October 2003 posts

Previous October 2003  

More October 2003

They're gonna keep making Gunn seem evil, huh? (Just Rewards Spoilers) -- Sgamer82, 15:50:07 10/11/03 Sat




I don't know exactly how to phrase this, but hopefully I can get the point accross regardless?

Is it just me, or are the ME writers, in this episode at least, trying to make people think Gunn's going evil or is foreshadowing such a possibility.

I'm referring to when Gunn suggests freezing Magnus Hainsley's accounts. He says "I know something that'll hurt him. Hurt him bad." with a sadistic tone in his voice. We then find out that Gunn's idea was simply freezing Hainsley's assets, far more harmless (relatively speaking) than what the tone of Gunn's voice implied.

Do you think we'll keep seeing moments like this throughout season 5? Is it possible that one of these moments could very well end up being the real thing? With Gunn doing something that crosses the line?


[> Re: Gunn (Spoilers for Just Rewards) -- Robert, 16:57:38 10/11/03 Sat

>>> Do you think we'll keep seeing moments like this throughout season 5?

Yes, but that process began last season when, in Supersymmetry, Gunn killed Oliver Seidel rather than allow Fred to do so, thus staining his own soul. This action directly led to the breakup between he and Fred. I believe that the implication is that Gunn now has less reason than the others to resist the lure and temptation of becoming evil. Gunn thinks he has less to lose.

[> [> Re: Gunn (Spoilers for Just Rewards) -- Sgamer82, 11:30:18 10/12/03 Sun

Which makes him the perfect choice to be the first one fully corrupted by the power of Wolfram & Hart.

[> I'm not sure about that. -- Gyrus, 13:50:50 10/13/03 Mon

I'm referring to when Gunn suggests freezing Magnus Hainsley's accounts. He says "I know something that'll hurt him. Hurt him bad." with a sadistic tone in his voice. We then find out that Gunn's idea was simply freezing Hainsley's assets, far more harmless (relatively speaking) than what the tone of Gunn's voice implied.

I think this line was merely meant to emphasize Gunn's new perspective since he got his "education". He no longer has to rely on his axe and his attitude to deal with enemies -- he can now do battle on the legal and economic planes, as well. I think he was just relishing the idea of exploiting an opponent's weaknesses in a way he never could before.

On the other hand, we do know that W&H has specifically targeted Gunn for some reason, and it probably has little to do with puppies and candy hearts, so the idea that Gunn has stepped farther out onto the slippery slope is also plausible.

The future of shps (spoilers through Ats 5.2 and 5.3 trailer)) -- Tyreseus, 16:58:39 10/11/03 Sat

I was reading Leslie and s'kat's fascinating discussion of Spike's reason for turning to Fred. "Fred is the anti-Drusilla" is possibly the most insightful thing I've read in weeks.

Anyway, it got me to thinking. Have the writers "wrapped" on the whole Gunn-Fred-Wesley love triangle? We've seen no tension this season, no indication of any kind that there are/were romantic feelings among this group. They're all just good buddies.

I know that the trailer for next week indicates that Angel may be falling for a werewolf (unspoiled beyond the trailer) and I'm kinda hoping that some of the other characters might acknowledge some of the past so we can start to get a pulse on what the AI gang actually remembers from their life prior to W&H. Did Gunn choose to get his mind "jacked up" as a new method of impressing Fred and being the man she deserves? Is Wes still torn with guilt over what happened to Lilah? Does he even remember what happened with Lilah?

Don't mistake me for being a pusher of any particular ship. I'm only interested in seeing some resolution to existing issues -or at least some way to know that as far as the AI gang knows, there were no issues.

And hey, while we're at it, are any of us ready to believe next week that Angel is falling for someone while his most recent "love" is sick in a coma and he's being faced with a constant reminder of the "love of his life" in the form of Buffy's most recent (not)boyfriend?


[> Impact of the 'mind-wipe' -- Ladyhelix, 18:32:03 10/11/03 Sat

Forgive me- I'm new here, and you've probably already discussed this. In a response to my post about Lindsey's last words to Angel in season 2, Scroll suggested that one reason Wes might be acting differently could be that more than Conner memories may have been wiped away. Perhaps even all of Season #4. I'd never considered that. If the gang "reverted" to what they knew at the end of season #3... then that might explain some of the characterizations that I have been puzzled by (Wes especially). This theory would also impact the status of the "ships". So - what to do think? - have MORE than the Conner memories been taken away from the AI team? They seem to remember that Cordy is in a coma - (or at least Wes does).

[> [> I still think that it's like Ben/Glory -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:05:15 10/11/03 Sat

Think of the bus station near the end of "Spiral". Everyone saw Ben turn into Glory, but they don't remember it. They know Ben was there, they know Ben is gone, and they know Glory appeared immediatly after. This should make them curious about some sort of connection, but whenever they try thinking about it their minds wander off and they forget they were ever wondering about it in the first place. I suspect the same thing is happening with the W&H gang. If Wesley thinks back to Season 3, he'll remember betraying Angel and being ostracized for it, but won't remember exactly what he did. This would make him curious as to why he can't remember, but his mind instantly drifts from the topic and he forgets anything was ever troubling him.

This, to me, seems like the best way for ME to go. Every effect Connor had (both on the characters and on the storyline) is preserved, but no one can remember the source of these effects and is incapable of wondering why they can't remember. This way we get to keep the characterisation of the past two years while stopping the characters from wondering about gaps in their memories.

[> [> [> So, you say there was a connection between Ben and Glory? -- grifter, 06:12:54 10/12/03 Sun

Oh, come on, someone had to say it! ;P

[> [> [> [> Well, that's obviouus. But, what kind of connection? -- Ray, 13:49:20 10/12/03 Sun

Just playing Giles to your Anya

[> [> [> [> [> I think it had to do with ice cream -- skeeve, 07:16:16 10/13/03 Mon

[> Re: The future of shps (spoilers through Ats 5.2 and 5.3 trailer)) -- Sgamer82, 11:59:17 10/12/03 Sun

I thought the Gunn/Fred relationship was taken care of back when Angel was Angelus. As a result of Angelus's taunting, Gunn finally broke it of with Fred for good. There wasn't anything happening romantically between them from that point (though, granted, they did have other things on their mind) and Gunn even made a pass at his W&H guide back in Home.

[> Re: The future of shps (spoilers through Ats 5.2 and 5.3 trailer)) -- Cigarette Smoking Vampire, 03:55:25 10/13/03 Mon

I do get the feeling that the Gunn/Fred ship is pretty much history. It doesn't appear that the writers are pairing them up in scenes at all thus far and with him being "lawyer guy" and her being "science queen" now, I don't see them having as many opportunities to interact. My bold prediction (well, maybe more lame than bold since it is so obvious) is a Wes/Fred/Knox triangle.

As for Angel, I wouldn't be surprised to have him fall for werewolf girl. IMO he is already falling for Eve a bit. In "Conviction" he said something about her not being cute when he's angry, implying that he does find her cute otherwise. What's the point of having a great job, a great penthouse bachelor pad, and a fleet of hot cars if you're not going to use them to get women anyway?

Question about Gunn and memories-possible spoilers -- Ann, 17:52:07 10/11/03 Sat

If the memories of the AI gang have been removed for the last two year (I believe that is the correct amount of time), yet Gunn has been given knowledge of Wolfram law firm, is it possible he was given their records and accounts of AI including info that would fill in his memory about Connor and other stuff? Does he have info the others don't know about other than Angel? I am pretty new to AtS so this might not be correct but I was wondering. Thanks.


[> Re: Question about Gunn and memories-possible spoilers -- leslie, 19:00:47 10/11/03 Sat

I think the only memory that has been wiped is the memory of Connor, specifically. Just as the monk retrofitted the Scoobies' memories so that their entire lives were exactly the same, except Dawn was there, it seems that everyone at AI remembers the whole last year, including Jasmine, but without Connor. Which leads to the interesting question: where do they think Jasmine came from? There has also been no mention of Cordy's being Jasmine's mother, so it seems that Jasmine is in their memories as just another Big Bad who appears out of nowhere.

[> [> I'm not sure they remember her. -- Arethusa, 07:16:20 10/12/03 Sun

I don't think they could so casually discuss whether TPTB sent Spike or whether there's dissention in the PTB ranks if they remembered her. I think they would have at least mentioned her in the conversations if they did remember.

[> [> Re: Where Jasmine came from - possible spoilers -- Sgamer82, 11:49:03 10/12/03 Sun

That's actually pretty simple. As far as the Angel Investigations gang's memory of the times are concerned, Cordelia could have simply returned from the Higher Plane already pregnant with Jasmine.

[> [> Re: Question about Gunn and memories-possible spoilers -- Ike the Cat, 17:33:44 10/12/03 Sun

Someone on another Angel discussion board was very angry about this entire memory issue, proclaiming that (s)he would stop watching the show unless the issue of what Wes, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne can or cannot remember is addressed in an upcoming episode. His or her argument was that, without the same memories, these folks are in effect not the same people (s)he has grown to love. I was very sad that a (supposedly) longtime fan of the show would bail out for such specious reasons.

And it's vastly unlikely that any S5 episode will address this issue directly because it would require too much exposition and confuse new viewers too much. Especially now that AtS's ratings have recovered somewhat this season from their low level last season, with Smallvile and BtVS viewers tuning in who have never watched before. Networks such as the WB are petrified of losing potential new audiences by letting their shows be too "complicated," as if we're all a bunch of total morons. (Witness ABC executives constantly harping about how "Alias" is "too confusing," as if it's rocket science or something. I like that show but it's not "Ulysses" or anything. If it's confusing then I'm Abraham Freaking Lincoln.)

[> [> [> Thinking it's too confusing doesn't mean they think the audience is dumb -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:13:17 10/12/03 Sun

Even very smart people can be left confused if they're dropped into the middle of a story with no knowledge of what happened before. Perhaps smarter people can catch on faster, but even then they can be left out of the loop if the network assumes they know the backstory better than they actually do.

[> [> [> [> coming in halfway -- angel's nibblet, 22:11:29 10/12/03 Sun

this is perhaps one of the reasons i initially found stargate SG1 confusing,because it had so much backstory re wat had previously happened to the characters etc, though it is a very good show IMO, or was, since i havnt seen the most recent seasons because of silly tv channel putting it in the graveyard time slot and then taking it off altogether, grrr. anyway what was i saying? oh yeah, i found it quite confusing at first but i did manage in the end, although i wouldnt say i know the story and episodes etc as well as those of buffy and angel.

[> [> [> That memory wipe thing (spoilers for 4.22, 5.1, and 5.2) -- Masq, 15:47:51 10/13/03 Mon

the issue of what Wes, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne can or cannot remember is addressed in an upcoming episode. His or her argument was that, without the same memories, these folks are in effect not the same people (s)he has grown to love

And they are right. Who are we but the sum of our memories? Who are these characters if we don't know what they remember? We cannot speculate on their motives, their intentions, their romantic entanglements unless we know what they remember. Does Wesley remember betraying Angel in season 3? Does he remember that that betrayal lead to his dark path that ended in his involvement with Lilah?

Finding out what the gang remembers--whether it is a memory of what really happened or an alternative memory--seems a basic requirement of responsible story telling to me.

If ME does not address this in some fashion, then they are not the writers I thought they were for seven years. They cannot be so pandering to "new viewers and better ratings" that they would leave us in the dark about what Wesley remembers of the past two years, or Gunn, or Fred or Lorne.

I don't know yet if ME will address the memory wipe, but given what I've seen so far, here are the reasons I think they will:

(1) There was absolutely no good reason, in Home, for the memory wipe. Angel could have sent Connor to a new life somewhere else, and told his friends about his decision. They might have thought he was wrong, but it was his decision, his son. And who could deny something drastic needed to be done about Connor? Angel's not the type to be shy about "I did this, deal with it."

Why create this convoluted plot device unless you plan to do something with it? It can't be ratings.

There is no ratings reason for the memory wipe. Imagine season 5 as if the memory wipe had not happened. Occassionally, one of the gang might see a brooding expression on Angel's face and say softly (re: Connor), "You miss him, don't you?" And Angel would nod, and the gang would go on with their jobs. They would not have talked about the events of season 4 any more than they already do, and confuse those poor newbies with back story.

(2) In "Conviction" (5.1) Eve specifically brings up the memory wipe and reminds Angel about his choices concerning Connor (mentioning Connor by name), and how none of Angel's friends remember him. Angel gets a bit defensive about this. Why bring it up if you don't want to burden viewers with back-story? You bring it up because Angel will be forced to deal with his choices later in some future plot line that hasn't been fully developed yet.

(3) In "Just Rewards" (5.2) Spike tells the gang about his relationship with Buffy and the fact that he has a soul now. The gang is a little miffed that Angel didn't inform them about these facts. Gunn then makes the comment (I don't have my transcript with me) about Angel keeping secrets from them. It's not the important issue of episode 2, so it passes in a minute. But it seems to me it could be one of those foreshadowing moments that latter on gets blown open when the gang becomes more distrustful of Angel and their memories and their reasons for accepting Wolfram and Hart's offer in Home, which is the major issue of season 5.

[> [> [> [> Re: That memory wipe thing (spoilers for 4.22, 5.1, and 5.2) -- jane, 16:07:31 10/13/03 Mon

Interesting, Masq. I agree, the memory wipe issue is lurking at Angel's shoulder, and will probably come back to bite him. Something I thought about last night - was the memory wipe somehow necessary for the spell on Connor to work? Sort of a reverse engineering of the whole Dawn memory insertion spell? Was it ever made clear that the memory wiping was Angel's choice? Just wondering.

[> [> [> [> [> They were pretty mysterious (4.22 & 5.1 spoilers) -- Masq, 17:05:41 10/13/03 Mon

It went down like this. Lilah is trying to convince Angel to take the Senior Partner's offer in Home. Angel is saying "No way". Lilah turns on the television and shows Angel the news, where there is a report of Connor holding hostages at a sporting goods store. They show an image of Connor on the screen.

ANGEL (through gritted teeth) You set this whole thing up.
LILAH Been a little busy with the being dead.
ANGEL You, the senior partners, whoever. Get 'em on the phone and make it stop (low) now.
LILAH Love to, except for the part where we didn't have anything to do with-
ANGEL But you know who did.
LILAH Yeah, I'm looking at him. You're the one who raised him or didn't. (Angel lets her go; Lilah clears throat) Can't imagine how the kid turned out postal.
ANGEL You don't know a thing about Connor, huh. Let's keep it that way. (walks toward the door)
LILAH One time offer only, Angel. Walk out that door, deal's off. Stay, and it's all yours.

Angel then says to Lilah, "People like you, this place, that's what's wrong with the world, Lilah. I will never be a part of this. (sighs, stares at the image of Connor on the screen) Not the way you're hoping. (walks up to Lilah) Now let me tell you what the deal's gonna be."

The next time we see Angel, he is at the sporting goods store. He tells Connor he's going to prove he loves him, and he stabs him. The scene cuts off at that point.

Then we go to the scene where the gang meets up in the lobby of W&H, to discuss whether or not to take the deal. Note that they all were busy making up their minds right around the time Angel invoked the "Connor's new life spell".

Lilah shows up, and Angel asks to see Connor in his new life.

ANGEL Just one more piece of business. I got to see him.
LILAH I'm sorry, Angel, but that wasn't part of the deal.
ANGEL Value of compromise. Remember, Lilah? I need to see him.
LILAH You're the boss. (hands Angel the file and amulet) There'll be a limo waiting outside. It'll take you to see Connor.

Fred then says, "Who's Connor"? (They lost their memories of Connor while making up their minds about the W&H deal)

We never see the conversation in which Lilah and Angel hammer out the deal, but both parties have some leverage here. Angel will take the deal if W&H helps him save Connor. Angel has enough power in this situation to dictate at least some of the terms of how "saving Connor" will work. But he is asking W&H to help him, so they will be able to dictate some of the terms, too.

We don't know who dictated the memory wipe.

Perhaps W&H made this part of the deal, and Angel was forced to accept it. However, in "Conviction", Eve implies that Angel made this choice, or at least, that when W&H dictated terms, they demanded the memory wipe and Angel went along with it:

EVE Hits you where you live, doesn't it?
(Angel stands, glares at Eve) Of course I know. You lost your son. Well, gave him up.
ANGEL To save him.
EVE Which you did. He's happy and well-adjusted now that he has no memory of you, and the rest of the world, including your best friends, (whispers) never even heard of Connor.

She says the last part like an accusation, and Angel gets defensive.

Bottom line: we don't know who dictated that the memory wipe occur. Could have been Angel (to help Connor have a completely clean break), could have been W&H (as a necessary part of the mojo, perhaps).

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They were pretty mysterious (4.22 & 5.1 spoilers) -- jane, 18:26:57 10/13/03 Mon

Thanks, Masq. Guess I'll just have to accept the ambiguity of it all. I have a feeling that we'll learn more as the season progresses. Hope so.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Connor question -- sdev, 20:30:09 10/13/03 Mon

What I never understood or maybe missed is-- What happened to Connor's supernatural abilities, strength, smell, etc?

How would altering his memories and past affect his actual body? Are we supposed to assume that that was altered as well?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also unanswered questions -- Masq, 20:54:16 10/13/03 Mon

There were no answers given about these questions in "Home". We can only speculate:

When we peek into Connor's new life at the end of Home, he seems happy and normal. Eve says in "Conviction" that Connor is "happy and well-adjusted". But that really doesn't tell us anything about Connor, except that he has no memory of his former life, and does have memories of a life he never really lived (like Dawn).

People have speculated all manner of things about him:

Is he still Darla and Angel's biological son? Maybe not, but I'm going to say yes, since he still looks the same. He has the same genes.

Is he still the metaphysical offspring of two vampires? This is a slightly different question. Both Angel and Darla were once human, and Connor can be their human biological child with no special metaphysical powers at all.

In "Release", Connor tries to hit Angelus and gets knocked out by the anti-demon violence spell. This seems to indicate that Connor was at least part demon up until the end of Home, and that that is the source of his special strength and powers.

Now, the spell to put Connor into his new life could have taken away those demony powers as well, leaving Connor 100% human. However, I don't think altering his memories could take away his physical powers. I think it would have to be an extra bit of mojo on top of the memory mojo spell.

One would think that W&H would remove Connor's powers if they could, if they truly intend to let Connor go on to lead a "normal" life. Otherwise, he's going to get curious about himself (like he would if he were the only one in his family that could leap off tall buildings in a single bound without busting his coconut).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Also unanswered questions -- sdev, 00:16:33 10/14/03 Tue

It makes sense to have remade him physically as well so he blended in to his new enviornment without messy questions. But the additional physical change is much more extensive and really jacks up the ante. Not only is his memory changed but he is practically a whole different person.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Other Erased Memories -- Claudia, 11:55:54 10/14/03 Tue

Will the erased memories of Connor be the only thing Angel might have to contend with in future episodes? Will the events of "I Will Always Remember You" come back to haunt him?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [cue dramatic music] Tune in to 'Angel the Series' Season 5 and Find Out -- The First Naughty Virtue, 13:12:12 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Maybe we'e not supposed to think of them as the same characters -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:04:17 10/14/03 Tue

ME has described Season 5 as being like a whole new show, perhaps that means totally revamping the main characters until they're like new ones as well.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe we'e not supposed to think of them as the same characters -- Masq, 09:14:08 10/14/03 Tue

ME has described Season 5 as being like a whole new show, perhaps that means totally revamping the main characters until they're like new ones as well.

This is exactly what has long-time loyal viewers so upset. That ME would do this to attract new viewers and get ratings and totally alienate loyal viewers who have been watching the show for four years.

It's not ME's style, or Joss' style, to forget his character's past. It comes back to haunt them again and again. There are things Joss might do to bring in ratings (put the gang in an interesting new situation at W&H, bring Spike over from BtVS), but I don't see him destroying character continuity in the name of ratings.

[> [> [> [> Somehow, the memory wipe issue seems... -- Random, 19:43:10 10/14/03 Tue

...to be highly selective. Almost like meta-editing, bit by bit. In other words, something far more complex and difficult than merely memory wipe ala Willow/Tara. As someone noted, it's more along the Dawn-made-manifest lines (except, you know, in reverse) so that the lives of the AI gang have been subtlely altered but not dramatically. Connor does X and Y results? Y still results, but the X is done by someone else, or the X becomes W. I agree that, in practice, this leads to an extremely convoluted rewriting of history and clearly ME can't address every specific thing that would have changed if Connor hadn't been there. And, like Dawn's case, the memories added would be false. Removing the memories without adding or altering would have been noticable to the AI members immediately (except maybe Lorne, caught up as he was in fanboy glee) as they struggled to peice together why they were even in W&H and how they got there. But perhaps the ghost of Connor lingers in their minds even now. W&H is not omnipotent, and this would have had to be a damned powerful spell in the first place. I can imagine that, some nights, Wesley wakes up in a sweat from dreams he cannot recall, feeling that something important has been taken from his life, a lingering sense of loss carrying over from the forgotten dream. Or Fred stops for a moment in the middle of work and daydreams, and can almost make out a familiar form at the edges of her imagination, but shakes it off and returns to her potions. That's the way it would be in my Buffyverse.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Somehow, the memory wipe issue seems... -- Ann, 07:55:27 10/15/03 Wed

"W&H is not omnipotent, and this would have had to be a damned powerful spell in the first place."

I agree and that is why I think Gunn might be the key to the release of the "forgotten dream". I like that description. The info dump into him may contain keys of the truth. Maybe even a document Angel signed. This is a law firm after all.

Didn't Buffy eventually have dreams of her pre-Dawn life after Dawn came?

I also agree that Fred might be open to this remembering more than the others. She is a scientist but Spike was correct in going to her for help. She has a gentle heart. I think the footprint (so to speak) of AI's love of Connor remains with them. I don't think a person can be wiped clean from another's heart. Plus stuff won't add up.

Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- Ladyhelix, 19:48:43 10/11/03 Sat

I've noticed that Spike is "speaking" (but - not necessarily "acting") a lot more UPPER-CRUSTY. More "William", less "Back to the wall - nothing but fist & fangs". Is it just by chance, or might this also mean that something more has happened with/to him. (Maybe JM just got a speech coach now that ASH is out of the picture). Any ideas?

If it's intentional - what do you think it means?


[> A friendly note -- Masq, 19:55:39 10/11/03 Sat

Hi Ladyhelix and welcome to the board!

You'll notice your subject line has been altered a bit. We have a policy here of not revealing recent plot points in subject lines and labeling recent plot points in our posts with "spoiler warnings" in our subject lines. It's all explained in the link above (Spoiler policy).

Not picking on you in particular, but just making a point to all newbies and a reminder to board regulars that some folks don't see the ep for a few days after it airs and we like to be considerate of them.

Again, welcome!

[> [> Thank you SO much! -- Ladyhelix (blushing), 21:08:37 10/11/03 Sat

Masq, thank you SO VERY MUCH! I completely forgot that some folks were on a "delayed viewing schedule"! I am SO sorry!! I really appreciate you letting me know, and for being so kind about it! I am coachable - Thanks again!
- Nanette

[> Re: Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- cougar, 20:30:00 10/11/03 Sat

I noticed a shift in accent too, but it seemed to me to be from "Geordie" (like Robson Greeen) to "Cockney". Same class, diferent location. Of course I only have a PBS/BBC linguistic fantasy map of the UK in my Canadian head. Maybe JM heard that accent while visiting Britain this summer and just picked it up. We'll see if the nuance means anything. BTW Was Angel's loss of an Irish accent something he deliberately did to banish Liam from his makeup as well as Angelus? Was this ever explained?

[> [> Re: Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- angel's nibblet, 20:44:48 10/11/03 Sat

maybe it was just another thing he did in order to distance himself from the angelus image. in the season 2 ep set in the fifties "Are you now or have you ever been" we see that Angel already has a fully american accent, so it must have happened in the early 20th century. why is never explained. maybe he just did it to fit in better, but then again that was never really one of his priorities.

[> [> [> OT, just felt an earthquake here in Victoria BC -- cougar, 21:01:33 10/11/03 Sat

anyone else feel it elsewhere or or we just on a hellmouth?

[> [> [> [> That's what you get for questioning Angel's accent (or lack thereof). -- leslie, 21:03:18 10/11/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> I promice I'll be good! -- cougar, 21:13:37 10/11/03 Sat

[> [> [> Re: Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- ladyhelix, 21:14:34 10/11/03 Sat

LOL!! No - Spike never did worry too much about conforming to anyone else's expectations! Just another way our boys are polar opposites! Hey - maybe the change is his soul! It was clear that a lot of JM's dialog in 5.2 as "overdubbed" - especially the bit in the lobby (when Angel kills his "3:00 appointment".

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- Doriander, 12:36:35 10/12/03 Sun

Oh god, It drove me nuts. They should refrain from having JM loop his dialogue from here on in. It really took away from the spontaneity of the scenes. And wow, I can see now why JM relies on Method so heavily, his line readings in the looped dialogue was OFF. It's especially hard to get past when you've seen the work print copy at least fifteen times (in tandem with the Conviction work print. There was a download frenzy of the copies two weeks before the premiere, couldn't resist. Me? Obsessed?). The sound quality in that cut was fine (unlike the Conviction cut, where among other things, DB was not miked in in that long opening shot), JM's voice was fine, his accent actually reclaimed something, and his delivery was excellent, so I'm really baffled as to what went wrong in post production. In that cut, he sounded like Spike pre-UPN tenure, though a hint more withdrawn, which I thought made contextual sense. I remain ambivalent with some of his acting choices in the first two scenes (Angel's office, lab), intact in the aired cut, but otherwise was just overwhelmed with "JM is reSpikified! I didn't realize how deSpikified he'd been! Let's never lose this Spike!" It really was something to behold. The overdubbing in the broadcast was like hearing a revered song get butchered. What peeved me most was they looped key Angel/Spike moments I was particlarly taken with; the corridor to lobby scene, spats at Hainsley's hallway, splices in the bedroom. Granted in said scenes, some of Gunn and Angel's lines were looped as well, but those didn't rely on momentum, unlike the delivery of those impassioned speeches. And how obvious was the discordant modulation in those? Really messed up the vibe DB and JM had going. Spike's tone in the corridor to lobby walk was smart, not hokey, and his "you got it too good" speech was less angry!spiteful, more imploring!spiteful in the work print. And dammit, they had a nice complicit vibe in the bedroom scene that didn't translate to the aired cut. It's so distracting, Spike conversing with that intimate cadence of his spliced with him seemingly talking from a speaker phone. Perhaps the rough cut has really skewed me, but I really hope they re-master the ep for the DVD's because the broadcast lost a lot, at least from this obsessive's perspective.

/end hardcore Angel/Spike shipper rant. Their milestones should be nothing short of perfect dammit ;-). Still loved the ep.

[> [> [> [> [> LOL! (Spoilers 5.2) -- s'kat, 16:49:49 10/12/03 Sun

Thank you for that...even though a good bit went over my head, having not seen the rough cut, it does explain why a couple of scenes in the episode seemed off to me. I thought it was just me, until I read your rant.

The scenes were the hallway, the scene where he tells Angel he knows him and the bedroom scene - the voice didn't quite match the lips on the screen and it felt oddly discordant.
I think it was a production error not an acting one. Especially since - when they do these things they do numerous takes then splice them together...the editing was off a bit in this episode. Maybe the insertion of special effects threw them off? Not sure. But would agree - the looping didn't quite work and it wasn't just Spike, I noticed it in a scene with Wes as well.

Hoping they get this under control - S6 BTVS had a lot of these editing flubs as well, which were equally distracting - Older and Far Away being amongst the worst.
(And here I'd always blamed UPN for it.)

[> Re: Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- Sgamer82, 11:53:47 10/12/03 Sun

Maybe it's just a result of Spike's having a soul now. As Souled Spike, he is just a little bit more William now than he was as Souless Spike. Not much, it's not that noticable in his general personality, but every now and then it's clear he's no longer the Spike of old, thanks (at least in part) to his soul. There could also be some connection to Spike's delcaration at the end of Chosen about how he could finally "feel his soul." That could have brought out a change.

[> [> Re: Spike seems 'different' (Spoilers 5.2) -- angel's nibblet, 21:57:55 10/12/03 Sun

or it could be that he was just so pissed off at seeing angel and being there that it brought out the old spike... maybe it's just something that angel brings out in him, or the general confusion of the moment, don't know bout you but if that happened to me i would be slightly off and confused too.

Spike has a temperature! -- Eli, 15:44:13 10/12/03 Sun

Last week, Fred examined Spike and said he was giving off heat.

Could Spike be changing back into a human?
The amulet's purpose was to purify, well it did a good job.
Could it have placed Spike into a position where he had to decide which eternal place he wanted to go?

And any thoughts on how Spike will get over Buffy to start a romance with Fred? Could part of breaking the amulet's spell is for Spike and Fred to have give and take pure relationship?



[> Ghostly Decay? -- dmw, 16:23:37 10/12/03 Sun

Spike also seems to be fading away. Could the heat he's giving off be a result of the decay process in manner similar to how radioactive materials provide heat?

[> [> Re: Ghostly Decay? -- tapioca, 16:52:03 10/12/03 Sun

Hi! I'm new, but have been lurking for years. I thought it was time I posted.

Fred was also getting brain wave activity which does lend itself to support the whole becoming human theory. He also seems to have retained his vampiric nature as well and one wonders if they manage to stop him from fading away if he will still need to feed on blood or will develop into something different. A vampire/human hybrid perhaps? Or maybe he'll be able to touch things without other basic creature needs like feeding?

[> Spoilers Above for Angel Season 5 -- sdev, 22:29:06 10/12/03 Sun

[> Re: Spike has a temperature! (5.2 spoilers) -- Cigarette Smoking Vampire, 03:44:11 10/13/03 Mon

I am no science whiz, but I am a Spike loving geek. So of course, I looked around right after that episode aired to try to find out if they were giving us a big clue there. IIRC what Fred said was the Spike was "radiating heat." Apparently, all objects radiate heat. She also mentioned in response to his quip about being "hot" that he was just above room temperature. So, I don't think there is any evidence there about the possibility of Spike becoming human. Of course, since she said he was just above room temperature, there is a slight possibility if his temperature continues to rise, but I suspect not right now.

[> [> Maybe he just has a fever -- skeeve, 07:01:07 10/13/03 Mon

All ampires have some metabolism.
They have the energy to move around.
They should all be at least a little above room temperature.
Apparently Spike is a bit more above room temperature than the average vampire.

Of course that doesn't explain brain wave activity.
It really doesn't explain how Fred was able to detect it with the instruments she was using.

Mercy (spoilers 5.01) -- Diana, 20:04:54 10/12/03 Sun

Not sure I saw this up last week, so I'm posting now. Angel mentions that mercy is the one thing more powerful than conviction in the Joss-written season premier. We have seen how Joss hides nice little tidbits in his scripts, especially the season premier.

In Judgment, the season two premier (the last season premier written by Boss Joss himself) written by Joss and Greenwalt,

Host: Love the coat. It's all about the coat. Welcome to Caritas. You know what that means?
Angel: It's Latin for mercy.

Think maybe Lorne will be crucial to beating Wolfram and Hart this season?


[> good catch! hope so....itd make Lorne more interesting.. -- Nino, 20:33:26 10/12/03 Sun

[> I like the possibilities -- LittleBit, 23:16:12 10/12/03 Sun

Interesting tie-back, and could bode well for Lorne. I'm going to hope so, anyway.

[> That struck me as well ; it's all connected... :) -- jane, 00:28:29 10/13/03 Mon

[> I hadn't noticed that connection, good point -- Deacon, 14:08:33 10/13/03 Mon

My analysis of 'Just Rewards' is up -- Masquerade, 18:43:49 10/12/03 Sun

After seven years and hundreds of episodes, ME are still the kings and queens of metaphors, metaphysics, and moral ambiguity. Here.


[> A little something on Ghosts -- Rufus, 22:21:37 10/12/03 Sun

From the Penguin dictionary of Symbols.....

Ghost: The image of the ghost embodies, and in a sense symbolizes, the fears of beings who dwell in another world. The ghost returning may perhaps also be an apparition of the ego, of the unknown ego, springing out of the unconscious, inspiring an almost panic fear and being thrust back into darkness. The ghost might well be the reality which is disowned, feared and rejected. The analyst would regard all this as the return of the repressed off-scourings of the unconscious.

Spike vs Giles -- JBone, 05:12:03 10/13/03 Mon

Two of them. English like me, but older, less attractive.


Trying a regular vote again, don't make me take it down and do the email thing again. Post comments here or at the voting site.


[> Re: Spike vs Giles -- Celebaelin, 06:01:58 10/13/03 Mon

The tournament keeps on providing these needle matches. There's no love lost in this bout as some quotage of the quality snark will easily show "cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea" vs "we are not your way to Buffy". Tabula Rasa showed the underlying nature of the hostility between these two even in the absence of the vamp. factor. 'Made with care for Randy.' (looks at Giles angrily) Randy Giles? Why not just call me 'Horny Giles,' or 'Desperate for a Shag Giles'? I knew there was a reason I hated you! Whilst Giles doesn't have the physical power to beat Spike in a knockdown fight and has only rarely been seen to use magic the war of words could be monumentally savage and I don't think Spike would survive it, and that's saying something. Time for some home truths, at least it won't be a waste of breath now, Giles wins.

[> [> I finally got the results up -- Jay, 11:13:38 10/15/03 Wed


I'll have the Buffy v Fred results up later today. I promise.

[> [> [> Hurrah! -- Celebaelin, 11:37:26 10/15/03 Wed

[> [> and some more results are up -- Jay, 15:13:18 10/15/03 Wed


Should I start the championship tomorrow morning or Friday morning?

[> Re: Spike vs Giles -- MaeveRigan, 07:17:19 10/13/03 Mon

I voted for Giles. I don't know how he'd defeat Spike; in fact, I don't know how he defeated Willow and I'm not completely happy about that. But if Giles was able to defeat the most powerful witch in the world, a virtual goddess (if you believe Kennedy, which I don't, frankly, but I'm grasping at straws here)--then he should certainly be able to dust a punk vampire.

Oh, all right--he doesn't have to actually dust Spike. Dumbledore!Giles settles for a handy demonstration of knot-tying (for which he won several badges as a Boy Scout before he went all Ripper), without ever coming within reach of Spike's lethal-weapon fists and fangs: a spell in ancient Akkadian, some subtle waving fingers and--voila!--Spike's trussed up like a Christmas turkey. All he needs is an apple to sink his fangs in. Angel (still brooding after losing in the previous round) hands the apple to Giles(what's left of the one from Eve's first visit to W&H), and Giles leaves the ring.

[> Spike takes a fall -- manwitch, 08:06:10 10/13/03 Mon

Funny, it didn't even look like Giles hit him, but Spike is down.

You don't think Spike took money, do you? No, he wouldn't.


[> [> Don't Underestimate -- Claudia, 09:51:40 10/14/03 Tue

It's not wise to underestimate Spike. Too many people have over the years, much to their detriment.

He may be impatient, but Spike is no dummy. And like Angel had said, he can be very relentless, as well.

[> Sombrero wearin' man vs. Where's my nailpolish guy -- deeva, 08:55:41 10/13/03 Mon

Ugh. I hate this mathc up.

On one hand Giles is totally capable of taking anyone down, really. But he's played his fair share of damsel in distress, too. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Spike takes this round on the off chance that he actually thinks this thing through and sees the opening that Giles leaves for him.

*sigh* Have I mentioned how I hate this match up?

[> Re: Spike vs Giles -- punkinpuss, 09:12:52 10/13/03 Mon

Oh, crikey! I hate this matchup, too! I adore Giles, but he's proven very fallible of late, so I've gotta go with Spike on this one. Let's just pretend that they're trading snark over a bottle of single malt whisky and Spike drinks Giles under the table. They're both so cute when they're drunk!

[> Re: Spike vs Giles -- s'kat, 09:14:39 10/13/03 Mon

Tough decision, I started watching BTVS for Giles. I had to rely on my alphabet voting style, ie. Who comes last in the alphabet wins.

William vs. Giles = William
Rupert vs. Spike = Spike

Also? Giles is a tad too hesistant to do his own dirty work as Lies My Parents Told Me bore out. Spike? Nooo problemo.
Of course there's the hesitancy for gore - "not wanting to spend the next month picking librarian out of the carpet", yet Spike's got Rupert's number: "feeling no longer useful are we? Can't handle the fact that the girl has surpassed you long ago?" Sent Rupert into his cups way back in Yoko factor and shook him in Touched.

Spike has Giles number in both hand to hand and snark.
But - if Ripper made an appearance? Even money.

[> [> Ripper -- Celebaelin, 17:25:19 10/13/03 Mon

Spike has Giles number in both hand to hand and snark.
But - if Ripper made an appearance? Even money.

Ripper took too many risks. Kinda cool with an outré pov perhaps, but still NQOCD even for the Mitfords. At root he was still an idiot child messing with the laws of the universe in ways he couldn't comprehend or compensate for. His tradition in many ways was the saving of him, albeit that initially it was his ruin, ultimately he found his place in servitude. Whether you can consider his existence noble or not probably depends on whether you feel he was obliged to pursue that form of life or not. I like Giles as he is better than I would like him if he had continued to abdicate responsibility.

I hope.


Maybe not.


[> Re: Spike vs Giles -- Charlotte Stanbery, 09:52:43 10/13/03 Mon

Spike has to win. Giles is delightful and yummy too, and if he was a little more Ripper and a little less Giles...but he isn't, so Spike wins - INMHO.

[> Oh bloody--as usual--hell. (Somewhat spoilery for A5) -- cjl, 17:12:40 10/13/03 Mon

Giles and Spike spend the first round of their contest trading obsolete British colloquialisms, taking great care to confuse all the Yanks in the audience. They graduate to insults, where Spike zings Giles for the Watcher's three-year (and counting) shagging dry spell; Giles counterpunches beautifully by devouring a heaping plateful of fish and chips in front of Spike, then waving a steaming shepherd's pie in front of Spike's incorporeal nose. Spike spews a geyser of invective at Giles, who then calmly cocks his head to one side and says: "Hmmm. The accent's not quite right. You're going to have to work on that." Spike's image shimmers then explodes in a shower of sparks.

[> [> what? no bloomin' onions? -- anom, 21:47:56 10/14/03 Tue

[> See, the thing about a shiny new soul is... -- Apophis, 18:18:10 10/13/03 Mon

it kinda makes you soft. Spike hasn't been his Subordinate-to-the-Scourge of Europe self lately; even Buffy bitched him out for being too big a wuss since his little trip to the Motherland. But a soul never stopped Ruppert from doing what had to be done. Under the right conditions, Giles would do HHHHHhhhhorrible things to Spike; in fact, screw the right conditions, Giles hates Spike. And, like Dawn said, even vampires have to sleep sometime...

[> Demanding a recount! -- Rook, 18:38:21 10/13/03 Mon

Is it me, or is a little odd that every Spike related contest gets about +30 votes over the average EXCEPT for the E-Mail vote?

[> [> If I was the paranoid sort... -- Jay, 20:04:40 10/13/03 Mon

and I'm not saying I'm not, I'd believe it was Spike fans that voted Giles in over Willow just so he wouldn't have to face her. Watch out Buffy, the Spike cult will vote for Fred just so they won't have to face you.

I'm still considering the option of voiding today's results to go to a email only vote, depending on what today's vote ends up being. But unless Spike has just a ridiculous number of votes compared to his past performances (especially the email vote), Giles has to hit a certain level of votes himself to make me think he might have been cheated.

This is not an invitation to cheat for Giles. I really don't like doing the email votes.

[> [> We're 30 votes over the average RttA contest. Again. -- cjl (interpret this as you will), 20:32:20 10/13/03 Mon

[> This is headed for something awful -- mamcu, 19:19:25 10/13/03 Mon

Buffy vs. Spike. I won't be able to vote.

[> Spike beat Angel, so.... (30 extra votes) -- Rochefort, 21:54:00 10/13/03 Mon

Out of gratitude, I'm voting for him over Giles. Even though I love Giles very much. J-bone, as a comment about the thirty extra votes, it seems to me quite possible that there are some people drawn into the voting when Spike is present that wouldn't be otherwise. As an example, I haven't voted in the last 15 rounds or so, but I voted today because Spike kicked Angel's ass, and I wanted to show my gratitude. As a second example, most of my friends don't watch Angel traditionally, but have been tuning in to see how Spike is doing and certainly the WB planned on this.

[> [> The 30 extras -- deeva, 09:33:12 10/14/03 Tue

That's pretty much what I think too. That the extra voters (not all but more than likely a good enough number) don't vote on any of the other rounds though it would be nice if they did.

[> [> Re: Spike beat Angel, so.... (30 extra votes) -- s'kat, 12:11:46 10/14/03 Tue


I didn't vote in every round. I don't read the board every day. And I have friends who lurk here who don't vote in every round either. I also know there are people from other boards who just vote for certain matchups, not all the match-ups.

[> [> For those who hunger for a rematch.. -- sdev, 14:33:27 10/14/03 Tue

Zap2it has a contest going that has resulted in a head to head between Angel and Spike. So get your comeuppance here:


A vote either way can't hurt the show's rep.

[> [> [> 35,000 votes last round! But the voting site for CD vs TPoD isn't up yet -- Celebaelin, 16:39:10 10/14/03 Tue

Happy Thanksgiving to our Canadian friends -- Cactus Watcher, 06:59:58 10/13/03 Mon


[> Thank you -- Deacon, 07:26:39 10/13/03 Mon

[> Thanks, Happy Turkey Day to all : ) -- Scroll, 13:59:44 10/13/03 Mon

She Slays Too -- Sstars5, 07:59:47 10/13/03 Mon

Being a fan of both Buffy and Xena-Warrior Princess, I've noticed many parallels. Both of these strong female characters are warriors for good. They stand up for the wrongs in the world. Supernatural or human, both women step up to the plate to get things done without any fear. Xena and Buffy are two female warriors that are led by destiny. They face monsters too scary to be conjured by any dream and have even faced Gods/Goddesses. Both of them almost facing their demise by a God but, not even an immortal being with endless powers could bring them down.

If you have never heard of Xena, I'll give you a small glimpse. Xena is a woman living during the Golden Age who chose to follow the sword in order to claim vengeance for her brother's death. She led a dark life filled with blood shed and a lust for power. She was known as the Conquerer of Nations and the world trembled before her, that is until a moment in her life changed her. Now, she uses her sword only for good. If you enjoy watching beautifully coreographed hand to hand combat, haunting instrumental music, great one liners (which I know Buffy is superb at), a heart warming friendship or just want an entertaining story then Xena is for you.

Season 2 on DVD has just been released and of course I had to have it. Versions contain a thirty minute interview with the amazing Lucy Lawless and actor audio/visual commentary and bonus disc containing Xena Trivia, actors' bios, plus lots more. Also, did you know that Xena did a little vampire slaying of her own?

In season 2 on DVD there is an episode called, "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" where Xena must face the vampires of the Golden Age known as Baccchae and even becomes one herself. Its a different twist on vampires I know you'll enjoy.

Thought I would share info about another "vampire slayer". But of course, Buffy is the one and only for that job!

Allow the legend to live again. Battle on Xena!



[> Ahem -- MaeveRigan, 09:09:00 10/13/03 Mon

This is such a cute, thinly disguised ad for Xena DVDs!

'Cos who amongst us, seriously, doesn't know who Xena is?

I'm thinking this is one post that doesn't belong on this board. And normally I would never, ever say such a thing.

[> [> Re: Ahem -- Masq, 12:31:18 10/13/03 Mon

Well, if they had a link to a "convenient place to buy that DVD", I might unapprove the message, but see, we have a much more fun tradition here at ATPo, and that's taking posts like this wildly off-topic into our own fascinating analyses of well, whatever.

