April 2003 posts


Previous April 2003  

More April 2003

My opinion about Buffy/Angel's defeat of the First and Jasmine won't be the end? -- wolverine, 16:54:47 04/13/03 Sun

Jasmine said that Untold power emanated from all quarters, the seeds of what would come to be known as good and evil. And the malevolent among us grew stronger. So even if the First and Jasmine are taken out that, there would still be evil and good in the world. The First may be the strongest but probably isn't the only evil in the Universe. So in my opinion is that this battle will still continue after Buffy and Angel are over.
[> Re: My opinion about Buffy/Angel's defeat of the First and Jasmine won't be the end? -- maddog, 18:52:52 04/13/03 Sun

Well yeah, I always assumed that. You can only show so much of a neverending battle. Many of the fights, small and large battles...yes, but never the last battle. It's not possible with in this particular situation.
[> [> Re: My opinion about Buffy/Angel's defeat of the First and Jasmine won't be the end? -- Rina, 10:40:13 04/14/03 Mon

I don't think Buffy and the Scooby Gang can really defeat the First, especially if its the origin of Evil. What they can do is defeat the First's plans for an apocalypse and restore the balance between good and evil.
[> [> [> Just because something is the Origin of All Evil doesn't make it indestructable -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:04:43 04/14/03 Mon

I guess it depends on whether you view the First as being intimately linked to all evil in the world, in which case its destruction probably would be impossible. However, if you view it merely as the first of many evils to come, it is destructable, since just killing the parent doesn't kill the child.
What is the point? (Shiny Happy People Speculations) -- Sara, not shiny but very happy, 20:46:53 04/13/03 Sun

Is Jasmine good vs evil, or is she order vs chaos? Jasmine is beautiful, order is beautiful. It's clean, it's bright, it makes you feel safe. Of course it's even, everything belongs in it's place, there is no coloring outside of the lines, there is no thinking outside of the lines. During a clean up alot of stuff gets thrown away, sometimes good stuff gets broken when we move furniture to dust the baseboards. Tired of the balance, the First Evil wants to destroy everything so that it doesn't have to see neatly mowed lawns, Jasmine wants to destroy anything that makes a mess, we start with murdering demons, but we'll end with litter bugs and bad housekeepers. (Things are definitely not looking good for me, I make friends with my dust bunnies.) Maybe this is "The Odd Couple" on a cosmic scale.

Or

Jasmine is good. She is a God. This is what the world looks like when you know that God exists and your questions about what is good and what is evil are answered neatly, your purpose is laid out for you. If there is no longer a question about does God exist, and what does God want, what do you do? You start a holy war. You accept no dissenting opinions - how can anyone disagree - there's God and this is what she says. But the question is, if you know you're going to heaven, is it ok for God to sacrifice your life for the greater good? Is it ok to cause pain to achieve the happy ending for those who survive the battle? Do you still get to call yourself all-loving when you leave dead bodies in your wake? Is this showing us what the good guys are going to look like during the end-time of the apocalypse? (By the way, there is a really great movie called "The Rapture" with Mimi Rogers and David Duchovney that explores some of these same points. It was made in 1991 and was written and directed by Michael Tolkin.)

- Sara, saying it's about religon, no, it's about God, no, it's about creativity vs rules, no, it's about time I went to bed...
[> I need help with this... -- dub ;o), 12:02:02 04/14/03 Mon

Help me, Sara...I haven't read a lot of the longer threads about Jasmine, but I seem to detect a preponderance of opinion that she may be the "good" counterpart to the First Evil on Buffy.

Huh? Didn't nobody but me 'n' Fred see that yucko face with the maggots? After that, which I took to be revealing the true face of Jasmine, I don't see how anyone can still think that she might be good.

Help! What am I missing here?

Confuzzled dub :o/
[> [> You're probably right but... -- Sara, 14:41:29 04/14/03 Mon

it seems too easy if she's just evil, I'm just wondering if both the icky, maggoty face and the beautiful face are both true in their own way - 2 aspects of what she is, and the logical extension of what she wants to do. I know I'm wrong but it just seems like an awfully interesting way to explore some complex concepts.

- Sara, who shouldn't post past 11:00pm!
[> [> Re: I need help with this... -- maddog, 12:42:48 04/15/03 Tue

I've been argueing this exact point on other threads and I'm getting a response that I'm assuming too much. They must know something that I don't.
[> god and God -- Masq, 13:20:59 04/14/03 Mon

In my episode analysis, I make the assumption, or at least state the assumption that no one put the PTB's (if, indeed, Jasmine is a PTB, but this is irrelevant to my point here) in charge of mankind.

Go back to Jasmine's little pre-cooked up speech:

"In the beginning, before the time of man, great beings walked the Earth. Untold power emanated from all quarters, the seeds of what would come to be known as good and evil. [Yet there was a balance.] But the shadows stretched and became darkness. And the malevolent among us grew stronger. The Earth became a demon realm. Those of us who had the will to resist left this place. But we remained ever watchful. Then something new emerged from deep inside the Earth. Neither demon nor god. And it seemed, for a time, that through this new race the balance might be restored."

It seems to imply that (a) The PTB's did not create the Earth, they merely used to live on it, and (b) that the PTB's did not create humankind. They simply looked down one day and saw these squirmy little mortals running about.

But being very powerful what's-a-ma-whosits, they angsted over whether to interfere in human lives. It's like powerful aliens on Star Trek deciding whether or not to have a prime directive. Technically speaking, it's none of their business what's going on down there with human beings. They're just tempted to interefere. They have debates amongst themselves over whether or not to do so.

Glory, Jasmine, all these things we could call "gods" are gods with a little 'g', powerful beings who are neither the creators nor the rightful judges of less powerful creatures.

Joss may well be exploring religious themes with Jasmine, but he hasn't created a "God" capital G in his universe. He's just created some really powerful folks who've been around longer than humans but not as long as the Earth or the universe, by the sounds of it. They are not omniscient, omnipotent, nor creators of the universe, from what we've been told.

So they are not "God", and are "gods" only if less powerful beings call them that. I say, let's just call them, "Q".
[> [> More like "Kosh" -- KdS, 14:37:32 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> It's been years since I saw Babylon 5 -- Masq, 15:44:31 04/14/03 Mon

Which I liked very much but never got on video tape. Which is saying something because I have every other show I like on video tape.

Care to expand on your "Kosh" statement? I'm remembering things about those B5 story lines now that's intriguing me about parallels to Jossverse mythology.
[> [> [> [> the Vorlon (spoilers for Babylon 5, through year four) -- Vickie, 16:59:22 04/14/03 Mon

Kosh was the Vorlon ambassador. At first, the humans thought that the Vorlon were just very advanced ETs. They wore encounter suits that completely covered them when not own quarters. In fact, the issue of what a Vorlon looks like was a major issue for the pilot movie.

Towards the middle of season 4, Kosh stepped out of his encounter suit to save a human's life. This occurred in the sight of a diplomatic gathering, and each species saw Kosh as something different. Humans saw him as a form best described as an "angel". Others saw messengers of the "good guy" diety, according to their own beliefs and cultures. And one very odd individual saw nothing.

This after Kosh having said that, should he step out of his encounter suit, everyone would recognize him.

Much later, towards the end of the "Shadow War", it was revealed that Vorlons were by no means angels. Instead, they were "old ones," members of a race so impossibly old and evolved (by our standards) that their abilities and technology resembled magic or semidivine powers. They were the proponents of order in an ongoing struggle with another race of old ones, a struggle in which human beings were just cannon fodder.

In fact, Vorlons had been kidnapping individuals of various species (including humans) for centuries, adapting them to be better weapons in their war agains the chaos types, and returning them to their gene pools. They induced telepathic abilities in several species this way.

Kosh, the only individual we even get to know slightly, does come to regard the younger species with more respect, eventually risking (and losing, sort of) his own life to act in their defense. However, the replacement ambassador, also called "Kosh" (maybe it means "speaker to children" or something) was not nearly so pleasant.

The original story is much more complex, this is not even the Reader's Digest version.
[> [> [> [> [> JMS is my pal. Arcs are my pals too. (OT mumblings) -- oboemaboe, 18:26:33 04/14/03 Mon

Kosh left his encounter suit in the 2nd season finale to save Sheridan. By mid season 4, all the Old Ones had already gotten "the hell out of our galaxy!"

Man, I miss B5.

Two random thoughts:
*One thing I loved about B5 was that JMS would get on Compuserve and discuss every single episode with fans. Somebody compiled all of his postings into the Lurker's Guide to B5 (www.midwinter.com/lurk/eplist.html) and he often goes on for 20-30 page(down)s. And people get excited about 4 measly commentaries on the Buffy DVDs? Yawn. Why do I have to pay ME to give me a mere fraction of what JMS gives away for free?
I already know what I think; I know what the fans think; hearing from the writer himself gives a unique and insightful perspective and is like the third leg of the tripod that my understanding of the story can rest on.

Look at the Bronze VIP archive, on the other hand, and you'll find sporadic posts with little to no actual substance. Everyone seems more interested in being cutesy and chatty, which I find unsatisfying.


*Arcs, arcs, arcs! Can't say enough good things about 'em. If anyone doesn't know, JMS plotted out every ep before they even began shooting. He also sketched out the history of 100 years prior to and 100 years after the show.

This was the downfall of, say,the X-files -- that they just half-heartedly made it up as they went along. This is why, say, DS9 will always be head and shoulders above Voyager with it's reset button. If I'm going to invest years in a show, I want there to be a payoff, dammit! I keep hearing B&B say that they can't make Enterprise too arcy because it would be too confusing for poor Joe Sixpack. Can't alienate new or casual viewers. WTF? Trek isn't for casual viewers. Trek is for Trekkies.
I had never seen B5 before until Grey 17 Is Missing (in syndication) and I was instantly hooked. I continued watching until the end of the series, then started over until I got back to Grey 17. Far from being lost, I was intrigued. If a show is quality, people will stick with it regardless of whether they came in late or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And that's the exact problem with "Enterprise" -- Masq, 06:33:12 04/15/03 Tue

They have a prime opportunity to show how the Federation was created. History is a tapestry, a giant whole made up of many threads, but as long as every episode is stand-alone, they can't capture that.

Enterprise should be arc-ier than all the other treks combined. But mostly what it is is boring. I tape it out of loyalty, but the characters and situations don't move me at all.

And DS9 was my favorite trek. Yeah!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did you know Harris Yulin played Amin Maritza in Duet? -- oboemaboe, 08:20:45 04/15/03 Tue

I just found this out recently, but now picturing Maritza, I can see that it's him.

For those who get the Space Channel, it's showing S1 episodes this week, so Duet should be coming up soon.

Definitely one of DS9's best. If anyone hasn't given the show a chance yet, I recommend this ep unreservedly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree: "Duet" is one of the finest Trek eps ever! -- Scroll, 21:18:10 04/15/03 Tue

And yeah, it was kinda funny to see Quentin Travers dressed up as a Cardassian, but boy howdy! Once he and Kira started talking, everything else went away. That was a rivetting, powerful episode. I was once a TNG fan more than anything else (cuz it was the only one I'd seen!) but once I started on DS9, there was no going back. DS9 blows everything else out of the water!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I knew I'd seen Quentin somewhere before! -- Indri, glad to know of his Cardassian past, 23:06:51 04/15/03 Tue

And yes, DS9 was so good that I'm willing to forgive the existence of NextGen for it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> "EnterWHAT?!" or "How I Learned To Stop Paying Attention to New Trek and Love DS9" -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:54:14 04/15/03 Tue

not really the dissertation the title makes it out to be, just in agreement with you, Masq. DS9 is my personal fave, an opinion that garners accusations of blasphemy amongst many of my Next-Gen loving pals. The way I look at it, Next- Gen is modernist military/colonial propaganda, and DS9 takes a nicely post-modern look at the shadier sides of this faux utopian federation and the natio-I'm sorry, that's PLANETS surrounding it.
Sound familiar?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plus DS9 is just more morally ambiguous -- Masq, 17:05:41 04/15/03 Tue

It sometimes glorifies terrorism (the Bajorans)
It allows people to have religion instead of calling it superstition.
The main characters are not saints following the Prime Directive and living a happy-glowy life on a Federation ship
There's a big war with lots of action! scenes
People are allowed to have long-term relationships and have children and families (the regulars on Next Gen were kinda either never-get-any-nerds or alien-of-the-week slut puppies)
And.. well, I could go on.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> True That. I'd Be Interested To Compile a Study on... -- AngelVSAngelus, 17:42:06 04/15/03 Tue

Entertainment in different media (film and television predominantly) pre and post 9/11. There's a definite paradigmical shift in what's acceptable and not. (For evidence see the aforementioned sympathy for terrorists as oppressed people in DS9, The Matrix, the game Final Fantasy VII, among others)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The DS9 we knew could never have aired after 9/11 - - Masq, 17:56:04 04/15/03 Tue

It would have been a very different show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kira Nerys would've never existed -- Scroll, 21:15:50 04/15/03 Tue

in a Trek show created post 9/11. She was a strong, independent, military career woman who also had a deep faith in her gods and several romantic interests. That alone puts her twenty-eight steps above the average female character.

But I think network execs (and even some fans) would have a great deal of problem with portraying a terrorist as an ultimately good, compassionate, likable woman who did all this violence because she really didn't have a choice -- or rather, her choice was (A) to let her people be enslaved and subjugated and marginalised forever, or (B) to pick up a gun, plant a bomb, lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order to free them.

Because we're supposed to think that terrorists are always the Bad Guys. When really, that kind of labelling just doesn't work in the grand scheme of things. IMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Word. -- Masq, 06:21:50 04/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Masq, you probably know this already but the release dates for DS9 DVD's are... -- A8, 18:04:47 04/17/03 Thu

S1--Released 2/03

S2--Released 4/01/03

S3--6/03/03

S4--8/05/03

S5--10/07/03

S6--11/04/03

S7--12/02/03

I wish Fox would be as peppy with their BtVS and AtS DVD release schedule. I suppose the trade off is that we get our ME DVD's at approx. 60% of the street price as a season of DS9. Then again, I'd be willing to pay the premium to have all my Buffy DVD's before 2005!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's peppy! And long time no see, A8! -- Masq, 06:38:12 04/18/03 Fri

Glad I have these puppies on tape. I want to switch to DVD, but it takes a while just because of the $$$ factor! I have a DVD player and the only DVD sets I have current to the market are BtVS and AtS.

