April 2002 posts
Quick (O/T) Update -- Wisewoman, 09:28:11 04/23/02
Tue
Hi guys!
Recovery is proceeding apace. I'm off to Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island today, to visit the
parents for a couple of weeks, so I'll be mostly off-line.
Very excited to have received an e-mail from James C. Leary this morning (the actor who plays
Clem) thanking me for the Clem Homestead site and saying how much he enjoyed it...YAY!!
Also got notification that I was able to "adopt" Clem from the Adopt-a-Monster site. I've added a
couple of kittens, and I've got a neat short fic from LadyStarlight to post, but I haven't been spending
much time on the computer because of the eyesight thing (which is slowly improving).
Just wanted to keep you up-to-date, and BTW, a big thank-you to the person who wrote to JCL
through his agent, and told him about the site and about my sudden illness. I'm not exactly sure who
you are, but 95% sure you're one of my ATPo buddies ;o)
Love ya,
dubdub
[>
Glad to hear things are improving! -- AurraSing, 09:38:53 04/23/02 Tue
Hope you get some nice warm days and lots of rest over there...and the whole Clem thing is very
cool!
[>
Have a great time on V. Island -- Masq, 09:58:46 04/23/02 Tue
You deserve it!
[>
Re: Quick (O/T) Update: That was me -- Dochawk, 10:46:42 04/23/02 Tue
That was me. I'm glad he finally got to you, since teh address I had given him was the hospital and
the get well card bounced back to him.
[>
Have fun! -- Traveler, 13:25:48 04/23/02 Tue
Sounds like a blast! It's also cool that you got some recognition for the work you put into that site
:)
S/R parallels - Monster in the Man/Search
for Identity (quite long!) -- shadowkat, 11:10:32 04/23/02 Tue
Spike and Riley parallels – Monster in the Man
(Thanks to the Board for putting up with long posts. All quotes are taken from Psyche
Transcripts.)
When I was a child one of the films that scared me the most was the Island of Dr. Moreau, which I
later became obsessed with as an adult. What scared me is the same thing that obsesses me now: the
metamorphosis concept – a concept that has been used by literary greats such as H.G Wells, Franz
Kafka, and Robert Louis Stevenson for centuries. The book the Island of Dr. Moreau by H. G . Wells
is quite different from the movie and the movie I’m referring to is the old one with Burt Lancaster
and Michael York. In the book, the good Doctor is only attempting to bring the man out in the beast,
in the movie the good Doctor is attempting to do both, bring out the man in the beast and the beast
out in the man. Playing god.
In Season 4 of Btvs –the mad Dr. Walsh did just that – played god. Dr. Walsh, a fiendish
psychologist, believed she could harness the savage nature of the sub-terrain creatures, which Buffy
refers to as demons, and create some sort of human/beast hybrid. She created Adam, who was more
beast than man. In the process of doing this – she experimented on Riley and Spike just as Dr.
Moreau experimented on his creations. In the film version, the narrator is altered through chemistry
and surgery to become more bestial in nature, just as Riley is. The doctor does same thing to the
animals of the Island, just as Walsh does to the demons, specifically Spike. The results are similar –
in Island of Dr. Moreau, the beasts rebel and the narrator appears to shed his bestial form, aiding in
the destruction of the Doctor’s enterprise as well as escaping the Island. In Btvs Season 4 –
Primeval, the beasts rebel and Riley & Spike join the others in defeating the Intiative. (As I’m
writing this I am reminded of another secret paradise and another mad occupant who uses creatures
to work his will – Prospero, the magician in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. In The Tempest, Caliban is
a monster that lusts after Prospero’s daughter while enslaved by Prospero’s magicks. He, of course,
can never have the daughter – she falls for the handsome son of Prospero’s enemy, Ferdinand who
shipwrecks on the island. (Ferdinand reminds me a little of Riley). She is unable to see past
Caliban’s monstrosity and Caliban attempts to force himself on her, rebels against Prospero, aids
Prosperos enemies without much success, and eventually learns the error of his ways. He is
described in the play as the darker side of human nature. During Season 4, Btvs, Spike reminds me
of Caliban. Except unlike Caliban, the chip does not enslave him to the Scoobies.) So what do
Walsh’s experiments mean to Spike and Riley in Btvs, now that Intiative is no more? We have two
characters that have been forever changed by Walsh, changes that set these characters on parallel
but separate paths.
Riley is introduced at the beginning of Season 4 as your basic good guy jock. He is charmingly
tongue-tied when he talks to Buffy and very athletic. Then we learn he has this cool secret life as a
demon hunter. We think gee – we’ve got to get Buffy and Riley together - they have so much in
common. It reminds me a bit of Batman and Catwoman. Except for one little problem, Riley’s
superhuman status isn’t real. He has been filled with tons of toxins to make him strong plus a
behavioral modification chip. The Initiative run by Dr. Walsh was attempting to make super-soliders
and Riley was her pet experiment. (We learn this in Goodbye Iowa and later in Primeval - As Spike
states: “So it's chips all around, is it? Someone must have bought the party-pak.” Riley’s chip is just
below his left shoulder not far from his heart.) This story is echoed in the film version of The Island
of Dr. Moreau where the Doctor changes his assistant into a beast. It’s the old let’s make the man
stronger by finding the beast within. Except as Spike later states in Into The Woods – Riley just
doesn’t have it in him. His beast almost kills him. When he is abruptly taken of the toxins, he goes
into withdrawl. Later in Season 5, he has to have the remainder of Dr. Walsh’s adjustments removed
or he will die of a heart attack. (See Out of My Mind, Season 5 Btvs.)
What we aren’t sure of is what type of man Riley was prior to the programming. When we first meet
him – he’s super-confident with the guys, but a tad nervous around women. Loyal to the cause. Yet
also very patronizing – telling Buffy she’s just a girl and needs to be protected. He also sees things in
strict shades of black and white and believes the government is right and should be in control of the
situation. Civilians such as Buffy and her pals should stay out of it. As he states in Pangs – “Hostile
17 (Spike) may be harmless but he knows about the Initiative and must not remain free.” The
government comes first.
Spike on the other hand is introduced as a villain whose only goal in life is to kill the slayer. Once
Dr. Walsh inserts the chip in Spike’ neural cortex (brain), he has to reinvent himself. He can no
longer eat the way he once did, he can no longer kill humans or anything that’s an animal and alive.
He has no home, since he pretty much alienated Harmony with his obsession for Buffy. When we see
him in Pangs he is wandering the streets beneath a raggedy blanket, looking half starved, and
watching other vamps suck blood. He’s become an outsider even to his own kind. As Harmony states
in Out of My Mind: “You know what it means that he can't hurt any living thing? It means he can't
even pick flowers.” (Actually he can pick flowers – but you get the point.) Desperate and not
completely rational, Spike seeks out the Scoobies, the very people he wanted to destroy, and literally
throws himself upon their mercy. If it weren’t for the Scoobies, his chip may have killed him. (See
Pangs, Season 4 Btvs.) Meanwhile, in the same episode, we see Riley in charge of a swat team
hunting Spike, discussing plans to go home for Thanksgiving, and chatting with his mates. Riley,
chipped (I mean enhanced, I know his behavior modification chip was removed in Primeval), is
clearly at the top of his game. The contrast is striking.
Riley’s enhancements clearly made him stronger, while Spike’s chip made him weaker. We don’t
know what Riley was like before Professor Walsh, so we can only guess as to the effects her
operations had on his overall character. Spike on the other hand was an animal, not unlike the
character of Caliban in The Tempest, ruthless, manipulative, opportunistic, and unlike Caliban, in
love with another evil animal. Now dumped by that significant other – he’s obsessed with destroying
what he believed was the root cause of it, the slayer. Whether this initial obsession was merely one of
lust and killing slayers or there was something more has yet to be fully disclosed in Season 4. In
Season 5’s Fool For Love flashbacks– Drusilla states there was more to it than that, a belief she later
reiterates in Crush (Season 5 Btvs.) I think Spike’s demonic nature makes it difficult for him to
separate his emotions in a calm rational manner; they tend to get all bundled up and confused inside
him. And he does have a tendency to react without thinking things through. (The Iniative, Season 4
Btvs.) It wasn’t until he got the behavior modification chip, that he was able to process his feelings
in a somewhat rational manner and get to the truth, a truth that a more objective and less emotional
Drusilla with her added capacity for second-sight saw all along. I think Spike preferred the hatred
and lust; it was easier for him to manage. Riley was first drawn to Buffy while chipped, we have no
clue if he would have been drawn to her if he didn’t have the superpowers, but I think so, since he
didn’t know she had any when they first got involved. It is interesting how he behaves towards her
once he becomes de-chipped and the super-powers are removed. In a sense, he becomes a weaker
character sans chip.
Riley, for his part, does not want to lose his super-strength, which is caused by the toxins. He has
allowed it to define him, just as he’s allowed it to define his relationship with Buffy. (They don’t
appear to have a relationship outside of sex and fighting). Riley at this point doesn’t appear to know
who he is anymore. The government has played so many mind-games with him, that he has lost his
identity and has begun to rely on Buffy to give him one. As his friend Graham puts it in Out of My
Mind (Season 5 Btvs): “You used to have a mission, and now you're what? The mission's boyfriend?
Mission's true love?” So he believes he’s nothing without the strength and resists its removal. As he
states: “I'm more powerful than I've ever been, Buffy. Most people would kill to feel this way.” Except
as Buffy points out – it is killing him. But Riley doesn’t really care because as he puts it: “ I go back
... let the government get whimsical with my innards again ... They could do anything that- Best-case
scenario, they turn me into Joe Normal, just... (sighs) Just another guy.” And that is what he is most
afraid of. He is afraid that he will lose her if he becomes normal, that she can only love him if he has
the monster strength and the toxins inside. Buffy tries to tell him that super-powers mean nothing
to her: “No! No. Do you think that I spent the last year with you because you had super powers? If
that's what I wanted, then I'd be dating Spike.”
More ironic words were never spoken. Maybe Riley has a point? Perhaps Buffy can only be interested
in a guy with superhuman strength? Or as Spike points out in both Into the Woods and As You Were
– “she needs a little monster in her man?” Actually Spike may be on to something, which neither
Buffy nor Riley quite understand. It’s not superpowers she wants, she can live without them, as she
proved in the Atvs episode where Angel briefly became human. What she wants is someone who can
grasp both sides of her nature without pulling her to one side or the other. Someone who appreciates
the need for balance, who appreciates the struggle between dark and light inside her, someone who
has struggled to maintain this balance within themselves, someone who is a lot like Giles but isn’t
Giles. In fact, I think that is who Buffy has been hunting her whole life, a physically younger version
of Giles. (This may be part of the reason Buffy fell so hard for Angel, because Angel understood her
struggle, Angel had both dark and light inside struggling for control; the only problem with Angel, as
he points out, is Buffy inadvertently brings out the monster in him. She appears to do the reverse
with Spike. Odd. Buffy may have had the same problem with Riley, she brought out the worst in him
as well, possibly because Riley felt he had to somehow match her darkness?)
If Professor Walsh’s toxins and surgical methods made Riley stronger and more monsterous, her
methods had the opposite effect on Spike. Spike was weakened by the chip. Instead of unleashing
his monster, they effectively put a muzzle on it. As Spike states in Pangs: “I'm saying that Spike had
a little trip to the vet and now he doesn't chase the other puppies anymore. I can't bite anything. I
can't even hit people.” Spike, like Riley, has to adapt to his new status, but he doesn’t have
Professor Walsh and the Initiative helping him. Instead he has to do it on his own with a little
assistance from Giles and the Scooby Gang. In the process, Spike begins to discover new things about
himself. First that he can get blood from plastic packets and find ways to make it palatable. We see
him adding Weetabix to it for texture in HUSH. In All The Way, he mentions adding Burba Weed to
make it hot and spicy. We also see him nicking it from the hospital in Weight of the World. He also
learns he can fight demons, even kill demons – this provides Spike with a purpose again as he states
in that wonderful last speech in Doomed: “What’s this? Sitting around watching the telly while
there’s evil still a foot. That’s not very industrious of you. I say we go out there and kick a little
demon ass! What, can’t go without your Buffy, is that it? To chicken? Let’s find her! She is the
Chosen One after all. – Come on! Vampires! Grrr! Nasty! Let’s annihilate them. For justice - and
for - the safety of puppies – and Christmas, right? Let’s *fight* that evil! - Let’s *kill* something!
Oh, come *on*!”
A big difference between Spike and Riley – is Spike wants to get the chip out. What does the chip
mean to Spike? Besides making it impossible for him to eat like a vampire? Adam describes it
perfectly in Yoko Factor: “You feel smothered. Trapped like an animal. Pure in its ferocity, unable
to actualize the urges within. Clinging to one
truth. Like a flame struggling to burn within an enclosed glass. That a beast this powerful cannot be
contained. Inevitably it will break free and savage the land again. I will make you whole again.
Make you savage.” The chip is castrating to Spike. It is like a wheelchair. To Spike’s credit – he does
try on several occasions remove it. First –in Something Blue when he escapes the Scoobies to try and
find the entrance to the Initiative. Then by working with Adam, who promises him that he’ll remove
it only to rescind on his offer, forcing Spike to switch sides in order to survive. Then finally in Out of
My Mind – trying to get a neurosurgeon to remove it. The neurosurgeon succeeds in removing
Riley’s modifications but not Spike’s. This is a turning point for both characters because it is at this
point that they are both forced to re-evaluate their respective situations. The manner in which they
re-evaluate them is oddly similar with different results.
Riley re-evaluates his situation – regarding a)Buffy and b) his purpose in life. Without the
superstrength he has in Buffy’s words become: “weak and kittenish”, someone else she needs to
protect and take care of and hold back with. Riley can’t stand this. He had enjoyed their sparring in
OOMM and during sex. Now she’s careful with him. When he tells her he can help her patrol, she
dissuades him. When he mentions fighting with her or sex, he senses her holding back with him.
When she’s upset about her mother – and he offers her a shoulder to cry on or support, she seems to
turn away, stating how she can’t let it out on him. He begins to actually feel weak and kittenish.
Unneeded. And the most important thing to Riley is to feel needed – that is his purpose in life. As he
tries to explain to Buffy in Into The Woods after she’s discovered him with Vamp trulls:
.
RILEY: It's about me taking care of you! It's about letting me in. So you don't have to be on top of
everything all the time.
BUFFY: But I do. That's part of what being a slayer is. (shakes her head) And that's what this is
really about, isn't it? You can't handle the fact that I'm stronger than you.
And that’s the basic problem – Riley needs to be needed and Buffy needs to be understood, accepted
on some primal level and Riley just can’t do that. How can he? He has no identity at this point past
Buffy. How can he accept or understand her role and who she is, when he can’t figure out himself?
She is right by the way, it is partly that she is stronger than him, that she doesn’t need him in the
way he wants to be needed.
Spike also has an identity problem. After he learns that he can’t remove the chip and kill the slayer,
he freaks out. As he states to Harmony:
SPIKE: Buffy, Buffy, Buffy! Everywhere I turn, she's there! That nasty little face, that ... bouncing
shampoo-commercial hair, that whole sodding holier-than-thou attitude.
HARMONY: Well, aren't we kinda unholy, by the-
SPIKE: She follows me, you know, tracks me down. I'm her pet project. Drive Spike round the bend.
Makes every day a fresh bout of torture. . You don't understand. I can't get rid of her. She's
everywhere. She's haunting me, Harmony!
For a year and a half Spike has been trying to find a way of destroying Buffy, getting rid of her. The
chip prevents him from physically hurting her, while she, on the other hand, can seriously damage
him. And she keeps pestering him – asking for information, either with money or physical abuse. For
a brief moment he thought he was free of the restraints – in fact he even relishes the idea of biting
her neck and swimming in her blood: “Bathe in the slayer's blood. Gonna dive in it. (with relish)
Swim in it. I'm gonna do the bloody backstroke.” Then he discovers he can’t, again! This is the
turning point for Spike – prior to this episode, Spike concentrated all his passion on destroying
Buffy, blaming her for the direction his life had gone, but never quite examining why. Now he is
forced to, just as Riley is in this episode. What does he discover? The worst thing possible, that what
he feels for the slayer, is not “seething hatred” so much as love and seething desire.
Poor Spike. He knows this is an impossible situation, but he can’t help himself, he must find some
way of resolving it. For awhile he just stalks her, compensates by stroking and beating up a manikin,
sex games with Harmony, watching Buffy’s window, he even considers watching her get killed but
has second thoughts and ends up helping her and her friends, instead. (See Family, Season 5 Btvs.)
Then she comes to him to find out about the past two slayers he killed, this surprises him and never
one to pass up an opportunity – he milks it for all it’s worth. Only to get brutally rejected – heck she
uses the same words his first love did, “you’re beneath me.” Furious, Spike once again resorts to old
behavior patterns and gets a gun, determined to kill her. Yet as both Harmony and Drusilla point
out – he wasn’t able to do it before the chip…why does he think he can do it now? They are right of
course, but it’s not the chip that stops him, it’s something else. It’s Buffy’s tears. Once again we see a
marked contrast between Spike’s journey and Riley’s. Riley is fighting demons while Spike is
comforting Buffy. Both are weak at this point. Riley with no superhuman strength and Spike with
superhuman strength but the inability to unleash it on anything human. Of the two, Spike seems to
get what Buffy needs while Riley remains clueless. I always found this incredibly ironic – Riley tells
Buffy she never leans on him, let Riley is never around for her to do it. He has separated himself
from Buffy, yet he blames her for it. Spike, meanwhile, a soulless demon, seems to understand what
she needs and calmly sits beside her and pats her shoulder. We know she confides in him – because
in the very next episode, it’s Spike who tells Riley that Joyce has gone to the hospital.
