo-experience. In fact, as soon as I regained consciousness in the hospital ICU I began agitating for some sort of 'net hook-up so I could again make contact and find out what I'd missed--okay, obsess much?

I feel blessed that the concern and support expressed by my family and friends in the Realverse was echoed so profoundly by my fellow Buffybuffs. There's a discussion in a thread below about the extent to which we are willing to invest emotion in fictional characters. I just wanted to report that, after my recent experience of what might be labelled the quintessential "mid-life near-death wake-up call," I was somewhat surprised to find that Buffy and her world were still very important to me, but not surprised that the show is not nearly as important as are all of you.

I'm well enough to keep up with the show and the Board now, and happy to put the last six weeks behind me, but I wanted to say, one more time, thank you all so very much.

dubdub ;o)

[> It's we who should be thanking you, dubdub -- mundusmundi, 20:12:13 05/06/02 Mon

You are what this board is all about. I'm glad you're back.


[> I'm so glad you're feeling better and back with us :- ) -- cynesthesia, 20:54:56 05/06/02 Mon

[> You're part of why this board is awesome - it wasn't the same without you. Great to have you back! -- The Second Evil, 21:40:32 05/06/02 Mon

[> Re: O/T Thank You -- yuri, 21:46:18 05/06/02 Mon

You embody completely what you admire. (That's you/dubdub, not you/general you.) The concern and support you received reflected the warmth and (heh) wiseness you've imparted upon us.

thanks for the thanks and then thanks again.

[> Re: O/T Thank You -- Aquitaine, 04:43:05 05/07/02 Tue

Some people just get what's coming to them;)

I'm so glad you are feeling well and philosophical again. LOL. Welcome back!

- Aquitaine

[> Thank you, WW; good to have you back! -- verdantheart, 06:31:37 05/07/02 Tue

[> Your presence is one of the graces of this board. We're all glad you're back -- Kimberly, 06:58:55 05/07/02 Tue

[> dubdub! -- Marie, 07:22:43 05/07/02 Tue

I was going to 'e' you today, and here you are! So good to see you back and fit again. You have been missed!


[> 'We few / We happy few / We band of Dubb-ed'... ;-) ... Welcome back! :-) :-) :-) -- OnM, 08:18:57 05/07/02 Tue

How many cheers do the Pyleans offer their champions? Well, we'll add some extra ones!

There is no place
Like this place
Near this place
So this must be the place

[> I'm so glad to see you back! I'm looking forward to some more of your wisdom... -- Dichotomy, 08:19:02 05/07/02 Tue

...and more Clem goodies, too!

[> Re: I feel much the same way about this place, despite current SW obsession -- Dedalus, 12:09:26 05/07/02 Tue

[> Welcome back, WW, you were missed! -- Masq, 16:22:33 05/07/02 Tue

[> Welcome home Dub .... missed you! xo -- Liq, 09:39:55 05/08/02 Wed

[> Glad you're feeling better! -- Humanitas, 17:42:54 05/08/02 Wed

A New World - Initial Thoughts (and therefore AtS spoilers) -- matching mole, 20:09:07 05/06/02 Mon

The most striking thing about this episode was its look. The world is suddenly made fresh again for Angel by the arrival of Connor/Stev(ph?)en. Connor of course is in a literal new world for him, a place in which he had only spent a few days/weeks as an infant. And Wesley faces the prospect of a new world in the employ of W&H.

And the appearance of the show changes to accentuate this newness. Combat occurs in slow motion making the combat seem more grim, more deliberate, and more devastating. Aside from Angel (and the atypically hapless Groo) the rest of the combatants are humans ordinary and otherwise. LA is revealed as a city of bright sunshine, wide boulevards, and seamy underpasses rather than the usual dark alleys, warehouses, etc. The decaying elegance of the Hyperion Hotel is replaced by the more squalid decay of an abandoned apartment complex.

The 'monsters', human drug dealers are distinguished mostly by their banality. And Angel seems suddenly, shockingly at home in this new world. Is it just me or did he get a balanced perspective on life awfully darn fast. Connor comes back as a teenager who wants to kill him, gets mixed up with drug dealers, and then is caught in a shootout with the police. The normally obsessive Angel seems to take all this pretty much in stride. Doesn't even try and stop Connor from leaving in the end.