*sigh* but working on those ST:TNG, ST:DS9, X-files and Highlander collections...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> TNG produced three (or four) consecutives seasons of phenomenal drama -- cjl, 14:36:08 04/16/03 Wed

No offense to DS9--which picked up steam when Berman and Ira Behr finally remembered Sisko was the Emissary of the Prophets and fully integrated Avery Brooks into their mosaic of political and military intrigue and religious faith--but ST:TNG kicked ass for a longer sustained period, from the third ep of Season 3 to the middle of season 6, with hardly a bad ep in the bunch. And if DS9 showed the dark side of the Federation and all the compromises needed to sustain it, Berman never couldn't have dissected those values before exploring them fully in TNG; TNG brought mankind to the edge of the new frontier, where the question wasn't "how do we defeat the alien" but "what makes us human."

Patrick Stewart was, is, and always will be the greatest captain in Trek history. The mutability of human identity was usually explored through him: merging with the gaseous life form in S1; Borgified into Locutus in S3; reliving another man's life in "The Inner Light" in S5; and bouncing between his past, present and future selves in the finale. And when Picard wasn't the focus, we had Data and Worf, characters who could have easily carried their own series, both with big questions of their own: What makes something a living being? What forms your character--is it the blood of your ancestors, or the people who raised you?

Again, no knock on DS9. I'll probably pick up S5-7 on DVD, because that's when they hit their stride (couldn't possibly miss getting "Far Beyond the Stars" on disk!). But TNG is the template, the Beatles of New Trek. Everything afterwards, even the deconstructions of DS9, follows from this source.

Besides, I had this huge crush on Beverly Crusher.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pretty much agree -- Scroll, 23:31:54 04/16/03 Wed

I don't think DS9 could've done the things it did, exploring the darker half of the Federation and of humanity, without TNG as the original shining light to contrast against. And TNG has truly amazing episodes, and I have a soft spot for both Picard and Data. "Measure of a Man" is one of my all- time favourites. But overall, I love the DS9 cast more, the idea of the space station, the mythology, the war, the undertones of violence and despair and hope, more than the happy, orderly crew of the Enterprise-D.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: TNG produced three (or four) consecutives seasons of phenomenal drama -- Darby, 07:21:10 04/17/03 Thu

One thing to add (and I don't disagree with the main point here, although this will make it sound like I do) -

One of TNG's most egregious sins was in giving us a Ferengi who would have fit right into Nazi 1930's anti-Jew propaganda. Although the approach veered a bit, they never got far enough away from that original concept. It took DS9 (and it took them a while) to explore just what being a Ferengi meant, and even if they were often used for comic relief, there were the germs of an actual culture there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Joys of Oomox -- cjl, 08:27:55 04/17/03 Thu

I always found the writers' attitude toward the Ferengi "culture" a bit contradictory. On the one hand, I liked the depiction of the Ferengi as the ultimate pragmatists/capitalists. If the venture is going to waste resources, and it isn't going to bring in the latinum, it's not worth the bother. At the end of DS9 S2, Quark very pointedly told Sisko that Ferengi society was BETTER than "Hoo-man" society; the Ferengi didn't have all these "ideals" that usually screw up sapient life forms, and they didn't have slavery, because--well, you know, waste of resources.

On the other hand, the writers often went out of their way to show the Ferengi as utter weenies. And even at his best, Ira Behr (the guy who literally wrote the book on the Ferengi) couldn't wipe out the hints of the old anti-Semitic stereotype. But what really frosted me was the sexism of Ferengi society, which made absolutely no sense. Are you telling me that if the Ferengi could close a deal with a matriarchal society for dirt-chip dilithium, the guys wouldn't slap clothes on the nearest Ferengi female, and tell her to bring it on home? I thought nothing stood in the way of profit! (Thank the Celestial Banker Ishka talked some sense into these people.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another Beverlyophile! -- Bronson, 14:44:24 04/18/03 Fri

She was my main reason to watch TNG. A friend of mine subscribed to the Beverlyophiles 'zine (which essentially evolved into a monthy on-paper message board for Dr.-loving TNG fans) and I read along (too cheap to subscribe myself, of course.)

*But* I still like DS9 better as a whole, much as I often like the second season of a TV show better than the first. It's not just that the cast is more together or whatever, it's that the story has developed to the point where the writers don't spend all this time on exposition, and that makes the characters (and concepts) seem more interesting because they're less exposed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Remember Me." "Attached." "Sub Rosa." Mmmm.....Beverly. -- cjl, 14:53:51 04/18/03 Fri

But beyond those episodes, one of my favorite scenes between Crusher and Picard was in Season 2's "Sarek," when Sarek and Picard mind-melded and used Picard's body to store the volatile emotional reactions, while Sarek coolly went off on his diplomatic mission. That Jean-Luc would trust Beverly to see him so emotionally naked--I thought it was tremendously moving.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Remember Me"=My favorite TNG episode. And another mmmmmm....Beverly! -- Rob, 12:32:38 04/19/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've mostly given up on Enterprise -- Scroll, 21:22:58 04/15/03 Tue

Which is sad since I had such high hopes for it. I'll still watch it if I have nothing better to do, but I've given up taping it. Though anything with the Temporal Cold War will make me sit up and take notice. At least that *hints* at a series long arc!

Some of the characters do appeal to me, but more on a fluffy basis. Malcolm Reed I rather like (partly for the accent) but T'Pol's character is the most interesting and best developed, IMO. Even though I find it odd that she's developing so *fast*, becoming "human" so quickly, at least she's going places. The rest of them just seem stuck going through the same motions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Disgruntled Trekkie" rant about "Enterprise" -- cjl, 11:34:13 04/17/03 Thu

First of all....

The theme song. To quote Bart Simpson, it sucks and blows at the same time.

The cast: actually, the cast is pretty good. Bakula vacillates between Kirk and Riker from week to week, but generally projects virile-and-charismatic more than virile- but-boring. Reed and Trip are amusingly quirky in their own way. Linda Park is adorable and Jolene Blalock is...okay, I don't have the poster on the wall yet, but I'm close. Meriwether hadn't done much until last night, but every Trek cast has to have their third-tier players.

The problem is the writing.

When I heard Berman and Braga were going back to the foundations of the Federation, I thought my dreams had come true. It was exactly what I wanted for the new series, and we had escaped the looming nightmare of "Starfleet Academy" (or "Star Trek 90120").

So do we get the complex interplay between species, and a hint of the alliance to come? Do we get the excitement and danger of travelling along with the first ship "out there"?

Nah. We get an ice-cold Temporal Cold War plotline, rehashed standalone eps, and some weak stabs at Trek continuity with pop ups by the Ferengi and the Tholians.

Everything wrong with "Enterprise" is encapsulated in a recent episode, "The Crossing." The Enterprise is pulled in by an enormous starship, and the crew members are possessed by incorporeal energy beings. The spin on this hoary old scifi cliche was that while the energy beings were exploring the crew's bodies, the displaced crew members were exploring an entirely different perception of reality, seemingly existing everywhere in space/time simultaneously. I was fascinated; I couldn't wait to see where they were going with this. Would some of the crew choose to stay on this new level of existence? Would there be aftereffects for Trip and the other exchangees? And why did incorporeal beings have a huge honking spaceship anyway?

But Brannon and Braga (they co-wrote the ep) didn't explore any of these points. They made the energy beings the menace of the week, and the climax(!) of the episode was Phlox pumping CO2 into the airducts to chase the bad old aliens out of the crew's bodies. Utterly banal. Which is how I'd describe the entire series.

Still, I'll tune in from time to time to see if things get better. TNG didn't really get going until S3, and DS9 revved to full speed in S4. (On the other hand, Seven of Nine aside, Voyager was mediocre from beginning to end. Oh well.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> the arc vs flexibility -- MsGiles, 06:41:23 04/17/03 Thu

While the arc in b5 was really strong, and the visuals both creatively Alien/Gothic and technically ahead of their time, I think it fell down in the details, the characterisation and the dialogue. Am I alone in thinking the dialogue got really clunky sometimes? I really liked hearing about the arc and looking at the pretty visuals, but somehow I never quite got sucked into the emotional story, and I think it's because many of the characters were rather one-dimensional.

On the positive side, I liked some characters. I liked Delenn, and I really liked the whole Londo/G'Kar storyline, they were two good, well opposed, characters, the rococo hedonist and the spiky warrior. The Centauri had a great Napoleonic look. I thought the idea of the Kosh was great, but the realisation wasn't quite so good, it reminded me of certain dodgy Dr Who aliens, the 'papier mache and a curtain' type. I liked the hissing and steam, though. Sometimes the style of B5 was almost the Alien/Victorian of Lynch's Dune.

However, I didn't really like either Sinclair, Garibaldi or Sheridan, which I suppose didn't really help.

I stuck with B5 a while, but lost it some where into s3 - strange, because I sort of felt I should have liked it, and I felt guilty about giving up. Straczynski's struggle to get it on air was so affecting as well, it was like a backstory to the actual series, and it felt like betraying him not to like it.

I felt he had concentrated *so* much on the arc that he hadn't left any room for the characters to develop their own momentum. It reminded me rather of Asimov's work in that respect, especially the Foundation trilogy.

I can remember thinking, long before I'd read anything about the writing on Buffy, that it was really unpredictable, refreshing, compared to most series - I guess it's because each arc is loose enough to allow for that, so sometimes the writers can spin off an aspect they hadn't thought of before, and take things way off the beaten track.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I loved, loved, loved Sinclair! -- Sara, 17:23:09 04/17/03 Thu

Poor Darby had to listen to me whine about how much better he was everytime we watched Sheridan on the screen. (A lot of whining was experienced.) That was Babylon 5 at its best - mysterious and complex. Really missed that great atmosphere when Sinclair left and Delan turned human, it just was never the same after that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> G'Kar! -- MsGiles, 02:22:31 04/18/03 Fri

I liked G'Kar best of everybody, eventually, but maybe I'll get some DVDs and watch it all again some day. I never quite worked out what happened when Delenn went human, I think I missed an episode, it was er What?! I probably missed loads, actually, too busy watching the lovely spaceships unfolding like flower petals. Ahead of its time for TV SF visuals.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> b5 and the nature of television -- Bronson, 15:04:16 04/18/03 Fri

I think I was much crueler to b5 than you were. I started watching the series halfway through season 2 and stayed right to the end, and I kept thinking "What a great story. Too bad the writing isn't at all good and the actors don't seem to know what they're doing."
(Come to think of it, that was also my reaction to pretty much everything Asimov has written: great story, lousy dialogue. Never thought of that before -- good comparison.)
Perhaps JMS failed to understand that while story arcs are a thing to be greatly desired, they are not the driving force of Television as a whole. With only a few important exceptions (the case-study format of Law & Order being one,) the medium is almost entirely dependent on character, rather than plot. This is another way of talking about flexibility -- absolute definition of the plot doesn't matter if you have a great sense of who your characters are, but if the plot starts getting in the way of your characters you run the risk of them becoming mere chess pieces. This is acceptable, perhaps, for film or theater, but not for TV. I'm not sure why, it just seems to work that way -- probably because the only thing that really excites people's emotions is other people.
[> [> [> [> [> Vickie said pretty much everything that I was thinking of -- KdS, 03:00:40 04/15/03 Tue

Except that I see the PTBs portrayed earlier and Jasmine very much analogous to Kosh I and Kosh II. One actually sees less evolved entities as people in their own right, the other simply as tools to prove the correctness of their ideology. (Of course, the difference being that in B5 Kosh I was the rebel and Kosh II the establishment, while in AtS it seems to be the reverse.)

Also add to Vickie's description that the Vorlons either deliberately created or simply imitated legends of angels and so forth as a means of controlling the younger species.
[> [> [> [> [> One man's god... -- Sara, 10:19:17 04/15/03 Tue

is another man's species - the Kosh in Babylon 5, the Prophets in Deep Space Nine, if they have the power are they divine? And if their intentions are good are they benevolent? Maybe the point is about power and intentions? Good intentions and the power to implement them may not be enough to really be good. And if you've done some bad in order to be able to accomplish good, have you still done good even if you are not good. Loved both Babylon 5 and DS9 when they were exploring these questions!
[> [> [> [> [> it's been a while, but... -- anom, 16:46:43 04/18/03 Fri

"Towards the middle of season 4, Kosh stepped out of his encounter suit to save a human's life. This occurred in the sight of a diplomatic gathering, and each species saw Kosh as something different. Humans saw him as a form best described as an 'angel'. Others saw messengers of the 'good guy' diety, according to their own beliefs and cultures. And one very odd individual saw nothing."

...I think there were 2 separate incidents, the "angel" one & a later one in which Kosh, out of the encounter suit, had a floaty squid-ish appearance. I referred to this after Inside Out aired, because the whatever-it-was that condensed into Jasmine looked sorta kinda like it. But maybe I'm the only one who thought so.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh yeah -- KdS, 03:30:54 04/19/03 Sat

Yep, the angel incident was in the final ep of S2. The one in early S4 was the Vorlon fight between Kosh I and Kosh II (in which both died) where they appeared in their squid form.
OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- starcam03, 22:24:31 04/13/03 Sun

Some actors and some musicians get all the headlines... some of them 'deserve' it while others don't have as much talent in their whole body as others have in their little finger... which actors and artists do you think 'got it' and which ones do you think have no business being in the business?
[> You know who's underrated? -- HonorH, 22:28:16 04/13/03 Sun

1. James Marsters

2. Alexis Denisof

Sure, they've made a big splash amongst Joss Appreciators, but people overall are pretty much unaware of what great talents they are. I seriously hope that AD's recent association with Sean Astin will lead to great things for him. The man is a phenomenal actor.
[> [> ALL of the ME actors are underrated -- ponygirl, 12:54:42 04/14/03 Mon

Only SMG and AH really have any sort of profile outside Buffy fandom, and even that's not very accurate. For the general public it's probably Scooby Doo and "this one time in band camp."

