November 2002 posts


Previous November 2002  

December 2002



Interesting thoughts on Andrew (spoilers and whatnot) -- Mystery, 09:15:05 11/29/02 Fri

My brother made a pretty interesting observation:

They seem to making a pretty big deal of no one remembering who Andrew is/was. He's referred to as "Whatshisname" and "Tucker's brother" and people only seem to have vague memories of the monkey summoning incident. It's almost like they're trying to drive home a point.

My brother and I haven't been able to look into this but: Has Andrew ever appeared or even been mentioned before Dawn's appearence? What if Andrew is just an echo-effect of the creation of Dawn from the Key?

I also noticed the parallels between Pre-Vamp William and Andrew. Both kind of geeky and shunned by peers, making a big deal of proving how big bad they are. Also it seemed that Andrew and Spike were pretty interchangable in the schemes of the First Evil. The First Evil made a point of working with both of them, but had more luck with Andrew because he was so malleble. Yet once Andrew proved to be a liabilty, the FE activated the SleeperSpike and tried to kill off Andrew. Then he went on to abandon Andrew altogether and took Spike instead. Took the strongest connection/lead that Scoobies had to the FE, and left in his place, Andrew, who has all if not more of the information Spike has, and while he might be more aware of what he knows, he's rather incompetant.

Perhaps Andrew is to Spike, what Dawn is to Buffy: The innocent and naive person they could have been, if not for their respective callings. Both Andrew and Dawn have a kind of respect-worship of their...siblings? templates?

JONATHAN: Spike.
ANDREW: (riveted) He is so cool. (glances at the others, self-consciously) And, I mean, the girl is hot too.

(quote from Psyche)

Also notice one of Andrew's explanations for why he had the blood "I fell in love with a beautiful lady vampire in Mexico and we came back to Sunnydale to start a life on the straight and narrow." Didn't Spike and Druscilla end up in Mexico before the break up, or was it in S. America? Also, a beautiful lady vampire changing Andrew's life, sending him to the side of good? Druscilla changed Spike's life, and to win her back from Angelus, Spike teamed with Buffy and saved the world from Acathla.

And also, Dawn was going to be the sacrifice in Season 5, but Buffy swapped placed with her.

"I was going to bleed Andrew, but you look much better with your shirt off." -FE to Spike, kind of paraphrased

The FE was going to use Andrew, but in the end, since the Harbingers had to break into the Summer's home anyways, the FE told them to just get Spike instead. Sort of how Buffy was a substitute for Dawn.

What does everyone think? More thoughts? While it does make sense, there's something about this theory that I'm not comfortable with. It almost feels like it's the right general direction, but something is off. Like I took a left too early. *shrug*

"Hey, you're hair's not black anymore." Hehe...

[> I agree -- very interesting idea. -- Sophist, 09:55:51 11/29/02 Fri

Wish I had something brilliant to add, but....

[> Another Andrew-Dawn parallel -- HonorH, 10:53:01 11/29/02 Fri

They were, as I've been saying below, the only two the Bringers went after with knives.

[> Not sure where they're going with Andrew... (speccy & spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 11:55:11 11/29/02 Fri

Not sure where they're going with Andrew, although he makes a very useful weapon when wielded properly. I thought the "Andrew Fu" that Buffy did, using Andrew as a weapon to knock out two of the harbingers was simply inspired fight choreography.

It would be nice if they made Andrew a key. I'd like them to go back to that plotline. I still think it'd be cool if Dawn started realizing glowing green energy powers. I've played with that in my fan fiction. They do seem to be purposefully revealing that Dawn HAS been paying attention and watching her sister. That she's been picking up stuff from both Buffy & Willow and could evolve into a combination of both, where she can both kick butt and do spells with relative accuracy. But they haven't even mentioned the whole Key thing about her for this entire season.

I also still have hope that both Andrew AND Jonathan somehow become a part of the Scoobies. I just like both of the characters. I know they killed Jonathan, but they made a point in the latest episode to show up his getting buried in a shallow, unmarked grave. Awhile back I speculated they'd bring Tara back as a ghost, because it's the one thing that they've never really had among the Scoobies. They've never had a ghost. They've had vampires and witches and werewolves and even ex-demons. They've never had a ghost. Jonathan died over a powerful sign. He also had dabbled in magicks and may have had some residuals. It's sketchy at best, but I don't see why they would have made a point to bring the principal in to bury Jonathan's body, and show us that Jonathan was buried near oil wells, if there wasn't some reason to bring that up.

Danny Strong's been with the series since the very beginning. I'd just hate to see his character written out of the story in this way. He deserves better.

Is Andrew a fabrication just like Dawn? Is that why people have difficulty remembering who he is? VERY possible, and it'd be very cool if that's the direction they'd go. However, there's just SO much going on, y'know? I'd love to see them re-examine the whole Key plotline, but it might just get in the way of everything else they've already got happening.

On a different approach to the whole Andrew/Dawn thing, am I the only one who thinks the two of them would make a cute couple? I mean they're both quirky. It'd be ironic if they got to know each other better. *smirk*

[> [> Ooooooh! I like that idea! (Future Speculation) -- Wisewoman, 13:27:33 11/29/02 Fri

Jonathan joining the Scoobies as the resident ghost-- perfect! And there could be some sort of intrinsic link between him and his murderer whereby Andrew has to atone for his crime by carrying out any of the physical commands that non-corporeal Jonathan gives him. Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis, and now, Jonathan and Andrew!

The reason we haven't seen Jonathan's true ghost so far, of course, is because his body was left lying on the Seal of Danzathar. Now that he's in a more "normal" grave he could pop up and challenge the FE version of himself.

Ah, the possibilities are endless...and great fun.

(OTOH, I see more chance of an Andrew/Spike 'ship than an Andrew/Dawn 'ship, but maybe that's just me.)

dub ;o)

[> [> [> Yeah I think that's just you. =) -NT -- ZachsMind, 13:44:41 11/29/02 Fri


[> [> [> Re: Ooooooh! I like that idea! (Future Speculation) -- Tyreseus, 22:23:05 11/30/02 Sat

Much as I'd like to see Spike hit the hay with a gent (preferably me), I don't think it's very likely.

I also don't see Andrew having much of a thing for Dawn, either.

Maybe if they brought back Scott Hope.

[> [> [> There is Spike/Andrew fic out there, but I haven't seen any Andrew/Dawn -- Indri, who agrees that A/D is both unlikely and awful, 00:04:11 12/01/02 Sun


[> [> For God's sake, man, don't say things like that! -- HonorH (Dawn's ultimate defender), 14:49:03 11/29/02 Fri

Dawn/Andrew? In his dreams! And Buffy's nightmares! Not to mention my own. Yuck! Surely Dawnie deserves better that that. After everything Joss has put her through, I can't imagine him inflicting the ultimate indignity of Andrew upon her. Bite your tongue!

[> [> [> Better than Conner and Dawn! -- Sophie, wondering if HonorH needs a hug today..., 18:23:36 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> [> [> At least Connor's pretty. -- HonorH, 20:01:03 11/30/02 Sat

Granted, his moody ways would wear even Dawn down quickly (hey, I said she's not whiny, not that she's not moody--she is sixteen, after all), and one thinks Buffy's sister/offspring and Angel's son having a romance could be positively apocalyptic, but I'd rather have Dawn dating him than Andrew. At least Connor's got character, twisted though it might be. Andrew's just a weak-minded little puke with a queasy stomach and a dead conscience. Not that I'm judgmental or anything . . .

[> [> [> [> [> My eyes......my brain.....both dissolving at the thought of -- Rufus, 05:06:11 12/01/02 Sun

Andrew and Dawn......I'd rather she date his coat.....:):):)

[> Re: Interesting thoughts on Andrew (spoilers and whatnot) -- Darby, 12:12:19 11/29/02 Fri

I almost put up a suggestion that Andrew was the new housing for Glory for reasons similar to yours, but even as an off- the-wall theory it had too many holes. I like yours better.

[> Re: Interesting thoughts on Andrew (spoilers and whatnot) -- Tess, 14:19:24 11/29/02 Fri

It struck me as odd that Buffy identified Andrew as Tucker's brother. Why would Spike even know who Tucker was? And wouldn't Andrew be more memorable as the other guy from the supernerds group?

[> [> I wondered the exact same thing! -- Sophie, 18:24:57 11/30/02 Sat


[> Re: Interesting thoughts on Andrew (spoilers and whatnot) -- frisby, 15:36:26 11/29/02 Fri

I agree that "something" is up with Andrew beyond his being a simple plot device -- and I always wondered how the three super-geeks really got so much accomplished -- maybe Andrew really was the one behind the throne -- and we're all fooled? Nah! But you're right that's there's something up with regard to him and his links to Spike. I also can't add anything brilliant to this. I think we'll just to wait for more to be revealed. He "does" want to become a god.

[> Disagreeing with some of your points -- alcibiades, 19:12:46 11/29/02 Fri

I also noticed the parallels between Pre-Vamp William and Andrew. Both kind of geeky and shunned by peers, making a big deal of proving how big bad they are. Also it seemed that Andrew and Spike were pretty interchangable in the schemes of the First Evil. The First Evil made a point of working with both of them, but had more luck with Andrew because he was so malleble. Yet once Andrew proved to be a liabilty, the FE activated the SleeperSpike and tried to kill off Andrew. Then he went on to abandon Andrew altogether and took Spike instead. Took the strongest connection/lead that Scoobies had to the FE, and left in his place, Andrew, who has all if not more of the information Spike has, and while he might
be more aware of what he knows, he's rather incompetant.

Perhaps Andrew is to Spike, what Dawn is to Buffy: The innocent and naive person they could have been, if not for their respective callings. Both Andrew and Dawn have a kind of respect-worship of their...siblings? templates?


