September 2001 posts


Previous September 2001  

More September 2001


What other tv shows do you watch? -- Kerri, 06:27:23 09/19/01 Wed
Just curious. Are there any other shows that you watch and enjoy(of course not as much as BtVS or AtS)? With the new season coming up is there anything you're looking forward to?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Shaglio, 07:54:22 09/19/01 Wed
But of course:

The Simpsons Boston Public NYPD Blue Law & Order Once & Again (shhh, don't tell anyone) Whose Line Is It Anyway ER

I used to watch Ally McBeal(when Monday Night Football wasn't on), but now I will be watching Angel. I don't know what I'll do when MNF starts :( I also used to watch Jack & Jill, but I hear it got canned :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not much regularly -- Cactus Watcher, 08:31:13 09/19/01 Wed
After decades of watching religiously every night, most TV bores me now. Even fairly good shows, like ER used to be, don't hold my interest any more. West Wing may be great, but even the idea of it sounds dull to me. It takes a show with a lot of imagination and careful thought, like Babylon 5 was its first four seasons, to make me watch all the time. Buffy is great. Angel was getting a little tedious for me when they were relying so heavily on Julie Benz to keep the plot going. The idea of Darla is fine, but JB just isn't much of an actress. Hopefully, things will be better again on Angel this year.

PS. I guess it can't all be JB's acting. I watched that clod who played the first commander of Babylon 5 regularly. Compared to him JB is Betty Davis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's scary how much I watch, actually.... -- Deeva, 09:07:41 09/19/01 Wed
Felicity Charmed (really guilty pleasure) Sex and the City Oz Queer as Folk Six Feet Under Will & Grace West Wing CSI Futurama The Simpsons The Pretender ER The Real World Road Rules
Alias (will be watching this when it airs. Saw the pilot at work & it rocks!)

After all that I still have a pretty normal life. I guess it helps that I don't need much sleep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It's scary how much I watch, actually.... -- Sebastian, 10:08:50 09/19/01 Wed
I've been gone for a few months (I've been semi-lurking, however) - but I hope y'all remember me.

The Practice Boston Public (gotta love David Kelley) Friends Queer as Folk

That's about it for me....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- dream of the consortium, 09:51:36 09/19/01 Wed
I don't. I grew up watching a lot of t.v., and now I have to treat it very carefully to avoid spending hours in front of the television. I don't actually have an antenna, but I have a VCR and some understanding friends who tape Buffy for me. I used to watch the Simpson's at a friend's house pretty regularly, and when I had a television in a place I was renting, I watched Seinfeld sometimes as well. I did feel like I was wasting a lot of time, though. Most of the shows I have watched and enjoyed since college have been those I could rent - Twin Peaks, Buffy, the Prime Suspect and American Visions series on PBS. The one show I wished I could have seen more of was Homicide - I caught a few episodes at my parents' house and was very impressed.

The strange thing is that I know a number of people like me who say, "I don't watch television. I watch Buffy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Manhattan Buffy/Angel fans, help... -- briseis, 11:09:04 09/19/01 Wed
Last November I caught a Buffy, "Family", here in Manhattan, when my tired 10 year- old went to bed when she was supposed to watch the elections for a homework assignment. I hadn't watched anything for years, and it took me a few months to work myself up to turning on the TV to watch the end of the season. When you're not used to them, the commercials are really disturbing! I remember they didn't bother me when I was a kid. Anyway, now I am totally TV-less. The old husk gave its last gasp. Fortunately, it saw me through the Gift! I know my TVlessness could be remedied fairly cheaply, but..anybody in lower Manhattan(East Village) want some Buffy/Angel watching company?(I'm a thirty-nine year old woman, somewhat earthy-crunchy, somewhat MIT bio-nerd, former journalist, chi gung teacher) Or know of any Buffy bars? Have excess taping capacity not already spoken for? I'd be happy to make a financial contribution.

*Islam is not the enemy. War is not the answer. Act for peace now*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Voxpopuli, 12:12:18 09/19/01 Wed
I have this friend, high school friend, who has a three y-o daughter. We've been friends for 17 years already and I must admit that she has never been a tv addict like myself. Now that she's got her daughter she started to "select" the shows her daughter can watch, and what is worse, she does her best to keep the TV set on off, so that the "telly will not educate her daughter". Ok, she is a psychologist, a psychosociologist like my husband, but I never saw such narrow appreciation of the importance of media ( for that sake TV)! Of course we do have long arguments about this, and of course she is surprised when her 3 y-o daughter arrives from the day care centre singing songs from the top children shows and some "funk" (a kind of music with very kinky lyrics) that is very popular on TV.
I do not understand how she fails so miserably to understand that the media, TV included, is part of the education of everybody. It is not that you let the TV "educate" your child in the sense of letting the child in front of the Tv all day long, but at least to let the child watch as much TV as she wants, offering other alternatives, and also offering the possibility of criticism about what the child saw. At least that's what my parents and grandparent always did to me, unaware that they were actually having an impact on my ability to criticise the media information. So, I confess that I watch TV a lot. I can't live without it, as much as I can't live without my books, my cds, my computer. I love to watch the news as much as I love to watch That 70's show and Popular, as much as I loved to watch "Ab Fab" (well, I still do not miss the reruns... ). Gosh! I love Animal Planet, National Geographic, Discovery and Cartoon Network.. Am I a freak?! Some of my friends say I am... Well, I must be. Some years ago, I used to sit with the kids to watch that Japanese animated series, Knights of the Zodiac. When they released the movie, I just could not miss it, but I had no friend or child to take with me, so... I went alone. I asked for a ticket, and the lady who sold me the ticket rose from her chair to check if I had a child with me. She could not help a low laughter. Ok, the funny part was the choir of children's voices singing the theme at the opening credits! Horrible animation, but the story was cool! Do you guys remember Star Blazer? Wow, I loved it! That is culture! Lots of concepts, cultural aspects, and much more, in those shows! But this friend of mine, as well as many others, miss the whole point I am trying to make here! My husband is not that much a couch potato, but at least I "infected" him with Buffy/Angel. Now, he is anxious to know what will happen in the next season! And yes, he loves Popular ("that sarcastic thing...")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Andy, 12:57:46 09/19/01 Wed
Aside from Buffy, I watch

Samurai Jack. I really like good cartoons and this a very good one. Likewise, Invader ZIM is hilarious.

I've started watching Farscape since SciFi channel has been rerunning it from the start. I don't normally like shows like this but it's been a pleasant surprise.

If I'm around when it's on, I try to catch Iron Chef on Food Network.

That's actually about it, I think. I don't have many shows that I watch as "appointment tv", although there's a lot of stuff that I do enjoy when I happen to stumble on it, such as reruns of MST3K on weekend mornings, good documentaries, or old Simpsons reruns (can't stand the last few seasons).

For the upcoming season, I might actually have more shows to watch than usual. I'm really looking forward to The Tick, since I loved the cartoon series. Alias looks like it could be a lot of fun. And The Ripping Friends might be cool, since it's by the Ren & Stimpy guys :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- OnM, 13:29:51 09/19/01 Wed
I watch much less than I used to, mostly a time factor thing. Not surprisingly, watch a lot of movies, typ. 1 or 2 a week at least. Used to have satellite subscription to all the pay movie channels, but currently cut down to just HBO, time/cost factor again.

Since I watch most stuff sporadically, I'll break my viewing habits down by categories:

Never miss, always tape:

Buffy Angel

Rarely miss:

Law & Order ER Futurama 60 Minutes Sex & The City X-Files (last year mostly out of loyalty)

Usually watch if nothing else to do

Voyager (I know, poor Trek, but Jeri Ryan, whooo! That woman saved that show, and not just because she looks good.) Law & Order SVU Farscape (this one is moving up to the above category soon) The Simpsons The Outer Limits (the newer one, not the original)

Historical stuff:

Northern Exposure St. Elsewhere Hill Street Blues MST3K Star Trek DS9 (agree w/Masq, this was the best Trek) Star Trek (The original, first year. 2nd & 3rd years dont hold up, IMO) The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd The Avengers (yeah!!! Macnee & Rigg eps only) The Prisoner The Invaders The Red Skelton Show
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Millan, 14:29:03 09/19/01 Wed
First of all; I have a slightly smaller selection to choose from than the average U.S. citizen as I live on the other side of the world... Not to mention that many shows that we do get are way behind on schedule. (Have I mentioned they've aired Buffy season one here - and that's it! Oh, yes, and then there were reruns all over the place...) :(

Anyway, here's my list:

Friends Yay!! The new episodes started showing today!! We're in the middle of season seven. Every episode is caught on tape.

X-files Very good show in the first three seasons, then we watched more sporadically.

Babylon 5 The best SF series ever! Have seen every episode at least once and have taped all from season 3,4 and 5. Hope some day to get my hands on the first two.

Star Trek Any kind (FG, DS9, V, as long as it's not the original series).

Third Rock from the Sun It was fun in the beginning.

Charmed It's not like I remember to turn the telly on every week, but if there's nothing else to do...

ER and The Simsons Once in a long while.

I think that's all. Turned out to be a longer list than I expected. Some of these aren't showing any more though, so there's normally no more than two or three shows a week that we see regularily.
Am I a collective? No, it's simply that me and my SO have the same taste. (Apart from Charmed, he actually walks out the room those evenings...) :)

/Millan

"How about a movie? They're showing 'em in theaters now. I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor." -Xander, Into the Woods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- purplegrrl, 14:48:52 09/19/01 Wed
Being the TV-aholic that I am, the television tends to be on a great deal of the time at my house.

Besides BtVS and A:tS, I watch a lot of science fiction, notably: Andromeda Babylon 5 The X-Files The Invisible Man Relic Hunter Farscape (sometimes) Charmed (sometimes) Strange Frequencies Night Visions Dead Last (sometimes) reruns of Quantum Leap, The Crow: Stairway to Heaven, Highlander: The Raven, Brimstone, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman

But I also watch whatever happens to catch my fancy: Port Charles (especially current vampire storyline) Who's Line Is It Anyway? CSI (sometimes) Sex and the City The Chris Issac Show Once and Again Jack and Jill reruns of Hart to Hart, Miami Vice, The Young Riders, Le Femme Nikita, Beauty and the Beast

Looking forward to: Smallville Enterprise The Tick Wolf Lake Thieves Alias (sort of)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- gds, 20:46:07 09/19/01 Wed
I don't watch on TV because I have either bought the DVDs or recorded on tape: Babylon 5 The X-Files (seasons 1-3) Avengers
Dr. Who

Besides BtVS and AtS, I watch when its available: Banecek Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett)
The Saint Andromeda (occasionally) Earth: Final Conflict (occasionally) The X-Files (but I was about to stop until Mulder returned) The Chronicle (occasionally, but it looks promising) Farscape (varies from poor to great, but since
they do new shows when others do reruns it is better then it otherwise would be) Screensavers (techie stuff) Freshgear (techie stuff) Silicon Spin (techie stuff)

Looking forward to: Enterprise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Humanitas, 15:20:46 09/19/01 Wed
Well, let's see...

Law & Order, which is possibly the most syndicated show on TV right now. I discovered B5 on Sci-Fi, and set out to watch the whole thing. Wow! And might I add my outrage that Cartoon Network is moving Samurai Jack to Mondays at 9?! The way my cable's set up, I can't tape one thing while watching another. Grr. Oh, and lately I'm watching Band of Brothers on HBO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Cleanthes, 15:26:41 09/19/01 Wed
Gee, I hope you can do a statistical analysis of all the shows watched... (well, that's naughty of me to suggest, I suppose)

I used to watch Xena, but that's now over.

I still watch and tape Buffy and Angel. I watched Roswell and usually taped it last year and plan to again.

Um... I watched Witchblade throughout the summer and I suppose I'll watch it again next summer.

I've been watching the news WAY too much.

Once in awhile, I look at Farscape.

And, um, I used to watch ER many years ago but quit when Sherry Stringfield left the show, so I'll maybe look at that again to see about her return, but I understand there's been tons of changes to the characters and I've changed from the person who used to watch. Besides, it's on one of the "main" networks and I just can't imagine I'll like it.

I understand Lucy Lawless will be on the X-files this year so I'll have to check that out. I rather enjoyed Jason Patrick last year, although I didn't catch every episode.

Really, if I don't tape the show and watch it two or three times, it doesn't seem like watching at all, just time-wasting. Buffy has spoiled TV for me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Nina, 16:34:38 09/19/01 Wed
I used to watch a lot of English tv to learn the language and the subtleties. I used to watch anything as long as it had closed-captioned. Now it's quite different:

Counting the days for it:

- there's only Buffy

Taping while at choir practice

- Angel (they still need to hook me to that one. I watch because he used to be on Buffy and I feel I have to watch it. I'm waiting to be touched by those characters. Maybe this year?)

I tape but won't go mad if I miss it:

- Northern Exposure

anything else I'll watch if I have really nothing else to do. So I guess I'll probably catch a few episodes from:

- Frasier - Friends (not sure! I can't stand them anymore) - The X-Files - I'll try "Wolf Lake" tonight

I guess that's about it. I agree that now tv for me is Buffy. Without Buffy I wouldn't even bother to open the tv!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> We will have to make a promise to limit our news exposure......:):):) -- Rufus, 21:10:50 09/19/01 Wed
I've been watching more than usual and it's time to slow down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nothing. AtS & BtVS is the only time I turn on the TV. -- Solitude1056, 16:31:33 09/19/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Same here except for South Park... -- Drizzt, 17:09:37 09/19/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- d'Herblay, 16:33:47 09/19/01 Wed
Other than Buffy and Angel, I haven't watched many shows with enthusiasm since Homicide was cancelled. There are too many shows that I'll watch an episode of and say, "Why is this dog still on the air while Homicide's gone and forgotten?" I really like The Job, it's like Homicide without the actual detective work. I watch South Park regularly; I still watch Friends and ER, but more out of some sort of misguided sense of duty than any ecstatic experience.

What am I looking forward to? The Tick, of course. And 24 looks interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Didn't we already have this conversation? -- vampire hunter D, 17:44:02 09/19/01 Wed
I seem to recall a thread like this before. Oh well. I for one don't care much for most other shows on TV. Besides Buffy and Angel, the only other shows I go out of my way to avoid missing are Farscape, Lexx, Andromeda and DragonBall Z. I will watch Dark Angel if I can, and I also enjoy Howard Stern and NBC's late nite line up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Does no one else but me enjoy La Femme Nikita? -- Shiver, 17:46:44 09/19/01 Wed
LFN, BtVS and ATS are all I go out of my way for ... but I do love West Wing when I can catch it.

I was a big fan of Dr Who on PBS when I was a kid :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dr. Who!!!!!!!!! How could I forget......... -- Rufus, 21:07:08 09/19/01 Wed
I watched years of Dr. Who all the way through to the last Dr. If we talk comedy and Brit sci fi I guess I would have to go with Blackadder, Red Dwarf, and Dr. Who.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Does no one else but me enjoy La Femme Nikita? -- Cleanthes, 19:30:33 09/20/01 Thu
I watched LFN fairly often. I watched the final part-season religiously, taping every one.

It's a show that I'd probably like even more if I had whole seasons on tape or DVD, so I wouldn't have to remember the odd time USA Network chooses to show it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Dariel, 19:07:11 09/19/01 Wed
Not many regular shows, except:

Once and Again (so like life that it's hard to remember that it's television)

The Sopranos (Got totally hooked this past year)

ER (getting bored, though--too much melodrama and not as much about the patients anymore)

Friends (not as good as it once was)

Frasier (as wonderful as ever!)

Law and Order (gonna miss Angie Harmon though

Felicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Shaglio, 06:01:29 09/20/01 Thu
"ER (getting bored, though--too much melodrama and not as much about the patients anymore)"

I couldn't agree more. I was getting sick of Sally Field's character and that crusty old Bishop guy that Luka was treating. Luckily I was usually playing on my computer while I was watching, so I could tune out the scenes with those characters. Civilization 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale . . . saved me from putting my foot through my TV many nights because of my hatred for the aforementioned characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Rufus, 19:29:54 09/19/01 Wed
Oh boy, now I have to remember what I watch. I have to say the number one slot goes to Buffy then Angel. I watch entirely too much news programs. I get Space Channel here so I get to see the old Buffy eps and saw Babylon 5 for the first time. I also have a movie channel so watch lots of movies. The rest of the time I spend on the net or reading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- cknight, 19:47:00 09/19/01 Wed
My favs

Old: Homicide (the best cop show ever) Northern Exposure Jerry, George, Elaine & Kramer (you know the show) X-Files (seasons 1-6) American Gothic Highlander & The Raven
DS9 B5 Original Trek Outer Limits (old & New) Twilight Zone Sliders

Current: Farscape ER MAD TV Girlfriends (UPN) Witchblade

New shows I'm looking forward to are Wolf Lake (watching it right now), Alias.

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Zus, 21:28:54 09/19/01 Wed
I'm kind of net-addicted and have to drag myself away from the computer to watch TV. Besides Buffy and Angel, the only show I try to always catch is Farscape. Even if you don't like scifi, this one is a winner. I recommend it to you all. Truthfully, those are the only 3 shows I watch with any regularity, but I used to love Northern Exposure and Chicago Hope. If they turn up on an obscure channel I watch them. Also, gotta go for the classic movies on AMC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Brian, 04:01:33 09/20/01 Thu
Samuri Jack - neat animation Iron Chef - love the format Sex in the City - lovely ladies Witchblade - just a cool show CSI - science made interesting X-Files - I approach the new season with caution Nash Bridges - always & forever - I'm a big DJ fan - I also have nearly every movie he ever made, plus all the Miami Vice episodes on tape Croc Hunter - for the rush and the humor Law & Order - we'll see
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- mundusmundi, 05:55:05 09/20/01 Thu
My TV-show watching is declining considerably. Friends just doesn't hold my interest anymore. Frasier is a classic sitcom, but the last batch of episodes last season were dismayingly bad. Gilmore Girls is ok if I think overrated; it always seems to be on when nothing else decent is, though, and it usually goes down easy. Finally caught the first season of The Sopranos and enjoyed it a lot. Nearly every ep starts with mafia cliches and ends in strange, unexpected places. Mostly, I watch baseball. Gives me something to talk about with my old man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: BTW, loved the Crouching Tiger article! -- Dedalus, 08:08:49 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Rattletrap, 07:20:33 09/20/01 Thu
Not much here

Regular: -------- Buffy and Angel are the only ones in prime time Simpsons reruns

Occasional:
----------- X-files reruns (been watching those a lot lately hoping to see some of the new Buffy promos). Friends reruns (after years of really trying to not like the show, I have to admit it is pretty funny) Also a big fan of the old Britcoms that come on PBS late at night.

Oh, and, of course, college football.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Dedalus, 08:16:16 09/20/01 Thu
I always love these questions.

Well, the top of the list stuff, the stuff I always tape and never miss -

Buffy Angel

The other stuff I rarely ever miss and might tape for some strange reason -

Roswell Dark Angel (really picked up at the end of season) Gilmore Girls (love Lorelai's sense of humor) Dawson's Creek (shut up! you know there are those of you out there that watch this show, whether you admit it or not)

Stuff that is on that I will watch -

The Simpsons Seinfeld X-Files (sometimes - basically I've lost interest) MADtv Crocodile Hunter (I want to see him go to Jurassic Park - "Crikey, she's a beaut!") Politically Incorrect Married with Children
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Naomi, 11:11:41 09/20/01 Thu
My favourite is Buffy followed by Angel ,Farscape, Le Femme Nikita, Roswell, American Gothic and The sopranoes. I no longer bother with The x-Files, Friends, Dawsons Creek and Er.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- John Burwood, 14:08:55 09/20/01 Thu
I am with those posters who have said they watch no other shows regularly, & Buffy has spoiled TV drama for them. I watched very episode of Dr.Who and almost every Babylon Five and lots of others, and bought tapes of those two - only to get rid of them when Buffy came along to make all the others seem second-rate by comparison. But I do have cableand watch the History channel, Discovery (Civilisation and Sci-Trek) quite a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How could I forget that one! -- Millan, 23:50:31 09/20/01 Thu
"Married with children"!

Of course!
It was an absolute favourite of mine many, many years ago.

/Millan

"Sure selling shoes is fun. But behind the glamour, it's like any other minimum wage slow death." - Al Bundy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Slayrunt, 18:05:57 09/20/01 Thu
I haven't read anyone else's post, but I watch a lot. Here are the good ones

The Practice Stargate Who's Line is it Anyway That 70's show
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What other tv shows do you watch? -- Rahael, 11:51:45 09/23/01 Sun
Apart from the obvious, I watch Have I Got News for You (satirical) which is the longest running thing I have stayed faithful to (10 years!)

umm Frasier, if I happen to be in, SG1 (only semi decent tv prog on Sundays), any BBC costume drama, documentaries, news and politics type programmes, The Adam and Joe Show (for pop culture addicts). BBC Arts programming not bad. Dalziel and Pascoe (though the books are much better, excellent light reading)

Past faves which sometimes get repeated: Blackadder
Fawlty Towers Inspector Morse

I will also admit to watching trashy voyeuristic television and then feel guilty afterwards. Sometimes catch Dawson's Creek so I can shout at it, and watch Dawsons amazing expanding forehead at work.
resurrection cult? -- number6, 12:12:20 09/19/01 Wed
I've heard many spoilers for the new season of Buffy but am going to ignore them completely and ask what everyone thinks about the fact that a resurrection cult existed around Glory. Doc, the man to see concerning resurrection was one of her most powerful (seen) worshipers, when Jinx died he was easily brought back- not by her using her God-like powers but by a fellow minion. Could this have something to do with Buffy's rebirth? Or maybe it's just a spirit of the slayer thing! Who knows!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The cult of the undying? -- Voxpopuli, 12:31:57 09/19/01 Wed
I've always felt that there was something not really human about Slayerhood, and that Drac is somehow pretty much right: slayers and vampires are akin. Both are possessed by some power. We must remember that the slayer is not born that way, that she does not have her powers until another slayer dies. Some, like Buffy, are aware of the task that they were chosen to acomplish only in the middle of adolescence. I wonder if the ones who had a chance to become a slayer and who were not "blessed" with it, would eventually become watchers... If slayers are akin to vampires, they are not supposed to die that easily, specially by mystical means. Beheading would definitely kill Buffy, as well as a stake on the right spot without anybody to take her to a hospital would mean the end of her, but the power that is in her is definitely mystical, it is something that was given to her, or else, that possesses her (she did not chose to be a slayer), so I doubt she could be killed that easily on mystical grounds. The body may die by physical means, but if spirit is immortal and energy undying, then if she is knocked out by mystical means, she is not necessarily dead. She never died, not in the way we understand death, so she can be awaken , but not exactly "ressurected". What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Mysterious Doc... -- Drizzt, 13:22:11 09/19/01 Wed
I would say The Doc claiming to be a servant of Glory was a ruse. He used superspeed when he fought Spike, & then when Buffy came up he did not... His superspeed was slower than Glory's, but the Doc survived a sword in the heart, has lots of magic knowladge, & scariest seems to be very sneaky and clever. I think the Doc has an entirely different agenda than Glory, and if he had really wanted to fight Buffy things would have happened different. Remember the info on the bloodritual with Dawn came from the Doc, probably he did not have the whole truth in that red box. The Doc seemed to WANT Spike & Xander to get the box, but he had to fight them so they would not be suspicious of the contents...

What if that location in spacetime is permanent, and the ritual could be performed with Dawn at any time instead of once per century or millinium? Doc is scarier to me than any of the other Big Bads except the Mayor...

I posted in another thread that I thought the supernatural bloodlink between Buffy & Dawn would have something to do with bringing her back. The only other scenerio that would make much sense(that I can think of right now) is the Doc bringing her back so he could have a zombieslaveSlayer or something like that. But I know Joss will suprise us somehow and maby have a different mechanism.

Doc is a mystery!
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: The Host/Lorne -- verdantheart, 14:46:48 09/19/01 Wed
First, a couple of notes. Unfortunately, due to unforseen tragic circumstances that delayed my return home, I wasn't able to put in the time that I wanted to polish this up a bit. I also wanted to compare the scripts with the episode transcripts, but wasn't able to get that done. So all the quotes are from the shooting scripts. I'm posting this Wednesday because I may not be able to look in tomorrow. So don't be surprised if I don't
respond to comments until Friday. Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lorne

Wesley: The Host, the fellow Angel is talking to? He helps demons, reads their souls, senses their futures...
Cordelia: But he can only do it when they sing Karaoke.
Gunn: 'kay, now you're just having fun with the new guy. [note: this line appears in the shooting script but not the transcript.] (Guise Will Be Guise)

Krevlornswath of the Deathwok clan, Lorne for short, a.k.a. the Host of Caritas is a bright green demon with bright red lips, eyes, and hair who hails from the dimension of Pylea. Caritas ("mercy" in Latin) is the Karaoke bar that Lorne created on the spot that he entered the Buffy dimension. Caritas is a sanctuary, where weapons, violence, and eating the clientele is prohibited. Here he hosts a karaoke show, sings, and dispenses advice based on his psychic abilities.

Much of the role Lorne has played in AtS has to do with his talent. As Wesley says, "He's anagogic.... *Psychic*, connected to the mystic. When you sing you bare your soul and he can see into it" (Judgment). The keys to Lorne are his psychic gifts and his love of music. Lorne's interactions with Angel illustrate how Lorne's talents shape his character.

When Lorne first sees Angel, he offers unsolicited help:

Host: Love the coat. It's all about the coat. Welcome to Caritas. You know what that means?
Angel: It's Latin for mercy.
Host: Smart *and* cute. How 'bout gracing us with a number?
Angel: I don't sing.
(In distant background, Mordar the Bentback growls a tone deaf version of "Sexual Healing" ...)
Host: And neither does Mordar the Bentback -- That cat's a foghorn on two legs; this isn't about your pipes, 'bro, it's about your spirit.
Angel: I don't sing.
[Cordy/Wesley dialog omitted]
Host: I know you're feelin' smooth, in the groove. Isn't that the thing that comes before a fall? (Judgment)

This indicates that Lorne is not completely dependent on having someone sing to sense things about them. He could see here that Angel was headed for trouble, as indeed he was (accidentally killing a demon that was serving the force of good). (Later, in "Epiphany," Lorne sees what's happened immediately: "Keep yer pants on! ... Ahhh. Well. I see we're a little late with *that* advice.")

Angel returns to sing Mandy and accept Lorne's advice. Lorne's assessment? "Well, you're just the hot ticket. One night only, partially obstructed view --" That is, Angel's destiny at this junction is unclear.

When Angel next appears in Caritas (not counting the dream sequence in "First Impressions") looking for Darla, he sings "Ramblin' Man." But Lorne refuses to give Angel the information he wants, saying "I tell beings what their path is -- I try to give 'em a roadmap -- this little highway you want to take is headed straight for Disaster, Maine."

So Lorne can withhold information that he thinks will only harm the individual that he is advising. But, further, he doesn't see everything. For example, in "Guise Will Be Guise," he does not foresee that sending Angel to his friend the T'ish Magev will get the T'ish killed.

"Happy Anniversary" occurs smack-dab in the middle of Angel's dark patch, and is the first time Lorne sees Angel after he fires his crew. As they rush to save the world from ending, Lorne can't help but offer his services:

Host: ... To tell the truth, if the world were to end tonight, would it really, in your heart of hearts, be such a terrible thing? (Nothing from Angel) Now sweetie, is that a fun place to be?
Angel: (This is hitting too close to home) I think you should shut up now.
Host: Excuse me, I'm the Host, have you met me? I never shut up. You pushed your friends away, you went from helping the helpless to hunting down the guilty -- blood vengeance is a luxury of the lesser being. You're a champion, Angel, I mean you were at any rate.
Angel: (beat) What do you want me to tell you?
Host: *Everything*, what's in your heart, why you stopped caring, you know, whole ball of wax, so I can help you get back on your path... no need to rush we've got time... (checks watch) ...you know, not a lot.
[Angel goes on to bemoan the fact that he can never win and that he couldn't save Darla.]
Host: Not always gonna be like this. The song changes. Unless of course we don't get there in time, in which case you'll be stuck in this crappy mood forever. Shudder to think.

Lorne, like Spike, sees a lot and is not afraid to speak his mind. But unlike Spike, he wants to help people find their path through life. Wesley and Cordy were a bit afraid to speak frankly with Angel -- and why not? He is a vampire, after all. But Lorne isn't afraid of that, perhaps because he can read Angel well enough to know how he's going to respond. He doesn't mind being a little testy with Angel. When Angel insists that getting to the senior partners is his destiny, but Lorne says, "Is it? Because I haven't actually featured a destiny with you in it lately. It's all a little murky." (Reprise) Angel is rebelling against the plans of the Powers and trying to make his own destiny. Lorne is trying to help him find the destiny that the Powers have planned. As circumstances change, and people follow or rebel against their fates, the paths laid out for them by the Powers change as well.

So, for all that Lorne tries to help Angel with his problems, Angel wound up having to work through them himself (maybe because he's not exactly good at taking advice ..).

Lorne reluctantly assists Angel in "Reprise." He can see what's coming up, but he sees it by reading other people, and feels that passing along this information isn't ethical ("But I really can't divulge to you what I read in another being. (then) Though I can pass along what I overheard in the men's room."). Perhaps he senses that Angel needs to follow it through.

Angel seeks Lorne out immediately after his interlude with Darla (Epiphany).

Angel: I don't know how to get back.
Host: Well, that's the thing -- you don't. You go to the new place. Wherever that is.
(Angel looks at the Host. Weighs this, then he looks away again, can't meet the Host's eyes as he begins, slowly, tentatively...)
Angel: I don't know if I can. I've done... things... questionable things.
Host: Yes, you have. But you didn't kill those lawyers, Angel.
(Angel looks at him. The Host looks back.)
Host: That was slated to happen with or without you. The Powers were just trying to work it so it'd be *without* you, that's all. You just... well. You weren't much help in that department, were ya, sparky?
(A beat as Angel take that in, anger bubbling up now...)
Angel: I wasn't much help? If they wanted me to stay away, why didn't they just *tell* me?
Host: Would you have listened? Besides, what makes you think they didn't? Over and over and, as for example, over?
Angel: They could have been more specific.
Host: (clears throat) Er... isn't this just the sort of 'tude that got you where you are now? (Angel puts the lid on a potential rant. Fumes a bit.) I think I speak for everyone when I say -- if all you're going to do is switch back to brood mode, we'd rather have you evil. Because then, at least -- leather pants.

Then Lorne points out "I'm not your link with The Powers, Angel. I never was. You got rid of that when you fired your crew."

But when a portal opened up to Pylea and a Drokken jumped out (Belonging), things got personal for Lorne. We're used to see him looking confident in his superior knowledge (perhaps even smug?). But when it comes to Pylea, all that fades away. He's even reluctant to discuss it, to admit that he's even from that place. When Angel asks him about the Drokken:

Angel: That's all you've got for us?
Wesley: What is it doing here? What does it want? What is it capable of?
Host: Who cares? It trashed my club, my clientele. (Belonging)

Later, when Landok appears through another portal in the library, Lorne says "Just because I know his name doesn't mean you can't knock him unconscious. Please, continue."

He doesn't want to go back. It emerges that Lorne is embarrassed by a past of shame. In his world, he's considered a coward and traitor. As Landok said, "Your vanishing was a great mystery to our Clan.... It was hoped that you had sought atonement by forfeiting your life in the Sacrificial Canyons of Trelinsk." His best friend denounces him (Over the Rainbow). His own mother says, "You have shamed our clan and betrayed your kind... Each morning before I feed, I go out into the hills where the ground is thorny and parched, beat my breast and curse the loins that gave birth to such a cretinous boy-child" (Through the Looking Glass).

Further, Pylea has no music. As Lorne says, "*They have no music there.* It doesn't exist -- do you know what that's like? No lullabies, no love songs -- because there aren't any. All my life I thought I was crazy, that I had ghosts in my head or something, simply because I could hear music. Of course, I didn't know it was music -- all I knew was that it was beautiful, and painful, and right. And I was the only one who could hear it." (Over the Rainbow)

OK, he doesn't like Pylea. But why so afraid? It's because he's *out of his depth here*! Lorne can't sit back and watch himself sing. He can't read his own destiny in the minute detail that he can see the destinies of other people. He can't see whether or not he'll be able to return. Still worse, he fears that his destiny might be to return there to stay -- that he belongs there.

In "Through the Looking Glass" Lorne tells Angel, "They see you in a certain way ... you start to see yourself that way. You become that image. I get it. I do. Because I know how they see *me*." When Lorne popped through the portal into the Buffyverse, he
could put his past completely behind and create himself in the image he desired. At last he felt in some control. This may be where much of his confidence comes from.

Lorne goes to a friend to get some help finding a portal for Angel's rescue mission:

Aggie: I'm getting all kindsa ugly conflict vibes comin' offa you, Lorne. And they're all pointin' at that portal.
Host: Are you sure you're not just seeing the chili I had for lunch yesterday? 'Cause whew, you wanna talk about conflict -- (off her look, stops) They need the hot spot because they're going to Pylea, my home dimension.
Aggie: And you're not going with them.
Host: Aggie, I'd rather have a hydrochloric acid facial. I'd rather invite a hive of wasps to nest in my throat. I would rather sit through a junior high school production of "Cats" -- do you see where I'm going with this?
Aggie: Not to Pylea.
Host: Exactamundo.
Aggie: That's too bad then. Now they'll never rescue the girl.
Host: (beat) Come again?
Aggie: I can find your hot spot, Lorne, but on one condition: you've gotta go with 'em. It's the only way you're gonna resolve these issues that are cloudin' up your aura, I can see it. Be honest, deep down, you've always known you'd have to take that one last trip back home.
Host: It's the "last" that scares me. (Over the Rainbow)

Fortunately Lorne finds that he simply had to make the trip to confirm that he didn't have to make the trip:

Host: My psychic friend told me I had to come back here -- I didn't believe her. Then I realized I *did* have to come back here because I really always thought I had to come back here deep down inside. You know? (Angel nods) I had to come back here to find out I didn't have to come back here, I don't belong here. You know where I belong? LA. You know why? *Nobody* belongs there, it's the perfect place for guys like us.
Angel: That's kinda beautiful.
Host: Ain't it?

Seems more obvious than profound, don't it? But it expresses a common experience (but more about that later). We leave him realizing that he is probably the character in Angel that is happiest with his circumstances, despite the fact that he is perhaps the one who least "belongs" there. As he says, "You know where I belong? L.A. You know why? *Nobody* belongs there, it's the perfect place for guys like us." (There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb) While the other characters were looking for belonging, Lorne had accepted his outsiderness and was happy where he was. (I'd go further into this, but this is a tangent, perhaps entitled "Why I disagree with a lot of people and actually got something out of the Pylea
adventure" ...)

So what can we say about Lorne? Is he a force for good or evil? Lorne himself would not want to look at it in such simplistic terms, black and white with no gray.
He sees his calling rather as a servant of the Powers, helping everyone find their path, both human and demon, good and evil, Angel and Lindsey. He gets out of the way of the Powers That Be, telling Cordelia "... when the Big Guys talk, I shut my yap" (Redefinition). He won't advise an evil being to turn good, helping even Harmony find herself (Disharmony).

But we can note that he is not in favor of seeing his beloved Buffyverse end, seeking Angel's help to prevent this event in "Happy Anniversary." And though reluctant, he does want to help the crew find Cordelia when she's lost in Pylea. This would tend to put Lorne on the side of good, where his own actions are concerned.

Finally, let's take a look at the dramatic purpose of Lorne. When I embarked upon this project, I soon realized that Lorne has appeared in 15 of the 22 episodes in season 2. He plays a large role in five episodes, "Happy Anniversary" and the big Pylea quartet that concluded the season.