The fact that the BtVS, AtS and Firefly actors are not better appreciated is a real shame. Many a dull movie has benefited from my mental ME-based re-casting. Who wouldn't want to see NB and EC brightening up the latest romantic comedy of the month? Or JM taking over Ralph Fiennes' career for a while (Ralph looks like he could use a bit of a rest)?
[> Re: OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- Cactus Watcher, 07:32:39 04/14/03 Mon

Underrated:
It's difficult to say since any actor with a job is certainly appreciated more than hundreds we've never seen. But...

Iyari Limon. I never saw so many people hate someone for not being someone else, since Glenn Corbett took over for George Maharis on the old "Route 66" program decades ages. Even Mark Blucas didn't have it this bad.

Adam Balwin. Should have played Mal.

VhD. True, he was often a bad acter, but when he tried to behave himself, he could be decent enough. Should have given himself a better chance.

Overrated:
Bailey Chase (Graham)

Leonard Roberts (Forrest)

Julie Benz, but she's definitely improving.

Most of Arnold Schwartzenegger's old weightlifting buddies turned actors

Boke
[> [> See? -- CW, 07:39:35 04/14/03 Mon

Adam Baldwin is so underrated, I could't even spell his name right.
[> [> Re: OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- Dandy, 22:51:02 04/15/03 Tue

Mercedes McNab's Harmony was underated.

I loved the actor who played Rack.He also did the great coucil test vampire who had migraine!

Loved Kristine Sutherland. Wish ME had given her more to do.

Also loved Principal Flutie. Good actor. I have never seen him again.

And Jesse would have made a great regular. Xander needed a buddy, always.
[> over rated - Alyson Hannigan -- Helen, 07:44:25 04/14/03 Mon

Sorry, but as time marches on she grates on me more and more. I don't think some of the shaky writing for Willow lately has helped, but it just seems as though the demands made upon her by the development of Willow over the last few seasons was way too much for her. By the end of Season 6 I was almost relieved to see Amber Benson leave the show, as she was completely out acting AH in every scene. It was becoming cringe making to watch.

I don't know if she is particularly under rated, but Michelle Trachtenberg deserves much kudos. How old is she - seventeen? She's a fantastic actress, and becoming rather hot which should keep her in work.
[> [> Completely disagree. -- Rob, 08:20:03 04/14/03 Mon

I think Alyson is one of the strongest actresses on the show, and always has been. She conveys so much in her voice and her eyes, and is one of the only actresses that can completely break your heart with just one little word. Emma Caulfield is another one. I have been completely satisfied with Alyson's performance throughout the run of the show, something I can only also say about EC and NB. She's been able this year to recapture a bit of the old Willow, but still show that she has changed and grown. Willow is a very demanding role, especially now that she has to play both trying to feel comfortable in her life in Sunnydale and not be too-comfortable and too-over the events of last year. It's a difficult balance, and I think she's been pulling it off admirably.

Rob
[> [> [> Cheering you on, Rob. -- Sophist, 08:37:04 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> Completely agree. -- HonorH, 09:26:33 04/14/03 Mon

AH has been doing stunning work over the past couple of years. The more Joss asks, the more she gives. This show has an amazing crop of actors. The women alone--SMG, AH, EC, and MT--could blow most other show casts right off the screen.
[> [> [> Well Partially Disagree -- Dochawk, 11:56:07 04/14/03 Mon

Up until this year I would have said that AH is the finest actress on either show. Watching her in Orpheus really reminds us how mediocre most of the actors on Angel really are (Buffy's ensemble is so much stronger). AH is truly gifted comedic actress. But, I would agree with Helen that this year Michelle Trachtenberg has really come into her own. She has been fabulous with the little that ME has given her to work with (I would have loved a Dawn spinoff).
[> [> [> [> Re: Well Partially Disagree -- Alison, 12:21:35 04/14/03 Mon

I disagree- Angel may have less comedy than Buffy, but has an excellent cast, from the main actors to the ones with smaller roles ...AD, SR, and DB come to mind, and thats just a start.
Plus, I get the feeling Masq is gonna come after you now.... :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well Partially Disagree -- Dochawk, 12:54:10 04/14/03 Mon

I should have excepted Alexis, whom I think is a fine actor. Did you really believe DB when he was Angelus this time (I agree he was fabulous as Angelus in S2 Buffy)? The people I watch with - who are for the most part professionals in the entertainment industry (and relatively successful), we actually laughed at some of Angelus. I was suprised because I think DB had been doing his best work earlier this season - but he was overacting as Angelus. No problems with JAR, AA, Andy Hallett or SR (if you want to call her a regular) but VK and CC just aren't very good actors, yet. This has more to do with the uniform excellence of the Buffy cast. Even Nick has really become fine actor.
[> [> [> [> [> Little ol' moi? -- Masq, 12:55:47 04/14/03 Mon

I never go after anyone on this board.

Especially over something that so clearly should have been prefaced with, "In my opinion, ...."

Doctors! Always writing prescriptions. Sheesh.

Adding VK and AnH to Alison's list
(in her own humble opinion)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Little ol' moi? -- Dochawk, 13:51:00 04/14/03 Mon

its funny when I reread my post before pushing send I thought about adding those words, "in my opinion", but it seemed to me so obvious that it is opinion that I decided I didn't need to. Ah well.

And my fear of you is nothing compared to what it would be of others if I posted all of my opinions on the acting!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The acting only goes so far -- Masq, 15:40:07 04/14/03 Mon

While acting may make it more likely that a character will move you, acting can only go so far. It can also make up for some bad writing, but not all of it.

And if the writing is good and the acting is good, but the storyline and the personality of the character doesn't move you, all the "But s/he's such a good actor" 's in the world won't change someone's mind.

You can tell me a gazillion times that David Boreanaz is a mediocre actor, but it won't matter. I may even agree with you that James Marsters can act circles around him (I wouldn't go that far, actually, but I could and it still wouldn't matter). I will still prefer Angel over Spike. It has nothing to do with the actor's ability to act. Spike's character just doesn't do or say things that interest me. His story lines don't compel me. Angel has had me hook, line and sinker since episode 7 of season 1 of Buffy when you could argue DB couldn't act himself out of a paper bag (again, I wouldn't go that far, but for the sake of argument).

Acting only gets you so far. Similar with the actors who play Dawn, Anya, and Wood. They could get emmies and they could deserve those emmies. I'll still prefer Wesley, Connor, and Lilah, because those characters interest me more. That said, I don't think I would love these characters I mentioned as much as I do if it weren't for the way the actors portray them. Acting does count for something. And David Boreanaz does a heck of an Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good acting can't save a scene, but bad acting can kill one. At least IMO. -- Sophist, 17:00:36 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But only if you notice/believe it's bad -- Masq, 17:05:05 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Orange is sweet to some and sour to others -- s'kat, 20:54:40 04/14/03 Mon



Had no clue where to post this...and keep deleting it. Because admittedly I've been cranky lately. Life is frustrating the heck out of me. So hopefully this won't rub anyone the wrong way...

Why I hate opinion polls on which season is better, which actor is better, which one is underrated, which character you prefer etc...

When you get right down to it - no matter what or who you like there will be someone who has the polar opposite opinion. There are people out there for instance who can't stand David Boreanze's character of Angel, one of my close friends refuses to watch Angel because that character just doesn't move her at all. She thinks he's dull. Go figure. Spike she finds interesting enough, but not really into him either. Her favorite character? Anya followed by Tara. Another friend won't watch Btvs or Angel, thinks they are silly teen shows, she's tried them and does not get for the life of her why I love them. She prefers Law and Order, West Wing and Seventh Heaven. Angel and Buffy just aren't real enough, pure escapism she says. Oh, and she loved Xena until the musical episode - thought it got too experimental and wished it just stayed that fun action/adventure show. (I on the other hand loved the musical Xena and thought it was one of the all time best episodes of the show. But then I happen to like experimental television.) Another friend? Only likes the reality shows. (I can't abide them). Luckily we have other things to talk about outside TV. (Heck why do you think I came online? To find someone who shared my taste in television...it's a desert out there guys.)

Now me? Not that you guys should care or anything but I happen to love most of the characters on Angel and Buffy. (I hate Seventh Heaven, Law & Order bores me, and I can't abide reality tv - well except for Trading Spaces and home improvement/cooking shows - but they aren't exactly the same thing.) I love Spike - he speaks to me emotionally, and the actor fascinates me. Somewhat obsessed with this character, because I see so much of my own weaknesses in him. The bad poetry. The desire to fit in. The frustration in love. He speaks to me. But to some extent so do the characters of Buffy, Fred, Willow, Lilah and Wesley.

I may be alone in this, but my love of Spike does not in any way diminish or negate how I feel about Angel. Two totally different characters. I may be an anomaly, but I happen to really like Angel, (that is when people aren't busy using the poor character to bash other characters), while I may find the whole prodigal son storyline a tad cliche at times, ME's twists on it are interesting to me. And I honestly believe DB has pulled off the role. I loved him in Season 1- 2 Btvs. I thought he did a great job. And I love him and Marsters interaction with each other - they have screen chemistry and I find their story interesting. I think DB has improved over the years. But I didn't find him lackluster in ability in Seasons 1-3. I may have grown tired of the B/A angst after awhile, but that didn't have anything to do with acting ability, just boredom with a story. Never been much for long drug out limbo storylines.
Some people love them. I just get annoyed. Part of the reason I eventually get tired of tv shows like The Fugitive or Quantum Leap or The Pretender...I keep wanting them to frigging solve the problem and move on to the next.

I've always liked Dawn, she gets on my nerves at times, but I do like and enjoy the character. I like Connor - he interests me. He has gotten on my nerves lately, but everything gets on my nerves right now. Gunn is another character I like -- he was amazing in Players. I have a like/hate relationship with Cordelia. There are times I actually love the character and other times she grates on my ever living nerve. Loved her in Season 1 Ats and Season 2 Btvs. Hated her in Season 3 Ats and Season 1 Btvs. And Giles is the reason I started watching to begin with. Lorne - yep, love that character. Always have. Best thing about the Pylea arc in my humble opinion.

My dream? To see a show with Wesley, Giles, Spike, Angel,
and Lorne, with Lilah, Faith, Gwen, and possibly Willow.
I may get half of that next year and it makes me feel very very happy.

The only characters I don't like are well not that important - Wood (he makes my skin crawl), Andrew, and most if not all the SIT's. These are peripherial characters.
Not much history to them and only really in one season. So I can ignore them.

++++++++++++++++++++++
Back to the Angel/Spike wars which are beginning to get on my ever living nerve. Honestly is there anyone besides me who loves them both but in different ways? Is that possible?

Are there any other poor souls out there who like/love both Spike/Angel? Or am I the only one? Is it possible to ship for them both? Beginning to wonder, every Angelshipper on the boards seems to hate Spike for some reason, to the extent that I've had to stop reading the Angelshipper posts. And I like Angel. Oh and the Spikeshippers aren't much better - they've torn into Angel. Making me feel sorry for Angelshippers and feeling ashamed to like Spike. I had to stop reading those posts too. What gives? It's like watching Orange and Apple vendors fight when you like both fruits - it's frustrating.

This is not an occurence restricted to this board - I think it has to do with a type of insanity restricted to internet fandom. I've been on other boards and there are fans who: 1. Can't stand either of them and prefer Xander. And see Spike and Angel taking away Xander's story. (And I guess they may have a point? These fans believe Xander should be with Buffy and despise Spike/Angel for getting in the way.) 2. Love Angel but can't stand Spike. 3. Love Spike but can't stand Angel. 4. Love Angel and Spike until Spike was put with Buffy, and now can't stand Spike because they are jealous on Angel's behalf. As long as Spike is paired with ANY other person, they actually like him, but put him with Buffy and oh my god, it's like he stole their significant other or something. It of course doesn't matter that Angel is on another show, fancies himself in love with Cordelia, has slept with other girls, and barely seems to mention Buffy. Well maybe it does because this group seems to have the same response to Cordelia -got to give them credit, or some of them credit - at least they are equal opportunity bashers. 5. Love Angel and Spike until Spike went with Buffy now can't stand Angel not because of jealousy but because of the B/A shippers who have made them dislike Angel as a reaction, this group is actively boycotting the show Angel to get back at the B/A shippers. They've declared war.(Personally I'm not sure which group is more nuts. I think its a tie.) 6. Love Angel and Spike but now can't stand Spike because of Spikeshippers who have gone nuts over Spike. And they are bashing Spike in protest to the Spikeshippers. Or just to be rebells. I can't quite decide. 7. I've seen Willowshippers bash Spike over on Bronze Beta in response to Willowbashing they've seen over on fanforum by Spike fans. (I kid you not.) 8. The group who hates Spike because of the AR scene (which makes some sense, but not if you consider that he got a soul because of it and is different now) or because he beat up Wood or because he killed two vampire slayers, yet seem to not care that Angelus killed Jenny, or Warren killed Tara etc.
9. The group that hates Buffy because of the beating scene in Dead Things and the fact that she didn't kill Dawn (yep I know it makes no sense). 10. The group that hates Angel because he killed Jenny, etc. It goes on...Honestly people, every character in the show has committed a horrible crime, and they are characters not real! These aren't real crimes. These aren't real people. (Sorry sometimes I think people forget that.)

After much thought, I have decided people are basically nutty or compulsive/obsessive which may be the same thing.
(You know you're nuts when you start referring and defending a tv character like a family member.)

Hmmm not sure that made much if any sense. But hey take whatever you can from it. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone.
If I did? Wouldn't be the first time.

Will state, I do agree - regardless of writing, acting, etc - if you don't identify with a character - you won't care. But whether stating your character preferences and opinions in polls proves anything or not...is up for debate. I don't think it does, personally. But that's just me.

sk
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Are there any other poor souls out there who like/love both Spike/Angel?" I do, I do! -- Rob, 21:25:38 04/14/03 Mon

In fact, that's why, when I can help it, I usually steer clear from posting under pro-Spike or pro-Angel threads, because one usually ends up getting pitted against the other, and it's very hard for me to not get in defensive mode over the one being attacked, while at the same time convey that I like the one who isn't. (It's really late...Am I speaking in an English-sounding tongue?) My opinions seem to be very close to yours on the whole, although I don't despise Wood (don't love him much either) and love Andrew. Besides that, I agree wholeheartedly re: Spike and Angel. I am fascinated by both, but lean a little more to the Spike side. I connect more emotionally with his character. Still, though, I love Angel, too. DB is very underrated as an actor, and Angel is very underrated as a character, IMO.