Riley says how much he loves Buffy, but I was never quite sure why. He never really appears to be
there when she needs him. Instead he is either out slaying the vamps that hurt her or getting sucked
on himself. ( While Spike is helping the gang in Family – Riley is at a bar getting sucked on. While
Buffy is asking Spike about how he killed slayers and for some understanding into what she actually
is, Riley is endangering himself and the gang fighting the vamp who hurt her. (Fool For Love) ). I
always thought Fool For Love was an interesting episode because it demonstrates three things: 1)
That Buffy is struggling to understand what a slayer is and what this means. 2) Spike understands
Buffy is struggling to understand this and does attempt to explain it to her and while doing so,
attempts to explain himself and what it means to be a vampire. He is in effect attempting to explain
what Dracula once told her, that yes we are connected but not necessarily in the way you think. 3)
Riley doesn’t understand what Buffy needs at all. He goes into protector mode. Each character falls
back on their instincts. Riley’s – to be male protector or avenger. Buffy – to try and figure out her
situation and go to the best source. Spike – to play instructor and in the process somehow get closer
to the object of his affection. (By the way, Spike reminded me a lot of Giles in Fool for Love, a dark
Giles.)
The next parallel in the Spike/Riley developmental arc is Into the Woods/As You Were. Both episodes
deal with a break up. In the first – Into the Woods – Spike appears to break up Riley and Buffy by
showing Buffy, Riley’s late night activities with vamp trulls. But, it’s really not the vamp trulls that
breaks them up. It’s the characters inability to appreciate and understand each other’s needs. Riley
desires something more from Buffy than convienent sex and the occasional pat on the head. Buffy
wants Riley to accept and understand the darkness in her. Riley, for his part, is unfair to Buffy. He
demands that she give him a purpose – because outside of her, he has none. When she can’t - he
leaves. But he doesn’t leave because of Buffy, as Buffy and Xander seem to believe, he leaves
because he has no reason outside of Buffy to stay. He has to leave to rediscover his identity.
In As You Were, Riley returns newly confident, a bit darker, with a wife and exposes Spike as the
opportunistic amoral fool he’s always been. Spike appears to be in Riley’s old position in Buffy’s life,
a convenient sexual and fighting associate. If you look at the episode literally, it looks like Buffy’s
relationship with Spike is not all that different than it was with Riley, except she professed to be in
love with Riley, she apparently can’t love Spike. (Odd, she seems to enjoy sex more with Spike, yet
was supposedly in love with Riley.) So her relationship with Riley was better right? But Spike’s
relationship with Buffy is very different than Riley’s was. Spike for one thing understands Buffy, I’m
not sure Riley ever did. Spike has also been in Buffy’s life a lot longer than Riley was and Buffy has
to some extent depended on Spike for a lot more. Buffy never confided the things she’s confided to
Spike – to Riley. (In Season 5 – Riley didn’t know about Joyce until Spike told him. And Riley still
doesn’t know what Dawn is. Nor does he appear to know that Buffy died and was torn out of heaven.)
Spike and Buffy actually have a relationship that has been built on a certain amount of trust. Buffy
may not be able to “love” Spike, but she certainly seems to be able to trust him – with things that she
does not appear to trust any one else with. (See Checkpoint Season 5 – when she brings her mother
and Dawn to Spike’s lair, or Spiral? Or The Gift – when she asks Spike to protect her sister if
anything happens to her? Or Afterlife – when she trusts Spike with her secret?) Riley never gained
that level of trust from Buffy – it’s the reason that Riley felt shut out. So, I’m not really sure Buffy
ever really loved Riley. How can you love someone you can’t trust? Was Buffy’s relationship with
Riley really healthier?
As You Were is different in another respect as well – Buffy doesn’t blast Spike for the demon eggs in
the same way she blasts Riley. She blames herself for forgetting that’s what he is. “I'm not here to
bust your chops about your stupid scheme, either. That's just you. I should have remembered.” She
blames herself for using him. Yet wasn’t she doing the same thing to Riley back in Into the Woods?
I’m not sure. She denies it. And she does run after him or rather after his helicopter. But – there’s
something that always bugged me about this scene: I think its that she only decides to run after him
because of what Xander said:
Xander: “you've been treating Riley like the rebound guy. When he's the one that comes along once in
a lifetime. (Buffy looks dismayed) He's never held back with you. He's risked everything. And you're
about to let him fly because you don't like ultimatums? If he's not the guy, if what he needs from you
just isn't there, (shakes head) let him go. Break his heart, and make it a clean break. But if you
really think you can love this guy ... I'm talking scary, messy, no-emotions-barred need ... if you're
ready for that ... then think about what you're about to lose.”
Nice speech. Were you fooled? Yep. So was I. But it always nagged at me. Why? Because when I was
Buffy’s age, I did the same dumb thing – I got desperate, I got scared, I decided that if I lost this guy,
there would never be another one which meant I’d have to be alone, forever. And that would be bad.
Buffy doesn’t run after Riley, because he’s the long-haul guy or because she loves him. Buffy runs
after Riley – because she is afraid of being alone. Her mother’s sick. Her sister’s not real. This is the
only normal guy that she liked who’s ever taken an interest in her. What if there’s no one else? Can
she really afford to be picky? She didn’t hear what Xander said. She does however hear it in As You
Were. Which is ironic, because unlike Riley, she’s really come to depend on Spike. She depends on
him to help her protect her sister, to help with the fighting, to confide in, to tell her that she’s pretty
and worthwhile, and to have sex with. She even admits in the final scene of As You Were that she
still wants him. I never sensed she “wanted” Riley, nor for that matter did Riley or he wouldn’t have
gone to the vamp trulls. But she believes her feelings for Spike are fundamentally wrong, for
numerous reasons some of which she even states: “He’s an evil blood sucking fiend. He’s everything I
hate. He’s everything I’m against…”(Dead Things) And of course for the reasons Riley clearly states:
“Deadly ... amoral ... opportunistic. Or have you forgotten?” Spike is the evil blood sucking fiend. She
can’t really love him, right? She’s just using him and that’s wrong. He is everything she’s against.
Everything she hates. The black and white vamp in Giles’ Restless dream. It’s wrong. Riley on the
other hand was the strong, upstanding, good guy. The Cowboy Guy in Willow’s Restless dream.
Xander’s long–haul guy. She should have been with Riley not Spike. Never Spike. But if Buffy really
believes Spike is deadly, amoral and evil isn’t it strange that she tells Riley not to kill him? Or that
she even takes the time to talk to him at the wedding in Hell’s Bells?
Both Riley and Spike have an identity crisis, that appears to be associated with or brought on by
Buffy, but are actually separate from her. Riley’s dilemma is what is his mission now that he is no
longer connected with the Initiative. Can he go back and work for the same organization that
betrayed his trust? Can he go back and be the demon hunter he once was? Without that calling – he
feels useless. So Riley makes his choice – he goes with his friends to Belize and fights demons again.
The world becomes simpler, more black and white, with rules and boundaries and the end zone.
Buffy just complicated things. Spike’s dilemma is who and what exactly is he now? He’s not really
been a vampire for quite some time. He’s not a human. He’s desperately and completely in love with
a “mortal woman” who is not only his kind’s mortal enemy, but who has told him repeatedly that she
can never return his affections because of what he is and what he represents. Talk about being
stuck. Spike is in exactly the same place Riley was prior to Into the Woods. No longer sure who the
hell he is and what he should do with his life. Up until now, he’s been treading water, taking
whatever scraps of affection the Scooby Gang and Buffy offer him. But I think he’s reached his limit,
the scraps have started to dry up and Buffy is acting somewhat erractically. If Spike’s story is to
continue to follow Riley’s – Spike needs to leave. He needs to go into his own jungle and hopefully
remerge like Riley, transformed for the better? In The Island of Dr. Moreau – the men and beasts are
to some degree transformed by their experience. They can’t ever go back to as they were. The same is
true in The Tempest – Caliban is to some degree transformed and appears to learn the error of his
ways. He can’t go back. Will this be what happens to Spike? Will he leave Sunnydale, go into the
jungle, and re-emerge as the old villainous romantically insecure Spike that we love to hate but who
operated as more of a metaphor for arrested development and lust than as an actual character, or
will he emerge as a new man, transformed by his experience and confident and secure in who and
what he is. A man who does not require Buffy or anyone else to define him? Who understands the
need for balance between light and dark in himself and others? Someone more like Giles? I’m not
sure how transformed Riley is, since we aren’t told all that much, but I think we can safely assume
he has a better understanding of the darkness and light in himself than he did before. So if Spike
continues to parallel Riley’s path, shouldn’t he remerge more or less the same way, with a slight
twist?
Sorry this was so long…I think I’ve written too many of these things. You’re probably getting sick of
me. ;-) Anyway thanks for reading. Hope this adds to the discussion and looking forward to your
comments!
;-) shadowkat
[>
oops - spoilers up to Hells Bells. -- shadowkat, 11:16:37 04/23/02 Tue
Shouldn't be any major future ones.
[>
shadowcat you blow my mind! -- ponygirl, 12:29:44 04/23/02 Tue
Whew! Need to rest after that one. It was great and it's always a treat to see one of your essays up
on the board.
It was nice to see a fairly sympathetic treatment of Riley, everybody's favourite whipping boy (well
he can be awfully smug). Up until AYW I had always pitied Riley, for exactly the reasons you detail
- he was unable to define himself outside of the rules and structures of the military, he was unable to
deal with the darkness in himself or others-- and when the test came he failed, he returned to an
organization that had betrayed him in countless ways, because it would offer him simplicity and
structure. Do you really feel that he returned in AYW a better version of himself? He was more
confident to be sure, but he had become almost a caricature of what he was before. The Riley in
AYW seemed to truly have become the Cowboy Guy, a type rather than a person, a pose instead of a
character. I can only hope that Spike if faced with a similar test can return not as the black&white
sideshow villian of Giles' dream, nor as the prissy Watcher Jr. of Xander's, but as a fully integrated
and complex character.
[> [>
Agree -- shadowkat, 13:07:30 04/23/02 Tue
I agree. Was actually trying to be nice to Riley, truth
is the character was never a favorite (can't decide if
this was how he was written or the actor?).
I think for Riley - he came back stronger. More committed
to his cause. With a purpose. It's really not fair to judge
the character by higher standards than he is capable of reaching ;-) I struggled with that...even as I
wrote it.
Did he come back stronger? Or did he revert to form?
No - I don't think he reverted to form - in the past he
was controlled completely by Professor Walsh or Buffy. Sam and Riley appear to be equals and he
does not appear to
be controlled by Sam's opinion. I may dislike the guy, but
I think he's grown since he left, more or less. (At least I hope that's the case because if he did just
return as a pose, I hate to think what that means for Spike?)
The reason I write all these Spike analysises is for the life of me, I can't predict what they are going
to do with the character. I can predict Willow, Buffy and to some
extent Xander, Giles and Anya. Even Angel. But Spike? (shrugs). I just pray they don't bring back
the sideshow
villain of Giles dream or the nerdy Watcher of Xander's either would be a cop-out and beneath ME's
talent. (Of course we could be giving them too much credit? *G)
[> [> [>
Re: Agree -- Rufus, 17:18:17 04/23/02 Tue
That begs the question......are we raising Spike to standards he may never be able to reach? For a
better look at Riley you should read OnM's character essay, it is very well done and he doesn't have
to struggle against a bias towards any character.
[>
thank you, thank you, thank you, shadowkat! -- Can I be Anne?, 12:34:21 04/23/02 Tue
I always enjoy your insight, especially the bit about Angel understanding her stuggle and
perspective more than Spike or Riley ever can. I also appreciated the G/S comparison from Fool for
love. Shadowkat, you rock! You really needn't apologize all the time.
[>
Great job. -- Sophist, 12:49:02 04/23/02 Tue
My only comment (before I think about it a lot more) is that I never bought Xander's lines in
ITW. Xander may have believed them, but they rang false to me then and ever since. I like your
explanation about Buffy's reaction. It beats the hell out of thinking that the writers meant us to
think that Riley really was "the one".
[> [>
Xander's words -- ponygirl, 16:36:25 04/23/02 Tue
Do you think that Xander's speech to Buffy was in some way directed at himself? His words do
precede his declaration of love to Anya, and much of what he tells Buffy is shaded by his feelings
about Buffy, Riley and Anya. Though he says to Buffy that "this is so not about him", we have never
heard Xander, no matter how accurate his assessment, ever make statements that aren't connected
to his own emotions in some way. Even his speech to Anya is more about how she makes him feel
about himself than anything else. I'm not saying he's entirely self-centered -- well, maybe I am but I
still like him -- but his should never be seen as an objective opinion.
[> [> [>
Re: Xander's words -- Sophist, 19:55:06 04/23/02 Tue
You raise an excellent point. I agree.
I also think Xander truly believed that Riley was "the one". A post some time ago pointed out that
Riley/Xander/Jonathan formed a continuum of substantially similar characters. Xander undoubtedly
saw in Riley what he thought his own better self should be and believed that Buffy would love that
as an improvement over his own, less perfect, self.
[>
Re: S/R parallels - Monster in the Man/Search for Identity (quite long!) -- Traveler,
13:52:11 04/23/02 Tue
"Will this be what happens to Spike? Will he leave Sunnydale, go into the jungle, and re-emerge as
the old villainous romantically insecure Spike that we love to hate but who operated as more of a
metaphor for arrested development and lust than as an actual character, or will he emerge as a new
man, transformed by his experience and confident and secure in who and what he is."
I don't forsee Spike leaving any time soon. After all, we saw him threatening to tell the scooby gang
about his relationship with Buffy last episode, and I don't see that whole mess resolving quickly.
Personally, I think Sunnydale is Spike's jungle, the place where he must go through his "trial
by fire," and with luck, become a better person in the process.
[>
Re: S/R parallels - Monster in the Man/Search for Identity (quite long!) -- ravenhair,
14:29:53 04/23/02 Tue
If for nothing else, I admire your enthusiasm for Buffy. You must buy energy drinks by the
case!
I agree that Spike needs to distance himself from Buffy and the Scooby Gang if he's to gain any kind
of self-respect.
[>
Re: S/R parallels - Monster in the Man/Search for Identity (quite long!) -- leslie, 14:43:03 04/23/02 Tue
Hmmm, I like the overall analysis, but I have to say, if a Slayer were ever to manage to completely
eradicate vampires, it might have to be with the assistance of a Watcher who is an vampire.
Wouldn't that not only be the best way to accomplish it from a "military" sense, but also the way that
would serve to symbolically dissolve the (increasingly contentious) boundaries between both human
and vampire *and* Slayer and Council? Clearly, the current situation will never get any different--
there will always be more vampires, and the Council will always be willing to sacrifice the Slayer
because hey, there's always another one waiting in the wings. If there is any way out of this
Sisyphisian (? is that a word?) situation, there has to be some lateral thinking done, and Buffy and
Spike are the ones to do it.
I do like that you have pointed out, indirectly, that in addition to the calls that "Buffy should learn
how to not be defined by her relationships," so should Spike.
It's also interesting, the parallel you point out between Riley's chip being "in" his heart, while Spike's
is in his head. (I feel "The Wizard of Oz" coming on! Who's got a chip in his nerve? Was it Adam?)
Spike's head chip makes him think more clearly, but Riley's heart chip makes him love less freely.
And, the chip in Spike's head ultimately causes him to love, but the chip in Riley's chest ultimately
throws him back onto black-and-white, inflexible reasoning.
[>
Loved your essay! -- Wynn, 16:24:56 04/23/02 Tue
I agree with pretty much all you wrote in your essay, as well as leslie's comments about the chips'
effects on Riley and Spike. If Buffy and Spike are to work as a couple, she needs to let go of the view
that "vampires=bad & slayers=good" (which she shouldn't have anyway, not after Faith) and he
needs to form an identity without Buffy.
Hopefully these two can pull off the character growth they desperately need. I love Buffy and Spike
because I have absolutely no idea where these two are headed next, individually and together, but I
know that it's going to be one hell of a ride.
A (long) question about morality on BtVS,
briefly mentions S4 -- lachesis, 12:19:09 04/23/02 Tue
Been lurking, sometimes replying, now I finally worked up courage to ask a question. Its a long one,
but any length of answers will be appreciated . . .
I've read a lot of discussion on this board recently about issues of morality, murder and law in the
Buffyverse, much of it pertaining to vampires/demons, and the Slayer’s relationships with them
(general and specific!) This post is me owning up to being perplexed. Most of the discussions on this
board make me question things in a positive, ‘Oooh, I never thought of that . . .’ kind of way.
But the whole issue of morality on BtVS, makes me think that there are some pretty basic shared
assumptions that I just haven’t understood. So, my plan is to outline how I see this stuff, and invite
the public-spirited among you to advance my moral education by explaining why it doesn’t work like
that . . . I’d be really grateful if you took the time.
I’ve always understood morality to be an essentially human concept: a societally defined set of rules
regarding correct and incorrect behaviour towards others. My basic assumptions are that:
a) Morality entails reciprocal responsibilities and privileges.
b) Its contemporary ‘Western’ definition is universalist: all human beings have basic moral rights
and are responsible for respecting these rights as they apply to others.
c) Morality is centred on the human being as agent. I don’t know of any moral system that expects
adherence from animals (or gods). Only human beings can be moral (which is why the phrase
‘murdering animal’ is a tautology).
d) The applicability of moral systems can be defined in various ways. Some moral systems
encompass the interaction of the human agent with all living creatures (i.e. Jain Bhuddism) while
others only apply to treatment of subscribers to the same system or social/cultural group (i.e. Greek
or medieval Christian morality).
e) A moral system generally includes the idea of punishment and reward. Rewards are mostly in the
form of the warm fuzzy glow of social approval and personal satisfaction (sometimes backed up by
social status or spiritual reward after death). Punishments can take the form of physical penalties or
restrictions within the moral system, or of expulsion from it (outlawry being not just about legal
laws).
f) Morality can be based on either divine or pragmatic inspiration, but is mainly about social
relations.
g) Some systems regard the protection and improvement of the moral ‘health’ of the individual as the
responsibility of the group, and use this as a justification for punishment.
h) Morality is related to, but not the same as, the concepts of law (formally codified, practically
enforced morality) and ethics (personal adherence, or otherwise, to an internalized set of moral or
philosophical precepts, that often, but not always, agree with externally accepted morality).