He opened the season with a rendition of "I Will Survive" in "Judgment." Does this episode foreshadow the season?

Lorne often serves to further the plot, as characters act on his advice. During Angel's dark phase, as I mentioned, Lorne's the person that Angel can talk to, revealing his anguished path.

Sometimes he seems to serve as a way for the writers to speak their minds, especially since he has a show-biz consciousness. For example:

Host: ...But I think the general angst is less about the review and more about the review*er*. And let's just say it ain't Rex Reed.
Angel: What is it?
Host: Something evil and dark and merciless. (then) Actually, now that I say it out loud, sounds an awful lot like Rex, doesn't it?

I hypothesize that the experience of an unsatisfactory return home (as though to Pylea) is a relatively common Hollywood experience. Creative people often feel like aliens growing up. I expect that after they are successful, they may return home (for a high school reunion or whatever) only to find the experience an empty one. Although they may be renowned in their home town, they may still feel as freakish as ever they felt growing up. Further, many in Hollywood "invent" themselves, creating personas that no one they grew up with would recognize.

Lorne also adds music and color to the mix. With his bright colors, snappy dialog and forthright manner provide a nice counterpoint to and relief from Angel's brooding persona. He provides some syncopation, if you will, to the rhythm of the series.

But the last four episodes fill us in on Lorne's back story. Up to that point, Lorne appears as a mentor and commentator, someone mostly outside of the main action (with the exception of "Happy Anniversary"). These episodes reveal more of what makes him tick.

This begs the question, Why? This hints that the writers are fond of Lorne and aren't satisfied with him remaining the eyes you see over the back fence. It points to the possibility that the Powers intend to expand Lorne's role in the future. Whether or not the viewer is satisfied by this prospect depends on whether he/she likes the idea of a mentor who is something of a cipher himself. Which brings me to the next point.

Does the character work?

I've seen several negative comments regarding the 2nd season wrap-up. Some seem to have been disappointed to know more about Lorne. However, if his role is indeed to be expanded, this is almost a necessary development. If you don't like Lorne, this may not be a positive thing. Obviously, since I took on the challenge of writing this article, I take the opposite point of view.

So, kind posters, please take the time to post your opinion. Do you like Lorne? Hate him? Never want to hear another Karaoke tune again? Do you think he was fine until you found out too much about him?

OK, that's it. Yep, it's a lot for a character who hasn't been around long. Please let me know what you think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: The Host/Lorne -- Drizzt, 15:49:01 09/19/01 Wed
Lorne is a neat character. WOW I would not have thought of Lorne as a mouthpeice of sorts for the writers of the show to express oppinions on hollywood, critics, & writers anst! Cool new perspective on Lorn for me.

I would like to see him as a more central character; need a cypher, someone with grey motives & morals to balance out the gooditooshoo heroic posturing;) Spike is the grey character on BTVS currently, Giles/Ripper is ruthless...but his motives are allways good so he is not a grey character. Back to Lorne; the other benefit of the character is he remains cheerfull and irreverent in the face of allmost anything, plus the comic relief of his personality:) We veiwers need some cheerfullness to counteract the grimness of whatever moral/situational disaster Joss has planned for Angel & Crew...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: The Host/Lorne -- Nina, 16:52:00 09/19/01 Wed
Nice work!!! :) You know what? Lorne is actually the only character that gives me a real reason to watch "Angel". I like Wesley alright, Cordy is okay to have around, Gunn needs to get a life because I still don't know who he is (hope they do something with him), Angel really doesn't make it for me (I should care about his struggle and I don't). The Host now that's different. I liked him right away. He's funny and bright and says frankly what he thinks. I liked the secret surrounding him. He was mysterious. But if you want to go deeper with character you have to give him a background. You can't keep him in the shadow for always.

So I am really looking forward season 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: The Host/Lorne -- Drizzt, 17:07:31 09/19/01 Wed
We have some background on Lorne now, I hope he will be more involved in season three instead of being mister advice guy...

Fred is still an unknown variable, but any female character would help because Cordy was aaaallllll alone in Angel town:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> THERE you are! Hurray!!! -- Wisewoman, 16:23:33 09/19/01 Wed
I'm so glad to hear from you. I, for one, was worried sick. I haven't even read the character post yet, I'm just so glad you're okay.

:o)))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: THERE you are! Hurray!!! -- verdantheart, 06:33:38 09/21/01 Fri
Thanks for your kind concern! All we suffered was extra expenses and a lengthy delay; not much at all in the greater scheme of things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great job, verdantheart. ;o) -- Wisewoman, 16:48:53 09/19/01 Wed
I've always absolutely loved The Host--I think he was just what AtS needed, someone quirky and off- beat to liven things up and provide a comedic edge. And Andy Hallett, of course, is superb in the role.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: The Host/Lorne -- Rufus, 21:25:15 09/19/01 Wed
I did one of these tests to see which Angel character I was like. To my astonishment I was the only one I saw who scored highest for Lorne. I assure you that I'm not green, or very tall, I sing, but the reaction to my singing would resemble all those poor folk on Pylea. So don't tempt me, your eardrums just couldn't take it. I like Lorne. He is someone who has come to LA to disappear, blend in with the population. In the crowd he can do what he wants and follow his heart. Can you imagine all those years hearing something..not understanding what it was til he came here to find that it was music. Lorne hears music, where his family and people on Pylea hear nothing. They are so traditional that anything that isn't "normal" to them is a threat to be destroyed.
I like Lorne, he tells Angel to get over himself, while being able to appreciate the perks of leather pants on a brooding vampire. He shows no fear for Angel and is happy to push his buttons. Angel needs someone who is going to take him a bit less seriously. The gang was afraid to tell him what they were thinking and Lorne just lets him have it. I hope he sticks right were he is.

Thank you for your essay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I've always liked Lorne.He's a great character and a character. Great work! -- Deeva, 23:35:59 09/19/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: The Host/Lorne -- Rattletrap, 07:34:48 09/20/01 Thu
Great job Verdantheart!

The Host may be the main reason I started watching Angel, I didn't see it over once or twice during the first season. But 2nd season, he livened up the mix . . . you're quite right, added a syncopation to the rhythm.

Am I the only one that really wanted to see Angel and Lorne going to that Elton John concert together? That could be pretty darn funny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great essay on a great character! Thanks! -- Kerri, 16:34:13 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Same thing, improved format -- verdantheart, 06:31:16 09/21/01 Fri
I didn't have time to remove all those extra returns on Wed -- it was either post as is or wait 'til today. And since I'm in a deadline driven industry, I cringed and sent it out. This should be a little better.

First, a couple of notes. Unfortunately, due to unforseen tragic circumstances that delayed my return home, I wasn't able to put in the time that I wanted to polish this up a bit. I also wanted to compare the scripts with the episode transcripts, but wasn't able to get that done. So all the quotes are from the shooting scripts. I'm posting this Wednesday because I may not be able to look in tomorrow. So don't be surprised if I don't respond to comments until Friday. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lorne

Wesley: The Host, the fellow Angel is talking to? He helps demons, reads their souls, senses their futures... Cordelia: But he can only do it when they sing Karaoke.

Gunn: 'kay, now you're just having fun with the new guy. [note: this line appears in the shooting script but not the transcript.]
(Guise Will Be Guise)



Krevlornswath of the Deathwok clan, Lorne for short, a.k.a. the Host of Caritas is a bright green demon with bright red lips, eyes, and hair who hails from the dimension of Pylea. Caritas ("mercy" in Latin) is the Karaoke bar that Lorne created on the spot that he entered the Buffy dimension. Caritas is a sanctuary, where weapons, violence, and eating the clientele is prohibited. Here he hosts a karaoke show, sings, and dispenses advice based on his psychic abilities.

Much of the role Lorne has played in AtS has to do with his talent. As Wesley says, "He's anagogic.... *Psychic*, connected to the mystic. When you sing you bare your soul and he can see into it" (Judgment). The keys to Lorne are his psychic gifts and his love of music. Lorne's interactions with Angel illustrate how Lorne's talents shape his character.

When Lorne first sees Angel, he offers unsolicited help:

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

Angel: It's Latin for mercy.

Host: Smart *and* cute. How 'bout gracing us with a number?

Angel: I don't sing.

(In distant background, Mordar the Bentback growls a tone deaf version of "Sexual Healing" ...)

Host: And neither does Mordar the Bentback -- That cat's a foghorn on two legs; this isn't about your pipes, 'bro, it's about your spirit.

Angel: I don't sing.

[Cordy/Wesley dialog omitted]

Host: I know you're feelin' smooth, in the groove. Isn't that the thing that comes before a fall? (Judgment)

This indicates that Lorne is not completely dependent on having someone sing to sense things about them. He could see here that Angel was headed for trouble, as indeed he was (accidentally killing a demon that was serving the force of good). (Later, in "Epiphany," Lorne sees what's happened immediately: "Keep yer pants on! ... Ahhh. Well. I see we're a little late with *that* advice.")

Angel returns to sing Mandy and accept Lorne's advice. Lorne's assessment? "Well, you're just the hot ticket. One night only, partially obstructed view --" That is, Angel's destiny at this junction is unclear.

When Angel next appears in Caritas (not counting the dream sequence in "First Impressions") looking for Darla, he sings "Ramblin' Man." But Lorne refuses to give Angel the information he wants, saying "I tell beings what their path is -- I try to give 'em a roadmap -- this little highway you want to take is headed straight for Disaster, Maine."

So Lorne can withhold information that he thinks will only harm the individual that he is advising. But, further, he doesn't see everything. For example, in "Guise Will Be Guise," he does not foresee that sending Angel to his friend the T'ish Magev will get the T'ish killed.

"Happy Anniversary" occurs smack-dab in the middle of Angel's dark patch, and is the first time Lorne sees Angel after he fires his crew. As they rush to save the world from ending, Lorne can't help but offer his services:

Host: ... To tell the truth, if the world were to end tonight, would it really, in your heart of hearts, be such a terrible thing? (Nothing from Angel) Now sweetie, is that a fun place to be?

Angel: (This is hitting too close to home) I think you should shut up now.

Host: Excuse me, I'm the Host, have you met me? I never shut up. You pushed your friends away, you went from helping the helpless to hunting down the guilty -- blood vengeance is a luxury of the lesser being. You're a champion, Angel, I mean you were at any rate.

Angel: (beat) What do you want me to tell you?

Host: *Everything*, what's in your heart, why you stopped caring, you know, whole ball of wax, so I can help you get back on your path... no need to rush we've got time... (checks watch) ...you know, not a lot.

[Angel goes on to bemoan the fact that he can never win and that he couldn't save Darla.]

Host: Not always gonna be like this. The song changes. Unless of course we don't get there in time, in which case you'll be stuck in this crappy mood forever. Shudder to think.

Lorne, like Spike, sees a lot and is not afraid to speak his mind. But unlike Spike, he wants to help people find their path through life. Wesley and Cordy were a bit afraid to speak frankly with Angel -- and why not? He is a vampire, after all. But Lorne isn't afraid of that, perhaps because he can read Angel well enough to know how he's going to respond. He doesn't mind being a little testy with Angel. When Angel insists that getting to the senior partners is his destiny, but Lorne says, "Is it? Because I haven't actually featured a destiny with you in it lately. It's all a little murky." (Reprise) Angel is rebelling against the plans of the Powers and trying to make his own destiny. Lorne is trying to help him find the destiny that the Powers have planned. As circumstances change, and people follow or rebel against their fates, the paths laid out for them by the Powers change as well.

So, for all that Lorne tries to help Angel with his problems, Angel wound up having to work through them himself (maybe because he's not exactly good at taking advice ...).

Lorne reluctantly assists Angel in "Reprise." He can see what's coming up, but he sees it by reading other people, and feels that passing along this information isn't ethical ("But I really can't divulge to you what I read in another being. (then) Though I can pass along what I overheard in the men's room."). Perhaps he senses that Angel needs to follow it through.

Angel seeks Lorne out immediately after his interlude with Darla (Epiphany).

Angel: I don't know how to get back.

Host: Well, that's the thing -- you don't. You go to the new place. Wherever that is.

(Angel looks at the Host. Weighs this, then he looks away again, can't meet the Host's eyes as he begins, slowly, tentatively...)

Angel: I don't know if I can. I've done... things... questionable things.

Host: Yes, you have. But you didn't kill those lawyers, Angel.

(Angel looks at him. The Host looks back.)

Host: That was slated to happen with or without you. The Powers were just trying to work it so it'd be *without* you, that's all. You just... well. You weren't much help in that department, were ya, sparky?

(A beat as Angel take that in, anger bubbling up now...)

Angel: I wasn't much help? If they wanted me to stay away, why didn't they just *tell* me?

Host: Would you have listened? Besides, what makes you think they didn't? Over and over and, as for example, over?

Angel: They could have been more specific.

Host: (clears throat) Er... isn't this just the sort of 'tude that got you where you are now? (Angel puts the lid on a potential rant. Fumes a bit.) I think I speak for everyone when I say -- if all you're going to do is switch back to brood mode, we'd rather have you evil. Because then, at least -- leather pants.

Then Lorne points out "I'm not your link with The Powers, Angel. I never was. You got rid of that when you fired your crew."

But when a portal opened up to Pylea and a Drokken jumped out (Belonging), things got personal for Lorne. We're used to see him looking confident in his superior knowledge (perhaps even smug?). But when it comes to Pylea, all that fades away. He's even reluctant to discuss it, to admit that he's even from that place. When Angel asks him about the Drokken:

Angel: That's all you've got for us?

Wesley: What is it doing here? What does it want? What is it capable of?

Host: Who cares? It trashed my club, my clientele. (Belonging)

Later, when Landok appears through another portal in the library, Lorne says "Just because I know his name doesn't mean you can't knock him unconscious. Please, continue."

He doesn't want to go back. It emerges that Lorne is embarrassed by a past of shame. In his world, he's considered a coward and traitor. As Landok said, "Your vanishing was a great mystery to our Clan.... It was hoped that you had sought atonement by forfeiting your life in the Sacrificial Canyons of Trelinsk." His best friend denounces him (Over the Rainbow). His own mother says, "You have shamed our clan and betrayed your kind... Each morning before I feed, I go out into the hills where the ground is thorny and parched, beat my breast and curse the loins that gave birth to such a cretinous boy-child" (Through the Looking Glass).

Further, Pylea has no music. As Lorne says, "*They have no music there.* It doesn't exist -- do you know what that's like? No lullabies, no love songs -- because there aren't any. All my life I thought I was crazy, that I had ghosts in my head or something, simply because I could hear music. Of course, I didn't know it was music -- all I knew was that it was beautiful, and painful, and right. And I was the only one who could hear it." (Over the Rainbow)

OK, he doesn't like Pylea. But why so afraid? It's because he's *out of his depth here*! Lorne can't sit back and watch himself sing. He can't read his own destiny in the minute detail that he can see the destinies of other people. He can't see whether or not he'll be able to return. Still worse, he fears that his destiny might be to return there to stay -- that he belongs there.

In "Through the Looking Glass" Lorne tells Angel, "They see you in a certain way ... you start to see yourself that way. You become that image. I get it. I do. Because I know how they see *me*." When Lorne popped through the portal into the Buffyverse, he could put his past completely behind and create himself in the image he desired. At last he felt in some control. This may be where much of his confidence comes from.

Lorne goes to a friend to get some help finding a portal for Angel's rescue mission:

Aggie: I'm getting all kindsa ugly conflict vibes comin' offa you, Lorne. And they're all pointin' at that portal.

Host: Are you sure you're not just seeing the chili I had for lunch yesterday? 'Cause whew, you wanna talk about conflict -- (off her look, stops) They need the hot spot because they're going to Pylea, my home dimension.

Aggie: And you're not going with them.

Host: Aggie, I'd rather have a hydrochloric acid facial. I'd rather invite a hive of wasps to nest in my throat. I would rather sit through a junior high school production of "Cats" -- do you see where I'm going with this?

Aggie: Not to Pylea.

Host: Exactamundo.

Aggie: That's too bad then. Now they'll never rescue the girl.

Host: (beat) Come again?

Aggie: I can find your hot spot, Lorne, but on one condition: you've gotta go with 'em. It's the only way you're gonna resolve these issues that are cloudin' up your aura, I can see it. Be honest, deep down, you've always known you'd have to take that one last trip back home.

Host: It's the "last" that scares me. (Over the Rainbow)

Fortunately Lorne finds that he simply had to make the trip to confirm that he didn't have to make the trip:

Host: My psychic friend told me I had to come back here -- I didn't believe her. Then I realized I *did* have to come back here because I really always thought I had to come back here deep down inside. You know? (Angel nods) I had to come back here to find out I didn't have to come back here, I don't belong here. You know where I belong? LA. You know why? *Nobody* belongs there, it's the perfect place for guys like us.

Angel: That's kinda beautiful.

Host: Ain't it?

Seems more obvious than profound, don't it? But it expresses a common experience (but more about that later). We leave him realizing that he is probably the character in Angel that is happiest with his circumstances, despite the fact that he is perhaps the one who least "belongs" there. As he says, "You know where I belong? L.A. You know why? *Nobody* belongs there, it's the perfect place for guys like us." (There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb) While the other characters were looking for belonging, Lorne had accepted his outsiderness and was happy where he was. (I'd go further into this, but this is a tangent, perhaps entitled "Why I disagree with a lot of people and actually got something out of the Pylea adventure" ...)

So what can we say about Lorne? Is he a force for good or evil? Lorne himself would not want to look at it in such simplistic terms, black and white with no gray. He sees his calling rather as a servant of the Powers, helping everyone find their path, both human and demon, good and evil, Angel and Lindsey. He gets out of the way of the Powers That Be, telling Cordelia "... when the Big Guys talk, I shut my yap" (Redefinition). He won't advise an evil being to turn good, helping even Harmony find herself (Disharmony).

But we can note that he is not in favor of seeing his beloved Buffyverse end, seeking Angel's help to prevent this event in "Happy Anniversary." And though reluctant, he does want to help the crew find Cordelia when she's lost in Pylea. This would tend to put Lorne on the side of good, where his own actions are concerned.

Finally, let's take a look at the dramatic purpose of Lorne. When I embarked upon this project, I soon realized that Lorne has appeared in 15 of the 22 episodes in season 2. He plays a large role in five episodes, "Happy Anniversary" and the big Pylea quartet that concluded the season.

He opened the season with a rendition of "I Will Survive" in "Judgment." Does this episode foreshadow the season?

Lorne often serves to further the plot, as characters act on his advice. During Angel's dark phase, as I mentioned, Lorne's the person that Angel can talk to, revealing his anguished path. Sometimes he seems to serve as a way for the writers to speak their minds, especially since he has a show-biz consciousness. For example:

Host: ...But I think the general angst is less about the review and more about the review*er*. And let's just say it ain't Rex Reed.

Angel: What is it?

Host: Something evil and dark and merciless. (then) Actually, now that I say it out loud, sounds an awful lot like Rex, doesn't it?

I hypothesize that the experience of an unsatisfactory return home (as though to Pylea) is a relatively common Hollywood experience. Creative people often feel like aliens growing up. I expect that after they are successful, they may return home (for a high school reunion or whatever) only to find the experience an empty one. Although they may be renowned in their home town, they may still feel as freakish as ever they felt growing up. Further, many in Hollywood "invent" themselves, creating personas that no one they grew up with would recognize.

Lorne also adds music and color to the mix. With his bright colors, snappy dialog and forthright manner provide a nice counterpoint to and relief from Angel's brooding persona. He provides some syncopation, if you will, to the rhythm of the series.

But the last four episodes fill us in on Lorne's back story. Up to that point, Lorne appears as a mentor and commentator, someone mostly outside of the main action (with the exception of "Happy Anniversary"). These episodes reveal more of what makes him tick.

This begs the question, Why? This hints that the writers are fond of Lorne and aren't satisfied with him remaining the eyes you see over the back fence. It points to the possibility that the Powers intend to expand Lorne's role in the future. Whether or not the viewer is satisfied by this prospect depends on whether he/she likes the idea of a mentor who is something of a cipher himself. Which brings me to the next point.

Does the character work?

I've seen several negative comments regarding the 2nd season wrap-up. Some seem to have been disappointed to know more about Lorne. However, if his role is indeed to be expanded, this is almost a necessary development. If you don't like Lorne, this may not be a positive thing. Obviously, since I took on the challenge of writing this article, I take the opposite point of view.

So, kind posters, please take the time to post your opinion. Do you like Lorne? Hate him? Never want to hear another Karaoke tune again? Do you think he was fine until you found out too much about him?

OK, that's it. Yep, it's a lot for a character who hasn't been around long. Please let me know what you think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Same thing, improved format -- Masq, 10:33:02 09/24/01 Mon
I got something out of the pylea adventure too, mostly those great Deathwok clan folk dances!!
A new Buffy/Angel Email Discussion List!! -- Kat, 18:34:30 09/19/01 Wed
Hi:

I just found this great board! I'm so glad!

I also wanted to mention that I started a Buffy and Angel TV show Discussion list.

It's a small group now but we hope to get more folks to join. If you're interested in joining, please go here:

http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/katsplace/BuffyAngel.htm

We would love to have you help us talk about these two GREAT shows. We can't wait till the new seasons start!

Thanks for reading!

Kat
TV guide article *spoilers* -- Deeva, 22:52:44 09/19/01 Wed
Found this to be a bit interesting. I know how much some of you loath Herc over at AICN so I took the time to find the original article so that you won't be subjected to the sickly, green guy. I personally don't mind him.

http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/010919b.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Dawn the ... -- Helen, 01:24:09 09/20/01 Thu
Would you guys actually want to watch that show? I can say pretty catagorically that I wouldn't. It just wouldn't be right, at all. For one thing, I don't think it could be squared - Faith dies, and the next slayer is .. the last but one's sister? Come on!!

And I cannot stand Dawn. In fact although I really enjoyed series 5, I just loathed her. Even Joss could not make it ring true for me.

Does anyone agree? Or can anyone make me see the light?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I reluctantly agree -- Earl Allison, 02:17:38 09/20/01 Thu
I have to agree with you, "Dawn the Vampire Slayer" wouldn't hold a lot of interest for me -- and personally would IMHO constitute "jumping the shark."

Michelle is a fine actress, and I don't dislike her character too much (albeit I cannot STAND the retcon of her insertion changing all the past episodes -- like they WOULDN'T have impacted anything? Sure they wouldn't), but I watch a show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Remove Buffy, and you may as well start a new spinoff like "Angel."

And it took the addition of Drusilla and the guesting of Faith to get me to watch and enjoy "Angel." Without SMG in the title role, I don't see myself caring about the show that much.

Just my $.02

Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I wholeheartedly agree -- Scout, 11:53:56 09/23/01 Sun
I'm not aiming this particularly at anyone on this board who happens to possess both an X and a Y chromosome, but if Joss & Co. had decided to make Buffy's newly-created younger sibling a yummy looking teenage *boy* instead of a girl (and the part played by a highly talented lad), how many of you would still have been as readily accepting of the new character and the existence of those all-too- creepy false memories? Given MT's actual age, I'm really uncomfortable with what I consider to be an undue interest by some in Dawn and her leather pants (be they evil or otherwise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn the ... -- Kendra, 13:58:46 09/20/01 Thu
I agree. I simply was unable to become emotionally invested in Dawn. This was my reason for not enjoying the season finale as much as I wanted to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Agree and disagree at the same time... -- Kerri, 16:53:08 09/20/01 Thu
First let me say that I love Dawn. When the season started I couldn't stand her; she annoyed me so much. But once she found out she was the key she really became interesting-she was more than a brat kid sister. I loved the B/D relationship-it was just what Buffy needed(and don't they have great chemistry?).

But, honestly, for me "Dawn the Vampire Slayer" doesn't do it. I love Buffy-IMO she's a great character. Sure I like the other characters, they help make the show so awesome-but I watch the show because of Buffy. Without Buffy I don't think "Buffy the vampire slayer" would be too good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Personally... -- Marie, 01:16:22 09/21/01 Fri
..I think MT was a wonderful addition to an already great cast. What imaginations these writers have!

And "Dawn the Vampire Slayer"? Well I'd have to watch and see, 'cos, hey, Joss Whedon, y'know?

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Likewise, personally... -- OnM, 05:27:25 09/21/01 Fri
Anyone who's followed my idle speculations from last year already knows that I favor the idea of a 'Slayer Trinity' with Buffy, Faith and Dawn, so I guess I don't need to say anything else in that I fully accept the idea of Dawn as the next Slayer.

I think that MT is staggeringly gifted as an actor, esp. for such a tender age, and that she has been a wonderful addition to the cast.

I also think that it could make for some great humor and drama as Buffy would have to deal with the idea of her younger sister becoming obligated to take on the duties she has had to deal with. Anyone think that would make her happy? Noooo, methinks very much not. (Movie ref: *Legends of the Fall*, where the father helplessly watches his sons follow in his footsteps as they insist on going off to war, with of course disasterous results).

I'm really looking forward to the Buffy/Dawn interactions this season, lotsa tasty potential there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Likewise, personally... -- John Burwood, 13:29:48 09/21/01 Fri
I agree that MT has been brilliant, & I love the character of Dawn - might not love her bratty moments in real life, but they work great in the series. I also reckon I could accept Dawn as a Slayer, but it would have to be earned to be credible - to be a lot more than pure chance. And,looking at the TVGuide interview, MT just mentions being asked if she would be interested in a spin-off. Nowhere in what I read did she mention being a Slayer in the spin-off. The article writer might just have added that to make a better story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn the ... -- vampire hunter D, 08:52:02 09/21/01 Fri
If you ask me, while MT could carry her own series, I don't think they should make Dawn the Slayer. First off, the sister of the current Slayer being called is too much of a stretch to believe. Second, Dawn is the Key. That in my mind prevents her from being a Slayer (you can be one or the other, not both). And thirdly, to call Dawn we would need to kill Faith. And Faith is my favorite character in the whole Whedonverse (I'm developing a fanfic where we can kill he and bring her back, so that we can see the next Slayer's calling. And the way I do it is really interesting.).

You know, a while back, they were talking about Faith the Vampire Slayer, with Eliza taking over the show when Sarah quits. It's like no one thinks SMG will stay with the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn the ... -- Marie, 08:57:22 09/21/01 Fri
I agree that I don't actually see Dawn as "The Slayer", per se, but as "A Slayer"? Why not? She has to have some 'key' qualities, so to speak, that we haven't yet been shown. And the other Scoobies have slain, without the 'keyness'. Faith wouldn't have to die, and Dawn has friends to help and a vampire and a watcher to train and guide her.

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: TV guide article *spoilers* -- mundusmundi, 12:24:04 09/22/01 Sat
While I'm admittedly a little biased when it comes to the Dawnster, I think a spinoff would be promising. I've heard this "Slayer" speculation before, and though it'd certainly be intriguing, do we really want her to be one? The show's M.O. has always been, as I think a struggling playwright once said, "to thineself be true." I suspect we may see Dawn trying to be a slayer this season, only to discover that she's just not cut out for it, that she has a different destiny in store.
Can a vampire maintain ANY semblance of goodness without direct intervention? -- Earl Allison, 03:41:01 09/20/01 Thu
We've seen vampires attempt to behave as something other than ravenous monsters, like Harmony's brief attempts to do good in "Disharmony," or Spike's alliance with Buffy in Season Two.

Is it a given than a vampire is instantly and totally evil and without any goodness left?

Could a vampire attempt to do good, much like Angel or Spike, without a soul or some other behavior-modifying device like the Initiative chip?

Granted, the vampire would need to feed, and probably wouldn't want anything other than human blood, but would it be possible for a vampire to exist in a Batman-like sort of role, feeding on those he considers "evil," and therefore acceptable losses in a greater fight? Possibly not even feeding enough to KILL the victim, but merely to sate its own hunger as well?

Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can a vampire maintain ANY semblance of goodness without direct intervention? -- vampire hunter D, 07:41:05 09/20/01 Thu
Once again, someone has touched on the one issue I have with the show. Vampire=automatically evil. I much prefer the way it is in Vampire: the MAsquerade where some vampires can be good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can a vampire maintain ANY semblance of goodness without direct intervention? -- John Burwood, 12:40:27 09/20/01 Thu
Define goodness: that is the question. For example, surely giving to charity is doing a good, but if you choose only to give to charity on live TV in front of a cheering audience in order to hear everyone say what a good guy you are and feel better about yourself, aren't you being selfish rather than good? Remember Tara in Crush on the Hunchback being selfishly motivated because he was inspired by love not morality. A telling comment in that episode, wouldn't you say?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spikemodo -- Voxpopuli, 13:19:58 09/20/01 Thu
No, because I utterly disagree with her reading of the Hunchback. I love this book and also Les Miserbles, as I believe they are truly masterpieces by Victor Hugo, and I do not see love as a selfish motivation in the context of Quasimodo, actually there are other stances of love in the same book that could be considered selfish or immoral, but not exactly Quasimodo's. But then... the character I like the least in that book is Esmeralda! What exactly is a selfish motivation, is selfism inherently evil or destructive for the community? As a pessimistic a believe in selfism as a driving force, as that "get rid of unpleasant things, and seeking satisfaction" that is not necessarily destructive at all. But back to Quasimodo... Victor Hugo has that lovely inability to write a truly happy story. All of his characters do have a grey shade. The most hideous of his characters can still attract your sympathy in some circumstances, and this is in my opinion, his greatest merit. He implies that perfection is non existent, and the quest for perfection in the form of perfect happiness is our greatest source of grief. You wish for the stars, and you'll never be able to touch them. Quasimodo's love is most pure of all, as he does care and protect her above himself. He does the same for the priest who cared for him, he is loyal by instinct and protective in essence. He does not strike out of anger, rather out of grief, and is inhumane in his selflessness. Like a pet dog he guards Esmeralda who is the reflection of what he will never be, but is so like him, in her faith in beauty, and innocence in the mundane world. She falls prey to the ideas she has, to her own fantasies and so she is doomed, and Quasimodo is doomed as well. The most interesting character is Claude (God, my memory! Blast these pregnancy hormones! They are ruining my memory!), the priest who is torn between love and his faith, and leans towards love, but ugly and bitter, is not one to attract the romantic eyes of a teen. He gets even more bitter, and he sees the problems Esmeralda is getting into, and out of despair, chooses to destroy her. To destroy love inside of him. His love is destructive because unrequited, destructive because he drowns in it and can not think clearly, and lets himself go with passion. He is as selfish as Quasimodo, if you consider love for one person a selfish thing, but he is destructive because he does not know what do do with that love. Spike is a mix of Quasimodo and this priest. He does not know what to do with this love, and tries to destory it, but he is also much too loyal, and pure in his feelings to keep going on this purpose, he'd rather die than see Buffy die, just like the Hunchback. Spike-modo, a man inside a monster, one could say after the episodes that followed Crush. To think that to love one person is to be selfish... if you want you can find selfism in everything and everyone, even in Madre Teresa, but the fact is, at least in my point of view, that when one loves a person and thinks of this person even before he thinks of himself, that is something precious, something that should be praised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hormones & pregnancy (totally O/T---you've been warned...;)) -- LadyStarlight, 15:39:14 09/20/01 Thu
I explained my utter lack of brain power in both pregnancies by saying "all my brain cells migrated down to be with the baby". Don't know if anybody bought it, but it made me feel better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Mine, too! -- Marie, 01:13:06 09/21/01 Fri
"all my brain cells migrated down to be with the baby".

Trouble is, I don't think I got them all back!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mine, too! -- Cynthia, 03:27:13 09/21/01 Fri
I think mine are just suffering from 8 years of sleep deprived coma. Hoping to get at least some of them back when I cart my two off to college. LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT: wild life! -- Voxpopuli, 04:15:49 09/21/01 Fri
It is my first born. Mom tells me that NOW I'll know what a real wild life feels like! :-))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> It's a recognized syndrome around here...it's called "preggo- brain!" -- Wisewoman, 08:25:05 09/21/01 Fri
Individuals suffering from preggo-brain cannot be held accountable for the things they forget, or screw up. It's a great system!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hormones & pregnancy (totally O/T---you've been warned...;)) -- Scout, 11:35:20 09/23/01 Sun
I accepted it as the obligatory loss of 10 IQ points that comes with pregnancy. Fortunately, most of us here can spare that many without feeling too much of a loss (although I do wonder if it's cumulative - like, having, say, 5 children means you lose 50 points). I'm certain we get them back someday, but by then our children are teenagers and think of us as cretins anyway. What, cynical, moi?

The loss of sleep, however, is a whole 'nother thang. For the last ten years, I swear, I haven't slept an entire night through without either (a) playing musical beds, meaning that I wake up in the morning having to do that thing where you wonder where you are for a few seconds before coming fully awake, or (b) waking up with a small boy's bony elbow or knee poking me in the bladder.

Still, I'll miss it when they're too big to hunker down under the covers and cuddle with me on a Saturday morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So is it the act, or the intent? -- Earl Allison, 08:43:09 09/21/01 Fri
Problem is, we don't always know WHY someone does something, only that they do (or do not, as the case may be).

If the ACT is moral, rather than the result, we would need to see into people's heads. Heck, get tricky enough, and we could say that Angel doesn't do good -- he's only trying to make up for past sins -- something of a selfish, conscience-salving thing. In fact, can vampires even be evil then? Without a conscience telling them right from wrong, is their intent evil, or simply normal for them? I sense the ugly head of ethical relativism rearing its head here :)

With your argument, Spike wouldn't really be doing good per se, he's mostly doing it out of love for Buffy, not for the intrinsic goodness of the act. After all, Spike DID feed from the man Dru killed for him at the Bronze -- he allowed her to kill the man, and then drank from him, two bad acts. Ditto for saying he'd stake Dru -- not out of the notion that Dru was bad and NEEDED to be killed, but only to "impress" Buffy.

The real test for Spike would be to remove the chip and give him a situation where he could help or attack someone outside the Scoobies, and never be caught or found out no matter which choice he made -- THAT would determine whether he was doing the right thing because it WAS right, or merely because it was in front of Buffy and friends.

Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So is it the act, or the intent? -- Humanitas, 14:11:24 09/21/01 Fri
One of the things that actors struggle with every working day is Why Characters Do What They Do. The script tells us What They Say, and the script and the director indicate What They Do, but it is up to us to figure out Why. And this is an essential part of playing the character believably. If you don't know Why your character is doing wherever it is he's doing at the moment, the audience will see you as just "going through the motions." I guarantee you that if you ask JM, he can tell you why Spike odes every single thing that he does.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is that actors have developed this trick of inferring motivations from actions. It is for most of us a long and painful process of studying the script, talking with the director (if we are lucky enough to have a patient director), and ultimately making a choice, a decision. What's worse, if you're one of the supremely fortunate actors who gets to work on BtVS, Star Trek, or any other series with a high TTMQ, you make that decision knowing that you're going to be second-guessed by the fans, and very possibly contradicted by the writers a season or so later.

Ack! Rambling again! Sorry.

Anyway, the point is that you can apply the actors' technique to any series of historical events, be they in the Realverse or in the Buffyverse. All you have to look at are the tapes of the episodes, and you make all your inferences from there. Does this get you The Truth? No. There ain't no such animal. We can never know the absolute truth about anyone's motivations. Only that individual can know that. The actors' trick can give you a truth, though, and you can use that to judge the morality of the action, assuming that you think that motivation is important. The big benefit here, though, is that you are constantly aware that the best you can do is arrive at one interpretation of the evidence, and that the evidence is always open to other interpretations, which may well be equally valid.