The only character on any Buffyverse show that I have ever truly hated with a fiery passion is Kennedy.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too! -- Alison, 08:38:38 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hand over your pom-poms Rob. -- Sophist, 08:49:12 04/15/03 Tue

I don't hate any of the characters. On either show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with Sophist -- fidhle, 14:38:06 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll join the Spike and Angel club... -- Belladonna, 10:23:15 04/15/03 Tue

I love both characters, and hate getting into discussions or situations where I have to choose one over the other. I really don't understand where the intense hatred towards either one comes from. Can't we all just get along? :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll join the Spike and Angel club... -- Dariel, 11:04:24 04/15/03 Tue

I really don't understand where the intense hatred towards either one comes from.

Ah, the human psyche is an amazing thing! I think BtVS provides fertile ground for obsession/projection, what with its layered meanings and detailed storytelling, which encourages taping and rewatching episodes. (So many shows, if they have any meaning/message at all, just spoon feed it to the viewer. No need to watch them twice.) BtVS leaves a lot of room for interpretation, making it easier to project/create one's own meaning. And most importantly, there are so many websites to feed the obsession--one can literally spend hours a day on discussion boards, or reading interviews and fanfic! These are solitary activities, just you, the computer, and your psyche, so all kinds of strange stuff can come out!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Projection/obsession...yes I think that's it -- s'kat, 15:25:08 04/15/03 Tue

Ah, the human psyche is an amazing thing! I think BtVS provides fertile ground for obsession/projection, what with its layered meanings and detailed storytelling, which encourages taping and rewatching episodes. (So many shows, if they have any meaning/message at all, just spoon feed it to the viewer. No need to watch them twice.) BtVS leaves a lot of room for interpretation, making it easier to project/create one's own meaning. And most importantly, there are so many websites to feed the obsession--one can literally spend hours a day on discussion boards, or reading interviews and fanfic! These are solitary activities, just you, the computer, and your psyche, so all kinds of strange stuff can come out!

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. In reading the varied responses to my posts and an email from a poster who felt the need to explain to me his/her complete dislike of one of my all time favorite characters, I realized once again, like or not, we project ourselves on to the story. And the writers leave enough room for us to do just that. The writing and the characters are written so morally ambiguously that you can interpret it any which way.
As OnM and wwolfe pointed out regarding LMPTM - that episode is written so even-handed and so ambiguously, that it is impossible to really and completely be right. You could take any number of sides and still go "yes, but.."
For everyone who took Wood's side, there's just as many people who took Spike's and both are valid, and that believe me is hard for me to admit, b/c Wood hits every button on my body. I can't be sympathetic towards him, I think at this point in my life it is psychologically impossible for me to feel anything but revulsion towards this character, b/c feeling sympathy for Wood for some reason I can't quite explain even to myself - would be akin to feeling sympathy for the bastard who deep-sixed my career and life. Talk to me after I get a job and feel settled and maybe...just maybe I won't reacte this way. It's not a rational reaction - it's an emotional one and no different than some people's reactions to Spike's comments to Wood. I reacted negatively to Wood's. They reacted negatively to Spike's. Both are valid reactions. But because they are deep-seated psychological/emotional reactions -it is difficult for us to see that and be tolerant of an opposing view. We take the opposing view as a personal attack on us. It's silly but the human psyche is an interesting place.

I bring this up as just one example of how we reacte to things emotionally and psychologically.

What psychological buttons have been pushed? The tough thing for us to remember is there is no one issue that is more important than another just different. And we all bring separate baggage to the table. That's the tough thing about all human relationships I think - the baggage we each bring to the table and how it conflicts.

It helps if we can recognize this and somehow learn to be a little more tolerant of each others baggage. Something I think all in all the people on this board are pretty good at. We tend in most instances to keep our personal baggage out of the discussion, but it is hard ...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Projection/obsession...yes I think that's it - - Dariel, 19:58:04 04/15/03 Tue

I reacted negatively to Wood's. They reacted negatively to Spike's. Both are valid reactions.

No Shadowcat, no! Don't go over to the dark side--Spike was right, Wood was wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be crazy! Or a Republican.

Dariel
(trying to stuff her subjective side back in its box)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know what you mean. -- Shiraz, 21:29:43 04/14/03 Mon

I once ran into a site dedicated to...

(Wait for it..)

GRAHAM BASHING!

I can only hope it was a joke. Either way its a good arguement against free homepages with internet access.

-Shiraz
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Orange is sweet to some and sour to others -- Dannyblue, 22:38:12 04/14/03 Mon

I love Angel and really like Spike.

I think James Marsters as Spike is fantastic. Every year, I love his character more and, and Spike has become my favorite character on BtVS. This season, most of my favorite eps of BtVS have involved Spike in a major way. ("Beneath You"? Instant classic.)

I adore David Boreanaz as Angel. I don't know if he's the best actor on either show. But he's the one that connects with me. When he gives a speech (like in "Epiphany" or "Deep Down") he speaks with such sincerity and feeling, he makes me believe he believes what he's saying so much, that I find myself nodding and teary. His perfomances as Angelus in "Soulless" and "Calvary" were fantastic and chilling. I think it's totally the writers fault that he lost that menacing edge in "Salvage" and "Release", but some of it came back in "Orpheus".

I also think DB has developed the most amazing sense for deadpan comedy. He'll say things that, in and of themselves, aren't really funny. But his tone of voice and the expression on his face will crack me up. And not just during the ep, but when I think about it days later. ("You're a vampire. You're not in cats," still makes me chuckle.)

Anyway, I think it's a question of who connects with you more as an individual, and there's nothing logical about it. Why do I like Angel more than Spike? Why does someone else like Spike more than Angel? Why do I think the actors on AtS give great perfomances every episode, while someone else critisizes? Who can say?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm with you, s'kat! -- HonorH, 23:18:56 04/14/03 Mon

I love 'em all, even Wood and Andrew. I'm a bit less into Angel, but that's due to the fact that I can't keep current with it. Six weeks of eps in one day, and then months until I get more. Argh! But that's another rant.

One of the things I'm going to be doing via OBAFU is pointing up the irrationality of extreme 'shippers of all persuasions. Yeah, it'll get me into trouble, but guess what? I don't care! I love Spike, and I love Angel. Now, due to Certain Issues (like the AR), I don't want Spike to get back together with Buffy romantically. That, though, has nothing to do with his character. I'm interested in where he's going. Just like I'm interested in where Angel's going. I'll take 'em both!

Yeah, in your dreams.

Shut *up*, H.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In Agreement, S'kat. But Wood Makes Your Skin Crawl, Really? -- AngelVSAngelus, 02:32:24 04/15/03 Tue

not questioning your judgement here, just curious why you have such a disdain for him.
Personally, I sympathise with his plight despite the negative path of behavior it leads him down, but that's me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In Agreement, S'kat. But Wood Makes Your Skin Crawl, Really? -- s'kat, 07:06:09 04/15/03 Tue

It may be a personal thing.

He started making my skin crawl in Lessons. There was a brief period he didn't from STSP to HIM. But BoTN - LMPTM? and CWDP? Big time crawl. And it has 0 to do with Spike and everything to do with the fact that he hired Buffy to be a counselor for undisclosed reasons and then when she asked how she was doing and thought maybe she was getting a promotion for being a good counselor, he laughed in her face. Wood made my skin crawl before I found out he was Nikki's son. The Nikki part did not lessen the effect any nor make me feel any sympathy for him. It did make me feel a great deal of sympathy for Nikki.

To understand this reaction - you'd have to understand that someone very much like Robin Wood made my life a living hell for a year and a half, my ex-boss. I know from personal experience what it is like to have a boss who appears to be charming on the surface, manipulate you behind your back for his own ends. (No he doesn't look anything like my ex-boss, but in many ways - his mannerisms are very similar, so similar that I wondered if the actor got them from watching my ex-boss behave. And no it wasn't sexual harrassment - it was manipulation and lies and charm to your face.) So it is very very hard for me to post or deal with Wood unemotionally - just because he brings up too many memories of the ex-boss. (I'm sure there are people out there who have the same problems with other characters on television shows. Lucky for me, Wood is not a vital character or a regular and will disappear after the final if not before. Also he's not in every episode.)

Probably more than you wanted to know.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with you, s'kat! -- s'kat, 07:29:01 04/15/03 Tue

Thank you.

I did enjoy your OBAFU. Particularly the Gunn/Willow/Spike panel and Spike as Simon Callow (sp?), made me wish I'd actually seen an American Idol. Actually, maybe you should have a class on shippers - with Buffy, Angel, Cordelia and Spike as teachers railing at their nuttiness. ;-)

Now, due to Certain Issues (like the AR), I don't want Spike to get back together with Buffy romantically.

Actually agree with this. And from what i've read in interviews, etc? They may have a few romantic moments, but nothing remotely sexual. Nor do I want anything sexual. It doesn't work for either character. Too much damage on both sides. I think the writers made this abundantly clear in Lessons (when she tries to touch him and he backs away from her), Beneath You (when she tries again and he cries in alarm and shame:"no touching! Am I flesh to you?" and when she gasps whenever he touches her up to HIM). The most we might get is a kiss, and even that seems doubtful at this point.

I've read enough fanfic that has attempted to put them together sexually again - and to be honest? It just doesn't work characterwise or dramatically - it goes against where both the characters are in their journeys. The fanfic writers who try it, literally have to jump through hoops to make it work. I much prefer the relationship of gradual/mutal personal respect this year to a sexual one. But then there's only so much you can do with sex on screen before it gets boring. I also found B/A more interesting when they weren't sexually or romantically involved.

Spike needs to break free from Buffy...and Buffy needs to love him enough to let him go and become his own man outside of her or anyone else. That's my private hope for Spike. And for that matter my private hope for Angel, who has to a large extent done this already. I think Buffy has to find a way to forgive herself & Hank for Hank leaving her and her Mom and once she does that, I think she can let go of Spike and Angel and Giles and Xander.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Simon Cowell was on "American Idol" -- KdS, 07:34:03 04/15/03 Tue

Simon Callow is a very classical British actor who would be horrified at the thought of the confusion ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay.....get me a rope.....you did say it was a tie......<g>...;) -- Rufus, 00:01:06 04/15/03 Tue

I have to agree on the shippers....some of their logic even baffles me with my insane Trollop Logic. If you ask me about characters on the show I can find something good about every one of them. Be they bad guy or good guy each character goes through the difficult paces of what we call life. I know they are metaphors, but all the characters show some sort of example on how people end up at point A and somehow navigate to point B. All of them make mistakes, and some of them are totally evil, but if they were all happy or untroubled there would be nothing to watch.

What I don't get is the shipper logic that tends to focus on one half of a couple and elevate that one character to a perfect status therefore absolving them of any blame for what they do good or bad. So the feelings of hate and blame get transferred to either the other half of the ship they blame for any problems, or if they happen to be okay with the other half of the ship, anyone else that walks into the gaze of their fav character. This leads to statements like "Buffy is a filthy, slut, whore, bitch....who uses "insert appropriate name be is Spike/Angel/Xander/?". She deserves to die cause no matter what good she has done means nothing if my favorite character doesn't get to boink with her forever. This also leads to the reasoning that Spike is forever tainted because of the AR, forget what Angel has done cause he is special. Then reverse that arguement in favor of Spike against Angel. Then we get what happens when someone dies....like Tara...now according to some, no matter what ME has done to further tolerance in regards to gay relationships, it is meaningless because now the only term I can see is "Lesbian cliche". Or try ME likes to kill women, or gays....or whoever someone in a character camp likes.

The writers of the show are people and as people they deserve some respect (even David Fury ). If someone dies, like say Tara....that isn't a statment that the writers hate lesbians and think they all deserve to die, it's also not a statement that the writers think that the only good woman is a dead woman. People die in real life and we have no control over that, but armed with postcards and bile, each camp thinks they can change the minds of the writers that they think they can do a better job than.

We are coming up to the series finale of Buffy and to say the atmosphere on the net is tense is an understatement. Everyone has an interest or preference on how they would like to see the series end, and I've lost count of the amount of people who say they won't buy the DVD's if they don't get what they want. I don't care, I'll buy them cause I love the show and if they decide to run the characters through a blender in the last episode (I do mean in a symbolic not real Oster blender way) it's up to the writers, it's their story and I think they have a right to tell it how they want to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay.....get me a rope.....you did say it was a tie......<g>...;) -- s'kat, 09:39:19 04/15/03 Tue

Agree. And yep a tie.

Look, I don't mean to say all shipping is bad it's not. Anything in moderation is wonderful. But extremes get to me at times.

I've oddly enough shipped for just about every romantic relationship shown on the shows at one time or another.
I go where the writers take me. (Well most of the time, I couldn't go for Wood/Buffy, but then I don't get the feeling the writers intended me too, so not an issue.)

What gets on my nerves is when the fans want to re-write the show to their specifications. They expect the writers to change stories, which are already in the works, to fit their needs. Now I've watched shows on TV that cater to fans in this manner and it is horrible. Daytime soaps do it all the time - hence the reason Daytime soaps make no logical sense. Some primetime shows also do it. I don't want to see the show a majority of vocal fans want to see, I want to see the show that the creators want to create. I'm interested in what Joss Whedon and his team of hand-picked writers have to say about these characters and how the actors interpret those words. And I want to see relationships that grow naturally from the characters. Yes, there will be episodes and things I don't like in a show, but for everything I may hate - someone else will equally love. It all evens out in the end.
If I hate everything? I can always turn it off and find something else to do.

Post card campaigns and ads meant to get shows renewed or keeping them from getting cancelled are actually fairly positive. I love those. Just as campaigns thanking actors or creators for their work are positive. But campaigns to get the show written towards your specifications? Annoying. Wouldn't it be just as easy to write your own show or fanfic?