The rest of AI seemed mired in the past, worrying about contacting Wesley (do you think thoughts of Wesley crossed Angel's mind even once?) and closing the dimensional rift (although that does seem kind of important) rather than letting their imaginations get around the fact of Connor's return. The lack of Wesley hurts them in more ways than one - not only did he have knowledge he had an imaginative mind which is what did him in, in the end.

My first impression of this episode was very positive. I'll have to sleep on it now. Maybe I'll hate it tomorrow - but I doubt it. Sure wish they'd give Lorne something to do though.

[> My little comment before I write much more.......Spoiler for A new world... -- Rufus, 20:31:24 05/06/02 Mon

Wesley.....stop!!!! The evil woman just gave you a copy of Dante's Inferno.....can that be a good thing? Next thing you know she will ask you if you would like a bite of her apple.....;)

[> [> Re: My little comment before I write much more.......Spoiler for A new world... -- sTalking Goat, 21:02:11 05/06/02 Mon

I'm sorry, if I understand correctly, her arguement is. "You've already done the worst imaginable thing and reserved yourself a stay in the worst place in Hell for an eternity, so whats the harm in coming to work for us?"

I am I the only one who finds this incredibly stupid?

[> [> [> Reminds me of a certain Spike/Buffy scene -- Traveler, 21:19:51 05/06/02 Mon

"You've already done the worst imaginable thing and reserved yourself a stay in the worst place in Hell for an eternity, so whats the harm in coming to work for us?"

I recall someone saying "you belong in the darkness, with me" to Buffy. It worked then, at least for a while. Who's to say that it can't work on Wesley, now that he is in exile and not liking his friends too much?

Besides, Lilah's said something to the effect of "just thought I would try." She didn't think Wesley would really betray his friends so easily, but she had nothing to lose from approaching him, and everything to gain.

[> [> [> [> Re: Reminds me of a certain Spike/Buffy scene -- Ian, 22:09:50 05/06/02 Mon

You're forgetting. They have 401(k) plan AND dental. How can Wesley resist? He's only human.

[> [> [> [> [> 401(k) -- skeeve, 07:45:02 05/07/02 Tue

W&H's 401(k) plan consists entirely of W&H stock that one can only sell to W&H designated buyers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 401(k) -- CW, 08:28:00 05/07/02 Tue

Sort of like Enron, but even more evil. ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 401(k) -- Dochawk, 17:08:28 05/07/02 Tue

After reading about what Enron did to California today, I don't think W & H could be more evil.

[> [> [> [> Re: Or a certain other Angel scene -- Valhalla, 22:10:33 05/06/02 Mon

By going to Holtz, Wes showed that he would even approach Angel's worst enemy if he thought he was preventing something horrible.

Lilah, maybe, can't quite understand the distinction between dealing with an enemy to get what you want and dealing with an enemy to avert a terrible fate to your nearest and dearest, but Wes did deal with one person intent on causing great harm (and that was when his friends were still his friends), so what's the harm in trying to get him to deal with another? Especially when he's so shunned and feeling like hell (no pun intended).

[> [> [> [> A Good First Step for W&H -- Malandanza, 12:05:20 05/07/02 Tue

"Besides, Lilah's said something to the effect of "just thought I would try." She didn't think Wesley would really betray his friends so easily, but she had nothing to lose from approaching him, and everything to gain."

While it's almost impossible to imagine Wesley working for W&H, Lilah's offer was a good first step for W&H. The fact that the Inferno was a Tuscan version written in the 1500's guarantees that a bibliophile like Wesley won't just throw out the book to get the message off his mind. The book will remain with him as a constant reminder of his betrayal of Angel, a person who had taken him in and helped in out when he needed assistance most.

If Lilah continues to visit Wesley, making herself useful to him, we could see Wesley gradually slide towards evil. He has demonstrated adequately in his dealings with Holtz that he thinks he can make a deal with the devil and get the upper hand. I could see him eventually working with them, intending to get more from them than he gives them, only to discover (as Lindsay always did) that he has been used from the beginning.

W&H has been pretty effective at getting Angel to do some very dark things. I don't think Wesley's character is any stronger -- and, in fact a great deal weaker with the sense of his own self-importance he frequently exhibits and his willingness to make greater good sacrifices (as long as he's sacrificing someone else, as he did in Pylea). He is fertile ground for a subtle attempt at corruption -- fortunately, Lilah's specialty isn't subtlety, so Wesley may get a break.