I don't get this at all.

You think Andrew the murderer, aspirant to multiple murder, is an innocent and naive person? Huh? He went through all last year, and unlike Jonathan, never got a clue.

In NLM, I think Spike and Jonathan were being paired. There is one scene where we are in the basement with Wood viewing Jonathan laid out on the ground, and then we cut to a shot of Spike in Buffy's basement, laid out on the ground, his hands in manacles. Their bodies are lying in very similar positions, and in fact, Jonathan started the process of opening the seal and Spike will finish it. I suspect that Andrew's blood could never have been used because, if Frisby and others are correct below, the seal was put in place by the good guys to lock the primal vampire guy in, and in that case, it might require the blood of people who are redeemed in order to open the seal.

Also, pre-vamping, William never aspired to be the big bad. Furthermore, Doug Petrie, the writer of FFL believes that in his scene with Cecily, and the way he approached her, William was emotionally brave.

I don't see Andrew as brave. I see him as weak and selfish and petty and malleable way before the BB started playing with his head.

[> [> Well said alcibades. Agree on most points! -- shadowkat, 20:15:56 11/29/02 Fri

Except I'm not convinced Spike or Jonathan are entirelay redeemed yet.
But I do believe unlike Andrew - both Spike and Jonathan have shown a desire to be redeemed. And looking back? Both Spike and Jonathan have actively tried to help - both at different points are shown saving or trying to save one of the Scoobies. And both show remorse for past acts. So maybe they are? Or at least Jonathan is, and Spike is on his way.
I don't have any hope for Andrew.

To add some fodder to your argument:

Andrew has not shown any desire to be redeemed except to the extent of not being killed and in that sense, yes maybe he's like Season 4 soulless chipped Spike, but past Season 4 Spike (Primeval?) it's a weak comparison - Andrew as a human aspires to be the BB. (Another difference? Spike was far cleverer in Season 4 and not really a henchman, he wasn't even Adam's entirely. While Andrew aspires to be a god, Spike just wants the chip removed.) And in no way has Andrew shown remorse for his actions. Spike - goes and gets a soul for his. The only remorse Andrew shows is his inability to kill more people. So he gets blood instead. He wants to kill. He just can't quite figure out how.

As early as Dead Things - we see Andrew enjoying the fact that they got away with killing Katrina. Absolutely no remorse. He gets off on the idea they are going to kill Buffy in the fight sequence in SR. In Two-to-Go, Andrew tries to kill Xander and if it weren't for Jonathan probably would have. It's Andrew who convinces Jonathan to run. And it's Andrew who suggests they continue to be bad guys. It is also Andrew who comes back to Sunnydale with the hope of being a "god" like Warren. Andrew is NOT niave, weak or even entirely malleable. He is manipulating Jonathan in CwDP. Don't underestimate Andrew's evil. If it weren't for the Andrew's of the world - Warren wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Warren needed a henchman and that was Andrew.

What I have a lot of problems with is the comparison of Spike to Andrew - while it may make sense on a purely surperficial level, both blond, somewhat tall, seemingly effeminate in human form, with the leather jacket, it doesn't work past that. (Hint - don't let appearences fool you on the show...the writers are evil and like to play with the audience's perceptions.) Regarding character comparisons? I could work a far better and more in depth and consistent comparison with Andrew and Xander. He certainly fits Xander more in some characteristics than Spike. Xander's hero-worship of Buffy, seeing no wrong, Andrew's hero-worship of Warren, seeing no wrong.
Spike actually seemed to question Buffy more. And was NOT agape - heroworship love, that was Xander. Nor did Spike aspire to be like Buffy in the same sense Xander did. Spike wanted to conqueor her. Xander wanted to be her henchman, which he attempts to be in more than one episode.
Other comparisons - Xander is the one who summons the demons in the SG - he summons Sweet in OMWF, and by hurting Cordy - inadvertently summons Anya. Xander is the "butt-monkey" of the SG, he's Drac's henchman. He's the comic relief, which was Andrew's purpose in the Trioka. The team-member we don't take seriously. Part of the reason, Andrew survives is to complement Xander's survival. We have the B/X pairing in the beginning of the year with Willow outside and we have the W/A pairing. Buffy doesn't love Xander but does love him as a friend. Warren doesn't love Andrew at all. The W/A which should be friends becomes a twisted friendship. It's the anti- B/X relationship. Just as Jonathan/Andrew is the anti- W/X relationship. I've always seen each member of the Trioka as being representative of one of the SG. In some ways Andrew fits Xander even better than Jonathan does. Jonathan actually fits Willow better - Jonathan like Willow is seen using magic to change his environs and make himself important. Andrew may be the darkXander side - which is notably shown in the whole Andrew/Xander/Anya interrogation scene.

Also both Xander and Andrew - have reacted to the movies in the same way - often trying on what movie heros have.

No, I think a far better comparison is X/A - I just don't have the time or patience to do it right now. People keep trying to compare Spike with Andrew in the same way they try to compare him to Xander - which while tempting, doesn't work as well. Spike actually has more similarities in character to Willow, Giles and Jonathan. (Which btw is actually an in-joke. The writers wanted Tucker but the actor wasn't available so they had to cast someone else - I found this out with an online interview with actor playing Andrew.)

[> [> [> Agreeing with the agreement -- ponygirl, 07:49:44 11/30/02 Sat

The real question for me is why ME was trying to get us to compare Spike and Andrew. The clothing, then the scenes in the house which were almost a shot for shot match. Was it to note the difference between the adult conversation going on in Buffy's bedroom and the childish role-playing in Dawn's? Or are we being set up to once again not take Andrew seriously when he may pose a greater danger than Spike? When Sleeper aired I looked up the word in the dictionary and found that one of the meanings is something insignificant which suddenly takes on greater importance. Could Andrew be the real sleeper rather than Spike?

[> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with the agreement -- Arethusa, 08:04:59 11/30/02 Sat

Or is it also part of the deglamorization of Spike that fills NLM? We have a bad blond guy in an expensive coat swaggering around Sunnydale, but the effect is ludicrous because it's weak, whiny Andrew. But I agree, right now Andrew's the sleeper, since the extent of his involvement with The First is not yet known to the Scoobies.

[> [> [> [> Re: Agreeing with the agreement -- Dariel, 09:14:22 11/30/02 Sat

The real question for me is why ME was trying to get us to compare Spike and Andrew.

I think you touched on the main reason when you noted the two conversations, one adult, one childish, that were taking place. One person, Spike, is attempting to grow up, to embrace the light. He's had his stint as the Big Bad, but it's lost it's lustre. Andrew is like the fledgling vampire Willliam, someone who's tasted power for the first time in his life and covets it. He wants to embrace evil, thinking it will give him satisfaction and control, that he will get to pay back all of those who've hurt him in life.

I also think they are being paralleled because Spike is the obvious danger, whereas Andrew is not. The Scoobs take the former very seriously, while they jokingly play good cop/bad cop with Andrew. Here's hoping they get a clue soon!

[> Re: Interesting thoughts on Andrew (spoilers and whatnot) -- monsieurxander, 15:28:24 11/30/02 Sat

Maybe it's an inside joke... a reference to the fact that (maybe) the actor who played Tucker was not available to be the third member of the Trio, so they made up a character and referenced him about a gazillion times. I mean, they both have the same chief abilities (summoning demons, etc) and the same insecurities, fears, inabilities to cope with the outside world to a humorous extent... They are basically the same character, just played by a different actor.


Kaboom Question (BTVS VII/9) -- Hemiola, 10:12:33 11/29/02 Fri

Everyone seems convinced that it is the Watchers Council that goes boom at the end of the episode.
However, if you watch carefully, the building that is shown just before the Council meeting and the building that actually explodes ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUILDINGS!

This being the case, isn't it therefore logical that the explosion we are shown is actually the first strike by the Council in Quentin's "war"? Or, if not that, an attack on a DIFFERENT Council office in a different location??

Am I missing something here???

[> It is the same building. -- HonorH, 10:45:14 11/29/02 Fri

At least, IMHO. It's just a closer shot when we get the bad CGI explosion.

[> [> Uhm maybe not then again what would be the point? - - shadowkat, 13:03:02 11/29/02 Fri

This confused me as well when I re-watched. The first glimspe of the building shows a half rotunda with windows curved at the top and indented with two wings further out.
The second shot shows a building without a half rotunda and more rectangular indention. Now it's possible this was just an editing or post-production mistake and the writers thought it was the same building. I don't know. But the difference in the two buildings confused me and made me wonder if it was another mislead.

If so? Why show us a building exploding? What's the point?

[> [> [> Confusion and misdirection is my guess. -- VR, 14:06:45 11/29/02 Fri


[> [> [> Just to add to the confusion... -- alcibiades, 22:20:57 11/29/02 Fri

AFAICR, the ones constantly associated with the blowing up of buildings and crypts are people from the Initiative.

I was really struck by this when watching FFL the other day, post NLM. Riley, rather egregiously goes into the vampire crypt, throws a grenade and explodes it. The Initiative is the one with the heavy arms and war paraphernalia.

Just a thought. If they are tying off lose ends this season, the Initiative's a biggee. It's got to reappear sometime.

Although the idea of an undercover American agency blowing up what is more or less the British ministry of magic is rather disconcerting.

BTW, I too think the buildings are radically different once you stop to look at them. And they could have used a still of the exploded building before it explodes to show us that building as the Watcher's Council, so it doesn't make much sense.

[> [> [> [> My confusion is usually at max -- oboemaboe, 22:58:51 11/29/02 Fri

As Travers gave his final words, did anyone else notice the woman in the gray suit (Lydia?) standing behind him acting very bizarre? It seemed like she was tightening her shoulders inward and almost grimacing, with a weird tilt to her head. It was so strange, for a minute I thought she was about to morph into the First.