All these people got up in arms on boards about the rumor of Spike joining Angel, but the news had really positive results for the show Angel - since it motivated most if not all the Spike boards and Spike shippers to join in the renewal Angel campaign. For some strange reason people think that the lead character of a show will get overshadowed by a supporting character. Uhm...people, do you really have that low an opinion of DB or the character of Angel? If Alexis Denisof, Andy Hallett, Faith and Lilah haven't blown him away yet, Marsters won't. If anything it'll just make Angel more interesting to some people. Besides Angel is the title of the show. It's about him.
Any character being added to it, is going to be supporting, just like any character in Buffy is supporting. Angel and Buffy are in 75% of just about every episode aired, they carry it. These aren't ensemble shows like Firefly or ER are. Spike only has greater focus on Buffy b/c he's her romantic foil/fatal, just as Cordy has it on Angel as a romantic foil - but if Spike showed up on Angel? HE wouldn't have that same amount of focus, he'd be more like Lorne, Wes, Gunn in focus or even Giles on Btvs, unless of course you think Angel and Spike are gay? sigh. People are crazy. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What d'you mean they aren't gay??? -- Rahael, 14:52:28 04/15/03 Tue

LOL

Might as well put my opinion right here. I'll put my hands to being a Spuffy shipper. I was all excited when I started hearing discussions of early Season 6. I was there in Intervention, there for the kiss in OMWF, there for the relationship - this season I may be discontented but last season I kept defending Season 6 ceaselessly. There is not one single ep in Season 6, or indeed any season of any of either of these shows that I haven't defended. Or if I haven't defended them, I haven't condemned them either, preferring to look for the metaphory goodness.

You see, the more people kept telling me not to like Season 6 the more I defended it.

And the more people keep telling me not to bash characters the more my fingers itch and itch to start typing mischievously!

I may have argued against every single poster who criticised BtVS for its sexual and race politics. I've always been 'once more unto the breach'! But I hope I never conveyed the impression that to criticise this show was unacceptable.

I think I actually like Spike the character (well, I wouldn't really want to know him in real life, but I like watching him - Beneath You blew me a way. I like my characters conflicted, complex and I don't need them to be always acting correctly. How else could Xander be the character that I find that I am most consistently fond of (looking back over the years)?

The thing with Xander is, that I don't watch him acting like a fool and then go online to be told that the sun shines out of his nether regions. I can handle conflicted characters who keep muddling along, doing the right thing here, the wrong thing there. But now I can't bear to watch this one character anymore and its absolutely because of some more extreme elements of his fanbase. The more I keep getting told what a wonderful person he is, so charismatic, the most wonderfullest character in fiction ever invented I kind of go, how he's so sexy and so dynamic and could have chemistry with cement etc etc, the more bland and uninteresting his character becomes to me.

I like my television deep, and angsty, yes, but I also like an element of playfulness. THe more people keep telling me Angel's faults the more interested I get in him. The more they tell me how wonderful Spike is the less I get interested. My favourite Spike was S4 (yes, sacrilege I know, Masq!!) cos he was funny and conflicted and playful.

I tend to like my tormented bare chested cross hugging to be a little subverted. I think my reaction to S7 would have been very very different (or will be) if I rewatch it thinking "man starts thinking about existence, has issues about his mother, weird girlfriend issues (her father doesn't approve! - does Giles become Polonius in Lies? Is his "to thine own self be true" equivalent to his comment to Willow that we are what we are?), ghosts start appearing telling him stuff, to be or not to be, hey it's Hamlet!"

It's not what ME means maybe but the more room I get to see it how I want to, the more I tend to like the shows. BtVS and AtS seasons in my head tend to be a lot more exciting.

(Omg! Andrew and the Potentials are like Rosencrantz and Guildernstern!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> (Vague spoilers for LMTM above) -- Rahael, 14:53:58 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What d'you mean??? -- aliera, 17:13:36 04/15/03 Tue

The more I keep getting told what a wonderful person he is, so charismatic, the most wonderfullest character in fiction ever invented I kind of go, how he's so sexy and so dynamic and could have chemistry with cement etc etc, the more bland and uninteresting his character becomes to me.

But be fair... I did say that Faith could have sparked that cement rock as well! LOL.

And, Rah...I love this part:
Omg! Andrew and the Potentials are like Rosencrantz and Guildernstern

I think there's a certain mix I'm attracted to and humour would have to be a big part of that...I like the angst the emotion pathos bathos whatever but it's the balance with the action and the huomor and other things that really makes it work for me and yet I also want there to be something underneath that speaks to me and speaks to my life. I don't truly understand the type of investment that would make someone stop watching a show because of a lack of a certain relationship so I think that no matter how much I've tried to understand that, I still really don't. And although I've seen the tension that Rufus referred to I saw a lot of that last year...I sort of read as the show being out of step with the majority of the fan base and shrugged my shoulders, although there was one board I stopped reading because it was so down that I found myself in a bad place to often and that seemed a little too contrariwise...I mentioned this weekend that I think part of what's going on with me now is the realization that there is an ending coming that although there may be more talk and more stories, that part of this particular story is really coning to an end and I want to sit back and flow with that really experience it as it unfolds, and that feeling (which of course is subject to change!) has really come to the forefront...the other little things just don't seem that important. Which is not to say that I'll stop reading about them of course and posting, sometimes lightly, sometimes not! LOL. That kind of discipline I don't want to ever have. Thanks and sorry about the typewritten mulling...just where I ended up after all the reading...now off to Buffy ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What d'you mean??? -- Rahael, 17:48:57 04/15/03 Tue

hehehe, Aliera. I was just being mischievous about the Spike love!

Actually BtVS keeps me pretty happy. There was one major thing I got worried about, have been worried about all season (and it's not to do with Spike!) that threatened to discontent me. I have had a long think and decided that I shouldn't be worried about it. I'll explain why later!

And as for the tension all over the boards, I just got an eyeful of it this morning, when a link led me to a board I do not frequent. Hah! Now I feel all virtuous and moderate. I'm taking off my glasses and cleaniing them.

It's going to be an interesting finish! Can't wait!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What d'you mean??? -- aliera, 18:20:58 04/15/03 Tue

I've been floating about other places too (bad me). No worries, Rah... I'm pretty level with my lately out-of stepness so nothing directed towards you... more read myself in the concrete! It's all lightly posted today though (being a veteran of the LKH Richard/Jean claude fan wars...see the above Anita Blake thread...has it's benefits and naturally when asked to choose I have to ask for both with a side of Asher... bad bad BAD me) and I look forward to reading your thoughts...you and the others that see so many many things that I miss. I really do love the board even when in my cranky place.

Having flunked the required striking sparks off a stone (although I can strike them any where else without the least amount of effort, clutz that I am) I probably admire that talent a bit. Was that Shakespeare or Stoppard? Either way good...I admit I laughed at the thought of "R&G are Dead" though! :-)

Wish you could see the day we had here today just incredibly gorgeous and a week ago we were struggling out from under the most horrific ice storm...it's was such heartease and I'm afraid after soaking up some oh-too-rare sunshine - I'm terribly decadently mellowed tonight. Plot? who cares? Dog ate my favorite slingbacks... well I've been eying that new pair anyway...etc. I'm sure we'll get some nice freezing rain again soon and I'll be back to my usual critiqueing self! And hope you get a chance to see/read "Dirty Girls" soon...I admit to some puzzlement as to Joss's emphasis on certain things in both AtS and Buffy and I'll be anxious to hear people's thoughts. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoiling for DG, less so for Anita:CS -- fresne, 16:09:42 04/16/03 Wed

Well, then based on the latest book you must be very spoiler.

Although, in an odd cross over, my housemate and I both started spontaneously picturing Richard in a Riley shape. Which in no way implies that I want Anita with anyone in particular.

Although, as my housemate put it, one of her Wicca associates needs to sit Anita down and explain poly to her.

Part of the cement melting though in the Faith / Spike scene, as noted in another thread noted, is that it is a genuinely happy scene. No un-resolved past associations. No holier than glass house glances. Spike the paler Angel. Faith the darker Slayer.

Whatever.

Man. Woman. Having a rebellious smoke in the basement. Both shadow selves it seems have fire, even if it is in the form of Big C sticks.

Relaxed. Rumpled. Smiling.

Iím trying to remember another scene this season in which unmet characters bonded so without some hidden motive like the other shoe waiting to drop. And since I like Faith, nice to see a moment of calm for her.

Although, I think there maybe something wrong with me. I enjoyed seeing Faith put the smack down on a Classic Trek Vulcan. Vulcanologist. Cracked tectonic plates. Shifting. Fire. Heat beneath the surface. Crippled Hephaestus.

Buffy, no longer Kore, not yet Hecate, dipping down for her Persphonic visit into the shadows.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 04:50:20 04/17/03 Thu

very spoiler?
...and just a miscellaneous click-ritualistically, tobacco had a very different purpose before... and I have to keep reminding myself that there's no relationship between the wine and Earthquake Weather! :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great Shakespeare analogies! -- luna, 17:15:29 04/15/03 Tue

Hope you'll come back to that again after the storm of posts from this week's episodes are past (assuming Buffy is not pre-empted throughout the entire country).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Luna -- Rahael, 17:51:25 04/15/03 Tue

It did start of half snarky before the power of my fanwankery just kind of took over. It's all evil and corrupty...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To all the ships at sea -- ponygirl, 12:00:50 04/15/03 Tue

Much agreeage. I sometimes forget how scary some areas of fandom can get. Here on this board people tend to play their shipper cards pretty close to the vest which I appreciate. The trick is not to let a particular preference interfere with the appreciation of the whole.

I was having a conversation with my new roommate the other day about Angel - she's a huge BtVS fan but can't watch AtS, or rather I can't watch it with her because she's always yelling and muttering comments during the show. Every week she swears she'll never watch it again. Now, I've had problems with AtS, but I can't understand her rather strong reaction. Then in the midst of comments about writing, acting, etc. it slipped out: "Buffy is Angel's true love." Oh dear, a B/A shipper of the very old school. What can you do? She admitted that this has pretty much ruined the show for her, she can't get into the plots, or focus on the other characters because she's always looking for that one thing, something that may never get resolved.

Now I'm going to come out of the closet and admit that I am still a B/S shipper. But the difference between what I want to happen on the show and what I expect to see is very wide and I don't mind the gap, in fact I'd be a bit disappointed with any sort of big romantic finish for Buffy. I hope that I will always be a fan of the story first and foremost rather than the characters, because the story is always going to come first, and it's the only thing on either series guaranteed a full and satisfying end.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not all character dislike is based on shippiness -- dream, 12:44:03 04/15/03 Tue

I love Spike's character, and have since he first arrived in Sunnydale. I don't hate Angel; I just find him terribly, terribly boring. I thought of him like the unfortunate boyfriend of a friend you love - you put up with him because you like her, keep the eye-rolling to your own time. I have little-to-no shippy tendencies - not much of a romantic overall. Definitely don't believe that certain people were "meant to be together" or any of that nonsense, and I love the fact that this show is not centered on romance as the one and only source of meaning in life. The only relationship I really felt involved with in a way that bordered on shippiness was Willow and Tara - and no, I'm not a lesbian, I just loved Tara's character and liked the way they interacted, wanted to see more of the two of them together. I never read the posts of known shippers, because I find it annoying. I also find it strange that people seem to be passionately divided between Spike and Angel - or for that matter, that people assume that anyone who dislikes Angel must be obsessive about Spike, and vice-versa. ( I feel like I have to show my creds - "I was bored by Angel before Spike was even on the show!")

On the other hand, the two characters have been set up as a lesson in compare and contrast, so it's not really surprising that people should be drawn to one or the other - are you a Spike or an Angel? For that matter, are you are William or a Liam? Have you outgrown geekiness to find toughness, or outgrown toughness to get in touch with your inner Mandy-singing geek? (See, you don't have to watch Angel to catch the important parts!)

I think at this point I'm just babbling because work is soooo boring....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree, dream -- Scroll, 13:08:51 04/15/03 Tue

But for me, it's the other way around. Angel is the one whose story I'm interested in, whose triumphs and failures I celebrate and mourn. And while I'm a B/A shipper, I don't hate Spike because of Spuffy. I don't hate Spike at all, he's just not my favourite character. I like him in a more academic way, in that he's fairly well-written and well- acted. But Spike himself doesn't strike my fancy-- though I did find him hilarious Seasons 2-4, so I guess you could say I'm an Evil!Spike lover.

So I do think it's a mistake to assume that just because someone loves Angel and is a B/A 'shipper, she has to automatically hate Spike and Spuffy (though Spuffy does irritate me sometimes), or vice versa.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Realising I agreed with stuff you didn't say, leslie! -- Scroll, 13:17:57 04/15/03 Tue

Mostly wanted to say that there have been times the past two seasons when I really didn't like Spike (LMPTM being the latest time) and while I do compare Spike and Angel in terms of their stories (i.e. redemption arcs and metaphysics), I don't feel I'm bashing Spike for not being Angel. It's more like, I don't like Spike. I don't want him to be another Angel, but I do want to like Spike again, and it's just not happening. And it's frustrating.

And I really don't think it's my B/A 'shippiness that's making me not like Spike. It's just Spike that's making me not like him. Or rather, the writers. Cuz it's certainly not James Marsters' fault!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not all character dislike is based on shippiness -- ponygirl, 13:26:06 04/15/03 Tue

Oh I agree, sometimes a character just bugs you, just as you can love a character and not care who they're dating. Romance for the sake of romance is never going to be the point in Buffyverse. Not saying they aren't handled well, far from it, but a lot of the relationships on the show serve the purpose of providing a character with motivation to interact with the group. How long would Cordelia, Anya, Spike, or Angel for that matter have stuck around the Scoobs if they hadn't developed their unexpected passions?