OK, so we can establish that any set of actions lends itself to a multitude of interpretations as far as motivation is concerned. Since morality, almost by definition, needs to be based on absolutes, don't we then have to throw out motivation as a condition of morality? The best you can hope for is to use motivation as a mitigating or exacerbating circumstance. Motivation may shove the morality of an action closer to or farther away from morally neutral, but it cannot determine where the action starts on that scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> motivations & assumptions -- anom, 20:05:02 09/22/01 Sat
"The big benefit here, though, is that you are constantly aware that the best you can do is arrive at one interpretation of the evidence, and that the evidence is always open to other interpretations, which may well be equally valid."

Well, some people are aware of that. The problem, especially in real life, is that many people make assumptions about other people's motivations. They can't see past what would cause them to do the same thing & don't realize that it could mean something totally different to another person.
Then they treat that person according to the motivations--positive or negative--they attribute to them on the basis of their actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: motivations & assumptions -- Humanitas, 11:53:30 09/23/01 Sun
Exactly my point. That's why I'm arguing that the technique needs to be used self-conciously, especially if we're talking about real life. We have a tremendous advantage, in that we're talking about fictional characters, and we have a huge amount of evidence to interpret, in the form of episodes, shooting scripts, and interviews. The fact is, we don't know what exactly is going through Angel's head as he does his good deeds. We can interpret the evidence in a number of different ways, either leaning toward or against redemption. All those interpretations can be legitimate, at least until contradicted by new evidence coming to light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So is it the act, or the intent? -- JohnBurwood, 07:46:49 09/22/01 Sat
I totally concur with you about the real test for Spike. I also am inclined to concur with your analysis of Angel. His attempt to achieve redemption definitely has at least a partially selfish motivation to it. As with Faith's surrender & confession - she is primarily motivated to save herself, not others. Buffy's periodic bouts of reluctance to be the Slayer showed she was much more motivated to help others, but even she gets comfort food out of Slaying. As with most politicians, selfish & selfless motives can easily be inextricably intertwined and perfectly compatible.
What's in a name? -- Marie, 07:06:09 09/20/01 Thu
Don't fall over when you read this, but I actually did some work today!! And it involved going through pages and pages of student names and numbers, and entering stuff on computer. To get to my point (who said 'finally'?!), I noticed, for the first time that I can remember (and I've worked here a few years now) that we have a young lady called Willow coming here next week (not 'Rosenberg', though). I've also seen an Alexander Harris, and one or two Tara's recently. Seen a few Giles and Anya's, and Angel is not uncommon these days. Never seen: Buffy, Wesley, Cordelia or Gunn (or Lorne!).

Not ruling them out, though - expect to see one or two Buffy's in 10 or 12 years' time!

Anyone actually know any real-life ones? Anyone called their progeny by well-known names?

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Forgot to ask... -- Marie, 07:21:32 09/20/01 Thu
..in the above post: How do you think BtVS has affected your own lives? One of the things it has given me is more tolerance, perhaps, for the quirks other people have. For myself, among other things, it's shown me that people can be different - different isn't always bad. Although I knew that before, of course, it made me think about it more, and it's definitely affected my attitude to people. I'm more careful to take into account other people's feelings.

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's in a name? -- vampire hunter D, 07:30:51 09/20/01 Thu
I wouldn't expect to see Buffy anytime soon. I don't think it's a real name. I think it was just a knickname amonst those bubbleheaded Valley Girls. Also, I've never heard of anyone with the name Cordelia. The only two cordelias I've heard of were both fictitious characters (Cordelia on Buffy and the other was the daughtr of King Lear).

I don't have any kids of my own yet (and I don't want any), but I do have some names picked out: Victor Liam Karen

btw, does anyone remember the names of King Lear's other two daughters?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What's in a name? -- Rattletrap, 07:39:00 09/20/01 Thu
I'd beg to differ, it is a real name, just an uncommon one. I have known one person named Buffie, not quite the same spelling, but same pronunciation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What's in a name? -- Voxpopuli, 07:46:43 09/20/01 Thu
Well, The son of my ex-boyfriend's cousin is named Wesley. The name is not unusual around here, not popular either. As for Cordelia, this is an old name for us, people who are not fictional characters do have this name, but just old people. Buffy... I've only seen dogs named Buffy! Usually female labradors.

I am pretty traditional concerning names, as well as everybody in my family. My boy will be named Bernardo (same as Bernard in English) If one day I have a girl I'll name her Luiza or Beatriz. Luiza because it sounds strong, means "enlightened"and because it is one my favourite songs by Tom Jobim ( like a ray of sunlight in your hair, that as a diamong splits the light in seven colour, revealing the seven thousand loves I kept inside only to give you...) . Beatriz because it means blessed, saintly, and goes pretty well with our family name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Changing names -- Drizzt, 08:28:05 09/20/01 Thu
vhD you think noone will name their kids Buffy? or change thier name to Buffy? IMHO Buffy was a semiderogetory nickname until the show BTVS, and now it is a cool name because it is the name of a loved fictional hero...

I changed my legal name to something I made up based on phoenetics(just combined sounds until I got a name I liked, and no my legal name is not Drizzt!)

Some guy(in LA I think...) changed his legal name to Jesus Christ. He went around town nude except for a trenchcoat and flashed old women. This is a real story...

BTW changing your name officially in court costs about $70.00 to $100.00 and only takes two weeks...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Goneril and Regan -- Marie, 08:53:49 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What's in a name? -- dream of the corsortium, 09:49:51 09/20/01 Thu
There's also the folk musician Buffy Sainte-Marie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's in a name? -- Neil Armstrong, 12:43:45 09/20/01 Thu
my Dads last name was Armstrong. He named me Neil. Nuff said...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cool! -- Wisewoman, 12:49:03 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's in a name? -- Scout, 15:48:58 09/20/01 Thu
My high school band director back in the 1970s named her daughter Elizabeth but called her Buffy.

A good friend of mine working in Australia in 1988 had a friend in Sydney named Willow.

I have a cousin named Niles. Close, but no cigar. He pre-dates "Frasier", incidentally.

My ex-stepfather's middle name was Wesley, and since he was born circa 1940 Georgia, that's pretty surprising. Glad he's my *ex*-stepfather, though. Can we say "Ted"? The words "little lady" make me grind my teeth to this day.

I don't have a BtVS name, but my real one is from a novel. My name truly is Scout (because, as I've said elsewhere, my dad *really, really* liked "To Kill a Mockingbird"). Funnily enough, today I'm feeling annoyed because I've discovered that someone on the Kitten board is using my name.

Could be worse. Having been born and raised in Atlanta, it seems to me that it would've been worse if either of my parents had been a huge fan of "Gone With the Wind", given their basis for choosing a name for their only daughter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Scout! Where've you been? -- vampire hunter D, 17:30:04 09/20/01 Thu
It's been over a month since I remember seeing a post form you.
The little mermaid and Spike -- briseis, 07:49:21 09/20/01 Thu
If the little mermaid got a soul for giving up her life for the prince....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Go on. Finish your sentence. -- vampire hunter D, 09:40:47 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey... how come...? -- Wisewoman, 13:27:00 09/20/01 Thu
Willow can't give Spike a soul? A long time ago, in Becoming Pt 2, when she was basically just a computer nerd and a Wiccan wannabe, she managed to restore Angel's soul with the help of a gypsy curse, even whilst in her hospital bed.

So how come, now that she's an amazingly powerful witch, she can't just curse (or bless) Spike with a soul? She wouldn't have to put in the "happiness" failsafe, and then he could keep his soul, even if he and Buffy did get together.

Just a thought... ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hey... how come...? -- Nina, 15:29:14 09/20/01 Thu
It's of my understanding that Angel's curse was specific to him not to all vamps (maybe I am wrong?). And the thing is that it was a curse, not a gift. Angel wasn't given a soul, he was cursed with one (not beeing able to have a moment of happiness was the goal of the curse). I don't really see Willow wanting to curse Spike. If Angel had disappeared into oblivion it may have been played differently. They could have brought back the curse into the story line. Now with Angel having his own show, they would really suck by their lack of imagination! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hey... how come...? -- Drizzt, 16:38:14 09/20/01 Thu
Minor point; Willow reactivated a preexisting curse, she did not cast the original one. I think reactivating a spell would be much easier and require less knowladge than the ability to cast a curse of that magnitude.

Willow now & in season 6 is probably powerfull enough to cast a spell that powerfull, however the curse itself is a different spell than the spell to reactivate the curse.

Of course I could be wrong; do not have the relivant episodes on tape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey... how come...? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:24:01 09/20/01 Thu
A couple of points here...

The curse was not specific to Angel. I remember a scene in the episode where Jenny died... She went into the magic shop and asked the owner for an Orb of Thesulah. The owner retrieved one and gave it to her, he said -

"By the way, you do know that the transliteration annals for the ritual of the undead were lost. Without the annals, the surviving text is gibberish."

This means that the spell was used for beings other than Angel. I doubt that the spell would be that well-known if it had been used on only one vampire...

Another point... I don't think Willow was simply re-activating a curse. The reason she was able to pull off something that powerful is because - as it has been speculated - she was seemingly possessed during the ritual. She has undoubtably reached a level where she could easily preform such a ceremony without the help of an outside spirit or force. Which makes me wonder... aside from the fact that it might ruin the show, and the writers wouldn't want to do it... Why doesn't Willow just make some slight alterations in the ritual, take a little trip down to L.A, and fix it so there's no happiness clause? And, another obscure question... If Anya was capable of turning Olaf into a troll when she was just a dabbler in magic (not a witch and not anywhere -near- Willow's level of power) then doesn't it stand to reason that Willow could pretty much make Angel human again?

Ok, and my last and final point... about Willow preforming the spell on Spike... It could be (and HAS been) argued that Spike's soul already -has- returned...

So, that's my two... err, ok, 50 cents on that matter.

~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My Bad! Only have eps from last 1.5 seasons on tape.... -- Drizzt, 19:34:42 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey... how come...? -- Rattletrap, 06:06:18 09/21/01 Fri
"By the way, you do know that the transliteration annals for the ritual of the undead were lost. Without the annals, the surviving text is gibberish."

I had always taken that conversation between Jenny and the Shopkeeper to mean that there were several different rituals that could be performed on the undead with an Orb of Thesulah, and that the restoration ritual was one of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey... how come...? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 06:56:49 09/21/01 Fri
I had always taken that conversation between Jenny and the Shopkeeper to mean that there were several different rituals that could be performed on the undead with an Orb of Thesulah, and that the restoration ritual was one of them.

Hmmm... you're probably right, but it still seems unlikely that the soul restoration ritual was created solely to be used on Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Rubber Soul -- SandraL, 00:19:02 09/22/01 Sat
> It could be (and HAS been) argued that
> Spike's soul already -has- returned...

Just in case - SPOILER FOR "THE GIFT" * * * * * * Except that, in The Gift, Doc told Spike that he didn't "smell a soul anywhere on [him]". Either Doc was mistaken, or that theory has been disproved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> smelling souls & Dawn's Key-energy (possible mild Gift & Intervention spoilers) -- anom, 20:25:33 09/22/01 Sat
"Except that, in The Gift, Doc told Spike that he didn't 'smell a soul anywhere on [him]'. Either Doc was mistaken, or that theory has been disproved."

Remember in Intervention, when Glory upbraided her minions for bringing Spike to her? She sniffed at him & said (something like) "This is a vampire. They're no good for anything. Can't even brain-suck them." So apparently a soul is something that can be "smelled" by certain gods or demons. But neither of them could tell that Dawn was the Key. (Well, we don't know for sure about Doc one way or the other--maybe he just didn't let on--but Glory definitely didn't know.) Glory didn't know Tara wasn't the Key till she tasted her blood. So maybe the Key-energy smells like a soul. Maybe it is Dawn's soul, or at least functions like one (to bring this thread around to an earlier topic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The little mermaid and Spike -- vampire hunter D, 08:35:51 09/21/01 Fri
As I remember it, the little mermaid DIDN'T get a soul at all. She died, and didn't go to heaven because she did not have a soul. Of couse, I haven't heard the original story since 2nd grade.
Okay, I have a question for you.... -- Liq, 16:05:15 09/20/01 Thu
We have all this talk about Angel falling for someone else... Cordy, Fred, Kate, whomever...

Don't the same rules apply here? If he falls in love again, isn't he at risk for that one moment of perfect happiness and hello Angelus?

I realize that the incident with Darla proved to him that sex does not equate to happiness, but what about true love?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Slight spoilery spec above?? -- Masq, 16:20:55 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> nope.... not really ... off the top of my head. -- Liq, 16:48:54 09/20/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Okay, I have a question for you.... -- vampire hunter D, 17:35:23 09/20/01 Thu
Unfortuneately, the same rules apply. Which means that whomever he falls in love with, he wouldn't be able to consumate the relationship. Of course, if all he wanted was some tail, he could just pick up some girl at a club or something (I doubt many would turn him down).

But there is another problem. It's not a moment of orgasm turns him evil, it's a moment of happiness. And there are other things than sex that make people happy. We talk about how he never smiles, well that's a good thing. As long as he is miserable, everyone else is safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Okay, I have a question for you.... -- LadyStarlight, 18:08:16 09/20/01 Thu
You know, I just yesterday finished a story that deals with just that issue.

One of my major questions was: How come nothing happened to his soul when they got back from Pylea? You would think he would've been pretty darn happy then, right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Okay, I have a question for you.... -- Kerri, 18:53:34 09/20/01 Thu
I think of it as a moment that he is no longer paying for what he did by suffereing. Remember this curse was meant to cause Angel to suffer. He was able to lose his fears and self-hatred in Buffy. Just my take on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> *Spoilerish* speculation -- Simplicity, 21:17:00 09/20/01 Thu
Angel's one night stand with Darla did prove that he could have sex with someone and not lose his soul. I think we all agree that it was physcially expressing his love for Buffy that caused it.

We've all heard that he has "growing but unrequited feelings for Cordeila." Nothing in that statement has to point to love.

He could have sexual feelings for Cordelia. Actually, looking at the scene in Belonging where he's describing the skimpy outfit she was wearing, he looks decidedly lusty.

I think that this would be very unAngellike to want a sexual affair with someone but it's possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: *Spoilerish* speculation -- Marie, 01:35:16 09/21/01 Fri
Only an opinion, but maybe the character was written as one of those who might have many loves through his life, but only one true love. This happened to me, when I was 19. I've never stopped loving him, rarely a day goes by that I don't think of him, but life goes on, and I've loved others.

Perhaps, for Angel, Buffy is that perfect one, and he'll never capture that moment of pure bliss with anyone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: *Spoilerish* speculation -- OnM, 05:16:57 09/21/01 Fri
I'll pretty much go with Marie on this, her explanation sounds reasonable.

My vote would be towards Fred as the potential love interest. I have to wonder about the significance of her not being afraid of the beast Angel turned into when in Pylea, or that scene where she draws him away from killing Wesley and Gunn by holding up her hand, covered in blood. Maybe I'm reading more into that scene that there is (nahhh!!!!) but the gesture itself, the body language, the look on her face-- for someone who was so conditioned to fear by her life in Pylea, it seemed--- a strange thing to do, to tempt such a horror, yet she did. So, metaphorical significance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Spoilerish* speculation -- Rattletrap, 06:02:23 09/21/01 Fri
Let's also not forget Fred's complete unconcern about talking to a severed head in a basket. I guess life on Pylea produces a pretty high tolerance for the macabre or gruesome, or something. If they keep that apsect of her character next season, she could be great fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Fred -- Marie, 08:01:52 09/21/01 Fri
Personally, I've never gone along with the idea that Angel and Cordy might get together - I know he was pleased when he thought she meant him when she said "I love him" and slightly disappointed when it turned out she meant 'Groo', but I always thought that was because he'd tried so hard to get back into her good books, post-Epiphany, and finally was getting some approbation from her. And I don't think that Cordy (apart from fancying him, Season 1) sees Angel as potential love-material - she thinks he's far too dangerous.

Getting to Fred - I see her as far from conditioned by fear. She's an amazingly brave cookie, in my opinion. She was sucked through a portal into another world, captured as a 'cow' and enslaved. She disabled the neck thingummyjig, fled to her cave and foraged (risking certain execution) for food, all the while trying to figure out the 'magic words' that would re-open the portal and take her home. Angel saved her, and then warned her that she might see something that frightened her, but that he was her friend. (He meant vampire, turned out to be a little more!). She still trusted in him, though, showing a lot of faith, and a lot of guts to go after him. She's obviously seen a lot of horrible things in her time in Pylea, yet still retains a degree of innocence which is palpable. I'd think this would be very attractive to Angel, who has a definite knight-in-shining-armour quality. I think he'd treat her as a sort of pet, at first, but wouldn't be at all surprised if it became something more. He might not get the 'pure bliss' moment that he had with Buffy, but I think he'd settle for 'pretty dang happy, here!", what say you?

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I vote for "pretty dang happy"! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 22:53:58 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Okay, I have a question for you.... -- Scout, 08:45:28 09/23/01 Sun
I've always thought it was a pretty daft curse. OK, sure once Angel got his soul back he suffered aplenty, but then to have it set up so that when he got that one moment of "perfect happiness" he would lose his soul again - well, guess what, as soon as he became Angelus in S2, he didn't give a toss about his soul any longer, was happy it was gone, and was ready to start chowing down on all those happy meals on legs. Oh, and let's not forget that little issue of trying to destroy the world.

Seems to me that when the gypsies cursed Angel, they should have informed him from the get-go what would happen if he ever got happy. Add that knowledge to his guilt about all his actions as a vampire, and, voila, even more misery. As it was, when he lost his soul again, he purely didn't care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Okay, I have a question for you.... -- Shaglio, 06:09:35 09/21/01 Fri
I was under the inpression that the soul that the gypsies restored was cursed. I missed the first 2 1/2 seasons, but I thought he experienced true happiness with Buffy and lost his soul, thus becoming Angelus again. He then got his soul back (was it HIS soul, or just A soul?), but nothing says that his current soul is still cursed.

It could be that this curse was a one shot deal. He experienced true love and the curse took affect. That's it. Now he has another soul and no curse (except in his mind).

Just a possibility to debate. Luckily Angel isn't like me, or he would have lost his soul the first time he had Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> oops -- Shaglio, 06:25:04 09/21/01 Fri
A couple people below in another thread (Wisewoman and Drizzt) mentioned that it was Willow who restored Angel's soul (as well as his curse). Damn! I thought I was finally onto something :(
Retribution -- Solitude1056, 06:36:29 09/21/01 Fri
Stumbled across this article at http://slate.msn.com/Earthling/01-09-19/Earthling.asp. Rough summary: retribution is awarded a high moral value because it's an instinct that's been cultivated in our genetic history as a means to survival. Whether it has application in this day & age is questionable - and that got me thinking about Buffy and her retaliatory instincts. Just figured something to maybe get folks thinking in the last week before a new AtS episode, and what, two weeks to go before BtVS? ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 11 suns! -- Masq, 08:57:51 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Taking time to think . . . and time to avoid thinking -- d'Herblay, 19:38:42 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Writing: 1% inspiration, 9% perspiration, 90% procrastination -- d'Herblay, 10:15:40 09/22/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> as opposed to baseball -- mundusmundi, 12:12:31 09/22/01 Sat
Which is, to hear the esteemed philosopher Yogi Berra tell it: "50% luck, 50% skill, and the rest is mental."*

*many variations of this quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Writing: 1% inspiration, 9% perspiration, 90% procrastination -- LadyStarlight, 12:23:28 09/22/01 Sat
Somebody (Stephen King, Dave Barry, Harlan Ellison???) said "Writing is easy. You just stare at a blank page until drops of blood form on your forehead."

Haven't had blood yet, but does obsessive playing of Solitaire count?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Writing: 1% inspiration, 9% perspiration, 90% procrastination -- Masq, 18:15:56 09/22/01 Sat
That's what you do when you just can't write another word.

Been there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "Writing is easy. You just stare at a blank page until drops of blood form on your forehead." -- d'Herblay, 09:07:45 09/23/01 Sun
A Google search showed that "Gene Fowler" was most often credited with the quote.

But I've heard the quote before, and I had no idea who the hell "Gene Fowler" was until he popped up in the search results. So I think that Harlan must have passed it on somewhere. It's not Dave Barry's style, and I don't read enough Stephen King to be familiar with any quote of his. (Except for "I have the heart of a small child . . . I keep it in a jar on my desk." Also attributed to Robert Bloch.)

This is my favorite quote on writer's block from Dave Barry:

. . I'm not one of those holier-than-thou types who go around condemning smoking, drinking and senseless murder without ever having even tried them. I used to smoke cigarettes, plenty of them, sometimes two or three at a time when I had Creative Block and was hoping to accidentally set my office on fire so I could write a column about it.

Sorry for indulging my interest in virulent quotes. It's just that I'm trying to keep this thread alive until such time as I absolutely, positively must begin my Mayor character post for Thursday's party, when writing about evolution and Buffy's retaliatory instincts will pass from being a chore into being itself procrastination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Writing: 1% inspiration, 9% perspiration, 90% procrastination -- Scout, 09:17:22 09/23/01 Sun
Has to be Freecell for me. I can put off writing anything using the excuse that I have a winning streak going and breaking off would jinx it. Then, when I finally do lose, I can't stop playing until I win again, which means a new streak starts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Retribution -- mundusmundi, 14:30:24 09/22/01 Sat
Thought-provoking article. On the flipside, there are examples of Buffyish calls for action that are equally compelling.
Fan Sexuality -- Hauptman, 11:07:56 09/21/01 Fri
I was chatting with some of my "norm" friends at work the other day and I let it slip that I am a huge Buffy/Angel fan and they promptly informed me that I must be gay. They explained to me that most guys who watch this show are gay and but they didn't have any theories about the female fans. This was not the first time I had heard such mussing, but I am starting to see a pattern, that this idea is at least widely accepted or considered. I wondered what the rest of you thought about this. Am I imagining things, or is this a common cliche? Of course, I don't believe that fans of the show are any one thing over another. But being gay, yes, my co-workers nailed it, I am perhaps misisng the coding that straight people are picking up. I just think both shows rock. I don't see the gayness. Opinions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I AM NOT GAY!!!!! -- vampire hunter D, 11:19:33 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Congratulations, but... -- Hauptman, 11:29:00 09/21/01 Fri
that wasn't the question. Okay, maybe that was in there, too, but I wondered if there this idea that Buff fans are gay/assumed gay/or are at least open to the lifestyle is widespread. I know it's sensitive and I apologize if you took my question as an accusation. That said, why are you freaked?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I never heard that rumor until just now. -- Masq, 11:32:36 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm not gay, but I don't feel the need to shout about it . . . -- d'Herblay, 12:18:36 09/21/01 Fri
In fact, I would think that any show that gives the world Charisma Carpenter, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Amy Acker, Emma Caulfield, evil Alyson Hannigan, Robia LaMorte, Juliet Landau, Ara Celi as Ampata and Shondra Farr as a sexbot (am I leaving anyone out? I have a theory that Amber Benson is a major sex kitten, but it's a theory not shared by the show's wardrobe department), and that had such a tendency towards short skirts and/or jogging bras as costumery in the early years, would stand on its own with red-blooded heterosexual men everywhere.

That said, Buffy concerned itself very early with feelings of difference and with the "outcast" of society. Any show that deals with having a secret life, that you can only reveal to close friends, and with not being understood for who you are in high school, and with the fear that you will be discovered for who you are, is going to speak to not just outcasts in general but gays in particular.

This Salon article, published after the airing of "Hush," when Tara was first introduced, but before Willow had started exploring their relationship, has some things to say about the gay/lesbian/bisexual identification with Buffy.

Of course, none of this answers your question, which wasn't "Why would homosexuals identify with Buffy?" but "Why would heterosexuals identify Buffy with homosexuality?" But I do think that in a large segment of American society there is an identification of difference with homosexuality. A show that celebrates freakhood as much as Buffy does is going to be seen as "different," and what is seen as "different" may come to be seen as "gay."

Sorry for the run-on sentences. I'm avoiding writing about Robert Wright and EvPsych right now. And to shore up my heterosexual bona fides, I'd just like to say, "Charisma Carpenter . . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> He who shouts the loudest... -- Elizabeth, 14:41:54 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not gay, but I don't feel the need to shout about it . . . -- Humanitas, 14:57:37 09/21/01 Fri
"I have a theory that Amber Benson is a major sex kitten, but it's a theory not shared by the show's wardrobe department."

Hauptman, I think wardrobe just caught on!

http://www.comicscontinuum.com:8080/stories/0109/14/index.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> So when "queer as folk" becomes mainstream..? hmmm. -- Solitude1056, 20:32:36 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fan Sexuality -- Masq, 11:30:32 09/21/01 Fri
I think people who say that don't know much about the show, period. They think its a teeny-bopper girlie show, so any guy that watches must be "teenie bopper girlie" himself. This is a statement steeped in igorance of our two favorite shows and of gay men. Pay it no mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Fan Sexuality -- Hauptman, 11:41:50 09/21/01 Fri
Masq, I think that makes a lot of sense. The reason I didn't watch the first few seasons of Buffy were in that same vein--this is a kids show, it must be so childish and girly--but then I saw becomming and I was hooked. It's anything but a kids show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 100% Heterosexual, here -- spotjon, 11:30:48 09/21/01 Fri
Maybe they think that way because the show focuses mainly on female characters. They probably equate "female lead" with "chick-flick," and of course, any male who likes chick-flicks must be gay.

Would they say the same thing about Angel?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Bwahahahaha. -- Solitude1056, 11:35:30 09/21/01 Fri
Gee, haven't your friends ever heard the crack at "all generalization is bad"?

Assumption: mainstream straight heterosexual guys don't like Buffy or Angel. Buffy and Angel are two complex, well-written, fully-fleshed character-driven stories that require active participation on the part of the viewer and don't utilize cookie-cutter plotlines or soap-opera derived redundancy. Wow. So the conclusion is that only people used to having sex outside the box would enjoy a show that tells its stories outside the box?

Possibly. But not exclusively.

I know plenty of people who are hetereosexual (of both genders) who are perfectly capable of thinking outside the box - whatever that may be or mean - and who also enjoy a show that reflects this and respects them, instead of treating them like grade schoolers. I don't think who you have sex is relevant to your intelligence or appreciation of fine storytelling. In sum? Remind your friends of the fallacy of generalization. One's sexuality is irrelevant - there are plenty of folks unwilling to be one of the mindless lemmings of our pop-culture who think sitcom drivel is a good thing. Yet, I am still perverse enough to enjoy the fact that the question got asked if only to view with some amusement the insistent response from one of our board-kin. My, my. I suppose vhD's just not used to having Shakespeare quoted at him, but that many exclamation points, it might happen soon...

Bwahahahaha!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I second that 'Bwahahahaha.' -- Cactus Watcher, 18:59:24 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fan Sexuality -- Drizzt, 11:39:10 09/21/01 Fri
Macho guys would not want to watch a show about a woman that could kick their ass! Machoness comes with low self-esteem in many cases; ooh I am big and strong and tough...

Confidence is not the same thing as machoness. Macho guy strutting that is based on real confidence is....well a guy thing, and I am sure it is attractive to women. Two major ways guys will prove thier manhood are strength(physical or emotional IE not panicking or crying when hurt), and a job that pays well. Both are because of the instinct of protectiveness and to provide for the familly unit. The third method of proving manhood; combat, or combat ability is severely curtailed by civilized cultures...sports is a downgraded substitute for the agression of real violence.

Identity is how you see yourself & how others react and relate to you; everyone you meet is a mirror into your own soul.

I am not macho, and have low self-esteem. I am heterosexual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Fan Sexuality -- Drizzt, 13:12:08 09/21/01 Fri
My post above went off topic. Masqs response is the most accurate and simple reply so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Which brings to mind... -- Liquidram, 14:13:13 09/21/01 Fri
This thread reminds me of a subject I briefly touched on ages ago in a thread long forgotten.

Anne Rice has always written her vamps as creatures who love each other regardless of gender. BtVS fanfic, especially of the slash variety tends to treat the subject the same way.

One of the most erotic, underplayed scenes in film in recent memory for me was the final scene between Louis and Armand in "Interview with a Vampire". We had two of the most (IMHO) beautiful men on the planet - Antonio Banderas and Brad Pitt. You know which scene I mean, doncha?

Louis has just wiped out the entire nest of vamps out of revenge for Claudia and Armand has managed to escape. Armand has made it quite clear since they met that he wants Louis for himself. Their goodbye scene was classic and the reactions in the theatre were as entertaining as the film itself.

Armand and Louis' faces are a breath away from each other. The chemistry is so sizzling between them that the corners of the screen are beginning to curl (as well as my toes....hey, I'm a sucker for chemistry).

There were men seated all around me gagging, choking, coughing and hiding their faces. The women on the other hand, were glued to the screen silently (and some not so silently) begging for a kiss between the two. Of course, Hollywood wussed out and pulled Brad up short right before he could lay one on Antonio.

Women are usually not threatened by affection shared by two beautiful people regardless of sex, whereas, at least in this country, men are stigmitized as acting "gay" if they are affected in the same manner.

It is acceptable for a woman to comment on a beautiful woman, but not for a man to comment on a beautiful man. What's wrong with this picture? Probably nothing more than our society and the parameters and labels that are plastered on people.

What I really want to know if how many men, really and honestly wanted to see that kiss as much as I did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Which brings to mind... -- Deeva, 15:12:29 09/21/01 Fri
I can't say that my boyfriend was trying to cheer on Armand & Louis but he did fell that the kiss would've been the most natural progression in that scene. My boyfriend is one of the few hetero men that I have met who is as comfortable around gay men as hetero ones. He and his best friend, who is gay, continually compare notes on their relationships. And just the other day we were talking about who we felt, in Hollywood, was attractive. He brought up an equal amount of men & women.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> i think buffy appeals to a wide range of people... -- pocky, 21:14:32 09/21/01 Fri
i can't place what age group you might be in, but i'm guessing that if you live in the united states it's probably a state somewhere in the middle or south? i'm merely inferring based on the general comments my friends from such places make when i said that, so please don't take offense.

anyhoo, i've never heard of such a comment where i live. it's probably because it's extremely diverse here and pretty much everyone here can relate to buffy.

okay, so i like boys too. which is why your friends' comment strikes me as weird. i mean, does buffy and angel have some kind of scent that attracts gay fans or whatever?

geezus, this is probably the stupidest post i've ever done...lol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fan Sexuality -- OnM, 22:14:06 09/21/01 Fri
Only a modest number of my close friends, family and co-workers know of my Buffy obsession, but they chalk it up to my general off-centeredness, not to my sexuality (hetero, btw). I think this is like the 'guy-car' and 'chick-car' thing the NPR Car Talk guys were discussing a few months ago. People put their own ideas into play and just naturally assume that the rest of the world sees it exactly the same way, because, like, how could they be wrong?

The lead Native American character in my CMotW film this week has a good response for this idiocy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Watching a show about a smoking hot female makes me gay? Ok... -- Charlemagne20, 15:02:02 09/22/01 Sat
Angel has less reasons to watch considerably (talking from a pure hetreosexual mindset and not just the funny dialgoe, satire, situations, and enjoyable action) but really what sort of idiots think these things?

However really what idiots don't watch because it's a girl show miss out on Eliza, Alyson, (before she left) Charisma, and the girl i hope eventually plays an adult Hermione in college years (don't ask- fanfiction gone nuts) our beloved Tara....

I admit I nearly stopped watching due to what I thought was character rape of Willow (I was a big Oz fan and had a crush on Alyson) in the 4th season but i got over it.

Maybe that has something to do with it since it was so groundbreaking for such a beloved and well established character.

-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "The whole world's gone gay!!!" - Homer Simpson -- Dedalus, 15:08:51 09/22/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fan Sexuality -- Scout, 08:32:21 09/23/01 Sun
I think it mostly stems from ignorance, this insistence some people have about labeling the show one way or the other. A very dear family member of mine was visiting from the States recently; in fact, she arrived from Atlanta the-day-the-world-we-knew-it-ended. When we finally were able to tear ourselves away from CNN, we watched all 12 S1 episodes of Buffy on DVD in one session. This, of course, led me to start talking at length about this board and how much happiness I get from the opinions and companionship of the people here (even though I don't post that often), leading her to make the comment that "any man who posts to a Buffy board *must* be gay". I was stunned to hear this from a young woman who is highly intelligent and not usually so prone to snap judgements! When I asked why she felt that way, she couldn't come up with an answer.

I just don't get it at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fan Sexuality -- Juliette, 10:25:08 09/23/01 Sun
I've never heard that before...surely a show with that many gorgeous girls in short skirts and low-cut tops and that many gorgeous guys, often topless, would attract people of all sexualities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Fan Sexuality -- Brian, 10:43:09 09/23/01 Sun
Hmmm - makes me wonder. Do some people equate sexuality with intelligence? To really enjoy Buffy you have to think. Perhaps that draws sexual identity into question?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Fan Sexuality: ATLtMP -- OnM, 13:05:50 09/23/01 Sun
He's a lumberjack, and he's OK, He sleeps all night and he works all day...

;)
Another of Joss' influences? -- Solitude1056, 12:34:52 09/21/01 Fri
September 1, 1939
- W. H. Auden copied from Academy of American Poets web page

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sit in one of the dives On Fifty-second Street Uncertain and afraid As the clever hopes expire Of a low dishonest decade: Waves of anger and fear Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth, Obsessing our private lives; The unmentionable odour of death Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence From Luther until now That has driven a culture mad, Find what occurred at Linz, What huge imago made A psychopathic god: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew All that a speech can say About Democracy, And what dictators do, The elderly rubbish they talk To an apathetic grave; Analysed all in his book, The enlightenment driven away, The habit-forming pain, Mismanagement and grief: We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air Where blind skyscrapers use Their full height to proclaim The strength of Collective Man, Each language pours its vain Competitive excuse: But who can live for long In an euphoric dream; Out of the mirror they stare, Imperialism's face And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar Cling to their average day: The lights must never go out, The music must always play, All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume The furniture of home; Lest we should see where we are, Lost in a haunted wood, Children afraid of the night Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash Important Persons shout Is not so crude as our wish: What mad Nijinsky wrote About Diaghilev Is true of the normal heart; For the error bred in the bone Of each woman and each man Craves what it cannot have, Not universal love But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark Into the ethical life The dense commuters come, Repeating their morning vow; "I will be true to the wife, I'll concentrate more on my work," And helpless governors wake To resume their compulsory game: Who can release them now, Who can reach the deaf, Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice To undo the folded lie, The romantic lie in the brain Of the sensual man-in-the- street And the lie of Authority Whose buildings grope the sky: There is no such thing as the State And no one exists alone; Hunger allows no choice To the citizen or the police; We must love one another or die.

Defenceless under the night Our world in stupor lies; Yet, dotted everywhere, Ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just Exchange their messages: May I, composed like them Of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirming flame.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Another Time by W. H. Auden, published by Random House. Copyright (c) 1940 W. H. Auden, renewed by The Estate of W. H. Auden. Used by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Another of Joss' influences? -- Liq, 14:16:51 09/21/01 Fri
JM says that Joss showed him the film ILLUMINATA Written by Brandon Cole and John Turturro; directed by John Turturro as one of the main sources of his inspiration for Buffy.