Am I completely making this up?

[ ] Yes, you're insane [ ] No, that really happened

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My confusion is usually at max -- Cheryl, 08:04:03 11/30/02 Sat

When I rewatched the episode I had thought something similar about her, too. Although it didn't occur to me that she was going to morph, I thought since they showed that shot of her alone that something was going to grab her. Or *something* was going to happen - otherwise why show her like that? Did seem deliberate, but I don't know why.

[> [> [> [> [> I thought the same thing... -- Scroll, 10:21:55 11/30/02 Sat

...but we could be way off base. She could just be a poor Watcher who got blown to smithereens. But the first time I watched, I really thought there was something very fishy about that shot of her in front of the bookshelves.

OTOH, here's a theory I pulled out of nowhere that might be kind of nice. See, maybe she really was just a poor Watcher caught in the crossfire. Maybe she managed to escape. Maybe there was a secret passageway behind that shelve of books, someplace she could've hidden in for protection when the bomb went off. A Watcher building seems like the kind of place for secret passageways and old hidden rooms people have completely forgotten about. Then Lydia could escape to Sunnydale to warn Buffy and help fight the Big Bad. Then if and when "Buffy" ends, if and when ME makes a spin-off with "Dawn the Vampire Slayer", she could be the new Watcher! (Can you tell I've thought too much about this?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> you just think she's cute -- Rochefort, 18:00:50 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> [> [> magic bullet theory.... (the shadowy bugs bunny viewer) -- Rochefort, 17:58:30 11/30/02 Sat

If the Council didn't blow up, how exactly will the exposition for this go?

In walks Quintin... none of the characters are surprised, because THEY didn't see the building blow up. We did. So how does ME explain the misdirection?

They'll need one of those shadowy bugs bunny viewers to stand up in the audience and shriek "But you're DEAD!"

Then Buffy will need to pull out an easle and a pointer and show the video over and over, back and away, back and away. CLEARLY two different buildings. Ah HA! "So the council did not blow up after all, faithful viewer."

"Oh I see, carry on."

And then Xander can scream and go "PEEEOPLE! AAAAAA!"

[> [> [> [> [> In my opinion, Rochefort has just had the final word on the matter -- d'Herblay, 19:32:36 11/30/02 Sat



Proverbs 24:6 in context (speccy spoilery up to & incl. "Never Leave Me.") -- ZachsMind, 13:18:42 11/29/02 Fri

For by wise counsel, you shall make your war.

BOOM.

Buffyradio.com pointed this out and I think it's interesting to note here. Haven't seen it mentioned in this forum elsewhere. Quentin Travers quoted from the Bible just before the Watcher's Council's main headquarters in England blew up. However, he didn't have the chance to finish the verse. I went to The Bible Gateway and checked the bible verse in context. Much of the book of Proverbs deals with wisdom. The Watcher's Council believes it to be the epitome of wisdom. So naturally in a time of need, Travers would turn to that book of the Bible among all others, but after the portion he quoted is another revealing tidbit. Here's the full verse.

Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

That's the King James version. Another translation interprets it this way: "for waging war you need guidance, and for victory many advisers." Perhaps Travers was not going to quote the entire verse, because the Watcher's Council doesn't seem to follow the advice of the second half of that verse. Consequently, in the past there have been many failed Slayers who do not outlive their Watchers. Before Buffy the survival rate of Slayers was terrible, because they only had a single Watcher to mourn their deaths. They did not have a gallant man like Xander to breathe life back into them, or a witch like Willow to petition Osiris on the Slayer's behalf.

In the past, the Watcher's Council has given each Slayer potentiate ONE Watcher, as if that alone is enough. You'd think that if their sole purpose for existence were to seek out THE Slayer and advise and counsel her, when they found Buffy in Sunnydale they would have uprooted their stakes and moved to California. Instead they remained in England. I've always found that rather curious. Conversely, Buffy HAS taken the entire verse to heart, whether she's ever actually read it or not. She has surrounded herself with many counselors, making what is ultimately a Slayer's Counsel that has been a more than sufficient substitute for the Watcher's Council.

You might want to check out the whole chapter of Proverbs 24. Other parts of it are also quite revealing, when placed in the context of Buffy. Coincidental of course, but it still makes for interesting reading. For example, Proverbs 24:1-2 reads, "Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them. For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief." Another variant is, "Do not envy wicked men, nor desire their company, for their hearts plot violence, and their lips talk of making trouble." This is advice Buffy has been trying to accept, having desired the company of Spike in the past but now fighting the temptation to use the wicked man, but now that he's got a soul he's not quite as wicked. The evil's now coming from The First, not him. Granted though, Spike's still talking about making trouble. "If I escape, someone's gonna die."

Proverbs 24:17 says, "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice," which coincides with the conversation Buffy & Spike had about how she needs the hate to do her job.

SPIKE: Don't do that. Don't rationalize this into some noble act. We both know the truth of it. You like men who hurt you.
BUFFY: No.
SPIKE: You need the pain we cause you. You need the hate. You need it to do your job, to be the slayer.
BUFFY: No. I don't hate like that. Not you, or myself. Not anymore. You think you have insight now because your soul's drenched in blood? You don't know me. You don't even know you.


Buffy was a fool in the past. She used Spike. She did get off on the pain she was causing him, and it made her sick when she realized what she was doing to him. She was disgusted with herself. And we learned from her visit with the therapyre in "CwDP" that she has an inferiority complex about her superiority complex. Now that she sees the error of her ways, she's learning from them. She's gained wisdom about herself. As has Spike. They were fools before, but it's knowledge and wisdom that is saving them now. Spike is being honest with Buffy, as Buffy has been honest with Spike from the beginning. On a cerebral level, they're being more intimate with one another now than ever they were before.

Proverbs 24:26 reads, "An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips."

There's also an interesting tidbit in this chapter of Proverbs for Willow: "Do not say, 'I'll do to him as he has done to me; I'll pay that man back for what he did'." Elsewhere in the old testament it talks about an eye for an eye but here it reveals that the wise thing is not to strip someone of their skin for killing your lover. It doesn't make it better.

But back for a moment to the fate of the Watcher's Council, and what the writers may have in store for us. We do not know whether or not the Council survived. We are probably not supposed to know. When we return from the Christmas break, Giles will no doubt return also with a few slayers in training. Travers may or may not make appearances. We've been led to believe these characters might be dead. This is so that we question whether or not when they return, they too are Big Bad disguises. In case you haven't noticed, The First Evil can apparently only appear as people who have died. That's why it can appear as Buffy towards Spike. She's died twice. It can pose as Spike too, and any undead or post- dead as well as all the Big Bads of previous seasons, all of which have been dispatched by Buffy & the Scoobies. Buffy killed The Master. She killed The Mayor. She killed Adam. The whole gang took Glory down and Giles dealt the final blow to Ben. Willow took out Warren. Andrew took out Jonathan. Cassie died allegedly of natural causes. There's never been a character that The First Evil has taken for ITs disguise that's alive in the normal sense of the word. The jury's still out about Joyce & Tara. Joyce may have been yet another disguise of The First Evil but I don't think so. I speculate (the politics behind the scenes notwithstanding) that both Tara & Joyce died of unnatural, normal means. And more importantly, they did NOT die having lost all hope. All the other above-mentioned characters had turned to the dark side or at the moment of death were stripped of their hope that good would prevail. However, Tara & Joyce died quick deaths. They didn't have time to fear the worst. That may be why The First Evil could not take Tara's form, and if that's the case, it gives further hope that Joyce was also the real thing, and not a trick by the Big Bad Whatever.

And if the above is true, it means the Big Bad can't pose as Quentin Travers or Rupert Giles, because they did not die having lost all hope. They too died a surprise death. ...Provided they ARE dead. I speculate that Travers is very very dead but Giles is not. But then again, I've been wrong before.

Guess we'll find out January. =)

[> Re: Proverbs 24:6 in context (speccy spoilery up to & incl. "Never Leave Me.") -- frisby, 15:27:45 11/29/02 Fri

Interesting reading of Proverbs 24:6 with regard to Buffy surrounding herself with counselors (A counselor's council instead of a 'watcher's' council). Also with regard to Buffy gaining wisdom and saying "not anymore" -- --

[> I don't agree so much with the end of your post (spoilers) -- Clen, 17:11:27 11/29/02 Fri

you said Tara and Joyce died quick with no time for fear. Joyce struggled with it for a while, and probably had a lot of fear when her brain wasn't being pressed into incoherentness.
also, Jonathan died pretty quick and through unnatural and normal means (as natural as being shot anyways) with no time for fear of dying (from Andrew) and he also seemed to show a lot of hope and maturity before dying. he had a borderline breakthrough. Joyce died of natural and normal means. really, most of that list died through nonmystical means: stabbed through the heart, blown up, smothered, etc. If you were petitioning Osiris for each of them, which would he allow and which would he refuse?

[> Surely 24:1-2 is more relevant to Andrew by your quote? -- KdS, 03:50:29 11/30/02 Sat


[> More on Proverbs 24 (spoilers up to 7.9, speculations) -- Scroll, 10:14:35 11/30/02 Sat

I'm partial to the NASB (New American Standard Version), it's the most accurate of the English translations though not as poetic.

For by wise guidance you will wage war,
And in abundance of counselors there is victory.


I think you're spot-on about Buffy having surrounded herself with counsellors: Xander with his loyalty and big heart, Willow with her magic and intelligence, Anya with her vast knowledge and no-nonsense attitude, Spike with his experience and strength, and Dawn with her innocence and love. Throw in Giles with his wisdom and maturity, spice it up with a vamp detective agency in L.A., and you've got a pretty formidable "council" fighting against the forces of evil, IMHO.