Of course, we could start OT with a little Xena-Buffy comparison, but I'll leave that to someone else, as I've seen exactly one and a half episodes of Xena total.

[> [> [> This sounds like a job for SUPERROB!!! -- The First Naughty Virtue, 12:51:52 10/13/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Did somebody call my name? -- Rob, tripping on his cape, 20:32:29 10/13/03 Mon

I'm unfortunately too busy to do a thorough analysis right now of "Buffy" and "Xena", but here's a quick list of similarities between the two shows:

Both heroines died, and were resurrected, twice.
Both had best friends/sidekicks who came to challenge their authority.
Both had a shadow self/villain character whose evil they had an indirect part in helping create.
Both have a "forbidden love."
Both come to rely on their closest friends for help.
Both have drunken blood at a time (Buffy in "Buffy vs. Dracula", Xena in "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun").
Both series have lovable loser characters who end up being more noble than it might seem at first glance (Xander and Joxer).
Both did musical episodes.
Both shows were big on the pop culture references.
Both shows had a number of self-referential or self-mocking episodes.
Um, if you cut the "y" off the last letter of Buffy's name, they both have the same amount of letters in their first name!

Okay, I'm clearly running on fumes now. cjl, would you care to continue? I'll try to write something more coherent tomorrow.


[> [> [> [> [> Also to clarify on Xena doing 'vampire slaying of her own'... -- Rob, 20:43:59 10/13/03 Mon

Xena had an episode called Girls Just Wanna Have Fun in which Xena faced the (on this show) evil god, Bacchus, and a troop of girls who had been turned into Bacchae, blood-sucking, soulless vampiric freaks that kind of look like the female version of The Lost Boys. But all Xena actually does is stab Bacchus. On his death, all the girls revert back to their normal, human, living forms. Thus, no strict vampire slayage was done. God-slayage, however, was, which is interesting, because, continuity-wise, we later learn this season that a god can only be killed with Hind's Blood. Xena does not stab Bacchus with Hind's Blood. Further, she does not get her god-killing powers till the fifth season, so how'dja do it, Xena?

This can-you-kill-a-god point, btw, is a sore continuity point with me, especially since, in the sixth season, she cannot kill gods anymore, so convinces the newly god-ed Caligula to kill himself, when we know from Callisto's plight in the third season that a god can't kill him or herself (Callisto, after she became a god, begged Xena to find her Hind's Blood so she could end her miserable existence). The only thing again, is Hind's Blood or Xena-with-god-killing-powers. Okay, gonna leave before I belabor the point, or get so far off-topic I cause my own head to rupture!


[> [> [> [> [> [> nit-picky -- monsieurxander, 23:46:40 10/13/03 Mon

There are several different ways to kill a god.

1) In an episode in one of the last seasons, shortly after being resurrected from their joint crucifixion, Xena and Gabrielle find a different Chakram and kill the local war god with it. It was "one of the few ways to kill a god."

2) Hind's blood.

3) And later, Xena herself while her daughter Eve is still alive. Not really sure how that one's explained.

As for Bacchus, they stated earlier in the episode that the only way to kill a Bacchae is to stab her in the chest with a Driad bone. I suppose it's assumed that the same works for Bacchus, as well.

Also, guys.... Let's remember that Xena and Hercules are far inferior to Buffy in the continuity department (Callisto's sister, Amazon tribe sketchiness, Gabrielle's outfit change and weapon in season 1, Xena's past sketchiness......... not to mention Ares's facial hair...).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'Xena' continuity flubs are so prevalent in fact that the insane fans... -- Rob, 09:23:29 10/14/03 Tue

...of which I am proud to call myself a member, call them YAXIs (Yet Another Xena Inconsistency).

However, the god-killing thing was one that they at least tried to keep consistent for a while. Your first example--do you have any idea which episode it's from? Because I have no memory of that happening. After being resurrected, Xena's "dark" Chakram was joined with the "light" Chakram to create the "new" Chakram, to balance her darkness and light, but I don't recall it ever being able to kill gods until Xena was granted that power herself by the god of Eli, the goal being that Xena would kill all the ancient gods and make way for monotheism. This plot didn't pan out too well, though, because of viewer dissatisfaction, so quite a few gods were spared, and even new ones we hadn't known before crop up in the last season, which adds to my theory that, in the sixth season, the writers realized they'd written themselves into a wall, so get out of it by paying even less attention to continuity than they used to.

But, again, the only 2 things, in most episodes at least, that could kill gods were the Hind's Blood and Super-God-Killing-Xena. "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" predated this continuity rule, though.



[> [> [> [> [> Repeating my Xena/Buffy comparison from months past... -- cjl, 20:55:35 10/13/03 Mon

Settings: Fictionalized version of Ancient Greece (Xena) and slightly exaggerated version of modern SoCal (Buffy).

Buffy = Xena
Buffy's Scythe = Xena's Chakram
Willow = Gabrielle
Xander = Joxer
Angel = Hercules
Spike = Ares
Cordy = Aphrodite
Faith = Callisto Mark I (evil woman warrior/shadow self)
Glory = Callisto Mark II (raging loony demi-goddess)
Dawn = Eve
Dark Willow = Hope
Joyce & Hank Summers = Xena's Mom and Dad

If I thought about this, I could probably list a few more. But, looking it over, all I can say is--

For God's sake, will somebody PLEASE bring Hudson Leick (Callisto) over to ANGEL? She said--in print--that she wants to be on the series! (She's the psychopathic blonde of Angelus' dreams!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Joyce & Hank Summers=Xena's Mom and Dad? -- Rob, 23:19:33 10/13/03 Mon

Don't seem to recall the episode where Joyce revealed that she'd killed Hank the night that he tried to take the young Buffy to be sacrificed! ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whoops. Forgot about that episode. -- cjl, 09:13:53 10/14/03 Tue

But wouldn't it have been cool if Joyce had Hank buried in the basement? (That would have really put the "dead" in deadbeat dad....)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Damn the writers' missed opportunities! -- Rob, 09:24:46 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Allow me to add -- Sofdog, 21:19:41 10/13/03 Mon

Another fume

[> [> [> [> [> [> Damn Voynak! -- Sofdog, 11:00:04 10/14/03 Tue

For the third time I will try to add that each show referenced the other. Some play critics slip out of show and suggest catching "Bufficus the Bacchae Slayer" down the street. And in Buffy's "Halloween" Willow laments that Buffy didn't dress up as Xena before being turned into her costume character.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, yeah, I forgot about that! That line was in 'The Play's the Thing,' I believe. -- Rob, 18:30:22 10/14/03 Tue

Spingle -- skeeve, 08:43:54 10/13/03 Mon

"I'm his date." -- Spike about Angel


[> How about Spangle? Spackle? Ankh? Spittle? Spake? -- shambleau, 10:33:20 10/13/03 Mon

[> [> I've been a Spangel shipper for years...lets get these guys groiny already! -- Nino, 12:29:41 10/13/03 Mon

[> Oops, I meant Spingel -- skeeve, 14:39:48 10/13/03 Mon

[> Spinkle. Or possibly Spankle. -- leslie, 19:47:06 10/13/03 Mon

[> [> no, i think spankle is... -- anom, 21:19:25 10/13/03 Mon

...Angel & Spanky. @>)

[> Not Spangel? (NT) -- Claudia, 10:13:06 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> yes, i agree that Spangel is the way to go -- Nino, 18:33:31 10/14/03 Tue

OT: What is in a name? -- Lunasea, 11:11:09 10/13/03 Mon

that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

I just happen to think that Lunasea is prettier, so once again I dress myself in her beautiful petals.


[> Re: OT: What is in a name? -- Deacon, 13:50:18 10/13/03 Mon

I agree, Lunasea is a prettier name.

[> [> Thankee much -- Lunasea, 14:16:14 10/13/03 Mon

And for those that don't know, I used to be known as Diana.

[> [> [> name game -- Miyu tVP, 10:39:41 10/14/03 Tue

The goddess "Diana" in Greco-Roman mythology was promised to be the bearer of many names.

We've got:


and I'm sure there are many more I'm forgetting.

So I think it's perfectly fitting to swap names!


[> Tis a beautiful name, my fair maiden -- Giles, 17:32:16 10/13/03 Mon

And dont let anyone talk you out of using it

Great News For Alyson - but I'm depressed -- Dochawk, 16:05:22 10/13/03 Mon

Hannigan Charms New Hubby
2 hours, 25 minutes ago

By Lia Haberman

Buffy's former spell-wielding sidekick has finally come into her own. Alyson Hannigan married her longtime beau,
Angel's Alexis Denisof (news), this weekend,E News Live has confirmed.

On top of that, she's just inked a deal with NBC to star in her own sitcom, the network confirmed Monday. (Beats a five-piece place setting off the registry.)

No details on the Hannigan-Denisof nuptials were released, but it's the first marriage for both. Denisof proposed last January while winsome twosome were visiting California's wine country. The union was a long time coming. Though he and Hannigan originally met on the set of Buffy the Vampire Slayer during the 1999-2000 season, the two didn't become an item right away.

"Actually, I had a crush on him from the moment he showed up on set, and he was the good one who said, 'Not while we're working together...'blah blah blah, whatever," Hannigan once told E! Online.

"So we became friends for a couple of years, and I was dating somebodyelse [Marilyn Manson drummer Ginger Fish (news)], and when that didn't work out, he was on Angel and we just started dating. We had always had a very flirty relationship."

Hannigan, who spent seven years on Buffy until the show ended last season, is unlikely to take an extended honeymoon with her new NBC gig looming.

The thesp, who expressed interest in headlining a comedy pilot while promoting American Wedding this August, was pursued by several networks but ultimately signed a talent holding and development deal with the Peacock.

NBC development prez Kevin Reilly told Variety Hannigan is "a great personality for us to anchor a comedy with."

"America watched her grow up on these movies, and she's come into her own as a young woman," said Reilly. "She's beautiful and funny and really charming. And she exudes a great spark comedically."

Already, NBC and the actress are meeting with potential writers to hear pitches. Per the deal, if nothing comes along by pilot casting season next spring, the red head is free to enter into negotiations with other networks for fall 2004.

The net is inking similar holding deals with much of its talent according to Reilly, offering actors more flexibility and less financial responsibility for the network.

"It's win-win for everybody," he said.

In the meantime, Hannigan will crack funny for That '70s Show. The actress is joining the Fox sitcom for a multi-episode arc this season. She'll play a new recruit at the police academy where Ashton Kutcher(news)'s character, Kelso, enrolls.

Hannigan, who got her start in 1988's My Stepmother is an Alien opposite fellow Scooby Seth Green (news), has starred in all three American Pie movies as band camp geek turned leading sexpot Michelle Flaherty.

Denisof, who continues to play Angel's brainy buddy Wesley
Wyndham-Pryce, previously starred in Disney's video sequel Tarzan & Jane and the 1995 Sean Connery (news)-Richard Gere (news) Camelotflick First Knight. He and Hannigan also costarred in last year's straight-to-video dud Rip It Off.


[> Depressed? Catatonia seems more appropriate. Me too. -- Sophist, 16:12:37 10/13/03 Mon

[> Well, I'm gonna say 'Congradulations' to both of them myself -- Masq, 16:43:44 10/13/03 Mon

A marraige made in the Buffyverse!

[> I feel strangely depressed, I guess I kinda always felt She was Amber Bensons only. -- Giles, 17:05:14 10/13/03 Mon

[> Awww. They looked so happy & cute together. -- deeva, 17:20:18 10/13/03 Mon

[> Hooray for Aly and Alexis! -- cjl, 17:25:57 10/13/03 Mon

May the happy couple and their spawn rule Hollywood for the next century.

Why is everybody so depressed? Aly is happy. Alexis is happy. Alexis and ANGEL look like they might make it to Season 6, and we're gonna get a weekly dose of Aly on NBC! (Who knows--if the PTB are kind to us, the sitcom MIGHT NOT SUCK.)

Are we upset that Aly is married and out of circulation? Of course we are. But it's not like I had a shot, anyway....

[> [> Hey! Who says you didn't have a shot? -- dub 17:34:30 10/13/03 Mon

I happen to think you look very fetching in the Beanie of Wisdom...


[> Right there with you, buddy :) -- Earl Allison, 04:18:21 10/14/03 Tue


I feel your pain. Still, may they be happy and stay together. It'll be nice to see AH on another show, although I've got mixed feelings on seeing AtS continue ... happy thoughts! Happy thoughts!

Scratch another one off the "never had a chance, anyway" list :)

Ah well, there's still Eliza Dushku and Emily Perkins left
to swoon over :)

Take it and run.

[> There's never an aggrieved demon about... -- Celebaelin, 07:20:42 10/14/03 Tue

...no matter how hard you try. I used Cockatrice feet, Genie blood, Behemoth ichor - nothing, not one single solitary mishap. You'd think with all that at least the cake would have been a bit dry.

Best wishes to the happy couple.

Feminism and the future of ATS (no spoilers beyond 5.1) -- Cigarette Smoking Vampire, 03:23:06 10/14/03 Tue

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how (if at all) JW's feminism might color ATS this season. I am of the opinion that Joss was never fully focused on the show and that Greenwalt, Minear, and Bell were the captains of the ship in the past. Assuming that the "Firefly" film doesn't monopolize his time, I assume that Joss will be more involved with ATS this season.

ATS has never seemed particularly feminist to me, so if JW throws himself into it wholeheartedly, I wonder if we will see any changes. As season five begins, the show has lost Lilah (who IMHO was more empowered than Buffy could ever hope to be), Cordy (who also seemed more empowered than Buffy but ended up being used by higher powers and turned into either a victim or murderer depending on one's interpretation of season four), Gwen, and Darla seem to be gone permanently. Fred (who is strong but does not seem destined for anything more than a minor role on the show), Harmony (who may be nothing more than comedic relief), and Eve (who knows what to think of her at this point?) are now the only female characters on the show.

So will Whedon's brand of feminism (which I myself always found alarmingly simplistic yet contradictory) have any effect on the show? Or did he get all that he wanted to say on the matter out of the way when he was on his soap box in season seven of BtVS?

I am by no means an expert on feminism (I am pretty much just a run of the mill Libertarian), but I know that many here are very knowledgeable on the topic. Any thoughts on how feminism may relate to the "revamped" ATS would be greatly appreciated.


[> Feminism does not equal females (spoilers 5.01) -- Lunasea, 06:40:58 10/14/03 Tue

If it did, how much relevance would it have to a guy? Joss' feminism is a correction to the Patriarchy. This Patriarchy isn't just harming women, but the men in it as well. A show about a guy that is trying to find his humanity is completely in line with Joss' brand of feminism. "Conviction" had a lot in common with "Judgment" especially how important mercy and flexibility are.

Fred will be a central character on the show. I don't know why you think she is going to have a minor role. There is also Spike, the girl with a penis. Lilah wasn't remotely empowered. There is more to Joss' brand of feminism than that kind of power. Real empowerment means doing something with that power, something empowering. Power for power's sake means little if anything in the Buffyverse. Lilah is still in the service of the SP. How is that power?

And don't forget Faith. Her empowerment didn't come with the Scythe spell on BtVS, but with Angel in "Orpheus." When Tru Calling fails through, I wouldn't be surprised if she does make an appearance. Her story fits Angel better than it did BtVS.

The following is a repost. Joss' brand of feminism is best illustrated in OMWF in the song "I've Got a Theory."

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but I just wanted to share something I noticed. The flow of the song "I've Got a Theory" is probably the best example in the Buffyverse of how Joss views society. Not his perfect society, but the reality of how it is.

It opens with Giles, representing the Patriarchy singing first. His first reaction is what he knows, demons. "That it's a demon." He goes on a bit further, "A dancing demon." To his logical mind that sound ridiculous. Demons don't dance and he dismisses it. The thing to remember is that Giles is right. It is a dancing demon. Giles not only represents the Patriarchy, but someone who is limited/hurt by it This won't be resolved until the finale of the series.

Then we go to Willow, who really doesn't want to sing (at least AH doesn't). Her inclusion is very important. No one else could have said those lines, so poor AH had to sing a bit. The Patriarchy is unable to solve the problem, so what happens? Something that happened in the first season is remembered "some kid is dreamin.'" When we don't know what to do, we often do fall back to the past. Willow's image of herself, which is based on her past, is going to seriously mess her up this season and the next. This too really isn't resolved until the finale of the series.

Next comes Everyman Xander. He is concerned with the practical "we should work this out." That is importantly followed by the trio of Willow/Anya/Tara who are concerned with feelings "It's getting eerie. What's this cheery singing all about." The rhyme scheme paired Giles' patriarchy with Willow's reliance on the past. It also pairs the male Xander with the female trio.

What follows is probably the best statement of what Joss believes and why he is a feminist. Everyman Xander comes after the pairs are set up. There is no rhyming scheme and he is paired with no one really. His first reaction, his gut reaction is "It could be witches. Some evil witches." Joss has been raised in the Patriarchy. No matter how much he carries the banner of Feminism high, his gut reaction is still "It could be witches. Some evil witches." In "Hush" when he needs 2 new characters to be terrified of the Gentlemen, he relies on Tara and Olivia. As much as he hated seeing the blond victim in the alley in horror movies and empowered her, when he needed victims, he turned to two women.

Then Xander sees Tara and Willow's reaction and changes his statement. "Which is ridiculous 'cause witches they were persecuted wicca good and love the earth and women power." Joss' feminism is a corrective measure to counter the Patriarchy that causes him to think "some evil witches." We have seen an evil witch, again in that first season. Witches aren't all wiccan good. Still, Xander feels bad and so now "and I'll be over here." The music drops off after "ridiculous" and comes back after he leaves. Xander has been taken out of the song by trying to correct the Patriarchy's view. Could there be a more succinct statement of the male feminist's dilemma which includes why he is a feminist in the first place?

Then we get Anya. Anya's reason is her biggest fear. She too doesn't rhyme with any one. Our fears separate us. It is simply stated. It sounds completely logical to her. The others look at her weird. To the audience, it is a ridiculous answer, but often our fears are completely rational to us, but to others aren't.

Tara tries to speak. She is almost the last person to give her idea and speaks quietly. She can barely be heard. We don't get to hear her. Before Anya's fear was calmly stated and fit with the melody. Now it overcomes her and Tara doesn't get a chance to be heard. Instead the music changes to a driving rock beat. She tries to rationalize her fear, giving us ridiculous reasons why "Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes." She is incredibly insistent that "Bunnies, bunnies, It must be bunnies," but then the melody returns and she ditches that answer for an equally ridiculous one "Or maybe midgets." Fear tends to be rather irrational and can grip us one minute and cause us to do wild things. Then just as quickly, it leaves. Think of the mob mentality that follows national tragedies. It grips us and then just goes away.

Fear drowned out the feminine represented by Tara and Tara doesn't reassert herself. Earlier we had Xander - male Willow/Tara/Anya - female. The fear of Anya drowned out Tara, so next to sing is poor Willow. She goes over to Giles and opens a book. "we should work this fast." Tara couldn't to that and neither could Anya. Willow is representing the female here and she is trying to work with Giles. When this happens, the next line is a duet between Giles and Willow who are focused on the problem "Because it clearly could get serious before it's passed." They are right.

Then enter in Buffy. The music changes as Buffy rallies the troops. Buffy isn't concerned about the current problem. She is really the everyperson in this song. How many of us try to actually solve problems (I'll give you a hint we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy)? They just get solved somehow.

Everyone, but Giles joins in the song. Eventually he does join, but as the descant voice, not singing with the others. The song ends with they can face anything "except for bunnies." Fear is even stronger than together.

That song is more than just exposition to music. The flow of it shows stuff not only about each character and their motivation, but the flow of it from one character to another, shows how Joss sees society, most importantly, his/Xander's view.

This is completely fits what Angel the series has done. Joss' name still comes at the end and as long as that happens, what comes before it will be in line with what he believes.

[> [> Re: Feminism does not equal females (spoilers 5.01) -- Cigarette Smoking Vampire, 23:52:53 10/14/03 Tue

"Lilah wasn't remotely empowered. There is more to Joss' brand of feminism than that kind of power. Real empowerment means doing something with that power, something empowering. Power for power's sake means little if anything in the Buffyverse. Lilah is still in the service of the SP. How is that power?"

I have to completely disagree regarding Lilah. For one thing, she wasn't "chosen" or handed her power by some mystical force. She succeeded in law school and had to claw her way up to the top of W&H without the benefit of any supernatural superpowers. All along they seemed to want to hand the keys of the kingdom to Lindsay, but Lilah kept a level head while he flaked out.

I don't see how basically taking over the L.A. branch of W&H as Lilah did is not empowering. Sure, she was still in service of the Senior Partners. But I don't think that anyone needs to be self employed in order to be empowered. Otherwise, most women are not empowered. Her goals seemed to be in line with that of the Senior Partners. Had she not been murdered, I imagine she would have continued to work toward whatever goal that they had in mind. I am not of the belief that having morally good goals is a necessary condition of empowerment, so I don't think it matters what goal Lilah had in terms of morality.

Getting back to feminism and AtS, the reason I am wondering about it is that the men on AtS at present do not seem to be the type of males that Joss is comfortable with. They are neither misogynistic men perpetuating some sort of dark patriarchy (his "bad" guys) nor "neutered" males (his "good" guys).

[> Nor tree pretty. Patriarchy bad (spoilers Angel S 5) -- sdev, 14:59:22 10/14/03 Tue

I don't know how involved JW will be in AtS. Isn't he working on a Firefly movie?

"So will Whedon's brand of feminism (which I myself always found alarmingly simplistic yet contradictory) have any effect on the show?"

I agree with you here. I see feminism more as psycho-social than socio-political.

It remains to be seen if there are additional female characters added to the cast and what is done with the new character of Eve. I never saw much of a feminist theme, even the soapbox style, on AtS.

Buffy vs Fred -- JBone, 05:14:40 10/14/03 Tue



I should have mentioned yesterday that the tiebreakers this week are the same as the first week: Dub, Rob and d'Herblay. Not that I am as hopeful that a tie may be possible. There's no way Spike's fans will stop drinking the peroxide kool-aid now. Post comments here or at the voting site. I may or may not have yesterday's results up later.