Anyone seen it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> actually I said that wrong -- Liq, 14:18:28 09/21/01 Fri
It was more that Joss said that film explained him and what he is trying to accomplish ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks, Sol. -- OnM, 22:03:26 09/21/01 Fri
Did you just come across this, or did you know of it before?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Before what? -- Solitude1056, 22:51:37 09/21/01 Fri
I've known of it for years. But today, found a copy of it online while looking for something else (natch).
Since some of the people on this board are clearly pretty darn smart...(Off-topic) -- briseis, 13:14:06 09/21/01 Fri
I just wanted to ask you to activate yourselves in thinking about, and putting your thoughts into action about this oncoming war. We have moved on from discussion of the terrorist attack, but we are now facing something that dwarfs it in magnitude. Please contact the whitehouse if you are so inclined at 202-456-1414. Check out MoveOn.org for some very interesting commentary, including from a wife of a NYC firefighter. Contact me if you like, if you are anti-war and are not already feverishly discussing this with your own friends, or even if you are. A friend of mine just sent me the unicef data that the mortality of under-5 children in Afghanistan is already 1 in 4, dwarfing the 1 in 10 mortality of India's starving children. Let's do something about using our collective brains to discuss and mitigate this violence BEFORE the next catastrophe that has us all spontaneously turning to discuss the horrific real-world events on this board. "Buffy fans against the war"? I don't know. Ideas? I was serious, not just flattering about the brains thing. I am seeing pretty subtle(along with the not so subtle0 manipulations of language in the press. The people with the most capable minds in this regard can really help others by being public with their dissent. Intellectual self-defense as Chomsky calls it. Thanks for your patience, and I hope some of you are interested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> with all due respect ... -- Liquidram, 13:56:19 09/21/01 Fri
I personally would like to avoid another political free-for-all on this board and would recommend that anyone who wishes to discuss this issue do so via a private chat.

The URL is http://ivyweb.com/chat and you are all welcomed to use it anytime you see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: back on topic -- Dedalus, 16:37:49 09/21/01 Fri
Just send terrorists or whoever over to visit ivyweb, period. Once they start reading our excellent essays about interdependence and shadow sides and all that, they'll stop wanting to do stupid stuff like killing people.

Dedalus (saving the world through Buffy studies)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: On the subject of chatting ... -- Dedalus, 16:47:43 09/21/01 Fri
Are we going to be having scheduled chats after the new episodes air, or what?

That would be cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: On the subject of chatting ... -- Wisewoman, 18:18:20 09/21/01 Fri
That was the plan back when the chat board was instituted, but as Masq pointed out, those of us on the West Coast would be at a disadvantage as we'll see the eps hours after East Coasters, and those in the East would have to stay up 'til the middle of the night to chat with us!

Maybe we could pick a fairly neutral time the next evening, Wednesday, to chat? What do you guys think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Wednesday nights sounds good - late for EST, early for PST? -- Solitude1056, 20:26:59 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> How about 6 pm PST, 9 pm EST? For an hour? -- Wisewoman, 21:47:04 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Please translate into GMT for us Brits!!! -- Rahael, 10:39:18 09/22/01 Sat
I know I should probably work it out myself, but what time is it likely to be? As someone who won't see the new eps for what seems like years, I would like to get second hand accounts as to what happened!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh-oh, I think it's the middle of the night! -- Wisewoman, 13:11:10 09/22/01 Sat
Okay, just let me get out my handy-dandy appointment calendar which is supposed to have a world time-zone chart and...I was right! 9:00 pm in New York, 6:00 pm in Vancouver/San Francisco translates to 2:00 am GMT!

Yikes, you'd have to be a dedicated fan to go for that! How can we work this out? Maybe an extra chat sometime on Saturday that would be early evening for you in UK and middle of the day/morning for us? So 5:00 pm GMT would be l:00 pm New York and 10:00 am Vancouver/Frisco-- Hey, that might work for those of us who don't work on Saturdays...somebody check and make sure my math is right, and we could end up having two chats, one on Wednesday nights for the North American crew and one on Saturdays during the day to keep our UK buddies up to date. Whaddaya think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know I'm an insomniac but......................! -- Rahael, 17:18:31 09/22/01 Sat
2 am on a work night would be very bad for me!

Saturday sounds good, if there are enough people around to do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I know I'm an insomniac but......................! -- Dedalus, 08:22:23 09/23/01 Sun
I know I am mathematically helpless, so I can't even begin to calculate what would constitute a good time for everyone. Time zones have always been too much for my little mind to compute.

If I may make the suggestion, we could just have it more spontaneous. You know, just have the chat open, and for a day or so after the show is on, just have people drop in and out at their leisure. I don't know. Most of my internet time has been spent on forums and such. I'm not very chat savvy.

Isn't that the way it's usually done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Since some of the people on this board are clearly pretty darn smart...(Off-topic) -- Talia, 14:13:27 09/21/01 Fri
Amen. In the real world there are no such things as innately evil monsters that need to be killed to bring a nice, clean end to the threat to the world. Here, violence only begets more violence. Attacking will only compel those who were previously angry at the US but restraining themselves to lash out, which in turn will cause the U.S. to escalate the conflict....you see how this is going. As a college student, I don't want to see the people of my generation entangled in an endless conflict that will only take more innocent lives. The cure for terrorism is not more bloodshed but security measures within our constitutional rights and most especially a foreign policy that does not prompt so many people to take such desperate acts. Most especially, we need to remember that revenge will not replace those who were lost.
Thanks for listening to this brief rant by a lurker. ~Talia~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Since some of the people on this board are clearly pretty darn smart...(Off-topic) -- Dedalus, 16:41:43 09/21/01 Fri
Hi, Talia. Feel free to post more on Buffy topics.

And don't worry about your generation getting tangled up in an endless conflict. It's not going to happen. There are already a million troops in the military, and this is probably just going to be covert Special Forces/Navy SEALs (the non-Charlie Sheen version) stuff, with possibly a few Nintendo-like bombing missions.

Sadly, short term, this needs to be dealt with, blood and all. Long term, absolutely agreeing with you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey! Existential Scooby Writers: we've achieved posterity - our bad guy is now alias fodder! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 18:09:33 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> O/T: Alternate chat room -- Wisewoman, 18:46:55 09/21/01 Fri
Hi briseis, Talia, interested others:

If you're interested in discussing this further I have a chat room connected with my site that is only used regularly on Wednesday evenings, so the rest of the time it's free for use.

Anyone who wants to can e-mail me for the url and we'll set up a time to chat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I Guess we shouldn't have defeated Hilter then -- Fed up lurker, 18:11:26 09/22/01 Sat
Sure the guy was evil, but violence just begets more violence. We had to kill lots of innocent people to get him, and that just wasn't right.

And if the Japanese wanted to Bomb LA after they finished the Hawalian Islands, oh well. It would have been sad, but what could we do about it short of going to war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I Guess we shouldn't have defeated Hilter then -- Kerri, 18:21:17 09/22/01 Sat
"And if the Japanese wanted to Bomb LA after they finished the Hawalian Islands, oh well. It would have been sad, but what could we do about it short of going to war."

Would you have been sadder if LA was bombed then you were about Hiroshima? Japanese lives are as important as American lives. We're all people, and if there is any possible way to avoid innocent lives being taken then that should be the first priority.

I'm sorry that I am continuing this discussion when everyone asked it to be moved, but I had to say something. I just hate when what someone says gets turned around. Yes, sometimes violence is necessary-but it should never be done unnecessarily.

Briseis- I agree that now is the time for peace and compassion not for hate. Keep spreading the message even if no one wants to listen.

~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Would you had rather it had been Los Angeles? -- Fed up lurker, 18:42:42 09/22/01 Sat
It seems like you care more about Japanese lives than you do all the American servicemen who would have otherwise have died in an all out land war in Japan.

I know it is fashionable in some circles to hate America. But please, our nation has been attacked. You might be Ok with that. But many of us in America aren't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Would you had rather it had been Los Angeles? -- Dedalus, 08:14:30 09/23/01 Sun
"I know it is fashionable in some circles to hate America."

Just so you and I are clear, F'ed up, I hate everyone.

Just relax, and have a cookie.

:-)
Sexy, Surprising Lines -- Brian, 15:36:58 09/21/01 Fri
Hey, Gang, this thread about sexuality got me thinking: What's the sexiest, most surprising line in the Buffyverse? In "Hush" I was surprised by Olivia's line to Giles: "That's enough small talk, don't you think?" and off to bed they go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sexy, Surprising Lines -- Masq, 16:48:08 09/21/01 Fri
What about Willow's line about her eggs reminding her of jiggly boobies! I thought, "that got past the censors??"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Haven't you seen Baywatch??????? -- Rufus, 18:32:04 09/21/01 Fri
Jiggly boobies get by all of the time (on the hoof that is).....must be a letdown to have someone only make reference to them....:):):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Haven't you seen Baywatch??????? -- Masq, 18:10:35 09/22/01 Sat
Hey, they have jiggly boobies on Buffy, too. Usually Buffy's. It was the verbal reference to them, and the reply, "Sassy boobies," that was surprising.

It really put Willow and Tara's lesbian relationship in the nay-sayer's face, so to speak.

I was all for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sexy, Surprising Lines -- Solitude1056, 18:13:29 09/21/01 Fri
For me, it'll always be Oz kissing Willow just before graduation, and she interrupts him, telling him she's panicking, why isn't he panicking? And he says, "this is me, panicking," and then kisses her again. Something, in his usual laconic way, was just ultimately sexy about that line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sexy, Surprising Lines -- Wisewoman, 18:21:25 09/21/01 Fri
Well, there's always Tara's, "She practically had Genuine Molded Plastic stamped on her ass...just tryin' a little spicy talk..."

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sexy, Surprising Lines -- Simplicity, 15:46:17 09/22/01 Sat
Speaking of suprising. . .what about all the S and M references in the Buffyverse?

Willow says to Buffy and Xander (after they discover her vamp counterpart). "Oh, me and Oz play 'Mistress of Pain' every night."

Or Angel, when speaking to Faith about her attempted choking of Xander, "Did he forget the safety word?"

This season, The Host, Wesley, and Angel are trying to get to Pylea as a group. Angel's asks him if handcuffs would do it. The Host says that where you get those so quickly and Wesley is about to offer up his pair.

In another episode. . .Angel is pretending to be Angelus and has chained Buffy to to the well. He comments. "All our time together and we never tried chains."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sexy, Surprising Lines -- Rattletrap, 15:51:55 09/22/01 Sat
In "Through the Looking Glass" the host offers to call the guards who arrested him back so Cordy and Groo can borrow the handcuffs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sexy, Surprising Lines -- OnM, 12:56:51 09/23/01 Sun
And of course the classic one from when Buffy and Faith have switched bodies, and Buffy is trying to convince Giles that she isn't Faith, despite outward appearances. Giles is dubious, and wants to tie her up, thus eliciting the response,

"Giles! I don't have time for bondage fun!"

Part of the delight of that was it seemed so like something Faith would say, but it wasn't her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: same scene, different line -- mundusmundi, 14:59:58 09/23/01 Sun
Something like: "My mother said that you have sex like a stevedore...What's a stevedore?" If I remember, that's the line that convinced Giles who was who.
Why do friends always let you down -- Manoon, it's been a while..., 16:03:54 09/21/01 Fri
it has been probably a couple of months at least since I last posted. I have been content to watch over this board, and see everyone interact, since starting my MA, while continuing working full time. Life is busy busy. I've missed u all, but still kept in touch almost daily through reading.

I'm probably having an off day.

i just feel like my friends let me down all the time. despite everything i do for them, they're hardly ever there for me. I dont really know what to do ... I'm tired of feeling alone. Despite having a partner, despite having some special friends, cats and a dog, I feel like it's still me on my own. Can anyone relate? The truth is, I'm tired of pretending I'm okay. Because I'm not (at least at this momemt in time). Sorry if you think this post is inappropriate. I used to feel part of this community. I need a bit of 'belonging' right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- Drizzt, 16:14:39 09/21/01 Fri
I am not okay either. Go to Liquidrams chat site for OT discussions...Nina offered to talk with me with email, she would probably talk with you on Liquidrams chat board. Email Nina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome back! -- Masquerade, 16:51:47 09/21/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- LadyStarlight, 17:37:27 09/21/01 Fri
I feel the same way sometimes. Email me offline to talk, if you want. Or we could use the chat room.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome back, fellow introvert. -- Solitude1056, 18:07:53 09/21/01 Fri
The world pressures us to be extroverts - that's the majority of folks, anyway, so that's what a lot of folks expect others to be like, too. Perhaps even with a small circle of friends & companions, you're feeling like you should be part of a larger circle? I get that tugging sometimes, too, but it passes. It's called learning to be happy with the way you are, and if you're at this point in your life and don't find yourself pushing yourself regularly to socialize with a hundred acquaintances, then perhaps you've realized what some introverts know, even if you're not okay with it yet: sometimes it is alright to have five best friends rather than thirty casual friends. (Of course, if I were an extrovert, I might phrase that differently, but I'm speaking as someone who might be loud and talkative but very much prefers a small circle of tight-knit friends.)

So, welcome back to the land of the talkative introverts. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hi, Manoon... -- Wisewoman, 18:26:18 09/21/01 Fri
Good to hear from you again. Let me add myself to the list of people who would be happy to hear from you on e-mail, or in the chat room.

And you're not alone, kiddo. Something like 1-in-3 Americans is severely depressed right now, and 7- out-of-10 are having trouble sleeping, so if you have personal issues that are getting you down on top of that, you have my sympathy. Don't go back into the woodwork. Stay with us and talk it out.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- vampire hunter D, 19:32:28 09/21/01 Fri
At least your friends are only letting you down. Every friend I've ever had ahs BETRAYED me. And no, I do not want to talk about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- Drizzt, 13:44:33 09/22/01 Sat
The only woman I ever asked to be my girlfreind ripped me off for $5000.00. Never let myself trust anyone else...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- cknight, 19:51:33 09/21/01 Fri
You're not alone, we're all trying to feel our way thru these crazy events while trying to keep our lives together. Feel free to email also. Even though I don't post a lot or even type a lot when I do, I always look forward to reading the interesting views that are expressed on this board. I also care about the people who post on this board. So, again if you need to reach out feel free to email me.

Sometimes being strong is also being strong enough to say "I need help, I need someone to really listen", which you've done here on the board and that's cool, but you should say it to some of those friends who you say are letting you down, they just might open up. I feel like we all are trying to be so strong, but we must also reach out to each other, so give your friends a chance you might find they're feeling the same.

Be well,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- Dichotomy, 20:48:59 09/21/01 Fri
I'm sorry you're feeling so bad. I'm sure your friends aren't intentionally hurting you, but even if they are, you're definitely not alone--just look at all those here who want to talk to you! I hope that at least one person here can help you feel better. I've felt like that before, and sometimes all it takes is one kind person to get you back on track. Hang in there!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- zus, 21:17:07 09/21/01 Fri
I am brand new to this community. Rufus snared me. You don't know me and may not wish to hear my opinion at all; however, I, like many people who have responded, have felt as you feel. I particularly remember feeling so when I was in exactly the point in my life where you are--working, starting my MA (and with two small children). It can be very overwhelming. Stack that on top of the recent events and you have major stress happening. It's possible that your friends aren't letting you down--maybe they too are caught up in the larger world happenings and can't give anything of themselves right now. In my circle of friends (and like Solitude [I think it was] I am happy with my smaller circle of very good friends than I could ever be with a larger circle of aquaintances) only my best friend wants to talk about what is happening with me--the others seem to be of the "ignore it and it will go away school." I don't feel they are letting me down because of this; I feel like their coping mechanisms are different from mine and my bud's. Also, I am no spring chicken and it took me years and years to find and settle on the group of close friends that I have. In spite of what we want to believe, not everyone can become our true friends just because we want them to be. Maybe you should continue to talk to the people on this board to get these feelings out of your system and give your friends a chance to get some sort of normalcy back into their lives before you write them off. Again, I don't know you from your time on this board as the others do, but I hope you work through this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- OnM, 21:49:21 09/21/01 Fri
Welcome back, Manoon, please stay awhile.

I think some of the others have already suggested some pretty valid reasons for being depressed, so I don't have too much to add, other than saying I've been there also. Sol is very right when he says that your friends may just be preoccupied with other things, and indeed you shouldn't take it personally if that is the case.

When I get seriously bummed over people ignoring me-- which by the way they do regularly, whether they be friends or strangers or the people I deal with as customers, I just try to remind myself that in the end, the only person I need to truly depend on is myself, and I'm pretty reliable.

Of course, the other therapy that has been really effective for me in the last year and 4 months has been to come here to this board and creatively waste my time with the rest of the normalcy- challenged. It's a very fine drug, indeed. We're here for you.

All things must pass...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- Rufus, 23:49:43 09/21/01 Fri
I remember in the film "It's a Wonderful Life" that at the end there was a quote that said something to the effect that you are never alone if you have friends. I'm not quite sure of the exact wording but you get the drift. It took reevaluating his life for the fellow to understand what that meant. Friends aren't there to be all for you, solve your problems for you, but there is some reason you are drawn to certain people.
Sometimes things happen that make even the best of friends unable to soothe the alone feelings we get. Sometimes we think they have failed us and sometimes we are right. But, friends, real friends, are the people that like you, seek out your company, even when you aren't at your best. If you feel that you do too much for some people with less than satisfactory return, then, stop. A real friend will still seek you out, an aquaintance will find someone else to do things for them. Only you can know when you feel that you are getting as good as you give. Then there are times that for whatever reason, you feel alone. You think the world has let you down, but it is a bad time, bad enough that you can become blind to everything around you. I don't know what your feeling has come from, so I won't quess. But, you have started a process by writing out how you feel. My suggestion is to talk to people you trust, seek company that likes you for you. Expect nothing except their presence. The friend is one who is there when you need to feel part of the world...they may not say it but sometimes a coffee and a chat is just a way of making you feel counted til you can say what you need. Welcome back and keep coming to see us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Grad school: You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy! -- mundusmundi, 12:07:12 09/22/01 Sat
With apologies to Obi-Wan, just kidding up there. Sorta. I dunno your situation, but if it's anything like my M.A. experience was, people tend to get overly specialized, overly focused in their own little cubicle-centric universes. I was lucky in the sense that I had a very small circle of close friends who tried to break out of the box and emjoyed each others company now and then; on the other hand, I had a bunch of peers and colleagues and ostensible friends who thought I was the one who had his priorities screwed. Tough to say now which side was "right," but looking back I wouldn't have traded anything for those fun times, or for even the times of peace and reflection (and a wee bit of self-centered angst) I spent alone. You've got a loving partner, a little niche of the world to call your own. And plenty of good folks and discussions here. Believe me, there comes a time when one finds that's more than enough. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: All threads lead to you-know-who ... -- Dedalus, 14:22:17 09/22/01 Sat
This sort of reminds me in a strange way of the second episode of Angel -

"Now you can sit alone in the dark and brood." - Doyle

"Thank you. God yes." - Angel

Actually, this is one of the few groups you could come to and have a legitimate discussion. Like the one we're sort of having.

People do seem to have a knack for letting each other down. I can certainly see this in my own life. People do have a tendency to act strange around me every so often. Several times, I have had a little group of friends, or even a girlfriend, and it's like, nothing happens, NOTHING, but overnight, they get so icy and so snooty they seem to barely be able to even talk to you anymore. Wierd. I have pondered whether I'm doing something, but I doubt it. I can be reasonably fun to be around, if taken in small doses. I can blend with the crowd but at the same time, not.

This post reminds me of the group of people I knew during high school, particularly the ROTC crowd. We were like brothers after four of years of that stuff. And the year following high school, good god. All the furies were released on all of us like you wouldn't believe. We were never the same after that. I haven't seen any of them in a long time, and probably would barely recognize them if I did.

But you know, sometimes, we just need to be alone. It's amazing, but some people quite literally won't believe this. If you actually enjoy being alone - and I mean, really enjoy it, not brainwashing yourself into enjoying it - some people simply won't accept that. I have a very monkish personality, quite frankly. I was reading Thomas Merton's translation of Chuang Tzu, and he was calling him "my own kind of person," and how, in all cultures and in all times, there has been something that some men have claimed to have found in solitude that greatly pleased them, moreso than anything else.

I think the phrase about being "busy, busy," is part of the problem. It's a big issue for the modern world. But just like Merton, there are those of us that cannot take the push and pull, the demands of the environment, the ambition, the bloated self-importance of modern society seriously. No way. I mean, really. Stepping back yields perspective, and perspective that you may not want to live the way everyone else does. I personally don't see how some people do it - they go to school full time, work full time, have a dozen extracurricular activities every night of the week - from softball to underwater basketweaving - take care of their sick parents, are married, have five kids, have yet another part time job on the side, take care of a home, etc, etc. And some of them are like twenty years old! To those people, I just gotta say -

SLOW DOWN!!!!!!!!! For god's sake, take a breath. I realize some people are either in a position or have put themselves in a position where life does not allow anything else, and while I am not in a position (thank you Jesus/Vishnu/Buddha), I can feel for them. At the same time, such an existence for me would be unlivable. I need my space, I need my time, I need my leisure time to read and write and take walks and write about Buffy and contemplate and all these types of things. I fit very much under Campbell's definition of the poet, hanging on to that bliss center at all possible times. My life has had way too much pain in it until the last couple years when I started to understand I didn't have to take this world so seriously.

Basically, I have a pretty good relationship with my family now, have a few really casual friends, and I like my dog. His name is Lord Byron. That really is more than enough for the moment. I mean, I wouldn't mind dating Natalie Portman or something, but I'm cool as is. Like Bukowski once said in a poem, what is a curse to some is a blessing to him, mainly being Left the Hell Alone. I gotta say, I have grown to enjoy the shit out of my own company.

This probably has nothing to do with anything, but there it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: great Bukowski quote -- mundusmundi, 14:35:12 09/22/01 Sat
From the movie Barfly: (an okay flick)

"Do you hate people?"

"No, I just feel better when they're not around."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That is good -- Dedalus, 15:07:10 09/22/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh, man, Ded, you are so right-on about this busy-all-the-time crap. -- OnM, 12:36:40 09/23/01 Sun
I have to tell you that I can really empathize with pretty much everything that you have just so eloquently stated. Right now, as I am writing this, the neighbor kids have entered their third or fourth hour of making ungodly rackets outside my front door, and there isn't anything I can do about it, if I were to complain, then I'm just the cranky old curmudgeon bitching at kids for doing what kids do.

Well, fine, but can't they do it somewhere else? I work all week long, and my job by it's nature forces me to associate with people. I have little choice, it's what my skills revolve around. But because I am not by nature a sociable person, I greatly value my time spent by myself, doing what I enjoy doing, or just doing nothing at all.

I think that Western society in general, and surely American society in particular feeds people an obsessive desire to always be doing something 'productive', as if life were just another commodity to be marketed. I accept this concept only out of financial necessity, but I certainly don't embrace it.

Manoon, if any of this means anything to you, all I can say is you have to go for a balance, otherwise the crazies set in. I've seen it happen over and over again to many other people all around me, and they just don't seem to see it coming. Don't be one of them. Dedalus speaks with much wisdom.

Great post, Ded, thanks! We needed that!

Well, I did anyway...

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, man, Ded, you are so right-on about this busy-all-the-time crap. -- Dedalus, 18:30:31 09/25/01 Tue
Thanks, buddy OnM. Financial necessity does weigh in - even on the best of us. But my god!

I think Western society does see life as a commodity. And I don't mean crazed capitalist conspiracies or anything, I just mean ... well, what I said. It is really in every facet of our lives. You always have to be doing SOMETHING. My own theory of life, there's absolutely nowhere to be, nowhere to go, or nothing to do, besides what you are doing, and where you're already doing it. Yet some guys just rock at the unexamined life.

I love what Alan Watts said about people who are always complaining that "they're not getting anything out of life." Basically, that they think life is some kind of a bank to be robbed. Or something to that effect.

Cheers, OnM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Back at 'cha! ;) -- OnM, 20:11:49 09/25/01 Tue
*** ...they think life is some kind of a bank to be robbed.***

Gotta remember that-- good one!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Another part time MA student here.............! -- Rahael, 17:31:03 09/22/01 Sat
Or at least I used to be until I got so stressed out, that I had to stop. I found that I had the same problems that you did, and when you have so much to juggle, especially if you worked a pretty high pressure job, it just becomes harder to be emotionally resilient.

I can be really oversensitive, and have been known to come home after a bad night out and just cry. I echo all the other posters here, sometimes it does seem as if our friends just don't care, dont want to hear about any problems etc. At the moment, the situation is better than fine, and am getting on really well with all my friends, but I know to expect that it will not always be the same.

It helps me sometimes to think that we can all have off days, of being insensitive and cold and tactless. It is very difficult to trust human beings with our sensitive emotions.I find reading lots of poetry keeps me going until the situation changes. And sometimes, when friendships go wrong, I find that I am unconciously doing something, or worrying about something to do with internal anxieties, and I try and fix that, and that helps.

Moreover, there are some friendships which just don't work, and actually cause you more problems than are worth it. If you come away from someone feeling bad, depressed 90% of the time, it has to be reassessed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wow, I loved being a graduate student! -- Masquerade, 18:07:38 09/22/01 Sat
I would have been a professional one except they gave me a PhD in philosophy and boot me out the door.

I was in graduate school, off and on, in experimental psychology and philosophy, for nine years.

Then I became a professor and really stressed out and quit teaching after three years.

Luckily, I found an alternative to academic philosophy! Buffy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Masq...what is "experimental psychology?" -- Drizzt, 22:37:02 09/22/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Experimental psychology is... -- OnM, 07:16:21 09/23/01 Sun
..setting up an internet discussion board on the philosophy of, and deeper meanings derived from a TV show about a valley-girl vampire slayer and sitting back to watch what happens.

(~snerk~)

;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Masq...what is "experimental psychology?" -- Masq, 08:18:51 09/23/01 Sun
The experimental study of the range of normal human psychological processes (memory, emotion, thinking). It is not part of counseling psychology. I used to study decision making.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> OT--Masq, by "decision making," does that include rational choice theory . . . -- d'Herblay, 09:24:37 09/23/01 Sun
. . game theory, decision theory and other mathematical models of choice?

Because if someone here actually knows something about game theory and related subjects, I'll have to watch what I say about Evolutionary Psychology. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not quite -- Masquerade, 10:35:51 09/23/01 Sun
Rational choice theory is a prescriptive theory--an ideal model used in situations where you have no other model of human decision making.

We studied what people in fact do when they make decisions (descriptive), which is usually swayed by many factors, biological, sociological, personal, that make it less than ideally rational.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Masq...what is "experimental psychology?" -- Drizzt, 10:50:24 09/23/01 Sun
Thanks Masq! So aside from your TTMQ(think too much quoteint), the reason your website is so informative RE morality & choices is you studied the process of desision making. Coool!

I allready knew you were a philosopher, one of the first things I see on your home page:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Wow, I loved being a graduate student! -- Rattletrap, 06:01:12 09/23/01 Sun
Ditto, Masq. -- Halfway to my Ph.D. and trying to find a way to avoid going out and getting a real job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Wow, I loved being a graduate student! -- Dedalus, 08:17:49 09/23/01 Sun
"Halfway to my Ph.D. and trying to find a way to avoid going out and getting a real job."

Now we're talking, Rattletrap. That's one of the better things about grad school. Fight the power.

:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow, I loved being a graduate student! -- Masquerde, 08:21:32 09/23/01 Sun
So you either have a side job, or you're an eternal T.A., or you spend all your non-studying time playing guitar for a garage band. Or all of the above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ouch, that was frighteningly close to the truth on all 3 counts. -- Rattletrap, 12:04:35 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, I know about you grad-student people. I was one for 9 years! -- Masq, 09:14:16 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why do friends always let you down -- anom, 22:13:22 09/22/01 Sat
Hi, Manoon. Sorry to hear you're feeling down. One possibility is that you've been choosing the wrong people as friends. Lots of folks subconsciously choose relationships w/people who will meet their (negative) expectations. Maybe you need to look at what kind of people you're drawn to & why, & what kind of people might make better friends. When I was in college I outgrew a group of friends whose idea of humor was a putdown. They couldn't adjust to my trying to change my role in the group. I ended up finding new friends. It wasn't easy, but it was worth it.

Or maybe your friends just have their own problems right now & can't spare enough attention for you. Like Buffy told Jonathan, most people are so wrapped up in their own problems they don't even realize other people have them too. Or, since you say you've been pretending to be OK, maybe they've been taking you at face value. Have you told them straight out that you're feeling alone & need community & people you can count on? Are you dropping hints instead & feeling like "if they were really my friends they'd realize without my telling them"?

One more possibility. Maybe it's my medical background speaking here, but is it possible you're actually depressed? I mean clinically, as in a medical condition. If so, you might be putting out vibes that keep people from wanting to be around you too much. There are milder levels of depression that are finally being recognized as real, treatable conditions. I hope I'm not out of line in suggesting this. If it rings true to you, you could talk to your doctor or, if you're not comfortable doing that, in this wonderful Web world there are sources of info & support you can check while remaining anonymous. You may read something there that sparks some recognition (just check to make sure they're reliable).

Whichever of these apply, you've taken an important step by telling people you don't feel OK, & you've already gotten a lot of supportive responses. I hope you'll find what you need, both here & out there in the real world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Out there in the real world? This isn't real?? Oh, nooooooo....... -- OnM, 12:19:13 09/23/01 Sun
Damn! Now I need therapy!!

Anom, I know you mean well, but please keep all this reality stuff to yourself.

Thanks!

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Reality is for people who lack imagination. -- Masquerade, 16:54:06 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Amen to that. Long live William Blake. :-) -- Dedalus, 18:32:38 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hi, Manoon! -- Marie, 07:04:58 09/24/01 Mon
Look at all these replies to your post! You'll never be let down by the people here. I was thinking, too, that true friends don't let you down - isn't that how you find out, as you travel through life, who your true friends are? Let us know how you're doing now, will you? We worry.

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hi, Marie! -- OnM, 20:15:01 09/25/01 Tue
Well, yeah, even true friends can let you down sometimes, but at least they feel guilty afterward.

Points for trying, ya know!

;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Agreed, OnM. -- Marie, 07:04:47 09/26/01 Wed
Perhaps I should've said that true friends will try their best not to let you down, and if they ever do, they'll show they are true friends by trying to make it up to you. It's all about communication, and letting people know that you feel let down, sometimes, isn't it? I've felt really hurt and let down sometimes by people I thought were really close friends, and they were devastated when they realised - they just hadn't known until we talked about it. And they're still true friends, thank goodness!

Marie
Calling a new Slayer -- vampire hunter D, 20:01:40 09/21/01 Fri
You want to know what I'd like to see, I'd like to see the story of a Slayer from the time of her calling onward. That's the one thng we really havn't seen on this show. All the Slayers we've seen we havn't met until months after she was called. Think about it: Buffy had been the Slayer for almost a year when the show started (and no, we shouldn't count the events in the movie into this), Kendra had been the Slayer for almost as long before her (brief) trips to SD, and Faith had been called a full 4 months before we got to know of her.

Why can't we see the story of a Slayer's calling? I think it would be an interesting story to see (the movie was dumb, but that wasn't Joss's fault). Unfortunately, to do this, we would have to kill Faith, and I like Faith. Dammit, another case of can't have your cake and eat it too.

btw, I have mentioned before about a fanfic I am developing where Faith dies (sort of) but is brought back. And the new Slayer is already in Sunnydale (and going to school with Dawn). But if I do actually write it, it won't be for a while since it's part of a series (it requires a character which I think I need a whole story to reintroduce first).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Calling a new Slayer -- Kerri, 22:11:08 09/21/01 Fri
Personally I would love to see Buffy's calling as portrayed on the tv show. It would be really interesting and would help a great deal in seeing where Buffy was when she started out on her journey. Of course there is a lot of backstories about differnt characters that I want, like about Faith's childhood,but Joss is evil and we tend not to get what we want-which turns out to be much better then what we wanted(evil genius).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Calling a new Slayer -- Rattletrap, 05:07:07 09/22/01 Sat
Kerri,

Didn't we sort of see that in Becoming I, or did you have something else in mind? Just curious.

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Calling a new Slayer -- Kerri, 09:31:03 09/22/01 Sat
I know we saw some of that in "becoming" but I was thinking more the emotional transition. We see Buffy crying in "becoming" and thus this seems to be entirely seperate from the movie. So I guess more or less what I'd like is the movie redone to be how Joss wanted it and how it would play into the tv show. I realise we probably will never get to see this but it would be nice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ever heard of Fray? -- adio, 23:37:23 09/21/01 Fri
If you keep up with Joss Whedans comic book "Fray" it is exactly what you want to see, it is just in a future setting. While watching somthing similar on TV would be cool, I will argue that it would be just like watching the original buffy movie, seeing as how everything was pretty much the same (unless you count the fact the movie was cheesball).

And all things considered, Seeing a slayer being called isnt somthing we havnt already seen. Months don't make the difference in the grand scheme of things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ever heard of Fray? -- Kerri, 09:34:20 09/22/01 Sat
"And all things considered, Seeing a slayer being called isnt somthing we havnt already seen. Months don't make the difference in the grand scheme of things."

I beg to differ-months can make a huge difference. With such a huge event in this person's life she will oviously be changed greatly. The Buffy from LA that we got a glimse of in "becoming" is not the same one we see in "WttH"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> hmmm... -- adio, 10:12:22 09/23/01 Sun
When you say WttH if you mean the episode where she freaks out and Willow jumps inside her mind, then I would say that it is a bad example. When we saw her when she was not a slayer she was a little girl, we cant even compare those two together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: hmmm... -- Drizzt, 10:44:10 09/23/01 Sun
There were THREE Buffys in that dreamstate/comma thing.

Little girl. Regular Woman. Slayer=killer(in her mind at that time)

Of course the last two were part of a whole normally; her guilt caused the disjoint. Also both of the last two were after(way after) her being "called"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Not what I meant -- Kerri, 17:25:58 09/23/01 Sun
I was talking about the flashback of Buffy that we saw in becoming(when she finds out she's the slayer) vs. the Buffy who turns up in Sunnydale in WttH.
Classic Movie of the Week - September 21st 2001 -- OnM, 21:18:29 09/21/01 Fri
*******

Look out the window. Doesn't this remind you of when you were in the boat? And then later that night you were lying, looking up at the ceiling, and the water in your head... was not dissimilar from the landscape, and you think to yourself, 'Why is it that the landscape... is moving, but... the boat is still?' And also... where is it that you're from?

Cleveland.

Clevelands...

Lake Erie.

Erie. Do you have any parents back in... Erie?

They passed on recently.

And... do you have a wife in Erie?

No.

Fiance?

Well, I... I had one of those, but, uh... she changed her mind.

She found herself somebody else.

No.

Yes... she did. Well. That doesn't explain why you've come all the way out here... all the way out here to hell.

I...uh, have a job. Out in the town of Machine.

Machine? That's the end of the line!

Is it?

Yes.

*******

There is a certain need for the distance of obscurity in some of us, we don't really always know why, we just have it, like some ache for a wound supposedly long ago healed.

How many times have some of you watched 'Restless'? Your answer is probably either 'once', or else 'many, many times'. If you are one of the former group, then you are most welcome to read on, but tonight's Classic Movie will probably not be your cup of herbal beverage. The rest of you, who like me, have a fascination with unobvious metaphor, and the desire to wrestle intellectually with the generally unsolvable, will probably end up seeing this flick, and then seeing it again, and again, until it has some sort of possession on you, for better or for worse.

*******

There is white man's metal next to your heart. I tried to cut it out, but it's too deep inside. The knife would cut your heart instead... release the spirit from within.

(long pause)

Stupid f**king white man.

*******

I love black and white film. Years ago when I was just out of high school, and working in a food service at a local college, an interest that had laid dormant for some number of years returned to the forefront. I had begun to hobnob with some of the student photographers who frequented the coffee shop where I grilled burgers and swept floors for the future intelligensia of America. We talked a bit, they showed me some of their work, let me visit their darkrooms, and gave me the basics. I scrounged up some bucks, got some books, a decent camera (a nice Honeywell Pentax 35mm-- I still own it), a few rolls of film and some darkroom gear and all the chemicals and stuff.