And I find verse 3 interesting considering the house metaphors ponygirl has pointed out:

By wisdom a house is built,
And by understanding it is established;


Perhaps the Summers' house must be broken up only so that it can be built up again even stronger.

But I can't agree with you on why Joyce and Tara can't be used by the Big Bad. Cassie's death was pretty sudden too, and by natural causes. She had just escaped death twice and was certainly not expecting to drop dead of heart failure. Cassie had never even known her family had a history of heart irregularity. So I don't think you could say Cassie died without hope.

In keeping with that, I hope you're wrong about the FE not being able to pose as Travers. I'm actually sorry to see that irritating man dead and I'd love to see him again, even as a ghost. I rather liked him in a love-to-hate kind of way. Kinda like Snyder.


this is what you get for watching 14 straight hours of BtVS -- leslie, 13:19:23 11/29/02 Fri

Last night I dreamed that I was with Spike in a huge library rather reminiscent of the new Sunnydale High School but also like the main libraries at Harvard (where I've taught), UCLA, and Swarthmore (both of which I attended). But the halls kept shifting like the basement in Sunnydale High this season; they were shifting to keep moving us away from the doors, so we couldn't get out. Wandering through endless halls, up and down stairs. There was a sense that there was something evil in the library that the library was trying to keep from getting out. Finally Spike looked at me and said, "Well, you know, writers are inherently somewhat evil."

[> I like that! -- ponygirl, 13:39:32 11/29/02 Fri

Obviously your untapped prophetic powers are blossoming -- the somewhat evil writers part, sadly not you wandering around with Spike!

[> [> Re: I like that! -- leslie, 15:25:03 11/29/02 Fri

I should make it clear that the "somewhat evil writer" in question was me, which was why the library wouldn't let us out. Like, no matter what, I was always going to be *somewhat* evil just by being a writer.

[> Re: this is what you get for watching 14 straight hours of BtVS -- frisby, 15:21:59 11/29/02 Fri

Are you sure the walls were keeping you from keeping out, rather than making sure you didn't find that special room (the one where Buffy first found Spike, and where Jonathan was sacrificed), the one Andrew and Jonathan also could not find until Morphy-Warren showed them?

Also reminds me of the labyrinth Theseus needed the clue from Ariadne to get out of (Nietzsche's clue to such labyrinths is that only when the hero has deserted the soul does the super-hero approach her in a dream). Maybe the only way to get out of such a library is to (be evil) and write a book? Or maybe the clue from the dream is that the writers of Buffy (Joss and Co) are the true first evil (pulling the strings of our passions not for the purpose of art but for pure wicked pleasure)? I wonder what would have happened if you have woken up within the dream (a lucid dream)?

[> Re: this is what you get for watching 14 straight hours of BtVS -- slain (experimenting with lowercase), 16:03:49 11/29/02 Fri

I've had quite a few strange BtVS dreams - but I've noticed that a nameless terror of some kind often appears, whereas most of my dreams are rarely scary. They say the First Evil gets you in your dreams, of course.

[> [> Re: this is what you get for watching 14 straight hours of BtVS -- yabyumpan, 16:35:27 11/29/02 Fri

"They say the First Evil gets you in your dreams, of course"

And the 'First Evil' is actually Joss Whedon.......


7.8 shooting script now up in Psyche -- Doriander, 15:54:22 11/29/02 Fri

First shooting script of the current season

Sleeper

[> Re: 7.8 shooting script now up in Psyche -- Slain, 16:00:45 11/29/02 Fri

For me this adds one significant thing so far - that the girls are almost certainly prospective slayers. The ones we've seen so far could have been in their early 20s (and possibly were), but the shooting script says emphatically that the dead girl in 'Sleeper' is 15.

Plus:

'The bustling city. Sure, what the hell. Haven't we seen enough of the countryside? And if nobody recognizes it, super in one of those "London, England" title cards. That's the ticket. Anyway...'

Heh.

[> Thanx! -- aliera, 16:21:36 11/29/02 Fri


[> Re: 7.8 shooting script now up in Psyche -- ponygirl, 19:21:38 11/29/02 Fri

Cool! I was starting to despair of seeing shooting scripts for this season. Interesting that the song was originally "I'll Be Seeing You" -- despite the pleasant childhood associations, now permanently scarred, I'm glad they made the switch to "Early One Morning", much more cryptic, definitely more creepy.

[> [> Re: 7.8 shooting script now up in Psyche -- Doriander, 20:05:22 11/29/02 Fri

I think they deliberately put off releasing shooting scripts until 7.9 aired, where in the identity of this season's big bad was revealed/confirmed to the viewers. (Seeing as in 7.8, they've already identified IT as the First, I'm guessing from 7.1 on, it's been spelled out as well. Had they given out scripts early on, we'd have been spared the anxiety of theorizing. Where's the fun in that?)

[> [> No they only screwed with my childhood memories of .... -- Rufus, 23:27:15 11/29/02 Fri

The Friendly Giant.........sigh.......those bastards..;)

[> Awesom, Thanks! well worth reading (dangerous 7.8 spoilers) -- cougar, 19:30:38 11/29/02 Fri

Now that we are in the desert of no new episodes, all we can do is reflect and anticipate. I found it facinating to read the descriptions of motives and then compare them to how the actors told the story. Interesting to see what is cut, like the policeman, it was much spookier when Spike just slipped away from Buffy by a hair's breath rather than the bumbling street cop routine.

One of the things that keeps me glued to this board are the insights int the writing process, from articles to all the probing audience responce and speculation tangents you guys have. Reading his script unveils the paring down to the essential. I'm curious to know if Joss is the one who directs much of this final editing.

I found it especially interesting that the Script called for Buffy to hold Spike after he thought she was gonna stake him. Yet in the episode she did't touch him. I wonder if that direction they took with her contributed to the rewrite of the church/ revalation scene with Spike in Benearth You. Her motivation in the script is more transparent than what we saw. Also I don't remember Spike asking her about what it is going to take to make her believe in him.

Reading this before rewatching the episode is sure to shake loose a few new insights

[> [> Must say I'm rather glad (7.8, 7.9 spoilers) -- HonorH, 19:53:23 11/29/02 Fri

they didn't go with Buffy holding Spike in the basement. I think that would be too much, too soon with these two. Buffy's gentle cleaning of his face in NLM was a far better step toward physical comfort for these two, and the ensuing conversation brought them closer emotionally than they've ever been. There's still a lot of damage between these two, but if they can survive, I think they can build a true friendship. At least, that's what I hope for.

[> [> [> Re: Must say I'm rather glad (7.8, 7.9 spoilers) -- cougar, 20:36:57 11/29/02 Fri

I agree, the fact that she didn't touch hims howed just how much control she exerts to deal with the emotional intensities of living with both polarities of the spectrum of good and evil. Definately built more tension. But if the answer to "some day she'll tell you" was Buffy saying she believes in him, as powerful as that was, that seemed to come too easily. I hope there is more he will be told, and think there is because the faith in him semed a starting point to a new source of strength. Something to hold onto in dark times. Finally some credit and aknowlegement and something that he didn't have to deduce himself.

Yet the script shows that the question had occurred to him before. If that was the moment Cassie prophesized, it seemed to mirror Luke Skywalker becoming a Jedi, the force is with him and welcome to celibacy. In the script he even tells Anja that Buffy is the reason he won't dally.

But surely that is not resolved so early on.

[> [> [> Re: Must say I'm rather glad (7.8, 7.9 spoilers) Ditto. -- shadowkat, 07:04:25 11/30/02 Sat

You know - I've decided to go with what I see on screen and not what's in the shooting scripts for intent, unless the shooting script was written by Joss Whedon.

Why??? Because as Whedon has stated on more than one occassion, a director and producer can change what is written and that's the most valid piece. It's the reason he insisted on creative control, produces the show, and usually directs his own scripts with a few minor exceptions.

Marsters also has stated in Interviews - that the writers original script gets changed at least twice: first in the performances and direction and second in the editing room.

The ONLY time a script or play as written tends to fit exactly what the writer intended is when the writer directs and edits and produces it. Even on stage - the writer's intent can change once the actors get hold of it.

A Shooting Script is NOT like reading the first draft of a book or a book. It's not the script writer's intent that is important to understanding the characters. But we can learn from it - because the changes show us what the other collaborative parties disagreed with and the key to getting the show is figuring out what is in Whedon's brain and the consensus.

example - they clearly cut a lot of Xander's lines. Why?
Because we weren't supposed to be in Xander's pov in Sleeper, Xander's lines about Webs took away from the scene and the focus which was the povs of Spike and Buffy.
Also the song I'll Be Seeing You - doesn't really fit William, Spike or Buffy. While Early One Morning really does. I bet you money that Whedon added that one.

Whedon, from what I've seen in interviews and in the changes, views his vampires a little differently than his writers do. The difference is subtle, but pops up whenever we see these shooting scripts. I personally prefer Whedon's interpretation, it's less obvious and more layered.

I also think Spike hugging Buffy in that scene would have been grossly out of character for Spike. My feeling is Spike doesn't really want to be touched right now. He seems to flinch away from it.

[> [> [> [> Re: Must say I'm rather glad (7.8, 7.9 spoilers) Ditto. -- auroramama, 07:27:43 11/30/02 Sat

I dunno. With people as good as ME, yeah, probably the as- seen episode should be taken as the last word. But there are plenty of shows where the writers' intentions are better than anything the studio or the network will let you see. And sometimes stuff gets cut for lack of time, not because it wasn't good, but because other things were more necessary. And sometimes even ME must miss a trick, make a choice that wasn't perfect.