Simplistic much?
So here’s me, applying this understanding of morality to the Buffyverse. And not seeing huge
problems. OTOH, it is clear that all human beings in the B.verse are conceived of as having moral
responsibilities (which they fulfil to a greater or lesser extent) and as sharing a basic human
privilege of not being targets for slayage. OTOH, there is the existence of non-human conscious
entities who do not share this privilege. IMO, this in itself defines their moral status.
All humans in the B.verse seem to have a right to live (under a moral system, just like we do). Buffy
respects this right, even when the course of her duties involves protecting others from the
consequences of human alliance with the demonic or supernatural. This looks like a universalist
definition of the application of morality, based on common humanity. And we know, from her
treatment of human life, and many other aspects of her behaviour, that Buffy does her best to be
morally correct.
To me, this implies that the non-humans are not covered by the same moral system that applies to
humans: not accorded its basic privilege, the automatic right to remain unslayed. Under the morality
applied to humans in the B.verse, vampires and demons do not possess the moral status which would
entitle them to moral treatment from humans.
This is underlined by the issue of the soul, which seems to me to symbolize common humanity
(otherwise not easy to define). Anyway, most non-humans don’t partake of the social relationships
with humans which morality usually covers. Their moral health is not a concern of human society.
They cannot receive the social or spiritual rewards accorded to humans for correct moral behaviour,
nor can they be effectively punished, except by being excluded from the moral system (which protects
humans from Buffy, and each other).
OTOH, since their lack of basic rights puts them outside the moral system that is applied to humans,
it also absolves them of any responsibility to behave morally towards humans. (I think this is where
my main problem is. To me murder is one human killing another deliberately. Its wrong because
both know it is. Because we wouldn't want someone to do it to us, or our loved ones. Because we
expect them not to. Because, as Socrates pointed out you can't expect to get the benefits without
paying the price. I don't see how vampires can murder strictly speaking).
From a human perspective, the actions of non-humans in the B.verse are often clearly wrong. But to
me that's not the point. We might apply ‘real world’ thinking and treat them as animals, like the
Initiative, ignoring the fact that they are conscious. One can find countless examples in history. But
this is not what Buffy does.
I wouldn’t say that Buffy is a murderer, or a war-leader, or a hunter. She’s a sheriff (in the Old West
sense, see JW’s cited source-book, and the use of the ‘hat’ terminology). Sunnydale is the ultimate
frontier town, where the law is fine for those who are bound by it, but someone needs to deal with
those, threatening or otherwise, who are not. The ‘sheriff’possesses many traditionally heroic
characteristics, as well as being a modern myth. And morality could be argued to be the modern
frontier territory – the mysterious unknown, ‘beyond the pale,’ where the hero must go, face
challenges, riddles and dilemmas, for the good of ordinary mortals.
What fascinates me is that, by including individuals who are neither bound nor protected by
everyday morality, the B.verse forces Buffy to constantly consider how a moral individual should
relate to those who do not share her values. And this, despite the ideals of modern morality, is an
everyday problem for all of us. How does she do it? Ethically, guided by her heart and principles, on
a case by case basis, determined to retain her own moral integrity, but refusing to cling to the
generalisations, the comforting lie (LTM) that a line can be drawn around the moral, and everything
else called evil and destroyed.
So, how wrong am I? I haven’t discussed any of the customary egs. This is long enough anyway, and I
thought I should see if anyone was on the same page first. Maybe the problem isn't my
understanding of morality? Maybe its how I think it applies to the Buffyverse? Maybe its both? Let
me know . . . so I can be a better person :)
[>
I have also questioned... -- Can I be
Anne?, 14:08:00 04/23/02 Tue
the fairness of applying the expectation of human moral behavior to demons in the Buffyverse.
Thank you for articulating your question so well.
Demons are often killed just for existing, and I'm not just concerned about the "good" (read:
integrated into human society) ones like Doyle. Demons are apparantly sentient, they want very
much to live. They seem to have similar needs, families, et cetera. They buy furniture and ice cream
cones. They're evin hominid in appearance. My point is, it's not a far leap to compare demons to
animals or to a human ethnic minority group.
We humans like some animals better than others. Willow's killing of the fawn made a lot of people
upset. I know I winced(It's telling that some people referred to it as "murdering Bambi") I doubt
anyone had the same reaction when Willow has eaten meat on the show. It hasn't raised any
threads(or eyebrows)
White Americans also prefer certain ethnic groups. As an Asian-American, I am rarely allowed to
forget my separateness. Some people speak to me ver-ry slo-ooly and loudly, even after they have
heard me speak to them in clear, plain english with an American accent(most notably, policemen)
My race also comes with certain priveleges. I'm considered "exotically attractive" to men which
affords me all the fringe benefits that pretty white girls enjoy. Certain White Americans also favor
Asians for assimilating by adopting American names,social customs, social groups. In contrast,
Blacks and Latinos are marginalized for sticking to their own. I am not making this up. I have
heard people complain that some Black people give their kids such hard-to-say names, when Asian
name their second generation kids Tom and Lucy.
So I empathize with demons. Us souled animals haven't been the paragon of morality, we only
posess the mouthpiece and the weapons.
[>
Agree and thank you this...humans/vamps morality issue -- shadowkat, 19:10:38
04/23/02 Tue
Thank you for this post. I wanted to respond before it gets lost. Finally someone who put all of my
questions about some of the "evil" and "morality" discussions on the boards down in a thoughtful and
eloquent manner.
I have struggled with these moral questions as well. Can we really hold a vampire to the same
standards as a human?
They have different physical makeups - one is well dead and
immortal and survives on the blood of living creatures, the other eats vegetables, meats, grains and
survives on nutrients. It's a bit like comparing the morality of an alien species to an earth species. I
have trouble convicting Spike, a vampire, of murder when from his perspective - its for a)food and
b)things that kill his kind and c)things that he has no reason to care about because they really are
alien to him. Science fiction is full of this type of metaphor - so is anthropology - ME touches on it in
Pangs - see Spike's speech which echoes
Giles' : "You came, you massacred, exterminated their kind. What are you going to do? Say oh I'm
very sorry, chief?"
Throughout history - we have justified killing something because it is a)uncivilized b) a threat to our
existence or
c) hurt us first, so it was self-defense or retribution. d)
food. Does this mean I think Buffy is a murder? LMAO! No.
I think she is a sheriff in the old west who must do what she can to keep the peace. She hasn't killed
Spike - who is a vampire. Nor has she killed Clem who is a demon. She has always killed things that
she feels hurt or kill people in Sunnydale. What she is currently struggling with is pretty much
everything you so eloquently stated above - where are her moral boundaries? She relies on what
Giles and her mother taught her. But there comes a time in all our lives in which we have to make
our choices and define our own moral boundaries. It's hard to do. I think this is one of the many
themes being addressed this year and it's one that several of us on the posting boards are struggling
with.
Great post! The best one I've seen on this topic to date. Please do more.
Hope that all made sense...brain is shot.
Hmmmm...According to Wanda, Joss
describes next season's theme as "back to the beginning." -- Rob,
12:50:51 04/23/02 Tue
Thoughts, theories, speculation, anyone?!?
Rob
[>
Vampire Big Bad? -- JCC, 13:06:55 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Re: Hmmmm...According to Wanda, Joss describes next season's theme as "back to the
beginning." -- amber, 13:09:41 04/23/02 Tue
I'm thinking more of a focus on our core Scoobies; Xander, Buffy and Willow. Possibly more one shot
eps. like in season one, and maybe a laughable, yet dangerous Big Bad like the Master.
There has been some speculation (not spoilers,just speculation!) that Buffy (the show) will end with
the destruction of all vampires, allowing Buffy to have some sort of normal life with all the baddies
vanquished and her fighting days over. This idea is suggested by Joss's comic book Fray, which is
about a Vampire Slayer 300 years in the future, or thereabouts.
If that theory is true, and if S7 is our last season, then perhaps the show will go back to focussing on
the fight against vampires. We won't see as many other bad demons, or bad humans.
[> [>
Buffy the Movie/Series and Vanquishing all Vamps -- Dochawk, 13:43:05 04/23/02
Tue
I think that Buffy won't be our last slayer (see my other response). But either way I am sure that
season 7 won't see the end to demons as suggested by Fray (in Fray all demons are gone, not just
vampires), because of two things: 1) Angel loses its reason to exist as a show and 2) no reason to do a
Buffy movie and you know they want in on that gravy train.
[> [> [>
Re: Buffy the Movie/Series and Vanquishing all Vamps -- Goji3, 18:58:04 04/23/02
Tue
besides, I doubt that S7 will be the last season. Season 5 was supposed to be the last season, and
here we are. I think we'll reach 8 Seasons...least I hope we do.
As for a back to begining theme....i think it'll regain a positive attitude, and focus on returning the
bond of the scooby core...in its expanded form.
William human...nah. I hope not.
a Vampire Villain, as long as it's not Lamia, Cain or Lilith, I'll be happy with it.
plus, i doubt that they'll get rid of all the demons/magicks at the end. they've always joked about a
'new' Buffy movie, that would kill the chance of one. Imagine the possibilities!
[> [>
Re: Hmmmm...According to Wanda, Joss describes next season's theme as "back to the
beginning." -- Robert, 22:31:12 04/23/02 Tue
>> "... and if S7 is our last season, ..."
The only thing I've heard is that the contracts with the actors comes up for renewal/renegotiation
after season 7. Have you heard anything more substantial?
[>
Xander on a skateboard? :) -- ponygirl (breaking her no emoticons vow), 13:15:43
04/23/02 Tue
[>
Willow brings back the overalls?? -- neaux, 13:29:45 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Re: Hmmmm..."Dawn the Vampire Slayer"? -- Dochawk, 13:31:11 04/23/02
Tue
if Dawn's blood and Buffy's blood are equal and the calling is in teh blood then Dawn should become
a slayer around her 16th birthday which conviently happens middle of next season. If they are going
back to the beginning, Dawn could easily be a new slayer (and wouldn't need Faith's death to be
called).
Of course, how dangerous would it be given how much of a clutz she was last year and what if she
gets only partial powers (sort of like what Joss did with Fray). Lots of interesting permutations that
don't mean Buffy redux.
[> [>
Hey! I've wondered about that since the whole "she's made out of me" thing. --
Ian, 13:48:40 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Beginnings as in origins? -- Anne, 13:33:34 04/23/02 Tue
The only interpretation I can come up with that doesn't depress me is that it will finally be a deep
exploration of the origins of the Slayer and of vampires. Although I would welcome a somewhat
lighter tone next season, I certainly don't want to see a return to the relatively simplistic world view
and characterizations of Season 1. To have gone through the wringer of the last two seasons, and
the wrenching exploration of all these characters' darker selves, only in effect to be told "woops,
never mind" (those of the correct vintage please read that line in a Rosanne Rosanna Danna voice)
would be just a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.
I have also heard elsewhere the idea mentioned by Amber, apparently based on the Fray comic books
(which I don't read) that they might end with a defeat of all the baddies and Buffy going on to lead a
normal life. That also would be a betrayal of all that has gone before, and unspeakably depressing to
me. We've been beaten over the head that Buffy is the slayer, that it is part of her essence,
that she is not normal but extraordinary and her happiness consists in embracing who she really is --
and then we're supposed to be happy that she spends the rest of her life working at a dot com or
something, pushing prams around the mall, and fighting for the remote control with hubby?
Geezt.
The only way to do such an ending interestingly and powerfully is to do it the way Tolkien did: to
make it clear that there's a quid pro quo, that the end of the magic baddies is also the end of the
magic goodies; there is a price to be paid, and it is bittersweet. And I'm sorry, having gone through
that bittersweetness in Tolkien I just don't want to go through it again with Buffy.
[> [>
Re: Beginnings as in origins? -- Rob, 14:12:23 04/23/02 Tue
Of course, this is just my own interpretation, but I don't think this will be "whoops, never mind,
everything's lighter and less complex" now type "back to the beginning," but rather, that the show
will come full-circle, psychologically. That doesn't necessarily mean that things that happened the
past two years will be meaningless, but that, after the tragic events of the past 2 years, the
characters will reach a place where they can finally return to normal again. I would hope that the
Scoobies would be redefined as a group, as they did after the mini-rift of Season 4. I think that there
will be a greater focus on the core Scoobies. I doubt that that means only Buffy, Xander, and Willow
will be on, because I just don't see them getting rid of all the other characters we've come to love over
the years, for they have become just as important. Maybe we'll once more have a vampire as a
villian. It's been a while.
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: Beginnings as in origins? -- JustAsking, 15:26:55 04/23/02 Tue
>Maybe we'll once more have a vampire as a villian. It's been a while.
It sure has... Dracula? Counting a "villian" as someone who would rate the opening credits of an
episode. Has there been any other slayage of the non-redshirt* variety in the last three
years?
* Registered Trademark, Star Trek (Original Series)
[> [> [>
Excellent speculation, Anne and Rob. -- Ixchel, 16:07:23 04/23/02 Tue
Great post, Anne. I thought something similar. To me it would be fascinating if S7 meant further
exploration of the origin of the Slayer and all the questions raised by Restless and BvsD ("I need to
know more. About where I come from, about the other slayers."). Especially since S7 is meant to be
the last. And maybe not so much a lighter tone as a more positive one? I don't believe that it's even
possible to return to S1, really. Also, IMHO, it's never seemed that ME goes backwards in the story.
Maybe there are echoes of different seasons in each other, but always with a new perspective. I have
a similar difficulty with the "end of evil - normal life scenario". After all Buffy's struggles to accept
who she is (and to discover who she is), for her to then become someone else? It seems somewhat
pointless (again, JMHO).
Rob, I would also like to see a reinstatement of the bond between Buffy, Willow and Xander. Though
not, of course, to any exclusion of the other characters. Maybe restoration will be a theme of S7,
after the dissolution of S6 (this is just my sense of the season so far)?
Ixchel
[>
And in the beginning - spoilery spec for S7 -- John Burwood, 13:35:51 04/23/02 Tue
And in the beginning there was just the core of the scooby gang - Buffy, Willow, & Xander - and
none of them had partners and they were a tight knit group of outsiders and Buffy was struggling to
maintain a semblance of a normal life and keep out of trouble caused by her slaying duties.
Could easily get back to all of that, I'm thinking.
Unless, of course, they have finally demolished & rebuilt Sunnydale High School, & Dawn gets
transferred there!
[>
Re: Hmmmm...According to Wanda, Joss describes next season's theme as "back to the
beginning." -- ravenhair, 15:41:22 04/23/02 Tue
Return of the core scoobies: Buffy/Willow/Xander
We've witnessed the disintegration of the Scooby Gang this season, I would like to see them
supporting one another next year. Enough of the cutting sarcasm, bring back the friendly
banter!
Spike becoming human again.
I know some cringe at the idea of Spike returning as William, but I crave it. I can't let go of
William's plea to Cecily, "I know I'm a bad poet, but I'm a good man."
Since being turned, Spike has denied the best part of himself, his human side. I would love for Buffy
and the rest of the Scoobies to find out the truth behind the myth of William the Bloody, and Spike
not be ashamed of it.
Slayer origins
I think Buffy's encounter with the first slayer not only foreshadowed her sacrifice in The Gift, but
events still to come. Although it's a noble calling, the Slayer must have a higher purpose than to
simply kill vampires.
Readressing Dawn's key origins & powers.
I was disappointed Dawn's story arc was swept under the rug this season. Hopefully, more attention
will be given to her character next year. I don't like the idea of Dawn becoming another Vampire
Slayer because she has her own mythology and supposed powers; she just needs to discover those
abilities and perhaps a guardian (Spike,Halfrek,Buffy?) to help her perfect them.
[>
Could someone post the link? -- Farstrider, 21:06:09 04/23/02 Tue
Thanks!!
[> [>
The link is at the Trollop Board. -- Deeva, 22:26:24 04/23/02 Tue
And the link tot he Trollop board is up at the top of this board on the right. Click on Sebastian's post
of the Spoiler Slayer update and you will see it or you could go to E! online and check it out
there.
Do the Math. spoilers Double or Noth -
- neaux, 13:44:42 04/23/02 Tue
I was very curious about how last night's ep would use the idea of a demon casino.
And my immediate thought was that FRED would be counting cards for Gunn's soul..
or something to that extent..
anyone else think this would have been appropriate?
[>
Re: Do the Math. spoilers Double or Noth -- Alvin, 13:52:12 04/23/02 Tue
I did too! I was sure she'd catch the demon cheating or something, tip Angel off to what was going
on, and that would allow Angel to cheat the cheater. Instead, Angel's the cheater, and the whole
plotline is left unresolved.
[> [>
Re: Do the Math. spoilers Double or Noth -- Robert, 22:32:41 04/23/02 Tue
>> "... and the whole plotline is left unresolved."
What plotline is left unresolved?
[> [> [>
Re: Do the Math. spoilers Double or Noth -- Alvin, 03:02:05 04/24/02 Wed
I meant that nothing was resolved. One of the background stories is that Gunn is not fully
integrated into the group, such as his comment in "That Old Gang of Mine" that Angel wasn't his
friend. Here, we have Angel saying that he wasn't going to loose any more of "his" family, and Gunn
and Angel share these looks as Gunn realizes that Angel is willing to risk his very soul for him. But
Angel doesn't. Angel goes into the wager intending to cheat so Angel was actually risking very
little.
Second, we just saw this soul-sucking demon grow a new head. If he can do that, do you think that
being beat on by the casino patrons will destoy him? So we now have a demon that has been
humiliated and hurt, but likely not destroyed who has a claim on Angel's and Gunn's souls, so the
question of what this Genoff demon is going to do is left hanging. But the main story of this season
is about Conner, so we probably won't see this story line again this season, if at all.
A third point that I felt unresolved was about Gunn's character. He walked back into the casino on
his own, was willing to pay his debt, but was willing to accept Angel's cheat and run strategy.