[> Re: Buffy vs Fred -- Celebaelin, 05:49:48 10/14/03 Tue

What can you say, Fred has come a long way but no show is called 'Fred the Texan Cow Girl', and with good reason. The match-up itself involves Buffy switching into bitca mode and it's all rather unseemly really. Fred tries not to loose her head but she's unable to keep the upper hand when Buffy decides to swallow her pride and just unwinds one to the larynx. Fortunately Buffy kept the power within acceptable limits so it's not a lethal punch but Fred isn't exactly 'chatty' for no inconsiderable period of time.

[> Re: Buffy vs Fred -- MaeveRigan, 06:01:40 10/14/03 Tue

Why am I even writing about this? Fred and Buffy go into this round knowing it's just a formality. So they're both formal about it. They go through the rounds with various weapons--Fred's been practicing since she joined AI and she's not half bad, but she knows she hasn't got a chance against a Slayer. Buffy wins every bout without breaking a sweat, and she's not all superior or anything--it's just what she does. She didn't ask for this and she certainly didn't ask to meet Fred--who kinda reminds her of Willow--in a fight rather than in friendship. After it's all over, they go out for coffee, really get to know each other, trading funny stories about Angel.

[> skinny short girl vs. skinnier taller girl -- deeva, 09:08:09 10/14/03 Tue

This is a joke, right? How in the world did we get here? As much as I like an underdog, I'd like it to be somewhat plausible that the underdog could win. This is no the case. Harsh, I may be but it's true. Fred has proven before that has the cajones to do things when need be. But that won't be enough to go up against Buffy. But then again maybe Buffy might make a fashion misstep in her choice of fightwear and dons something that impeds her, like one of those super long bell sleeved blouses or some such thing. She might even go down rueing the day she saw the cute top that tangles her arms. Nah. Buffy takes it.

[> Buffy, Fred. Fred, Buffy. (Fred? Commence babbling.) -- cjl, 09:57:26 10/14/03 Tue

FRED: Oh my gosh! It's such a thrill to FINALLY meet you! Kinda feel like I already know you, because Angel and Wesley just tell me all these stories about you and how you're just this incredible, powerful woman who saves the world without losing her sense of humanity and about how you pretty much sucked the life out of the Watchers Council and the massive patriarchal conspiracy that has held back women for millennia, and believe me, y'all have no idea how deep this stuff goes, because I've been reading these files from the Wolfram and Hart historical library, and your eyes would bug out of your head if you--

[Buffy gives Fred a "love tap" and knocks her unconscious.]

BUFFY: Nice girl. Talks too much.

[> [> exactly -- manwitch, 15:14:58 10/14/03 Tue

[> Brains vs. Brawn -- Apophis, 10:51:12 10/14/03 Tue

Not to say that Buffy isn't smart, but she ain't churning out deathrays or anything. Anyway, HEY! I finally get to be on the winning side for the first time in weeks! Fred comes at Buffy with sonic chainsaws, laser cannons, super-bouncy killer rubber balls, and robot sharks, but just can't put her down. Buffy runs the gauntlet and gently puts Fred out with a nerve pinch.
They settle things with a playful pillow fight. In the first scenario, Buffy wins. In the second, we all do. Either way, it's Buffy who's advancing.

[> Buffy -- Rochefort, 11:31:22 10/14/03 Tue

I love Buffy, and I miss her. Spike won't even come close. And I don't even WATCH Angel, and I'd say something lame about Fred being a boy's name, but I dated a girl named Fred and she was hot.


[> Re: Buffy vs Fred -- punkinpuss, 11:31:53 10/14/03 Tue

Well, I know Buffy's gonna win anyway, but I had to vote for Fred. I'd rather pretend that brains do stand a chance against brawn. Unless they're fighting for that last jelly donut, which both of them could really use!

[> Re: Buffy vs Fred -- s'kat, 13:00:12 10/14/03 Tue

Fred and Buffy meet. Fred looks at her and says - "you're the girl with the funny name, right?" Buffy nods. "The slayer?" Buffy nods, gearing herself up. Fred smiles. Begins to chant. A portal opens up. And Buffy is gone.
Fred closes the book and goes back to what she was doing before Buffy showed. When asked where she sent her? Fred responds - to a place where she can be happy.

Fred wins. (As is in keeping with my alphabet rule and my W rule, vote for W's). Winnifred over Buffy.

[> [> Re: Buffy vs Fred -- LittleBit, 13:20:32 10/14/03 Tue

So-o-o-o... if Winifred should defeat Buffy and the final matchup is Winifred vs. Spike, you'll be voting for Winifred, right? ;-)

[> [> [> Nope -- s'kat, 13:50:10 10/14/03 Tue

William is Spike's true name, remember?

So, it's Winnifred vs. William?
Have to take it to the next step:
Fred vs. Spike = Spike wins. ;-)
Or Burkle vs. Spike? Spike wins.

No problemo.

Not that I foresee it being a problem, it would take an act of god for Buffy to lose this subjective contest.

[> No contest, Buffy, it's always been about Buffy, even after the series is over. -- Rufus, 13:41:43 10/14/03 Tue

[> how did fred even get this far? -- btvsk8, 14:52:08 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> Determination, and a good helping of insanity--oh, and cute hair. -- Alison, 15:02:00 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> [> Is there any doubt? Buffy wins with one hand tied behind her back. Poor Fred. -- jane, 17:41:00 10/14/03 Tue

Vampire Reproduction -- Eli, 05:16:14 10/14/03 Tue

Any thoughts as to why Spike never wanted to vamp Buffy?

As far as I know, vampires reproduce by draining their victims of blood and then giving their victims their blood. Wouldn't Spike want to have a child with Buffy? A vamped Buffy?

If a vampire loves a human, wouldn't that vampire want to preserve that relationship? And the best way to preserve it would be to turn the human into a vampire. Vamped William after a few days must have asked Drusilla about the facts of the un-life, for William turned his mother into a vampire. Perhaps that very experience made William/Spike realize that the vampire and human are not actually the same. A vampire can turn the human into one, but what the newly turned vampire will be is unknown.

Does anyone know the name of the episode where Angel battles a vampire that is indestructible? Angel kills his lover in the beginning and to seek revenge this vampire makes a deal to be indestructible for a short time in order to revenge his love?



[> Re: Vampire Reproduction -- CW, 06:28:45 10/14/03 Tue

Spike is the last vampire in the world who'd try that. After having his own vamped mother turn against him, I don't think he'd consider such a thing with his lady love.

Dracula, on the other hand, did seem to have eternal perfect girlfriend on his mind when he came to Sunnydale. The trial run didn't turn out well for him either.

[> [> Heartthrob was the AtS episode. -- Arethusa, 06:33:54 10/14/03 Tue

[> Re: Vampire Reproduction -- Cigarette Smoking Vampire, 06:39:44 10/14/03 Tue

I always got the impression that Spike loved Buffy for who she was. Her morality and goodness always seemed to be attractive qualities for him and they would likely be gone if she were sired. And even though Spike seemingly preferred being a vampire to being human, he did like the fact that Buffy was living (as he sung in OMWF).

'It is well'- isn't it? (Angel Odyssey 5.2)(sp5.2) -- Tchaikovsky, 08:32:26 10/14/03 Tue

The old man comes out on the hill
and looks down to recall earlier days
in the valley. He sees the stream shine,
the church stand, hears the litter of
children's voices. A chill in the flesh
tells him that death is not far off
now: it is the shadow under the great boughs
of life. His garden has herbs growing.
The kestrel goes by with fresh prey
in its claws. The wind scatters the scent
of wild beans. The tractor operates
on the earth's body. His grandson is there
ploughing; his young wife fetches him
cakes and tea and a dark smile. It is well.

RS Thomas

"Who you gonna call? God, that phrase is never gonna be usable again."
-Spike in 'The Killer in Me'. And, in light of this week's happenings, very true.

Hello everyone.

That poem above is one of my very favourites. I love the way it deals with the idea of acceptance of death. It's an utterly beautiful vision. It shows how, even in the nidst of life continuing, death can be a fulfilment of that life. I'm transported by his wife's 'dark smile'. Are we merely supposed to know that she has dark hair, or is it dark in the sense of being complex- a happiness, a rightness tinged by loss. And those three final words: 'It is well', say so much more about humanity than much more complicated, knowingly poetic words might do. Acceptance of the beauty of death, the shadow of the monument. His legacy, his nameless legacy, is painted all over the scene. His garden has herbs growing the abundance, the flavour of life.His grandson is there, ploughing. This isn't some Marlovian country idyll- work continues, and is hard, but somewhat gratifying, and continues through generations.

Hold that thought.

5.2- 'Just Rewards'

I didn't much mind Just Rewards. It was pretty good for a Fury episode, and was laced through with a certain solidity which we've come to expect from him. He does what is needed, he just doesn't pirouette as much as the others.

The centrepiece was not Spike, but Spike-Angel, (and just occasionally, Spike/Angel). From Angel's foreboding 'Spike' to Spike's own plaintive 'Help me' at the end of the episode, there was a parallel being drawn rather than an anti-parallel. The line that sent shivers up my spine was actually the one time that Angel got, supposed righteously, angry with Spike:

SPIKE: You are, ya ponce! You're my problem. You got it too good. You're king of a 30-floor castle, with all the cars, comfort, power, and glory you could ever want, and here I save the world, throw myself on the proverbial hand grenade for love, honor, and all the right reasons, and what do I get? Bloody well toasted and ghosted is what I get, isn't it? It's just not fair.
ANGEL: Fair?! You asked for a soul! I didn't. It almost killed me. I spent a hundred years trying to come to terms with infinite remorse. You spent 3 weeks moaning in a basement, and then you were fine! What's fair about that?!

As well as a playful riff on the use of Spike in Season Seven, and possibly again with some of Fury's slightly renegade opinions on Spike hidden under the surface, Angel shows that he has a lot of problems with Spike's story as contrasted to his own. We are of course going to see Spike as the doubter, the person who sees Angel's corporate business as dangerously morally ambiguous, who worries about the purities of Angel's motives. What is more interesting to a long-time viewer, is not how Spike instils doubts in Angel's mind, but how Angel instils doubts in Spike. The way I see it, Spike's snarkiness, his arguments that the supposedly pure Champion his his Journey tinged with darkness, is not all that different a narrative trick from Buffy in Season Six.

Spike's Uncomfortable Teller of Truth mantle melts, thaws and resolves itself into a man who creates stories. Stories of himself, and stories of others. The posh poet dressed as the working class rebel. The Slayer Killer as the noble lover. The murderer saving the world. And correspondingly, we have the Slayers with Death Wishes, the mother who never cared about her son, the Gang who don't tell Spike about resurrecting Buffy because they thought he wouldn't want to kill her again. Not all these stories are the right ones- they are elaborate narratives constructed from Spike's perspective. 'Fool For Love' the instigator of this genius of overlapping stories, was told by Spike with one of the prime ideas being a genuine falsehood. It turns out neither Nikki nor Buffy want to die.

Here on Angel, Spike can and will do this again. But it is how the dynamism of his grand-sire, lover and adversary affects him which is the new story. Spike will go on making up beautifully tangled false meta-narrations on what's going on, and sometimes they will contain a shard of truth that will be useful. But how does the World-Saving Hero adjust to the world of moral ambiguity and Wolfram and Hart.

First of all, it is crucially important to implement some reason whereby Spike will be affected by others' actions. As the trickster, the Chaos element who was more incredibly dangerous than he had ever been redemptive of others, there needed to be a plot element both tying him down to Wolfram and Hart, and making him play to Angel's rules. We get the section where Spike claims [admittedly acting] that he will be head of Wolfram and Hart, and things will happen his way, with his cars. A dig at people worried about Spike's role in Season Five, certainly. But also the acknowledgement that Spike has never been the person in charge. His (faux) vision sounds faintly ludicrous. We must remember that Spike has never been the main player, and has always been hampered by other people's rules.

For Spike's ghostly incorporeality is certainly not a new idea. Running throughout the narrative of Buffy is the interaction in Spike's character between the dynamic, physical warrior and the verbal, creative artist. And this element is always prepetuated by the writers. Spike is, in one way or another, crippled from normal vampire staus almost throughout the series. After his initial forays as an admittedly charismatic Monster of the Week, he is put in a wheelchair to let the physical incapacity play against Angelus and his own lust for violence. Then in Season Three, he is incapacitated by his state, having been left by Drusilla. In Season Four, he is immediately chipped, starting the longest running era, that where his violence is restricted to demons, and thus allowing him to develop a flimsy corruptible understanding of a moral compass, of what it is to be human. By the time this is removed, we have him both struggling under other personas, (the William of 'Beneath You', the warrior of 'Get it Done'), and finally trying to understand what it is to have a soul.

So Spike's incorporeality is not much different from his earlier neutering or incapacity as a plot device to keep the creative, loquacious artist in Spike in conflict with the physical anarchist rebel. Here again, he is tied to Angel by the amulet, and he is unable to do anything much about Wolfram and Hart's modus operandi because of his lack of substance. This will continue to be useful for the writers. But what Spike, a symbol of chaos, wants, is the ability to inflict chaos again. And so, he takes Hainsley's offer...

Except that he doesn't. In a twist vaguely reminiscent of 'Enemies', but blurred and therefore significantly less elegant, we actually have Spike apparently working against Angel for his own selfish purposes, but in reality working to get rid of Hainsley. And then, in an excellent description of the tension in their working relationship, Spike can't refuse a few more blows for Angel.

So the audience is left to wonder- just what is Spike's motive, and why doesn't he either re-gain a body in dastardly fashion with Hainsley, or, as he claims to Angel, die altogether?

For me, the most moving section of the episode is a line that didn't even turn out to be real. When Spike comes to Angel, and, in a moment of calm reflection, they talk about what Spike's role is. He can't escape, but he can't do anything, as he doesn't have a body. And so, finished, allowed the rest he called out for to Buffy in 'Beneath You', he is suddenly yanked back. And Spike's 'Eternal Rest' is utterly compromised. His return, the bleakness of it, is an interesting parallel to Buffy in 'Bargaining'. Now he understands a little of how it is to be resurrected after saving the world. There's even the haging on, largely unwanted love interest- Harmony, who inadvertently sums up Spike's character: 'A leopard doesn't change its stripes'. Spike, despite the multitude of apparent changes, has only changed his coat once, when he received his soul. Now, as two of a kind with Angel, he is one thing that has properties of another, as vampire with a soul, a leopard with stripes. But now with this extra layer, this ghostliness, he appears, perhaps, ready for rest. He saves the world, he gets his Just Reward. Sleep. But apparently not so. He is ready for death.

In the moment we are title-carded at the beginning of the episode, that scene back in Sunnydale in 'Chosen', where Spike wants to see how it ends we see a Spike surveying the landscape. The dying uber-vamps. The monster-man, not man-monster, that Buffy has made him. Something better. There's time for survival for a family he has just begun to admire apart from Buffy, but also there's the soulful shaft of sunlight, burning him up. There's Buffy to carry on the work; hard as it will be, and the grandfather ploughing the field in Los Angeles. But for him- 'It is well'. Then torn back, he inhabits what he believes slightly less literally than Buffy might just be hell. Angel in charge of a conglomerate. And he's ready to face death again. Death as escape? Death as accepting life's continuation. We shall never know.

We'll never know because it wasn't genuinely part of the plan. The plan was tricksy, and slightly devalued the earlier moments. And then, at the end of the episode, we return to something much more Old Testament.

The Biblical themes in Angel have always been more Old Testament than new, and when we're told at one point 'We should probably avoid "An eye for an eye" escalation', we chuckle knowingly about how the New Testament absolves the Old, and Spike takes a look at Angel's blood and thunder and has words to say. But at the end, it seems like Spike is not so much redeemed after all. The place he would go to is not the place heroes go. He feels himself slipping towards Hell, and he is doomed for a certain time to walk the earth. But rather than telling fearsomely of his untimely death, he is instead begging for more chance to survive, to try to live a good life. He is edging towards Angel's Epiphany. Those three weeks aren't what Angel's 100 years was about, and Spike still yearns at least for redemption, if not for atonement. And so, as Fred looks on, confused and largely mute, Spike pleads desperately, not to die, but to live, to stay here. Then is the time that he might mumble 'It is well'.


-Wesley is interrupted by Angel after the line. "Maybe Wolfram and Hart want him here. He may be the one that...". As far as I'm concerned, that's ME's first ever hint that the shanshu may not be solely [soul-ly?] Angel's preserve. Perhaps Wesley wasn't going to say that, but it seemed damn likely as an ever so quick foreshadowing.

-Issues of control are raised by Hainsley. 'Control: that's all that anyone really wants.' Of course, Hainsley, the necromancer believes he has control over the dead, but actually is completely played by Spike, so his control is less full than he expects it. Both Angel and Spike's control are crucial in this episode. Spike's control is all about corporeality, the choice of when to die, the choice of redemption, the necessity of kinship, and everything else I've outlined above. Angel's control is something mentioned by Masq earlier, that of his control over Connor. Yes, it's still there folks. Angel is repeatedly told off for withholding information in this episode. He doesn't tell Wesley Spike saved the world. He deosn't tell Wesley about Spike's soul. He tells them only a convenient patchwork of lies. And then, with a gloriously philosophical expression on his face, he is in control as he prepares to kill Spike's ghost. What's the piece of control, the unilateral decision, that he still keeps hidden? That decision in 'Home'. Unless I'm in 'Reading-too-much-into-Irrelevancies' mode, Joss has a theme he's building up, and 'Home' will indeed be dealt with again.

-Angel seems very flippant about the whole Mercy thing in this episode. Just sayin'.

-And what about that marvellous cut to the moon? The pale, ghostly reflection of the sun's light? Not really radiant, but just a Chinese whisper of light? Look for Spike=moon imagery this Season.

-And so we're back to Harmony, 'preaching to the horse's mouth.' You know, weird things are happening, and her kind of half-understood proverbs are really hitting base this Season. There may be more significance in some of Harmony's comments than she could ever realise.

Interesting, but I wait with more expectation for Bell DeKnight's first episodes later this month. Until then, my friends...



[> Very nice, as always. -- Arethusa, 09:12:25 10/14/03 Tue

I think Spike doesn't know he's going to hell-he fears it. (Not saying you are saying this; just pointing it out.) Beneath You seemed to reveal that Spike is a believer and is concerned with his afterlife. And his speech to Fred clearly shows that, no matter what he said to Angel, he doesn't believe he's atoned for his sins as a vampire, or achieved redemption. (Which means he accepts responsibility for what he did in his heart, despite what he says to others.) He fears he'll be held accountable for his actions in a final judgement. And he has a pre-20th century hellfire and brimstone view of damnation. There's a lot of truth to what he says about Angel, but there's still a big gap between what Spike says about himself and what he really thinks.

I agree that the Angel's control issues will continue to affect him.

[> [> Agreed -- s'kat, 13:45:50 10/14/03 Tue

I agree with everything you say here Aresutha, well said. I find it interesting that people take what Spike says literally, Angel you can take that way, but not Spike - Spike is all about bravado. Covering up his own fears. Pretending to be the big bad. And I think, considering the fact Angelus probably had a hand in creating that bravado persona - it's not surprising that he would spout off the way he does to him in person. Spike is all about appearences, he shows the world one side, while keeping the other part to himself.

Note he doesn't tell anyone where he went when he first disappears. Fred asks him, but he doesn't really answer.
In his rants to Angel - they are focused more on Angel and how good Angel has it. Keep in mind Angel was the most evil character to grace the Buffyverse. He enjoyed what he did and he trained others to do it. He himself admits this. Spike, of all people, knows how truly evil Angelus was. Also unlike most of the characters - Spike saw Angelus in those 100 years prior to Buffy, and he wasn't Mr. Saint.
But more to the point - I think we need to keep in mind it's Angel's show - so the rant may in fact be a device to explore Angel's own issues. It looks like Angel has it pretty good - he appears to have everything he ever wanted, the Angelus part of him is probably having a grand old time as well - power, cars, top of the world...but at what price?
Does Angel really have it as good as Spike says? Or is Spike's view of being on the brink of hell - an echo of what Angel's current status truly is? Is Spike acting as
Angel's own conscience, his shadow self in this scene? Is Spike in his ranting about how he should be able to rest after saving the world an echo of how Angel feels? And why does Spike disappear during Angel's rant about having a soul thrust upon him while Spike chose his, instead of disappearing during his own rant? Is what causes Spike to disappear, Angel's own self-righteous denial of what Spike has done, b/c in Angel's view it could diminish what Angel did? (Not that it does necessarily - just that Angel may fear it does ?)

[> [> [> Re: Agreed -- Arethusa, 07:14:58 10/15/03 Wed


Spike certainly seems like Angel's shadow here, saying what Angel might think but won't say. My Primer of Jungian Psychology says "[T]he shadow is responsible for one's relations with the same sex. These relations may be either friendly or hostile depending upon whether the shadow is accepted by the ego and becomes incorporated harmoniously [ha!] into the psyche, or whether it is rejected by the ego and banished to the unconscious. Men tend to project their rejected shadow impulses on other men so that bad feelings often arise between males." The more Angel represses his inner nature, the more likely Spike will be to give voice to it, both as his shadow and as the man who knows him best in the world and who takes great delight in exposing his hidden motives. So Spike says what Angel can't bring himself to say-haven't I done enough? Am I just a pawn, without control over my own life?

It just occurred to me that Harmony might have an important function in AtS-to expose Spike's hidden side, as Spike exposes Angel's. She has a habit of blurting out embarrassing facts about him, such as his grief at losing Drusilla.

I'm not sure why Spike disappears or if the disappearences are linked to Angel's state of mind. It's possible, since both times Spike or Angel were talking about Spike saving the world. I'm still trying to figure out what W&H wanted to happen when they gave Angel the amulet. If they wanted to use it to control Angel, than Spike wouldn't be disappearing, unless it was somehow "tuned" just to hold Angel. Too little information to tell.