[> [> [> [> [> Wesley and Lilah's Dueling Mind Games -- cjl, 12:30:28 05/07/02 Tue

Although Lilah's offer of employment to Wes looked like a non-starter, the potential relationship between the two could develop into a fascinating erotic duel.

Malandanza noted Wes' sense of self-importance and his propensity to deal with the devil under certain conditions. Suppose Lilah, armed with a complete portfolio on Mr. Wyndham-Price and his tendencies, deliberately lobbed an easily-rejected offer to lull Wes into a false sense of superiority? Wes tries to go undercover at W&H, in order to pull them down and redeem himself in the eyes of his former comrades. But once he's in, Lilah and W&H manipulate events to pit him against Angel and the Gang. He becomes Judas Iscariot--for real, this time--and he's set up for another Angel attack, the one that finally turns Angel to the dark side.

[But wait: suppose Wes knew that she knew he wouldn't accept the offer. And suppose she knew that HE knew that she knew he wouldn't accept it. And suppose...]

This could be fun in a twisted way. Add in AD & SR's obvious physical chemistry, and this could be a LOT of twisted fun in MANY ways....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wesley and Lilah's Dueling Mind Games -- Arethusa, 12:52:03 05/07/02 Tue

There's a bit of a parallel here between Lilah and Wes, and Willow and Amy. Amy knew Willow well enough to go straight for Will's jugular-infer Willow's the same unpopular, uncool geek as she was in high school, so Amy can easily manipulate Willow. We know the W&H background on Wes must be very extensive, and Lilah is more than smart enough to figure out how to control or manipulate Wes-or at least try to.
Wes is a bundle of contradictions-insecure about his self- worth, and overcompensating to hide his insecurity. Lilah's trying to attack his precarious sense of worth. But remember Wes in "Birthday"-bitter, angry and sad, but still fighting evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bitter, Angry and Sad, But Still Fighting Evil -- cjl, 13:35:25 05/07/02 Tue

Yes, Arethusa, your description of Wes is spot on--but this is what makes the mind games so interesting. Wes thinks he's working undercover at W&H to help Angel and his crew, while Lilah monitors everything he's doing "on the sly" and manipulates events so that Wes screws himself over even worse than before. He goes into the devil's den to fight evil, but he winds up repeating the same mistakes--this time with W&H pulling the strings instead of Sahjhan.

[> [> [> [> Re: Reminds me of a certain Spike/Buffy scene -- pr10n, 13:30:27 05/07/02 Tue

>Besides, Lilah's said something to the effect of "just
>thought I would try." She didn't think Wesley would really
>betray his friends so easily, but she had nothing to lose
>from approaching him, and everything to gain.

Au contraire, Lilah is using Devil Tactics 101 on Wesley: whacking him with guilt while he's down, and then suggesting the "sin" wasn't that bad really, and then casually offering comfort and acceptance with folks who live that sinny lifestyle. If there's a vote, I'm in the Iron Apple in the Velvet Glove camp.

[> [> [> Re: My little comment before I write much more.......Spoiler for A new world... -- SpikeMom, 03:35:55 05/07/02 Tue

Hope Wesley gets this straight:

Inadvertently putting Conner in Holtz's hands = horrible mistake.

Joining W&H = the true betrayal

Doublecrossing W&H = Go Wesley!

[> [> [> Re: My little comment before I write much more.......Spoiler for A new world... -- maddog, 08:39:55 05/07/02 Tue

Stupid to those of us that think what Wesley did wasn't the unforgivable thing that Angel assumes. But she only knows Angel's side, so she thinks he's done the worst possible thing and is willing to capitalize off the fact that Wes thinks himself lower than low...which isn't the case if you ask me.

[> [> Literature + Spoilers for A new world -- fresne, 22:09:39 05/06/02 Mon

Okay, when he opened the book and it was hello, Dante, I about keeled over. Of course when he didn't comment on the level reserved for barristers I felt a little less psychic, but whatever. I'm filled with a literary after glow.

Not much to say just yet other than that was of the coolness. And yes, young Connor/Stephen did a good job picking up the Holtz speech patterns. Although, interesting that alt dimensions make cute/peter pan boys and desicated corpse like adults. And loving the sarcasm Gru. "Angel is our leader."

Yeah, not much philosophical to say. Woo Who Dante. Ahem...I'll just go over there now. Yeah.