I didn't have a decent room to develop the film in, since you had to have it totally dark, completely zero light to load the film into the developing can, so I waited until nightfall, patched over the tiny window in the bathroom, jammed towels under the door, and made magic happen. Printing was a bit less fussy, so the basement served for that if I waited until evening. I watched the prints come up out of the chemical bath, and there it was-- magic redux, light made into substance.

I did do some color work later on, but color film developing and printing were more hassle than I felt it was worth, so when I did get the urge to see in chromatic terms, I let the labs do the developing and printing. The shots came out OK, but a lot of the hands-on pleasure was gone, and I still loved the light and shadow, form and texture renderings that b&w brought forth from the world around me.

The photogs who had helped me in the early days looked over my work and pronounced it competent, and I was pleased. It was a reasonably serious hobby for probably 10-15 years or more, budget permitting, and then it slowly faded away, I've never really been sure why...

*******

William Blake... do you know how to use this weapon?

(very long pause)

Not really.

That weapon will replace your tongue. You will learn to speak through it. And your poetry will now be written with blood.

*******

Oh, yeah, that's right. I was in my mid 30's, and had begun to realize that the major downside of work is that, like evil, there is always more of it around to do. While the social/financial necessity of 'making a living' is a concept still clearly understood, the idea that the future became the way it turned out to be because of my sort of innocently stumbling into it at some strange point, and then going wherever *it* happened to be going, left my soul to ask the age old musical question, namely 'How did I get here?' (Letting the days go by, water rolling underground...)

Fortunately, I have pretty much come to terms with my life, such as it might be, but no such luxury befalls the protagionist of Jim Jarmusch's fascinating movie, *Dead Man*, filmed in glorious black and white and starring the extremely talented and risk-taking actor, Johnny Depp.

Depp plays William Blake, an accountant from Cleveland who, following the death of his parents and the loss of his fiance, presumably feels that there is nothing to keep him in his home town. He responds to a job offer in a town called 'Machine', which is out west, very, very far out west even for the late 1800's when the story seems to take place. The train ride that carries Blake to his destination-- and his eventual fate-- is ripe with foreshadowing in and of itself, as William repeatedly falls asleep and awakens each time to see civilization vanishing by degrees, both outside the window of the train, and in the personages of the passengers within. Both get rougher and more desolate looking as 'Machine' approaches-- the 'end of the line' as the train's fireman puts it in a seemingly cryptic conversation he has with Blake that much later on divulges at least part of its meaning.

But only part, and you will need to be prepared for that as you experience Jarmusch's take on what happens when a man is forced into responding to circumstances that he basically just stumbled into, and which are very potentially fatal, and to which there is no really good way out.

All of which reminds me of last week, and the week before, and how movies somehow manage to reference so much of our experience in unexpected ways. When I first planned to do this 'Death is my Theme' trilogy of films for the closeout of the summer season and just prior to the new episodes of BtVS and Angel, the 'death' in mind was limited to the fictions created and metaphors invoked in only those two universes. Now, with the current reality the world is facing, it may do us all good to ponder just how the gods and poets will judge our actions.

*******

What is your name?

(very long pause) My name is 'Nobody'.

Excuse me?

My name is Exaybachay. "He who talks loud, saying nothing".

He who talks-- (pause). I thought you said your name was 'Nobody'.

I prefer to be called 'Nobody'.

*******

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM

*******

Technical chiaroscuro:

*Dead Man* is available on DVD, according to the Internet Movie Database. The review copy was on laserdisc, so no information is available about any extra features that may be present on the DVD. The film was released in 1995 and running time is 121 minutes. Aspect ratio of the theatrical release is 1.85:1, and is preserved as such on the laserdisc, and likely on the DVD. The director of photography was Robby Muller, and production design was by Robert Ziembicki. Costume design was by Marit Allen. Music was composed and performed by Neil Young. The film and laserdisc soundtrack is standard Dolby Surround,
the DVD format is unknown, but probably the same. The screenplay was written by director Jim Jarmusch.

Cast overview:

Johnny Depp .... William 'Bill' Blake
Gary Farmer .... Nobody
Lance Henriksen .... Cole Wilson
Michael Wincott .... Conway Twill
Mili Avital .... Thel Russell
Iggy Pop .... Salvatore "Sally" Jenko
Crispin Glover .... Train Fireman
Eugene Byrd .... Johnny "The Kid" Pickett
Michelle Thrush .... Nobody's Girlfriend
Jimmie Ray Weeks .... Marvin (Older Marshal)
Mark Bringleson .... Lee (Younger Marshal)
Gabriel Byrne .... Charles Ludlow 'Charlie' Dickinson
John Hurt .... John Scholfield
Alfred Molina .... Trading Post Missionary
Robert Mitchum .... John Dickinson

*******

Miscellanea and additional exposition:

Why black-and-white?

*Dead Man* was conceived as a black-and-white film from the very beginning. There are several reasons for this decision. The primary one is that the story is about a man who takes a journey which carries him further away from anything familiar. Color, particularly in landscapes, connects us with things due to our familiarity with their tonal values, and this would have undermined a basic element of the story.
Also because *Dead Man* is set in the 19th century, the absence of too much information (that provided by color) is a way of gaining some historical distance, again neutralizing a certain familiarity with specific objects and locations.

Another reason for black-and-white is that since the late 1950's and early 60's stories using the 'western' genre seem to be filmed in the same dusty color palette over and over again. Whether in a film by Leone or Eastwood, or even a TV episode of *Bonanza*, the colors always seem the same to me. If these color values operate on a sub-or semi-conscious level for the audience, I would prefer that the black-and-white of *Dead Man* recalls the atmosphere of American films from the 40's and early 50's, or even the historical films of Kurosawa or Mizoguchi, than the overly familiar palette of more recent "westerns".
Last but not the least, I wanted to work again in black-and-white with Robby Muller. Robby, as always, did amazing work photographing *Dead Man*, and working with the negative to include all possible gray tones while keeping the black and whites very strong, almost as though color film hadn't been invented yet.

.......... Jim Jarmusch (in answer to the question above)

One notable TV guest appearance by Jim Jarmusch:

"Space Ghost Coast to Coast" (1994) playing "Himself" in episode: "Rio Ghosto" (episode # 64) 9/18/1998

*******

Question of the Week:

Well, a really simple one, in contrast to the obscurity and strangeness of this week's movie pick:

What is your favorite 'art film', i.e. one that you knew that something was going on that you necessarily didn't get at first, but gradually came to you, and then you get the 'oh yeah!' epiphany thang happening.

Post 'em if ya got 'em, and see you next week, when if all goes as planned, I'll have to come up with something relevant to the Season Premier of *Angel*. Of course, I have no idea what to expect, and intend to keep it that way, but whatever transpires you can be pretty sure that some flick somewhere, sometime, has a handle on it.

Peace.

*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - September 21st 2001 -- Nina, 21:48:00 09/21/01 Fri
I watched "Dead Man" while I was doing a Gabriel Byrne festival-fest. Even though he had a very small role I got caught up by the movie. I don't remember the end, but I remember very well the atmosphere. I have to agree with you that the use of the B&W is wonderful. I loved the story of that city guy who slowly learned to go in darker areas of soul. Well done. I'm not much of a cowboy stories fan, but that one was rather interesting. Different outlook.

Hmmm... If they have it at my local vidoe store I'll try to rent it again. Thanks for reviewing it. Inspirational as always! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> One little item I wanted to mention this week and forgot... sorry! -- OnM, 22:33:34 09/21/01 Fri
Some B&W films are 'tinted', often for effect. This one is not-- it's absolutely pure B&W, all the time.

This can be a problem if you are watching on a color TV, esp. a newer set, since these TV's have often been deliberately adjusted by the manufacturer to produce an incorrect 'gray scale', which is the technical term for how accurately the set renders both a B&W and a color image.

Many new sets have a distinctly bluish tinge, which is meant to 'enhance' the perceived intensity of white areas of the picture, but in reality degrades the color accuracy of the set. You cannot correct this with the 'Tint' or 'Hue' adjustment, it must be done with internal adjustments or a service menu, so you need a technician to properly calibrate the set.

However, if you happen to have a TV with a 'color temperature' or 'white balance' selection on the video functions menu, try setting it to 'medium' or 'warm'. This usually will make the picture more accurate, esp. for B&W shows or films.

Also, if you have the 'contrast' or 'picture' control/setting on your TV set up as far as it will go, try backing it down to no more than 50 or 60%. If you do this, the picture will usually get sharper and more detailed. (Benefits all picture material, not just B&W).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> used to watch Buffy on B&W TV. Weirdly compelling. -- mundusmundi, 14:40:47 09/22/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Weirdly compelling B&W TV... -- OnM, 07:10:32 09/23/01 Sun
Have you ever seen George Lucas' first movie, *THX-1138*? It was made in color, but the first several times that I saw it, it was always on a B&W TV. The gray scale that was used really made it appear to me like it was supposed to be in B&W, and I was sort of shocked some years later when I saw it in color.

It you get a chance sometime, watch the film with the color turned completely off on your TV (assuming your set will let you do that, some won't, or there is a residual color tint left over). The whole look of the movie is better without the color.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Holy crap... my housemate's been trying to get me to watch this one... -- Solitude1056, 23:31:14 09/21/01 Fri
Guess I'm gonna hafta, now. ;-)
the death of spike?? -- adio, 23:43:16 09/21/01 Fri
While everyonr awaits the new upcoming episodes, with white knuckles and clenched teeth im sure everyone has more than one thing on their minds. Who is gonna die? will spike and Buffy finally get together? and such.

But for all the James Marster fans out there the big question is "is spike going to end up dead?"

Now many would jump to this question immediatly with a NO, but when you sit down and think about Joss's style of doing things, then why not?

The charetcter is getting tired and reall has no more room for itself to grow, by the time this season was over it had dug itself into a nice little ditch with no more angels to live off of.

feedback???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: the death of spike?? -- SandraL, 00:01:42 09/22/01 Sat
> The charetcter is getting tired and reall has no
> more room for itself to grow...

I can think of at least a dozen different ways that Spike can continue to grow and become even more interesting (he's already far and away the most interesting character on the show, IMO).

I don't think the character is the least bit tired - and there is still so much to be explored, so many unanswered questions... Just how deep do the changes go? What is the nature of his affection for Dawn (he seems to like her for herself, not just 'cuz of Big Sis)? Have the other Scoobies "gotten under his skin" at all? Is he the kind of friend/boyfriend Buffy needs? What will happen when (inevitably) the chip comes out or stops working?

I particularly want to find out how Spike sees himself these days (not in a mirror, obviously!); has he completely stopped thinking of himself as evil, or does he know deep-down that he's only faking being good?

I agree that the writers have sort of painted themselves into a corner with this character, but I'll wager that they'll paint themselves back out of it and that it'll be one hell of a ride.

Nope - can't see them killing Spike anytime soon. He's too good for the ratings and there's still a lot to be explored.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the death of spike?? -- kilroy, 09:59:01 09/22/01 Sat
spike is wonderful. i liked him bad,but love him as he is now. if they ever kill him off,i will not watch buffy again!i think he should end up together with buffy, but not yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the death of spike?? -- Drizzt, 13:55:45 09/22/01 Sat
Here is a scenerio; Spike never gets the Chip out of his head, never gets a "human soul", IE only has his vampliforce/soul, and he gets some blood from that ??? demon that turned Angel human...

Demon soul. Human body. Chip remains a permanent part of him.

BTW I think the writers have not written themselves into a corner with the Spike character.

A normal drama is about regular people; Spike is much more open-ended with his very long lifetime, Chip/ or remove chip, morals of non human soul, identity issues of monster or man, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the death of spike?? -- MPN, 17:01:40 09/22/01 Sat
I have to agree with Sandra in saying that Spike is the most interesting character on the show (or at least was for season 5). Yes, almost all of the characters evolved in certain ways during the season, but the change in Spike was night and day; he goes from hating Buffy with all of his heart to falling in love with her. It could have played out horribly, but IMHO the writers managed to balance the character out enough so that he was able to become softer without truly losing the edge that had made him so popular to begin with. I'm sure there are people that disagree with me on that, but even if Spike has lost his edge as a character, he remains as entertaining as hell. The progression of his character was truly fun to watch (his interaction with Dawn being the highlight for me), and while I remain undecided as to whether he was more entertaining as a villain, I think that white-hat, black- hat, or grey-hat, the character will always be fun to watch, if for no other reason than the tremendous talent of James Marsters (wow, that was a really long sentence). I sometimes find it amusing that Spike was originally going to be killed after a few meager appearances in Season 2, and right now he is one of the most popular and frequently discussed characters on the show. I'm not sure if any other actor would have been able to get the character so over with the fans in such a short amount of time as JM did, and I honestly think that there are still many stories waiting to be told about Spike. Can't wait for them to start playing out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Spike: New Yorks' Heroic Vampire -- Drizzt, 17:43:29 09/22/01 Sat
Angel was also a character that was only going to be in a few episodes, but got his own show becuase of fan popularity combined with writers that had a vision of a show for him.

What about Spike; Private Eye & Enforcer?

That was stupid I know; I do not have any Idea what to call a show about Spike. Spike is complex enough to have his own show. One thing is if a lesser actor had gotten the part of Spike, he would have been written off/dusted long ago...JM'acting is why Spike is still on the show, plus all the women & some guys that have dirty thoughts about him(not me on the last part)

If Giles can get a miniseries about him, why not Spike? Spike is a more popular character... The writers would have to be carefull not to duplicate the Angel show in any way, or it would be a turn off for many fans. The writing staff is very good, so I am sure they could pull it off IF they wanted to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> ok... -- adio, 10:08:48 09/23/01 Sun
ok, I agree with you guys that he is the most intresting charecter on the show, but that wasnt my point. Even though he is intresting and is a big part of the show doesn't mean Joss wont kill him. We have found in the past that he doesn't kill the tired charecters but the importent ones. And even though the charecter is tired the role isnt, people still want to see Spike even though he has pretty much no where to go.

Remember Joss said himself "I don't give the fans what they want, I give them what they need"
Take alook at this -- vampire hunter D, 18:57:21 09/22/01 Sat
I was checking TV Guide.com for when Buffy would be on and I saw that at 17:00 on Monday, FX will be showing the movie before the show premiers. Also, Buffy wil be on at 16:00 and 19:00 on weekdays.

Also, Alysson will be on some show on E! at 22:00 on Monday the 1st, and SMG will be on Jay Leno the same night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks! -- Drizzt, 21:02:37 09/22/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ditto the "thanks" -- Dedalus, 08:24:49 09/23/01 Sun
What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Moonbeam, 22:21:57 09/22/01 Sat
Buffy doesn't try to arrest them. Doesn't read them their rights. She just Kills!

There was one episode in particular. Her Boyfriend from Los Angeles was turned into a vampire. She just killed him as he was coming out of his grave.

That vampire didn't do anything to her. That vampire hadn't had time to do anything, much less attack anyone. That vampire was as innocent as a vampire could be.

If a vampire commits an act against others they should be tried by a jury of his or her peers (other vampires). If Buffy wanted to help she could help gather evidence, or better stay out of the way for it is really a matter for the authorities.

This goes beyond taking the law into her own hands. What she does is no better than the lynching they did in the Old West.

If Buffy witnesses a vampire harming someone she should call 911. As it stands now she is a mass murderer and should be arrested on sight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Drizzt, 22:48:11 09/22/01 Sat
Buffy PROTECTS the world from a menace that can grow at an exponential rate; any vampire can infect more humans with the vamp-essance to create another. Vampires are functionaly a parasitic plauge on humanity that is worse than a mundain disease that would make a victim die or go insane; the victim is turned into an evil version of their former self. Also a mundain disease will make the carrier die faster(Aids does this, but the process can take much longer than most other diseases) VS vampires become immortal carriers of a disease and can pass it on for CENTURIES.

If you watch the show much there is a critical distinction between "slaying" and murder.

BTW you have opened a can of worms IF people reply much to you, you will get some vehemenent and intelligent counterarguements...starting with mine:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> PS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Drizzt, 22:55:55 09/22/01 Sat
You must be a new veiwer of the show; it explores grey moral areas and the consiquences of hard decisions. No black and white choices except the first season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: PS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Moonbeam, 23:29:53 09/22/01 Sat
Well I found your response very intolerant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: PSS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Dedalus, 08:26:55 09/23/01 Sun
Just for the record, I think both of you are way out of line.

Didn't I just give a clever response to a post like this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: PSS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Scout, 09:10:53 09/23/01 Sun
Yeah, you did, but I think your words must have been too big. Maybe next time you should do a second version using words of one syllable, just to bring our special troll friends into the loop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PSS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Drizzt, 10:02:48 09/23/01 Sun
Hey! My bad! I was the first reply to Moonbeam and actually took it seriously, until the third time I read that post...

All fanatical and extreme values get to the point of being out of touch with reality. As I said in a different post I think Moonbeam is a regular that wanted to pull our chains.

I fell for it hook, line, and sinker;( Emberrassed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PSSS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Dedalus, 10:07:25 09/23/01 Sun
Don't worry, Driz. I was just kidding! :-)

"All fanatical and extreme values get to the point of being out of touch with reality."

True. Yet some of us are there naturally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PSSS...Moonbeam I thought your post was very offensive.... -- Drizzt, 10:29:16 09/23/01 Sun
I am out of touch with reality. Could not explain on this websight. Explained on two other websights. Saaaaam is the only poster here who EVER replied to my posts on a forbidden subject; he mocked me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> PSSST...Dedalus, it's PPS, PPPS etc.... -- d'Herblay, 15:42:48 09/23/01 Sun
. . for post-postscript, post-post-postscript, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Too True ... bummer. -- Dedalus, 16:16:04 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Moonbeam, 23:22:33 09/22/01 Sat
If it is a disease then they need to be treated, not killed.

Violence begets violence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Ladybug, 23:50:04 09/22/01 Sat
She Protects?

SHE KILLS!

Ends don't justify means. It doesn't matter that by killing a vampire she might save other lives. The point is she has to kill to so what your arogantly call "Protect".

Who "protects" the vampires from Buffy? They have as much a right to exist as the humans do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Moonbeam, 00:11:43 09/23/01 Sun
Buffy thinks she has the right to kill other beings just because by doing so it will protect her friends and the other citizens of Sunnydale?

Killing is wrong. When she kills a vampire, she lowers herself to their level.

Killing, even when it is for self-defense is wrong. What Buffy is doing is murder. Plain and simple.

There must be another way for the citizens of Sunnydale than the Slayer. They must renounce her and her murderous ways!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Nina, 09:50:45 09/23/01 Sun
Wow, this reminds me of my philosophy class! (going back in time here!!!!) I remember that we were discussing human rights and giving our opinions about death penalty. Did humans had the right to kill their fellow brothers on this Earth? The above posts and the way people answer to them is exactly what happened in class. Dj vu all over the place for me! :)

I find that Mooonbeam point of view is as good as any point of view as it is his or her view on the issue. It is an interesting question to debate. Problem is that the original post didn't really open any space for discussion, so it felt like an attack. I don't feel like Moonbeam is interested in earing other point of views but rather push his/her own. As we've witness many times here, this method doesn't work. We can't change people's opinion when we force an opinion on them.

It's all a matter of diplomatie. Trying to bring people to think about something else. But also respect the fact that they don't think like you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey! What happened to Mary, and Susan, and Jean? -- Wisewoman, 00:06:41 09/23/01 Sun
The trolls are getting more inventive with their aliases. I think Sol's right--we need a troll response 'bot!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah...why did they switch from pro violence to pacifists??? -- Drizzt, 00:31:41 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> they're takin' over for abraham, martin, & john? @>) -- anom, 21:10:17 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Insane troll-watching logic -- d'Herblay, 08:43:05 09/24/01 Mon
Considering that the trolls when pro-war used generic names like "Jean," "Sean," "Karen" but used dated hippie-dippy names (I mean, Moonbeam? Ladybug? Are bellbottoms back in style?) when anti-war, I think that they were setting up the anti- war posts as straw man arguments, trying to run some sort of reductio ad absurdam on us. Of course, nobody reductios like we do--hell, we reductio ad malas Gulielmi sanguinarii!--and Trollbot seems to have driven them away, for now.

I have this insane fantasy: taking into account that the only people who really want to see some sort of crusade of the West against Islam are those few adherents of Wahhabiism who are convinced Islam will prevail, and on the analogy that during the 1940s and '50s the most enthusiastic person at any communist meeting was always the undercover FBI agent, I have come to believe that the trolls are really agents provocateurs. I can imagine that somewhere in the Hindu Kush, a lieutenant is reporting to Usama bin Laden: "We have been unable to provoke the great shaitan into using deadly force against the women and children of Kabul and thus galvanizing all true Muslims into joining a jihad against the infidels, but we think we can goad the West into action if we can just get to their Buffyite philosophers."

The world is so much more interesting when you're a paranoid. :)

Assalam Aleykum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Paranoid? -- Voxpopuli, 09:49:52 09/24/01 Mon
Yesterday I discovered that one of Osama Bin Laden's brother (the guy has over 50 brothers! This harem thing is wonderful! :-P) is married to a Brazilian woman, and he is a honorary consul... for Brazil in a city in Saudi Arabia! And Brazil will keep him as honorary consul, of course, because they did not find anything "interesting" about this man and there is no point crucifying someone because of a family name, but that sure was funny... in a sort of dark sarcastic way indeed. Then there is this witch hunt on the three borders : Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. Tell me about paranoia!

Anyway, trolls are trolls, they can't be anything else, can they? Be it on government, media, or discussion boards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> brothers but not in arms -- anom, 20:53:29 09/24/01 Mon
"Yesterday I discovered that one of Osama Bin Laden's brother (the guy has over 50 brothers! This harem thing is wonderful! :-P) is married to a Brazilian woman, and he is a honorary consul... for Brazil in a city in Saudi Arabia!"

Amid the wide-ranging coverage on WNYC (NY public radio; can't remember if this was part of the local station's programming or from National Public Radio) was a segment in which a man called in who had been the doctor for a large part of the bin Laden family. This was (I think) before the Soviet invasion, & if he ever met Osama he would only have been in his teens & apparently not very memorable. Anyway, he said they (the family in general) were wonderful people, helped him out when he was illegally evicted & gave him the use of one of their own villas.

The doctor also had some very interesting things to say about the position in Saudi society of the family physician, who is very often Egyptian & may have an influential role as an advisor. He said it was highly likely that an Egyptian doctor was prominently involved in making important decisions in Osama bin Laden's group & advised investigators to consider this possibility. Hard to believe a doctor could have had a hand in causing so many deaths, but who knows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Insane troll-watching logic..ROFLMAO! -- Wisewoman, 11:13:10 09/24/01 Mon
Gee, d'H, I never thought I'd be laughing about Jihad, but you did it!

I can just picture us as the last bastion of free thought... lol!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Insane troll-watching logic -- Vickie, 11:45:28 09/24/01 Mon
Um, actually, bell bottoms ARE back in style.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I just assumed "Moonbeam" was former Ca. Gov. Jerry Brown ;) -- mundus, 15:06:29 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> After reading the original post by Moonbeam three times...LOL Oh he/she is funny! -- Drizzt, 00:40:38 09/23/01 Sun
Good Troll
I will give you a dog biscuit if you are nice:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- VampRiley, 07:21:43 09/23/01 Sun
*She Protects?

SHE KILLS!

Ends don't justify means. It doesn't matter that by killing a vampire she might save other lives. The point is she has to kill to so what your arogantly call "Protect".

Who "protects" the vampires from Buffy? They have as much a right to exist as the humans do.*

*If it is a disease then they need to be treated, not killed.

Violence begets violence.*

*Buffy doesn't try to arrest them. Doesn't read them their rights. She just Kills!

There was one episode in particular. Her Boyfriend from Los Angeles was turned into a vampire. She just killed him as he was coming out of his grave.

That vampire didn't do anything to her. That vampire hadn't had time to do anything, much less attack anyone. That vampire was as innocent as a vampire could be.

If a vampire commits an act against others they should be tried by a jury of his or her peers (other vampires). If Buffy wanted to help she could help gather evidence, or better stay out of the way for it is really a matter for the authorities.

This goes beyond taking the law into her own hands. What she does is no better than the lynching they did in the Old West.

If Buffy witnesses a vampire harming someone she should call 911. As it stands now she is a mass murderer and should be arrested on sight.*

First and foremost, I would just like to say that these are all nice, higher level ways of thinking. But there is a problem. The problem is is the morality/reality clash. And many times when those two clash, it is usually reality that wins out.

Buffy and company are fighitng a war, as The Council has put it several times. And that is exactly what it is. And anything vampiric or magickal is not recognized by our legal system. Buffy is not a cop. She does not have the responsibility to read anyone anything. It's not her place. That is the place for the cops. Buffy is a warrior. She is fighting a war. And in war, people die. And there are no rules or laws. It's like they say: "All's fair in love and war." And sometimes the ends do justify the means. But violence doesn't necessarily begets violence.

Yes. She does kill sentient being. And vamps are sentient. But in the killing, she does protect. It's all very good to have these high ideals. Someone has to. But if you were being attacked by a vamp, and she came along and staked it, most likely you would thank her for saving your life. Unless you want to come off as being ungrateful.

But the most important thing to remember about all of this is: THAT IT'S JUST A TV SHOW. And if she did go around being all non-violent or non-stabby, the show would lose something that is very important. And I don't mean in the less violence sense.

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I second that motion! -- Deeva, 12:06:50 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Fed up lurker, 13:21:49 09/23/01 Sun
Couldn't had said it better myself.

VampRiley said

Buffy and company are fighting a war, as The Council has put it several times. And that is exactly what it is. And anything vampiric or magickal is not recognized by our legal system. Buffy is not a cop. She does not have the responsibility to read anyone anything. It's not her place. That is the place for the cops. Buffy is a warrior. She is fighting a war. And in war, people die. And there are no rules or laws. It's like they say: "All's fair in love and war." And sometimes the ends do justify the means. But violence doesn't necessarily begets violence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who let the trolls out? -- Scout, 08:03:32 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Woof! -- Deeva, 23:09:25 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What Gives Buffy the Right to Murder Vampires -- Trollbot, 08:33:53 09/23/01 Sun
Moonbeam, I think you're very sexy. There's nothing sexier than a troll. I bet you have a really cool leather coat. Who else can develop such cool arguments about the nature of the Buffyverse? You're the big bad troll. Can I have a kiss?

Posters - friends of mine - you should see Moonbeam naked ... I mean, really.

*Trollbot flashes a big smile at Moonbeam*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I do not think Moonbeam is a Troll like Jean & Susan... -- Drizzt, 09:56:53 09/23/01 Sun
I think it is a regular that just decided to pull our chains. We do allways side with the Scoobies and justify thier actions. Moonbeam was just trying to keep it all in perspective.

Is the Trollbot as cute and perky as the Buffybot? OT wow SMG has a wide acting range!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I do not think Moonbeam is a Troll like Jean & Susan... -- Trollbot, 10:10:46 09/23/01 Sun
I think Moonbeam is Jean and Susan.

As for me, Trollbot is even cuter and perkier than Buffybot. Are you a troll, Driz? Cause, I LOVE trolls. I mean, really.

*Trollbot eyes grow wide and fill with wonder*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I do not think Moonbeam is a Troll like Jean & Susan... -- Drizzt, 10:37:21 09/23/01 Sun
It is not my place to say if I am a troll, however I do think that when I choose my posts are more coherent and intelligent than Jean's.

Moonbeam got a reaction out of me on this thread, but I did reply inteligently...if slightly offended.

SMG has the most beutifull smill I have ever seen; it is hard to immagine anyone perkier than her playing the Buffybot character.

PS nice to meet you Trollbot:) Protect us from inane comments of the "boring trolls"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How can you murder something our legal system doesn't recognize? -- Earl Allison, 09:18:03 09/24/01 Mon
On the off chance this is a legitimate argument, and not flame-bait, I'll try to answer.

Buffy CAN'T read anyone their rights, she isn't a representative of ANY law-enforcement agency. She can't do it any more than you or I can (unless you ARE a law-enforcement agent). And again, under the current legal system, vampires HAVE no rights. The human that died lost those rights when they were killed.

As for the "innocence" of a vampire -- consider this. We have NEVER seen a vampire that does not resort to killing to feed, aside from Angel, and only after he was cursed with a soul. If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, the police can't arrest someone until they commit a crime, which is NOT always true. If they have a reasonable expectation that someone is about to commit an illegal act, they CAN get involved. Sure, he hadn't killed anyone YET, but you KNOW he would have. Should she have waited until he tore someone's throat out and THEN acted? She'd have been responsible for THEIR death, then! It is both logical and reasonable to assume that any vampire will kill, given time and opportunity. You might, MIGHT, I stress, be able to make the case for chipping them all, but who pays for it? Who cares for them after that? And all that assumes that vampires would have or gain legal status.

Tried by a jury of its peers? Again, you're getting WAY ahead. Vampires have no rights, therefore no juries of peers, no trials, nothing.

Let the authorities handle it? Did you ever see a movie called "Kolchak, the Night Stalker"? It was the basis for the TV series of the same name. In the movie, there is a real-life vampire on the loose. The police try shooting, clubbing, and otherwise stopping it, to no effect (aside from lots of dead and injured ) officers. The only option here is for mankind at large to accept the existence of magic and vampires, and to go from there. An unrealistic proposition at best ...

Lynching in the Old West. Again, you're making the leap that vampires have rights. They don't. This analogy is therefore faulty.

Buffy a mass-murderer? Do you know the definition of murder? It breaks down to something along the lines of the unlawful taking of human life. Human life. Vampires are not humans, and therefore murder laws do NOT apply. Therefore Buffy is NOT a mass-murderer for dusting vampires.

I know what you are TRYING to say, but your whole argument hinges on two things that are clearly not the case in the Buffyverse:

One, that vampires would be considered legal entities and therefore possess the same rights and priviledges as humans. They don't, though.

Two, that an-otherwise uninfluenced vampire (Spike and his chip, Angel and his soul) can avoid killing humans for feeding and/or pleasure. Aside from some TEMPORARY instances, such as Spike allying himself with Buffy to defeat Angelus, or Harmony briefly trying to help Angel's group, vampires cannot go against their demon nature for long. At least, not YET. That might change in the future, but we've yet to see any vampires do so for any length of time willingly, and consistently.

Should those strictures change, you MIGHT have a point in the future, but as it stands now, Buffy hasn't murdered any vampires ...

Take it and run.

Take it and run.
The Buffy Bites are online at FX -- Dedalus, 09:04:18 09/23/01 Sun
I think they've got four of them. Willow's and Buffy's are really cool. And they download quick.

The Buffy Cross and Stake has a direct link.

I didn't know if anyone ... well, knew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Zap2it.com has all of them -- Tanker, 11:10:51 09/23/01 Sun
http://tv.zap2it.com/shows/video/fx/buffyfx/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Zap2it.com has all of them -- Brian, 14:16:36 09/23/01 Sun
Just watched them, and they are fun! Lots of background info as a welcome to the series.
I could hang around here with the recent spate of useless troll- driven drivel -- Liquidram, 10:28:03 09/23/01 Sun
Yeah, I could do that but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> People are just twitchy for new eps to start -- Masq, 10:38:02 09/23/01 Sun
Once they do, we'll all be too busy to care. : ) : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: People are just twitchy for new eps to start -- VampRiley, 10:52:49 09/23/01 Sun
I'm itching for 7 tomorrow. Never seen Wtth.

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Let the Fortnight of Maximum Jossness Begin! :-) -- Humanitas, 12:03:59 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Imminent Confluence of Meta-Jossness in the Empirical Parapsychological Cathode Ray Universe -- OnM, 12:50:07 09/23/01 Sun
OK, maybe this is just because the board is like really, really slow right now, but I can always say that Humanitas started this concept with his thread title, and so that it's his fault if things get out of hand.

So, let's have a poll/contest/whatever. Just how bombastic a post title can you come up with to basically say that BtVS and Angel S6/S3 are just about to start?

(Extra points if the thing really make sense despite initial appearances.)

Go for it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ooooo all those big words are enough to give one sweaty naughty feelings.....:):):) -- Rufus, 13:13:37 09/23/01 Sun
Ummm no, I think it's the stomach flu I have. So it's more gravol, water, and the hope the room stops going round and round. If you need help with the trolls I'll lend a hand, or at least throw up on them.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey rufus, me too! :o( o/t -- Wisewoman, 17:34:37 09/23/01 Sun
Was a yucky kinda stomach flu for three days, then turned into scratchy throat, coughing, aching, sore chest, yucky kinda flu.

Aaaaaaargh! Maybe it's something going around the Vancouver area?

And yeah, the sweatiness goes along with it...

Oh, pity us, all you healthy squibs...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey rufus, me too! :o( o/t -- Rufus, 23:23:00 09/23/01 Sun
Yes, it's quite fun coming to the boards and wondering why I'm seeing double with Brians post(on closer inspection I was relieved to see it was a double post). And further down on a quick reading I was wondering what the hell Masquerade and Cleanthes were going to lubricate? I almost made one of my little slips seeing that post. On a different note as Brian can talk about his date I will talk about my new kitten. My older cat passed on just over a week ago at the age of 19. I'm used to the company of 2 cats and missed him very much. After a week to feel sorry for myself I went the the humane society and found a little kitten. My husband made no fuss as he saw how lost I was when my companion died. I found a little black, white, tabby with shades of grey so of course I called her Buffy. So we are in a period of adjustment with Rufus hissing and growling at the new little creature that dares to bat her in the face. I will miss my old friend as he kept me company for so many years when I was on my own. Now, with this flu thing I will have to remember to tape Angel tomorrow....time for some well placed post-its to remind me....:):):) It's somehow comforting to know that someone suffers as I do....:):):)I quess noone will be lining up for a snog with either of us in our contagious state.....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We'll be snog-free for a few days, at least...:o( -- Wisewoman, 11:03:02 09/24/01 Mon
Oh, rufus I'm so sorry to hear about your cat. Believe me, I know how hard it is to get over that, but I think you've done the right thing in getting little Buffy, and the real Rufus will adjust to her eventually (they always do!)

Still, it's wonderful you had the companionship of your friend for 19 years. My Lily was 17 when she passed away and I just couldn't believe she wasn't there anymore, kept thinking I saw her slipping around corners, etc. Fortunately, I still have Edward who is much younger, and my partner's little cat (who was a barn cat, so we're not sure how old she is!)

Take care, my friend. Hope we're both feeling better soon!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> An substructural analysis of the vampiric-genoicidal moieties in the post-autumnal equinox period. -- Dr. Masquerade, PhD, Buffy studies, 14:04:16 09/23/01 Sun
My original (too long) title was, "An eidetic analysis of the metaphorical substructure of vampiric moieties and vampiric-genoicidal propensities in the post-autumnal equinox period."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh, orbific ousia -- Cleanthes, 14:25:58 09/23/01 Sun
Great title, when will you lucubrate your paralipomena? I mean, your title teases, but there's the message left to deliver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oooh, orbific ousia -- Masq, 21:46:10 09/23/01 Sun
Well, any discussion of the scooby gang after Sept 22 will suffice as appropriate lucubration under this title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Not a title... (Masq's is too good) -- Cactus Watcher, 19:51:20 09/23/01 Sun
but a good paper topic:

Dialectal phonologic production of low-back vowels in initial position before voiceless velars in the idiolect of a post-internment vampiricidal subject.

Translation - Will Buffy still say 'OK' like a New Yorker instead of a California girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> we talking buffy or faith here? -- anom, 20:43:45 09/23/01 Sun
"...of a post-internment vampiricidal subject."

Did you mean "post-interment"?