[> [> Good point -- Tchaikovsky, 02:21:59 10/15/03 Wed

Re-watching with this in mind, the final scene takes on a much more powerful, personal angle than the way I took it the first time.


[> I'm really enjoying these. -- deeva, 09:19:58 10/14/03 Tue

I could only get through a quarter of it. I've saved it to read throughout the day. Good work and thanks for posting this!

[> A Vampire Carol (spoilers 5.2) -- Masq, 09:46:12 10/14/03 Tue

So Spike's incorporeality is not much different from his earlier neutering or incapacity as a plot device to keep the creative, loquacious artist in Spike in conflict with the physical anarchist rebel.

That's an interesting observation. Spike has almost always had some handicap or other on the show. So has Angel (except when he was unsouled), but Angel's handicap has always remained the same--the pull of his soul. Spike has gone from wheelchair to dumped lover to chipped to soul-boy.

and he is doomed for a certain time to walk the earth

I saw the connection to Marley in a Christmas Carol also. In a post somewhere down the board, I was comparing Spike's current Limbo to Darla's situation in Season 4 of AtS. It seems to me that Darla went neither to heaven nor hell after her death in Lullaby, but instead went to a sort of Limbo where she is making up for her evil deeds in (un)life by performing good works in her afterlife. The only evidence we have of this is that she is sent to try to help her son in his moment of crisis (and she did try).

I'm not totally convinced that the dark realm that is trying to drag Spike down is his "punishment". It might simply be a demon in some demon dimension trying to drag Spike down for its own nefarious purposes. Either way, it puts the fear of Hell in Spike, which is a healthy motivator. In my alternative scenario, souledSpike would have gone to a similar fate I am speculating Darla went to. Her heroic deed at the end of her (un)life earned her a place in Limbo, a chance to do in the afterlife what she did not do in life.

Spike is now getting that chance as well, a "ghost" on the Earthly plane.

Unless I'm in 'Reading-too-much-into-Irrelevancies' mode, Joss has a theme he's building up, and 'Home' will indeed be dealt with again.

Thanks for the affirmation. People who are arguing otherwise are starting to make me batty. And paranoid.

[> [> Re: A Vampire Carol (spoilers 5.2) -- Ann, 17:14:27 10/14/03 Tue

"I'm not totally convinced that the dark realm that is trying to drag Spike down is his "punishment". It might simply be a demon in some demon dimension trying to drag Spike down for its own nefarious purposes."

I agree Masq. Star Trek Voyager did an episode in which the character was dying, an alien presence would take over the body and use it for its own purposes. It would use the remaining consciousness to feed itself (I think - its been a while). Either way, I agree that this, despite Spike's fears may be something else. Or maybe it is just his fear he is looking into. Seeing it clearly and feeling it. When he sees it we can't see him.

[> [> [> Spike's Bogus Journey - his own personal hell, dude! -- Dlgood, 17:36:19 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> [> Either way, it puts the fear of hell in him -- Masq, 18:48:07 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> Literature references -- Tchaikovsky, 02:26:26 10/15/03 Wed

Actually 'doomed for a certain time to walk the earth' is a line from Hamlet, I,v, and that was what I was riffing on, although Marley certainly works as well, and I'm never adverse to more literature parallels!

Interesting other speculations. That kind of metaphysical stuff always leaves me in a bit of a daze, but what you say could well be right.


[> Righteously Angry? -- Claudia, 10:06:38 10/14/03 Tue

[The line that sent shivers up my spine was actually the one time that Angel got, supposed righteously, angry with Spike:

SPIKE: You are, ya ponce! You're my problem. You got it too good. You're king of a 30-floor castle, with all the cars, comfort, power, and glory you could ever want, and here I save the world, throw myself on the proverbial hand grenade for love, honor, and all the right reasons, and what do I get? Bloody well toasted and ghosted is what I get, isn't it? It's just not fair.

ANGEL: Fair?! You asked for a soul! I didn't. It almost killed me. I spent a hundred years trying to come to terms with infinite remorse. You spent 3 weeks moaning in a basement, and then you were fine! What's fair about that?!]

What do you mean by righteously angry at Spike? Maybe both Spike and Angel had good cause to be angry at their situation - but not at each other. Besides, I think that Angel had exaggerated about it taking Spike "three weeks in a basement" to deal with a new soul. It took Spike a lot longer than that. But at least Angel has finally admitted openly that he was given his soul against his will.

[> [> Re: Righteously Angry? -- Dlgood, 11:37:30 10/14/03 Tue

What do you mean by righteously angry at Spike?
I think what's going here is that Angel is questioning Spike's credibility and righteousness. Which is to say, that if Spike is actually trying to be good, he cannot possibly be at such peace with his past that he cannot give a piss about atonement as he says.

It's critical to note how Angel has discussed redemption with Wesley, Faith, Lindsey and Darla in the past - that for the person struggling to be good, bad deeds constantly eat at us. For it not to be eating at Spike, as Spike insinuates to Angel in the earlier scene, reveals him in Angel's mind as either a scoundrel or a fraud.

But at least Angel has finally admitted openly that he was given his soul against his will.
I don't see why this is such a big deal. Angel has never claimed to have intentionally gotten a soul. Rather, to the extent that he's tried to claim to be trying to be good, he's asked judgement to be based upon what he's done. He's doesn't ask for any special dispensation for having a soul or saving the world - and I think he resents that Spike presumes he "deserves" it. Angel's various epiphanies led him to see that the reward for doing good is the opportunity to do more good.

I think that's why he's angry at Spike. He sees him as someone who wants to rest on his laurels, when Angel has seen that life is rarely so kind to people who are honestly trying to be heroes. Doyle, Buffy, Wesley, Cordelia, Connor and Angel himself. And so on... Basically, on a certain level he sees Spike as a bit of a naive and childish whiner.

And, while Angel's not entirely correct, he does have a point.

[> [> [> Quote of the week -- Masquerade, 12:05:52 10/14/03 Tue

"the reward for doing good is the opportunity to do more good."

This has always been Joss' take. It's not really about rewards and punishments and "paying" for evil deeds with good deeds like barter. It's not about "redemption" at all, in any sense of that word.

Life goes on, long after the sins are gone. A person who has truly changed their ways realizes that they must do good for the sake of doing good, not because they want to earn their way into heaven, not to "make up for" the bad they've done (which they never can; good deeds don't bring back the dead, or heal long-ago made wounds), but simply because it's the right thing to do; they don't want to see people suffer.

[> [> [> [> Re: Quote of the week -- Claudia, 12:16:56 10/14/03 Tue

[Life goes on, long after the sins are gone. A person who has truly changed their ways realizes that they must do good for the sake of doing good, not because they want to earn their way into heaven, not to "make up for" the bad they've done (which they never can; good deeds don't bring back the dead, or heal long-ago made wounds), but simply because it's the right thing to do; they don't want to see people suffer.]

Precisely. I don't think that Spike was expecting a reward when he used that amulet. But he had died and found peace. And that peace was interrupted when the amulet returned him to ghost-like form in "Just Reward". I perfectly understood why he was pissed off and reacted the way he did.

[> [> [> [> [> Found peace? -- Sheri, 14:12:29 10/15/03 Wed

Apologies for not being able to quote directly from the episode, but I haven't been able to access Psyche's transcripts for ages...

Anyhoo... when Wesley asked Spike what the last thing he remembered, Spike's reply didn't exactly indicate that he felt like he had been feeling very peaceful. What was it... skin burning, organs exploding, eyes melting... ick. Basically, time just kind of stood still for Spike while he was inside the amulate and there was no relief from the pain of becoming Mr. Sunshine.

Spike might have been hopeful that once that burning flesh feeling wore off, he'd get some peace, but who can say whether that would have ever actually happened?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Try www.buffyworld com -- Masq, 14:35:26 10/15/03 Wed

They have transcripts and screencaps for both shows. Very useful resource.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Sheri, who's still wondering what happened to Psyche, 15:19:15 10/15/03 Wed

[> [> [> Re: Righteously Angry? -- Claudia, 12:13:16 10/14/03 Tue

[And, while Angel's not entirely correct, he does have a point.]

Does he? I don't think so. I can understand where Spike's anger came from. It was quite similar to Buffy's, after the latter was pulled from heaven.

[> [> [> [> Re: Righteously Angry? -- Dlgood, 12:33:17 10/14/03 Tue

Does he? I don't think so.

Again. Angel has lived with his soul for 100 years. He's saved both the world, and lots of individual people in it, numerous times. He hasn't been granted peace. Neither have a lot of the other 'heroes' we've seen. That's the point. By Spike's standards, Buffy was a far greater hero than he, and she wasn't allowed any peace. So why would he - what is this "fair" and "deserve" that Spike's going on about?

Spike's anger isn't just that he didn't get peace - it's that on a certain level he expects it, feels entitled to it due to his act of heroism. I'm not saying that Spike shouldn't be frustrated. But given what he's known and seen, it's a little childish and naive of him.

So Spike shouldn't be so surprised, and he shouldn't take it so personally. That's really the point. Spike's entitled to be frustrated. But it's annoying to see him so whiny about it.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Righteously Angry? -- jane, 17:25:38 10/14/03 Tue

I think Spike has spent much of his unlife going for the grand gestures, (portraying himself as the Big Bad, larger than life villain etc.) This points to his mindset about redemption; the great, heroic act of saving the world by sacrificing himself should ensure his place in heaven. I don't think he understands that it might be the action of doing good for good's sake that makes the difference. That probably seems way too mundane a path for a hero to take. No wonder he's cranky about it all! I'm guessing he's got some interesting lessons coming up.

[> [> There is a typo there -- Tchaikovsky, 02:19:11 10/15/03 Wed

That should be-

The line that sent shivers up my spine was actually the one time that Angel got, supposedly righteously, angry with Spike

Rather than 'supposed'. In any case, I think it's clear from my arguments that I don't believe either are entirely in the right, and I have a mild suspicion that you're arguing against something I never wrote.


[> [> [> Actually... -- Tchaikovsky, 05:05:55 10/15/03 Wed

With 'supposed' in, it's still clear that I'm not claiming that Angel was 'righteously angry', only that he supposed himself to be.

One mode of discussion on this forum is argument, and I have no problem with it. One tactic in arguing is to highlight what other people said, which is also far.

But seeing as you had the courtesy to quote the entire sentence, it would be nice if you could then respond to the entire sentence. If you write 'I dislike Angel's usually secretive character', you would be right to berate me if I responded. 'Secretive persona? Huh? What about when he told Cordelia about his problems? What about when he shared his innermost thoughts with Buffy?' because I would have ignored 'usually'.

If in doubt about a poster's sentence, read the entire review. I believe it is clear that I believe their anger at each other helps neither of them.


[> [> [> [> Correction: far=fair -- TCH, 05:07:02 10/15/03 Wed

[> [> Re: Righteously Angry? -- LittleBit, 10:11:35 10/15/03 Wed

Maybe both Spike and Angel had good cause to be angry at their situation - but not at each other.

Why not? They have over a century of knowing and disliking one another. Why would we expect that to change the moment the two vampires with souls laid eyes on one another? Of course they're going to take their frustrations out on each other; they always have.

And while I grant your point that Angel was exaggerating the length of time Spike spent moaning in a basement (it was at least 15 weeks and at most 33 weeks if one goes by calendar time), I think it needs to be pointed out that Spike wasn't speaking with precision either. On first glance, superficially, he's right...those are the outward trappings of Angel's current life. But...Angel has it "too good"? If you truly think that Angel is happily running W&H and revelling in his newly gained power while blithely ignoring the fact that the old regime is doing their darnedest to thwart his every move then you are doing his character a grave disservice. When Angel said "three weeks" I took it to be an intentional exaggeration, one that was used to point out the difference between 'a short while' and 'over a century' and therefore, especially in response to Spike's accusation, not out of line.

[> Re: 'It is well'- isn't it? (Angel Odyssey 5.2)(sp5.2) -- Rob, 18:24:38 10/14/03 Tue

And so, finished, allowed the rest he called out for to Buffy in 'Beneath You', he is suddenly yanked back. And Spike's 'Eternal Rest' is utterly compromised. His return, the bleakness of it, is an interesting parallel to Buffy in 'Bargaining'. Now he understands a little of how it is to be resurrected after saving the world.

Really don't know how much I can add to that except to say that this was such a clear parallel that I should have recognized it, but instead never really considered the full implications until you worded it like this in your essay. He really is in a similar situation to Buffy now, having reached what he believed was the pinnacle of heroic and spiritual achievement, only to be abruptly and harshly plopped back into the world and told that he must continue to live. I had noted the similarity between the final scene of this episode and the final scene of "After Life," but with this new perspective you've given me, the parallel is even more clear. The major difference between the two resurrections (besides Spike's ghosty clause) is that Buffy returns to Earth convinced that there is a heaven and that it has been denied to her, after a brief time of perfect happiness, and that she would give anything to return to it, and Spike returns to Earth convinced that there is indeed a Hell and that redemption has been denied him, and thus he will do anything to remain alive longer and avoid damnation. They both died believing they had fulfilled their purposes. While Buffy returned facing a major existential crisis--she could find no reason for her return to our dimension, and, for a long time, found any attempt to reconnect with the world both meaningless and useless, and thus had to relearn that "the hardest thing in this world is to live in it," that simply living is a end and a gift unto itself--Spike's return might more immediately and clearly teach him that his potential is still not fulfilled to its highest level. Although it may not be the best motivator for every character, this threat of Hell (whether it is real or not), being palpable and one of the few things that could scare him, seems almost tailor-made to help Spike discover what it means to be a vampire with a soul.


[> [> Yes, I agree -- Tchaikovsky, 02:30:57 10/15/03 Wed

It will be interesting to see if and how they continue the parallel. I would be interested to see some suggestion of Spike understanding a little bit more of what the Buffy of Season Six was going through, although I suspect that may be considered too irrelevant to deal with. Unless, of course, Sarah Michelle Gellar returns during sweeps, in which case it would seem fair game.


[> [> [> Agree with Rob and good pts Tch. -- s'kat, 12:24:28 10/15/03 Wed

Someone, can't remember if it's TCH's essay or Belly of the Beast's review - made the excellent point about the appearance Harmony - the unwanted ex hanging on being a good parallel to Spike's presence in S6 Btvs with Buffy.

Interesting. Particularly when we consider that this is far from the first time Harmony has been used as a means of comparing Buffy's behavior towards Spike to Spike's behavior towards Harmony. Harsh Light of Day compared Spike's use of Harmony to Buffy's use of Parker to get over past lovers who'd dumped them. OOMM - Crush shows how Spike used Harmony for sex to deal just as Buffy uses Riley in some ways in S4-S5 and Riley uses the vamp trulls. (Yes, I know unlike Riley and Spike, Buffy cared for Riley and was nicer...but I think the parallel is there). Now, we have Spike become resurrected from what he believed was his final act - his purpose, only to see Harmony. Upon seeing her - his first reaction is "This must be hell". The parallel with Buffy is clear - since Buffy comes back into the Summers house and the first person she encounters after Dawn is Spike - at the bottom of the stairs.

I think ME will in some ways parallel the two, but do it subtly - ie. not tell us in broad strokes they are doing it. We won't have a scene between Spike and Buffy - where Spike tells her - he understands what she went through. (In a sense we already had that scene in Never Leave Me - we don't need a repeat, besides this is Angel's show not Buffy's.) What we'll get is something far subtleter and they will probably do it through Harmony - and I think, I could be wrong on this, that the Spike/Harmony relationship may be used to cast light on Angel's relationships with both Cordelia and to some extent Buffy, not to mention Spike. Remember - what happens to Spike in ATS has more to do with Angel now, than Buffy, it's Angel's show.

[> [> [> [> Re: Agree with Rob and good pts Tch. -- Dlgood, 12:45:04 10/15/03 Wed

Particularly when we consider that this is far from the first time Harmony has been used as a means of comparing Buffy's behavior towards Spike to Spike's behavior towards Harmony.
Sure. And of course, the parallels of how Spike feels about how Buffy treated him in their sexual relationship, with how Harmony has felt about Spike's treatment of her.

Perhaps, dealing with Harmony will give Spike greater perspective on how Buffy felt about him in S6-7, though we wouldn't see much follow through on that unless Spike was in yet another relationship or (as you pointed out) Buffy returned.

[> [> Threat of Hell -- Dlgood, 06:36:14 10/15/03 Wed

Spike's return might more immediately and clearly teach him that his potential is still not fulfilled to its highest level. Although it may not be the best motivator for every character, this threat of Hell
I'm reminded of the parallel between this and the chip. In many respects, Spike's character is a study in operant conditioning. Where appeals to his better nature often fail, threat of punishment for lax behavior oftn succeeds.

The questions being - would soulless Spike have "done good" if not for the chip. And will this Spike do good if not for the threat of hell. Or will he continue to be motivated primarily by narrow self-interest.

[> [> [> Reaching Potential -- Claudia, 11:59:14 10/15/03 Wed

When you think of it, none of us has really reached our potential. Or never will, as long as we're alive. From the moment we're born, until we die - we're struggling to "reach that potential".

Even after the end of BtVS, Buffy has yet to reach her full potential. As events have proven, she didn't even after dying in "The Gift". And despite having a soul for over a century, neither has Angel. Or Spike, who gave his life to save the world in "Chosen".

Reaching one's potential is a never-ending process that all of us go through, as we live. And whether we reach it or not upon death, is still a question. Isn't it?

[> Welling, flowing, brimming (Angel Odyssey 5.2)(sp5.2) -- fresne, 17:17:02 10/15/03 Wed

"Spike's Uncomfortable Teller of Truth mantle melts, thaws and resolves itself into a man who creates stories."


Pauses a moment to enjoy dew, water, change, tidal flows and cracking ice and the desert where only madmen and Englishmen go, the source of all these Biblical images (old and the new)

Contemplate Spike as Lawrence, who changes names and coats and spins tales.

Contemplates Morpheus, who is much on my mind of late.

In that sleep, what dreams may come. Odd bodkins. Tacky amulets. Rub, rub, rub.

[> And who doesn't love foot-notes? (sp 5.2) -- Tchaikovsky, 03:09:58 10/16/03 Thu

-The name of the Thomas poem, which I inadvertently omitted, is 'Good'.

-Rob Kral's score is something I meant to comment on [preposition ending sentence alert!] The twisted dance in the show-room of bodies, and the piano music playing under Angel's reflective preparation for bed were both brilliant.



Why they're in Europe -- skeeve, 09:56:36 10/14/03 Tue

They're taking Willow to Oxford where she can learn and have scones.


[> My theory (little spoiler from AtS 5.2) -- Masq, 10:29:05 10/14/03 Tue

Well, actually I have two. The first is that Buffy has heard of Potentials becoming Slayers in other parts of the world, and she and Faith are now heading out to find these girls to let them know what is happening to them and to recruit them to fight the good fight.

My other theory (and these can both be true) is that Buffy has gone to meet with whatever remaining (ex) Watchers are around to tell them what's what and perhaps form a new alliance/balance of power.

Either way, her trip makes a lot of sense. Managing the new shape of the forces of Good will be a full-time job for her and the other Slayers/ex-Watchers. Buffy has her hands full.

[> [> Re: My theory (little spoiler from AtS 5.2) -- Dlgood, 11:16:28 10/14/03 Tue

Unless she wants to take a brief sabbatical on the French riviera with some of Giles' estate money.

Otherwise, yeah. They've got a lot of follow up work to do regarding all these new slayers. Recovering the remnants of the council, and so on...

A lot of that is stuff that needs to get done, but for the purposes of AtS is better off happening offscreen. I'd be surprised if we don't get some sort of update, or new slayer in LA, or just something dealing with the fallout of the empowerment spell later in S5.

[> [> [> Re: My theory (little spoiler from AtS 5.2) -- Masq, 11:58:10 10/14/03 Tue

Well, seeing as it's only been 19 days since the destruction of the hellmouth, Buffy may very well be on a little holiday. Nice is lovely this time of year.

But then it's back to work, and the first stop is probably the UK.

[> [> [> What estate money? -- skeeve, 13:16:07 10/14/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> That estate money -- Dlgood, 13:21:36 10/14/03 Tue

Well Giles has the big estate with all those horsies somehere out in Britain. So, one assumes, he also has some money.

Plus, G-man did have that sweet BMW convertible.

[> [> [> [> [> Plus... -- Masq, 14:31:59 10/14/03 Tue

It's never been satisfactorily explained what he lived on in Season 4 when he was fired from the Watcher's council and no longer employed by the Sunnydale School District.

I mean, the guy sat around all day watching game shows.

[> [> [> [> [> [> he saved the money he would have spent on non-ancient transportation -- skeeve, 15:00:31 10/14/03 Tue

But why would Willow have any of it?

[> [> [> Re: My theory (little spoiler from AtS 5.2) -- LittleBit, 01:36:13 10/15/03 Wed

I like to entertain the notion that there's this guy...a vampire with soul (who had one before it was the cool thing to do) who happens to head up a major branch of a highly successful inter-dimensional law firm and who just might be willing to use a few resources to treat an old friend and sixteen or seventeen [number is made up!] of her friends to an all-expenses paid European tour. Need passports? No problem...he can get you those and put all the European languages along with the Gershwin tunes in your head at the same time.

If anyone else would like to entertain this notion, it has a liking for red wine and moo goo gai pan. [Don't you be making a face...it's just a notion, what does it know of cuisine?]

[> [> [> [> I like this theory! :-) -- jane, 05:40:22 10/15/03 Wed

Buffy season 7 question, sorry if it has been asked a million times -- Mackenzie, 10:04:53 10/14/03 Tue

I like to re-read the transcripts of past seasons because I am 9 months pregnant and work is so boring. I just finished Showtime.
When the Botox eye says that the FE saw it's chance to destroy the slayer line because Buffy was alive and it messed everything up did that HAVE to mean it was because she was brought back in season 6? It just seems to me that the first glitch was when Xander brought her back after the Master drowned her. Having Kendra be called while Buffy was still around seems a bigger mistake. Even though bringing her back in season 6 was some major no no mojo.
Am I off on that thought?