In this case, though, I agree with you about everything you mention. The one thing I wish they'd left in is Spike asking Buffy about believing in him. Because then her line in 7.9 wouldn't have come out of nowhere as it did. I have no problem with her change of heart -- it didn't seem sudden to me, it just seemed like she had been making up her mind. But "believe" is the kind of word William would use before Buffy would. It's more in character for her if she's answering a question that he asked aloud.

auroramama

[> [> [> [> [> Question regarding reliability of internet shooting script, etc -- shadowkat, 15:03:42 11/30/02 Sat

Okay - someone (my mother) asked me how did I know this shooting script was the actual one and how did I know the Original Draft posted at BAPS for Beneath You was the actual one.

Someone has to scan it in and post to the internet. How do we know some fan didn't do it? Didn't write it themselves?
What's the reliability of the source? Because the sections I read in the Shooting Script and in the Beneath You Original Version - Rufus re-posted from BAPS in the thread below don't fit the characters or what has gone before. They are jarring in their errors. Particularly the Original Beneath You draft which really doesn't fit the character of Spike but does fit a heck of a lot of fan fiction writers views of the character.

Did ME in ANY way come forward and admit to posting this or give these items validity?

Do you have any proof outside of it was found on Psyche's site or Baps?? Has any of the writers confirmed it's validity? How do we know some fan writer isn't pulling our collective legs?

SK (whose feeling skeptical today - my mother has this effect on me ;-))

[> [> [> [> [> [> I answered this already -- see below your other post on this question -- alcibiades, 15:54:09 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I answered this already -- see below your other post on this question -- Dochawk, 23:08:55 11/30/02 Sat

Alcibiades,

Did you actually see the script or are you believing a friend who told you? Because if someone actually gave out a copy of a script that wasn't used, that person would most likely have been fired. I have been on the set of many tv shows (my best friend has been a first AD on two emmy award winning shows and I dated an agent who represented many tv writers) and for the most part actors, staff and crew guard scripts carefully. Once an episode has aired they frequently allow people to have scripts (they donate signed ones for charity often), but to let someone have a script before the episode airs? from a show that tries like hell to keep spoilers out of the public domain? The person who did it would be risking their job and their livlihood (Danny, the first AD said that if you were fired for this reason you'd never get another job in TV, noone would trust you and jobs are incredibly competitive to get). One person at ME may already have lost their job over this issue (the person who told me that isn't close enough to the set to know for sure). So lets say I am a little skeptical about your evidence.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I answered this already -- see below your other post on this question -- Dochawk, 23:23:26 11/30/02 Sat

I should add, since I do know that previously scripts have been "available" before an episode airs, many revisions occur for a reason and a scene not used doesn't imply anything about what the writers are trying to get to, let alone what the director and editors want.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. I agree -- shadowkat, 08:26:52 12/01/02 Sun

I read alcibades response below and strongly feel, partly as a writer myself and as someone who has read movie scripts, plays, etc - that drafts don't tell you that much about intent.

Writers often change entire plots. Even characters.

And in television? We have collaborations. Jane Espenson recently stated in an article she posted at Firefly site that each script goes through four revisions before it even gets to the shooting script stage. And prior to that?
They break the story down as a group. The scriptwriter forms an outline. Then the outline goes back for revisions. No script is shot until it gets Whedon and/or Marti, Minear's approval. Then the shooting script is taken by the director and actors who change it in small ways as well.

I remember directing a play years and years ago and learning how you cut certain diagologue in order to move the story along. And when I briefly acted - I remember memorizing lines but giving certain ones more emphasis.
Christopher Walken in Inside Actors Studio says he usually kills punctuation in scripts before reading them, so he can figure out the right emphasis on his own.

Marsters stated in interviews found on Baps as well as spikespotting.com that he does not improvise, but he does do small things with his face to have some control over it.
He also stated that what the writer writes is sometimes drastically changed by the producers and editors. The director has his take of course, but Marsters found in television that it's usually whoever is in the editing room that changes the scene or script the most. It's not like the theater - where you see what the director and actors do live, uncut. On film - a whole scene that we may read in a shooting script or screenplay - lies on the cutting room floor. We'll never know why that happens. It could be for any number of reasons.

1. Time - too long, have to cut it. (Audrey Hepburn had to fight to get them to leave in the MoonRiver song in Breakfast at Tiffany's b/c of time problems. Once Upon A Time in America was ruined due to cuts made b/c of length.)

2. Commercial breaks (OMWF has several lines cut from it on rebroadcasts to make room for commercials.)

3. Dramatic scope - the scene looked fine on paper but does not work on camera. (They dumped a scene in Spike's crypt last year from the Smashed script b/c it did not play as they thought on camera.)

4. Too dark or hurts the story and characters. (They reshot the punching scene at the end of Dead Things b/c Whedon thought Spike's face was way too damaged and that would overwhelm the message and intent.)

We can learn from these things...but the problem is how much? And we should be careful not to rely heavily on information that the creators of the tv show deliberately cut or removed from the show. If the network removed it for time or commercials - that's a whole other issue. But if Whedon reshot it or cut it, that means it's gone, it's not part of his vision for the characters and it is NOT part of his story. So it is literally no more than fanfic, except in this case possibly, fanfic written by a writer of the show.

One other point, (this is the copyright attorney in me speaking) - I'm surprised ME hasn't gone after some of these postings of scripts on the internet, it is an incredible infringement of copyright and punishable by hefty fines. Makes me wonder if maybe ME knows these scripts aren't the real ones? Or maybe it's just too difficult and expensive for the producers to go after everyone? (The same reason they ignore fanfic). (shrug.)

Thanks for providing the proof though. Rufus appears to have backed it up with her own spoilers so I guess we can assume alcibades friend didn't write and pass it off as Petries (which was what my friend thought). Doesn't change the fact that I really prefer the one that was shot, more lyrical, more metaphorical and far more true to both characters. It also fits better with the episodes before and after it. But then I prefer a little ambiguity in my television, I hate it when everything is clearly shown. And the first version still feels very wrong to me, very out of character for Spike and Buffy.

JMHO. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you. I agree -- Dochawk, 12:06:54 12/01/02 Sun

1. First I am still not convinced its real (did Rufus' spoiler come from the same person who wrote it??) But as we both agree it doesn't matter, because it means nothing.

2. don't be too sure that ME doesn't go after the people who post these. AngelX at least got a threatenng letter as did at least one other site. But ME doesn't want to antagonize the fan community so what they would rather do is find the source of the leaks (it amazes me that a costumer would risk their entire career because a friend wants to be spoilt, but thats what happens).

3. fanfic is a totally different question. First its copywrited characters, not words and its not for profit. Again ME doesn't want to anger the fan community. But, most importantly ME can't read any fanfic because if they use a similar idea THEY will be sued. The best defense is an institutional policy against reading any of it. This is why when Drew Goddard tries to get a job on Buffy, he writes a spec script for Farscape (for example, I don't know what show his famous spec script was written for that got him the ME job). This is a constant thing in this city. protecting yourself against being sued for "stealing ideas".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh I forgot to add -- Dochawk, 12:09:50 12/01/02 Sun

i forgot to add, Rah's transcripts of the commentaries truly edge on a lawsuit for Masq and I am sort of suprised she hasn't gotten a letter yet regarding them (suggests this site is not on the radar of Fox Home Video).

[> [> It looks like a LOT of things were changed/cut from the shooting script -- Traveler, 11:24:51 12/01/02 Sun

Most of the changes seemed to be for brevity, but a few seemed to be for content as well. For the most part, I think they were an improvement.


Episode 13 AtS writer (spoilery for writers name only) -- yabyumpan, 16:31:50 11/29/02 Fri

Tim Minear has posted over on ASSB that he will no longer be writing Ep 13 AtS due to writing commitments on Firefly. David Fury will now be penning the ep with a new director. He thinks he'll be writing Ep 22 though.
http://www.voy.com/14810/130604.html
Also mentions the problems over on Firefly

Masq, if you wanted to check it out, there are no other spoilers in the thread :-)

[> Boards like that drive me crazy -- Masq, 17:12:41 11/29/02 Fri

Copious amounts of Angel discussion to content my soul. VIP visits.

And big-time spoilers which mean I can't hang there!

[> [> Why can't *we* get VIP visits? This is the coolest board after all. -- ponygirl pouting, 08:03:21 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> [> It takes a lot of time to keep up with this board. -- Arethusa, 08:06:48 11/30/02 Sat

Other boards, people can just dip into with a few comments. We practically give out reading assignments for homework!

[> [> [> [> It's worth it, dammit! (while admitting to skipping a few things myself) -- ponygirl, 08:10:00 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> [> Re: Why can't *we* get VIP visits? This is the coolest board after all. -- yabyumpan, 09:28:42 11/30/02 Sat

If anyone's interested, there's a collection of post's by TM from uk.media.tv.angel at http://urchin.earth.li/~sax/mutant/angel/minear/

Covers 3 seasons of AtS including some interesting stuff re:Billy.

I wouldn't be suprised if TM lurked here, I get the impression that surfs around AtS sites fairly frequently.

TM groupie ;-)

[> [> [> [> Re: Why can't *we* get VIP visits? This is the coolest board after all. -- 'Joss Whedon', 09:56:48 11/30/02 Sat

I'm always suspicious that Joss reads more internet criticism that we might think, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's popped over here once or twice - certainly some of plot ideas this season have been suspiciously familiar!

I guess part of the problem is that there's no way of authenticating VIPs - so anyone could post here with a famous name, and we'd have no way of telling if was really them. I, of course, would never do anything as crass and obvious as that.

~ slain

[> [> [> [> [> Well, not necessarily -- Masq, 10:41:13 11/30/02 Sat

I have access to poster ISP numbers, so I can eliminate anyone who's posted here before under other names.

That doesn't mean they are not Joss, but since Joss and other VIP's post at places like the Bronze where their ISP numbers appear under their names, I can compare ISP numbers on our board to official posts at the Bronze, etc., and give it a good likelihood it is an actual VIP.