The distinction? Buffy's interred; Faith's interned. Now if I could only figure out a way to make that into an NPR Weekend Edition Sunday Puzzle....

anom the closet Will Shortz fan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep. Sorry about the stray 'n'. I know better. -- CW, 21:02:27 09/23/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How about - Fascination with Vampirism: unfortunate consequence of failure to breastfeed? -- Shiver, 14:51:44 09/23/01 Sun
Hey, Gang - Totally OT -- Brian, 19:57:33 09/23/01 Sun
I had a date tonight! For the first time in 18 years.
We talked literature and movies. She's very well-read. We drank a lot of bourbon and wine, and had to wait out a thunderstorm. There was even a goodnight hug and kiss at the end of the evening. Whoa! Does it get any better than this?

And tomorrow is the start of Buffy reruns and Angel, Season 3. Ah, sweet mystery of life-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You go, Brian! -- Wisewoman, 20:19:24 09/23/01 Sun
Wow, what a welcome bit of good news! I'm glad someone's life is looking up. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Never kiss and tell (tell anybody, but us, that is!) -- Cactus Watcher, 20:20:26 09/23/01 Sun
Way to go Brian!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Whistles for romance -- Wilder, 20:56:13 09/23/01 Sun
I don't really post - just read all thread - but an occasion like that deserves a response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Totally good for you......:):):) -- Rufus, 23:24:19 09/23/01 Sun
Nice to hear that you had such a nice time. Carry on....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Glad you enjoyed it.... but what's a 'date'?!! -- Marie, 01:35:36 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OMG, you don't have "dates" in Wales???!!! -- Wisewoman, 10:55:12 09/24/01 Mon
Or has it just been too long for you to remember??

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> What can I say?! Got a four-year-old! Who has the time?! -- Marie, 05:56:33 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A toast to it all! -- Masquerade, 04:59:00 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey, well, good for you! I guess this shows that... -- OnM, 05:27:41 09/24/01 Mon
..not all the males who post to Buffy boards are gay!

Unless...

Hummm, unless you're like Riley Finn, and happen to be a closet lesbian!

It's OK, your secret's safe with us, and of course the other 125,000,000 people on the internet!

Seriously, way to go, dude!

:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hey, Gang - Totally OT -- Nina, 09:16:29 09/24/01 Mon
Wonderful! This is so wonderful! Love gives wings! :) :) :)

Gives me a little hope too! ;) (It's been almost 11 years since I had an official date!) It proves us that love works in mysterious ways. Wish you the best of luck on the second date!!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hey, Gang - Totally OT -- Dedalus, 18:40:10 09/25/01 Tue
Brian is da man.

Glad to know someone is getting hugs and kisses.

Come to think of it - I remember those!

They're of the good.
A mistake or what? -- Seige, 23:47:50 09/23/01 Sun
Has this been discussed yet? Think about it, how long has Buffy not been the offical slayer. Yet, everyone, from vamps to Glory. Still treat her like she's the offical Slayer. It's just interesting to see how Buffy who is not the offical slayer, is still having to full fill her role as the offical slayer. Then again maybe not, she might just be simply doing what she's doing because she has the ability to do it. But if you sit down and think about it. She doesn't technically have to do anything in the lines of being the slayer. yet the supernatural world seem to consider her as the offical Slayer. Buffy, has been replaced and her replacement has been replaced. You know Faith is the offical slayer. Yet Buffy does her duties. I guess because of the situation, she has taken the role of being the offical slayer ... did y'all understand me? I mean why, did the WC pay attention to Buffy she is no longer the official slayer. Why did the Monks send Dawn (the Key) to Buffy, when she is not the Offical Slayer... Just a thought. My own theory is she is beyond the Offical Slayer status. Sort of like the Unique Slayer the Special One -- the ultimate Slayer. I mean she's died how many times now, she's communicated with the first Slayer and she's transcended far beyond any other slayer. So perhaps the reason why everyone in the Supernatural world pay attention to her is because, she's special. Or you can totally look at it like, she's the mistake and she's really supposed to have been dead in the first season and the only reason she's still around is cuz of a mess up on fates part.

-Seige
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A mistake or what? -- Drizzt, 00:24:16 09/24/01 Mon
Yes this has been discussed before. Faith highlighted what Buffy could have done, what she could have been like without a circle of freinds.
Buffy's actions are not because of duty or being the chosen one; it is simply she knows of the evil in the world and her morals require her to do something about it.

Of course the supernatural stuff, and influence of the Slayer essance is another independant issue.

PS I liked your post, very detailed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy IS the "official" Slayer ... -- Earl Allison, 08:59:05 09/24/01 Mon
The first thing would be to define what the "official" Slayer connotates.

Technically, yes, Buffy was no longer "the Chosen One" after dying in "Prophecy Girl," although neither she nor her Watcher knew until Kendra surfaced. This brings up another point, just how well informed is the Council? No one thought to notify Giles of this "unprecidented" event, two Slayers existing simultaneously? Maybe they didn't feel Giles needed to know.

We also know from tidbits from Joss, and I stress, from JOSS, not ever to my knowledge from the show itself, that the "line" now flows through Faith, that killing Buffy again will yield no new Slayer. This might be touched on in S6, and might not be. That too indicates that Buffy is somewhat outside the realm of the "normal" Slayer.

As to why she fills the role; chalk it up to duty, obligation, and her desire to do good as she sees it. No matter how much she complains about her duty, she rarely if ever truly shirks it.

Glory and the vampires treat Buffy like she's the "official" Slayer because, to them, she is. Glory never possessed any special knowledge. She simply knew that Buffy was a Vampire Slayer, a position historically (again, to quote Giles, two Slayers existing at one time was "unprecidented") occupied by one person until their death. Ditto for vampires. Why would they even assume there was another Slayer? There never had been before, and it's not like Faith left any vampires alive. The only ones who categorically KNOW that there are two Slayers are the Council, Giles, Buffy, the Scoobies, Angel's group, and Wolfram and Hart.

The Monks and the Council deal with Buffy because she's the only game in town. Faith is imprisoned, and you can bet Buffy and Angel would make a LOT of noise if the Council tried to get to her -- the fact that the Council so easily categorized her as a "Rogue" Slayer worries me. They fell right into contingencies to contain her, and no one, even Giles, seemed overly shocked. There must have been Rogues before -- what do you suppose the Council did to them? Basically the Council works through Buffy, or not at all until or unless they free Faith and control her, or kill her to generate a new Slayer -- either way, you get one that is inferior to Buffy in age, experience, and power. Why disregard perfectly useful resources like that without good reason?

The Monks sent Dawn where she would be protected -- never once did they say that it HAD to be a Slayer who guarded the Key, merely that such was their choice to protect it. They may well have known that there were two Slayers, but also that only one could protect their Key.

You mentioned she has died "several times," but I can only recall "Prophecy Girl" and "The Gift." Did I miss something?

As to what makes a Slayer, I don't know. Clearly, the powers stay with the vessel (body) even after being dead briefly, as we saw in "Prophecy Girl." How they will justify her possessing her powers now, only Joss knows. Currently, the only thing that separates Buffy from any Slayer is that her death will not summon another. I'd also be interested to know where that power is coming from - - it obviously isn't dilluted between Buffy and Faith (and previously Buffy and Kendra).

Take it and run.
Season finales -- Sebastian, 10:31:11 09/24/01 Mon
I've been gone for awhile now, so forgive me if this topic has been discussed.

But which season finale on BtVS has had the most impact on A: you and B: the overall flavor of the show? When I ask the latter question, I mean which season finale do you feel has had the longest running repercussions for plots, characters, etc?

I'm curious to know what responses will be. The only season finale I have never seen is "Prophecy Girl" (I've only read the transcipt, so thank heavens for the F/X reruns) - but I'm curious to see which finale has made the most impact internally and (in your opinion) externally.

For me - the finale that has made the most impact on me is "Becoming 1&2" followed by "The Gift." I loved "Graduation Day 1&2" - but more for its moments (the Buffy/Faith fight, the Buffy/Angel feed) rather than for any specfic impact.

So I'm curious to know what's in everyone else's head.

I hope you all remember me. I've missed posting on here. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ATLtR -- Wisewoman, 10:42:05 09/24/01 Mon
Externally, Restless. Internally, The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Season Finales -- Brian, 10:51:59 09/24/01 Mon
Becoming just shocked me to the core, and it set in motion much of what has happened since.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ATLtR (tsk, tsk Wisewoman you have to say....) ;-) -- Sebastian, 10:56:46 09/24/01 Mon
..why it effected you internally.

Unless its super private, of course. Otherwise, you have to expalin how it affected you and why.

It gives us more fodder for discussion until next Tuesday.

Sebastian - The Nosy Guy ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Okay, okay...sheeesh! -- Wisewoman, 11:08:13 09/24/01 Mon
Okay, while I recognize that SMG is a fine actress, and I think she's perfect as Buffy, she has never been my favourite on the show. But in The Gift, her acting ability absolutely won me over. As many people have mentioned before me, the moment when she looks at the portal, then turns back to Dawn, having made her decision to jump, there's just so much light and love and peace in her expression, it's eerie. Makes me cry, even thinking about it! It's the definition of heroism.

Is that enough, Mr. Nosey-Parker Man???!!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Okay, okay...sheeesh! -- Sebastian, 11:19:02 09/24/01 Mon
Many thanks! ;-)

See? That wasn't so hard.

*laughs*

Sebastian (aka Mr. Nosey-Parker Man)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Season finales -- Helen, 01:24:50 09/25/01 Tue
Becoming - definitely on both counts. Not only is it pivotal to well, everything that happens afterwards, but it really is tragic. Okay, we know Angel didn't die for keeps, but Buffy didn't know that at the time, and still she killed the man she loved. After the curse had worked! It's SMGs face, when he reaches out and says "what happened, I don't remember. I feel like I haven't seen you in months..." and she knows that its not Angelus, it really is Angel, but its too late - Acathla is awake and she has to kill him. The musical swell at that moment is cliched but strangely affecting.

And just the whole Buffy leaving scene, with the Scoobs standing around looking lost. Nothing has exceeded it in the following three years. Not for me, anyhow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season finales -- Nina, 14:10:43 09/24/01 Mon
It's a hard question. They all serve their purposes.

- Graduation part 1 & 2 and Prophecy Girl: Lots of stuff happens during the episodes, but everything turns out fine after. So no major angst or heartbreaking moments when it's over. I guess for those who had to wait during the summer that it wasn't a real cliffhanger or anything. Not my favorites.

- Restless is such an incredible puzzle that intellectually it's my first choice. Not a traditional cliffhanger, but wow it's been fun to speculate!

- Emotionally I am split between Becoming 2 (not 1) and The Gift. The former was heartbreaking. Seing Buffy so hurt broke my heart, but in the latter Buffy sacrificed herself out of love and it completely overwhelmed me. So there's no way for me to define which finale between those two episodes I like the best. Maybe I do have a slight preference for the Gift as it is so final (and because I care more about Buffy's death than Angel's).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Season finales -- Liam, 09:55:36 09/25/01 Tue
My favourites are, in ascending order:

1. 'Prophecy Girl': While I had liked 'Buffy' as a show, this episode made me realise how excellent it was, not just dealing with the monster of the week. SMG did a great job portraying a girl of 16 finding out that she was fated to die, in a prophecy where there was no room for any other interpretation. The reactions of the other characters, particularly Giles, Angel, and Xander, were also wonderful.

2. 'Becoming', Parts 1 and 2: This was really heartbreaking, Buffy having to sacrifice the one she loves to save the world, when she knows that he has been cursed again.

3. 'The Gift': After the last two finales, the only way to go further is to have Buffy become 'really dead', as distinct from being 'mostly dead' in 'Prophecy Girl'. It's a sad but logical culmination of her career as a Slayer: someone who can't be promoted, demoted, or retired from her job, but who has to fight until she is dead.

Regarding the other two finales, 'Graduation Day' Parts 1 and 2, and 'Primeval': The first was good, except that there
wasn't the sense of the world being in peril. OK, Sunnydale would be destroyed, but the human race would go on. The second was silly, because Adam was no good as the bad guy, also because I couldn't see Riley surviving after operating on himself with a piece of glass, let along fighting Forrest.
A gift for the Spoiler Whores................. -- Rufus, 12:38:50 09/24/01 Mon
Here is the link to Angels acolyte where the episode summary is posted. Cynthia may want to go have a peek.....

http://angelsacolyte.com/preview.html

It's going to be a great episode.....for the more patient of us, don't go there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A gift for the Spoiler Whores................. -- VampRiley, 13:29:48 09/24/01 Mon
It is http://angelsacolyte.tripod.com/

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks forgot tripod...........silly me -- Rufus, 13:59:29 09/24/01 Mon
I blame my medication......:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It doesn't work!!! Even with tripod it says the page has been removed. -- Helen, 02:51:30 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I am not a Whore! (a slut maybe....;)) -- LadyStarlight, 14:02:48 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh comeon............say after me................ -- Rufus, 14:25:48 09/24/01 Mon
I'm a whore and I'm proud!.....think of the wildfeed and episode summaries as, not spoilers, but required study quides.......:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh comeon............say after me................ -- LadyStarlight, 19:20:05 09/24/01 Mon
Study guides. Okay, I can live with that.
It's going to be very interesting... -- Deeva, 13:55:51 09/24/01 Mon
to be a part of this board when the new shows start up. I've only been here since just after last season's episode. So to be able to hear everyone's thoughts while the show is going on would be an interesting thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: It's going to be very interesting... -- Nina, 14:18:20 09/24/01 Mon
It's going to be hard for me to hang around here. :( I used to be able to see Buffy on Fox on Wednesday nights so I only was one day late on the discussions.... now I can only watch it on Saturdays :( So it means I'll be here only on Sundays and Mondays!

I've seen lately that I can get UPN in Montreal. It's coded and I can't see the images (well I could if I was willing to pay an obscene amount of money), but I can hear the sound. I'll try that on October 2nd. Radio Buffy. It will suck, but it will be better than nothing!

So I guess it's about my last week hanging around here regularly. It's been a lot of fun. Good news is that when someone leaves... someone new takes over!

Have fun Deeva!!!!! :) :) :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That sucks! Any other horrific no-UPN stories out there? -- Masq, 14:35:31 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Radio Buffy!--here's hoping that they don't replay "Hush" for you -- d'Herblay, 15:10:54 09/24/01 Mon
We'll miss you, Nina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It's going to be very interesting... -- OnM, 20:20:26 09/24/01 Mon
Can we send you tapes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: For those outside US and Canada... here is someone who can help you... -- Nina, 22:15:08 09/24/01 Mon
"Radio Buffy!--here's hoping that they don't replay "Hush" for you"

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Well that really would suck, wouldn't it! ;)

It just isn't fair that I get Angel on Mondays when I wouldn't care if it was aired on Saturdays! Bah... it's life I suppose! :)

"Can we send you tapes?"

That's a very lovely offer :) but Marie would need them more than I do as I get TV-Buffy (with images and sound) on Saturdays. It's just that on this board the action takes place mostly from Tuesday to Friday.... then we usually anxiously wait for another episode to air. So coming on Saturday night and chiming in to say "I finally saw it!!!!!" sounds kinda weird!

I'll see how Radio-Buffy works for me on Tuesday nights. If I feel that I understand enough about the plot and can discuss it I'll come right after Buffy airs. If I feel I would be majorly spoiled because there is just too much visual action that I missed then I'll wait for the weekend!

By the way for Marie and other people out of Canada and US, here is someone who helps fan to get tapes in advance. He's a total angel and got me tapes of Buffy season 3 and 4 this summer. He's not doing it for profit but only to help fans get their fix in advance. So if you are willing to spend a few bucks (for tapes and mailing only) you can receive Buffy's tapes for season 6 a lot earlier than what you'd have to wait until it get in your country.

I wanted to give that tip earlier and always forgot. I know that a lot of people at the "Bloody awful poet society" (BAPS) use his help. Maybe he can help you too? Here is his email.

Please as he is really doing that as a courtesy and not as a business, ask him if he is able to help you before asking anything in detail. Hope this info can help those of you who have to wait more than 5 days to watch the new season.

eastlant@kua.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: For those outside US and Canada... here is someone who can help you... -- Marie, 01:31:08 09/25/01 Tue
Oh, thanks for the info., Nina, that's very sweet of you! I'll e-mail him and see what's the what! Going to miss you on the board.

Marie (the Welsh one - note to self, really gotta change the name!)
Ok, so who else is confused and horrified? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:05:15 09/24/01 Mon
I don't want to spread around any spoilers for anyone unfortunate enough to have seen it... but, for those of you who did see the season premiere of Angel, who in the hell saw -THAT- one coming? (And no, there's no possible way you're not thinking of the same thing I am.)

~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yup, confusion pretty much reigning supreme here. -- Wisewoman, 19:13:51 09/24/01 Mon
There are so many reasons why this just cannot be, but we gotta start an obvious Angel Spoiler thread to discuss it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Horrified pretty well sums it up (oh, and JOSS RULES - who guessed??) -- Shiver, 19:18:22 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Horrified pretty well sums it up (oh, and JOSS RULES - who guessed??) -- Metron, 10:13:43 09/25/01 Tue
LOL that's almost exactly, WORD FOR WORD, what I told my wife right after it ended.

hehe

Met
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ***spoilers**** Angel premiere -- Wilder, 19:18:51 09/24/01 Mon

*** beware ... Angel Spoilers ***

5

4

3

2

1



Just dash back from my dinner break where I saw the season opener. O.K. so I am bit of a spoiler whore, but I hadn't seen anything hinting that Darla was very pregnant.

I'm still stunned, so, now I must digest this unexpected turn of events.

O.k. Intial thoughts.

1. She wasn't pregnant when she was dying of syphillis and was vamped by the Master otherwise she would have been pregnant her last undead go around.

2.She couldn't have been impregnanted by Angelus otherwise that would have happened before.

3. Would his having a soul cause life to be born in her? How would she, as a vampire, still be able to concieve?

4. Lindsey. Maybe they had sex before she was vamped and she got pregnant then.What happens when a pregnant woman is turned?

Other theories? Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ***spoilers**** Angel premiere -- Shiver, 19:21:02 09/24/01 Mon
Her "dinner guest" gave her the name of a shaman ... shaman for what? I guess this we will find out (not soon enough!). Perhaps it is a mystical (non-Angel fathered) pregnancy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ***spoilers**** Angel premiere -- d'Herblay, 19:34:29 09/24/01 Mon
1. I agree. 2. I agree. 3. I don't know. I doubt it, because when Angel and Buffy had sex in "Innocence," they didn't use a condom. My understanding is that there was a lot of debate backstage before the shoot, and the consensus was that vampires didn't need 'em. But consistency? Not Joss's biggest concern. 4. That was my immediate thought--well, after, "ohmigawd, what the hell? I mean, what the hell?" BUT "what happens when a pregnant woman is turned?" Hell if I know, but my understanding of the Buffyverse includes the established fact that vampires are exothermic--their body temperature matches the ambient temperature. They don't breathe. The blood in their veins is not oxygenated. These conditions, I think, would kill a fetus.

Bizarre speculation: 5. Virgin Birth? Well, whatever you call it when a woman gets pregnant from a source independant of the sex act. (Don't say "Immaculate conception." I will get scholastic on your ass.)

6.Vampire parthenogenesis? I don't think Joss could spell parthenogenesis.

7. It's Buffy. She'll spring fully grown from Darla's loins during February sweeps. That's why Darla's so big. It's only been three months, but baby's going to be 5 foot 2 in the third trimester.

All I know for sure is that the piece on evolutionary-like effects in the Buffyverse I was working up is now shot to hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ***spoilers**** Angel premiere -- cknight, 20:47:39 09/24/01 Mon
It's Lindsey's kid. they used magic to bring Darla back and I think the rules don't apply to her anymore.

Damn, talk about a surprise though...wheewew!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ***SPOILERS**** Angel premiere - and yes, we mean it! You've been warned. Yes, you have. Really! -- OnM, 21:15:39 09/24/01 Mon
Yeah, here I was watching, thinking, umm-humm, OK, very typical premiere, setting up lots of plot threads and future story arcs, nice extension of the 'vamps in love' concepts that have been suggested and played around with before, then the end comes along and, well, I'd say whammo!!! pretty much calls it, so who am I to argue?

I'm quite sure I remember Angel telling Buffy that he couldn't get her pregnant, vamps apparently are sterile/infertile. So, the only logical thing that comes to my little mind is that the pregnancy had to occur when Darla was human, and the likeliest candidate for the father would have to be Lindsey. Besides, who else would be better from a sheer plot standpoint? We all want to see Lindsey back again, do we not? What better reason for him to return?

d'H, as to your #4, I'd assume the fetus is vamped or half-vamped also, and so maybe it could survive, the human part of it could allow it to grow, the vamp part getting it around the metabolic limitations you mentioned. Dunno, new ground here, obviously.

Literally did LOL at your #6. Long time since I've heard the word parthenogenesis used in a sentence.

I love this. Only the first show, and they've got our brain cells by the short hairs already!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thinking outside the box; thinking inside the chat room -- d'Herblay, 23:59:23 09/24/01 Mon
From what was discussed at ivyweb tonight, we can add the following possibilities:

(I will try to ascribe each theory to its originator, but in many cases I simply don't know.)

8. This is some sort of residual effect of the Valet's attempt to save Darla's life in "The Trial." (Not sure whose theory this is.)

9. Masq suggested that Wolfram & Hart might have mystically induced pregnancy.

10. Cactus Watcher suggested Holland Manners.

11. I brought up the First Evil--haven't heard from him in a while. (This is really a corrolary to my #5 above.)

12. Someone, not sure who, suggested the Goo Doctor, the collector of demon parts, from tonight's episode.

13. I reminded everyone that we don't know for sure that she's pregnant. Hanging out in bars and feeding off of people whose main diet consists of rice and beans could distend a belly.

14. In that vein, anom suggests that she's hiding a basketball.

I'm probably forgetting some theories. Sorry. Anyway, I've become more interested in whether Cordelia and Dennis have gotten physical. I mean, if he can move things, he can move things. Magic fingers, indeed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Naughty Thoughts;-) -- Drizzt, 00:59:45 09/25/01 Tue
14 RE that basketball Darla might be hiding; reminded me of that music video about stealing--forgot the band and the name of the song;(...--that had a scrawny guy dressing in drag as a pregnant woman, and hiding a pinapple in the "fake belly" prosthetic. And LOL on that image BTW.

I do not know how Cordelia could do anything TO Dennis, but the reverse is possible; thanks for the naughty implications...ooh dirty thoughts in my head;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Naughty Thoughts;-) -- Shaglio, 06:46:37 09/25/01 Tue
"reminded me of that music video about stealing--forgot the band and the name of the song;(...- -that had a scrawny guy dressing in drag as a pregnant woman, and hiding a pinapple in the "fake belly" prosthetic."

Been Caught Steeling by Jane's Addiction

After Darla bit the guy at the bar, I thought I noticed a belly and I thought to myself, "Wow, Julie's pregnant - and the camera guys aren't doing a good job of covering it up." Then she got up from the bar and I realized "Julie's not pregnant, Darla is!" I'm still reeling from that one this morning.

Even if Darla was pregnant before she got re-turned into a vampire, how could the fetus have survived while she was "dead?" She obviously wasn't doing any breathing while she was lying in the dirt in the greenhouse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Naughty Thoughts;-) -- Drizzt, 08:41:46 09/25/01 Tue
The thing about pregnancy combined with the supernatural is all bets are off. Remember how fast Cordelia's pregnancy progressed when that HUGE demon impregnated her?

The thing about magic, demons, and everything in the Buffyverse is it is made up as is conveinent for the storyline.

Anyway, combine the above two thoughts and you have no way to know what the writers have planned for the show. Will be interesting to find out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Naughty Thoughts;-) -- Shaglio, 11:09:44 09/25/01 Tue
So I guess we can just add this up to Rufus' "Magic Clause?"

At least I think it was Rufus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup that's mine I even copyrighted it....j/k......:):):) -- Rufus, 13:32:50 09/25/01 Tue
Some things can only be chalked up to magic......:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thinking outside the box; thinking inside the chat room -- Cactus Watcher, 06:32:28 09/25/01 Tue
After a night to sleep on it, Masq's mystically induced pregnancy idea sounds very good. Although the second thing I thought after 'what the heck is this?' was, in fact, 'beer belly!', I was certainly not brave enough to say it in public last night. Kudos d'Herblay! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hmmmmmm.............spoilers -- Rufus, 14:25:29 09/25/01 Tue
"Beer Belly" in Darla's case I thought it should be more like "Blood Belly".......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thinking outside the box; thinking inside the chat room -- anom, 22:59:46 09/25/01 Tue
"14. In that vein, anom suggests that she's hiding a basketball."

Nope, that wasn't me. Besides, it was a beachball. I brought up the visible-navel question. @>) I think Isabel said maybe she didn't tuck the valve back into the beachball! It did occur to me, however (& remember I haven't checked below yet), to wonder if Julie Benz might actually be pregnant & they're writing it into the show...anyone know?

PS: vein? that a vamp reference?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I could have sworn it was you . . . -- d'Herblay, 23:16:44 09/25/01 Tue
. . but it was late and I was tired. Maybe it was me. I always remember my own theories better than anyone's else.

Of course, it could have been "anomb" or "anomdeplume." Next time, I'll take notes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Quote from 'Bad Eggs' re SPOILERS above and below -- Marie, 03:34:43 09/25/01 Tue
OK! Yes! I'm an addict. Couldn't wait. Read the threads. Went to look at the synopsis. Looked for quote which might clarify (from Psyche's Transcript of 'Bad Eggs'):

Buffy: Oh, I told you, that faux parenting gig we're doing at school. (faces him) Like I'm really planning to have kids anytime soon. Uh,maybe *some*day, in the future, when I'm done having a life, but...right now kids would be just a little too much to deal with.

Angel: I wouldn't know. (looks at her) I don't... Well, you know, I, I can't.

Buffy: Oh. (looks away briefly, then back) That's okay, um... I-I figured there were all sorts of things vampires couldn't do. You know, like work for the Telephone Company, or volunteer for the Red Cross, or... have little vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Same here! -- rowan, 20:02:38 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Keep those theories comin', kids (sometimes I hate being a Buffyverse metaphysician) -- Masq, 22:08:10 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sorry, WW I erased your quote of the week by accident--repost! -- Masq, 22:10:48 09/24/01 Mon
May have been a Freudian slip of the mouse. WW, that quote sent me to a scary visual place!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It was from OnM's post above: "they've got our brain cells by the short hairs already!" -- WW, 10:39:41 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Funny you should say that, Masq... -- Humanitas, 13:27:10 09/25/01 Tue
Y'know, the fist thing I thought when I saw Darla's belly (OK, the second thing, right after OH MY GOD!) was "Poor Masq is gonna have to re-do the whole metaphyics section!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Somehow I doubt that... -- Masq, 13:47:36 09/25/01 Tue
They aren't THAT inconsistent on the show. I think it's an exception--a spell, a curse, some weird thing.

Just keep repeating

faith in Joss, faith in Joss, faith in joss oops faith in greenwalt, faith in greenwalt, faith in greenwalt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Other spontaneous comments ... SPOILERS -- Liquidram, 23:18:35 09/24/01 Mon
Just throwing out what I noticed for discussion because I am really interested in what you all have to say. I'm sure I'll think of about 80 I should have mentioned after I post this.

The rapport between the core group went thru a complete overhaul.... more trust, joking, friendship. (and I like Wesley's hair...) Wes & Gunn rushing to hug Angel? Whoa

Fred annoyed me... yes, I know, she was terribly traumatized, but it's been 3 months and she seems far less coherent than she was in Pylea. (I do like the character though)

Loved Meryl saying the price was changed for info, so Wes started taking $$$ back.... his Pylea leadership appears to have survived intact.

Damn Cordy is empowered and protective of Angel.

Cordy and Dennis? dH mentioned in the chat that the last thing we saw was her shooing him out of a room when she was changing clothes, and now he's running her bath and scrubbing her back?

Angel's (percieved) lack of grief over Buffy.

The pregnancy... ok Joss.... make me a believer. Blade Jr.?

oh yea .... James and Elizabeth .... think about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I was, like, "Whoa!" Am speechless must sit & think. -- Deeva, 23:19:33 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ok, so who else is confused and horrified? -- Drizzt, 23:42:21 09/24/01 Mon
Um, others have allready said what I feel on several subjects.

I will just say WOAH! on the subject of pregnant Darla...plus JOSS RULES!(BTW anyone who says JOSS RULES! probably means Joss & Writing staff, but that is not as simple and concise of a compliment)

I really hope the Angel show eventually includes a meantion of Buffy's return from her ??? state she is in now. Would be annoying(or more) if Buffy is dead permanently on the Angel show while she is alive on the other show. A little crossover would be cool also; just have Angel come to Sunnydayle and say "Wow Buffy! First Darla was brought back, then you. Hey it is nice you are alive" Joss & Co would do that MUCH better, but you see what I mean? Maby Angel is all alone on his own network, but I really think this is a good reason for at least a small crossover eppisode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Half-vamps, hybrids, cross overs, and, of course, Spike... -- Voxpopuli, 05:16:35 09/25/01 Tue
Know what? What if Angel was wrong and vamps could really have children, at least male vamps with human women? If Darla was human when impregnated than that theory that the child would be partly vamp might still hold, specially for those who believe that the soul is given during the conception, and then Darla was brought back magically what could have helped her keep the child after she was turned. I wrote a fanfic about slayers and vamps, claiming that vamps are hybrids of human and demons, and that a vampire fathered the first slayer spirit, before she was turned into a mystical entity, thus explaining Dracula calling Buffy "kindred". Unlike other demons, vampires, very very very old ones, have the tendency to loose their human traits, as if the humanity in them died with time, not with the loss of soul. A "young" vampire like Angel or Spike could still be human enough to father a child with a human girl. As usually vamps feed on humans, nobody would actually know about the possibility of such outcomes, unless, perhaps, the Master who was old enough to have witnessed practically everything. Then the fact that Buffy and Angel did not use condoms and she did not get pregnant... getting pregnant is not that easy, you do not have 100% chances of getting pregnant in every time you have sex with someone. Maybe it was not her fertile day. Then, as all threads lead to Spike... if Buffy and Spike have sex, and she gets pregnant... then this subject in Angel would be explained without the need for a crossover, or if we discover that the child is Angel's then it will generate speculation on Spike and Buffy (if it ever happens), and again it would be a cross over without really any character crossing over. So, cross overs, from now on could be based on one show helping to explain the other, or helping to create interest and new avenues for the other, without actual character interaction. Then... I must agree that Joss rules!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Half-vamps, hybrids, cross overs, and, of course, Spike... -- d'Herblay, 11:26:10 09/25/01 Tue
Vox writes:

Then the fact that Buffy and Angel did not use condoms and she did not get pregnant... getting pregnant is not that easy, you do not have 100% chances of getting pregnant in every time you have sex with someone. Maybe it was not her fertile day. It's not that Buffy didn't get pregnant that makes the unprotected sex in "Innocence" so significant to my thinking on this. It's that when Hollywood shows sex on a teen-oriented show, it usually tries to do so in a "socially responsibly" manner. Since the late '80s/early '90s that means condoms will be shown or mentioned. Think of the conspicuous groping at the bedstand in "Where the Wild Things Are." This has less to do with pregnancy and more to do with STDs, but condom use is encouraged on TV for both contraceptive and prophylactic reasons.

The scuttlebutt is that when "Innocence" was being filmed, the producers discussed the condom issue at length with the network, and the consensus was that vampires didn't need them-- that vampires could neither transmit a STD nor impregnate. It would be one thing for Mutant Enemy to throw out plot consistency if they came up with a juicy new story idea. It would be another for them to go against political correctness itself. (Of course, offscreen wrangling does not contribute to the canon.) And if Angel could have gotten Buffy pregnant, but didn't use a condom, then that changes some of how he have to think about good season two Angel--suddenly he was a cad, when we've thought of him for three and a half years as someone who tried to do the moral thing.

Anyway, I for one think it's time that we started crediting David Greenwalt with some of the divine powers we usually ascribe to Joss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> PCness... -- Voxpopuli, 11:46:27 09/25/01 Tue
So... I think they could say Angel was actually wrong about the whole thing, and make the unsafe sex a think the other vamps could ponder about, bringing the issue that it is not because one is "clean" that you do not need to wear protection. Of course, the show does not have to go all tragic, but make them think. That would save (pretty lame, I know) the show's face from the Police of Political Correctness.

Buffy can be also a role model, in the sense that she is not above making mistakes or other foolish things.

Right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel Premiere Misc. Thoughts ***spoilers*** -- Rattletrap, 05:39:52 09/25/01 Tue
OK, wow, didn't see that coming, I'll be curious to see where this Darla storyline goes. If I remember right, "Reprise" aired at the end of February (2nd month, 2+9=11, delivery right in time for November sweeps, convenient that). Some of the other theories here have my curiosity especially piqued.

Other notes:

Likes + Love the new visual look of the show: letterbox format, new camera work (does somebody here know the tech stuff well enough to explain what the difference is? I can just tell it is different). Plus lots of cool Hong Kong style choreography, works very well with the show. The fight with the crutches was almost Jackie Chan-ish.

+ Fred: Her staying up in her room all the time is entirely believable. Most shows would have had her firmly reintegrated into the group by the season premiere, but it is a tribute to Whedon/Greenwalt that there are still consequences from her five years of exile in Pylea. No one could recover from that quickly. Plus, she promises to be a fun, quirky character.

+ The reappearance of the Host and Merl. I especially loved Wesley's intimidation of Merl, this is the Wes I want to see more of this season.

+ Phantom Dennis, 'nuf said.

+ To Cordy's ever more painful visions, glad to see we have not forgotten that bit of storyline development.

+ Loved more of the cameraderie between Cordy/Wes/Gunn. After the initial shock Wes's hair is pretty cool, too.

+ The Holtz backstory is great, and I suspect the writers will be developing this as a running story all season--almost like two different arcs running parallel to each other.

One quibble from a generally good episode:

- Why does Angel have to be invited into Fred's room? I understand that that counts as her residence, but I find it difficult to believe he had not been in the room before. The rules for invitations/non-invitations seem to get progressively wierder.

Anyway, these are first impressions, more later.

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel Premiere Misc. Thoughts ***spoilers*** -- Masq, 16:45:54 09/25/01 Tue
"Why does Angel have to be invited into Fred's room? I understand that that counts as her residence, but I find it difficult to believe he had not been in the room before. The rules for invitations/non-invitations seem to get progressively wierder."

Especially since (I thought) Angel owned the building. Remember, Russel Winters did not need to be invited in Tina's apartment in "City Of" because he owned the apartment building.

But I guess the hotel lease (or is it a mortgage now?) is in the name of the company, and Angel is no longer in charge of the company.

Or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Vamp invite loopholes -- Drizzt, 01:14:59 09/26/01 Wed
The barrier that keeps vamps from entering unless invited is independant of the vampires themselves IMO. Also I think it has to be some form of spell that creates a force barrier like Willows, but worldwide and keyed to affect vampires ONLY. Thing about the invite clause is there have been instances of explicite and merely implied invitation that have both worked. If the barrier spell did not have the invite clause IE if vamps could NEVER enter the home of any living human it would have less loopholes.

Think of the spell mechanics being metaphorically a law of conduct, but instead of being enforced by mundain means(police, lawyars, and all the laws made by judges & polititions) it is a spell cast by the PTB to give humans at least one place they are safe from vamps IF they know of vamps and pay attention not to invite any in. The thing is with the invite clause there will be ify invites and loopholes, just as mundain law has loopholes.