[> This puzzles me, too. -- Gyrus, 10:24:07 10/14/03 Tue

It just seems to me that the first glitch was when Xander brought her back after the Master drowned her. Having Kendra be called while Buffy was still around seems a bigger mistake.

See, I would think the same thing -- the big screw-up occurred with the first resurrection, not the second one. But if that's the case, it leaves us to wonder what the heck the FE has been doing for the past 5 years while this window of opportunity was open. Then again, if we assume that it was the second resurrection that screwed things up, we could also wonder what the FE was doing for all of S6.

[> [> Re: This puzzles me, too. -- Claudia, 10:40:32 10/14/03 Tue

It's interesting that the First Evil didn't make it's move until Spike had returned with a soul. The only other time there was a souled vampire, along with a Slayer who had return from the dead, was during Seasons 2 and 3. During Season 2, Angel was about to lose his soul and become Angelus. In Season 3, he was back, with the resurrected Buffy - hence, the FE's attempt to have Angel kill Buffy.

Then over three years later, you have Buffy who had then, been resurrected twice and another souled vampire - Spike. Someone had suggested that the FE knew about a prophecy that would alter the Slayer line and that it involved a Slayer who had returned from the dead and a souled vampire. I guess the First decided to make its move before the prophecy could come true. And take the opportunity to get its hands on the scythe and create a new demonic dimension.

[> [> [> Re: This puzzles me, too. -- Nino, 15:01:08 10/14/03 Tue

[It's interesting that the First Evil didn't make it's move until Spike had returned with a soul.]

This is very interesting point, and lends credence to the "FE knew about the amulet/souled vamp proppechy" theory.

*note, when i say that the FE "knew" i mean that it makes sense that things happened the way they did, not necessarily that Joss/ME knew about the amulet or what not since the get go...

[> [> [> Re: This puzzles me, too. -- dmw, 19:45:32 10/14/03 Tue

It's interesting that the First Evil didn't make it's move until Spike had returned with a soul. The only other time there was a souled vampire, along with a Slayer who had return from the dead, was during Seasons 2 and 3. During Season 2, Angel was about to lose his soul and become Angelus. In Season 3, he was back, with the resurrected Buffy - hence, the FE's attempt to have Angel kill Buffy.

I'm not sure what to make of the Eye's statements about the Slayers, but I also found the timing of the FE's appearance with the appearance of a vampire with a soul indicative of a possible connection with that legend instead of a connection with the slayer(s). I actually thought during much the season that Buffy had figured that out and that was why she kept Spike alive after he returned, especially after it was revealed he was still killing people. Buffy's irrational treatment of him then reminded me of how she dealt with Dawn back in season 5.

[> [> [> [> Terminator 3 and inevitabilty vs. free will (spoilers for the movie and for Angel S3 and S4) -- Gyrus, 08:16:23 10/15/03 Wed

In T3, John Connor finds out that although his mother's actions in T2 postponed Judgement Day, they did not prevent it. Instead, the same circumstances that preceded the original date of Judgement Day occur again before the real Judgement Day comes, allowing everything to happen as it was "meant" to, even though the details are somewhat different. Similarly, it may be that the FE was meant to be defeated by the Slayer and a vampire with a soul, but this defeat could have occurred at a couple of different times and involved one of two different ensouled vampires.

I like to think this is the way prophecies work in the Buffyverse -- prophesied events are inevitable, but the details can vary because people still have free will. For example, Buffy could have died (permanently) in the Master's cave, but she was resuscitated because Xander and Angel chose to go and help her. Similarly, although Connor will surely kill Sahjahn someday, it is up to them to decide the whens, wheres, and hows of that event. (Sahjahn may someday discover that, by sending baby Connor to Qortoth, he shortened his own life by the 16 years it would have taken Connor to "grow to manhood" in this world.)

[> Re: Buffy season 7 question, sorry if it has been asked a million times -- Ames, 11:57:12 10/14/03 Tue

We don't really know what Beljoxa's Eye said to Anya and Giles, only what they discussed afterwards. Anya seemed to assume that it was Buffy's 2nd death/resurrection that caused the problem (she even said "it's not like Buffy hasn't died before"), and Giles didn't correct her, so they must have gotten that impression from Beljoxa's Eye.

It could be that Buffy's first death/revival did cause a temporary potential problem, but not necessarily a long-term one because she was fated to die in a few more years anyway after fulfilling her final purpose of stopping Glory. But maybe the First began its plan way back then, knowing that Buffy's long-term fate was unclear (how long does it take to build an army and track down all the Potentials?). It was obviously active and interested in her, because it had a go at Angel in Amends in Season 3.

When Buffy was resurrected from her second death by Willow, the First was ready to go with its plan to eliminate the Slayer line. Willow's resurrection spell couldn't have succeeded without the concurrence of the higher powers, so this obviously set off the showdown between the First and the higher powers responsible for protecting the Slayer line.

These events couldn't have been completely unexpected, because even the Shadowmen back at the dawn of time knew that Buffy would be the last guardian of the Hellmouth.

[> It takes some fanwankage, but... -- Nino, 12:24:27 10/14/03 Tue

...what I believe, based on what I have read of people's posts and my own opinions is that the first disturbace happened when Xander brought Buffy back.


New Slayer called, we all find out about Kendra season 2.

When this happens, the First probably started its plotting, assuming that a few years isn't really that much time to an eternal entity.

FE makes its first on-screen move in "Amends" in season 3...it wanted Buffy dead (to draw attention away from the fact that their could be more then one slayer?) but would have settled for Angel's suicide (wouldn't hurt to get rid of a champion, but could the FE have known about the amulet/souled vamp issue?)

Then Angel leaves town. Faith is out of the picture, so people aren't really thinking about the whole 2 Slayer issue.

Then Buffy dies again. The FE takes a proverbial sigh of relief (i don't think non-corporeal entities can sigh)...back to one Slayer...and better yet, a criminally insane Slayer who is currently jailed.

Then all of a sudden, B is back. season 6 isn't down time for the First. By "Lessons" it is back in Sunnydale, Bringers have killed an unknown amount of potentials, it is likely that since so many Bringers are in Sunnydale, that its is currently trying to get hte Scythe, which will prevent the army-o-Slayers, should Buffy ever realize how the magicks surrounding the Slayer line work.

Does this make sense? I think it all fits togehter rather nicely, without spoon-feeding the First's plans to us. After all, would the source of all evil really need to have a monologue that explains its purpose for being? Probably not.

What did bother me is that the plans for the Ubies were vague. Why did the FE wait to release them? Why just one at a time, when as we saw in "Chosen" they could all come spilling out...were they not at full strength? When would they be? How? Why did the FE wait for the amulet and Buffy's wanna-slay-brigade to strike, when it obviously saw them coming....anyone??

[> [> Re: It takes some fanwankage, but... -- Claudia, 14:07:18 10/14/03 Tue

[ but would have settled for Angel's suicide (wouldn't hurt to get rid of a champion, but could the FE have known about the amulet/souled vamp issue?)]

I don't know if the FE knew about the amulet, but it must have heard of a prophecy involving a resurrected Slayer and a souled vampire.

[> [> [> Re: It takes some fanwankage, but... -- leslie, 14:49:49 10/14/03 Tue

I don't know that the souled vampire prophecy even has to enter into it, and I think we can assume that when you're the First Evil, you think in terms of centuries, if not millennia, rather than tv seasons. Angel is a good candidate for torment, what with the soul and the guilt and all, so FE decides to have a little fun. But damn! This short, strong little girl screws everything up! Let's investigate her, and see how we can wreak revenge....

[> [> Don't think that's fanwankage-- it's actually pretty logical to me. -- OnM, 07:04:52 10/15/03 Wed

That is, the first resurrection was the initiating event that the FE might eventually take advantage of, but the second resurrection was what 'sealed the prophecy'.

This has never been formally spelled out, but I suspect the prophecy the FE was operating on was one about 'the last guardian of the hellmouth', a Slayer who just wouldn't die.

'The Slayer who just wouldn't die' (and stay dead!) was the one destined to gain access to the power of the Scythe, and therefore be able to create an army of Slayers.

So when Buffy dies/is revived the first time, the FE gets a little nervous. When she dies a second time and is resurrected months later, the FE knows that this is truly the destined individual. (Not to mention that later, Warren shoots Buffy and she doesn't die and in Chosen she is given 'a mortal wound' and not only doesn't die, but rises up again seemingly stronger.)

You know, back during Season 6, many fans, myself included, speculated that what was different about the resurrected Buffy was that she gained a measure of physical immortality, much like a vampire.

Consider that to date, ME has neither supported nor refuted this possibility.

[> [> [> Yes! I always thought that... -- Nino, 12:31:50 10/15/03 Wed

...it would be cool if it was revealed in season 7 that the First was working based on a prophecy about a Slayer that wouldn't die, or that rose twice...that Beljoxa's Eye was referring to this prophecy when it said that Buffy was to blame for the disturbance that allowed the FE to act....

...this is where I think we have to fill in the holes, cuz like I said...why would the FE reveal all the details of its plans? It wouldn't have to. The Mayor, Adam and Glory all had to communicate with their lackies. The First does not. The Bringers communicated telepathically...and as he learned in "Amends" it was their chanting that allowed the First to manifest itself...

[> [> [> Re: Don't think that's fanwankage-- it's actually pretty logical to me. -- jane, 17:49:23 10/15/03 Wed

Oh, I like that idea. Buffy's "cellular tan" might be the sign of some sort of super regenerative power bestowed on her by the resurrection spell. She didn't come back wrong, just a little more immortal than the rest of us humans.

[> spoilers for chosen -- annonymous, 15:09:54 10/14/03 Tue

I have my own extremely convoluded theory that Buffy and Willow were predestined to find and use the scythe (the unknown chain of events which would lead them to do so more or less regardless of the circumstances starting sometime after season six) and quasi-extemporal beings like the Eye perceive it as having, in a way, already happened; the fact that the reaction would technically happen before the justification in linear time being irrelevant to the First Evil.

The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Lunasea, 10:47:14 10/14/03 Tue

This is part continuation of my discussion with Rufus about "the curse of the vampire" (both on the board and in chat) and part me puzzling something out about vampires and evil. No discussion about what a vampire is completely without the Pylea mini-arc. It is one of the few times we really get visual evidence rather than just the characters speculating about what a vampire is. Another is "The Dark Ages" where we sort of see it in the fight for possession of Angel's body. Yet another is how the Master and Kakistos don't vamp out any more and how different they look compared to other vampires.

On Pylea, where things are black and white, the demon and human that make up the vampire are pushed to extremes. This allows Angel to not catch on fire and to see his own reflection. He never came in contact with a cross or holy water, but I would surmise that they would have had no effect on him. On the other hand, when the demon comes out, he doesn't just vamp out. We see the actual demon that Angel is afraid of becoming. Master and Kakistos don't look quite like this demon, but they look more like it than regular vamps do. This demon is little more than an animal. Its driving force is bloodlust. Fred is able to lure it away from Gunn and Wesley with a fist full of blood.

We have seen Angel like this once before, though without the visage of the pure demon. When he comes back from Hell in "Beauty and the Beast" Angel's identity has been buried because of the brutal torment he has endured for a hundred years. He is essentially just the demon again. That demon doesn't kill the same way a vampire typically would. It isn't the finesse of the bite. It is the brutal kill of a wolf. It is this demon that the last demon has "cursed" Man with. It is this demon that a vampire passes on when they sire someone. This is all that is passed on when someone is sired. That demon wants to feed. It is that demon that causes Angel/us to have bloodlust, to want to kill and feed off of humans. As long as Angel is a vampire, he will have this. It can be buried, but he will always have it on some level. Angel felt guilty about this desire.

We have only seen someone cured of vampirism twice. Angel was cured in IWRY when his body was regenerated bringing him back to life. The other was Darla when she was brought back with the line "And the five shall be a sacrifice... and the one who is dead shall live..." It is this living, which can be referred to as crossing over, that allows Darla to come back to this dimension. What both cases have in common is that Angel and Darla are alive. In IWRY the demon goes somewhere (perhaps never-never-come-backland) when Angel regenerates. When Darla comes back as human without the demon, Rufus has asserted this is evidence that when the vampire is dusted, the curse of the vampire is lifted. I would say it supports my contention that life itself cures vampirism.

For further evidence, it isn't just drinking that sires someone. The human is resistant to vampirism until s/he is dead. The vampire is a hybrid of a dead human and a demon. If a live person drinks, such as Buffy in "Buffy v Dracula," the person will not turn. Also, Ghost-Spike returned after being dusted. He was not cured of his vampirism. He vamped out which he couldn't do unless he still had his demon in some form. It will be interesting to see if his bloodlust manifests itself somehow.

The process to make a vampire is that the human who has drank dies. Drinking imparts on the human the soul of the demon and this hybrid creature rises as a vampire. The human soul is not enough to displace the soul of the demon, as evidenced by Angel and Spike. Only life can do that (so far any way. We have seen no other means on the show, so until we do, I stand by my contention). Death is a metaphysical process independent of vamping. We have seen it several different times on the show.

Zombies are dead. They are reanimated, but still dead. There is nothing to them, no soul, no essence. They are just puppets. When a human dies, her soul and essence (not the same thing in the Buffyverse) leave the body. That essence would be the part of Buffy that remembers her afterlife. That essence would be the Darla that comes back in "Inside Out." That essence is part of what Ghost-Spike is and is what part is tied to the amulet. In a vamping, that essence somehow remains with the body. Angel's essence could feel his family above his grave before he rose. Essence Darla remembers everything she did as a vampire. So does Ghost-Spike.

The soul is still gone. That is just a consequence of death. The demon soul possesses the body and maintains the human's essence. We have seen a soulless human in "I've Got You Under My Skin." The Ethros demon describes Ryan as ""Hmpf, what soul? Do you know what the most frightening thing in the world is? - Nothing! That's what I found in the boy, no conscience, no fear, no humanity, just a black void. I couldn't control him. I couldn't get out. I never even manifested until you brought me forth. I just sat there and watched as he destroyed everything around him. Not from a belief in evil, not for any reason at all."

I like season 1. I like how each episode showed something else about Angel. The relationship between the Ethros demon and Ryan is the same relationship the demon has to the dead human in a vampire. A vampire is a soulless dead human that is possessed by a demon. Just as the Ethros demon whispered to Ryan, the demon can whisper to the human. Without a human soul, the vampire has no reason not to listen to those whispers. These whispers form the vampire's conscience and orient him towards evil. The evil itself comes more from the human part than it does the demon. The human part is in control, just like it is in Ryan.

The demon wants to feed. That's about it. We don't see the Angel-beast on Pylea or Angel after he gets back from hell, when his human identity has been suppressed, hatching any elaborate schemes or tormenting anyone. Those come from our own humanity. As a dead Holland tells Angel, "You see, if there wasn't evil in every single one of them out there why, they wouldn't be people. - They'd all be angels." It is the absence of the human soul that causes the vampire to act on this evil, more than the addition of the demon soul does.

The last demon didn't curse Mankind by creating the first vampire, nor does a vampire curse a human being when she sires him. Evil is not visited upon a human being when they are sired. That already exists in us. Death removes our soul. The vampire doesn't do that. Once that happens, the curse of our own human nature makes the vampire evil. Without this evil, the vampire would only be what we saw on Pylea.


[> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Rufus, 13:40:25 10/14/03 Tue

The last demon didn't curse Mankind by creating the first vampire, nor does a vampire curse a human being when she sires him. Evil is not visited upon a human being when they are sired. That already exists in us. Death removes our soul. The vampire doesn't do that. Once that happens, the curse of our own human nature makes the vampire evil. Without this evil, the vampire would only be what we saw on Pylea.

Ummmm, yes it did. The fact that the vampire becomes evil and proceeds to prove it by killing humans proves that they are in a cursed state. The use of the word curse may seem confusing if you think of a cursed state as being only the result of a spoken spell.

From S2 Angel "The Trial"

Alley behind the bar, Darla is still dragging the guy.

Vampire: "How do you know I won't just kill you here, drain you and leave your body?"

Darla puts her purse down on the hood of a car and gives him a hard kiss, then steps back. Vampire's eyes popped open wide.

Darla: "I'll take my chances."

Vampire: "I - I- I should probably mention that I... - I'm not real clear on how this thing works."

Darla: "What?"

Vampire: "Well, ah, I never actually did it, ah, to anybody before - and I was kind of out when it happened to me."

Darla taking a deep breath: "I'll walk you through it. (Steps closer) Drink. (Exposes her neck) When you feel my heart start to slow stop."

You need the victim alive to create the vampire, dead you just have a body. The vampire infects the person causing the death/removal of the soul, but then a rebirth of a horrible sort when the undead vampire rises with a new point of view and a new hunger. That last demon fed off a human in a defiant gesture that created unexpected results, and a curse on humanity.

[> [> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Lunasea, 14:18:06 10/14/03 Tue

Because dead people can't drink. Dead people have no essences either. No essence, nothing for the demon soul to operate off of. The infection of the vampire doesn't cause the death. Draining the blood does. That is a normal death, even if a demons causes it. Slicing the wrists or a bullet wound to the gut will also result in death for the same reason. The vampire drains the blood to the point where death is inevitable, namely the heart slows down (it would be interested if a person that has been drained and sired manages to receive medical attention and they didn't die. I would predict that such a person wouldn't turn.) At this point, the person has enough life left to drink, but not enough not to die. Seems simple to me.

You're theory about the last demon cursing Man as vengeance is an interesting theory, however, it's just speculation. The Angel-beast which is the pure demon and not the hybrid vampire doesn't seem sophisticated enough to be capable of a curse. I have no problem with flesh magick being the catalyst for a curse. I do have a problem with no intention behind a curse. We simply don't know the last demon's intentions. We just have the existence of vampires and the visual evidence I have mentioned. Such speculation doesn't prove anything either way, until Joss gives the proof. You could very well be correct in your theory.

The vampire doesn't become evil. Humans are evil. We are both good and evil. Removing the soul makes us just evil. There is no new point of view. It is just that view is no longer shackled by the soul. We have seen Ryan, a human child without a soul. Pretty evil child, evil enough to make the Ethros demon fear. Buffy wasn't exactly Miss Congeniality when her soul was being drained. It is the lack of soul more than the presence of the demon that makes a vampire evil. I think that could be an interesting debate, which is why I posted. What do other posters think makes the vampire evil? What do you think Greenwalt was trying to show with "I've got you under my skin"? He cowrote the story with Jeanine Renshaw.

We can continue to debate the "curse state," but your contention goes to something that we just haven't seen, namely the siring of the first vampire and cannot be proven. To assert that you have proven anything is erroneous. Supported, possibly, but I have shown how the evidence also supports my position.

[> [> [> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Claudia, 14:35:50 10/14/03 Tue

[We are both good and evil. Removing the soul makes us just evil.]

How do we know that this is true?

[> [> [> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Rufus, 21:48:41 10/14/03 Tue

You're theory about the last demon cursing Man as vengeance is an interesting theory, however, it's just speculation. The Angel-beast which is the pure demon and not the hybrid vampire doesn't seem sophisticated enough to be capable of a curse.

A curse has as much to do with intent as it does the ability to speak the words of a spell. The curse is the consequences of an action that was done in spite as much as for a quick snack before shuffling off to dimension X.

The vampire doesn't become evil. Humans are evil. We are both good and evil. Removing the soul makes us just evil. There is no new point of view. It is just that view is no longer shackled by the soul. We have seen Ryan, a human child without a soul.

I see Ryan as an example of the real life sociopath that can start at a young age. Soul or not this kid is evil in a way that pep talks and treats won't cure. The Ethros demon may have said that Ryan didn't have a soul but I think it's more that his actions indicate to the Ethros that Ryan is acting in a way that goes so against the norm as to make it the best way to explain his evil acts as being the result of being soulless, which btw is a typical thing people say when presented with human evil. If that kid was demonic in any way I think Angel would never have allowed human justice and mental health systems attempt to deal with him. When people commit horrible acts it's very common to say they are soulless because then some quality seperates them from us.

[> [> [> [> The problem with the Ethros demon -- Arethusa, 05:28:23 10/15/03 Wed

is that it and Ryan are such an unusual case that they don't verify the premise-that evil come (only?) from the human, not the demon.

We know, because of the canon quote from Whedon you quoted elsewhere and many other textual mentions that the demonic "soul" orients a vampire towards evil. Vampires rising from the grave have even declared themselves connected to a great evil-I believe Holden Webster said this-and there are many other examples.

The relationship between the Ethros demon and Ryan is the same relationship the demon has to the dead human in a vampire.

The relationship the demon has to the dead human is that it takes over the body, the soul leaves and the "essence" remains, and the essence switches orientation towards evil. Therefore the relationship between the Ethros demon and Ryan isn't analogous because Ethros doesn't kill the human boy-it possesses him. After the possession, it finds that the boy, in reality or in effect, has no soul of his own. So his soul can't orient him towards evil. Ethros is not in control of the boy, as the demon is in control of the vampire. Ethros says, "I couldn't control him. I couldn't get out. I never even manifested until you brought me forth. I just sat there and watched as he destroyed everything around him. Not from a belief in evil, not for any reason at all." The quote tells us that not only was Ethros not whispering evil into Ryan's ear, he was immobilized, impotent. So while the demon soul does orient the vampire towards evil, Ethros is not an example of what happens after siring, just what happens when a "souless" boy is possessed.

When Angel comes back from the hell dimension, he is crazed from torment, but he isn't the Pylean demon. He still has a soul and is still oriented towards good after he calms down.

[> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- leslie, 16:47:41 10/14/03 Tue

Going off on a bit of a tangent here that I hope will reconnect with what you're investigating:

"This [vampire] demon is little more than an animal. Its driving force is bloodlust."