[> [> [> [> [> [> but the bronze is playschoool compared to this -- luna, 17:24:33 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I second that.. -- ZachsMind, 00:16:07 12/01/02 Sun

However, given that the people who actually make Buffy & Angel are particularly busy, I'm surprised they respond on the 'Net as much as they do. They may or may not lurk here, but I doubt they'd have time to respond. They may need The Bronze, y'know? They may need 'playschool.' Cuz Lord knows this message board and ATPoBtVS as a whole, it's more like a collegiate level approach to examining their works, and they might be a little put off by that. Wanna keep it simple. Keep it real. That kinda thing.

But just in case anyone at Mutant Enemy is lurking..

[raises his cup of coffee in a toast]

Thanks for the seven year cerebral roller coaster, gang. It's greatly appreciated.


Who else thinks .... (Spoilers for 7x09) -- Wolfhowl3, 05:17:02 11/30/02 Sat

That when the UmberVamp starts to talk, it will have the voice and personality of the Master?

(or is that just my wishful thinking?)

Wolfhowl3

[> Not just you (spoilers up to 7.9) -- Scroll, 09:31:37 11/30/02 Sat

His movements, the clawed and gnarled hands, the black leather jacket/tunic with that almost militaristic collar is very like the Master's. The fact that the First Evil wanted to bring some "authority" to its presence -- it all seemed to suggest the Master, or at least a Master-like vampire.

I think we've seen elements of all the previous Big Bads in the past 8 episodes since "Lessons". We have Glory in Cassie, Adam in Warren, Warren in Warren (natch), the Master and Drusilla in Spike/Buffy, and (I think) even hints of the Mayor -- though don't ask me to remember where exactly cuz the impressions were *very* fleeting. I'm willing to bet "Early One Morning" is a song Drusilla used to sing all the time, one which Spike associates with his vamp self. Which made it easy for the FE to use it to control him. That's my theory, at least.

[> [> Except that -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:35:08 11/30/02 Sat

The Uber-Vampire is played by the same guy who played the lead Gentleman and Gnarl. If this performace is similar to his previous two, than I'm betting we'll be in for a real creepshow from the Uber-Vamp.

[> [> [> I must concur.. (speccy) -- ZachsMind, 00:01:26 12/01/02 Sun

I don't think the UberVamp's gonna turn out to be The Master. However, The First might morph into Master when it communicates with UberVamp. I don't see this UberVamp creature being very much more than death and carnage. If it has much of a vocabulary, that's gonna take out the sting of its creepiness factor for me. It should just be a bloodthirsty, mindless thrall thing for The First to control.

[> I sincerely hope not. -- HonorH, 10:12:18 11/30/02 Sat

We've already had The Master. ME doesn't usually repeat, so my guess is this guy won't be Master Redux (or Master Prototype, to be more accurate). If I had to make a guess, I'd say this guy'll be totally non-verbal. That would certainly set him aside from Ol' Prophecy Butt.

[> [> Re: I sincerely hope not. -- verdantheart, 07:16:54 12/02/02 Mon

Well, it certainly looked more impressive than the Master.

[> Re: Who else thinks .... (Spoilers for 7x09) -- Sophie, 15:39:13 11/30/02 Sat

My understanding was that the Master was pretty-thoroughly dispenced with and (after the bone-smashing in "When She Was Bad") unable to come back. Period.

I could be wrong, of course.

S

[> [> Well... (speccy) -- ZachsMind, 00:04:26 12/01/02 Sun

I've always anticipated The Master's return. At the end of "When She Was Bad" we see The Annointed One with a broom if memory serves. He said something like, "I hate that girl" as he was sweeping up The Master's remains.

Maybe he put the powdered bones of The Master into a jar and it's still out there somewhere. Waiting for someone to pour The Master's bone fragments into a vat of human blood so The Master can return.

Okay. Maybe not, but anything's possible in Buffy's World.

[> [> [> Well, I suppose so... -- Sophie, 09:21:39 12/01/02 Sun

Maybe they could put Humpty Dumpty back together again while they're at it. :)

S

[> [> [> [> Except that Jenny Calender's dead -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:26:00 12/01/02 Sun

So they can't gather all the right sacrafices to raise the Master.

[> [> [> [> [> On this show, people are not as dead as they may seem. -- Sophist, 11:17:37 12/01/02 Sun

Just a rule of thumb, not some secret about Jenny Calendar.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Regarding Jenny-- -- HonorH, 12:28:50 12/01/02 Sun

We unfortunately will not be getting Jenny back, as Robia LaMorte is no longer doing TV, if I've heard the story straight.

[> Re: Who else thinks .... (Spoilers for 7x09) -- trebor, 20:48:04 11/30/02 Sat

Personally, I think he should be voiced by James Earl Jones... the greatest voiceover talent ever.

That, or Pee Wee Herman.

[> Re: Who else thinks .... (Spoilers for 7x09) -- The One with the Angelic Face, 16:18:25 12/01/02 Sun

It wouldn't be as menacing if the Uber-vamp spoke. It should just be this primal monster with only predatory instincts. Believe me, I get chills just from watching that end scene. I would prob die of fright alone if I encountered that thing alone at night.

[> [> Re: Who else thinks .... (Spoilers for 7x09) -- PurpleMarrow, 17:32:19 12/01/02 Sun

I agree that the Uber-vamp will be a lot creepier if it doesn't speak. However, they could do something similar to what they did with the First Slayer in "Restless", where Tara spoke for the First Slayer to Buffy in her dream. If this happens then we'll also get a body to go along with the voice. Based on the blood used on the seal, the likely choice is Spike (or maybe Jonathan).


Question about DVD commentaries -- cougar, 18:45:33 11/30/02 Sat

I keep reading references to the backround info on the Buffy DVD's. I havn't seen them and don't have a DVD player. I figured that some dedicated enthusiast may have transcribed those, does anyone know of a link for suchlike?

Thanks

[> Which ones do you want? -- Rufus, 18:56:06 11/30/02 Sat

I have a bunch of them over at the Trollop Group...give me a bit of time and I can link you to what I remember.

[> Links to commentaries I can find -- Rufus, 19:08:18 11/30/02 Sat

Jane Espenson Rm with a Vu

Tim Minear Are you now or have you ever Been

Tim Minear AYNOHYEB pt. 2

Doug Petrie Bad Girls

Doug Petrie Bad Girls pt. 2

The above were all transcribed by Rahael....more to follow.

[> [> More Links -- Rufus, 19:17:22 11/30/02 Sat

Jane Espensons I Was Made to Love You transcribed by Tchaikovsky.


Doug Petries Fool For Love transcribed by Rahael.

[> [> [> Re: Still More Links -- Rufus, 19:28:16 11/30/02 Sat

Joss Whedons The Body transcribed by Rahael.

The Story of Season Five transcribed by Rahael.

[> [> [> Thanks to Rufus, Rahael and an OT to Tchaikovsky -- cougar, 19:38:19 11/30/02 Sat

My heart's desire is filled. I had actually been looking for the one Tchaikovsky transcribed, but had forgotten where and when I'd read it. I'd despaired of tracking it down and now it has looped back to me so let me pass something on.

I am interested to learn about the develpoment process of anything that combines words and images in a stirring way (as Buffy does). I am also a devotee of picture books and found one yesturday that I thought might particularily interest Tchaikovsky. It is "Swan Lake" retold and hauntingly illustrated by Lisbeth Zwerger, Published by North-South Books 2002. It is in bookstores here in Canada.

Thanks again

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks to Rufus, Rahael and an OT to Tchaikovsky -- Rufus, 20:07:09 11/30/02 Sat

So, you are Canadian?.....I take it a Canadian female of a certain age?....;)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks to Rufus, Rahael and an OT to Tchaikovsky -- cougar, 20:32:24 11/30/02 Sat

Not so much that kind of cougar! (although hmm, if I happened upon JM those particular predatory instincts might be aroused, but he's around my age so that wouldn't count)

I chose the name because I had a dream image of a cougar as my spirit guide, and then a day or two later saw the episode where Buffy was led to the First Slayer by the nice kitty that Giles turned her over to. Also my neighbourhood had a resident cougar BB this summer and I aways wondered if it was lurking on my forest walks. Didn't lead me anywhere though which is probably a good thing ; * >

[> [> [> [> Sounds very interesting -- Tchaikovsky, 06:28:02 12/01/02 Sun

I wonder whether I can find it in Britain? I might have a play on Amazon later. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

TCH

[> [> Commentaries -- Rahael, 19:26:11 11/30/02 Sat

Hey cougar, I post all the transcripts I do, right here on this board.

I believe Marie did one, and Tchaikovsky did another.

They should be available in the archives if you do a search by name of poster and title of ep, and "commentary". However, the archives are down.

Thanks for posting the links Rufus. Though I have to say that I'm quite possessive about the credits for these transcripts. Apart from all the work involved doing these, I have started to buy very expensive dvds when I can't afford them simply do them asap for the board. There will come a time when I get much poorer, next year, and I'll be seriously rethinking my decision to do this.

I know Masq likes to fly under the radar, so I wouldn't exactly want to say that I want them associated with this forum more than any other, but hopefully, in future, if anyone asks where to find them, they'll know it's right here.

[> [> [> Re: Commentaries -- Rufus, 19:31:43 11/30/02 Sat

Yes, the hours that it takes to do a these transcripts must be horrendous. I have them all over at the Trollop Board like the gems that they are. I also have them on my hard drive just to reference.

[> [> [> Re: Commentaries -- cougar, 19:52:58 11/30/02 Sat

Thanks for the tip about the archives, I am still learning my way around. I want to look through them for threads I missed in my foolish youth of thinking a show with that name must be... well, you know, I'm ashamed to admit my lack of scope.