It is too bad there can be such a Spike or Angel and never the twain shall meet mentality. Personally I like cjl's idea for AtS s5, what could be better than having two characters who have serious issues and history and watching them interact? Dramatic gold, baby!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Orange is sweet to some and sour to others...and I want strawberries too, so what of it? -- aliera, 04:41:55 04/15/03 Tue

I love/hate them all too SK...in fact, I probably go further than you because I would have liked to see them make Willow bi and do it well. I like freedom of choice, seeing under the skin. Popping out of the pigeonhole. The other difference is the Wood doesn't creep me or scare me anymore...he also doesn't attract me in the way that he did at the beginning because I've seen too much of what's inside now and although it isn't evil (at least not in my eyes)...it isn't healthy either. In terms of James and David? Don't see the problem most seem to be having. In fact, the need to choose one over the other justs strikes me as limited and a little sad... and an apples and oranges and strawberries kind of thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I love them both. -- Arethusa, 05:19:27 04/15/03 Tue

In a I-know-they're-fictional kind of way, of course. ;)

I love them both because they want so much to be needed and loved, because they make mistakes and keep trying. Beceause Spike wants to be a good man and because when Angel thought he had no one but Connor he was still happy. Because Angel mistrusts happiness and because Spike learns to be happy with what he has. I thought Angel/Buffy was romantic and enjoyable, but juvenile in the emotions and behavior and bound to break up. I thought Buffy/Spike was mutually destrutive and painful, yet exciting and dangerous, like watching a very skilled demolition team implode a huge building in the middle of a city. I find myself defending Angel to Spike-bashers and defending Spike to Angel-bashers when I should just not bother.

Cassie is the only character that I don't want to see again. And since I started watching BtVS after Cordy became a bit more human, I never felt more than mild dislike of her character. (If I'd seen her spend two seasons ripping everyone "beneath her" to pieces, I'd probably still hate her. Fictionally speaking, of course.)

I like anything different on tv, which is why watching tv is so frustrating for me. Everything I like gets cancelled fairly quickly, until these shows. I loved Beauty and the Beast, Golden Years, Sports Talk, The Prisoner-all the shows made by people with something to say or explore.

Re: Trading Spaces-one of the men decorating his friends' house looked at the decorator and said, "I'm giving you sewing advice? Must be the apocalypse." Heehee.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I love them both. -- s'kat, 07:51:44 04/15/03 Tue

Hmmm...completely agree with everything said in the above post.

Nice to know, that I'm not the only one who didn't like Cassie. But I loved Holden Webster. Now why couldn't he come back in some form? sigh.

I like anything different on tv, which is why watching tv is so frustrating for me. Everything I like gets cancelled fairly quickly, until these shows. I loved Beauty and the Beast, Golden Years, Sports Talk, The Prisoner-all the shows made by people with something to say or explore.

Yep me too. Oh I think you mean Sports Night not Sports Talk, the one by Aaron Sorkin about the Sports commentators that starred the guy that's now on Six Feet Under? Loved that show. Got cancelled. Hmmm let's see shows I like that get cancelled:

Now and Again (the sci-fi show that starred Dennis Haysbert)
The Prisoner
Golden Years (a sci-fi show by Stephen King about growing young)
Firefly (the only new show I liked this year)
Miracles (which while not great was at least intriguing and I love Angus McFadden)
Beauty and The Beast
Dark Angel

and many more. Someone asked me recently why Btvs and Ats get ignored at the Emmy's and I responded, has any Science Fiction or Fantasy show ever really been recognized at the Emmy's, Oscar's and mainstream awards shows? Nope. Do they ever end up at the top of the ratings? Rarely. But which shows have tons of novels, DVD's, and product tie-ins? Which one's do people go to conventions for? And last in syndication forever. Not ER. Not Seventh Heaven. Sci-fi and fantasy. You either get sci-fi/fantasy or you don't. Most network big-wigs unfortunately don't. And unfortunately you either do it really really badly or really really well - there's very little in between. (If you don't get it - you do it really really badly.) For every top sci-fi show that's great, there's three or four cheesy ones. Cop and lawyer and doctor shows tend to be pretty much middle of the road - they are hard to truly screw up and cheaper to make. All you really need for these shows is one set. The more expensive one's do on-site shooting. But one sound-stage is usually enough. Sci-Fantasy, requires expensive makeup, sets, a whole universe, etc. If you do it cheaply - people can tell. And so much more expensive to make.

Which is why TV frustrates me. sigh. I prefer the experimental, on the edge shows. Things that make me think.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gotta Say, I Too Enjoyed All the Things That Were On Your List, Except... -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:41:30 04/15/03 Tue

Dark Angel. I've always had a number of things against the work of James Cameron (with the exception, somewhat, of the Terminator movies), and his pet series was no exception for me for a number of reasons.
Once again I find myself asking you 'why?' just out of curiosity, not argument :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I love them both. -- leslie, 11:15:24 04/15/03 Tue

I want to see sci-fi/fantasy interior decorating shows. There has to be some way.... Maybe the revamped Angel can develop a sideline, perhaps with Lorne running the "how to put your house back together after the demons have trashed it" division? See, pity they're not bringing over Xander-- they'd have a use for a good contractor. Though Spike certainly seems to have a nesty bent when it comes to his crypts, so there's hope there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess Spike eating a decorator might qualify... - - Caroline, 12:08:36 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> s'kat, I hope you don't think I was in anyway bashing Spike -- Masq, 06:17:44 04/15/03 Tue

Nothing I said about him was negative. I simply said he didn't move me in any way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, no,...I just didn't know where to post it. -- s'kat, 06:39:45 04/15/03 Tue

No, I didn't see it as bashing. I just had agreed with a statement you made about if a character doesn't move you, writing, acting, etc - doesn't matter. And this made me think of some of the nutsy things I've been seeing from shippers lately that's been getting on my ever-living nerve.

I've never really seen you bash any character, Masq. Actually if someone who isn't into the character wants to know how to post on it, they should probably follow your example both in your analysis and opinions. Which is either not to. To do so even handed and objectively. Or to state that they just aren't into the character.
I actually admire your ability to do this - it must be hard to run a public posting board and deal with all this insanity day in and day out, what with trolls, ship wars, rants, poster wars, etc. It would drive me nuts. How do you do it? And btw this is actually a very calm and well-behaved board, it has less character bashing, less ship wars and less trolls than most of the boards I've lurked on. Atpo's also not one or two character-centric like some boards. There are a few fan boards that have become all about two characters - and no they weren't originally designed that way nor do they state at the top that's their mission statement. B C & S has become a bit like that for example. Atpo has avoided it. This board remains an every character board for both shows and focuses on inner meaning and philosophy of the shows. And I think a lot of that has to do with how the board is run. That's something to be proud of.

Sorry if my posting this where I did gave anyone the impression it was directed at Masq, that was not my intent.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just checking -- Masq, 09:26:27 04/15/03 Tue

Hey, psst, s'kat: I'll let you in on a secret. This board pretty much runs itself and polices itself. I come on the board everyday and read a few posts or threads like any other ATPoer, and I do janitorial stuff like remove double posts or bring back threads to the main board, but the kudos for the content and attitude of the posters belongs to the posters. I'm really honored that so many erudite and nice people want to hang here.

That said, there have been times when this board swung too far towards BtVS over AtS in terms of people's preferences, and I did some pouting in the corner because I didn't know how to bring the board back to a more balanced state (and this was way before the two-month AtS hiatus thing. This was last year). But time passes, things change.

I don't visit other boards much, so I don't know what they're like. During the AtS-starvation time I mentioned above, I tried going to some Angel boards, but they were too spoilery for me.

Thanks for the compliments on my ep analyses. I try really hard to make them balanced, to concentrate on whatever characters are in the forefront of an episode and to try to determine what their character motives are, regardless of my interest in the characters personally. This is a place where the fiction writer in me can try to pick the brains of the ME writers--something you know a lot about, too, s'kat.

But I know my biases come through on my site anyway--I still haven't started the new section on the moral ambiguity of Robin Wood yet, though I have plans to make one. My moral ambiguity of Spike is still four or five long lists rather than the paragraph-filled M.A. analyses of Angel, Connor, or Holtz. I rely heavily on the comments of other members of the board in doing my analyses of characters who don't interest me as much.

Hopefully, once summer comes I'll find the time to catch up my site on all the big-picture stuff that's been occuring this season on both shows.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh Great!!!!!.....now I think of Spike as a laxative.......<g>....;) -- Rufus, 20:26:11 04/16/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love is a pretty strong word, But, I've always liked both. -- Cactus Watcher, 06:59:50 04/15/03 Tue

AtS has drifted further and further away from the kind of show I enjoy. It's too much turgid supernatural soap opera; too much pointless, emotional roller coaster without any clear goal. The show is fighting way too hard to be morally ambigous. (Wish I had a button to wear, reading "Existentialism is just plain BORING .") Still I like Angel, the character and always have.

Spike has pretty much turned into Buffy's unwanted love toy. But they've always managed to keep him an interesting character even though he's been spinning his wheels over the girl since season five.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> On Favorite Characters, the Glory Years, and Simon Cowell (possible ANGEL S5 spoilers) -- cjl, 11:54:20 04/15/03 Tue

I've always loved just about every character on Buffy and Angel--at one time or another. I don't think Joss (or Marti for that matter) has ever created a BAD CHARACTER. There have been long stretches where a specific character has been poorly written or downright ignored; but fans of that character could always point to the character's glory years, Season Blank, and say: "THAT'S how you write this character!"

For example:

GUNN - Really liked him when he was introduced in late S1 and brought in as a regular in early S2 of ANGEL. I couldn't stand him when Joss paired up Fred and Gunn in S3. He was consumed by his jealousy of Wes, and the whole Othello analogy trashed his original S1 characterization. When "Supersymmetry" rolled around, both Fred and Gunn finally snapped out of their pancake syrup lovey-doveyness and their characters regained some of their original depth. Gunn's clear thinking in Apocalypse Nowish and his subsequent solo in Players make me think he's finally back on track. Hope Joss and ME don't decide that all this confidence and happiness means it's time to kill him....

CORDELIA - A superb, if two-dimensional, foil for Buffy and the Scoobs in BtVS S1 and early S2. I enjoyed the X/C "thing" in S2/S3, but honestly, I can't say I ever really understood it. (Xander as focal point for Cordelia's awakening better nature? Cordelia as vessel for Xander displaced erotic feelings for Buffy [and/or Willow]? I'll entertain any theory...) As far as I'm concerned, Cordelia truly came into her own during Angel S1. A combination of Sunnydale uberbitch, spunky gal Friday, and genuinely compassionate and beautiful young woman. No matter what you might think about the current plotline, it has effectively robbed us of Cordelia for the past two years. If Charisma re-signs for Angel S5 (if there IS an S5), I'd like to see how the Cordy I grew to love deals with her vanity and delusions of grandeur, and what those delusions cost her and the people she loves.

XANDER - Well, Xanderfans, he's not getting his own major plotline. He's going to stay in the background, providing support and inspiration to the rest of the gang, and he'll probably pull off yet another spectacular display of heroism at the end of the series. (With the possible exception of Becoming, Xander is practically money in the bank during apocalypses.) But you know what? I think I've come to accept his reduced role, even understand it. As I said earlier this season on the board, Xander doesn't have that far to go in his journey to adulthood. Xander has the cool job, the great apartment, close friends, and he's just come to terms with Anya. He's got one big hurdle remaining--his inability to make the Big Decision--but we'll probably deal with that in "End of Days" or "Chosen." Do I wish Xander could be a dominant force in the plotlines the way he was in Seasons 1-3? Sure. But this is the story Joss wants to tell, and I have (blind?) faith that Joss isn't going to leave Xander on the sidelines in the end.

As for SPIKE and ANGEL--they're fine. Since I've never been a Buffy 'shipper (W/X was my original obsession), I get a big charge out of both. The more I look at their respective plotlines, the more I see the buddy pairing of my dreams: the vampire with the mommy issues and the Prodigal Son. My God, we are going to have SO MUCH FUN with those two, if Jordan Levin comes out of his coma and gives the go-ahead for ANGEL S5. I realize some people think Spike and Angel are like oil and water (which one is which depends on whom you ask), but I can't wait for Angel and Spike to butt heads or go on huge benders together, or both--and maybe try to stake/redeem Drusilla in between.

BTW, HonorH, loved the American Idol parody and the grammar camp. Can we do a joint mini-tutorial in OBUFU on comedy in the Buffyverse ("Laugh, Spawn of Hell, Laugh")?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Strangely enough, -- Sophist, 12:47:44 04/15/03 Tue

I agree with you about Xander playing a larger role as the end nighs. But I agree for the opposite reason -- I see Xander as having the longest journey to reach adulthood, and I expect the plotline to push him along.

Very good general point about the time frame, and good example in Cordy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cjl, you're perfectly welcome to guest-lecture at OBAFU anytime. -- HonorH, 13:16:03 04/15/03 Tue

Actually, I'd like a whole panel of ATP'ers for a special Philosophy in the Buffyverse seminar anyway. I'll probably just borrow people without asking. Forgiveness being easier to get than permission and all that.

Agree on Xander, btw. His supporting role is more important to me than him having huge plotlines of his own. Something about the constancy of his presence provides a much-needed bedrock for the Scooby Gang.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow...great breakdown cjl -- s'kat, 15:01:21 04/15/03 Tue

You know when I posted this message last night, I did it
with quite a bit of fear... now very glad I did.

You did a very good job of breaking down why I love each and every one of the major characters at different points in the storyline.

I actually really like some of the non-contracted ones too.

But most of all so agree with this:
As for SPIKE and ANGEL--they're fine. Since I've never been a Buffy 'shipper (W/X was my original obsession), I get a big charge out of both. The more I look at their respective plotlines, the more I see the buddy pairing of my dreams: the vampire with the mommy issues and the Prodigal Son. My God, we are going to have SO MUCH FUN with those two, if Jordan Levin comes out of his coma and gives the go- ahead for ANGEL S5. I realize some people think Spike and Angel are like oil and water (which one is which depends on whom you ask), but I can't wait for Angel and Spike to butt heads or go on huge benders together, or both--and maybe try to stake/redeem Drusilla in between.