Hmmm Easier to say that Angel just left right after freaking about Buffy's death and had never been in Fred's room. That did seem to be what Cordelia meantioned. If I understand it, Angel spent that stash of money to fix up the hotel, but he did not actually buy it. Or maby it was being financed? Do not remember exactly how that scene went with the W&H guys threataning to buy the hotel and evict Angel. Unless Angel owns the hotel each room would be a seperate residence; if he owns it the entire hotel would be his home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ok, so who else is confused and horrified? -- vampire hunter D, 12:14:28 09/25/01 Tue
Yeah, the thought of Darla eating for two is scary.

But who cares. Did anyone else notice the Lord of the Rings trailer? That was awesome. How the hell am I going to be able to wait thill December?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ok, so who else is confused and horrified? -- Humanitas, 13:35:36 09/25/01 Tue
"How the hell am I going to be able to wait thill December?"

Same way you waited till October! ;-)
Angel season premiere (MAJOR spoilers) -- Sara, 19:07:44 09/24/01 Mon
Holy God! Either Darla's been feeding a lot, or she's feeding for two! Could this be what Darla meant when she made the comment to Dru about Lindsay still not knowing what Wolfram and Hart wanted with Angel? He obviously thought they were trying to make him lose his soul, so if that's not it . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel Spoiler Chat? Now? -- Wisewoman, 19:22:25 09/24/01 Mon
Okay, those of us who have just seen this have a lot to talk about. Anybody who wants to--go to the chat room now at

http://ivyweb.com/chat/

Warning!! It WILL be spoilery!!

Wisewoman
What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- OnM, 21:44:16 09/24/01 Mon
Off to sleepytime, now, but just thought I'd check out the opins on this.

Not surprisingly, I love it, far more cinematic looking. My only complaint in fact has nothing to do with the widescreen, but those obviously Wolfram & Hart-influenced marketing/legal demons at the WB who decided that a REALLY BRIGHT WHITE OPAQUE 'WB' LOGO on the screen all the time just adds so, so much class to the whole visual look of the show.

Also, if LOTR is half as good as the trailer-- whoooooo, boy.

G'nite, see ya tomorry sometime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- Nina, 21:53:07 09/24/01 Mon
I was lucky, cause I don't get AtS on the WB but on Fox (and Fox didn't put its logo tonight) so it was quite cinematographic and very posh!

Does anyone knows if it's the new trend for the season or if it was only used for tonight's episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My understanding is that it's permanent -- d'Herblay, 21:57:55 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- Isabel, 22:21:01 09/24/01 Mon
I understand that Babylon 5 filmed in widescreen to possibly allow for clips to be used in future movies. Does anybody think thats why they did that?

Do you think they'll do this to Buffy? Or is WB REALLY trying to make Angel different?

(Sorry, my mind always goes into overdrive before bed.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- Andy, 06:49:05 09/25/01 Tue
I think the Babylon 5 use of widescreen was simply for the same reason that more and more shows are filming in widescreen now: to prepare for the coming of widescreen HDTV.

Personally, I don't have WB so I didn't get to see Angel last night, but I'm always in favor of broadcasting shows in widescreen. Anything to make the price on widescreen televisions fall and get people of out of that "black bars = evil" mentality :) In fact, I wish Buffy would hurry up and start being shown in widescreen, because I know they've been filming it that way for the past couple of seasons. Maybe it's just me but there were parts in seasons 4 and 5 that the image felt distinctly cramped to my eyes, and I wished I could see the sides of the picture that were being chopped off.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I dislike it. That and Wesley's hair. -- Masq, 22:06:17 09/24/01 Mon
Are hairstyles spoilers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I dislike it. That and Wesley's hair. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:08:46 09/25/01 Tue
No 'hairstyle spoiler' just a spoiled hairstyle. Reminds me of 'deathly thin Chandler with big hair' from the season opener of Friends last year.

It was encouraging that the Angel show's budget looks very healthy this year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I dislike it. That and Wesley's hair. -- JM, 07:35:59 09/25/01 Tue
Frequent lurker, occassional poster. Took a little while to get used to the new hair, but quite liked it by the end of the episode. It gave the impression that he's been too busy to be particular about his appearance. I wonder if we'll ever see Wes in a suit again. I remember how Wes's formal dress used to set him off from the others in the same room, kind of highlighting a certain awkwardness he still had with dealing with people, even Angel and Cordy.

(I think my favorite montage was the scene at the beginning of "Thin Red Line," with him dressed in Oxford and tie gazing out the door of their depressing little office, with the far hipper Cordy and Gunn behind him, delivering one of those patented Wes lines about demons that always has everyone do a double-take or at least raise an I brow. Hardly the same man now. At least as different from Wes, ex-Rougue Demon Hunter, ex-AI employee, as HE was from WWP the watcher.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The screen played havoc with my willing suspension of disbelief. Kept me slightly out of the story. -- Masq, 08:49:57 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Liked it. Seems to somehow enhance the film.Don't even notice logos anymore cuz everyone has 'em. -- Deeva, 23:24:19 09/24/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Did anyone also notice that the editing was different? -- Deeva, 12:39:29 09/25/01 Tue
There seemed to be in a few of the fight scenes a jumpy stutter cut in them. Kind of cool. Like they're moving so quickly that it leaves a shadow of sorts on the scene. I noticed it the most in the temple fight scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Did anyone also notice that the editing was different? -- Humanitas, 13:11:38 09/25/01 Tue
Yeah, very kung-fu flick.

I noticed that it was used very effectively in the fight between Angel and James. They did the stutter-cut with James, but not with Angel. It gave the impression that James was much faster, and created a real sense of danger for Our Hero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Did anyone also notice that the editing was different? -- Dedalus, 19:14:27 09/25/01 Tue
Yes, I got that too.

Very nifty. They used it some in Dune, I believe.

Several of the vamps Angel has had to fight have been faster than him. Like that Psycho-One Kenobi in Somnabulist.

Here's hoping Buffy comes back with the kung-fu weightless leap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Don't even notice logos anymore cuz everyone has 'em. -- OnM, 21:17:34 09/25/01 Tue
Ya know, this just goes to show how brainless and Dilbertian this entire idea of 'branding' networks, affiliates, etc. etc. is.

On the one hand, the logos get so omnipresent that some people turn them off mentally and don't really notice them. Thus, they become useless for their intended purpose.

On the other hand, you have people like myself who see them as not only a visual distraction, which gets ever more annoying as time wears on, but as an insult to the work of the programs' creative staff, particularly the cinematographers. (I mean, do you think the Metropolitan Museum of Art parks a great big ***MMoA*** sticker on all the sculptures and paintings? I think not!)

If you are one of the latter, then you get to dislike the station or network.

End result-- ignored or disliked.

'Brand recognition'? Bah!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- Drizzt, 23:27:10 09/24/01 Mon
I liked the new screen ratio. Sooner or later all broadcasts of new shows will be similar; wide screen is the standerd for movies & DVD. Will be the broadcast standerd in ??? years(roll-eyes)

Hopefully and probably the WB logo will be like that only temperarily; it had a US flag on it in my broadcast, so it was cool with me as a temperary patriotic thing. US flags everywhere at the moment...good thing:) Anyway I think the WB will switch back to the semitransparent logo in a few weeks.

I loved the Lord of the Rings trailer also. In fact even if I had not read the books twice, I would still have gotten a good impretion of the movie JUST from that trailer...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- Rattletrap, 05:45:28 09/25/01 Tue
I loved it, but ditto to the complaints about the annoying bright white logo. Hopefully Driz is right and this is just a temporary patriotic thing.

There also seem to be some differences in the photography, a lot more movement and more different camera angles, also much more like a movie. The colors also seem to be better this season (although I have cable now, so that may be a cable vs. broadcast difference, too). I asked in an earlier post, but I'll reiterate: Does anyone know enough about the technical end of this stuff to explain what's different in the filming? I'd be curious to hear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Did the widescreen (letterbox) format remind anyone else of a Sci-Fi original movie? (NT) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 07:40:29 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Irked me through the whole thing. Not the letterbox, the logo. -- Solitude1056, 07:40:52 09/25/01 Tue
Since when was an american flag part of the WB logo, anyway? They used to just do the barely-there "imprint" logo in the corner every five or so minutes, and then it was constant, and now it's a solid logo. That's truly annoying, and distracting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ugh, the damn thing! -- pocky, 07:43:29 09/25/01 Tue
i dislike the widescreen format. sure, the pictures look sharper, smoother, and definitely cinematic-- but it's so small!!! it didn't help that i had the close-caption turned on. *sigh* oh well, you win some you lose some, i guess.

~nathan~

PS: LOTR looks sooooo good. i was going to say "promising" but that trailer just instantly made me want to see the movie right when it comes out. i'll even suffer those long lines...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm so unobservent -- Shaglio, 08:26:46 09/25/01 Tue
I didn't even notice that it was in letterbox format until I came here and read all the posts this morning. Maybe it's because my mind is on too many things right now. Between my "friend with benefits," my inconsistant bowling game, and work, I have far too much to think about than the shape of the camera on a TV show :( So I guess to answer the question posed, I can't say that I liked it since I didn't notice it, but I definitely didn't not like it since I didn't notice it. Did that make any sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? -- rowan, 08:51:34 09/25/01 Tue
I'm totally with you on the logo issue and on LOTR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What did you think of the new widescreen (letterbox) visual format? (slightly spoilery) -- VampRiley, 18:35:02 09/25/01 Tue
Loved the LOFT trailer. After I saw it, I was like damn! Was that Liv Tyler looking like an elf or something near the end on that horse and looking back and to the camera?

Am I wrong or was Dr. Gregson played by the same actor that played the guy in "Real Me" last year that told Dawn that he was a cat outside the Magic Box. You know, one of Glory's crazies?



VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I loved it ... :-) -- Dedalus, 19:09:23 09/25/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> More atmosphere, more movement, more depth of field, loved it. -- mundusmundi, 13:15:00 09/26/01 Wed

Thoughts on characters apearance & personality -- Drizzt, 02:48:18 09/25/01 Tue

This has allready been discussed in a thread in the archives. The subject was how different the characters are between season one and The Gift. Do not remember the title of that thread. The previous thread was mostly about how the actors appearance has changed; I am more interested in the growth and change in personality.

My impressions. Never saw any of season 1&2 except that halloween ep with Ethen Rayne. WOW! I watched the original movie, then episode one, then the Season 3 Angel premeir.

Buffy was a lot different, but still the same person...very cool. Laughed when Buffy met Angel, plus being a veiwer I can see the differences and future growth in thier relationship; the perspective is quite odd since I saw the later points of their interaction before the point they met... Paraphrase: I saw the future versions of Buffy and Angel before I ever saw the first time they met.

Darla: hmmm she was weaker and less confident in the premeir episode of season 1 than in the flashbacks that were shown in various future episodes of the two shows. Also in the same veign(*g*) remember FFL? In that ep Spike killed a Slayer and Darla knew of it first hand. I guess it makes sense her being weak if you just say Darla was pretending to be weak & not know of Slayers. Plot continuaty: Darla of "flashbacks" was a nasty and scary partner of Angelus, Darla of season 1 was weaker, Darla of season 2 of Angel is back to being very dangerous. Hmmmm. Not complaining, it is just an interesting although illogical sequence if you consider all scenes with Darla in chronological order; NOT order of appearance in episodes, I mean the Buffyverse ACTUAL timeline.

Oh boy was it neat comparing Willow in the first ep to Willow in Tough Love or Spiral. Mousy bookworm to pissed off witch taking on a GODDESS! Yeah for Willow and five years of growth:)

Xander: Compare Xander in ep 1 to Xander in "I was made to love you" or "Into the Woods" Yeah for Xander! because he has become Buffy's big brother and confidant from a guy that stammered in her presance.

Giles: The last episode I saw with Giles was The Gift where he had to be the Ripper, NEXT seeing him as a stammering librarian first meeting the headstrong Buffy? LOL and LOL again!

Well I could do a really long post describing all the differences that five years made, but I hope that others on this board would like to add their own comparisons on this thread:)

Oh boy the perspective of five years is NEAT!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thoughts on characters apearance & personality -- John Burwood, 09:28:30 09/25/01 Tue

Not sure which thread you refer to, Drizzt, but I set up a thread seeking reactions to early eps of posters who never seen them before, & you have given exactly the perspectives I wanted to hear, so much thanks & one request. I would be intrigued to hear your reaction to Darla as portrayed in Season one episode seven, and how she compares to the current Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Will post my reaction after seeing ep 7:-) -- Drizzt, 11:14:13 09/25/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on characters apearance & personality -- Shaglio, 11:21:05 09/25/01 Tue

Darla is a very weird situation. In the current episodes, she looks like she is in her lower to mid 30's. But watching the debut episode last night, I didn't even recognize her until she said her name was Darla. She looked like she was 15! And that was only 6 years ago. The flashback scenes that they do on Angel and in FFL on Buffy depict her as looking much more like she does now (obviously since they're filmed now). But the first episode was a mind blower for me. Maybe VampDarla was just going through a phase with her haircut, or maybe she was getting into her helpless high school girl disguise, but she didn't seem anywhere near as mature in her appearence and her actions as she does in the flashback scenes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Darla's as the Master's minion -- Wilder, 12:49:19 09/25/01 Tue

Perhaps the more submissive Darla is a result of her serving the Master.

When she was out ravaging the world with her rebellious boyfriend Angelus, she could be more assertive and independant.

But as a servant to her sire, she regressed to a more worker ant role.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Darla's different guises -- Helen, 02:31:40 09/26/01 Wed

I really don't have a problem with how different Darla was in Buffy Season One in comparison with Buffy 5 and Angel 2.

Darla dumped the Master to be with Angelus, having loyally served him for about three hundred years. When Angelus got the curse, she obviously eventually made her way back to the Master, having parted company with Dru and Spike. Wouldn't some major sucking up be necessary to get the Master to forget about her betrayal? I think the weak, loyal lacky was just a role that it suited Darla's purpose to play. She was in fact working to her own agenda - she wanted her Dear Boy back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Darla's changes -- Marie, 06:46:20 09/26/01 Wed

You know, it's my opinion, and only because I recently started writing a little myself (thanks to this board!), that sometimes characters force you to change them as you write. And maybe the writers had no choice from Darla. They started off making her a little girlish, even her voice seemed higher- pitched, but maybe when they decided the character was going to stay around for a while, SHE decided she wanted to grow up!

I only know that when I'm writing, sometimes I want to go one way, but the characters end up going in an entirely different direction! (Anyone else have that problem?)

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darla's changes -- John Burwood, 13:39:32 09/26/01 Wed

All the time, Marie. My characters can literally take on lives and deaths of their own. Characters I originally planned to kill off keep somehow surviving, and characters planned to be long-running get themselves killed off all of a sudden. It just somehow seems to become obvious & inevitable, so the grand plans of writers and other mice just have to adapt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darla's changes -- Cactus Watcher, 19:01:30 09/26/01 Wed

It's natural for your characters to develop on you, but if they do things much differently than what you intended when you started to write you've got a problem. It's easy to say I want this one main character to do thus and such and start writing without much of a story in mind. You fill in with secondary characters who get stronger and stronger and suddenly it isn't the story you thought you were writing at all. It's all very good practice, but it usually won't end up being something others are going to want to read. Take a little time and think about your next story. Decide ahead of time in your head what all is going to happen. Outline your story if you can stand to do that kind of thing. Then stick to your outline. If a side character starts getting too interesting, get her out of the story entirely. Save her for her own story down the road. Put a new character in and keep her in her place. The main characters will do what you want them to as long as you stick to the outline.

That's a little preachy, but I hope it helps.

And yes. the way television writing works, characters are always doing things the writers didn't initially intend. But, never in only one episode!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla's changes -- JM, 20:49:18 09/26/01 Wed

Not very experienced voice here, but sympathetic. All my stories are in my head, not enough discipline. Though my roommate is currently getting me to outline them in e-mail. They're usually multi-character epics that are worked over several years, based on whatever medium I'm most interested in currently. And my characters are always doing that. Things will happen in my life, or I'll be affected by a particular movie or show and want to incorporate a specific theme. Dramatic plot breaks-throughs will occur when I realize that certain characters are really meant to be together when their relationship was only supposed to be a detour on the way to true love. Killing off a character you expected to go the distance can be a supremely satisfying experience for a creator. Just my two cents. Not worth much if the soap I've been working in for ten years never gets onto paper. LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the advice! -- Marie, 08:00:23 09/27/01 Thu

Though, actually, I don't mind the characters changing! I just meant to point out that sometimes they do, whether you'd intended it or not. Wasn't meaning to sound cross or whiny about it, though! It makes for interesting writing.

Marie

(Though it's nice to hear other people have the same problems!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Character changes -- vampire hunter D, 23:07:02 09/26/01 Wed

I havn't had this problem yet, but my story didn't have very many characters, did it.

Actually, the story I have in my head has characters that do keep changing. I start out thinking of a character one way, and they go another as I change and improve my story (but never really write down. I should change that). Of course, when I say story, I really mean story fragments. I have a general idea of the course of events, and a few scenes visualized (emphasis on the visual. I think how this would play out on TV, but have a hard time describing it in words) but have large gaps in the story I have a hard time filling. That's why there is only the one, simple stroy published.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Character changes -- JM, 05:35:51 09/27/01 Thu

Wow! I thought that I was the only one who did that. Including the TV storyboarding of select scenes. I feel a little like Lorne did when he discovered Aretha. LOL! I'm not alone, I'm not insane.

The Truly Unexpected on Angel (Spoiler!!!!) -- BobR, 11:14:13 09/25/01 Tue
The last few seconds of "Heatrthrob" on Angel was one of the biggest surprises ever to be on either Buffy or Angel. I greatly admire the writers. The idea of a pregnant vampiress!

Everything was set up in that scene. Darla is sitting behind the bar so we don't see her condition. They she feeds as a vampire on the man putting the make on her. This was all as usual in the Buffyverse. (Besides, men usually don't put the make on pregnant women. He offers her a drink, but pregnant women aren't supposed to drink, though I suppose that pregnant vampiresses can drink blood.) Then we see her protruding abdomen. At the opening of the episode, there was a brief cut showing Darla and Angel having sex, but nothing to say that this was something unusual.

This went against expectations for television. It is common for people on TV to have sex, but extremely rare for a pregnancy to result. Realism on TV!

In the Buffyverse, it had previously been established that vampires don't reproduce like humans. On a Buffy episode (I think in the second season), Angel tells Buffy that he can't have kids. I suppose that this works out in that neither Angel nor Darla are "normal" vampires anymore. Angel has a soul and Darla was human for a while. We don't yet know who was behind this. It might have been the Senior Partners of Wolfram and Hart or possibly the Powers That Be with some truly complex plot of their own. Matters will work out over the season arc. If Darla gives birth, will it be a Blessed Event or an Accursed Event? (In Spanish, Bendito or Maldito?)

It seems that good writing should surprise me, and Buffy and Angel certainly do this, which is the reason I keep watching. Some friends of mine have pressed me to read the "Harry Potter" books. I started the first one and gave up after thirty pages. It wasn't that it was written for children, but that there was nothing unexpected. It was all ideas, plot elements, background, etc. that I'd seen before. It didn't surprise me and was therefore boring.

Of Buddhist interest was that Angel was on a three-month retreat in a monestary in Sri Lanka. That is a largely-Buddhist country and there was a large image of the Buddha in the sanctuary where Angel was fighting the demon monks. As I've said before, Buddhism is the only religion I know of which has a place in it for demons. Of course, Sri Lanka is the major world market for werewolf pelts.

This season's Angel is off to a great start!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Truly Unexpected on Angel (Spoiler!!!!) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 15:09:55 09/25/01 Tue
The last few seconds of "Heatrthrob" on Angel was one of the biggest surprises ever to be on either Buffy or Angel. I greatly admire the writers. The idea of a pregnant vampiress!

What I really admire is that they probably didn't even really plan her being pregnant. They were probably thinking... "Ok, we need something really screwed up this season." and Someone said, offhandedly, "Right. So let's make Darla pregnant." and Joss probably just blinked and said, "Ok." .... assuming he wasnt the one to come up with it, which probably isnt the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Truly Unexpected on Angel (Spoiler!!!!) -- Rahael, 16:52:00 09/25/01 Tue
Hinduism has demons as well!

As for this baby - could this be connected to the coming apocalypse, and why Wolfram and Hart are so fixated on Angel as some kind of grey agent/loose canon?

Was this all part of their cunning plan?!?

Thoughts on Fred, Darla, Holtz, James and Elisabeth -- jack_McCoy, 12:04:49 09/25/01 Tue
Fred: Didn't see much of her this episode, but then, the same could be said for Gunn last season. By midseason I'll bet she becomes a bigger part of the team (btw, anyone else think she looks sexier with her glasses on?)

Darla: One of the things I hated about last season was that they left the whole Darla/Dru thing up in the air. I thought they should have taken care of them during the finale, instead of going off to Pylea. However, after seeing the end of the ep., am now glad they left her alive. Sorry Joss, should never have doubted you.

Holtz: First impression-Hmmm, well, he seems alright, but not exactly what I expected. I guess I was expecting someone a bit larger than life. But then, maybe that will be his thing, an ordinary Joe who, through grief and rage, becomes the ultimate vampire hunter.

James and Elisabeth: Liked James more, but then never really got to know Elisabeth that well. Together though they were a bit too sugary and annoying (or maybe I have just been single too long LOL). Thought it interesting that James seemed to think Angel killed Elisabeth with a specfic reason in mind, when in fact he didn't know until it was too late. Kind of like alot of street violence, not necessarily personal or done with malious to another person in mind
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Wisewoman, 12:36:56 09/25/01 Tue
What's your take on the different reactions of James and Angel to the deaths of their loved ones?

James obviously had no intention of living after Elizabeth was gone, and sacrificed himself in such a way as to do the most damage to her killer (at least, he thought he would).

Angel didn't have a killer to go after, but he did seem to recover remarkably well from Buffy's death...

What's up with that? Are the writers trying to tell us something? Cordelia says James and Elizabeth had a "forever" kind of love. Obviously Buffy and Angel didn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Voxpopuli, 12:51:42 09/25/01 Tue
As human, Angel was not the guy who would love someone "forever".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Nina, 13:38:52 09/25/01 Tue
Even though I've said it enough that AtS doesn't appeal too much to me, I must say that I kinda liked the episode last night (even watched it twice!)

Probably for B/A fans it was a slap in the face, but I respect and understand Angel even more now thanks to his reaction to Buffy's death. Weird will you say, but because he was disturbed to be okay about Buffy's death, he scored a lot more points with me.

When it comes to Angel, it's not all-about-Buffy. It's first all-about-Angel. That's who Liam was, a self-centered human being who had not got enough parental love to be able to love in return. Angel didn't spent the summer in Sunnydale with Dawn or with Buffy's friends to share his emotions (okay crossover problem... but still.. he didn't do it.) It was all about HIS pain. He went far away from the world to find peace. He went as far away as possible from Buffy.

I don't doubt one second that for Angel Buffy was his love forever. The problem is that he doesn't have the tools to act on his feelings. Liam inside him is still alive. It is truly dramatic for Angel to realize how much he cared for Buffy and how much in three months he has been able to let her go and be okay.

I think it's going to awaken him. I am not sure if he'll be all philosophical about it, but I hope he'll realize that love can be a lot of things. That souls don't matter. Maybe with Buffy alive again he'll feel he can move on and maybe he'll want her to move on too. Maybe he will learn not to make it all- about-Angel first.

Well a gal can hope!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Lonely1, 18:23:04 09/25/01 Tue
I kinda thought it would have been funny if the new pair of vamps traveling with Angelus and Darla would have been named James and Juliet. But that's just my lopsided humor getting the best of me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Ponto, 19:03:25 09/25/01 Tue
I wasn't disturbed by Angel's reaction. First, he did care. He did what Angel does when he's upset -- he retreats into himself. A monastary is the perfect representation of that.

(An aside, this is what always made me a big Riley fan -- he tried to be proactive in the relationship, Angel and Buffy just got all moody)

Another thing is: Angel knew that it was coming -- the prophecy said that Buffy would die.

He was also told that he was supposed to stay out of Buffy's town. And, if he was going to talk to anyone about his feeling, I think it would be Cordelia. I think that she has truly become his best friend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Cactus Watcher, 13:19:19 09/25/01 Tue
It's almost as if Angel and gang didn't return to the correct universe from Pylea. In the "parallel universe" they're in now vamps get pregnant, and Angel's "undying" love is pretty transitory. I hope that isn't what the writers are really aiming for. It would be pretty lame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> But then... -- Wisewoman, 13:23:08 09/25/01 Tue
..wouldn't Willow still be sitting in the hotel lobby in the Buffyverse dimension, waiting for them to return?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But then... -- Deeva, 13:49:39 09/25/01 Tue
I don't think that the writers meant to imply that Buffy and Angel didn't have that "forever" kind of love. They do. It's pretty tragic enough as it is. He had to make the decision to leave her despite loving her beyond anything else he had come across. The fact that he seems to be taking her death in stride is just an indication of how much Angel internalizes things. I hate to be sexist here but "Come on! He's a guy! Yeah he may be 250 plus years old but he's still a guy and some habits are hard to break"

Besides, it's still just the first ep. of the season we may yet see some other indications of his grief. I personally wasn't expecting Angel to "fall out" or anything quite that dramatic with Buffy's death. I wasn't expecting a scene out of "A Streetcar Named Desire" (Hey that's a pretty good visual. Angel stumbling around in a tank top yelling at the top of his lungs 'BUFFY! BUFFY!' ) I wanted to wait and see what the writers would come up with. I wasn't disappointed. Angel has always been a bit reserved and stoic and I felt that his reaction was in character with the Angel we had been presented with. The whole last scene that Angel had with Cordy was great. I felt that she had summed it all up wonderfully. Something about how Angel was honoring Buffy by living on and continuing to help people. Cordy mentions how she knows he is troubled by the fact that Angel was not there to fight alongside Buffy and to possibly die with her. I loved this exchange! It felt like a real moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angel & Buffy -- Brian, 14:05:27 09/25/01 Tue
I agree with you completely. I belive that Angel and Buffy did have that forever kind of love, and Angel, doing the guy thing, has put it in a box inside his heart, where he can open it when he wants to without others being aware. He may express surprise to Cordelia that he is ok with her death, but Romantics can be very practical (and devious) sometimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But then... -- Cactus Watcher, 13:50:26 09/25/01 Tue
Don't expect me to defend it. It just feels like a parallel universe. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Love and Vampires -- Rufus, 13:45:51 09/25/01 Tue
There was interesting comparisons between James and Elizabeth and Darla and Angelus. The main thing of note was that the vampire can love in the exact porportion that the human was capable of loving. Darla and Angelus were both troubled and self-centered people before they became vampires so it's no surprise that their self-centered behavior would continue on in unlife. I found one comment that James made got my attention.

Angel: It's not real unless it kills you? This is your idea of love, James?

James: What's yours? "It's fun as long as it doesn't cost me anything?" You don't know what love it. (beat) You think you won 'cause you're still alive? You're such a loser, - I lived, you just existed.

I believe that Angel did love Buffy but he has problems with his tendancy to disregard the pain and suffering of others if it means making himself uncomfortable. Angel's story is just beginning in respect to becoming a human. He loved Buffy but it's clear he is doing fine. It's living life that will be the hardest for him. Becoming human is more than isolated acts of heroism, it's becoming involved with and caring about the humanity he protects. Until he met Buffy and after leaving for L.A., James was right, Angel had never lived, only existed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> In defense of Angel -- Jack_McCoy, 13:57:46 09/25/01 Tue
In Angel's defense, there were some differences between the two:

1. Angel and Buffy had been broken up for almost 2 years, rarely saw each other, and ultimately knew that they could never be together so long as Angel was undead. Yes she would always be the love of his life, but they had more or less moved on with their lives (after all, Buffy started dating again and had a very serious relationship with Riely). That is not to say he wasn't profoundly effected by her loss (we never actually saw his reaction during those three months in Tibet).

2. Vampire love tends to be somewhat dark and twisted, with a little bit of obsession thrown in for fun. As we say with Spike and Dru, the relationships tend to be very codependent, meaning when one leaves/dies, the one left feels like they have been cut in half. James and Elisabeth had been together for over 200 years. Combine that with with their dark mirror emotions, and you get one ticked off vampire.

3. Change is very hard for a vampire, and unless something major happens (getting a soul or chip), its not likely that a vampire is going to change much over the course of his or her life. Spike and Angel where able to change because they had no choice; it was either that or die (or go insane). I wonder if James and Elisabeth weren't lovers before they were vampires. That would explain the very human love they felt, and therefore there inability to change their feelings for each other.

4. Angel has more to his life than Buffy now. He has friends, a quest, and a destiny to keep him tied to the earth and fighting to stay alive (much like how Buffy was able to last so long ass the slayer). Add into the fact his emotions are more or less human, and he has the abiltiy to grieve and move on with his life. James, on the other hand, probably only had Elisabeth as his constant in life, and combine that with his difficulty in changing, and you get suicidal vampire.

Anyway, that is just my 2 cents on the matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: In defense of Angel -- celticross, 15:34:50 09/25/01 Tue
Lurker de-lurking for a minute....thanks, Jack, for saying what I've been thinking reading some of the other posts. I don't find anything strange about the fact Angel didn't break down, and we didn't get some quality scenery chewing from DB.

"Angel and Buffy had been broken up for almost 2 years, rarely saw each other, and ultimately knew that they could never be together so long as Angel was undead. Yes she would always be the love of his life, but they had more or less moved on with their lives" ....Exactly. And I think Buffy's death would have hit Angel much harder had it happened a couple of years ago. But Angel's got a new family, people who never really fit into the Sunnydale Scoobies (Wes and Cordy), and new friends (Gunn, Lorne, and even Fred). He has changed, as Buffy had. It's one of those saving a place in your heart things. Buffy will always THE woman to Angel, and he always care about her, but you can move on even from the deepest hurt. What point would there have been in him going to Sunnydale? He's a stranger there now. He deserved to know Buffy had died, but what part does he play in the SG now? He's a part of the past. So he went away, dealt (in whatever way), and now he's come back to his family. Ok, re-lurking now. Thanks for listening. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: In defense of Angel -- Rufus, 16:41:57 09/25/01 Tue
I agree. Love can be eternal,even if the relationship is not. Angel does love Buffy, but the relationship may just be over. Love doesn't mean you have to live with the person. The influence of Buffy was a changing point for Angel that brought him to appreciating the battle between good and evil was worth fighting instead of just sitting back in apathy. To keep fighting a worthwhile battle is an honor that I think Buffy would have wanted Angel to do. Buffy survived Angels death and Angel has now survived Buffy's.......what will a reunion do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Rattletrap, 14:18:29 09/25/01 Tue
There seem to be several parallels at work here:

Angel and Darla's relationship is the antithesis of Angel and Buffy. A&D never truly loved each other, but played their twisted games of deceit and lies for 150 years. A&B were together for only about 2 years and found something honest; deeper and truer than anything before. Angel going off alone to work through his grief doesn't, I think, mean anything about his lack of true love for Buffy. It is characteristic of the loner, private, broody charachter that he has always been--even when he's in a good, happy mood he's not thrilled to have people around (I have to say, I can often sympathize . . . ). Cordy gives Angel a sort of gift by explaining to him that remaining in LA, fighting the good fight against evil, and carrying on is a tribute to Buffy, and is exactly the sort of thing she would have wanted him to do.

There also seems to be a parallel at work with necklaces: Angel's gift to Cordy after getting back from Sri Lanka is a necklace, as is James' gift to Elisabeth in France. Both are symbols of love. Angel's love for Cordy is platonic, which in some ways makes it all the more significant. It is clear all the way through this episode how much the two of them care for each other, each for the other's sake. This is what James picks up on when he threatens to kill "The woman [Angel] love[s]." The old Angelus would have never been capable of this type of feeling.

Finally, a third parallel, this one is pure specualtion about things to come:

Fred may be the antithesis of Drusilla. Angel drove Drusilla mad before eventually killing her. Five years in exile in Pylea drove Fred mad, and part of Angel's road to redemption may be helping her recover some semblance of sanity and her ability to function in society again. Again, I don't know anything about future episodes, this is pure speculation.

What do you think? Take it and run.

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Necklaces, love, and risk -- Humanitas, 15:47:17 09/25/01 Tue
Speaking of necklaces, let's not forget the cross Angel gave Buffy in WttH. Anther parallel, and one which heightens the differences between the couples. James stole something pretty for his love. Angel gave his love something that could harm him (no idea if he stole it or bought it).

Hmmm. Looking at it on the screen, they're both self-destructive people, but at different times. James beacme self-destructive when he lost Elizabeth, but Angel became self-destructive when he fell for Buffy. Maybe that indicates a certain point of view about love on the part of the writers. To love is to risk pain.

What do y'all think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> To love is to risk pain........... -- Rufus, 17:17:16 09/25/01 Tue
When the guide spoke to Buffy she said Love, Give, Forgive......Buffy is all about love and feared the pain of rejection. The guide said that the Slayer forges strength from the pain.........can Angel?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Dichotomy, 17:10:57 09/25/01 Tue
Ooooo! I like that theory!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: James and Elisabeth vs Angel and Buffy -- Kendra, 15:49:09 09/25/01 Tue
I am getting a different take on the situation. I saw the episode as a contrast of two ways to deal with the loss of a loved one. Both men lost the love of their life. Instead of trying to find a way to continue, James chose death. Which in my opionion was the cowards way out. Angel has chosen to "live" even if it means continuing without the love of his life. Angel grieved for three months. It is time for him to get on with the business of life. Doing so does not diminsh his love for Buffy nor does it mean that he loved her less than James loved Elizabeth. In fact, Angel's doing so compliments the growth he made in Season Two. I thought that was the whole point of that episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I still think it was no accident that ... -- Liquidram, 16:50:20 09/25/01 Tue
the names were James and Elizabeth and that we received yet another affirmation of selfless vampiric love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> the names James and Elizabeth -- Wilder, 18:11:55 09/25/01 Tue
Hey Liquidram,

what am I missing here about those names?

Whats the signifigance (or however that is spelled)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the names James and Elizabeth -- Nina, 18:34:05 09/25/01 Tue
I don't know if it's what Liq's had in mind.... but in mine it goes like this: James (name of the actor who plays Spike) and Elizabeth (Buffy's probable real name when she was born. Buffy being a nickname).

It's a little contrived to think that they chose the names for that reason, but if it isn't it's a hell of a coincidence!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> you got it Nina ..... and Joss is never contrived.... -- Liq, 20:28:58 09/25/01 Tue
..nor does he wallow in coincidence, so I'm going to assume there is a message in there somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the names James and Elizabeth -- Tanker, 22:19:05 09/25/01 Tue
Buffy's name is Buffy. She's never been called anything else. She even said her mom named her Buffy (Something Blue). It's on her tombstone. Fanfic doesn't count (apparently there's fic out there that makes the Elizabeth claim).

Sorry to rant, but this is one of my biggest Buffy pet peeves. The other is fanfic with the word "childe" in it. Ptoui.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ya know, I think Tanker just might be right.... -- Liq, 23:17:45 09/25/01 Tue
wrecks that theory all to hell, don't it?

p.s. apparently there's something out there that says it... don't read much fanfic, so musta heard it somewhere ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Um, Liq, Buffy is a nickname for Elizabeth... -- Wisewoman, 23:43:01 09/25/01 Tue
..as I well know, from personal experience! As a child the closest I could come was "Liz'buff" which rapidly became "Buffy." I think Tanker's just saying that our Buffy wasn't named Elizabeth, but that doesn't discount the theory from a Jossian perspective! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> yea, I know, but.... -- Liq, 00:08:42 09/26/01 Wed
I checked the Watchers Guides and couldn't find any definitive reference to Buffy actually being named Elizabeth, so I conceded the point. Didn't think of it from the perspective you just mentioned, so maybe zee theory is still alive and well...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Of course I'm right ;-) -- Tanker, 13:38:13 09/26/01 Wed
I'm Tanker. I don't think -- I know.