I despair of ever getting to the archive because of the rapid pulse of the now on this board! I enjoy the show but the passion and commitment of people on the board refines the pleasure exponentialy. I'm taking your transcripts to bed with a highlighter and note pad (speaking of passion.. ;^}

[> [> [> [> hehehehe! -- Rahael, 20:10:26 11/30/02 Sat

well, we're entering a long barren period of no new eps. The pulse might slow down a little.

Archives are currently out at the moment, but I'm sure they'll be up and running soon. And certainly worth a perusal. I've spent many a dull hour (or 4, or 5 or 8) at work reading them. Insightful commentary, passion, and occasional bouts of Xander-Harmony style fighting. (Season 4 ep reference if you haven't caught that one yet. Hilarious)

[> [> [> [> [> I say, drag out the chocolate (I have mine), highlighter of choice.... -- Rufus, 20:46:45 11/30/02 Sat

I wonder if anyone knew that these were the ingredients needed for the typical Canadian Party Animal....:):):):) We will survive this episode break.....before we know it January 14th will be here and we will be highlighter stained and ready. Sh*t....forgot about the cats.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Canadian Wildlife -- cougar, 20:57:55 11/30/02 Sat

OMG, How spooky, I was just having my ritual Lindt Extra Dark Swiss (I try to stay away from that Band Candy stuff).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Back!!!!!!!!!Evil consumer of Dark Chocolate..........but then again.. -- Rufus, 21:54:38 11/30/02 Sat

means I get more of the Milk Chocolate.....you can go 10 rounds fighting OnM for dibs on any of the dark stuff....he's a hairpuller....;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Back!!!!!!!!!Evil consumer of Dark Chocolate..........but then again.. -- cougar, 22:05:38 11/30/02 Sat

From it's wrapper, I devour

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL......Chocolates of the World....Beware! -- Rufus, 22:45:39 11/30/02 Sat

The cougarbot will get you and your little wrappers too....;)

[> [> [> [> [> Archives -- The Second Evil, 09:30:51 12/01/02 Sun

They're out? Hunh, I was just testing them yesterday.

The Archives seem to be working okay, although the past three months do not appear to have been uploaded. (Standard; there's always a lag b/c we do have real lives.)

;-)

[> [> [> Question to Rahael -- Tchaikovsky, 06:31:02 12/01/02 Sun

Did you ever do a transcript of 'Restless'? Rufus didn't put it up on his links, and I would be tempted to transcribe it if it hasn't been done before. It's extremely interesting.

TCH

[> [> [> [> Yes, I did - Rufus should have it. -- Rahael, 06:33:19 12/01/02 Sun

It is very interesting isn't it? and shows how Joss' mind works. At once literal, and metaphorical at the same time. Metaphorically literal!!

[> [> [> [> Link to what you desire -- Rufus, 07:19:44 12/01/02 Sun

Restless Commentary

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Tch, 07:47:56 12/01/02 Sun


[> Question for Masq, mostly -- slain, 11:56:04 12/01/02 Sun

Is there any chance that the transcriptions could be put up on AtPoBTVS, then, or in the Existential Scoobies, on a permanent basis? I assume Raheal, Marie and Tch. would be okay with that. Or might there be copyright issues?


The origin of the symbols on Spike's chest - NLM/Bargaining parallels -- webdeb, 21:07:09 11/30/02 Sat

I was looking into finding what the symbols on Spike's chest were and a really strange thought came to me.

Bargaining - Willow killed and used the blood of an innocent (the fawn) in a vessel of the dead (Urn of Osiris) to raise Buffy.

Never Leave Me - The First Evil uses the blood of the innocent (the innocent people Spike bit) in a vessel of the dead (Spike's body) to raise a vampire.

Each vessel had carvings on them.

Bargaining - The Urn of Osiris had hieroglyphs. Part of the spell Willow uses to resurrect Buffy is from the Lesser Key of Solomon. The spell calls upon an Angel to hear the prayer.

Never Leave Me - Spike's body used what looks like a Celestial Alphabet (magickal) symbols that are carved onto his body. The triangle with the circles at the end of each point is a symbol for the Hebrew letter "Yod." The other symbols are harder to make out. Anyway, these symbols represent the names of Angels. Also, the Hebrew word for "Yod" is the "hand."

It looks like everything's "connected." :)

Deb

[> Woah. That just hurt my head. =) -- ZachsMind, 22:34:21 11/30/02 Sat


[> [> I'm sorry! :) -- webdeb, 22:54:00 11/30/02 Sat

There was a discussion a while back about at the Stakehouse about the spell Willow used when she killed the Fawn in Bargaining. Part of the spell was from a magickal text (I think used by the Golden Dawn) called the Lesser Key of Solomon. :)

Deb

[> [> [> Oh no. It's okay.. =) -- ZachsMind, 23:52:37 11/30/02 Sat

It's just after trying to write that Christmas episode of Buffy (see other thread), my brain's a bit befuddled. But I like it when people make me think, and the similarities between Willow's spell to bring back Buffy and The First's spell to summon the UberVamp, I must say you make a powerful argument regarding the similarities.

It's just... Ow. I need more coffee.

[> [> [> [> Re: Oh no. It's okay.. =) -- aliera, 08:39:21 12/01/02 Sun

Just a sidenote the reference to the Lesser Key was in the summoning spell that Willow used to call the deer (Angel/higher being)unless I'm totally misremembering. She also called on Asmodea in Grave (see redcat's post in this in the archives for a really great bit of research on the witch Asmodea) which is very close to Asmodeus, a demon also closely associated with Solomon and who was exiled to Africa eventually. Probably all irrelevant but I love the minutae!

[> Re: Thanks very on this WD... -- aliera, 08:30:10 12/01/02 Sun

I've asked in a couple of places about these; it's really been niggling at me if you find out about the other two could you post? I also wonder how it relates to the seal. Was that ever identified?...goat's head...pentagram and the symbols for taurus, libra and something else.


The long lost Christmas episode... -- ZachsMind, 22:28:04 11/30/02 Sat

No I'm not talking about Amends, although that was technically the only Christmas episode of the series.

I don't know about y'all but I'm upset we're not getting a Christmas episode, and that we have to wait until mid January before we get any new episodes. So I took it upon myself to make my own. I know some people frown on fan fiction, but hopefully none of you do. Consider this link my Christmas Gift to all of you.

I JUST wrote this. I mean it's hot off the presses. My fingers are still stinging from all the typing. Took me about eight hours, give or take. I tried to be very true and sincere to the series as a whole and all the characters, getting their voices down and all that. In fact I play with that a bit. What word would Giles NEVER say in a million years? Well maybe he would maybe he wouldn't. Yeah I have fun with the voices of the characters quite a bit. I also tried not to do anything that would make this fan fiction outdated come next January, so that when the new episodes start playing again, people can still read this and go.. "hmm... it could happen. Probably didn't but it coulda."

The storyline takes place immediately after the real Buffy episode season seven number nine, "Never Leave Me" so if you haven't seen that yet then the above link is either going to be spoilage or it just won't make any sense to you at all. The link also contains major speculation, but I made a point to attempt to not introduce anything new into the whole thing. I just took all the elements of Buffy's World up until this point in time, threw everything into a blender and let it sit and spin for awhile. Then I took out the bits that looked inedible, and sprinkled a bunch of Christmasy goodness all over it. I imagine the piece to be rather PG level. At least not any more naughty than the show may sometimes get. Anya's particularly feisty at some points however, and it being about Christmas, there's some points where people's dreams attempt to come true so it does verge on naughty at points but never gets too raunchy.

And for the shippers and the slashers there's just a taste for you too, but I tone it down quite a bit. Merry Christmas. There's something in here for everybody.. Well except for Spike fans. I just couldn't figure out how to safely write him back in. There is a good moment there with Spike at the beginning with his shirt off, but I'd hate for Spike fans to read the rest thinking he was coming back and he never does. I mean, he will no doubt in the real series, but in this particular faux episode, I just couldn't figure out how to work him in more. I'm sorry ladies.

Anyway. Let me know what you think. Share and enjoy. Happy Holidays.

[> Re: Thanks - nice job! -- Brian, 05:44:36 12/01/02 Sun


[> Coolness! Great read! Thanks, ZM! -- Rob, 10:30:03 12/01/02 Sun


[> Weird and wonderful -- Tchaikovsky, 11:18:20 12/01/02 Sun

Loved it ZM, and thanks for taking much more time over my Christmas gift than I'll probably spend on my closest relations!

Particularly loved the reference to John's Gospel- seems kind of right for the original evil and 'beginnings' concepts we're exploring this year. And did you really mean to call Jesus 'Joseph's son'? Controversial.

TCH

[> [> Guess I coulda said "adopted" maybe? =) - - ZachsMind, 12:45:09 12/01/02 Sun

[NOTE to others reading. The following gives away the ending a bit so if you haven't read Christmas Gift yet and plan to, please don't read further yet. I'm responding to TCH here.]

Guess I coulda said "adopted" maybe? =) I'm a little partial to Joseph. I guess you could say when comparing the Bible story to Buffy, as is impossible not to avoid doing in this exercise, I view Joseph as sort of the Dawn of the Tale of The Baby Jesus. The First Good, figuratively speaking. Joseph is there and yet he's not, just like Dawnie. Lemme try to explain what I mean.