Yesss. This is what I've been dying to see for the last six years. Every one wants to see Buffy and Angel together. I'm more interested in seeing Angel and Spike inter-act. Guess I should come out of the closet now and tell you I'm a Angel/Spike shipper and no, not in a romantic way. I've been one since Season 2. It's the relationship I like the most and has been explored/developed the least. The romantic relationships, while interesting at times, don't really intrique me as much sometimes as the friendships or nonromantic relationships - ie. Willow and Buffy, Gunn and Wesley, Giles and Ethan,
Xander and Spike, Xander and Riley, Riley and Spike, Spike and Willow, etc. Although, have to admit I found Lilah/Wes to be one of the most complex and interesting sexual relationships I'd seen, it outdid just about anything I saw on both shows and it was so short lived.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a perfect blendship -- cjl, 15:45:00 04/15/03 Tue

Another vote here for BtVS/AtS friendships over romantic 'ships.

My favorite friendships/friendly rivalries:

Buffy/Willow

Giles/Willow

Buffy/Giles

Wes/Gunn

Xander/the guy who's dating Buffy
Spike/the guy who's dating Buffy
Angel/the guy who's dating Buffy
Riley/the guy who's dating Buffy (anybody see a pattern here?)

Spike/Anya

Spike/Willow (their scene in "The Initiative" is an all-time classic)

Willow/Angel (as Rob so aptly titled my comment for his "Bad Eggs" annotations: "Willow--the #1 B/A 'shipper")

Xander/Oz

Tara/Dawn

Giles/Ethan

and the all-time champion:

Xander/Willow (the judges will accept B/X/W)


Yes, let's see more Spike/Angel goodness in ANGEL S5; let's see some more Wes/Gunn friendship too, or some Spike/Connor bonding (to Angel's utter horror), a Fred/Cordy friendship, or maybe that brotherly affection Angel had for Wes before the you-know-what hit the fan.

It's Friendship, friendship
Just the perfect blendship
When other friendships are soon forgot
Ours will still be hot

--Cole Porter
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lol! (WB previews spoiler for tomorrow's AtS) -- Masq, 16:11:54 04/15/03 Tue

I love this idea. Romantic 'ships have never done much for me, either. But there have been friendships and enemy-ships that were just delicious, like:

- Willow and Xander. You just don't see these two interact much anymore. They were the cutest buds in the old days.
- Giles and Buffy. I don't like the huge gulf that's between them now. I wish they could still be devoted allies.
- Faith and Buffy (OK, people did the slash and the subtext with these two, but I loved the whole angsty light-slayer noir-slayer thing they had in BtVS s. 3)
- Angelus and Spike, Angelus and Drusilla, and the fanged four in general. Granted, made up of two couples, but as a whole, or looking at the non-couply pairs, an interesting band of folks, whether in the past or the present (BtVS season 2)

- Angel and Cordelia prior to mid-season 3 of AtS. This is the friendship no one saw coming. I remember people's reaction to the idea of Cordelia going over to AtS with Angel. How *would* shallow, vain Cordelia interact with "I'm so broody, give me love" Angel? She was exactly what he needed to give him a kick in the pants.
- Gunn and Wesley (remember the days of their special handshake? *alas, for the old days*)
- Angel and Connor (still hoping someday those boys will bond over something besides singing "Mandy" to Jasmine while soaked in her goodie-aura. Blech!)

I'm getting more interested in the idea of seeing Spike come to AtS. Having him bond with Connor? Hilarious!

Angel (irritable): *Why* are you two so buddy-buddy?
Connor: Don't be a hypocrite, Dad. He's got a soul.
Angel: But I "hate* him.
Connor: All the more reason for me to like him. C'mon Spike, you were going to show me how to drive my dad's car?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, cjl! -- HonorH, 20:05:25 04/15/03 Tue

Further Spike/Connor interaction:

C: (griping) Dad's always bugging me about my hair. "When are you going to get a haircut, Connor? You look like an English sheepdog!"

S: He's one to talk. You should've seen his hair back in the day.

C: Really? He used to wear his hair long?

S: And he was just as vain about it then as he is now. Always brushing it, asking Darla how it looked, tying it back just so--if they'd had hair gel back then, he'd have been in vampire heaven.

C: (laughing) You're joking!

S: I swear I'm not! He practically went around with a sign on his chest that said, "Still the prettiest."

(Both break up laughing. Angel enters, scowls at Spike.)

S: (to Connor, very sincerely) And that's why you should never get in a fistfight with a Fyarl demon.

C: (catching on quickly) Right. Thanks, Uncle Spike.

A: (turning around and walking away) This is not good. This is *so* not good . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's his nephew, not his uncle -- Masq, 06:18:27 04/16/03 Wed

Going by the original line-up with Darla as great-grandmum, Angel as grandsire, and Drusilla as Mommy.

Of course, Spike would probably never share family endearments with Connor. But Drusilla would. She's all about family. I could just see her when she first meets Connor, insisting on calling him her "little brother".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Family trees...actually -- s'kat, 09:15:08 04/16/03 Wed

Uhm well...let's see:

1. Angel as sire/grandsire does Dru, Dru does Spike
Connor is Angel and Darla's kid.
Dru is Angel's kid.

Yep nephew


2. Darla is sire and Angel is sire and Dru is sire =Joss Whedon's statement they all are sire if in same blood line.

So Spike would be brother?

3. Darla died, brought back, Dru sired. NeoVampDarla slept with Angel had Connor. Dru sired Spike. Spike and Darla
are sister and brother. Angel and Dru mommy and Daddy.
Spike is Connor's uncle.

I think you have to go with 3, since the Darla that had Connor is the one Dru sired not the one the Master did.
Two different Darla's in a way, I think.

Just two cents.

And yes Connor/Spike bonding would be a riot. So look forward to that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike: uncle, nephew, great-nephew, brother -- Masq, 10:26:53 04/16/03 Wed

A very complicated family tree that reads like one of those bad time-travel paradox incest jokes.
[> [> [> [> Tell it like it is Doc! -- Sophist, 13:31:44 04/14/03 Mon

Snark.

I haven't really noticed a decline in AH's performance this year. The issue, I think, is that ME can't decide how she's supposed to behave. When they do get the character right (e.g., Tara's grave scene, say, or CwDP), she hits it out of the park.

NB is excellent at light comedy. Just don't try to stretch him any.

AD richly deserves the praise he gets. Think I'll stop here.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Tell it like it is Doc! -- Dochawk, 13:47:25 04/14/03 Mon

I don't think AH has gone down, I just think MT has gone up that much!
[> [> [> I kind of agree with both of you... -- Wolfhowl3, 18:43:05 04/14/03 Mon

I think that AH is a wonderful actor, and has done a great job with Willow over the years.

But, Amber Benson is a Much better Actor, and has blown away not only AH, but Ever other acter in all of the Joss-verse. (can you tell that I am a HUGE Amber Benson fan)

drops his two cents and walks away

Wolfie
[> Re: OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- starcam03, 09:50:06 04/14/03 Mon

I'm not sure where I stand wiht the Alyson thing. She is amazing, but she seems like she is always the same character. Granted, it was pretty cool when she did the eveil thing. We got to see a bit more of her range.

I think in general, Tori Spelling, Tiffani Amber Thiessen, Drew Barrymore, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lopez, Alicia Silverstone, Mariah Carey are all overrated.

I think Annette Bening, Tim Curry, Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, Willem Dafoe, Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey, Queen Latifah, and girl groups like Lillix are underrated. (Has anyone heard of Lillix? They did the theme for the show What I like About you. I'll try to find a link)
[> [> Not saying there is anything wrong with any of the underrated actors you chose. -- CW, 10:01:04 04/14/03 Mon

They're the ones you like best, and that's fine. But, underrated? It's been a long time since I've heard anyone say anything, but the nicest things about some of them. Jodie Foster, for instance, has been playing to rave reviews since she four or five years old.
[> [> How does A-List, Oscar winning talent rate as underrated? -- Darby, 10:03:47 04/14/03 Mon

Beyond reacting to them the way that people react to Jasmine, most of the people on your list couldn't be more highly rated.

Even Tim Curry had his day, but only Michael Caine seems to be able to pull off that kind of career and come out being respected.

Can't dispute the overrated list, except that I'm not sure about Jennifer Lopez the actress. Jennifer Lopez the computer-generated singer, maybe.
[> [> Overrated, underrated -- dream, 11:15:50 04/14/03 Mon

Tom Hanks
and again I'll say
Tom Hanks

How the hell does this man deserve an Oscar? And he has, what, two? Three?

I won't watch movies with Tom Hanks anymore. I just can't take it. Also, Sandra Bullock and Meg Ryan. Morgan Freeman is a perfectly good actor who seems to choose the worst scripts imaginable. Gwyneth Paltrow bores the heck out of me. And thank god Andie MacDowell's career has slowed down -- she always sounded like she was reading cue cards. But I don't know how I stand on these people being overrated - they are certainly popular, and get big salaries, but I don't think they are critical darlings.

Then there are the undisputed talents who haven't produced anything worth seeing in years: Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman.

And there are a lot of people I think are "underrated" in that they don't get much work, or much popular attention, but generally the critics like them. Most of the people on your underrated list apply, and I'll throw in a few of my own favorites: Helen Mirren, Jeff Daniels, Holly Hunter.

Then there are the (mostly comic) comic actors and actresses who don't get the scripts they deserve. Renee Witherspoon should be the Carole Lombard of our time, but the scripts don't seem to be there. Danny DeVito has been fabulous in pretty much every dramatic role he's ever taken on, but that's not a long list. That poor Frasier brother sidekick guy (I've forgotten his name) would, in an earlier Hollywood, have been a much-used character actor, instead of being trapped on a dull sitcom. And Brendan Frasier's role in God and Monsters left me desperate to see him get some serious scripts.

Then there are the quirky actors whom I quite like, but who seem never to push themselves in new directions: Parker Posey, Steve Buscemi, Janeane Garofolo.

And I must say, I didn't think anyone on earth liked Tori Spelling, so I don't quite see how she can be "overrated, but I thought she was really good in her small role in House of Yes. In the same vein, Jason Priestly gave a good performance as a dumb B-actor in Love and Death on Long Island.

Oh, and while I'm at it, Meryl Streep is a good actress, but not the world's best actress by a long shot, and I am so sick of her terribly serious roles - for God's sake, even Garbo laughed eventually. I hope Spiderman doesn't ruin Tobey Maquire's career by giving him too much money too soon - he has a light charm you don't see in many young actors. And I will see anything, anything Alan Rickman chooses to do.
[> [> [> Renee should be Reese, Garofolo Garofalo, lots of other misspellings - forgive! -- dream, 11:20:10 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> Hmmm -- KdS, 12:16:49 04/14/03 Mon

I thought both Pacino and Williams were great in Insomnia. And Williams was really, really scary, and good, in One Hour Photo. Thank God he seems to be following the advice the critics have been giving him for years and not trying to be cute any more.
[> [> [> [> Missed One Hour Photo -- dream, 12:33:53 04/14/03 Mon

But I thought Insomnia was really dull. Actually, just saw it recently, which is why they were on my mind. I spent the whole movie wondering what was making it so mediocre - the performances? The script? Nothing worked for me.
Agreed, however, that it was better than cute Robin, but not so good as the early years- loved Moscow on the Hudson, and Fisher King, and of course the stand-up and Mork.
[> [> [> [> [> You aren't missing anything -- neaux, 04:32:02 04/15/03 Tue

Insomnia. What an odd choice for a movie title when it was everything I could do NOT to fall asleep.

But my wife and I rented One Hour Photo last week and while Robin Williams is good in the movie, the movie is not much of one. The film focuses more on the aspects of the camera than plot, so its more of an art project than a movie.
[> [> [> Re: Overrated, underrated -- mundus, 17:01:11 04/14/03 Mon

Underrated: Toni Collette. I just saw her in two movies this weekend, her suicidal hippie mom in About a Boy (which I'd seen before, but it's been a year) and the next day as Ben Affleck's mistress in Changing Lanes and couldn't believe it was the same person. She's widely respected, yet I'd go so far to say that she is incapable of giving a bad performance. Hugh Grant, in the same movie, shows that while he's not a great actor, he is a genuinely charming one, and that's an underrated quality these days. In fact, I think that while comedies themselves are as bad as ever, "Comedy" as a genre is underrated. Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep are acclaimed dramatic actresses, but The Big Lebowski and Adaptation show just how funny they can be.

Overrated: Rather than pinpoint individuals, I'll stick to general classification: 1) Actors playing disabilities are frequently overrated, as they show an impressive array of physical tics but rarely capture anything resembling a person; 2) War movies, as they invariably enlighten us that war is really, really bad. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. 3) Foreign films. ("Foreign" in U.S. terms.) There's lots and lots of good ones, so don't roast me over the coals on this one. But while plenty of viewers remain adverse to subtitles, at the other extreme seems to be an assumption that dialogue in another language automatically makes a film smarter....

My last category I'll call not overrated, but "Stuck in a Rut." Morgan Freeman fits here for me, with his recent string of dull authority figures. Ditto James Cromwell. Harrison Ford has distilled his acting to what one "fansite" calls two faces: Pissed-Off Face and Constipated Face. Look closely: they're nearly the same face. I'm tired of Kevin Spacey's secrets and string-pulling. Both Spacey and Freeman, at least, have proven themselves to be great actors in the past, so there's a chance they will be again. I'd had a bellyfull of Tom Hanks as well up til last year, but he was fun again playing a dweebish fed in Catch Me If You Can, so hope springs eternal....


-mm
[> [> [> That poor Frasier brother sidekick's name is David Hyde Peirce -- Wolfhowl3, 18:59:19 04/14/03 Mon

And I quite agree, he is a very good actor, and I can't wait for Frasier to end to see what kind of work he will do then. (even though I quite enjoyed Frasier in the first few seasons)

Wolfie
[> [> [> Didn't Tom Hanks used to be funny? -- MsGiles, 03:50:55 04/17/03 Thu

George Clooney anyone? He strikes me as being an essentially rather boring actor (cheesecake good looks, not great range of expressions) who somehow transcends that by being/supporting interesting films. I've seen Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Solaris and Three Kings, recently, and they're all kind of intelligent off-beam films with plots that someone has actually sat down and thought out rather than run through the Random Plot Generator. Also with humour. He could have tried going down the Pierce Brosnan route, but instead he's been clever and worked out a slightly different type of niche, spinning off his hunk appeal to get the backing.