[> [> [> Re: Literature + Spoilers for A new world -- anom, 22:23:32 05/06/02 Mon

Oh yeah, thought of you when he opened the book, fresne. But when Lilah said she "couldn't remember" who was in the middle mouth, the worst of the worst, lowest of the low (which she overplayed, btw), I thought Wes was gonna hand her back the book & say, "Here, why don't you look it up?"

[> [> [> Groo -- Rufus, 22:33:12 05/06/02 Mon

I had to laugh at the way Groo is talking about Angel now. When Groo first arrived on the scene, it was Angel looking just a little bitter and insecure, now poor Groo is in the same place, reduced to talking about his competition in a sarcastic way.....I wonder how Groo would feel if Angel touched his weapon....;)

[> [> lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate -- Cleanthes, 06:05:17 05/07/02 Tue

[> [> "Abandon hope all who enter".......spoilery for A New World... -- purplegrrl, 10:04:40 05/07/02 Tue

I loved the reference to Dante's "Inferno."

And I think Lilah coming to Wesley's apartment was a two- sided plan, or double-edged sword if you will. One was to rub Wesley's nose in his falling out with Angel (hence the book with references to lowest level of hell, Judas Iscariat, betrayal, etc.), and two, that if Wesley had truly "abandoned all hope" of reuniting with his friends, to get him to switch sides (W&H would certainly be able to use an excellent researcher like Wesley). Sort of like twisting the knife that is already sticking out of Wesley's gut.

Also, the famous epitaph above the gate of Dante's Hell could refer to those who join Wolfram & Hart. Yeah, Lindsey got out, but I think he's the one exception to a really big rule. W&H is known for "disappearing" employees who don't tow the company line.

The Wesley we saw last night is an interesting contrast to the Wesley of BtVS season 3 or even AtS season 2. Despite being abandoned by his friends, Wesley is not trying to make amends. He is angry when they try to contact him, insisting that they leave him alone. He's angry, in a possibly- leaning-to-the-dark-side sort of way, not grieving. I suppose this is why Lilah thinks he would be susceptable to her offer of employment. But despite being pompous or silly or darkly angry, Wesley has strong moral fiber. He may not be allied with Angel Investigations any longer, but I don't think that means he's going to convert to the other side. Besides, Wesley doesn't see his actions as a betrayal -- more of a necessary evil, that unfortunately wasn't really necessary. Even knowing the truth about the fallacy of the prophecy hasn't changed Wesley's convictions of his actions. And he's angry that the others can't appreciate that.

[> Re: Initial Thoughts (Spoilers) -- Wisewoman, 20:38:25 05/06/02 Mon

However it came to pass, and whoever is responsible, whether Joss, Greenwalt, casting agent, or director, I was impressed that Connor/Steven looks like Darla and sounds like Holtz. I really appreciate that attention to detail, even if it's unintentional, LOL!


[> This was by far my favorite AtS episode of the season -- Traveler, 21:13:09 05/06/02 Mon

I agree with everything that MM wrote and I also thought that the new actors did amazingly well, especially Connor/Steven and Sunny. And the camera work was amazing. The Matrix effects were very very good. And there was some real, juicy plot! And foreshadowing, and... did I mention that I really liked this episode?

[> [> Me, not so much -- JBone, 21:53:23 05/06/02 Mon

I've said it before here, and I'll say it again, I am not a fan of the rapidly aged offspring storyline. I guess it started in college watching soap operas, a six year old one year would disappear and turn up a year later 16 years old. This would drive me nuts. I'd feel better if AtS was doing something original or advancing the shtick. But they're not. Xena and Gabrielle alone did this type of thing to death. Where the rapidly aged offspring shows back up right away with a mission to kill his/her parent. Hopefully the writing gets less lazy.

I really didn't mean to be so critical. What they are doing right is with the special effects/stunts, they are making the story very entertaining. And, uh, the high point of the season this year was Wesley's downward spiral in Loyalty and Sleep Tight. They need to get back to that explosive dynamic.

[> [> [> Re: Me, not so much -- Lilac, 07:06:17 05/07/02 Tue

At least Angel offers a plausible (kind of reason) for rapid offspring growth. I don't believe I've ever heard of a soap opera explaining a rapid growth spurt on a hell dimension -- but maybe those well coiffed folks have more problems than they realize. My point is, I guess, that in this context, the kid shooting up to adolescence doesn't bother me.