There's apparently a LOT of Buffy fans who believe that, even though there's not a single shred of canonical evidence that supports it. It must come from fanfic. I've had this discussion elsewhere with people who determined that they saw it in a fic and just got it confused with things that actually happened on the show (see what fic can do to you? Dangerous stuff).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well yeah, except for Dark Alchemy which is the gospel truth. I swear. -- Liq, 15:56:56 09/26/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course I'm right ;-) -- Nina, 20:25:32 09/26/01 Wed
If you say so, I'll believe you! ;)

As for Elisabeth... I read somewhere than Elisabeth II was called Buffy as a child. Some books about first names describe Buffy as being a nickname for Elisabeth. I don't personally believe that Buffy was ever called Elisabeth on the show (cause evidently she never was!), but the fact that Buffy happens to be a common nicknames for girls called Elisabeth I just think that Liq's theory is valid nontheless. It's as close as Buffy ther writers could get without being too obvious by calling the character "Buffy".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also.... -- Liq, 21:21:12 09/26/01 Wed
Spike's name is obviously not James, so we have theory by association... Maybe it is still alive! Bwhahahaha

Noticed an interesting quote tonight watching Witch for the first time.

Willow: Like a pen that's all chewed
up, and you know you should throw it away, but you don't, not 'cause you
like it so much, more 'cause you're just used to...

Xander: Will, yeah, that is the point, you don't have to drive it
through my head like a railroad spike.

Let's not forget... *SPOILERS* -- Wisewoman, 13:19:06 09/25/01 Tue

In all the confusion and horror over Darla's impending maternity, did we happen to mention last night the deal with the bald guy at the bar? Before she killed him he handed her a piece of paper and said something about a shaman being difficult to get hold of. She immediately tucked the paper into her dress (bra? well, between her breasts, anyway).

So, we know she's South of the border somewhere, and that she's looking for a particular shaman. To do what, exactly? It's pretty much got to have something to do with the pregnancy, don't ya think?

Hmmmmmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> NB: just spoiler for Angel season premiere, not Buffy ;o) -- WW, 13:20:37 09/25/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Let's not forget... *SPOILERS* -- Rufus, 13:34:50 09/25/01 Tue

I didn't forget it but was forced away from chat on business. The shaman could be someone that helps her keep the "baby".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Let's not forget... *SPOILERS* -- Deeva, 13:53:57 09/25/01 Tue

Darla doesn't seem like the "keeping" type. Unless what she is keeping serves her purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Let's not forget... *SPOILERS* -- Sheri, 09:22:51 09/26/01 Wed

"Darla doesn't seem like the "keeping" type. Unless what she is keeping serves her purpose."

Well, she did turn down the drink that the bald guy offered her... now maybe it was simply cause she didn't like the bald guy, but I think that it is also possible that she was looking out for the baby's health. And while I'm at it... what's up with the bald guy??? Who buys shots for women who look like they're about to pop at any given moment???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Let's not forget... *SPOILERS* -- Voxpopuli, 10:40:50 09/26/01 Wed

What if, even though a vamp, or even because she is a vamp, Darla is protective over her child, like wild a animal who fights for her offspring? What if combining humanity and a demonic instinct of survival, she's really into keeping the baby? Besides that, she was in one mindframe when she was first vamped, she was in a different mindframe when she was re-vamped by Dru, so while she's still Darla, she may have some new traits. Life is full of surprises, isn't it?

As for what the baby may be, if it is really Angel's child is something we are yet to see. And I am dying to know what solution will the writers give to this situation. One thing though is quite nice: as you guys said, the "previously" part showed Angel and Darla in action. This could be a hint.

But then, after all you guys said... and I wish the male posters could help me with that with their own insights: is having a child, discovering that you are a father, seeing the baby and stuff, a moment of truly complete happiness? This love, isn't it? Not sexual, but deep and true, isn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> What will Angel do about the baby? -- change, 16:44:20 09/26/01 Wed

I think another place the writers may be going is: What should Angel do with the kid. If the kid is a vampire, should Angel stake him? Or should Angel try to be a good Dad? What does being a "good Dad" mean if your child is an evil demonic being that will prey on humans?

On another topic: Will the baby drink blood or milk? If it drinks blood, does it get it by biting Darla's breasts? (Sorry. I have a sick mind).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Let's not forget... *SPOILERS* -- Rufus, 18:20:39 09/28/01 Fri

Darla likes power and control. She can't have Angels love, but she can make sure that she has his attention. Not only would he be killing a lover of a couple hundred years,but, potentially the mother of his child. That would put a wrinkle into Angels plans to harm Darla in any way. If it's Angels kid, Darla will have found a way to Angels heart. He won't want her, but how will he be able to kill her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bald guy = Bad guy!! LOL!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:58:26 09/26/01 Wed

The most upsetting lines of the night.......SPOILERS.....:):):) -- Rufus, 14:19:19 09/25/01 Tue

After the show I was still feeling a bit disgusted at what Angelus said to Holtz when he was ready to tell where Darla was......

Holtz: Where is she.

Angelus: (aside to James)He wants Darla, it's a bit of an old thorn in his side, what she and I did tho his family. (to Holtz)Tasty lot, specially the little ones. Your wife kept repeating/ on us, course I repeated on her a few times meself.

I got the impression that Angelus was alluding to the fact he may not just have murdered Holtz's family, but raped his wife before he finished her off. Or were they the words of a cruel demon trying to get a rise out of his captor? I just found the whole thing made me dislike Angelus that bit more. Was James just a sick obsessed vampire? Or did the vampire have just a brighter spark of humanity in him that made him capable of loving someone so much that he couldn't bear to live without them? How long is it worth living if you only exist instead of actually live your life? James was a vampire, he still murdered humans, but he did have a capacity to love that was missing in both Darla and Angelus. Elisabeth said to Angelus......

Elisabeth: You know neither poetry nor love, Angelus.

Darla: He knows other things, marvelously vile and ripping things...didn't we eat a poet in Madrid?"

Angelus: Troubadour. He sang of noble death, yet when his own came......

Darla: Not even a rhyme, just....(fondly)...howling."

Love was a joke to Darla and Angelus, something to be scorned, destroyed. Their existance was to bring as much pain to people as they could. They never lived a life as much as had an ongoing contest to see who could be the most sadistic, and murderous. They didn't have time for poetry as their mission was to bring pain to all, prove how weak everyone was in comparison to them. They may both have been lovely to look at, but poison inside. They used torture as a method of squeezing the love out of a person before they killed them. Angel has a lot to atone for, his memories of mass murder are enough to make anyone with a functioning conscience cringe. His Epiphany seemed to some to be too fast too easy, I think that his Epiphany was step one in a road to becoming human, learning to think of more than just himself. In keeping up the fight, he does honor Buffy, and proves that love does mean more than sweet words and promises, it means actions that prove that you do, and are capable of loving more than the self. I can't wait to meet more of Holtz, his presence will be a tanbigble reminder to Angel of what he had become, why he has to actually work for his shan shu. My last thought is just how close to the person they once were is the vampire? Are they capable of ever seeing humans as more than just a chew toy? Does the fact that they need to reproduce their kind by turing a human force them to have feelings about their prey that are troubling to them in any way? The mythology in the Buffyverse just keeps getting more and more complex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The most upsetting lines of the night.......SPOILERS.....:):):) -- Cactus Watcher, 14:31:25 09/25/01 Tue

Liam didn't impress me as someone who cares much about other people. I doubt he gave them much of a thought, beyond what they could do to make him happy personally.

It's hard to say whether Angelus' taunting of Holtz has any truth. He certainly would take the oportunity to hurt someone, physically or mentally, if he thought of it at the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Lots o' good Rufus quotage above! -- Masq, 15:14:16 09/25/01 Tue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The most upsetting lines of the night.......SPOILERS.....:):):) -- Malandanza, 22:19:56 09/25/01 Tue

Elisabeth: You know neither poetry nor love, Angelus. Darla: He knows other things, marvelously vile and ripping things...didn't we eat a poet in Madrid?" Angelus: Troubadour. He sang of noble death, yet when his own came...... Darla: Not even a rhyme, just....(fondly)...howling."

"Love was a joke to Darla and Angelus, something to be scorned, destroyed. Their existance was to bring as much pain to people as they could. They never lived a life as much as had an ongoing contest to see who could be the most sadistic, and murderous. They didn't have time for poetry as their mission was to bring pain to all, prove how weak everyone was in comparison to them. They may both have been lovely to look at, but poison inside. They used torture as a method of squeezing the love out of a person before they killed them.

You're being a little too hard on Darla and Angelus -- they may pretend that there is nothing more between them mutual love of destruction, but there does seem to be a genuine fondness. Even in your quote they know each other so well that they can finish each others' sentences. Other evidence is Dru telling Darla that Angelus' head is too full of her, Angel's reaction when Darla returned (and Darla's reaction -- both pre and post vamping -- to Angel), and, especially, Angel's revelations at the false T'ish Magev in "Guise Will be Guise." I don't pretend that it was love between them, but I do think there was some affection.

Compare with Spike and Dru or Elizabeth and James, I'd say Darla and Angelus were a little closer to being in love. Can you imagine Angel offering to stake Buffy to prove his love to his new girlfriend? Or Darla offering up Angel to win Lindsey's affection? Elizabeth and James were just good old fashioned Radcliffean obsession -- no love there. Just twisted codependency masquerading as love. To prove how true their "Sid and Nancy" love was, they destroyed other people (like poor Bobby -- how will he explain to his girlfriend why he was willing to let a vampire eat her to escape)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The most upsetting lines of the night.......SPOILERS.....:):):) -- Rufus, 22:19:46 09/27/01 Thu

I think of Angelus and Darla as partners in sex and death. They were incapable of love, their thoughts were of each other but that was only in the most sick way that little resembled love as much as familiarity and shared interest. They clicked together in that they both were so damaged that only they could understand and appreciate each other. I never think of them as in love. After Darla became human she hated her heartbeat, wanted the sound to stop. She acted like a vampire, scorned humans, and only wanted to return to her familiar life where she felt powerful. Darla always physically desired Angel, but in her second turn as a person she got the love bug. She was dying of a STD related heart condition which reflects to me the diseased state of her heart as a person. When she finally accepted her death and the caring Angel had for her, she finally got it, why life could be worth living, perserving. When Dru turned Darla, there was a rage, Angel had indeed made her feel gooey. But Drusilla made an interesting point when she said "You miss him like a heartbeat".Darla could only reply I don't miss my heartbeat, Dru. It was a symptom of a disease I've since been cured of. I think Darla now actually does suffer from loving Angel her own words haunt her The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple death won't change that. Darla didn't love the first time she died she existed, the second time Darla knew unconditional love from someone who would have stayed with her as she died. I think Darla is a different vamp from the first version. I think she misses her heartbeat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think you hit the nail on the head, Rufus! -- Marie, 02:49:21 09/28/01 Fri

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Darla's heartbeat -- Brian, 03:58:19 09/28/01 Fri

Now the question is:

Will there be redemption for Darla or just dust?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Dust........and I thought that we'd at least............. -- Rufus, 10:25:31 09/28/01 Fri

throw her a little baby shower.......:):):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The most upsetting lines of the night.......SPOILERS.....:):):) -- Malandanza, 08:34:09 09/28/01 Fri

"I think of Angelus and Darla as partners in sex and death. They were incapable of love, their thoughts were of each other but that was only in the most sick way that little resembled love as much as familiarity and shared interest. They clicked together in that they both were so damaged that only they could understand and appreciate each other. I never think of them as in love."

I agree that it was not love between Darla and Angelus (I am not convinced that any vampires can truly love -- Spike and James/Elizabeth notwithstanding). But I think that there is enough evidence to support a bond between the two of them (in the pre-Buffy era) that is more than mere "familiarity and shared interest." Consider the following quotes: : ANGEL: That's not true, precious. You've got us. DRUSILLA: Not in the least. You won't even hurt me just a little bit. DARLA: All you have to do is ask. DRUSILLA: No. His head's too full of you, Grandmother.

Drusilla, at least, believes that Angel is too "full of [Darla]" to worry about her. After Angelus is cursed with a soul, both Darla's and Angelus' efforts to restore things to the way they were go beyond self-interest.

DARLA: In that wagon is your family. They live now only through my protection. You have other daughters -- I had only him. You can leave this place. Your family can live. But only if you release him. Remove the filthy soul so my boy might return to me.

Darla's "negotiation" with the Gypsy demonstrates a concern for Angelus beyond the desire to have her hunting partner back at her side.

DARLA: You found me -- ANGEL: You could never resist a religious war. And you always talked about China... I just followed the bodies. You didn't used to be so careless. DARLA: Maybe I wanted to be found

Angel searches the world for Darla and Darla leaves a trail of bodies for him to follow. If it weren't for the trail of bodies, it would almost be romantic.

ANGEL: You know what I am. You do. You made me, Darla. I'm Angelus. DARLA: Not anymore. ANGEL: I can be again. Just give me the chance to prove it to you. DARLA: You almost make me believe you... ANGEL: Believe it. We can have the whirlwind back... She's drawn into his eyes, his conviction. DARLA: We can do this... ANGEL: Yes we can. DARLA: We can do anything... ANGEL: Anything we like.

Another psuedo-pomantic scene. These scenes (from the shooting script -- FFL) all show an affection between Darla and Angelus. I would never call it love -- but remember how obsessed Angel was when Darla returned? And how hard a time he had in fighting her? There was more to their relationship than sex and mayhem.

"Darla didn't love the first time she died she existed, the second time Darla knew unconditional love from someone who would have stayed with her as she died. I think Darla is a different vamp from the first version. I think she misses her heartbeat."

Absolutely. Darla was a very different person the second time around. The first time, she was defiant and resigned to her death. She mocked God on her deathbed. She had no regrets. This time, we saw Darla asking Angelus if there is no afterlife, nothing beyond the immediate existence. We saw her striving for life and fearful of death. She saw Angel willing to sacrifice his life for her and, ultimately, willing to abandon his principles to "save" her( from The Trial):

ANGEL: I mean, we don't know. Maybe...because I have a soul... if I did bite you...

Darla rejects the one thing she wanted most in the world. Certainly, she is a different person this time -- and, necessarily, that makes her a different vampire. Pre-Buffy Darla was moderately conflicted about Angel -- the new Darla should be even more ambivalent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The most upsetting lines of the night.......SPOILERS.....:):):) -- Drizzt, 11:29:21 09/26/01 Wed

One thing in the Anne Rice vampire novels that happened several times is a vampire would fall in love with a mortal human, or be otherwise interested in them. Then the vampire would change the human because of a desire for the personality of the human to be preserved in the form of a vampire.

Drusila's motives for choosing Spike seem to be at least partially equivilent to the Anne Rice scenerios. I think Elizabeth and Sebastian were in love when only one of them was a vampire, then the vampire of the pair made the other one. Personalities are preserved eternally(or change slowly)by the vamping, so they would be eternally in the state of "madly in love" that was the case when the partner was vamped. In this scenerio it would make more sense if Sebastion was the second to become a vampire.
Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Kerri, 15:38:56 09/25/01 Tue
Yay! The new season has begun! :) Stopping by here the first chance I got. I liked Heartthrob, and I honestly have no idea what to say about Darla. But aside from that huge revelation, the episode told us a lot about Angel.

Vampires are oviously capable of love, perhaps love that is as selfless and pure as that of a human. We've seen that Spike, even before Buffy, was capable of a great deal of love-he seemed genuinely in love with Drusilla. James had nothing to live for without Elizabeth.

Angelus on the other hand is another story. Angel and Darla were both completely willing to let the other die, and their relationship seemed to be more about pleasure than love. When the Judge tries to burn Angelus in innocence he can't because there is no humanity in him, while he senses humanity in Spike and Drusilla because of their love.

Elisabeth: You know neither poetry nor love, Angelus.

This line brings me to two huge contrasts: Angelus vs. Angel and Angel vs. Spike.

1)Angelus vs. Angel. Angelus is completely closed off to love, while it is his love for Buffy that makes Angel become who he is. Angelus doesn't know poetry-yet as Angel we see him enjoying poetry and gives it to Buffy for her birthday.

2) Angel vs. Spike. Never before now had I realized just how completely opposite these two characters are. William the Bloody and Liam: William is a poet-he enjoys beauty and love, Liam on the other hand is self-absorbed and self-indulgent. Angelus vs. Spike-they always hated each other. Spike remains the fool for love-and Angelus well he remains not the fool for love. They both, even at this point are fairly remarkable vampire-Spike has killed two slayers and Angel has an incredible passion for making people suffer-he has made killing an art. Then of course there is the Spike of today and the Angel of today. Angel has a soul, Spike a chip. IMO, if Angelus had a chip he would not have become what Spike has. I'm going to leave this here. It will be interesting to see how Spike reacts to Buffy's death as opposed to Angel...

Which leads me to my last point. Angel's reaction to Buffy's death. First, the fact that Angel was able to go on-I have a great deal of respect for him. But, honestly, I expected and wanted for Angel to be more upset. I'm a huge B/A shipper! I'm a bit disappointed. I would really expect Angel to be a bit more devestated-he brought home souvenirs! I wonder how he will react when Buffy returns. IMO, the lack of devestation was connected to seperate networks and the attempt to distance the shows. Forever seemed to encourage B/A shippers that there was hope-Joss still thinks they're soul-mates- but now I don't know. Plus all the A/C rumors(I'd be very upset if that happend).

~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Lonely1, 15:51:52 09/25/01 Tue
I agree with you. Angel should have been more upset. but then again, maybe he was 3 months ago that he actually had to leave the country to deal. The only disapointment i really had was that Fred wasn't used enough. The character has so much potential, I hope she doesn't spend the whole season in her room scrawling on her walls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Fred -- OnM, 20:40:48 09/25/01 Tue
*** The character has so much potential, I hope she doesn't spend the whole season in her room scrawling on her walls. ***

Fear not, remember that BtVS & A:tS are slow sculpture.

Three months is not a very long time to recover from five years of fear and misery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Wisewoman, 16:41:22 09/25/01 Tue
Kerri wrote: IMO, if Angelus had a chip he would not have become what Spike has.

Good point, Kerri. What would a chipped, unsouled Angelus have been like? I think we would have had someone a lot more frustrated than Spike. Spike needs the physical outlet of the violence, and he can get that by killing demons and vampires, instead of humans. Angelus needed to witness the psychological terror of his victims--I'm thinking he would have done what Xander suggested in a previous episode (of Spike) and gotten himself a batch o' minions to do his tormenting and slaying for him, while he watched, of course, and fed on the dead remains.

Not a very pretty picture...and not something I can see Spike ever doing! (The girl Dru killed for him to feed from was not the same thing...it was a spur of the moment reaction to an old relationship, IMHO.)

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> "What we once were informs all that we become." -- Rufus, 17:14:13 09/25/01 Tue
This quote from Darla is becoming more and more true. What Liam was informed all that Angelus became....someone confused, enraged at his perceived mistreatment from his father. Angelus continued the contest killing his father to find that the resolution was empty. Angelus made up for this by continuing a contest of a sort with Darla, who could be the monster with the most stones? Darla was a working girl with a jaded, cynical view of love. She felt that sex was the only expression of love and as she had only been used, sex became empty and only made her feel angry and worthless. Both Darla and Angelus were the shadow sides of the person they once were. So, what happens to a vampire like Spike who was much more mild mannered? Spike had his own problems of self worth, enough that he tried to destroy his former identity, to forget his poet side and turn into the shadow he became. I think you are right about a chipped Spike vs a chipped Angelus.....Angelus with no soul could never have the insight to change in any way. He would have become more Machiavellian in his quest to return to the contest. The hands on kill not nearly as important as the destruction of the person. He had no love, just conflicting feelings for family and love in general. Angel's salvation was the restoration of his soul. Spike, however, was a gentle but flawed man. The chip was something he fought until he realized that he loved the Slayer. Buffys influence may not only be carnal in nature, though it does start that way for the men. Xander, Angel, Spike, Riley....all loved her, all acted out in different ways as a result of their love. Spike, the poet, in Spike has been reborn, but how much of an influence will what William was be on Spike the vampire. Can the repitition of good behavior change the internal wiring of the vampire? Can Spike become what he continues to do? Can Spike move beyond the carnal nature of his love for Buffy and become more? Is it possible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Dichotomy, 16:57:40 09/25/01 Tue
"I would really expect Angel to be a bit more devestated-he brought home souvenirs!"

Me too! I knew they were going to lighten up his gloominess a bit this season, but I think he smiled more this episode than I ever saw before, even when he was with Buffy. And sporting a nice, light khaki ensemble, no less. It was actually a bit jarring for me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Nina, 17:13:37 09/25/01 Tue
I find it very unsettling to see how many fans are disappointd by Angel's way to deal with Buffy's death. It is SO in character. Fanfics always make Angel look like what he is not on the show. Angel is still self-centered even though he has a soul. When he was with Buffy he really loved her but he wasn't able to reach to her and share with her. Deep conversations were rare (if non existant). Angel is not the type to openly share his emotions. Not to say that Buffy wasn't in his life anymore. The moment they shared in "Forever" was sweet, but it clearly showed that Angel wasn't ready to go over that path again. What may be shocking for some fans is the fact that we didn't get to see a little of Angel's grief. We all have to use our imagination here and guess that at first he must have been pretty devastated. That's probably the best we can do to "see" Angel's grief!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- anom, 19:29:54 09/25/01 Tue
"That's probably the best we can do to 'see' Angel's grief!"

Not necessarily--there's always flashbacks, or at least an unvarnished description from Cordelia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Dichotomy, 17:12:39 09/25/01 Tue
"I would really expect Angel to be a bit more devestated-he brought home souvenirs!"

Me too! I knew they were going to lighten up his gloominess a bit this season, but I think he smiled more this episode than I ever saw before, even when he was with Buffy. And sporting a nice, light khaki ensemble, no less. I was actually a bit jarring for me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Joann, 20:19:49 09/25/01 Tue
Angel stifling his emotions and letting Cordy do his talking for him to reassure us he was devastated over Buffy's death was to deny what we have loved over the years between B/A. I don't blame the director, writer or network. As an actor DB could have interpreted the scene any way he wanted to and communicated to his audience the devastation he truly felt and he chose not to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actor's imput -- Kerri, 13:53:22 09/26/01 Wed
"As an actor DB could have interpreted the scene any way he wanted to and communicated to his audience the devastation he truly felt and he chose not to."

yes, actors interperet the scenes and make them come alive; the script just seems so dead and then when you see the episode its perfect. But, it often is the director's decision how the character will be portrayed. Clearly they wanted Angel not to be too devestated-he wore khaki.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Dedalus, 20:56:17 09/25/01 Tue
Actually, the light khaki ensemble was one of the more shocking moments for me. I mean, just to see him outside the classic Angel black outfit ... it was a bit like seeing Batman in funny pink pajamas. Well, maybe not that extreme, but anyway ...

This was a pivotal point in the show. I have mixed feelings about it, too. On the one hand, true love does pretty much kill. Losing my One True Love - at least thus far - pretty much killed me, and you know, she didn't even die. I would have spent three months in a Himalayan monastery if I had known how to get to one. Something like that does kill you. Fortunately in my case, it was only a post-adolescent, welcome-to-the-rest-of-your-life, metaphorical death, but still.

On the other hand, I kinda like how they left off with Willow's grief-stricken face and Angel's expression at the end of last season to him kicking demon monk arse and mumbling how he should have gone to Vegas. It played against our expectations, and I think Angel's too. That he could deal with it ... I doubt before last year he could have. Any other time, he would have been gone, kissing daylight. I think this really brings into play his epiphany episode last year. I loved his revelation. And apparently, just like Buffy was on another level in the Gift, so was Angel after his fling with Darla. I like the symbolism with James having his heart cut out too. Angel was not like that - he still cared about his gang, particularly Cordelia.

You know, we were talking about ahimsa, non-violence, here after the terrorist attacks, and it made me think of Angel in Epiphany. How he was beating the crap out of Lindsey, but taking no pleasure in it, and even apologizing for various things during it. I also like the thank you note he left on his truck. It's been a good long while since I've read the Baghavad Gita, but it reminded me of Arjuna facing down the coming battle, and not wanting to participate in it. Then Krishna comes along, and advises him to act in this life, but with detachment. "By me, these men are slain already." Or something like that. Conflict, in that sense, is just sort of like doing the work of nature.

Basically, I think Angel learned some detachment after his descent into darkness last season.

You know, someone needs to write an essay on this. I loved Kerri's thoughts on the Spike/Angel parallel. As for me, I'm about buried under my dissertation-length analysis of season five, "The Goddess and Her Gift," but it's coming soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel: Not quite the fool for love? (spoilers for 'heartthrob') -- Helen, 02:00:40 09/26/01 Wed
Okay, haven't seen it yet, so missed the nuances that the acting brings, but I have just read the shooting script (thanks for the link whoever posted it).

Angel being able to overcome his grief and work through it is probably, to me at least, a more accurate and realistic portrayal of grief than if he had descended into brooding mode. Part of the grieving process is to recognise that life does go on, and to get on with it. Harsh, and some people are better at it than others.
But he clearly recognised that his acceptance and determination to carry on with what had also been Buffy's work, is a better way to honour her and keep her in his heart, than James' selfish despair at Elisabeth's death.

I'm seeing parallels here - the difference between Linton and Heathcliff's responses to Catherine's death in Wuthering Heights . Can anyone reassure me that this is not insane?

Also, Angel is an immortal vampire (immortal up to the point of stakes and sunlight anyway). Buffy is a mortal, human girl who also happens to have probably the most dangerous job in the world. Sooner or later, she was going to die and I think he always had that in his mind, since he left her in Graduation Day Part 2. Had he remained with her, and been there at her death, then I think it would have been a lot worse. (As the mayor found when his wife aged and died). Perhaps (Forever notwithstanding) when he accepted that they could not be together in I Will Remember You, and got the Oracles to turn back time so that it never happened, he accepted that he had lost her, completely, and she might as well be dead anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Can't wait to read your next essay Dedalus! -- Kerri, 13:48:04 09/26/01 Wed

Theories on that headache-causing Angel Shocker -- Lucifer_Sponge, 15:59:42 09/25/01 Tue
Ok, I've thought of two things that might make sense... but before I get to them, I'd just like to say that someone here (I don't remember who, and I'm not attacking the said person) said something to the effect of "The writers throw out their own rules when it's convenient for them." That may be true for shows like Charmed, or Roswell, but Buffy is neither of those shows. Buffy's on sssssuuuchh a higher level, but anyway....

When in the Buffyverse, you have to remember that the world is based primarily on magic and supernatural forces. And while these forces may have laws just like our natural ones do (like supernatural laws of physics), those laws are not the most stable or constant things.

For instance, Xander was right in the middle of explaining to Riley that magic took concentration, and that you couldn't just rattle off something in Latin and expect it to do something when the book burst into flames as a result of his offhand Latin phrase.

And then, of course, there's the time Angel was able to get into Kate's apartment without her inviting him.

Clearly, there's always exceptions to the rules... as well as freak occurences that just plain shouldn't have been able to happen.

And, as it's pointed out before, Angel and Darla are NOT normal vampires. Angel's had his sword restored and has been changed into a human at one point. Darla died, was brought back as a human and was then turned back into a vampire. That -has- to have caused a few complications. Those metaphysical laws that are supposed to govern vampirism have undoubtable been more than a little bent or warped as far as Darla and Angel are concerned.

So, that's my two cents...

~Sponge

Misinformed Giles in 'The Harvest'? -- Kerri, 16:13:08 09/25/01 Tue

Watching The Harvest now. Giles just said, "As long as there have been vampires, there's been the Slayer." This contradicts what fray says-that the Slayer was a response to vampires. I want to know more about the Slayer's origin! Hopefully this season! I can't wait till new eps! 7 days! Woohoo!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misinformed Giles in 'The Harvest'? -- Dedalus, 21:00:22 09/25/01 Tue

Well, it depends. It seems the shamans got up the mojo to cook up the Slayer in a hurry. They were facing a plague, and all that. And we all want to know more about the Slayer's origins. Woohoo indeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Misinformed Giles in 'The Harvest'? -- Masquerade, 14:19:07 09/26/01 Wed

"As long as there have been vampires, there's been the Slayer."

A contradiction? Isn't this just saying, "slayers immediately followed right after vampires came around"?

I don't see a contradiction here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Misinformed Giles in 'The Harvest'? -- rowan, 08:37:05 09/27/01 Thu

I'd just chime in here that Giles is articulating what he knows as a result of Watcher research and his own research. His information has every possibility of error and bias. He's telling the story as he knows it, which may in actuality turn out to be only 90% right in looking back 5 years later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Misinformed Giles in 'The Harvest'? -- a, 17:24:22 09/27/01 Thu

Or maybe its because 5 years ago Joss had no idea whatsoever that his show was gonna explode into this huge thing that includes comics now and he doesn't remember every single solitary line.
The Baby -- Ender, 16:43:09 09/25/01 Tue

Anyone think that it is possible that this isn't Angel's child. Darla was human for at least a few months before she was turned, perhaps she had relations with someone during that time and became impregnated. Later she is turned by Dru before she figures out she is with child. Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Baby -- Ponto, 17:37:33 09/25/01 Tue

I think that it was far enough along that it was probably Lindsey's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Baby -- Lonely1, 18:15:39 09/25/01 Tue

But to become a vampire YOU HAVE TO DIE. I think that might be slightly harmful to a child in the womb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Think Magic Clause here -- Rufus, 18:54:36 09/25/01 Tue

If we can have demons and witches and magic, why not work in a unblessed event?....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How old is baby (i.e. how far along)? -- Jack_McCoy, 20:00:38 09/25/01 Tue

Okay, its been roughly, oh I'd say, 4 months since we last saw Darla (in the Angel/Buffy universe). There she didn't look at all pregnant, or act like a demon who knows that something impossible has happened to her. So, maybe Angel is the dad, and she got pregnant because they both aren't typical vampires. But then, maybe Lindsey is the dad, and the same rule applies (atypical vampire). Hmm, this is a tough one.

How far along did Darla look to you all? I don't have enough experience in these matters to guess, but she looked almost full term to me (but again, I can't really judge for sure). Does the growth of the fetus indicate that Lindsey is the dad, assuming he had sex with her a couple of months (maybe weeks?) before Angel? Or, do you think its growth could be more rapidly then normal, indicating that maybe Angel is the daddy?

Ugh I am getting a headache. Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How much time has passed? -- Wilder, 20:47:34 09/25/01 Tue

It's been three months since Buffy's death, that we know.

And the time they spent in Pylea was, what, a week or so, in L.A. (figuring their temporal dimensional stuff followed the same kinda speed).

Angel's ephiphany took maybe a month. His dark period sparked by Darla's revamping.

So if Angel is daddy, then it's a fast growing baby.

I'm still rooting for the Okie - Old Evil Hand Lindsey - to be the one with the magic swimmers.

If Darla was with child via him pre vamping, then her term might be in the last trimester.

Of course, my guesses on how much time has passed are likely off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How old is baby (i.e. how far along)? -- Wisewoman, 21:54:09 09/25/01 Tue

Either that baby was due yesterday or she's carrying a whole litter--that vamp is wicked pregnant!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How old is baby (i.e. how far along)? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 06:50:02 09/26/01 Wed

Oooo... a whole litter. Never thought of that. What if what Darla's carrying isn't even humanoid? She might have been infected by some weird... vampire-impregnating demon... yeah... No, but seriously, its an option no one's thought of yet. What if she's all filled up with tiny snake demons or something, and not an actual human/vampire baby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Maybe she slept with a brother of the demon who got Cordy pregnant! -- Marie, 07:07:10 09/26/01 Wed

Nah! The writers are a lot more inventive than that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How old is baby (i.e. how far along)? -- Shaglio, 10:05:23 09/26/01 Wed

"that vamp is wicked pregnant!"

WICKED pregnant? I thought that term was only used out here in the New England area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Wicked -- WW, 11:24:21 09/26/01 Wed

Hey, I'm a witch! Wicked is my favourite adjective!

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Wicked -- Shaglio, 13:07:07 09/26/01 Wed

"Hey, I'm a witch! Wicked is my favourite adjective!"

I see. Maybe it has something to do with Salem, Massachusets (i.e. The Salem Witch Trials). Maybe that's where the term started and why I thought it was exclusive to New England. See, you learn something new everyday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wicked -- celticross, 08:48:01 09/27/01 Thu

It's also a British slang term...i picked it up this summer while travelling in England.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Shooting blanks -- Spiff, 08:45:35 09/28/01 Fri

So, we have the storyline that will leave us in the dark for a while. Why not add to the completely uninformed guess work? Darla's the only one who's really been mojo-ed back from death - so that would explain some peculiarities she might have (connection w/ a higher evil). Angel is basically the same walking corpse with a human trapped inside - I've always assumed that he like other vampires has been shooting blanks. He did travel within Wolfram & Hart's little executive elevator of evil and was sent back to this dimension by the first evil. Maybe he could have been the courier of the seed of evil (i hate these euthemisms). Of course, then Lindsey could have knocked her up before the change. In anycase, Vampire Darla's gonna be a momma. This unblessed event seems to scream "demon messiah" or "new vampire plague starts here". I'm not too comfortable with the possibility of the former. It hits too close to religion.

-Spiff, the good altar boy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> If Angel is no longer a Jaffa... -- Marie, 08:59:32 09/28/01 Fri

..because of some magical mogo or other, does that mean he would also be liable to have Darla's sypphilitic disease? I'm assuming they didn't bother with condoms. Also, that sort of thing was rampant in his time - STDs were everywhere. Ditto Spike and Dru and most other very old vamps. They all have to be disease-riddled, don't you think? If they ever had to go to see a doctor for a physical, what do you reckon he/she'd make of them? Do vamps x-ray well, for instance? Would ante- natal scans show Darla's heart un-beating? Hmmm...

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Baby? -- JoRus, 12:36:14 09/28/01 Fri

I haven't actually gone back and looked, but perhaps in all Dru's mutterings about "the nursery" when she vamped Darla there are clues? Granted, Dru told Lindsey's neighbors she was preggers, and excited about the baby, but given the elliptical nature of Dru's remarks, they now seem to be referencing Darla. I am assuming BTW, that Darla was looking for a shaman to be a midwife. I think it's a given that Rufus' Magic Clause must be invoked in any case, and that the baby's going to be wearing black leather training pants. And definitely no sterling teething rings for cradle gifts. Although the baby COULD be good...that would create a real problem for Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Black leather training pants.......Jo you think of all the nice touches..... -- Rufus, 18:47:04 09/28/01 Fri

What does urine do the leather?.....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Jaffa? isn't that next to Tel Aviv? -- anom, 19:51:05 09/30/01 Sun

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> i.e. seedless, as in oranges? ;o) -- WW, 09:35:05 10/01/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Omenous baby thoughts -- John Burwood, 05:26:24 09/30/01 Sun

Demon messiah? It occurs to me that Joss has been known to pay tribute to classic movies that he admires. Does anyone remember him declaring admiration for the Omen trilogy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Elizabeth James -- Rattletrap, 13:19:31 09/30/01 Sun

Since the Elizabeth and James thread has descended into the archives never to be seen again, I'll post this here, this is the closest I can get.

From the City of Angel website:

Fun Note: Since David Greenwalt penned this premiere episode it falls to reason that he was having some fun with his two main characters of the plot, James and Elizabeth. David's personal assistant is in fact, Elizabeth James! To see the amount of devotion this talented woman enthuses, just read our Film Fest Part II feature in the Behind the Scenes section.

thought this was interesting in light of recent discussion

'trap


Current board | More September 2001