Overall, I just thought this episode was off; to me Wesley and Groo were the highpoints of the
episode and for me, having Groo being a high point just seems so terribly wrong.
[>
I thought this too. It seemed the obvious strategy. -- Ixchel, 20:55:00 04/23/02 Tue
[>
A different strategy occurred to me -- skeeve, 07:47:29 04/24/02 Wed
In Angel, the effect of Darla's son's soul on her showed that souls are somewhat fungible. Buffy's
roommate from hell showed that souls can be divided.
Implementing this strategy probably involves a long-distance call to Giles.
The soul-sucker is allowed to take Gunn's soul, only his soul. Two of Gunn's friends donate a third of
a soul apiece. They each have two-thirds of a soul.
It's not clear whether Gunn's contract would allow this strategy. Could anyone read it? It is clear
that they need a research guy. Usually they know what it takes to kill a demon.
buffy series and beauty -- i-jingle, 13:50:14 04/23/02
Tue
just to pick brains...
what's your opinion on the portrayal of beauty on buffy? how do you think it usually tends to be
shown, and who do you think is the most beautiful of the women?
i personally think that the show tends to take a "modern" standpoint on beauty-perfection. i'm
personally more partial to the natural, modest kind of beauty (not modest as in showing no skin
whatsoever, but modest as in showing just enough to spark interest), which i think is usually shown
by tara and dawn. dawn, probably because she's only 14 or 15 (i think?) and tara, because it reflects
her. tara as a character is beautiful within, and doesn't need to show everything or wear a ton of
makeup to be pretty. she has a certain idea of what's "in", but doesn't dwell on that as cordelia did
when she was on buffy. (i haven't had the chance to watch angel, so i don't know how she dresses
now.) she (tara) is very classy, but not so image-conscious or vain.
this is not saying that buffy, willow, anya, joyce, amy, cordelia, faith, dawn and/or any other women
on the show have a certain beauty, but to me tara's really stands out.
God bless all
the jingling one
[>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- LeeAnn, 15:20:45 04/23/02 Tue
I'm more qualified to comment on the beauty of the guys on Buffy than the women. I don't find
women to be "beautiful", at least not the way I find certain men to be beautiful. Women on TV who
are considered "beautiful" rarely seem to me to be worth a second glance. I'm sure part of that is that
my hormones bias my awareness of beauty but the weird thing is that I can find beauty in a flower
or a vista or a blade of grass but rarely find women on TV beautiful. I think of them as clone people,
they all look alike. I have to really concentrate to tell many of them apart.
I think another reason I don't find them beautiful is that most of them aren't. It's only the make-up
and clothes and lighting and photography that gives them an illusion of beauty. There was a cable
program on drag performers, talented men who, in drag, appeared to be "beautiful" women. The
shocker to me was that, without the make-up and lighting and clothes, they weren't even attractive
men. They were ordinary, nondescript guys who you wouldn't look at twice yet they could give the
illusion of being beautiful women. If a homely guy can be made to look like a beautiful woman how
much easier must it be to make an average-looking woman appear beautiful? From time to time they
publish pictures of movie stars without makeup and many of them are as far from beautiful as a
drag queen out of makeup. I think most or all of the women of Buffy fall into that same category and
that their looks wash off with their makeup. Talent they may have but give them a good wash and I
don't think they'd turn many heads.
As to the guys, I prefer the dancer/swimmer type of build to the football player/weightlifter type. So I
find James Masters or the guy who played the slimey Parker attractive. (God but that slime had
pretty eyes...no wonder he was able to fool Buffy.) Angel, Riley, and Groo seem to me to be big, beefy,
Rock Hudson clones. Not my type.
Xander, he was pretty cute in Season 1 but lots of that was his personality. Some of it was make-up
too.
James Marsters seems to be a perfect doll but I don't normally expect much from anyone with
supermodel cheekbones. Marsters' acting so confounds expectations that he becomes the "IT" guy,
not just because he lights and photographs well, but because of his talent and charisma.
[> [>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- Apophis, 22:43:51 04/23/02 Tue
Unlike LeeAnn, I do find women beautiful and don't think it's all about makeup and lighting. I
think the most drop dead gorgeous woman on the shows is Charisma/Cordelia, while the most
beautiful is Amber/Tara. Amber looks like the kind of girl you'd meet on campus, have coffee with,
become friends, and end up segueing into a relationship with (Yes, I get that whole scenario from her
appearance. Don't judge me.).
[>
I vote Tara, especially as she is closer to a weight I would call sane. Plus, she's pretty. --
Ian, 20:36:10 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- parakeet, 22:52:26 04/23/02 Tue
Beauty's a tough one. It has so much to do with personality. I'll almost never understand those who
look at a centerfold and claim to see beauty. Where is the movement? So, you have people like Mel
Gibson, who looks silly in a still photograph, but is stunning in motion.
Make-up? There is no rule. Can you find that combination of colors that makes you look
particularly good? Are you better without it? Is your look au naturel, or do you feel better as a goth
vixen? Are you a Margot Tennenbaum or a Gwynneth Paltrow (and yes, that's meant to be
confusing)?
Spike is gorgeous in a way that I don't even need to think about, but Angel took a little getting used
to. I've come to think of David Boreanaz as gorgeous, too. Willow? Sometimes she looks almost
plain, at others, downright beautiful. In person? I've never seen her. Same for Anya. Tara is
presented as plain, but, since she isn't ugly, comes across as the kind of attractivess found in
integrity. Few people are ugly; usually only those with severe physical deformities are seen as such
(which is not to say that the physically malformed can't be beautiful in other ways). Those who
think otherwise perhaps aren't worth too much bother. Eye-liner, blush, foundation (to make you
look paler, healthier, what?), eye shadow, lip stick: are you trying to look like the girl next door, the
beautiful freak, the femme fatale, the goth, the society girl? Why limit our looks? We don't all dress
the same, and we don't all wear the same make-up; it's one of the few true advantages we've gained
in the past couple of decades. A paltry advantage, but something. Sometimes, we need to channel
desires into something physical.
[>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- Anne, 03:43:19 04/24/02 Wed
If there's one thing that visiting Buffy discussion boards has taught me it is that perceptions of
beauty vary far, far more than I would have ever dreamed not only from culture to culture (which I
knew), but from individual to individual (which I knew, but didn't know how extreme the differences
were).
The only woman on the show whom I personally would call beautiful is Robia Delmorte. Yet I have
read panegyric after panegyric on pretty much all the others (all with the exception, in fact, of
Robia). For the most part I can't see what the others see no matter how hard I try -- which isn't to
say I don't enjoy looking at some of the other women: SMG has a rather interesting profile,
reminding me of the women on Minoan pottery; and Aly has moments that are absolutely dazzling,
when she's not doing the diffident-little-girl part of her Willow portrayal.
I find JM almost painfully beautiful, but have read posts referring to him as ugly (not many, but one
or two), and there seem to be quite a few people who say he is not as "classically handsome" as David
Boreanaz, who goes right past me on every level.
The differences in perception are so strong that it sometimes threatens my whole sense of reality.
On the other hand, I might as well be glad that tastes differ so much -- the human race would
probably have died out long ago without it.
[> [>
Interesting points...beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder -- LeeAnn, 07:18:33
04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
Beauty -- Darby, 07:45:25 04/24/02 Wed
The interesting thing is that, generalized, standards of beauty do not vary significantly from
culture to culture, especially for women (rules for men are somewhat more connected to perceived
status) - there have been numerous studies whose results surprised the researchers (as a
benchmark, that often indicates a pretty unbiased approach).
Female beauty in general (which is why debating individual tastes here is not what I'm
doing) is connected to symmetrical features and features associated with youth and fertility.
Symmetry indicates balance (and presumably, good genetics and developmental patterns), and
sometimes is most striking when offset by a minor assymetrical feature (such as Cindy Crawford's
famous mole or unbalanced dimples) that accentuates the symmetry of everything else. Youthful
features include somewhat larger teeth and eyes, fine hair, and clear skin, all of which also are
indicators of general health. It is thought that breasts (we're the only mammals that don't just make
them "as needed") are both a false indicator of mothering value (the functional glands are a minor
part of the tissue) and a true indicator of symmetry and health (it takes access to resources to gather
that much fat tissue); hip appearance follows similar rules.
One set of researchers has also come up with triangulated proportionalities that, applied to faces and
figures, can reliabily be used as a predictor for how "attractive" test subjects will find someone,
regardless of culture. There's a show, done I think by the Discovery Channel and hosted by John
Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley (worth watching just for them) that covers much of what's been done,
and video is perfect for this type of information - I know "triangulated proportionalities" is
gobbledygook, but not if you can see it applied. And they make it sing and dance better than
I can here.
This stuff only slightly applies here, because the exposure we get to actors in roles is going to modify
many of our individual perceptions (and not show up on the studies I've mentioned). Not to mention
the impact of our life experiences - how many of us find that attractive people have significant
features in common with present and former lovers? Have you always found the same sorts
of people attractive?
Aside: it's nice to see my wife's reaction when I tell her that I think someone is attractive because of
the resemblence - she gets to see herself from a different perspective. It might work differently with
someone less self-assured (she's never threatened when I find other women appealing), but it's fun
with her.
[> [> [>
Re: Beauty -- Scroll, 08:09:59 04/24/02 Wed
I've seen similar studies and agree that the results make a lot of sense. But I'm not sure Tara's
figure is the main reason why I find her so appealing. Maybe it's a combination of both her
apppearance and her personality (as portrayed so beautifully by Amber Benson). Personally, I also
find Fred/Amy Acker to be beautiful, and Acker and Benson's body types are as far afield as one can
find in the Buffyverse. I think Tara and Fred's shy but ultimately friendly and gentle personalities
are what win me over in the end.
I think Cordelia/Charisma Carpenter is most 'classically' beautiful of the women, and Angel/David
Boreanaz of the men. Willow's always been cute, but I don't find her 'beautiful' per se. Buffy & Dawn
are quite pretty, and Anya has the most 'classically' beautiful face on Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Beauty -- Kate, 09:58:35 04/24/02 Wed
Scroll is right, the girls all tend to fit the various descriptions of 'attractive', I think this was
intentional on ME's part, non of them, with the exception of Charisma are your typical 'babe'. Of
course, Charisma is much more than that too!
Aly is cute, Amber is beautiful, Charisma is stunning, Emma is exquisite, Michelle & Sarah are
pretty and Eliza is hot!
With the exception of Charisma aren't all the girls under 5'5"? When Amber posted that email in
response to the fans soon after her arrival, she mentioned her height and weight and she said she
was 5'4". Sarah and Aly (at least) are shorter than her, they must be tiny!
They are all gorgeous girls, it sometimes worries me seeing how much weight some of them have
lost.
[> [> [> [> [>
how newsradio parses beauty -- anom, 22:02:30 04/24/02 Wed
"Aly is cute, Amber is beautiful, Charisma is stunning, Emma is exquisite, Michelle & Sarah are
pretty and Eliza is hot!"
Reminds me of a scene in the episode of "Newsradio"--remember that show?--in which Lisa is rated
"cutest reporter" (how they choose the cutest radio reporter...never mind). Beth (secretary)
objects (quotes from memory):
BETH: Oh, don't get me wrong, you're pretty. You're very pretty. But you're not cute.
LISA: I wasn't aware there was a difference.
B: Pretty means pretty. Cute means pretty, but short or hyperactive--like me!!! (spreads hands out,
framing her face, big smile)
L: Hmm. Then what's beautiful?
B: Beautiful means pretty, & tall.
L: How about gorgeous?
B: Pretty, with great hair.
L: Striking?
B: Pretty, with a big nose.
L: Sexy?
B: Pretty, & easy.
L: Exotic?
B: Ugly!
I'd say Beth nailed it!...except I thought sexy was gonna be "Pretty, with cleavage." And exotic is only
"TV ugly."
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You left out "voluptuous" -- d'Herblay, 01:55:25 04/25/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
so did newsradio... -- anom, 20:33:44 04/25/02 Thu
& so does most of TV, for some reason preferring (as many have noted in this thread) what is best
described as "skinny."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Now I'm perplexed -- d'Herblay, 09:54:01 04/26/02 Fri
Both my memory and this
overlong and under-reliable list of quotes have Beth defining voluptuous as "pretty and fat." Your
memory and this episode
analysis leave it out. Perhaps it was a line that aired at the original length but was cut from the
syndicated version.
I have a few NewsRadios on tape, but it is doubtful that I have this one. Let's see, a third
season NewsRadio would be concurrent with a fifth season Homicide or a first season
Buffy. I'm never going to get definitive confirmation . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
ok...so did syndicated newsradio? -- anom, 15:31:07 04/26/02 Fri
"Both my memory and this overlong and underreliable list of quotes have Beth defining voluptuous
as 'pretty and fat.' Your memory and this episode analysis leave it out. Perhaps it was a line that
aired at the original length but was cut from the syndicated version."
Well, my memory has been known to be underreliable at times too. But I saw the ep >1 time (in
syndication), & if I'd heard that line I think I'd remember it. You're probably right about its being
cut for syndication.
[>
A theory of mine regarding beauty (longish and rambing) -- Sebastian, 10:23:43
04/24/02 Wed
It’s actually rather a relief to see the differing concepts with fellow viewers of who is beautiful on the
show. I think it would be rather depressing if I read post after post about how stunning a character
is (and the closest I've ever seen that happen is with Mr. Marsters, followed by Ms. Carpenter).
Discussing this topic makes me want to bring up an issue that I’ve had with several friends. There
seems to be a certain amount of personality allowances granted persons who are considered
‘attractive’ by general society standards. There seems to be a certain amount of leeway for people’s
personalities depending on one’s looks. And it seems to work in the opposite way, depending on one’s
gender.
Let’s start with the women.
Anya and Cordelia. Most viewers (and posters) have expressed that both women would fall under
the category of ‘classically beautiful’. And both characters were originally introduced and often
presented as ‘bitcas’. Cordelia as ‘Queen C’ of Sunnydale High, ridiculer of Sears lovin’ Willow, and
sarcastic foil to Xander. Anya was brought on as the patron saint of scorned women – vengeance
demon extraordinaire – someone clearly to be reckoned with. They were both painted as forceful,
opinionated, and occasionally (and sometimes deliberately) shallow and/or cruel.
Now take Buffy – who seems to be generally viewed as ‘pretty’ by most people. Of all the female
characters, physically it would seem SMG falls somewhere in the middle by most people’s standards.
And from posts I’ve read, she seems to elicit the most polarized reactions from people. People either
tend to love or hate Buffy. And it seems like the common words used for Buffy haters is that she is
‘judgmental’, ‘self-absorbed, and ‘self-involved’. Words that can (and have) been used for Anya or
Cordelia (and in fact, seem to have been the driving force behind their characters initially) – but note
that they are also considered prettier than Buffy. There almost seems to be the unspoken belief that
Buffy is not quite pretty enough to act as tough - or as bitca-like – as she is.
Then there are the female characters that are attractive – but their personalities tend to drive the
person’s perspective of them. This would be Willow, Tara, Fred, and Drucilla. All three are
attractive looking women. But at their same time they’re looks are distinctive – not classical. And
their personalities are often quirky. But their quirkiness actually works to their advantage – often
making them appear more attractive to viewers.
Faith, Darla and Lilah are harder to nail down because their personalities are/were written as
darkly sexual – which is going to skew physical perception.
Now it seems like the opposite is in effect for the guys. It seems like the less ‘classically
handsome’ the man is – the more leeway he is given. The more distinctive the guy's features are, the
more he is given more 'leg-room' for interesting behavior. The most obvious example is Angel, Riley
and Spike.
Both Angel and Riley would fall under the category of ‘classically handsome’. And both characters
seem to elicit the same sort of impatience from the viewers regarding his behavior. People tend to
have strong feelings of like or dislike for them. Which is a contrast to Spike. Don’t get me wrong –
I’m not saying Spike is not a good-looking guy – but he would more than likely not fall under
the category of ‘classically handsome’ by most standards. Spike is striking – but ‘’handsome’ is not
the word I would apply to him. His looks are non-conventional. I think that’s why James Marsters
chemistry with Juliet Landau worked so well – because she is another person who while stunning
physically – is not ‘classically beautiful’. The same could apply to Lindsay on A:tS as well.
Wesley, Gunn and Xander seem to fall into the same camp as Willow/Tara/Fred/Dru - that their
quirky looks are improved by the quirkiness of their relative personalities.
And even more interesting that older characters (Joyce & Giles) don't even come up in posts like
this.
Questions? Comments? Please correct me if I'm not making sense. :-)
- Sebastian
[> [>
I'll bring up Giles!!!! -- dream of the consortium, 11:10:02 04/24/02 Wed
Anthony Stewart Head is handsome. Giles is terribly, terribly sexy. That's the difference between a
face and a face with a personality behind it. (Wait - that sounds like Anthony Stewart Head has no
personality, which is not something I have any information on. Well, you can just follow my point
here.) I have one odd issue with Giles though - it does seem like his eyes get closer together with
each passing year. Am I the only one noticing this? Am I the only one stopping the video to look very
carefully at the spacing of Giles' eyes? I'm clearly rather unhealthy.
I would also say that most of the characters are too generically Hollywood attractive to interest me.
Angel holds no appeal, nor Xander or Riley. I find Buffy, Anya and Cordelia pretty in a most
uninteresting way - am indeed rather surprised at the fuss over Cordelia. Tara I believe is truly
beautiful. Yes, this is partly due to her character, but I also think she has the most striking features,
is indeed the most purely lovely, which is rather amazing, considering the hurdles the costume
designers set in the way of her looks. I thoroughly expect to see her dressed in a potato sack in a
future episode and still to be the most beautiful woman on the screen. Unless, of course, Faith is
back for an episode. Faith is less beautiful than Tara, though of course she has the smoldering sexy
thing going on. The thing about Faith is her coloring - I've always wanted that dark hair, pale skin
thing. James Marsters is striking and beautiful and has a fantastic body and I shouldn't think too
hard about him at work - it's distracting.