[> [> [> [> If it's any help-- (buffy s3 spoilers) -- SingedCat, 07:52:12 05/07/02 Tue

The different times of hells dimensions were established in Buffy--

Buffy Episode 3.1 Buffy goes to a hell where the time delay is so extreme that in a day or two our time a boy becomes an old man.

Same season, a few eps later, Angel returns from a hell dimension a few months after his disappearance, having spent a hundred years in torment (by Giles' estimate). So it malkes good sense, excpt for Connor being able to come back- - where did he get that mojo?!

On the flip side, I'll agree it's not the most original device, but this show manages to avoid most of *my* pet peeves, so I'll go with it for now. :)

[> Re: A New World - Wow -- Valhalla, 22:04:05 05/06/02 Mon

Whoooeee! That was tense. And fabulous referential fodder.

Ok, so I admit all I know about Judas Iscariot comes straight from Andrew Lloyd Webber (despite 6 years of catechism -- what was I doing with all that time?). Maybe other versions of the Judas/Jesus story are different. But I was struck by how dead-on Lilah's reference was.

Judas believes (or convinces himself) that his betrayal of Jesus was necessary to stop worse things hapening to Jesus (They think they've found the new Messiah/And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong ... But every word you say today/Get's twisted 'round some other way/And they'll hurt you if they think you've lied).

Judas went to Jesus enemies – people clearly afraid of Jesus and bent on destroying him., just as Wes went to Holtz. As with Judas, things didn't go quite as Wes planned. Judas' actions result in a greater tragedy than he tries to avert (My God! I saw him. He looked three-quarters dead!/And he was so bad I had to turn my head./You beat him so hard that he was bent and lame). Wes thought he was averting danger to Angel of destroying his son, but ended up bringing on a fate for Angel and Connor (possibly) worse than death – Angel's loss of Connor and Connor's growing up in a hell dimension (sorry, not going to call him Steven even if Angel does).

Just like Judas, everyone hates Wes for it (Damned for all time; dragged throught he slime and the mud). Of course, Judas didn't have a Fred trying to bring about a reconciliation (in JC Superstar, Judas dies before the end of the show). The AI gang is much more concerned with Angel's fate than the Apostles were with Jesus in JCS. I hadn't really thought of Angel as a Jesus-figure before (perhaps a lack of imagination), but he was reborn in a sense when he got his soul. And Angel's got plenty to do trying to redeem his own sins, nevermind taking on the world's.

The Judas reference was also interesting because again, the ME crowd focused on Hell (well, Judas in hell), without really implicating heaven or Christianity.

Unconnected to Judas -- When Angel was throwing Connor around trying to get him to just calm down for a minute and listen, I thought of the scene(s) in 'The Miracle Worker', where Annie Sullivan battles with Helen Keller to get her to learn how to communicate, and Helen's resistance is ferocious, virtually feral. But maybe that's too much of a stretch!

Finally – A soap opera! Does that count as metanarration?

[> [> Re: A New World - Wow -- maddog, 09:20:16 05/07/02 Tue

How do we know this is worse? How do we know that Angel wouldn't have killed Connor because of the specific blood he'd been slipped. At least with Connor alive there's a chance. The sooner Angel realizes that, the sooner he'll be able to make peace with Connor.

[> Small things in actors' craft (spoilers for ANW) -- Solitude1056, 22:08:56 05/06/02 Mon

So I finished two finals today, and treated myself to watching AtS while it actually broadcast - woo, and may I add, hoo! That minor bit o' excitement aside, had a few things to add myself, while I process the past two weeks fury (no pun intended) of plot twists and developments on AtS.

First, hats off to, uh, Victor, or Vincent? What is that actor's name? It's hard to do "stand perfectly silent and look attentive" without ending up looking like you're just doing your best impersonation of fungi on a log. (Just as hard as it is for most less-than-stellar actors to do crazy without chewing the scenery.) There's a particular body position that I look for when watching such scenes, although I never really realized it before watching AtS/BtVS, where watching rewards you with seeing your expectations (or greatest fears) confirmed, but without sacrificing to the god of Mainstream Mediocrity. I got it, in spades, in tonight's young guest star.