I wrote a poem several years ago.. Come to think of it I'm not sure if I still have it on paper somewhere or what (the end result wasn't very good), but I called it "Joseph's Sacrifice" and it dealt with how it must have been for Joseph to go through life knowing that his boy was really not his boy. That Joseph was only the equivalent of an adopted father. A surrogate. Must have been hard. Admittedly the Christian religious doctrine just sorta glosses over that. Catholicism particularly focuses on the mother Mary, and Joseph is given less than lip service. I would imagine things were a little difficult for him as well. I guess you could say I feel for Joseph, so yeah if a bit of my personal bias for Joseph's side of the story filtered into the stage directions of Christmas Gift, I'm guilty. =)

I tried to make a point to show that the Scoobies didn't go back in time to the actual Bethlehem. This was all a fabrication of Dawn's mind. That alone was VERY tricky for me, because Dawnie herself is a fabrication. The minds of the Scoobies were being screwed with AGAIN. They already have a memory of life without Dawnie, coupled with a more prominent false memory that the monks put into them to make Dawnie work in their lives. Add on top of THAT this new altered perception caused by The First and you've got people with swiss cheesed brains. I decided for the purposes of the plot that Dawnie is as real as real can be for them, and they wouldn't lose her battling with these new memories, but I tried to squeeze in the confusion without losing the ability to keep the reader from being confused. I needed to acknowledge that, but I also needed the childhood memories of Buffy & Dawn to make it work. Very tricky.

The Bethlehem they visit also wasn't intended to be a manifestation of The Bible, but of the song Little Drummer Boy. Coming from Dawn, this perception was a fabrication of a fabrication. Rather than say that would make things unstable, I went in the exact opposite direction. Being a fabrication of sorts herself, it made sense to me that Dawnie would be able to cope with the strangeness happening to the Scoobies' relative perceptions of reality. She'd have an unconscious "in" to the goings on, and be able to cope with it better than the others. In a sense we were on HER turf, being an anomaly of subjective reality herself, so it was logical to me that Dawn would be the one to save the day. Besides, she's my personal favorite character right now. I think Dawn gets a bad rap. I'm a bit partial to Dawnie. Again, my personal bias filtering into the piece.

Writing Christianity into Buffy in any way shape or form is very tricky business. I didn't want the audience thinking I was dissing Christianity and at the same time I didn't want them thinking I was trying to purposefully validate "The Christian God" inside the Buffy universe. Whedon has made a point throughout the series to neither dismiss Christianity nor give it credence. He's dealing with ALL religious theology in a sense. Not just one. The conversation between Buffy & Holden Webster in "Conversations With Dead People" is about as close as Whedon's ever gone to answering that question one way or the other -- and he DOESN'T. That's very telling.

HOLDEN: Oh, my God!
BUFFY: Oh, your God what?
HOLDEN: Oh, well, you know, not *my* God, because I defy him and all of his works, butó Does he exist? Is there word on that, by the way?
BUFFY: Nothing solid.


I felt the religious ambiguity needed to remain in "Christmas Gift" too, to stay true to Whedon's vision. At the same time, this being a potential Christmas episode, I couldn't avoid the temptation of tying The First Evil up with "The First Good." It wrapped everything up in a nice bow.

The Jehovah God may or may not exist in Buffy's World, but for that moment to Dawnie, "He" was real. And that's what saved them. And I purposefully used Willow to belay any argument that Jesus Christ is not technically the FIRST Good. There WAS Judaism and Paganism BEFORE Christianity. So it was more logical for Willow to be unable to 'hang.' The timing was critical. I couldn't have "The Two Wise Men." And Xander & Anya neither of them fit as wise men metaphorically speaking. You could say Willow's too smart for her own good. So I got the mental establishing shot of the Witch, the Watcher & the Slayer standing there in a laughable tableau for entertainment purposes, without dismissing Willow's own differing religious beliefs, or frankly, that of differing members of the audience. Willow speaks in the piece on behalf of all those people out there who tolerate Christmas but don't observe its religious significance. Willow's also the one who catches the stragglers, falling into the alternating perceptions of reality between Xander & Anya to save them, so though symbolically Baby Jesus is The First Good, Willow actually steps in, in a pinch. She represents the First Good that came BEFORE the Baby Jesus. That might not work for people who only observe one theology, but in a fictional reality like Whedon's where ALL theologies are given lip service, I needed Willow to act as a second "First Good" of sorts. Then I tied it back together by having Xander the Carpenter, representing the conduit between these theologies, save Willow in return.

The reference to "Joseph's son" was in the stage directions. I don't think that would ever air literally but the spirit of the intent might have been felt, if the piece were to be produced (and of course it won't but I'm just saying). I was imagining Mary on stage left of the manger and Joseph on stage right. Mary's position visually would be a little more prominent than his. In hindsight I probably should have written into the stage directions that Dawn literally kneels before the manger as she drums, so that when Buffy walks up behind her at the end and puts her shoulders on Dawn, the reader isn't trying to wrap its mind around that. Dawn's almost half a foot taller than Buffy, so Dawn would have to be on her knees to make that scene work. In the moment, they've both reverted to little kids in a sense. Dawnie the baby sister and Buffy the doting older sister of years gone by.

Since the series of Buffy The Vampire Slayer deals so much with female empowerment, I gave Mary most of the lines. The baby was a symbol, and Mary's sort of the spokesperson on behalf of that symbol. Still, I gave Joe one important line. John 1:5. "A light shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out." I guess I was saying with all this female empowerment, guys still have a small place in the mix too. =)

I almost didn't toss in the biblical reference, but Quentin Travers had JUST quoted from Proberbs in the previous episode so I figured what the heck. John 1:5 typifies the Slayer's plight to me, just as much as Proberbs 26:4 can apply to the Watcher's Council. Buffy's in the middle of the darkness, and even her own powers may stem from the darkness, but Buffy herself is the light and nothing has put her out. That's the undying spirit of episodes like "Dracula" and "Weight of the World." Buffy may flicker and lose part of her glow, but just when things look bleak she shines brighter than before.

Reading this faux episode over again, I'm concerned that not enough action deals with Buffy herself. She's mostly the focal point where everything else around her is happening. Anya & Xander. Willow & Tara. Dawnie & Joyce. Maybe if I'd brought in Angel, or was able to work Spike into it more that would be one thing, but this faux episode focuses a lot on the others around her, and at times Buffy seems just along for the ride.

Maybe I'm being too critical of my own work. *shrug*

[> [> [> Very interesting -- Tchaikovsky, 05:27:10 12/02/02 Mon

And I agree about both Dawn and Joseph. Both of them are, to me, fascinating characters who are under-utilised. In the Bible, we see so little of Joseph's struggle, and the adopted doctrine ignores him almost entirely. I think we're starting to see more of Dawn again this season, but I must admit, despite being a great fan of the character, I was a little queasy with her one-line act in the second half of Season Six.

TCH

[> Thanks, Zach. That was great! -- Wisewoman, 12:50:00 12/01/02 Sun

I especially appreciated the brief hommage to Beyond Thunderdome!

One inconsistency, though--how come The First can suddenly engage in physical acts, such as "Tara's" fight with Willow?

Season's Greetings,
dub ;o)

[> [> You're welcome. =) (spoilers for Christmas Gift) -- ZachsMind, 13:25:31 12/01/02 Sun

First off thanks to you & others for the kind words. They're appreciated. =) As for the appearance of inconsistency, at the risk of sounding defensive (I'm not, I'm just clarifying) I do answer that within the piece. The First can't engage in physical acts, but it can mess with people's minds.

GILES: Curious. In all my reading I donít believe The First was ever able to actually affect reality, taking off peopleís clothes and what not.
BUFFY: Well here, wherever we are. If itís not real, then maybe all bets are off?


The First was not physically there, and in actuality none of the faux episode actually happens. I establish in the Teaser that the UberVampire brought with him this little orb trinket thing and The First uses that to 'send a present' to its enemies. The First focuses ITs energies into the trinket which briefly accentuates ITs powers over human minds.

IT's messing with the Scoobies' heads literally, and the entire episode actually takes place in the blink of an eye. I purposefully started and ended the episode in the exact same place, in that moment in time immediately after Buffy says the words, "I know what we're dealing with. It's The First" which is where the episode Never Leave Me ended.

Since the majority of the episode happens in their minds, The First is able to affect what appears to be physical reality, because it is really just the subjective perceptions of reality in the minds of the Scoobies. The entire time when the Scoobies think they're still in the house, they're actually trapped in their minds, and The First is creating this subjective reality to make them think they won when they actually haven't even had the big battle yet. That's what IT's trying to do. Make them think they already won so they won't even fight IT. However, Willow's too strong for IT so she's not as affected until Tara shows up, and since Dawn is a living walking breathing subjective anomaly of reality already, well The First's plans have difficulty remaining intact.

I do keep true to The First's weakness in the Teaser. When the UberVampire offers the orb to The First, IT tells the UberVamp just to hold the orb for IT. IT also instructs other people to bring Spike down off the hanging thingy, because IT can't do it ITself.

[> [> [> ^^^ oh. Also a bit of a spoiler for "Never Leave Me." Didn't catch that the first time.^^^ -- ZachsMind, 13:31:38 12/01/02 Sun


[> [> [> Okay, gotcha! -- ;o) dub, 13:36:54 12/01/02 Sun


[> Code it like a shooting script & I'll post it with the rest of the Apocrphya! ;-) -- The Second Evil, 19:31:37 12/01/02 Sun


[> [> Something I am considering, if I can find the time. Thanks for the offer. -- ZachsMind, 11:19:33 12/02/02 Mon


[> Superbly done, Zach. The only thing I would have added... -- cjl, 09:45:56 12/02/02 Mon

...would be the cast singing "The Little Drummer Boy" itself, with Dawn doing the first two lines, then Xander and Anya, then Buffy, then the four Scoobs in harmony--and then, swooping in like David Bowie to the gang's Bing Crosby, GILES (my man!), kicking it to a new level.

Willow, of course, would stand uncomfortably to the side, awkwardly adding a few, scattered ba-rump-a-bum-bums....

Current board | December 2002