Oh, and I don't think anyone mentions Joyce because she wasn't particularly attractive or
unattractive. Oh, yeah, and because she's relatively old. But that's a given. I mean to say, even
ignoring the obvious and irritating fact that older women are not considered generally attractive in
our society, Joyce is, in my estimation, still not a particularly attractive woman. Very normal, as is
Willow or Dawn.
I think there's some sort of television clause that prevents the truly unattractive from participating.
Even the nerd trio are pretty normal looking guys - none of them has, say, really greasy hair or
severe acne; none is extremely obese. Mostly, they look like the people you know.
[> [> [>
"Bring me tv ugly! Not real life ugly! (The Simpsons) -- Arethusa, 11:23:18
04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Re: I'll bring up Giles!!!! -- Kate, 11:33:56 04/24/02 Wed
Although I hate the clothes, I kinda like the clothing obstacles that say Tara or Willow have to get
through. I think it works in their favour. They get a great response despite their clothes. And at least
it is in character.
Spike and Giles, the "ruggedly handsome" men seem to provoke the most positive reactions. In
fandom it seems, the underdogs (I'm not sure that is the right phrase!) are always the most lusted
after. David, Sarah, and Charisma may sell the magazines but they are rarely at the top of anyone's
'list'.
And Joyce? Well she never looked more lovely than she did in "I Was Made To Love You" when she
was showing Buffy and Dawn her dress. ME just built her up only to knock her down!
I'm new, hi!
[> [> [> [>
Welcome, Kate : ) -- Scroll, 12:04:16 04/24/02 Wed
You're right about Joyce, she may have been older but she was quite pretty. Not stunningly
beautiful, but I certainly wouldn't mind looking like her at age 42 (if I were Caucasian, but that's
beside the point). In my other posts I've continually referred to Charisma Carpenter as being
'classically' beautiful, but I personally don't find her *attractive* in a visceral sense. Bad girls/boys
Faith, Darla, Spike, Angelus, and to a lesser extent Ripper were all *extremely* attractive.
[> [> [>
Re: I'll bring up Giles!!!! -- Cleanthes, 11:52:29 04/24/02 Wed
I think there's some sort of television clause that prevents the truly unattractive from
participating. Even the nerd trio are pretty normal looking guys - none of them has, say, really
greasy hair or severe acne; none is extremely obese. Mostly, they look like the people you
know.
There is such a clause and it's related to channel surfing. They do these focus-group things and try
to put on TV those things that will most cause someone to pause and watch. (surprisingly it's NOT
partly clothed women, which accounts for their actual scarcity on regular TV, compared to partially
clothed men). They also look for things that cause people to quickly turn the channel. Yep, acne and
the extremely obese and the really greasy haired are among those things that cause a quick channel
change, I imagine.
[> [> [> [>
Re: I'll bring up Giles!!!! -- celticross, 13:43:16 04/24/02 Wed
However, it's a sad fact that men on TV can get away with being "average", but the women on TV all
have to weigh under 120 pounds (no matter their height) and have perfect skin.
[> [> [> [> [>
Ugly people of the world, Unite! (And yes, I'm probably one of them too.) -- Ian,
13:47:52 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
Joyce was beautiful! -- Scroll, 11:34:56 04/24/02 Wed
You're right on all counts, I believe, especially in regards to how personality quirks skew our view of
a character's beauty. If I really examine my takes on Faith vs. Cordelia in Buffy S3 and Angel S1, I'd
have to say I always thought Faith was 'hotter' even though Eliza Dushku might not be said to be as
'classically' beautiful as Charisma Carpenter. I can't believe I missed ED in my first post, but I've
always been more partial to Faith's looks over Buffy's--mainly, I think, because of the incredible
sexuality she exudes on screen. Faith, except those moments we see her in jail, is vividly alive; she's
got so much energy corked up just waiting to be released, whereas Buffy has more moments of
stillness. Julie Benz is beautiful in my opinion, but when you see her as Darla, the trait that strikes
you first is usually her sensuality, not just physical beauty. I think Faith and Darla seem even more
beautiful because of their vitality.
I always thought Giles to be fairly handsome, Robia LaMort and Kristine Sutherland (Joyce) are also
very good looking. I have to admit, I don't find Nicholas Brendan or Seth Green to be 'handsome' but
Xander and Oz (and Willow) have the greatest ranges of facial expressions. (You could say Oz had
very few facial expressions, but the nuance Green lends to his tiny eyebrow raisings...amazing!) Now
that I see my list, wow, ME hires a lot of beautiful people! We can have clever metaphors and
complex characterisation *and* eye candy!
[> [> [>
I wouldn't kick any of them out of bed for eating crackers... -- T-Rex, 14:37:28 04/24/02 Wed
I totally agree! Every character on BtVS has piqued my interest at one time or another. And for
different reasons.
I find Spike and Faith to be the sexiest 'cause they get to be a little bad AND a little dangerous. Both
have some emotional vulnerability to balance the badness. And Spike gets to be very witty, too.
I thought Willow was just sweet and cute 'til I got a load of VampWillow. That was a revelation!
I think Buffy is average pretty, but not that sexy. EXCEPT in the scenes she shares with Spike. It's
all about the chemistry.
And Tara was pretty enough, but plain to me. UNTIL her solo in OMWF, when she absolutely
glowed. (And then there were those pics of her in a corset with her hair all wild I discovered on some
internet site. Very nice.)
And nothing compares to Cordelia's smile, whether she is being sweet or nasty.
Physical beauty is fine, but beauty alone isn't enough to warrant my interest.
[> [>
Beauty and personality -- matching mole, 13:24:52 04/24/02 Wed
If I know someone reasonably well (or watch them play a character on TV for a while) their
appearance and their personality become so conflated with one another that judging their purely
physical beauty becomes quite problematic. They look like themselves and that's as it should be.
Having said that Robia LaMort always stood out in my mind as a particularly attractive person. But
then Jenny Calender always struck me as being a particularly interesting character as well.
Sebastian's observation about attractiveness and personality may be partly explained by aspects of
the characters outside of their appearances. Buffy is the hero, Cordelia and Anya were/are more
comic relief or anti-hero types on BtVS. The audience's expectations of their behavior is probably
pretty different. Similarly with Angel and Riley - figures cut from the heroic mold (or at least
presented that way) while Spike was for several seasons villain and/or comic relief.
[> [>
Re: A theory of mine regarding beauty (longish and rambing) -- aurelia, 13:52:43
04/24/02 Wed
It may not be that Buffy isn't pretty enough to get away with being a bitch, but rather that she is too
cute or young looking to get away with it. I think to some degree classical beauty is associated with
distain, so Cordelia and Anya look like they would be bitcas whereas Buffy's looks say I'm a sweet
little girl (just like they are supposed to). This also may have to do with a the actual age differences
between the actresses, SMG is 25, Emma is 29, and Charisma is 31.
[> [>
Re: A theory of mine regarding beauty (longish and rambing) -- aurelia, 13:55:26
04/24/02 Wed
It may not be that Buffy isn't pretty enough to get away with being a bitch, but rather that she is too
cute or young looking to get away with it. I think to some degree classical beauty is associated with
distain, so Cordelia and Anya look like they would be bitcas whereas Buffy's looks say I'm a sweet
little girl (just like they are supposed to). This also may have to do with a the actual age differences
between the actresses, SMG is 25, Emma is 29, and Charisma is 31.
[> [>
Re: A theory of mine regarding beauty (longish and rambing) -- Rufus, 14:11:49
04/24/02 Wed
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To just look at the characters on the screen along with their
performances I'd have to say that for the men the fellow who plays Gunn is the best looking man on
both shows, period. But working down I like the looks of Riley, Xander, Giles, Wesley....Spike is on
the pretty side and Angel is good looking but does nothing for me. All the people on both shows are
good looking. Buffy is lovely as is Cordy, but Willow has the most beautiful, expressive eyes, and
Tara has a charm all her own. Anya has her moments. But that is just stating my preferences out of
a crowd of lovely women who are already beautiful and what I think never changes that. As I know
none of them personally I'm only going on what I see on the TV. For me a kind person is more
beautiful than the conceited one. The funny,caring person worth more than the most scupted
body.....of course all of this coming from a plump, plain, middleaged women.
[>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- Miss Edith, 17:32:05 04/24/02 Wed
Isn't the discussion becoming more about sex appeal rather than strictly defined beauty? For
instance supermodels are often made up to look gorgeous but they have an alofness about them and
are not generally seen as sexual (generalizing a bit there I know).
The characters on Buffy and Angel appear more attractive depending on the definition of the
characters.
I have always thought Sarah Michelle Geller is a very pretty women if not classicly beautiful in the
way Cordy and Anya are. But Buffy has never been a particulaly sexual character in my eyes,
therefore I recognise Buffy as an attractive character but do not perceive her as particularly sexy.
When contrasted with Faith in season 3 Faith comes off as the more appealing choice. I am fairly
sure that more men have sexual fantasies about Faith than Buffy.
When Buffy is played more sexually Sarah does generate real heat. In Who Are You when acting in
the role of Faith check out her dancing and coming on to Spike in The Bronze. The self-assertiveness,
the tight leather pants, the sexual confidence all added up to one very sexy chick. With James
Marsters the writers are concentrating on the physical aspects of the relationship and Buffy again
comes across as more sensual and sexually appealing.
Charisma and Emma are both beautiful as I have previously stated but personally I don't find either
character particularly sexy. Dru is not conventionally beautiful but she is very striking and beautiful
in an interesting way. Darla is drop-dead gorgeous IMHO. I would kill for that face and hair sigh.
Tara always seemed pretty plain to be (in a tv kinda way) but she really shone in her solo during
OMWF and caused me to look at her in a new light. She was still of the same appearance but I
perceived her as more attractive because of the radiant way she was portrayed. Alyson Hannigan is
again not a strikingly beautiful person. She is in no way unpleasant to look at but she did fit the part
of a geeky character in Buffy and American Pie in a way that Sarah or Charisma would have
struggled to pull off. As Joss pointed out Alyson has her own quirky charm and is not the supermodel
in horn-rims type of character. Sarah would not have been realistic as the Willow character no
matter how much she was made to look plain. Yet Alyson beat Sarah Michelle Geller in a poll of sexy
women. Why? Simply put Alyson is not outstandingly gorgeous but she is sexy. Anyone remember
vamp Willow? I thought you might. I'm betting Alyson's sexy performance caused many a dirty
fantasy. Again I watched the MTV movie awards (I think that's what they were?) and how hot did
Alyson look in her outfit!
The guys on Buffy fit into the same mold. Riley and Angel are conventionally handsome as is
Xander. Yet more women (myself included) swone over Spike's unconventional looks. Why? Simply
becasue James can generate a hell of a lot of sexual heat on-screen. Anyone remember his flirting
with the watcher in Checkpoints? Just the way James acted that got me all excited.
My opinion is that sex appeal is more important than beauty and sex appeal comes from the inside.
Amber in particular demonstrates this in the musical when Tara gains confidence and caused all of
us to open our eyes. And Spike and Faith are more sexually appealing than Buffy and Angel in my
eyes because of their sexual assertiveness. They suggest a damn fine bedroom performance in their
movements as they are confident within themselves. Gotta love it.
[> [>
And just wanted to add... -- Miss Edith, 17:48:11 04/24/02 Wed
Forget to mention Wesley who is another example. In Buffy he is reasnably good-looking but a lot
more people are attracted to Wesley now he is on Angel and comes off as sexier. The stubbled look
particularly works for me. And Giles in Band Candy literally had me swooning.
Some of the actresses notably Michelle, Sarah, Emma (and whoever plays Fred) are going for the
stick figure look a little too enthustically. I am the sad type of female who is always jealous of a slim
figure in another women. I find it attractive in the way that a well painted portrait is visually
pleasing. But curves and a volupturous figure are more sexually appealing to men as a rule. Men are
generally more attracted to a bust and a good sized arse as opposed to a flat non-existent butt. And
yes I have plenty of both to my annoyance. Always wanted to look like Barbie and have the hips and
bust without the stomach and thighs. Oh well that's life I guess, lol.
But the big headed look women get when their body shrinks but head size can't change obviously is
becoming particularly apperant in some of the ladies I have mentioned. Was it just me or did anyone
else find Drusilla scarily thin in Crush? I hadn't really noticed it before but recently saw a picture of
Spike and Dru at the Bronze and her arms and fingers were incrediably thin and really didn't look
healthy. Her fingers literally just looked like bones with no excess flesh whatsoever. I suppose that's
good for the character Dru though as it makes her appear fragile?
[> [>
JM: A sexy bag of sex (TM some TWoP seer) -- LeeAnn, 06:31:51 04/25/02 Thu
I>Anyone remember his flirting with the watcher in Checkpoints? Just the way James acted that got
me
all excited./I>
As someone described JM in that sceen, "A sexy bag of sex"
[>
The most devastatingly beautiful woman on "Buffy" is definitely Tara... -- Rob,
21:10:14 04/24/02 Wed
I adore SMG, AH, MT (well, she' s a little young for me lol), and EC...but none of them compare to
Amber, who has such a distinctive look, and warm soul, that she has me absolutely (obvious pun
alert) spellbound. Her smile, her face, her hair, her personality, everything about her...She is a
beautiful, beautiful person. She just glows with life and happiness. Aww, I'm gushing!
My second fave is Alyson, who also is beautiful, but not in the classical sense. She has such a quirky
charm that can be simultaneously cool and not cool, which what makes her such a great candidate
for parts like Willow and Michelle (from "American Pie").
Rob
[> [>
Most devastatingly beautiful woman - Tara... Definitely agree! -- Scroll, 06:12:15
04/25/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: The most devastatingly beautiful woman on "Buffy" is definitely Tara... --
Rattletrap, 07:47:01 04/25/02 Thu
I totally agree with you, Rob--AB is gorgeous. I'm especially smitten with her slightly lopsided smile
that just seems incredibly sexy to me. She also seems incredibly real (for lack of a better word)--like
someone I might really know. I thought she looked especially good rewatching OAFA last week. It
was one of those rare episodes where her wardrobe actually emphasized her natural beauty instead
of concealing it behind a garish dress and way too much makeup.
I'd also agree with you on Willow. Alyson Hannigan has really sweet, sensitive brown eyes that
express so much, which makes her perfect for those shy, slightly awkward parts like Willow and
Michelle.
Anyway, just had to throw my $.02 into this discussion.
'trap
[> [> [>
Re: The most devastatingly beautiful woman on "Buffy" is definitely Tara... --
Kate, 09:40:56 04/25/02 Thu
Agree again, Amber is astonishingly beautiful - striking features, killer body and those amazing
come-to-bed eyes.
The net has certainly been feeling the Tara-love of late!
Oh I dream of the day when we see a Tara title sequence (retroactive would suffice!)
And the men? I'll back David Boreanaz/Angel, although I agree his physique is that of the generic
hunk, I think his face, especially his wonderful smile and expressions are quite extraordinary.
Charles Gunn is also lovely.
[>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- i-jingle, 13:36:11 04/25/02 Thu
wow, i got a lot of replies from my first post...spiffy.
i forgot to mention the men of the show.
my personal favorites are giles and oz. giles, well, he's GILES. he may be my mother's age at least,
but he has the "older man" attractiveness down very well. he's like sean connery and harrison ford,
he looks his age but doesn't look old, if that makes sense.
oz? well, he's not particularly pretty like a lot of actors, musicians and pop stars (examples: the boy
band members, the guy from lifehouse, half of the actors the girls in my english class drool over). he's
also not the super-buff, macho man. he has a unique mix of sensitivity and masculinity in his face. as
far as his character, the funny, sweet musical guy personality appeals to me.
spike would have to be third. he has the bad boy with charm attitude, which is appealing, but not the
kind of guy i would date. he also does look his age, but younger at the same time. perfect man to play
a vampire, but i'm not a vampire kind of girl.
angel, riley, and xander...they all have their faults, their strengths, their appeals...but, frankly, i
don't see the appeals.
must leave and deal with stats...
God bless all
the jingling one
[> [>
Re: buffy series and beauty -- yabyumpan, 16:48:24 04/25/02 Thu
OK, joining in :-)
DB/Angel does it for me in every way, big an' solid with a killer smile. For sexy, Angelus in Eternity
and Hearthrob(flashbacks). The only other male who comes close for me is JAR/Gunn (it's the
big/solid and smile thing again). I can see why JM is lusted after but he does nothing for me, too
skinny and i'm not into cheek bones.
While i'm impressed and heartened that many men would vote for AB/Tara I don't really get it. She
seems to etherial for me (maybe that's just the character, I still don't feel i've "got" her) I would go for
ED/Faith and CC/Cordy. Again for both of them it's the "solid" thing again. They both seem to be
present in a way the other women aren't.
Rants... -- Purple Tulip, 18:04:10
04/23/02 Tue
Well, I have officially had my first run-in with pre-empts where Buffy is concerned. How mad am
I??? I know tonight's was a repeat, but I was looking forward to seeing the preview for next week's
new episode (finally). plus, because of this damn hockey game, I am also missing a new episode of
Roswell. Anyone else with me on my ranting trip???
[>
Soon.. -- LeeAnn, 18:23:35 04/23/02 Tue
The preview should be up on http://www.buffy.com/ before long. You can download it.
On the good side, the preview didn't look as horrific as the spoilers sounded.
[>
Re: Rants... -- Apophis, 18:42:06 04/23/02 Tue
Angel was preempted for me (and anyone else watching it on channel 4 in Indiana). It's not the first
time; stations around here are fiends for preempting my favorite shows. That's what I get for living
in the basketball capitol of the nation.
[>
Re: Rants... -- Chris, 19:10:46 04/23/02 Tue
I take it your probably from the Boston area...
Not only did I miss a Buffy episode.. the %#&@ing Bruins lost!!!
At least it was a repeat (I think)....
[> [>
Re: Rants... -- Purple Tulip, 08:51:22 04/24/02 Wed
Actually, I'm from upstate NY- so I don't know why they had to preempt Buffy here!