These two sentences caught me up. My first thought was, "But animals are about more than bloodlust. Isn't this rather unfair to animals?" We're inclined to describe anything that is not-human as "animal," but animals have a wide range of behaviors that are not all threatening or dangerous to humans. Animals who are less powerful, smaller than humans want to stay the hell away from us. It's the ones who are bigger and stronger who have no fear of us and who are threats to our existence--like vampires, they could eat us up. (Like the tiger who chomped on Roy last week.) Animals can succumb to bloodlust, but that's usually when there's something wrong with them. The notorious man-eating lions of Tsavo (as seen in The Ghost and the Darkness) attacked humans because they were unable to get enough of their regular food due to illness, and so they overcame their innate fear of human settlement and then discovered it was good pickin's. But they were behaving unnaturally, even for "fierce" lions.

So, what exactly is it that separates humans from animals? Some people think it's the power of speech, although animals can communicate with each other to greater or lesser degrees. Some think it's self-reflection (interesting in terms of the vampires-have-none metaphor), some think it's a sense of humor (they obviously haven't met my older and more peculiar cat, Finn). Tons of other things are suggested.

But I think in terms of the human-vampire relationship, the disturbing part about it is that vampires treat humans like humans treat animals. We don't like the thought that we could be "cattle" (like the Master treats humans in the Wishverse). Vampires are even more disturbing in this context because they used to be human, and now they view humans as nothing more than Happy Meals with legs. But, humans used to be animals, too. We still are animals, and we actually do make Happy Meals out of animals. The frightening thing about vampires may be not that they are too unlike humans, but that they are too much like humans. We, in fact, are the demons.

[> [> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Claudia, 13:50:47 10/15/03 Wed

[But I think in terms of the human-vampire relationship, the disturbing part about it is that vampires treat humans like humans treat animals. We don't like the thought that we could be "cattle" (like the Master treats humans in the Wishverse). Vampires are even more disturbing in this context because they used to be human, and now they view humans as nothing more than Happy Meals with legs. But, humans used to be animals, too. We still are animals, and we actually do make Happy Meals out of animals. The frightening thing about vampires may be not that they are too unlike humans, but that they are too much like humans. We, in fact, are the demons.]

This comment, in fact, reminds me of the movie, "Chicken Run".

I also have another question. Why is it that many perceive vampires without souls as automatically evil, whereas many demons in Jossverse - including Lorne, Clem, Skip, etc. - are not.

[> [> [> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- RJA, 14:41:18 10/15/03 Wed

Why is it that many perceive vampires without souls as automatically evil, whereas many demons in Jossverse - including Lorne, Clem, Skip, etc. - are not.

I think the reason for this is that vampires by nature kill humans, so humans are more likely to consider them evil on that basis. Anything that poses a direct threat to our existence will be considered evil.

So far we have only seen a couple of exceptions to that rule, and even then at some point those vampires have killed humans to satisfy their needs. That is the difference between the demons and vampires - being a vampire is almost always to have the need to kill or feed from humans.

[> [> [> [> Re: The Curse of our own Human Nature (mild spoiler 5.02) -- Claudia, 15:59:19 10/15/03 Wed

So vampires are automatically evil, due to humans' sense of self-preservation?

[> [> [> [> [> Basically yes -- RJA, 16:04:42 10/15/03 Wed

It really comes down to the idea of what is evil. I dont think there is any real definition of what is evil, only what we choose to label it as evil. Thats not to say there are no moral absolutes, but a prue definition of evil? very hard to come by.

But as human beings, there is absolutely no shame or wrong in claiming vampires who want and try and succeed in killing us as evil. Thats our prerogative.

Likewise killing them is no problem. They want to kill us, so we kill them before they manage. I'm sure vampires would respect that thought process.

In defense of Angel, Buffy, and others (tiny *spoiler* for AtS 5.1) -- manwitch, 18:57:51 10/14/03 Tue

So Angel basically killed a guy. Kicked him and caused the guy to blow his own head off. The moral questions around that have been raised, especially in light of Angel's comment about mercy. But it strikes me that even a court-appointed lawyer could successfully argue self-defense in this case. All the physical evidence, as well as motive, would seem to corroborate Angel's version of events. I mean, there's a lot of bullet holes all around.

But I was wondering how others of our favorite characters would fare.

Willow, it seems to me, could be charged with helping some alleged robbers escape from police custody. In doing that, she caused damage to a lot of police property, and arguably to some police officers. I don't even know what all the charges are that could be filed against her. I'm curious both about why charges weren't filed against her and about what her defense was if we assume that charges were filed. And I'm curious as to whether or not any of this effects the morality of it. Are we all agreed that what Willow did was immoral? If her grief is a mitigating factor legally, is it morally?

One expects the cops have been after Buffy for a while. Even if it turns out she didn't kill Kendra, are the cops going to overlook the fact that she beat up a police officer and resisted arrest? Forensics experts no doubt found Buffy's bootprints and fingerprints in the vicinity of where the Mayor's deputy was killed. And Buffy's assault on Faith in Graduation Day, while way cool, seems hardly legal. She continues to irk federal authorities by sabotaging the Initiative. And in Season 5, unless I am remembering incorrectly, Buffy does, in fact, kill human beings, when she throws a rather large axe into the chest of one of the role-playing rejects. At what point does self-defense break down as an argument?

Oz, well, he seems to me to be in the most trouble. Assuming that werewolves turn back into people when they die, or at least when the moon goes away, there's a body of a naked dead girl somewhere that has Oz's DNA all over it. Blood, hair, and that other substance, if you'll forgive my mentioning it. It's plausible that someone knows Oz and Veruca were seen together in the days before her disappearance. And Oz also left the country at exactly the time Veruca disappeared. One can't help but conclude that as Oz drove away at the end of New Moon Rising, he was surrounded by federal agents and placed in custody. This would explain why he never reappeared in the series. Does Oz have a legal defense for his actions? Assuming the feds see him as the small fish and try to get him to turn state's evidence, what can he pin on Buffy? What is her legal culpability in Veruca's murder? Is it worth bargaining on Oz's heinous crime in order to get at the teflon slayer? Could they do it for just charging her with being an accessory after the fact, or would they need to prove some kind of conspiracy?

Buffy could very likely also be implicated in the death of one of Sunnydale's "points of light" the young doctor Ben. He always seemed like a nice guy. Worked hard. Helped people. But his dead body turned up, albeit in a dress, and its quite conceivable that some evidence of Buffy was present as a result of their struggle. Now in this, Buffy will have a host of witnesses coming to her defense about the true nature of doctor Ben. Her sister bears scars and her friend Tara a crushed hand as a result of Ben's transsexual perversions. Certainly this will be a cause-celebre, but am I wrong to think that Buffy will once again slip away from the charges? Will Ben's transsexual perversion be admissable at trial? Will Buffy's past history of violence?

It seems that our heros commit a lot of crimes, by our community standards. Justice may be slow, but I'm sure investigations are proceeding into all of these cases. What are the legal defenses? And as an afterthought, is Buffy's stabbing of Faith more legal than say Andrew's stabbing of Jonathon? Does legality have anything to do with morality? If not, did our heros have the moral justification to break the law?

Even if Buffy is convicted, I will still remember Spike's words that imprisoned killers get married all the time. No need to give up hope just yet.

But what do you say? Does she get convicted?


[> Guilty, guilty, guilty. -- Arethusa, 19:34:56 10/14/03 Tue

Finally! Law and Order: Supernatural Crimes Division. Whedon's vision is finally fulfilled as the Scoobies are prosecuted for their crimes. Andrew turns states' witness against them all, but his testimony is discredited by a videotape that reveals he is delusional. I can think of only one major character in the Buffyverse who hasn't committed a crime,advertently or inadvertently-Tara.

LOL, manwitch!

[> [> Reckless endangerment and negligence (spoiler for season 5 of Buffy, I think) -- Apophis, 20:11:10 10/14/03 Tue

Tara cast a spell to prevent her friends from seeing her "demonic nature." As a result, her friends were unable to see ANY demons, which placed them in a great deal of danger. Tara, knowing full well the implications of casting a spell for selfish or unethical reasons, went ahead and took away her friends' ability to percieve a very common danger (for them, anyway). It's like if she had made a police officer unable to see criminals.

[> [> [> Don't forget Xander... -- Athena, 00:24:20 10/15/03 Wed

What about Xander and Amy, they casted a love spell which made the entire female population except Cordy to fall madly in love (if that's what you call it) with Xander? Albeit it was intended only for Cordelia, but isn't that mental slavery?

[> [> [> [> Re: Don't forget Xander... -- Claudia, 11:18:50 10/15/03 Wed

If we're talking of supernatural justice, has anyone brought up that Xander could be guilty of attempted murder, when he tried to kill a defenseless Spike for sleeping with Anya?

Hey, maybe someone should draw up a list of BtVS/AtS characters and their crimes - supernaturally related or not.

[> [> [> [> [> But I thought -- lakrids, 15:27:55 10/15/03 Wed

that you killed non-souled vampires? Just ask Robin Wood mother....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But I thought -- Claudia, 15:52:54 10/15/03 Wed

You really think it's okay to kill a non-souled vampire who lacks the ability to fight back, because of a behavior-modifying chip? Or that it's okay to kill said vampire because the latter slept with your girlfriend, whom one had abandoned at the altar?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But I thought -- lakrids, 17:10:57 10/15/03 Wed

A vampire is not a human. A vampire kills human to survive (ok that is not strictly correct, they can live on animals, but chooses not to) and for fun. An old vampire has killed a lot of innocent people.
Don't see it as murder, look it as removing a serial killer from earth. Xander reasons for the eventual termination of Spike, is not relevant. Neither is the fact that Spike cannot fight back. As long as the result, is the removal of a killer. You can say that Spike helped save world, and therefore is on plus side. of saved life minus life he has murdered, but that is really only Faith argument in from season 2 again. Perhaps a valid argument for some, but not for me . Just because you saved life can you not take a life. Just because you have stopped a crime, is it not ok to commit one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Attempted Murder, Clear and Simple -- Claudia, 12:19:03 10/16/03 Thu

[A vampire is not a human. A vampire kills human to survive]

Personally, it doesn't matter "what" the impending victim was. Xander was trying to kill Spike . . . and certainly not out of self-defense. He was trying to kill a being who could not defend himself. Why? Because that being slept with the woman, whom Xander had dumped at the wedding altar. In my book, that's attempted murder, whether a vampire is a human or not. Xander had murder in his heart and for all the wrong reasons.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Technically, it wasn't -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:30:59 10/16/03 Thu

Murder doesn't just mean killing someone; it means killing someone illegally. Since vampires aren't recognized as being real by the law, killing one can't be murder if you go by the strict interpretation of the word.

[> [> [> I did think of that, but did she break a human law? One she could be prosecuted for in public? -- Arethusa, 04:46:45 10/15/03 Wed

[> People v. Rosenberg -- Sophist, 08:19:22 10/15/03 Wed

(The judge turns to defense counsel: "Your witness."):

DC: Officer, where were you standing when you saw this damage to the police station?

Officer: Outside, on the sidewalk.

DC: What was the nature of the damage?

Officer: Well, bricks and stones were torn out of the front of the building until there was a large hole. Also, some of the bricks fell on the squad cars on the street and damaged them.

DC: Officer, did you get a good look at the defendant?

Officer: Yes.

DC: And you can see her in court today, right?

Officer: Yes.

DC: How tall is she?

Officer: About 5'5"

DC: And how much does she weigh?

Officer: Maybe 115.

DC: How tall are you?

Officer: 6'1"

DC: How much do you weigh?

Officer: 210.

DC: Officer, you have to stay in shape for your job, don't you?

Officer: Yes.

DC: Do you lift weights for that?

Officer: Yes.

DC: Could you tear bricks and stones out of the wall of the police station with your bare hands?

Officer: No way.

DC: Do you believe this woman could?

Officer: No.

DC: Did the defendant have any tool that you saw?

Officer: No.

DC: How, then, did she remove the bricks?

Officer: I don't know. They just came flying out.

DC: Let me get this straight. The defendant was just standing there on the sidewalk and the bricks came out.

Officer (defensively): Right.

DC: She never touched the police station, not with her hands, not with a tool, not at all?

Officer (standing his ground): No.

DC: But the bricks came out without her touching them?

Officer (very defensive): That's what I saw.

DC (sarcastically): So the defendant used some psychic power, then?

Officer (angry): I don't know.

DC: If the defendant never touched the wall, how do you know she was the one who used these (sarcastic again) psychic powers?

Officer (unsure): She was standing there.

DC: Well, you were standing there too, weren't you?

Officer: Yes.

DC: How do we know you didn't do it? Did you use your psychic powers to damage the police station?


Officer (resigned): No.

DC: Did you use your (sarcastic) psychic power to stop her?

Officer: I don't have psychic power.

DC: But she does?

Officer: Yes.

DC: No more questions.

[> [> hilarious, sophist -- manwitch, 10:18:42 10/15/03 Wed

[> [> Re: People v. Rosenberg - Fabulous! (NT) -- Claudia, 11:21:03 10/15/03 Wed

[> [> We, the Jury, find the defendant--absolutely adorable! -- cjl, 11:34:53 10/15/03 Wed

Look at that face. Could anybody that cute destroy a police station and flay a geek alive?

[> [> Case dismissed! LOL.. -- jane, 17:27:21 10/15/03 Wed

[> Werewolves & forensics -- Gyrus, 09:53:18 10/15/03 Wed

Oz, well, he seems to me to be in the most trouble. Assuming that werewolves turn back into people when they die, or at least when the moon goes away, there's a body of a naked dead girl somewhere that has Oz's DNA all over it. Blood, hair, and that other substance, if you'll forgive my mentioning it.

Most of the physical evidence Oz left on Veruca would have been left when Oz was in wolf form. For these to make sense to a forensic analyst, all the lost bits of Oz would have to change back into human tissue, and we don't know if that would happen or not. Otherwise, the Sunnydale PD would simply chalk Veruca's death up to yet another "animal attack".

[> [> Re: Werewolves & forensics -- skeeve, 14:04:03 10/15/03 Wed

Oz was responsible for his actions in the death of Veruca.
Usually he chose to walk into a cage before sundown during a full moon.
This time he chose to stay out of his cage.

Defense of others probably covers it (he did save Willow), but might not.
His choice endangered innocent bystanders and people who weren't close enough to be considered bystanders.

[> Read the newest 'Astro City' for a chilling extension of what these court cases COULD bring ... -- Earl Allison, 09:58:28 10/15/03 Wed

Don't know how many are comics fans, outside of Fray or the BtVS series, but the newest issue of Astro City: Heroes, has a normal (but skilled) lawyer do something that could totally devastate the law in any setting with supernatural or metahuman powers.

He points out the cliches and problems of asking "what is real"? From evil doppelgangers to mind control, so much doubt is cast on the case that a guilty verdict couldn't be attained.

Picture that in the Buffyverse. We've seen shapeshifters. We've seen magic that can alter perceptions, if not reality. What is real? What can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Sophist's funny post is the tip of the iceberg -- trying to charge any of those people would have devastating ramifications to ALL future cases, supernaturally tainted or not :)

Take it and run.

[> The further frustration of the Federal Authorities -- manwitch, 10:16:19 10/15/03 Wed

I think Season 6 probably represents the pinnacle of frustration for federal authorities in their pursuit of Buffy "The Slayer" Summers and her famed Scooby Gang.

It seems reasonable to suppose that during his interrogation, Oz "The Wolfman" Osbourne, when questioned about Buffy, replied with something like, "You guys are crazy if you think I'm gonna give up Buffy's secrets. You don't know the first thing about who she really is. There's a whole 'nother world in Sunnydale that you know nothing about, a world that takes place undergound and after dark. And in that world, Buffy is the top dog."

Its only then that the feds would begin to recognize the magnitude of this Sunnydale crime syndicate. They have known about the petty larceny, and the history of violence. And it has been clear from all the new leather jackets that Buffy has money to spend. But Oz, and it seems clear his best chance is going to be to strike a deal with the DA, has given them what they were missing. It seems at least possible that the social worker who came to Buffy's house to check on Dawn was in fact an undercover federal agent. If so, that visit would have implicated Buffy as a trafficker of the Wacky Magic Weed. That, coupled with Buffy's exchange of "magic rocks" with her henchwoman Tara "The Bull" Maclay and reports of increasing visits to an independent dealer in Sunnydale named Rack by Willow Rosenberg, long known to be Buffy's right hand, would finally begin to help the feds piece together the scope of this illicit activity.

But I think they must still have been shocked and frustrated by the events of spring 2002, when agents received reports that none other than Buffy "The Slayer" Summers had been admitted to Sunnydale Hospital with a GSW to the chest, in an apparent assassination attempt. Before agents could reach the hospital, witnesses report that Buffy was spirited away by Willow Rosenberg and by one of her top enforcers, Xander "Soldier Guy" Harris. But further 911 calls indicated that none other than Tara "The Bull" herself had also been killed at the Summers home in the hit. Ballistics were able to match the bullet to a gun that was licensed to Warren, and others questioned by police stated that Warren had indeed taken credit for the attempt on Buffy's life.

But it didn't stop there. Within hours, a store called "The Magic Box," believed to be a money laundering operation for the Scooby Gang was utterly destroyed, and Buffy's longtime consiglieri Rupert "Ripper" Giles was found at the scene badly beaten. Rack, the dealer with whom Willow had clearly had some relationship, was found dead, and witnesses reported seeing Warren leaving Rack's place earlier that day.

Authorities were no doubt able to piece together a picture of the Troika and its challenge to Buffy's hegemony of Sunnydale. But it was clear that the attempt on Buffy's life, while massive in scope, was not successful. Records indicate that Warren attempted to leave town, but he never arrived at his destination. The other members of the Troika escaped from jail and fled the country, as did Buffy's most ruthless enforcer, Spike "The Bloody" Williams. The last reported sighting of Buffy and her sister was allegedly in a Sunnydale graveyard, climbing out of an open grave, presumably prepared for Warren and his henchmen. But Warren's body was never found. No victim, no crime. Buffy slips away again.

She would resurface in a few months, looking healthy, (very healthy I thought) and taking a job at the new Highschool, where she spent an inordinate of time in the basement for a school counselor. Coincidentally, not long after she began her job there, the body of another member of the Troika that had challenged her, Jonathon, was found brutally stabbed in the High School basement. But again, no physical evidence could be found to link the crime to Buffy.

Oh, they know what's going on. But they just can't pin it on her. Can Oz give them enough to put her away? Or is there another Scoob they can lean on that might give her up?

[> [> Re: The further frustration of the Federal Authorities -- LittleBit, 10:31:23 10/15/03 Wed

As the Feds begin their investigation, a top priority memo is received by the heads of the FBI and the ATF. From the top echelons of the military they are summarily ordered to cease and desist all further investigation of the aforementioned Buffy Anne Summers and he associates. When they resuest an explanation, they recieve another memo from Homeland Security enforcing the cease and desist. An undercover agent refuses to stop, smelling a government cover-up of monumental proportions. He requests a leave of absence and wangles himself a job as the new high school principle, where he quickly suddenly discovers that Buffy is no criminal, she's the Slayer, just as his mother was. He's surprised to realize that the military and homeland security both are aware of her existence and activities, and are surreptitiously aiding and abetting her. He quits his job with the FBI and joins her cause.

[wink, wink ... wank, wank]

[> [> [> The further adventures of the ex-FBI agent.... ('24' Season 3 spoilers) -- cjl, 10:34:39 10/15/03 Wed

He's rejoined the federal government as the security advisor for his brother, President Palmer.

[> Crime, punishment, morality and deterrent -- Celebaelin, 11:18:02 10/15/03 Wed

I've always liked this quote

"Laws are like spiders' webs: if some poor weak creature come up against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and get away."

Solon, 6th Century BC Athenian statesman (Similar quotes appear from the likes of Johnathan Swift and Sir Francis Bacon)

and whilst it is not exactly what you're discussing it is pertinent to the matter in hand. The law does not exist for moral reasons. The demand that it be upheld and the inclination to uphold it on a personal level will usually have some sort of moral basis but in fact historically the law itself is an instrument which serves to placate a discontented group who feel that the 'social contract' is a swindle and that they would be better off without it. That's if you think the social contract actually exists, at the kindest interpretation it is like the British constitution - unwritten, and we all know how much verbal contracts are worth. Purse strings are probably the major factor in negotiations about the social contract, but I'm getting away from the subject now.

Morality only has meaning with regard to the individual. One persons morality is anothers depravity, irrespective of whether that is the result of a belief in a system of laws that is external, but not of course foreign, to the individual (1) or whether the morality is entirely internal. In the latter instance the religious maniac who thinks he is Doing God's Work by committing murder comes immediately to mind. The actions of the hypothetical maniac in question are not illegal if confined to a battlefield in a time of war, those same actions on the streets of his home town however will require that he forgo his heros' welcome and take up residence in a more institutionalised environment for an unspecified period of time.

I didn't doubt that we are agreed that morality and legality are separate issues but the tone of your post seems to imply that at least for the purposes of the argument you considered morality to be subordinate to legality. It is true that you cannot be imprisoned for acting in a way that is immoral if it is not illegal and that you can be imprisoned for acting in a way that is illegal even if is not immoral (or, more forcefully, if it definitely is moral) but whether you believe that to be just or not is another question.

It seems to me that, for reasons alluded to earlier, there is a disparity in the seriousness with which crimes against the person and crimes against property are considered. This is not a moral consideration; it is about retaining wealth and power in the hands of those who already have it. If the penalties for, eg robbing a bank, were less severe then more people would be inclined to do it because it's only money. More to the point it's not actually the banks money, it's other peoples money and it's insured. The sort of people who rob banks may well be fuzzy on the whole moral thing beyond the inconvenience to financial institutions (2) however. So lie down, don't look, keep quiet and you'll be fine, let the video surveillance do the work.

The short answer is that the Scoobies are of course guilty of any and all the crimes we saw them committing, actions taken in self defence are viewed differently in the UK, though there is a reasonable force clause as well I believe. There would doubtless have to be an investigation however and the evidence might not look good. The law is not however about the truth it is about what you can establish to the satisfaction of those appointed to and by the court. What the appropriate punishment is, depending on mental state at the time, is also a matter for the law.