See, SMG does something most few warriors/fighters I've known would never do - she puts her hands in her pockets. Okay, you argue, that's because it's cold. Well, wear some freakin' gloves, Buffy! *cough* Constant fighting and/or training (which, btw, we've seen Buffy do none of since Giles left) pushes a person towards a certain level of hyper awareness. Even in today's controlled atmosphere of illusory city safety, someone who's skilled - at performing physical acts that really could incapcitate or kill - is going to be aware of two things at all times. One, that this knowledge may eventually be needed. Two, that the last thing they ever want to have happen is to use the skill, so they're constantly prepared ahead of time to defuse/prevent such. That means they don't get caught off- guard. On top of that, many of the higher martial arts incorporate training where one is blindfolded, or training that begins with one's back to the opponent. The last thing you want is to waste precious seconds struggling to get your hands out of your jeans pockets, pushing you closer to the point where you won't have the option to just de-arm the attacker but will be forced to use stronger force.

Why all that mini-lecture about such tiny details? Cause Connor/Stephen didn't put his hands in his pockets - even when he was wearing a coat. Not once. He didn't fold his arms over his chest, as far as I could tell. Always hanging loose by his sides, hands open, palms facing his body. And he walked hung from his shoulders, not moving with his hips forefront and his shoulders slugging a half-beat behind like the usual teenagerly slouch. And most importantly to me, the kid didn't walk with that gawdawful on-the-toes walk that some folks use when trying to say "I am like a cat, light on my feet." Apparently those folks have never watched a cat, who really does plant their feet solidly, and balance their weight, before taking a leap. You can't get a huge leap like my cats do if you're busy prancing around light-footed. So it was with some great relief to see someone acting the part of a warrior/fighter, who had obviously some direction (and most likely training, cause it's hard to fake that) in how to appear hyper-alert without looking like he's about to burst at the seams or boosting for the Overacting Emmy (TM).

It only helped that the actor was able to look sullen without looking cross, by keeping his face quietly reticent. (And yes, he does look a lot like the actress who played Darla.) Like someone commented about Nicholas Brendan, this actor also has eyes that do a great deal of the work, and his eyes were attentive and alert. It's always been a drawback for DB, IMO, that when he's trying to play "listening quietly" he just ends up looking like he's thinking of his grocery list. I mean, for all I know, that's exactly what he's thinking of, but dammit, I'm watching a television show, I want them to at least not remind me that they have lives! ;-)

As for Cordy... I admire that ME doesn't want to make it seem like "oh, she's demon now, she can solve everything with her powers" - but I'm not so sure I can handle even a single more instance of "wow, look what she's done" and then she's not able to duplicate it. Why float during her first post-almost-death vision? Why not do it again afterwards? Why glow out the shrimp - whether that achieved shrimpy heaven or return-to-home, I couldn't tell - but then not be able to do it again? Could someone at ME please stand up and tell us what she is? Hell, does anyone at ME even know?

And finally, Groo grows on me more and more every week. His dorkiness is still dorkness, but it's additionally more endearing now that he's discovered - gasp! - sarcasm. The only real laughter point for me was his comment about Angel being the boss. No, I don't want Groo to "go bad" when he decides that hero-worship (or even princess-worship) isn't the right route, but it's nice to see that he's perfectly capable of putting two and two together and deciding for himself. That, and it was also good to see he's become a member at least temporarily, given how he and Gunn worked quickly and efficiently side-by-side when originally going after Connor/Stephen.

Besides, few can do silent facial expressions as well as the guy playing Groo, but he may've met his match in the new kid on the block. We'll have to see, and I still need to finish processing... Wesley is a whole separate post, and I'm waiting to hear what other folks have to say about the latest development (although it makes logical sense that Lilah would take that step, and I'm only surprised I didn't think of it until she knocked on his door).

[> [> Re: ANW Maybe Wes will... -- Cydney, 05:20:29 05/07/02 Tue

go to work for WR&H in order to spy on them or undermine them and redeem himself to Angel. What will WR&H do if they discover Connor is alive and he and Holtz are back?

Question is, who will replace Wes' knowledge at AI. They need him.

I thought the scene with the dimensional portal lady was a hoot. "Sometimes I get smutz in my eye" and safety glasses! Egad!

[> [> [> Re: ANW Maybe Wes will... -- Darby, 07:23:06 05/07/02 Tue

...But I wanted the incantation to be in Yiddish after that. Maybe they were afraid of having to research the Cabbalah, or of pissing people off.

And Sol, thanks for focussing me on something I noticed in the episode while not seeing through to the techniques beneath - this new kid and DB have definite chemistry. Their scenes are charged with that sublimated energy that's just perfect for what's going on. I'm a firm believer that most chemistry isn't accidental, but generated by good actors, and he's a find.