[>
Get dishnet -- Robert, 22:35:27 04/23/02 Tue
[> [>
Re: Get dishnet -- Purple Tulip, 08:58:20 04/24/02 Wed
I actually don't have much of a choice- I'm in college right now, and I have to take whatever cable
package is offered. And at home, my parents have DirecTV and they still don't get UPN or the WB!
And my sister has digital cable, but she still doesn't have UPN! So I have to have one of my friends
tape the last three episodes and send them to me just so I can see the rest of the season!
Grr...Argh!!!!
[> [> [>
Re: Dishnet and UPN -- Robert, 09:45:15 04/24/02 Wed
Dishnet provides WWOR and WSBK, which are both UPN affiliates. Last night, WSBK preempted
BtVS for some sporting event, but WWOR carried Buffy. Regarding you college situation ... I feel for
you man!
[>
End of the Universe Rant and thanks to d'H for alerting me to my peril -- matching mole,
05:34:04 04/24/02 Wed
Yesterday I discovered that BtVS is no longer being carried by the station that was airing it in my
area. There had been no announcement - they just started showing movies in its time slot. At first I
thought - hey reruns but thanks to d'Herblay's TV guide post I discovered the awful truth - BtVS was
gone forever from our station. The explanation is complicated and I'll stick it at the end for those
who might possibly care.
So today I will break down and call the cable company. However I'm unsure (I've received mixed
information from various sources) that I will be able to get a UPN station on cable here. And I might
have to get some sort of high level of service and an enormous number of channels that I have no
interest in whatsoever. I've resisted getting cable all my adult life because one thing I really don't
need in my life is the temptation of a lot more television to watch. Maybe the best solution would be
to persuade a friend from elsewhere to send us tapes, at least through the end of the season.
OK - end of rant - thanks for allowing me to vent
The explanation - Where I live (in central Illinois) there are quite a few small urban areas
(populations around 100,00) but no larger ones. Each town has 2-4 stations but none has the full
suite of US networks. Here in Champaign-Urbana we have CBS and NBC affiliates, a PBS station
at the university, and a nominal FOX station that is really just rebroadcasting the signal from a
FOX station in Springfield. Decatur, about 50 miles east of us has an ABC affiliate and a WB
affiliate. There was, until 2.5 weeks ago, no UPN affiliate anywhere in central Illinois and UPN was
not available on cable. The WB station carried a few UPN shows such as BtVS and Enterprise which
it broadcast on Saturdays. Then, for some reason, the CBS affiliate in Springfield (out of our
broadcast range but within the broadcast range of Decatur) switched to UPN which meant that the
WB station had to pull its UPN shows. TV guide indicates that at least one cable company here
carries the UPN station but their website and my discussion with someone here who has cable
indicated that they didn't. Today I'll call and find out from the source.
[> [>
Sorry to hear it. Hope the cable company can help you. -- CW, 06:18:41 04/24/02
Wed
[> [>
Re: End of the Universe Rant and thanks to d'H for alerting me to my peril -- Darby,
07:18:52 04/24/02 Wed
UPN is now sort of a subsidiary of CBS, which might explain the switch (I'm waiting for shoes to
drop on this one, but that's another issue). A call to whatever CBS affiliate you can pick up might
get them to take over for the WB affiliate, maybe running things on a weekend afternoon (they
wouldn't pre-empt primetime CBS then). I doubt it, but it's worth a shot.
[> [>
Screw the cable company, get dishnet or DSS! -- Robert, 07:59:01 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [>
Don't even know what those things are -- matching mole, 08:17:46 04/24/02 Wed
Could you enlighten?
BTW I checked with the cable - can get UPN. Feeling somewhat happier now.
[> [> [> [>
Those are sattelite dish services. -- CW, 08:26:01 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Satellite TV services -- Robert, 09:39:24 04/24/02 Wed
>> "Could you enlighten?"
I would be happy to!
Dishnet and DSS are the two remaining satellite television services in the U.S. I have subscribed to
Dishnet (http://www.dishnetwork.com) for the past 4-5 years with nearly perfect service. Others I
have spoken to are as happy with DSS. Dishnet requires you to install a small dish. Thus, you must
have a southern exposure to see the satellite. If you purchase the required dish and receiver, the
monthly subscription costs are comparable, or less, than those of cable services. You can then
receive your highly necessary UPN feed from the northeast, WSBK and WWOR. The equipment
costs are about $300, but I believe Dishnet now will rent the equipment to you through your monthly
bill.
Good Luck!
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks -- matching mole, 13:29:20 04/24/02 Wed
Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** --
Kitt, 18:25:46 04/23/02 Tue
Ok, brand me sci-fi geek, but, if tonight's scenes for Entropy are to be believed, Anya's going back
into the vengence business, and her first wish is that Xander was never born. I can't say that's
surprising, he's hurt her pretty badly. But, this presents a problem: Anya, nee Anyanka, first came
to Sunnydale to grant Cordy a wish because she had been 'scorned' by Xander. If Xander is never
born, then Cordy can't catch him kissing Willow, and so Anya's got no reason to come to Sunnydale
and create the
Wishverse, so no reason to have Giles smash her necklace, no reason to be mortal, much less fall in
love with and try to marry Xander... and therefore no reason to be left at the altar, and no reason to
wish he wasn't born, etc. You see where I'm going - there are any number of points where Xander's
abscence means Anya wasn't going to be there either, which means she has no reason to undo
things... I think we are wandering off into another alternate universe guys. What do you
think?
[>
Re: Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** -- Apophis, 18:40:01 04/23/02 Tue
That's the problem with time travel; no matter what you do, the very act of existing in the past alters
the future. You're breathing the air, taking up space, altering the pull of gravity, attracting and
releasing bacteria, bending light, and adding to the mass of the universe. If you go back to 1900 and
kill Hitler before he became a problem, then you've got no reason to travel back to 1900 in the first
place and Hitler lives, prompting you to travel back in time to kill him and thus negating the
purpose for your journey, allowing Hitler to live and give you a reason to travel backwards in time to
kill him... it's like calculating pi; you'll never find a way out.
[> [>
Re: Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** -- shadowkat, 18:47:43 04/23/02 Tue
Uh...I think there's a slight problem with her wish, which
is that the vengenance demon can't make it. Someone else
has to. So no AU coming up. It's a shame, would have enjoyed
it, albeit briefly.
[> [> [>
Re: Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** -- Rob, 18:49:51 04/23/02 Tue
This may be pushing it, but it's possible that she made the wish as a human, and then was turned
back into a demon so she could grant her own wish. I know, grasping for straws here. I can't wait to
see this...!!!
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** -- Robert, 22:40:04 04/23/02 Tue
>> "I think there's a slight problem with her wish, which is that the vengenance demon can't make
it."
Can you please cite your evidence?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** -- shadowkat, 05:52:09 04/24/02 Wed
Okay trying real hard not to give away spoilers here...
so I will cite evidence:
1. In the Wish - Anya has to get Cordelia to make the
wish, she can't do it for her.
2. Halfrek has to wait for Dawn to make her's in OAFA
Finally, just trust me on this - it won't happen. Watch the
promo again - that scene occurs prior to the last three..;-)
[>
Maybe that's the point... -- Rob, 18:46:09 04/23/02 Tue
If Xander were never born, and Anya never came to Sunnydale, then she never would have had the
pain of falling in love with an losing Xander. By wishing Xander were never born, she would undo
everything. And, even if the effect is she'd have no memory of turning human again, isn't that the
point? She is mad at the world at the moment.
So I'll have to reserve complete judgment till I see this episode...but I don't see any unintentional
paradox occurring here.
If she had merely wished she'd never come to Sunnydale, then it would not fulfill her desire for
veangance. Having Xander never be born fixes both issues--not coming to Sunnydale and becoming a
human, AND, having revenge on Xander.
Rob
[> [>
Hey, doesn't someone else have to ask for the wish for it to work? (NT) -- Goji3,
19:01:09 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [>
That's the way it's supposed to work. -- Deeva, 22:06:56 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Maybe that's the point... -- Rob, 18:47:47 04/23/02 Tue
If Xander were never born, and Anya never came to Sunnydale, then she never would have had the
pain of falling in love with an losing Xander. By wishing Xander were never born, she would undo
everything. And, even if the effect is she'd have no memory of turning human again, isn't that the
point? She is mad at the world at the moment.
So I'll have to reserve complete judgment till I see this episode...but I don't see any unintentional
paradox occurring here.
If she had merely wished she'd never come to Sunnydale, then it would not fulfill her desire for
veangance. Having Xander never be born fixes both issues--not coming to Sunnydale and becoming a
human, AND, having revenge on Xander.
Rob
[>
wait... was tonight a new episode??? -- Solitude1056, 20:05:21 04/23/02 Tue
[> [>
Nope, don't worry! It's next week. -- Rob, 20:07:56 04/23/02 Tue
[> [> [>
OMG! We are finally down to 7 days and counting! -- Deeva, 22:22:55 04/23/02 Tue
[>
Re: Paradox? **Spoilers for Entropy** -- gds, 20:17:54 04/23/02 Tue
There need not be a paradox because in some theories there are an ininity of universes that contain
the different possibilites that could happen. If someone changes the the past, then they simply
create a new alternative universe that is consistent with the new facts. The other universe still
exists.
The best on screen presentation of this infinite universe theory I have seen was the Star Trek the
Next Generation episode "Parallels". http://www.utopian-
federation.com/startrek/tng/tng_season7.htm has a synopsis of this (and other) episodes.
I am furious! -- A Very Disgruntled
Rob, 19:21:34 04/23/02 Tue
After all this time, I finally thought, what the heck, I'd check out that scuzzy Twiz site...and guess
what? I discovered that they have copied the transcripts of Six Feet Under I worked hours and hours
on for my site and posted it on theirs...without giving me credit, or a link back to my site. So, if
anyone here didn't already know Twiz was the devil, I'm just here to inform you--TWIZ IS THE
DEVIL.
I wrote an angry letter to the webmaster. Does anybody else have any suggestions? I don't know that
much about how enforcable website copyright is, but since I wrote copyright 2002 Rob on my website,
is that enough? Or not, since the transcripts are, of course, of things I don't own in the first
place?
Any one know anything about stuff like this?
And, oh, yeah, if you wouldn't mind, please go and write a nasty letter to the Twiz webmaster, too. It
would make my day. :o)
Rob
[>
Are you absolutely sure what they put up was your's? -- A curious VR, 19:55:32
04/23/02 Tue
[> [>
Yeah...It has my stage directions, and scene titles, and everything. -- Rob, 20:05:03
04/23/02 Tue
Also the descriptions of the characters I write in the text. First, I wasn't sure, but after reading over
it, I know it's definitely mine.
Rob
[> [> [>
Dude, that sucks!!!! -- A pissed link god., 12:11:56 04/24/02 Wed
Damn whoever put it up!!! There is definite smiting going to be done in retaliation. There is actually
one excuse (lie) that may make it better, but I don't want to say it in case the poster is reading this
and I don't want to give 'em any ideas.
VR
[>
Re: I am furious! -- LeeAnn, 19:59:16 04/23/02 Tue
But at least BILLY is back. Even though they cut his hair so short he looks gayish now.
[> [>
Well, he was in a mental institution! -- Rob, 20:06:29 04/23/02 Tue
[> [>
Actually I like him better with the short hair. -- Deeva, 22:02:21 04/23/02 Tue
[>
That's awful! -- aurelia growls menacingly at TWIZ, 20:21:53 04/23/02 Tue
I'm outraged, but not very good at angry and intimidating so instead I offer comfort.
there, there.
[>
Can't say you weren't warned -- d'Herblay, 20:30:42 04/23/02 Tue
The other night, looking for counter-evidence to the charge that we've been practicing censorship, I
searched for TWIZ threads that had made it all the way into the IvyWEB archives. I came across a thread started by
Sloan which contained this exchange:[> Re: After Buffy, which other show do
you like? -- Rob, 11:47:00 02/23/02 Sat
The only other show on TV that matches "Buffy"s level of brilliance, in my opinion, is "Six Feet
Under." I actually have a website about it. (If you want the addy, please e-mail me at
morningperson_2000@yahoo.com...I don't want to be a spammer!)
Other shows that I'd rank as excellent, but not brilliant, are "Farscape" and "Alias." They are both
very well-acted, directed, etc and tons of fun to watch.
Out of the sitcoms, the only one I watch is "Friends."
So that's about it...To tell you the truth, I don't even watch "Angel," except for if Darla, Dru, or Faith
is on.
Rob :o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Your website is cool! -- Sloan, 12:56:50 02/23/02 Sat
Is this the fishersandsons.com website? Cause I visited it and it's a heck of a site! I would love to
read transcripts of season 2! I receive the TWIZ Weekly Updates Newsletter and it says that TWIZ
will post transcripts for season 1 soon. I guess they will borrow them from your website.
Another good point for the TWIZ site, and for yours! Six Feet Under is my favorite HBO series (I do
like Oz, but I totally loathe Sopranos and Sex in the City). I also miss the Larry Sanders Show by the
way
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yup, that's my site... -- Rob, 13:57:06 02/23/02 Sat
Glad you like it! Season two hasn't started airing yet, but there will be transcripts when it does (first
ep's on March 5th on HBO)...By the way, I have a new url: http://www.sixfeetunderfan.com
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Boldface added.)
As for recourse, I doubt that there is anything you could do through the legal system. I'm not even
sure if there's any guerrilla warfare HTML to code. (Perhaps someone a little more knowledgeable
than I could suggest something.) If TWIZ, or anyone else, should ever link to images on your server
without your permission though, you can move that picture to another address and leave a nasty
note in its place.
Ok, I'd like to revise my "An illegitimate answer" post below to replace all occurrences of the word
"commercial" with the words "cheap thieving bastards." Hey, Vickie! Do you think that would be
evidentially supported this time? I know it's not exactly grammatically supportable . . .
[> [>
I'm not a judge, but -- Vickie, 22:54:05 04/23/02 Tue
Unwillingness to pay does not always indicate cheap. Might simply indicate larcenous.
Therefore, you should skip "cheap" in your substitute string. I think you might be able to do
something with the Referror for the rest of it.
[> [>
Grr aargh! -- Rob, 05:52:25 04/24/02 Wed
Although, using my old url, they would have gotten to my site anyway...
Rob
[>
Well, the next time... -- Deeva, 22:21:43 04/23/02 Tue
the TWIZer's drop by we can bring this up. And sorry Rob, I don't have any advice other than some
how, some way whatever wrong has been done to you, it will all come out in the end. It may take a
while but things do have a way of balancing out. Not immediate, I know, but it's better than
simmering. I'm sorry that this had to happen to you. You seem to be a really nice guy.
[>
Good news! -- Rob, 13:14:44 04/24/02 Wed
The Twiz webmaster now put a link to me at the bottom of the transcript, and gave me credit. So
everything's good again. Thanks for the support, everybody. :o)
Rob
...And Now Wesley -- SingedCat,
21:05:12 04/23/02 Tue
I'd like to submit this to the non-fiction section of the website, but I thought I'd post it here first, see
who salutes.
…And Now Wesley : History, Frailty and Destiny
There is something seriously up with Wesley. Not just with the character, but with his relationship
to and function in the show. What that is will take some skull sweat, not to mention more
unraveling of the series, but here are a few preliminary ideas, inspired by the recent debacle:
A few years ago Wes would have been the formula sidekick, bookish and bumbling, a character
whose main function was to make the cool title character look even cooler by an endless and tiresome
series of miscues, misunderstandings and misdirections. He would have been the guy who sneezed
when they were hiding from the bad guys, pratfell during the escape, or showed up two seconds too
late to the gunfight, then grinned at the arriving press and told them it weren’t nuthin. The Barney
Fife school of backup.
What execs then failed to realize was that some of us identified with the underdog, not the hero. We
saw our own imperfections in his, and sometimes we wished he’d just once get it together and…come
through for us. Hit the target, have the idea, say the right thing, lead the crowd, get the girl. We
didn’t want the hero—there was already a hero. We wanted a closer look at the imperfect guy over
there, and we wanted him to win once in awhile. Our vicarious vindication was to go long
unanswered. In these latter years Master Joss has undertaken a different idea of the ‘book-guy’ in
the capable yet vulnerable person of Wesley Wyndham-Price.
The Sleeping Dragon
Wes’ personality has always had an undercurrent of insecurity. When he first joined Angel and
Cordelia, they were bereft after Doyle’s loss, and his assimilation was undertaken with more than
casual attention. Angel spent a lot of time with him while he honed his fighting chops, they fought
together, and overall there was a firm insistence on teamwork. In many ways Wes’ life paralleled
Angel’s—he sought to redeem his past by becoming a better man, fighting evil. Finding such a niche
for his enormous and specialized skills, and in addition being among people with whom he exchanged
love and trust must have been, for him, very much like finding a family long sought, and bridged a
gap of confidence that had never been filled in his first family.
As revealed in IGYUMS and in off-comments in at least 3 other episodes, Wesley has father issues.
I picture old Dad as a British Great Santini of Watchers, who ran his household like a training camp
and gave his ten-year-old son’s bed the quarter test. Defiance, perhaps only in the interest of
paternal attention, was met with retribution, in cold exile under the stairs, in corporal punishment
and cruel, well-timed put-downs. There must have been times when the child feared (or wished) his
father would kill him, or when he fantasized, like Harry Potter in his place under the stairs, about
someone who would come and take him away from this life into one in which he was loved and cared
for as special; an eventuality which never occurred in a childhood that stretched into college,
graduate school, and then into service to the Council.
Those issues have helped the adult Wes to identify other victims of hurt & abuse; see the gifted
telekinetic they saved from Wolfram & Hart, and most recently his red-headed would-be murderer.
These issues were also a looming force behind his abduction of Connor.