Whether you think a conviction is a fair treatment of our heroes under the circumstances is another question but as far as I'm aware juries are instructed to convict on points of law not points of morality. This is why expensive lawyers are not generally considered to be warm compassionate human beings, and in some cases are not actually thought to be human beings at all.

I think Oz's defence of diminished responsibility by merit of being a werewolf at the time holds up fairly well although he would have to concede that he went looking for Veruca in the full knowledge that the moon was rising. Could Oz convince the jury that a) He went to protect Willow b) He's pretty much got the whole werewolf thing off now.

Giles is in a lot of trouble I think.

Buffy is not actually guilty of murder (self defence) but might get convicted on one or more counts depending on the evidence obtained.

Technically, according to an unrepealed law, witchcraft is itself actually still illegal in the UK I think so everybody is guilty of that. It's a capital offence as well I'm told (one of two, that and treason in times of war). So the whole SG are stuffed in the UK, potentially they could all be burnt at the stake.

Anybody got any marshmallows.

(1) The various cultural or religious taboos to be found around the world fall into this category, the different meanings attributed to various hand gestures world-wide for instance.

(2) Poor undertrodden multinational conglomerates that they are.


[> [> Re: Crime, punishment, morality and deterrent -- Claudia, 12:42:09 10/15/03 Wed

[Buffy is not actually guilty of murder (self defence) but might get convicted on one or more counts depending on the evidence obtained.]

Actually, she is . . . the vampire/whore she had killed in "Into the Woods". The question is, did she kill the vampwhore to protect the innocent, self defense, or out of jealous and spite?

[> [> [> Re: Crime, punishment, morality and deterrent -- RJA, 13:22:06 10/15/03 Wed

But the vampire in Into the Woods wasnt human being, and I'm pretty sure that most homicide laws only cover the killing of a human being. I think it unlikely that a vampire would be considered a human being for these purposes, so Buffy would be safe.

Interestingly, in the UK, the real test (not that there needs to be one) is whether the person is brain dead or not. If they are brain dead, then they are not considered to be a 'reasonable creature' in being. Either way, the vampire is already a dead person, so is not capable under law of being killed.

[> [> Re: Crime, punishment, morality and deterrent -- RJA, 13:16:53 10/15/03 Wed

Fascinating post, although a couple of corrections.

Witchcraft isnt still illegal in the UK, that piece of legislation being repealed in 1951.

Capital punishment was also formally abolished in 1999, under the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. And the two offences it had been applicable to before that date were treason and piracy with violence.

[> [> [> Thanks for the information, it re-instates the complexities but the SG will be relieved. -- Celebaelin, 14:17:58 10/15/03 Wed

[> Re: In defense of Angel, Buffy, and others (tiny *spoiler* for AtS 5.1) -- patrick, 12:09:06 10/15/03 Wed

"In case you haven't noticed, the police of Sunnydale are deeply stupid." - Principal Synder in The Becoming, Part II

I think this fine quote from the principal is a perfect explanation of how the Buffy (and the others) can get away with quite a lot.

That said, I also think there are very few cases in which (with all the facts taken into account) they should be considered guilty (morally or legally) of serious offenses. The "but I had to stop a giant snake from eating 38000 people" defense seems a rather compelling one to me. There is a legal concept of necessity which (according to my limited understanding) would justify an otherwise illegal action (like blowing up the school) if necessary to prevent something even worse (like having the mayor/snake go ahead to eat most of the town).

And here are my observations for some of the more specific cases:

Evil Willow: I would agree that Willow's actions were wrong, morally and legally. But as already mentioned, proving it in court beyond a resonable doubt would be rather hard. Capturing here would also be rather difficult since she left for England soon after.

Oz: I would think that his actions as a werewolf were not "voluntary" and thus don't lead to criminal liability.

The Feds: I don't really think they want to get Buffy anymore. At the end of Primeval one of the government people does credit the Scoobies for preventing total casualties of their personnel, and the only thing they mention doing about them is to "monitor the civilians and usual measures prepared should they try to go public." Plus later on (in season 7's "The Killer in Me") the government even sends some guys to help Buffy.

This Land is Your Land - or maybe it's Your Land for a modest fee. Semi-OT but ... -- OnM, 08:22:32 10/15/03 Wed

... likely to spark discussion, methinks. I was just commenting a mere week ago to the (very young) music/video dept. cashier at my local Barnes & Noble about how the video industry almost never got started, due to massive lawsuits against Sony for its Betamax VCR's back in the 70's.

She seemed astounded at my declaration that the entertainment industry not only wanted to make Sony halt future sales of the Betamax, but that they were also to contact all customers who had purchased machines to date, refund their money, confiscate the machines and then destroy them.

(And no, I'm not making that up.)

DVD, anyone? Personally, I fully respect the concept of intellectual property, but it seems that there is no line of reasoning that cannot be summarily abused given a sufficient degree of rampant corporate greed.

Maybe the creators of Emma Peel should sue Joss, ya think?

From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:



[> Re: This Land is Your Land - or maybe it's Your Land for a modest fee. Semi-OT but ... -- CW, 09:59:26 10/15/03 Wed

Otherwise intelligent people can think they own things when in fact, they are just kidding themselves. A few years ago a builder of model railroad paraphenalia noticed that the logos of the grand and mighty Pennsylvannia Railroad had not been used for many many years. He assumed the rights had been abandoned in the many railroad mergers since the independent existence of that institution. He applied to the governement paid his fee and received 100% official documents proclaiming to the world he owned the trademarks. He began suing his competitors for royalties on the equipment they labeled as Pennsylvannia Railroad. Unfortunately his competetors had a better grasp of the law than he did. They actually checked to see who owned the rights. It is in fact a thriving company totally out of the railroad, and railroad fan business. When this company found out was happening they were not in the least bit amused. The government will happily charge you a fee and hand you a piece of paper. What they don't tell you is that if you think you have a case of infringement aganst your rights, that piece of paper means almost nothing. The patent office has given out probably hundreds of thousands of worthless duplicate patents, because if the inventer makes a sloppy patent search before applying for the piece of paper that's his fault, not the government's. Many lawyers will gladly charge you to defend your side of the story, knowing full well that if the whole truth comes out you will get your clock cleaned.

Everyone should keep in mind two stories. First NBC's publicity department developed a block N logo that was supposed to replace the peacock years ago. After it was finished the over eager legal depart began running around trying to protect their exclusive rights to the logo. One of the organizations they sued was a Nebraska educational televison station. Unfortunately as the little station's lawyer could easily prove they'd been using the logo block N long before NBC ever thought of it. NBC ended up sheepishly paying the Nebraska people a good chunk of money for the rights to a logo they soon abandoned anyway. The other story is of the mighty Macy's department store of New York that sued a tiny store in Minnesota over using the Macy name. The Macy's in Minnesota was in business for most of the 20th century just like the New York one was. I don't know which was in business longer, but since in all those years the New York Macy had never insisted on making their name exclusive when the lawyers eventually decided to do it, it was way too late. I don't know if the Minnesota Macy's was ever repaid for the grief it had been caused, but the New York Macy's made itself out to be a bunch of greeded bastards, which probably is not the best advertisement for a store.

[> [> Ah! I still remember the SNL parody of the NBC 'N' on their 'news' segment. -- OnM, 12:49:24 10/15/03 Wed

As I recall, many people both in the industry and among the general public were blown away by the amount of money that was spent to design the NBC 'N' logo.

SNL did this thing with a series of posters depicting the results of various steps along the way to the 'N', with the associated costs. For example, the first poster showed something like the wrong letter (for $5,000,000), then a poster of the 'N' with one side falling over (for $7,000,000) etc. etc. and finally the 'N' for whatever it was, like $9,000,000 or something.

While the specifics (incl. $$$) elude me at this point, it was a hilarious sketch and dead on as to the ridiculousness of the whole affair.

[> [> Re: This Land is Your Land - or maybe it's Your Land for a modest fee. Semi-OT but ... -- skeeve, 14:19:37 10/15/03 Wed

That's interesting.
The version of the story I got was that NBC was the one sued.

[> [> [> Re: This Land is Your Land - or maybe it's Your Land for a modest fee. Semi-OT but ... -- CW, 14:35:41 10/15/03 Wed

No doubt NBC was counter-sued to keep things in legal perspective. But, I remember it well from the time it happened. NBC started it, and it was settled out of court.

[> Re: This Land is Your Land - or maybe it's Your Land for a modest fee. Semi-OT but ... -- RJA, 12:57:52 10/15/03 Wed

That reminds me of my favourite lawsuit. Someone had a CD with a track called 'One Minute's Silence', which was just that. John Cage's estate (he of 4:33, that length of silence), decided to sue for copyright infringement. The guy ended up paying them a six figure sum.

Interesting point in the article about how Disney was pushing for these extended copyright laws, yet they made a hefty amount of money from using stories already in the public domain.

Which reminds of of a case involving the Rolling Stones and the Verve. The Stones' lawyers sued The Verve for using a sample from an orchestral version of their song The Last Time on Bittersweet Symphony. The Verve ended up paying 100 percent royalties on the song. The irony to this is twofold - firstly, the Stones didnt play on the Orchestral version that the sample was taken from, nr did thy write the sample itself. Secondy, this was a band who 'borrowed' and covered several blues artists without paying them a penny.

Lawyers, have to love them :-)

[> Re: This Land is Your Land - or maybe it's Your Land for a modest fee. Semi-OT but ... -- LonesomeSundown, 17:33:29 10/15/03 Wed

It's a disturbing trend, for sure. And it's not just limited to arts and the entertainment industry. Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas" examines the same trend in technology - patenting/copyrighting software algorithms, genes - so that ideas that would pass into the public domain are locked up by corporations, stifling technical innovation and economic progress.

Mercy... again (minor spoilers for Conviction) -- Miyu tVP, 09:44:04 10/15/03 Wed

digging up a thread started by the poster formerly known as "Diana" - now known as Lunasea...

Host: Love the coat. It's all about the coat. Welcome to Caritas. You know what that means?
Angel: It's Latin for mercy.

As you may remember, I had myself posted my own confusion about the conviction/mercy dichotomy at the end of Conviciton. I was uncomfortable with the idea of Angel's mercy, because "mercy" presupposes that one person is in a position of power over the other... not usually a friendly situation.

However, the dialogue above sheds some light on the term "mercy" as used in Angel. In English, "mercy" proper is defined as "compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency." The Latin term for this is "clementia" (duh) But here he explicitly translated the Latin word "caritas" as meaning mercy. In a word search of a Latin lexicon for mercy, "caritas" was not anywhere to be seen among the dozen results returned. Caritas is defined as "regard, esteem, affection, love"

This helps me alot, because it seems that I have only been misunderstanding what Angel means by "mercy" Mercy in my mind is the sort of thing that only a god, dictator, boss, etc. can display towards an underling. Whereas caritas is something that can be shared among peers.

So, I disagree more with his word choice, than the concept behind it all. Given that "caritas" is compassion... compassion is greater than conviciton... yeah, that works for me.

(to confuse things even more, the alternate definition of caritas is "dearness, costliness, high price" which would seem to tie in to the concept of sacrifice, which is also running rampant on the board lately.)


[> I think it's more likely that... -- KdS, 10:43:51 10/15/03 Wed

ME just got their classical languages mixed up in Judgement

[> [> Re: I think it's more likely that... -- Miyu tVP, 11:01:46 10/15/03 Wed

well... maybe. But it's not like they were so far off base. They're in the ballpark, but giving a different sort of connotation to mercy. A connotation for a word that seems to be a primary theme for this season, and a connotation that sits better in my mind.

[> [> or maybe... -- anom, 23:29:00 10/15/03 Wed

...Angel's grasp of Latin isn't that good. I don't get the impression Liam had much of a classical education. On the other hand, he did seem to have an interest in literature as Angel, but that doesn't necessarily imply he'd learned Latin. Maybe he just didn't know any better (like his saying Darla was wearing kimonos last time he saw her--they'd been in China, not Japan!).

OT: A mini-summary of Jane E.'s first Gilmore Girls ep (spoilers for 'Chicken or Beef') -- cjl, 10:07:13 10/15/03 Wed

FROM Television Without Pity:

Rory cut her hair. (Why there wasn't a special pull-out section of the Stars Hollow Gazette regarding Rory's new 'do is beyond me.)

Kirk's newest job is proving to be a bit of a headache for Lorelai. Because she's the "pretty spinster" in town, Kirk takes it upon himself to install an alarm system in Lorelai's house. The only problem is that he doesn't know how to do it, and whenever Lorelai moves, she trips the alarm.

Rory happens to come home on Dean's Wedding Weekend. (Again, you'd think the SHG would print the program and list the registry, but nobody likes Dean's fiancée.) Rory hems and haws about Dean's wedding, up to and after an awkwardly trapped Dean shuffles up a last-minute invitation for her and Lorelai that will surely get him a new one ripped by his lovely bride.

Lane is setting about the task of replacing Dave, who has moved to California for college (not a tear on poor Lane, who you'd think would be at least slightly devastated that she's actually become Rapunzel), and her band sets out the task of finding a replacement Dave.

Sookie and Lorelai are about to start renovations on the Dragonfly, so they find Michel, who's been working at a Mercer-like hotel that's cooler than you. Michel is happy to rejoin the girls, and even makes it to one of those cute town meetings held on the eve of Dean's wedding, where Taylor makes everybody stay most of the evening. Then Lorelai causes it to run even later when she pitches her renovations for the Dragonfly--which Taylor forces her to do in deference to the Historical Preservation Society. Taylor uses Lorelai's pull with Luke to score him parking for his ice cream truck outside Luke's.

Dean has some bizarre friends, including a braces-wearing, wishy-washy seaman (tee-hee!). When they get Dean drunk before 11 (yay, underage drinking. Perhaps that's why they used the sailor to distract us), things go wrong when all the boozy Dean can repeat is Rory's name. Luke busts up the bachelor party, sending the Stars Hollow High Extras home, and -- without regard to Dean's family -- puts Dean in Jess's old bed. Dean says that Rory's The One, and promptly passes out. But that's never addressed in the morning as Luke forbids Rory from attending the wedding. Rory doesn't mind, because she didn't want to go, so she watches the wedding from behind a tree, looking quite upset. So, uh, I guess CuteDean got married. But don't worry. Luke's got a lawyer who can get him out of it tomorrow.


cjl's commentary: A nice riff by Jane E. about the higher education of rock stars, and a very sweet moment at the groundbreaking of the Dragonfly, when Lorelai and Sookie consider that they're going to be a mere blip in the overall lifetime of their new inn. Kirk's new "protective guy" mode gives the character a direction for the first time ever, and I see a little Xander in the dorky guy trying to look out for women who can obviously take care of themselves. (No overt Buffy references, though. Couldn't Lorelai and Sookie have catered a BtVS-themed party?)

On the other hand, the alarm system sub-plot went nowhere, and Lorelai's bodily assault on Taylor was just...weird. (Maybe Jane thinks Taylor is a demon, and needs a bit of wo-manhandling. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot...) And when Lorelia went on her hyper-caffeinated riff in Luke's shop, I just wanted her to SHUT. UP. Jane's gotta learn to scale back that Gilmore motor-mouthiness if she doesn't want large objects thrown at the TV.

Kind of glad there was no dramatic emotional mid-wedding confrontation between Rory and Dean, but the whole episode's dramatic center seemed to be a set-up for Not Much. The bachelor party scene was weak. (Who sings their high school "alma mater" song when they're drunk?)

And where were Richard and Emily? (Maybe Amy Sherman doesn't trust Jane with them yet.)

Still, Jane E. writes Luke as a cool guy, which he is. (When isn't Lorelai dating him again?)

Overall, I'd give it a B-. Jane's got the characters down, but she needs to "calibrate" a little.


[> Re: OT: A mini-summary of Jane E.'s first Gilmore Girls ep (spoilers for 'Chicken or Beef') -- MaeveRigan, 10:23:25 10/15/03 Wed

Lorelia went on her hyper-caffeinated riff in Luke's shop, I just wanted her to SHUT. UP. Jane's gotta learn to scale back that Gilmore motor-mouthiness if she doesn't want large objects thrown at the TV.

I don't think we can blame this all on Jane. IMO the motor-mouthiness has been in overdrive since episode one this season. I've seen other people complain about the same phenomenon in episodes 1 and 2, which (as far as we know) were Jane-free zones ;-)

But lots to like in this ep. Go, JE!

[> She did an O. C. a while back, too. -- shambleau, 13:16:31 10/15/03 Wed

It was interesting how she took on the coloration of the show's premise, i.e., not much with the funny. You could hear her individual voice most in the wisecracks of the geeky brother.

I want her to be hired for the AH sit-com.

Lilah and Gwen -- Ben, 12:38:25 10/15/03 Wed

Do we know if these two are going to be on Angel again?


[> Re: Lilah and Gwen (spoilers) -- RJA, 16:19:19 10/15/03 Wed

No news on that as yet. Although Lilah is mentioned in the sides for episode 5x09. So who knows?

How much Slayer blood -- skeeve, 14:07:55 10/15/03 Wed

How much Slayer blood does it take to regrow an eye?
One of the many Slayers must be Xander's type.


[> Re: How much Slayer blood -- RJA, 14:55:20 10/15/03 Wed

Can eyes be regrown? Unlike blood and skin, I'm not sure that eyes can regenerate themselves. So in addition to a healthy load of Slayer blood, I would imagine some wicked magic mojo would be needed. And an eye transfusion....

[> [> Re: How much Slayer blood -- skeeve, 07:42:09 10/16/03 Thu

Nerves can be regrown. Medical intervention helps.
Faith lost enough blood to put her in a coma and got better.
It seem likely that Slayers can regrow nevous tissue, maybe even limbs and eyes.

Of course, a transfusion might not be enough to help a mere human.
It surprises me that the possibility was never even brought up.

[> Re: How much Slayer blood -- Dlgood, 06:56:09 10/16/03 Thu

I don't know that Slayer blood is any different than human blood, for medical purposes. Buffy recuperates from a transfusion of regular blood back in S3. I wouldn't assume her blood works any differently on normal folks than "normal" blood would.

In a sense, I think of Slayer blood as High-Octane gasoline. In certain high compression engines (vampires) the slayer blood will be better than regular human blood. But in other engines (regular human bodies) it won't be any better than low-octane gas.

[> Re: How much Slayer blood -- Majin Gojira, 09:21:36 10/16/03 Thu

Answer: None

Slayer healing has never completely regrown a limb or any complex body part (we don't know the status of the internal workings of either Buffy or Faith, but something tells me that they are now sterile after being stabbed in the gut).

The Slow Path FROM Hell: Unleashed (spoilers 5.03, title 5.04) -- Lunasea, 10:56:09 10/16/03 Thu

Not going to deal with how this episode deals with corruption, cause it didn't much. It was really to set up the next episode for the newbies. It was a good primer for those who don't know that much about the show.

It was okay. Not thrilling, but I'm not a newbie. Craft/Fain are good, but not my favorites. The Werewolf, in addition to being a metaphor for male sexuality has also been a metaphor for the vampire. The Oz-wolf is introduced right after "Innocence" to show us a slightly different perspective of what is going on with Angel/Buffy now. Hubby was very disappointed that there was no reference made to Oz last night. Angel, Wesley and Spike have all had first hand experience with Oz and the lack of a mention was a glaring oversight. This episode wasn't written for the long-time fan.

It felt like typical filler, but there is no real filler on the series. Every episode is part of a well constructed emotional arc and each plays their part in preparing the audience. For those who are worried about the new direction the show is taking, here is a quote from a Joss Whedon interview from Angel Magazine.

AM: Will there be a seasonal arc?
JW: Oh absolutely. There's relationships, there's the question of what the hell [Angel and friends] are doing at Wolfram and Hart and what Wolfram and Hart are doing to them. There's going to be a season arc the way there has always been. The difference is that every episode should be self-contained enough for anybody to walk in and watch who's never seen it before. Last year, as much as I like to say it was, it wasn't.

The interview can be found at Joss Interview According to Bit it is spoilery, but I didn't think so. Mostly a lot of "we would like to" than what they are going to do, especially in regards to character appearances.

Back to the episode. In case you didn't know, Angel helps people. That is the important thing to get out of this episode. Angel relates to the Wolf because he too is a monster, but not Frankenstein. Did she see bolts coming out of his neck? He helped the girl by taking a personal interest in her. That is how Angel helps people. He doesn't just slay demons. He saves souls. That is important. Please keep that in mind when you watch the series.

How does that fit into play with the dynamics of the Fang Gang. The demon, namely the werewolf, was a good metaphor for the lashing out that Angel has been doing lately that was causing the disconnection the gang was feeling. It will be up to Angel to keep the group together as a family. The change in the show to a more stand alone episodes was felt when the group was gathered together like a family in Angel's penthouse. In the past, that would have been several episodes away.

But this connection is missing one important member, Spike. An important part of wolf-girl is that Angel didn't get there in time to save her completely. Spike is facing a similar predicament. He isn't dead-dead yet, but he can feel hell pulling on him. Angel's passion over helping wolf-girl is contrasted with Fred and Angel's attitude about helping Spike. Angel doesn't even know that Spike needs his help. When he finds out he does, do you think Angel's attitude will change?

Thus we set up the next episode. Angel helps the helpless. That is what he does. I was really worried when he just left the doctor with the bad guys. Were the posts about The Punisher coming true? Then in Angel's penthouse we find out he shut down the restaurant. Wolf-doctor isn't going to be dinner. When Angel finds out that Spike is one of these helpless, their personalities will still clash, but Angel will help him. That's what he does. The power of mercy. It even allows you to save your own soul.

Tune in folks for "Hell Bound." When the trailer warns about content, I feel warned.


[> Thanks for posting this, Lunasea -- Masq, 11:02:40 10/16/03 Thu

[> [> Anything for you Masq -- Lunasea, 12:17:40 10/16/03 Thu

Current board | More October 2003