Part of me is dying to know if this Angel-Connor rift will be resolved by the finale, as much as I want to remain unspoiled. Guess I'll remain appropriately undead.

[> It just occurred to me... -- cynesthesia, 02:24:46 05/07/02 Tue

that the triangle of Angel-Connor-Holtz strikes me as a sort of weird inversion of the Darth Vader-Luke-Obi Wan triangle of Star Wars. I haven't really thought about this at all, it's just an immediate reaction. It's certainly not an exact parallel by any means, but there is the mentor/surrogate father (Holtz/Obi Wan) who rears the son (Connor/Luke) who must meet his eeevil father (Angel/Darth Vader), or so Connor beleives his father to be in this case. Only where we saw the other story from the point of view of the son, we're oriented more towards Angel's POV in this one. Hmmm....

Did anyone else have this reaction?

[> [> How bout this?? Tic Toc Tic Toc (spoil) -- neaux, 04:44:05 05/07/02 Tue

If anyone remember a chat from last week where I said Connor looked like a Lost Boy.. I cant believe they used the PeterPan reference.

anyway.. So while Connor might have been lost in the Hell dimension (Neverneverland), He really was lost in LA. or was he? When Holtz reimurges, you get the impression that Connor might have been instructed by him. I dunno. I've only seen it once.

But.. imagine this reverse scenario. Holtz is Captain Hook, Connor is a Lost Boy and Angel is.. err.. um.. Wendy? You could call it Peter Pan with a reverse twist?

Now if they could get a mutant alligator with a ticker or something in a closing episode.. that would be keen!

[> [> [> Re: How bout this?? Tic Toc Tic Toc (spoil) -- pr10n, 14:25:47 05/07/02 Tue

[preparing for potential flaming newbie death]

Doesn't this whole bit shriek of John Connor of Skynet fame?

NB: Terminator = Destroyer, lightning, dropped from ceiling (sans nude Austrians), hey the future sucks, have you seen my dad?

I'm just saying.

[> Re: A New World - Initial Thoughts (and therefore AtS spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:22:33 05/07/02 Tue

Really enjoyed the episode on first viewing, and again this morning on tape. Thinking about it, there are some flaws, or perhaps more accurately, points where believability is sacrificed to keep the story rolling. But, generally they are forgivable flaws.

My one pet peeve with Angel has always been the way extremely interesting new female characters (played by fine actresses) pop up only to disappear forever. Usually in TV, the guest stars are pretty forgetable. But, not on Angel. The first woman Angel tried to help in the very first episode, the actress who wanted to be young forever, Wesley's girlfriend last year, and others all were more interesting to me than Darla or even Groo. This episode, just about the time you begin to wonder what Sonny is all about, when she's gone. I hope our blue-haired, dimension- doctor will be back sometime. I think she has promise, too.

[> [> question about that.. -- neaux, 08:04:53 05/07/02 Tue

Who is the actress that played Sonny? I know I have seen her in other roles.. but cant think of them.

Also I want to see the bordello mistress make a return. ^_^

[> [> [> Answer my own question: CAST INFORMATION.. -- neaux, 09:16:12 05/07/02 Tue

Turns out Sunny was played by Erika Thomahlen who can normally be seen on NBC's Saturday Morning Pre-teen show "Just Deal". yes that is where I have seen her before but I didnt make the connection.. and yes I am fessing up that I watch NBC on Saturday Mornings.

Meerna (the blue faced lady): is played by Deborah Zoe. Deborah Zoe is listed at as playing Sean Scott (Stiffler)'s girlfriend in the movie Road Trip.

[> [> [> [> Re: Answer my own question: CAST INFORMATION.. -- maddog, 09:49:18 05/07/02 Tue

I did right away, though this character is a far cry from the A+, never do anything wrong, student on that show. I too was upset she bit the big one...though it had storyline purposes.

[> Wesley's replacement -- skeeve, 08:15:40 05/07/02 Tue

As noted by others, AI needs a magic person. Lorne is from out of town, but doesn't seem to have much other magical knowledge or ability. The portal lady is a possibility, but she already has a job. I think Fred is the most likely prospect. She is the smartest of the group and Wesley would probably be willing to teach her, though house calls are out of the question.

BTW Cordy really should have a talk with Skip about her current biology. Cordy apparently knows neither how her new demonness affects her, nor whether it is hereditary.