The Isolation Factor
Wesley screwed up, but there was mitigating circumstance and to spare. Emotionally remote, he
barely begins to test the confidence to reach out to Fred when a terrible chance brings him into
contact with a personality-altering demon who infects him with the demon’s own misogynistic
mania. Suddenly Wes is turned inside-out, and we catch a terrifying glimpse of him as a serial
killer, intent on Fred’s torture and death, manifesting on the way every secret contempt he may
have ever idly entertained. Again we have an Angel parallel here— when he is returned to himself,
the guilt and torment remains, even though the demonic will driving him was not his own.
Whether Fred would have had feelings for Wes if that incident had been avoided we will never know.
Before he can recover his confidence to court her, she is approached (and no wonder) by a smitten
Charles Gunn, and romance blossoms-- first there, then with Cordy & Gru. Between the new
couples and Angel’s all-consuming fatherhood, the place is suddenly infused with a level of self-
involvement that can be expected from the near-simultaneous pairing of everyone in the office but
our man Wes. He is lonely, for a girlfriend, for a family, for intimacy, really, but even Angel has
blown by him in that respect, and where they had had sympathy, identification, Wes is once again on
the outside. With nothing to do about (or with) the bliss around him, he turns his head down to his
books, and is confronted by a difficult prophecy whose implications stir a sleeping dragon in the
back of his head. For two weeks his mind seizes on the translation, his conscious anxiety riding
atop an unconscious rise of alienation. Gunn and Fred are a walking example of the ill-advised office
romance, but his position as rival foils his function as boss to regulate it. His devotion to Angel’s love
for his son is touching, even as his yearning for such love is unspoken, and in this melting pot of
stresses is laid a trap that would confound the most cool-headed.
Sajhaan's manipulation was both cruel and calculated; he changed his focus from Holt to Wesley
when he saw that Holt would not kill the baby, then used a false deal with Wolfram & Hart to create
circumstances which would scare Wes into making a move that would force him to betray everything
he held dear. It was a calculated risk, but even to Sajhaan it must have seemed like a long shot.
Still, without the isolation factor, it should never have worked.
To bring it full circle, Wes’ spiraling neurosis helped direct him into the solution that would
coincidentally cure his own isolation, that of raising the child himself. The worry that he would not
be able to protect the child in such a circumstance did not seem as pressing a threat as that of the
pending attack of the father, a certainty that woke the dragon in his will. In rescuing the child he
is saving himself, doing what he always wanted someone to do for him. And in the very acting out
of his own salvation the weakened bridge of his confidence is blown, and he is finally victimized,
made helpless and silent by a bloody betrayal of his own ill-timed concern. What happens next will
either be redemption or suicide-- and suicide's just not an option for the unredeemed.
A Final Note on Injury and Angel
Stabbed in the neck with a cross, shot in the gut, lost arm (ok in another universe), slit throat, ad
let’s not forget the bad back-- Wes has had more serious injuries than any other member of the team,
or the Sunnydale contingent, for that matter, and that says something. It's not that he's not quick--
it's just that he doesn't anticipate it. An excellent fighter with killer aim and a low pain threshold,
Wes is often better as the hunter than as the martyr. Injury depresses him, whereas Angel thrives
on it. It's often as though the pain Angel experiences is by his own choice, affirming his redemption,
but it has the opposite effect on Wes, telling him he's done something wrong. In that aspect perhaps
he's more like the rest of us than Angel, who has been injured so many times over the centuries that
his potential pain threshold is huge.
[>
wow, very insightful... kudos! -- Solitude1056, 21:15:46 04/23/02 Tue
But what about his relationship with Victoria (was that her name)? How do you think that fits into
the Wesley scheme of things?
[> [>
Re: wow, very insightful... kudos! -- Singed Cat, 21:25:54 04/23/02 Tue
Oh, it was Virginia (as in, "You were in Virginia?!" "...That's beside the point.") and she's part of
Wes' vindication of the sympathetic viewer-- he actually gets the girl, makes the shot, leads the
crowd. Of course, he loses all that too, but we'll see what happens next, won't we? The big moments
are going to come, to paraphrase another LA boy, it's what you do when they come that
counts.:D
[> [> [>
But you could be in Victoria as well -- Vickie, 23:02:51 04/23/02 Tue
;-)
[>
Excellent! -- Apophis, 22:29:10 04/23/02 Tue
Great job! I've always seen some of myself in Wes; the guy who does his best and still screws up
sometimes, who is ridiculed for his outlook and for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong
time. Maybe he didn't make the best decision regarding the prophecy, but I still think he did his
best under the circumstances.
As for the pain thing, maybe the difference is that Angel was raised as an 18th century Irish
Catholic and Wes was most likely either raised Anglican or atheist. For Angel, pain and injury are
physical evidence of his redemption; he's doing penance and getting impaled lets him know that he's
getting somewhere. Wes, on the other hand, lacks a tradition of penance (I'm assuming; I know
nothing of the Anglican church). Proportionally, Wes takes more punishment than anyone. Sure,
Angel gets hacked up all the time, but he can take it; his nerves are deadened (things feel less "real")
and he can regenerate. Wes can't, and thus his pain is more meaningful.
[>
Please incorporate the BtVS Wesley -- Vickie, 23:04:43 04/23/02 Tue
You don't go back that far (in specifics). I wish you would.
[> [>
Re: Please incorporate the BtVS Wesley -- SingedCat, 12:34:45 04/24/02 Wed
I will, as soon as I can-- I just looked at the stuff for Wes, and got some good ideas off what to
include. Is that okay to do when submitting to the site, though (assuming credit is given, of course).
And, by the way, how does one submit stuff to the site> Just send it to Masq? WW? I thought there
would be directions at Fictionary Corner, but there aren't.
[> [> [>
Re: Please incorporate the BtVS Wesley -- Masq, 12:46:27 04/24/02 Wed
If you want to put it on the existential scoobies site, send it to Liq. If you want it to be considered on
ATPoBtVS, send it to me.
[> [> [> [>
Very cool and spot-on analysis, by the way : ) -- Masq, 12:52:29 04/24/02 Wed
[> [>
From Graduation 2 -- Rufus, 17:16:51 04/24/02 Wed
Wesley was the by the book man who the council sent to Sunnydale, his experience is best summed
up when he talks to Giles about his impressive experience.....
INT. LIBRARY - DAY
Giles HAS looked better - he's uncomfortable, bored and a teeny bit hostile. He is, however, trying to
be polite about it.
The reason for his attitude is speaking to him. Incessantly. He is WESLEY WYNDAM-PRYCE,
watcher. Young, not bad looking but a bit full of himself. Thinks he's Sean Connery when he's
pretty much George Lazenby.
WESLEY
Of course, training procedures have
been updated quite a bit since your
day. Much greater emphasis on field
work.
GILES
Really.
WESLEY
Oh yes. It's not all books and theory
nowadays. I have in fact faced two
vampires - under controlled
circumstances, of course.
GILES
Well, you're in no danger of finding
any here.
WESLEY
Vampires?
GILES
Controlled circumstances. Hello,
Buffy.
Wesley feels he has brought the power of the Empire with him to Sunnydale, confident that the mere
mention of the Council of Watchers should garner immediate respect and obedience....boy was he
wrong. Buffy is no little girl who follows orders without question...
BUFFY
(to Giles)
Is he evil?
GILES
Not in the strictest sense.
WESLEY
(a hint of peeve)
Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.
And as I'm sure none of us is anxious
to waste time on pleasantries, why
don't you tell me everything about
last night's patrol.
BUFFY
Vampires.
WESLEY
Yes?
BUFFY
Killed 'em.
WESLEY
Anything else you can tell me?
A gently remonstrative look from Giles makes Buffy grudgingly continue.
BUFFY
One of them had swords. I don't think
he was with the other two.
WESLEY
Swords? One long, one short?
BUFFY
(nodding)
Both pointy. With jewels and stuff.
GILES
That sounds familiar.
WESLEY
It should.
He is rifling through some of his own books. Hands one open to Giles.
GILES
El Eliminati. Fift -
WESLEY
Fifteenth century duelist cult. Deadly
in their day, their numbers dwindled
in later centuries, due to an increase
in antivampire activity and a lot of
pointless dueling. They eventually
became the acolytes of a demon
called Balthazar, who brought them
to the new world. Specifically, here.
GILES
You seem to know them well.
WESLEY
I didn't get this job because of my looks.
BUFFY
I really really believe that.
WESLEY
I've researched this town's history.
Extensively.
GILES
So why haven't we seen them before
this?
WESLEY
They were driven out a hundred years
ago. Balthazar was, happily, killed.
I'm not sure by whom.
BUFFY
And they're back 'cause…
WESLEY
Balthazar had an amulet, purported to
give him strength. When he was killed,
it was taken by a wealthy landowner -
I don't want to bore you with the details…
BUFFY
Little bit late…
WESLEY
…Named Gleaves. It's buried with
him and I believe the few remaining
Eliminati are probably looking for it.
For sentimental value.
GILES
So you don't think the amulet poses
a threat of some kind?
WESLEY
Not at all. None the less, we may as
well keep it from them. Buffy, you
will go to the Gleaves family crypt
tonight and fetch the amulet.
BUFFY
I will?
WESLEY
Are you not used to being given
orders?
BUFFY
Giles always says please when he
sends me on a mission. And
afterwards, he gives me a cookie.
WESLEY
I don't feel like we're getting off
on quite the right foot -
Buffy is used to Giles, and no one can take his place. They have fought to much and had such a close
relationship that Wesley with his attachment to book, ritual, and incessant talking about details
can't replace. Giles knew that Buffy's strength wasn't in the listening to lectures category. Wesley
was teaching to a sleeping classroom with Buffy.
Faith looks at him.
FAITH
New watcher.
GILES/BUFFY
New watcher.
FAITH
Screw that.
She turns on her heel and exits.
BUFFY
Now, why didn't I say that?
GILES
Buffy, do you think you could -
BUFFY
I'll see if I can get her back.
(to Wesley)
Don't say anything incredibly
interesting while I'm gone.
She exits. Wesley watches, trying not to be thrown.
WESLEY
They'll get used to me.
Giles sighs very quietly, takes off his glasses to clean them. Notices Wesley has taken his off and
is cleaning them. Giles slips his back on.
The two men may be more similar than is evident when we meet the new Watcher in town,
remember Giles in the first few eps, he had a lot of Wesley in him...of course Buffy trained him out of
it.....;)
The fact that the Council had fired Giles, no one was going to get much of a chance in taking Giles
place. Wesley was also enough of a company man that he felt that if the Council said it, so it shall be
done. This attitude slowly changed with his exposure to the unique SG way of doing things. His
crush on Cordy was quite funny and touching at the same time. In the Prom he became the fly
buzzing around a preoccupied fellow chaperone, Giles...
ON CORDELIA
Who enters, looking STUNNING in her lay-away dress.
ON GILES AND WESLEY
As Wesley sees Cordy. He chokes on his chip and salsa. Giles notices. Wesley tries to explain.
WESLEY
Salsa... hot.
(looks back at Cordy)
Very hot...
Wesley moons. Giles just shakes his head.
ON CORDELIA
Who enters, looking STUNNING in her lay-away dress.
ON GILES AND WESLEY
As Wesley sees Cordy. He chokes on his chip and salsa. Giles notices. Wesley tries to explain.
WESLEY
Salsa... hot.
(looks back at Cordy)
Very hot...
Wesley moons. Giles just shakes his head.
INT. SCHOOL GYM - LATER STILL - NIGHT
Wesley moves to Giles, clearly anxious.
WESLEY
Mr. Giles. I'd like your opinion.
While the last thing I wish to do
is model bad behavior in front of
impressionable youth - I wonder if
asking Ms. Chase for a dance would -
Giles, clearly fed up with the whole matter, cuts him off.
GILES
For God's sake man. She's eighteen
and you have the emotional maturity
of a blueberry scone. Have at it, would
you, and stop fluttering about.
Chastened and pleased in equal measures - Wesley nods.
Wesley is all style and no substance, but I liked him right off because I thought there would be a
good story in the bumbling Watcher. His last appearence was in Graduation 2, he left in Wesley
form......
WESLEY
You haven't an enormous amount of time.
He has entered unnoticed.
XANDER
Hey, it's Mister States-the-Obvious!
BUFFY
The Council isn't welcome here. I got
no time for orders. I need someone to
scream like a woman, I'll give you a call.
WESLEY
I'm not here for the Council. Just tell
me how I can help.
There is a moment, as everyone takes this in.
CORDELIA
Oh, you are SO classy. Isn't he
just so classy?
BUFFY
(pleased)
It's a start.
WESLEY
So there is something I can do? Besides
scream like a woman?
BUFFY
There's plenty. Chores for everyone.
Okay, this is how it's going to lay out...
Wesley goes against the Council and stands up for something that he knows is right, if not by the
books. His last scene was leaving on a stretcher after a less than serious wound, a far cry to what
Justine did to him in Sleep Tight
EXT. FRONT OF SCHOOL - NIGHT (LATER)
Fire trucks and ambulances have arrived, the smoking ruin of the school just hidden by them. People
are helping the wounded into ambulances, milling about in postwar shock, leaving, talking, hugging,
crying (probably not crying, they're extras, but we can always hope).
ANGLE: WESLEY is in a gurney, being loaded into an ambulance.
WESLEY
If I could just get something for the
pain, it's rather a lot of pain... an
aspirin.. anyone... if I could just be
knocked unconscious...
He is loaded up and roundly ignored.
I was so excited to see Wesley back in either show. I love the character. With so many more
interested in the "hotties" on either show, I find Wesley more a man that gets where he is by making
mistakes and eventually overcoming them. I wonder whenever I see a man who is shy, or clumsy,
uncomfortable with himself and clearly not fitting the mould of what women consider appealing in a
man. How much of the bumbling, hesitant behavior is the man and how much is shaped by a world
cruel to people who don't fit a "beautiful" norm. His character is far more interesting than Angel who
always had that bit of "cool" that made life a little easier for him. Over at Angel, Wesley has been
able to develop a character that is more complex than the man we first saw over at BTVS.
[>
Re: ...And Now Wesley -- Rufus, 23:51:33 04/23/02 Tue
Wesley is my favorite character in ATS. Angel has his moments but his story takes a backseat to the
wonderful acting job of AD. Wesley and Angel both had authoritarian fathers who shaped their skew
on life. Angel became the drunken rebel, who in some ways treated others how he felt he was treated
by his father. Wesley became a conformist who tried everything to keep anyone in a superior position
happy. As soon as Angel hired Wesley in "She", he became a sycophant, eager to please the boss. The
Pylea arc was a turning point in how Wesley saw himself, and he became able to handle harder
decisions without Angel.
Last night it was clear that Wesley has a more vital role in the healthy operation of Angel
Investigations than Angel would like to consider. Wesley is the research guy, but also has a kind
heart and takes time with clients that I don't see Angel capable of doing. As Angel Investigations
suffered when Angel was on Sabbatical, less physically strong....AI will suffer with the brain power
and people skills Wesley naturally has. They may have been able to wrap up the tea set and send
Wes his things, but they will be less strong a team without him....AI isn't just Angel, it's a team that
needs all it's members.
[>
Wesley & Injuries -- Scroll, 07:41:51 04/24/02 Wed
Thank you for your insightful post! I especially liked your argument that "pain/injuries has the
opposite effect on Wes (than Angel), telling him he's done something wrong." You're right in that
Wesley is quite prone to near-fatal injuries. The only other Scooby/AI member that gets as banged up
is Giles and Xander (excepting of course supernaturally enhanced Scoobies like Buffy/Angel). Giles
seems to get knocked on the head a lot, and takes it as a sign of failure whenever it happens. Wes
seems to feel the same.
"Thin Dead Line" gave Gunn a deeper bond with Wesley after he gets shot, but that gun-shot wound
also leads to Virginia breaking up with Wesley. That probably reinforced pain=failure in Wes' mind.
Poor Wes! I love watching him angst but I really hope he gets a break sometime soon.
[> [>
Re: Wesley & Injuries - is his middle name Kenny? -- Dead Soul, 17:03:22 04/24/02
Wed
[> [> [>
Shhhhhh Kenny is dead......gone forever....those bastards...;) -- Rufus, 17:32:58 04/24/02
Wed
[> [> [> [>
Re: heehee -- Dead (kenny's) Soul, 18:24:44 04/24/02 Wed
[>
You forgot the explosion that put him in the hospital in TSiLA -- JBone, 18:24:07
04/24/02 Wed
and the torture in 5x5, and...
The Tragedy of Wesley (spoilers for
Double or Nothing) -- lulabel, 22:03:50 04/23/02 Tue
I wanted to revisit an idea that was mentioned about a week ago by Sophist:
Wesley should be dead. Several posters have commented on the implausibility of his survival
from having his throat slit and lying there untended for what appeared to be several hours, and the
equally implausible smothering attempt. His survival seems cheap. His death would have made a
true Greek tragedy.
....and more recently by Solitude:
I still think if Wesley had died, the utter greek tragedian aspects would've been even sharper -
he did his best, in an Oedipal way (not the mom-sex bit, the dad-death & divert-prophecy bit), to
prevent what he thought would be a horrible event... and then, afterwards, to find out that it was all
a forgery. Then you could have an utter bitterness that Wes' death didn't even mean anything.
Up through Forgiveness, I found myself in total agreement with these sentiments. I was vastly
relieved that Wesley survived - he's a complex, interesting and sympathetic character, and played by
a fantastic actor. I was at the same time distinctly disappointed - his death would have been classic
tragedy, with a certain terrible beauty to it. Through death he would have been wiped clean of the
stink of betrayal and failure. Instead we just got the impression that the writers went for the cheap
thrill, the "let's make everybody think he's dead" cliff hanger.
I must say that after seeing "Double or Nothing" I have revised my opinion, and I now give the
writers a little more credit. I see Wesley's current state, his survival, as the bitterest of tragedies.
He has lost everything - his "family", his livelihood, his confidence in himself. He has been
annihilated, he has been silenced, both literally and figuratively.