[> Re: A New World - Initial Thoughts (and therefore AtS spoilers)- Brain Sweepings -- Calluna, 09:48:59 05/07/02 Tue

Just some brain sweepings about last night's episode-

1-Okay, could they just give Wes a break? The man did what he could with the information he had. It would be nice if someone let him explain that he wasn't giving the kid to Holtz. Even better, it'd be interesting (escpecially for a crossover fan like me) if Wes at some point would tell AI that he was taking the kid to Sunnydale. Makes sense. If you had to choose a bunch of protectors for Conner would you go with a vampire whose been drinking the kid's blood,a demon, two half demons (one without a clue to what she can do) and two humans OR the Slayer and two very powerful witches (I'm assuming Wes wouldn't know about Willow's whole addicted to magic thing)?
2-Speaking of crossovers, I'm still hoping for Connor and Dawn to met.
3-Was it my imagination or was someone watching a little too much "Evil Dead" and "Army of Darkness"?
And finally
4-Is there some sort of "Black leather coat" gene in Angel's DNA? Geez, the kid's in LA for half a day and already he's looking like his dad.

It was one of the cooler Angel eps of the season. Can't wait to see more.

[> [> Re: A New World - Initial Thoughts (and therefore AtS spoilers)- Brain Sweepings -- purplegrrl, 10:24:20 05/07/02 Tue

***4-Is there some sort of "Black leather coat" gene in Angel's DNA? Geez, the kid's in LA for half a day and already he's looking like his dad.***

LOL! I'm glad someone else was thinking the same thing.

[> [> [> Hell if he looked like Holtz he would need some intensive moisturization..;) -- Rufus, 14:23:48 05/07/02 Tue

Is Mark Lutz a regular for season 4? -- ComShuck me anytime!, 00:34:30 05/07/02 Tue

Please no spoilers, just a yes/no if you happen to know.

I'm loving Groo more and more.

[> Re: Is Mark Lutz a regular for season 4? -- maddog, 08:19:38 05/07/02 Tue

I'm seriously doubting it. Take a look at the current storyline. And that quote from last night when he's patronizing Cordy, "yes, cause when Angel needs help we all go running" or something to that affect. He's on his way out. The story's just heading that way. He's going to realize that no matter how much Cordy seems to like him, her heart's with Angel.

[> [> the sad thing is.. -- Kitt, 08:26:07 05/07/02 Tue

that as goofy and dumb as Groo seems to be, I'm starting to like him. Of course, now he's Groo with a clue, so that helps.

[> [> [> Re: the sad thing is.. -- maddog, 08:46:51 05/07/02 Tue

Yeah but now that he's got a clue he's seeing the big picture and is realizing just where Cordy's heart lies. He's a little too doofy for me anyway.

[> [> [> [> doofiness -- purplegrrl, 09:25:17 05/07/02 Tue

Aah, but that was part of his charm -- being so single- mindedly stalwart, always there to protect his princess and ensure her happiness. Oh, wait, that's the fairy-tale part and this is the reality that is A:tS. Darn it! I suppose that means he *is* on the way out. Angst abounds!!

(A friend of mine has a theory that Mark Lutz was added to the cast to give DB an incentive to keep in shape -- she thinks DB is starting to get a little chunky!)

[> [> Hey, maybe he'll hook up with Lorne! They'd be adorable! :D -- SingedCat, 11:17:06 05/07/02 Tue

[> [> Re: Is Mark Lutz a regular for season 4? -- vampire hunter D, 12:53:08 05/07/02 Tue

Just because he and Cordy can't possibly last, doesn't mean he's out for S4. He could still stick around and help out at the Agency. Hey, maybe he could hook up with Faith when she gets out of Jail.

[> [> [> Re: Is Mark Lutz a regular for season 4? -- maddog, 13:02:35 05/07/02 Tue

Come on, face it...he's only there for Cordy. I'm not saying he couldn't stick around, but if you were in love with someone who was in love with someone else...would you stay? I'm doubting it.

[> From a Mark Lutz interview dated today -- Dochawk, 16:28:23 05/07/02 Tue

According to an interview from today with mark Lutz from Zap2It:

Mark Lutz has reason to be optimistic.

Although he hasn't been attached to a series for the fall (yet), and his character on "Angel" appears to be living on borrowed time, the actor had a really good year TV-wise"

So I guess he aint signed yet.

Current board | More May 2002