I'm no longer bothered by Wesley's improbable survival of having his throat slit, I now see the nature
of the wounding as both symbolic and highly ironic. He was once the voice of authority in AI; now he
is silent, he has lost the right to speak by virtue of his betrayal. The irony of course is that he is in
this horrific predicament because he neglected to speak up, to share his concerns with the others.
There is also a terrible pathos to his silence - one gets the impression that Wesley might not speak
even if he could.
[>
Yep, that's some good irony (someone please tell me where I remember that line from) --
Apophis, 22:34:20 04/23/02 Tue
I never thought of that. Just more evidence to prove I don't belong here in the company of such great
thinkers.
[> [>
Get in line, I don't belong here more & I've been here longer! ;-) -- Solitude1056,
16:51:38 04/24/02 Wed
[>
I Agree Totally... -- Scroll, 04:09:17 04/24/02 Wed
Wesley's silence is definitely not golden. Every scene he's in is rife with tension (even the one where
he's alone), almost as if speaking would break him apart. The poor guy is looking into an abyss of
despair and loneliness. That close-up shot of Wes, that look in his eyes when Fred warns him not to
return to the office because Angel would surely kill him, I could see him thinking death was probably
not a bad option right then.
[>
About the throat slitting... (Some spoilers, esp for Double or Nothing) -- Darby,
06:01:22 04/24/02 Wed
From follow-up exposition, it seems like Wesley's anatomy is like a vampire's cardiovascular system -
y'know, how the heart is just anywhere between the neck and the belly button?
The injury described, and the recovery we're seeing, is from a lacerated trachea (or larynx), which is
much more survivable than a cut to any of the major blood vessels of the neck, especially if you're
lying in the bushes for five-weeks-and-a-whole-episode waiting for hospital attention. And we're
probably all happy not to have been treated to the gurgling and aspiration that such a wound would
have provided had it been realistically done.
And I'm glad he's still around, too, but worry that his reintegration into AI will be done just as
smoothly as the "hack his head off then set his customers on him" plot device used this last episode.
It looks like AI will need his expertise sometime soon (and will have a reason to make Fred or Cordy
- remember when Cordy was smart? - a serious trainee under him, which could lead to many wacky
hijinks).
[> [>
Thanks for the reminder about Cordy. -- Cactus Watcher, 06:17:04 04/24/02 Wed
It's been a genuine source of inconsistency. In high school Cordy was alternately an honor student
with great test scores, and a complete dodo. Maybe it was just a case of being so paralyzingly
shallow in high school, that she just 'acted' stupid.
[> [> [>
Re: Thanks for the reminder about Cordy. -- Humanitas, 13:03:50 04/24/02 Wed
Maybe it was just a case of being so paralyzingly shallow in high school, that she just 'acted'
stupid.
Didn't she say something to that effect back in S3?
[> [> [> [>
Season Three Cordy.......and Cordy's brain power.. -- Rufus, 02:06:46 04/25/02 Thu
From Psyche's transcript for Lover's Walk.
Cordelia: You guys get your scores?
Xander instantly lets go of Willow, hops to his feet and rushes to meet
her.
Xander: Cordelia! (points) Willow was very sad by her academic failure.
(reaches for Cordelia's score report) How did you do?
He snags it from her hand, unfolds it and reads it.
Xander: This is not good.
Cordelia: What's not good?
Oz gives Willow a reassuring stroke of her hair. She just sadly hands
him her report to see.
Xander: Well, I'm just worried it may hurt my standing as campus stud
when people find out I'm dating a brain.
Cordelia: (yanks her scores from his hand) Please. I have *some*
experience in covering these things up.
From Choices.....
Daylight. Xander is walking along a street and pauses at the window of a shop. He sees Cordelia
inside holding up a dress. He starts, stops, looks for a moment more. He goes inside.
Xander: I have a theory. Your snide remarks earlier? I'm guessing grapes a little on the sour side.
Didn't get into any schools, did you? The grades were there, but ooh, if it weren't for that pesky
interview. Ten minutes with you and the Admissions Department decided that they'd already
reached their mean-spirited superficial princess quotas.
Cordelia: And once again, the gold medal in the Being Wrong event goes to Xander "I'm as stupid as
I look" Harris. (takes envelopes from her purse) Read 'em and weep, creep. USC, Colorado State,
Duke, and Columbia.
Xander: Wow! These are great colleges. I'm guessing they must have seen a different side of your
father's money.
Cordelia: (snatches the letters away from him) Go away.
From The Prom.....
Xander: You work here?
Cordelia: Yes. Yes, I work here.
Xander: But, uh, why?
Cordelia: I'm trying to buy a dress.
Xander: But don't you already have all the dresses?
Cordelia: I have nothing, okay? No dresses. No cell phone. No car. Everything's been taken away
because Daddy made a little mistake on his taxes. For the last twelve years. Satisfied? Are you a
happy Xander now? I'm broke. I can't go to any of the colleges that accepted me. And I can't stay
home because we no longer have one.
Xander: Uh, wow.
Cordelia: Yeah, neato. Now you can run along and tell all of your friends how Cordy finally got hers.
How she has to work part time just to get a lousy prom dress on layaway. And how she has to wear a
name tag. Oh, I'm a name tag person. Don't leave that out. The story just wouldn't have the same
punch.
And my fav quote....From Band Candy....
Oz: Buffy SAT prep.
Willow: Oz is helping. (smiling proudly) He's the highest-scoring...
Cordelia: (interrupts) We know. We did the impressed thing already.
Willow frowns.
Xander: I hate they make us take that thing. It's totally fascist, and
personally, I think it, uh, discriminates against the uninformed.
Cordelia: Actually, I'm looking forward to it. I do well on
standardized tests.
She gets looks from everyone.
Cordelia: What? I can't have layers?
Any questions?
[> [>
Re: About the throat slitting... (Some spoilers, esp for Double or Nothing) -- Kitt,
06:43:52 04/24/02 Wed
I posted this before, but speaking as a medical professional I DON'T find Wesley's survival all that
impossible. When you have that kind of throat-slitting injury, you have to remember 2 things:
1) such injuries are always deeper in the middle than at the edges, so while trachea and larengeal
injuries are common and expected, the cut may not have been deep enough to get either the jugular
or the carotid.
2) even if the jugular was injured, the pressure of a hand and internal mechanisms designed to limit
bleeding can convincingly prevent someone from bleeding to death. Wes's wound never spurted, and
believe me, hit the carotid artery and that puppy will spurt - a good 10-15 feet! So, we know that
Justine didn't get the carotid, and she may not have cut the jugular vein either. Stories of people
surviving these kinds of injuries for hours without care are not uncommon... and I've actually
participated in the care of such patients.
So, Wes's survival wasn't impossible, not even unlikely - but death was a distinct posiblity with such
injuries
[> [> [>
Re: About the throat slitting... (Some spoilers, esp for Double or Nothing) -- Corwin of
Amber, 20:19:29 04/24/02 Wed
I think what's really impossible to believe is that Justine bungled her murder attempt enough so
that he didn't die. It's clear from the next episode that Holtz taught that technique to his minions,
(one of his guys almost did it to Gunn, remember?) and Justine was his star student. Even if she
was having second thoughts after the fact, training tends to take over in situations like that. If she'd
NOT wanted to kill him, she would have used a different means to neutralize him.
Thats the part thats hard to believe...sure people can and have surivived having their throats cut,
but not when it's done by a trained killer.
[> [>
realistic? you expect realistic? -- anom, 21:32:51 04/24/02 Wed
"And we're probably all happy not to have been treated to the gurgling and aspiration that such a
wound would have provided had it been realistically done."
I haven't expected realistic since Cordelia got strung up w/an electrical cord in her haunted apt. &
just hung there silently, w/no gasping & coughing until she was cut down. No flailing, kicking,
desperate grabbing at the cord; no choking noises or protruding tongue beginning to swell & darken.
How could they pass that up?
OK, that makes 2 "stuck-out tongue" posts in quick succession...don't worry, I'm not planning to
make a habit of it!
[>
You make a great point -- Sophist, 08:32:56 04/24/02 Wed
I do love the irony that the man who failed to speak now is unable to. Hadn't noticed that and I
thank you for pointing it out.
But I like the Greek tragedy even better.
[>
Well put. -- Miss Edith, 16:47:00 04/24/02 Wed
There is nothing good about Wesley's life right now and I imagine he is feeling suicidal at the
moment. It is doubtful he would ever go through with suicidal thoughts but it is natural in your
darker moments to consider the easy way out. That is what Wesley's death would have been. Wesley
truly has been left with nothing because of his own actions. If Weskey's fate had been to die it would
have been easier than the consequences he is currently faced with experiencing.
Demon Population - Overdone? -- West, 02:24:41 04/24/02 Wed
Hey everyone, I'll start this out by mentioning that I'm completely new to this posting board, so if I
start recycling done-to-death material, I apologize.
I was just wondering if anyone else thought Buffy and Angel (moreso the latter) were starting to get
a bit carried away with the whole 'secret incorporation of demons into the real world' thing. Case in
point, the Casino from Double or Nothing. According to what we see, there's tons of demons in LA -
and not just hiding in sewers and woods and such, completely humanized ones who act like parts of
society. I thought that occasionally showing a demon who had joined society was clever, but I think
things are getting way carried away. Had I been a first-time watcher on this episode, I would have
had no idea that demons were still unknown to the general population (plus when you start to see so
many 'humanized' demons, you start getting kinda doubtful about the whole 'killing demons is fine'
assumption).
Thoughts?
West
[>
Re: Demon Population - Overdone? -- Darby, 05:50:43 04/24/02 Wed
First off, welcome!
You're not wrong - for me, it's yet one more piece of evidence that the two shows really occupy two
very different realities. Now that is a topic that's been done to death here!
Not that I won't bring it up again...
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the two shows take place in disconnected alternate universes -
I just think that, to a great extent, the writers on each show have felt that they don't have to remain
"true" to the other show's rules when it would get in the way of a good story, and this has led to
fundamentally different fictional worlds (I guess it's only we fangeeks that desire consistency). And
you've hit upon one of the main digressions (which also include moral absolutes - maybe - and
governing "Powers") between the shows. Without stating it explicitly, Angel s demonstrates
repeatedly that the humans in Los Angeles (or a decent fraction of the population, at least) know
about and more-or-less accept that their world is occupied by those who fit firmly into the "OTHER"
box on the local census. The casino goes way past the circumstances of Willy's Bar (so the differences
are partly of degree, but there's an attitude component as well), and many of the demons we
encounter on the show are way too acclimated to have spent their lifetimes scuttling out of human
sight. Not that I would strongly pin anything to this last point - our colloquial, "up-to-date" demons
are obviously a part of the conceit of both shows, a conceit better accepted without much inspection
(If you do inspect, you won't accept! Sorry, temporary demon possession...wait, that might explain
some things about our LA...).
[> [>
Re: Demon Population - Overdone? -- Tillow, 07:07:46 04/24/02 Wed
I don't think it's inconsistent. Buffy and Angel represent different worldviews as do LA and
Sunnydale.
Buffy tVS, female power, young, rural.
Angel tS, male, ancient, urban.
Buffy was 15 when she was called and moved to a small town where she had to introduce the
element of danger. She was supernatural but good. Always good. As she gets older and we meet
characters like Angel, Faith, Jenny, Anya, and Spike, the lines blur. This year, the year of growing
up on Buffy, we meet Clem, a demon who can come hang at her birthday or wear a suit for the
wedding. *one of my favorite scenes this year is when buffy runs into clem in the hall in older and far
away and he just waves. She's startled but realizes he's no threat. He's just there to celebrate her
birthday. This is a big deal. She's shown mercy before but not quite like this.
LA, Angel, his direct connection with the powers that be, all represent an imminent threat around
every turn... the dangers of living in a dark and very real world. Not a sunny made up town with it's
very own mouth to hell. I do agree that if someone were watching the show for the first time, they
might have been shocked but I think if someone were watching *that* show for the first time, they'd
have bigger problems then that! :) I think having the demon couple live in the sewers offset any
problem the casino may have caused. Demons aren't easy to find unless they are trying to kill you.
So, all this to say, I like the different ways the two shows approach the demon issue. The treatment
reflects that they are, in fact, different shows. I think we will see Buffy ask some of the same
questions next year that Angel asked last year (when the powers sent him to save demons).
My question is. What is up with Lorne? Is he gonna be Angel's man-servant/nurse for the rest of the
season?
Tillow
[> [> [>
I must admit, the question of Lorne has been puzzling me, too. -- Marie, 07:40:47
04/24/02 Wed
Has he even mentioned Caritas lately? That club was once his baby. I know he moved into
the Hyperion after he blamed the AI gang for getting it blown to bits again, but how come nothing
has been said about him going back/re-locating? This guy lives to sing! He has to miss that side of
his life, don't you think?
Marie
[> [> [> [>
Lorne is his Alfred Pennyworth -- Apophis, 09:49:50 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
He was, until recently, the nanny. -- Deeva, 10:25:05 04/24/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Maybe it's a money thing. -- VampRiley, 12:16:53 04/24/02 Wed
Maybe he doesn't have enough after having to fix it up once and then adding all that stuff we know
about. He may have installed other things too. And after what happened to it a second time, maybe
he just can't afford to make another one just yet.
VR
Play "Finish the Scene!"
(Double or Nothing Spoilers) -- Darby, 10:25:57 04/24/02 Wed
Okay, so none of us are gruntled (just doesn't sound the same as "disgruntled," does it-?) about how
the final scene in the casino played out. I personally saw writers painted into the proverbial corner
who pulled a solution out of their...never mind.
Put yourselves in the writers' place. Given everything leading into that casino scene, how would you
have extracted Gunn from his predicament, not just immediately but longterm?
I'm going to play teacher now (translation: my brain is fried from just coming up with this
idea, so I'm not suggesting a solution myself) and just sit back and watch you folks solve the
problem. All the really good ones are allowed to yell "Nah nah" in the general direction of the ME
offices (sorry, I don't have any treats).
[>
Don't mean to poop the party... -- Masq, 10:48:47 04/24/02 Wed
But I'm having trouble with how everyone is surprised that Angel acted a tad bit dishonestly and
unheroically in the final scene. I think that was written that way very consciously by ME.
Angel is in a bad place right now. In "Forgiving", he allowed himself to go to Wolfram and Hart to get
the information he wanted about Sahjhan. Something he would not normally do. The Red Girl was
pretty blatant about the fact that she wanted to encourage his emotional desire for vengeance. And
Angel, not thinking clearly because of the loss of Connor, let himself be manipulated.
Why would he suddenly change from that path in the next episode? For heaven's sake, the last time
we saw him, he tried to kill Wesley! He is on a down-hill spiral. He hasn't sorted out his grief yet. He
is acting on emotion right now. He feels guilt he won't own up to, anger he's letting get the best of
him, and he isn't thinking things through.
When he found out Gunn was in trouble, he wanted to help a friend, yes, but it was grief over Connor
that motivated the actions he decided to take to help Gunn. Remember last year when Angel just
screwed with Lilah and Lindsey's minds by pretending to have a tape of them conspiring to rip of a
teen homeless shelter when in fact he had nothing?
He's in a similar space right now, just for different reasons. He doesn't see that acting honorably gets
him any where, so he is screwing with people.
I think that they are going to get him back on track before the end of the season, but it will take time
to do that.
Angel isn't in hero mode right now, and that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Please, now, go on with your fun re-writing!
[> [>
Re: Don't mean to poop the party... -- Darby, 11:57:13 04/24/02 Wed
I'd buy the "Dark Angel" (Dark Knight?) slant, but I can't accept how the others (including the
suddenly telepathic Cordelia) played along with a strategy that even Spike has decried (he insisted
that he wouldn't welsh on a bet in Tabula Rasa). Angel definitely can be seen to have a
sliding morality scale, but the others have been fairly honorable (and brighter) up til now.
And it was just cheesy.
[> [> [>
Noir Angel. Petty Angel? Cheesy Angel? -- Masq, 12:42:16 04/24/02 Wed
[>
Re: Play "Finish the Scene!" (Double or Nothing Spoilers) -- matching mole,
10:49:22 04/24/02 Wed
First - welcome back from where ever you were Darby and thanks for the advice re my BtVS
situation.
I guess I'd restructure the whole episode somewhat to have Gunn disappear earlier and spend more
time looking for him - the search could feature some Angel/Cordy interaction that would allow him to
express his grief without spending so much airtime on shots of the empty crib. Lorne could go
undercover at the casino as a lounge singer and Fred could use her knowledge of physics to influence
a roulette table. Angel and Jenoff would play roulette and Angel would win in a rigged game. Jenoff
would find out, there'd be a battle royal and Jenoff would be killed through sheer luck, an accidental
attack on his one vulnerability, something that had Wesley been around they would have known
about and not almost been killed in the process.
[>
Re: Play "Finish the Scene!" (Double or Nothing Spoilers) -- Cleanthes, 11:20:32 04/24/02 Wed
I can't describe how surprising it was to me that Angel cut a trey. That NEVER happens in these
cliched, super-macho gambling contests. The hero always wins, either by skill, trick or the favor of
the gods expressed in dumb luck.
So, I wouldn't want to change the actual cutting of the cards - that was genius.
(incidentally, my favorite card trick works on this "counter-your-expectations" principle. Any of you
can do this trick: get the other person to shuffle a deck and pick a card, any card. As they look at it,
guess what it is. I have done this about 30 times in my 49 years. I have yet to successfully guess
the card, but when I do, the other person will be amazed. I figure this trick will work at
least once in the average person's lifespan.)
So, here's how I would end the scene:
After Angel lost drawing a lame-o trey, I would have set it up that the gambling boss had so over-
predicted cheating that he would have been caught in his own trap. Perhaps he had set things up so
that the winner of the card game was automatically sucked into a hell dimension. Since he "knew"
that Angel would win by cheating, this trap would prove the cheating to the others in the
cassino.
After this was all over, Fred, Gunn, Cordy & Gru would question Angel about how he knew that
winning was booby-trapped. Angel would reply that he didn't know that, he had just taken a 50-50
change. Sick wry smiles from everyone would end the episode.
Current board
| More April 2002