How about Gary Oldman? I think he's overrated as an actor in the sense that he's got great ability but he's under/mis- used a lot, and I think some of it is his fault. He does over-the-top so excessively that he's always doing rubbish villain parts, like in Lost in Space, or in Fifth Element, or Leon. I thought he had loads of charisma in Coppola's Dracula, and that the film nearly worked. It was a real disappointment that somehow it just didn't, for me anyway. And I think it was Oldman that ruined it, just by being too melodramatic, too pantomimic.

With you on Alan Rickman, he seems to manage villains without camping it up excessively. I don't think he could have done the Dracula though ..

Never been that keen on Streep. I really did like Sigourney Weaver in the *all* the Alien films and the 'adult fairy tale' Snow White- a tale of terror', and in that Star Trek spoof, I think she's an under-used actress. I liked Linda Hamilton in the Terminator films. I liked Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction, but I'm not sure what she's doing now.

I got totally fed up with Dustin Hoffman after Outbreak, I thought, he should be doing better stuff than this formulaic tosh. The no-brain stuff should be given to new actors to start their careers, rich oldies should be forced to do films with proper plots (that might fail at the box office .. they can afford it!)

Talking of starting off, what does anyone think of Leonardo di Caprio? I thought he was just a pretty teen, but now he seems to be in everything.

Mel Gibson - well, Mad Max was fantastic, the Lethal Weapons were funny, but he's done a bit too much re-writing history lately for my taste. He's become MegaloEgosaurus, well known in Hollywood from the many fossil remains that keep turning up.

And while on the subject of dinodaurs - Sam Neil! His presence immediately says 'actors are the background for the effects in this film'

I think Jeremy Irons is much overrated, he annoys me every time I see him. In Dungeons and Drgons he was *embarrasing* Also I can't watch Hugh Grant. I do like Ian McKellen though, have done since he was young and cheekbony (sigh).

Ooh, and while on LoTR, Christopher Lee, all time hero, tho' in loads of crap in his time
[> Re: OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- dub, 11:16:17 04/14/03 Mon

Over-rated:
John Malkovich
Mel Gibson
Reese Witherspoon
Celine Dion
Madonna

Under-rated:
Emma Caulfield
Johnny Depp

Most over-rated AND under-rated (simultaneously):
John Travolta

;o) dub
[> [> Has anyone seen EC in Darkness Falls? -- oboemaboe, 13:41:05 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> Yup. -- Katrina, 14:58:52 04/14/03 Mon

But I didn't think she did a terrible job with a completely unwritten part: uninteresting dialogue and no back story whatsoever. Did she have a job? Where were their parents? Assumed dead, but they didn't bother telling the audience.

It reminded me that "Valentine" was the first thing I ever saw DB in, and he didn't exactly burn up the screen in that, either. Makes a fine Angel though.
[> [> Re: OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- Rufus, 19:14:49 04/14/03 Mon

Johnny Depp. The last thing I saw him in was From Hell, which he did a wonderful job in....helped that he had such a strong supporting cast in Robbie Coltrane (sp) and more.
[> [> Agree and Disagree -- Rob, 11:39:08 04/15/03 Tue

I agree on most of your list, except for Reese Witherspoon, who, I think, is wonderful. And re: Madonna, I'm not sure she is overrated, as an actress. For most reviews I've heard from her, the critics can't stand any of her acting performances. I'd agree on all but Evita, where I think she surpassed even her own greatest expectations. Besides that, perhaps one could argue she's overrated as a pop star, but I don't think you can really say the same for her movie career.

Rob
[> [> [> Re: Agree and Disagree -- starcam03, 10:52:35 04/16/03 Wed

Hey Rob,

I agree with you about Madonna. She used to be in my eyes, but I liked when she started changing her image a coupla years ago.

I think the only others who are both good actors and musicians are Queen Latifah and Aaliyah (rip). JLo is decent, but not amazing.
[> Re: OT:List your most over-rated and under-rated... -- starcam03, 11:45:48 04/15/03 Tue

Yeah, I suppose you are right about the whole Oscar thing... I suppose I should just say that they deserve any and all attention they get...

And true about the JLo actress thing... I liked her in Wedding Planner.

I found the link for Lillix. http://www.lillix.com. Tell me what you think when you check it out. I think they will deserve all the attention they get.
Oh my God! (spoilers for this week's Buffy preview) -- Masq, 07:04:53 04/14/03 Mon

So I'm watching the tape I made of the re-play of this week's Enterprise and they have a commercial preview for this week's Buffy, which I haven't seen yet since I don't watch the Buffy reruns (have'm all on tape).

Faith and Spike. They have two or three seconds of air time in one little preview and zing! Chemistry leaping off the screen!

Just had to share.
[> Re: Oh my God! (spoilers about the spoilers for this week's Buffy preview) -- Rufus, 07:15:51 04/14/03 Mon

I guess that darn JM does have chemistry with just about anything and anyone....but don't get too excited....next week he will come on to the dustbin and find true love, or was that the First in the form of a dustbin....;)
[> [> Well, I didn't mean it in a 'shippy way -- Masq, 09:10:12 04/14/03 Mon

I just mean these two characters have a certain irreverent coarseness in common that makes it fun to watch them interact.
[> [> [> Re: Well, I didn't mean it in a 'shippy way -- ponygirl, 10:33:45 04/14/03 Mon

Is it wrong to say that I reallly want to see them fight? And not in a shippy way. Well, I am picturing it with Faith wearing her leather pants so maybe it is kind of shippy.
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, I didn't mean it in a 'shippy way -- aliera, 04:28:05 04/15/03 Tue

No that's not wrong; or maybe it's a shared wrongness. My wish is to see both of them wake up and come into their strength? Coming out a little more something than I intend...and on the other issue...agree with Rufus; but I think Eliza has that same capability and. I think either of them could set fire to a rock.
[> [> JM Reminds of Someone -- Rina, 10:33:48 04/14/03 Mon

Rufus is right. JM can just about create chemistry with anyone. His scenes with Alyson in "Initiave" had everyone thinking about a possible Willow/Spike pairing. He has certainly created chemistry with SMG, Emma Caufield, Juliet Landau, Kristine Sutherland and Michelle Trachenburg. He even had chemistry with the actress who played Nikki Wood in Season 7.

He reminds me of Kate Mulgrew from STAR TREK VOYAGER, who also managed to create chemistry with a lot of leading men.

How do you describe people like that?
[> [> [> I call 'em "Good. Real guuuuuud." -- deeva, 11:17:34 04/14/03 Mon

[> [> [> What springs to mind -- cougar, 14:27:20 04/14/03 Mon

charisma,
responsiveness,
adaptability,
attention,
body language,
playful, detectable energy,
cordination of voice, eyes, body feelings, mind,
concentration,
aliveness,
focus,
vulnerability and strength
exrovertion,
always personifying a tension of energies,
very easy to project our own energies onto him, which is why JM can make us feel and identify.
[> [> [> Prefer JM to KM -- luna, 06:46:18 04/15/03 Tue

...and that's not gender-specific.
[> I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Doug, 07:17:00 04/14/03 Mon

What is it with this Bloodline and Slayers?

Ah well, the Faith/Spike shipper in me is content.
[> does look good it does! (preview spoils) -- neaux, 09:00:26 04/14/03 Mon

Yeah.. but speaking of the trailer.. I believe Spike makes a comment that might suggest possible Faith/Spike action??!!


probably another damn manipulated trailer. but it would be interesting to see.
[> [> Re: does look good it does! (preview spoils) -- Dariel, 14:57:11 04/14/03 Mon

God, I hope not--Buffy would stake the both of them!
Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter? -- luna, 18:49:34 04/14/03 Mon

Maybe this has been discussed at great length here, but I can't get the Archives search to work. At any rate, someone just lent me a novel that's part of the Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter, series (by Laurell K. Hamilton). The one I'm reading now is Guilty Pleasures. I haven't finished it yet, but so far it's good--Anita is older than Buffy, NOT a "chosen one," a loner who works for the police and kills vampires. In some ways she reminds me of the female private investigators in many recent series. But the vampires are way beyond anything in those books. There's a little of the Anne Rice feel to some, but others would be right at home in Sunnydale. Anyone else read any of these books?
[> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter? -- Rufus, 19:07:04 04/14/03 Mon

I've read them all, even the latest Cerulean Sins
[> [> ooh, I'm jealous! -- Vickie, 19:12:41 04/14/03 Mon

I haven't gotten to that one yet. I get them in paperback, gulp them whole like popcorn.

Great fun reads.
[> [> [> Re: ooh, I'm jealous! Cerulean Sins jacket level spoilers -- fresne, 10:01:28 04/15/03 Tue

Iím reading Cerulean Sins right now. Well, obviously not ìright nowî, but in that general time frame. Itís quite good, which is nice. I found the Anita book just previous a little tired. Perhaps, because after Obsidian Butterfly and how many books, I was hoping for some emotional resolution and I got a trip to Egypt. However, Cerulean crackles along quite nicely. Anita finally seems to be headed away from Woman Cruising Down deNile and more towards, ah, lets deal with some emotional issues. Or at least admit that they exist. Plus, cool Dangerous Laisons-ish villain. Or is that villains? Iím not done yet.

Actually, what Iím jealous of is everyone whoís seen the Angel episodes. I just got back from vacation and I thought Iíd wait for the jet lag to wear off a bit before watching. Because being awake while watching is a good thing.
[> [> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter? -- aliera, 04:12:21 04/15/03 Tue

Me too. Just finished CS Sunday...what did you think, Rufus?
[> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter? -- Cheryl, 20:25:12 04/14/03 Mon

I just started reading the series. A co-worker (the only other Buffy & Angel fan at work) is really (and I mean *really*) into the series and brought in the first couple books for me to read. I like what I've read so far. Much better than the handful of Buffy novels I've read.
[> [> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter? -- luna, 06:39:34 04/15/03 Tue

I thought it was weird that they seem to be classed as "romance" novels. I haven't yet finished the first one, but in spite of the prevalence of hunky vampires and humans, the heroine herself is not a perfect glamour girl and there's a lot more fighting than loving so far. Also, it seems already to be raising some of those questions we know and love from the Buffyverse, like the nature of vampire souls, where vampires go when they die, etc.

Love the zombies, too.
[> [> [> Re: Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter? -- LH FAN, 07:14:27 04/15/03 Tue

I suggest you read them in the order that they were written. LH's writing abillities increase with each book. Just when you think she can't get any better, the next book tops the one before it. So far she's a rising star.
[> Re: Humor in Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter -- Walking Turtle, 09:27:19 04/15/03 Tue

I have read them all. One difference to Buffy not mentioned yet is that Anita Blake is a Christian. She examines the issues Buffy and Angel look at from a Christian viewpoint. To me much of the humor in the books comes from this approach.

For example, Anita says in almost every book -- she was a Catholic until the Catholic Church excommunicated vampires. Now she is an Episcopalian.
[> I was disappointed with her latest book -- Yu Yu Hakusho, 14:31:57 04/15/03 Tue

I was disappointed in her latest book. I thought alot of time was wasted on people having sex with each other. Now don't get me wrong, normally I like that kind of thing (lol) but this time it was a little much. Normally LH manages to balance the sex, violence, and plot brilliantly, but this time it seemed that Anita was spending alot of her time trying to feed the auader (sp?). I actually started skipping over sections of the book to get back to the storyline.

Also, I think she's expanded the cast too much. It used to be just Anita, Jean-Claude, and Richard. Now its Anita, Asher, Damion, Jean-Claude, Nathanial, Jason, and Micah. This left all of the supporting cast from previous books with little else to do than just stand around and make glorified camoes. Also, the A, B, and C plots weren't juggled very well, at least not as well as in previous books.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but I don't think it was her best work.

PS: What did the title of the book stand for? Usually each title refers to a club or business involved with the story (such as Guilty Pleasure, a strip club Anita visited in the first book), but the phrase wasn't even mentioned this time.
[> [> Re: I was disappointed with her latest book -- aliera, 17:42:58 04/15/03 Tue

Do you ever read her interviews, Yu Yu? It's won't change whether you like or dislike the book any more but it does give you a window to her thoughts...and I found that helpful when I was at a loss where she was headed (I think this was after NiC) there's a couple of good ones let me know if you like I'll dig out the link...or you can search on the Laurell K Hamilton org. I could write a lot about what I think about her direction and methodology...but I'm not sure how useful that would be since I suspect I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum... I've had to skip past some of the murder descriptions since they're not something I'd care to dream...and I'll make a guess at your question although I'm probably wrong...I think it had something to do with the JC's decor. ;-)
Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- lunasea, 19:37:16 04/14/03 Mon

One of the main things I get from BtVS is that evil cannot fully understand goodness. I think the key to understanding AtS and Jasmine is the reverse, that goodness cannot fully understand evil. Humans and our souled vampires have both, so they are capable of fullly understanding humans. That doesnít mean they do, just that only they have this ability. On BtVS it is this misunderstanding that tends to bring about the villainsí (big and little and other) downfall. One of the things that has drawn Spike to Buffy is that he doesnít fully understand her and wants to. He thinks he does, but she is constantly doing things that surprise him or he doesnít understand This enthralls him. He wants her because he canít predict or control her.

But, I am not here to talk about Spike (though this would be an interesting tangent to pursue). What I am interested in is Jasmine. Skip was a mercenary that worked for Jasmine. Do we know what her instructions to him were? Do we know how hands on she was? Do we even know how aware she is of what Skip did? Skipís job was to get Cordy into the higher realms. He canít just kidnap her and send her there. One thing was needed every single step of the way, her consent.

First step is ìBirthday.î The PTBís arenít too attached to Angelís messengers. They care about the big picture, not the players involved. The Oracles kept trying to redirect Angel back to the big picture (The war continues). They didnít care about Buffy. They didnít care about Doyle. They arenít concerned with love or friendship. They care about Angel because ìyou do (live) so that others will.î The Messengers go through excruciating pain when they get the visions. Not the nicest way to treat their soldiers. Cordy, being fully human cannot handle the visions. Jasmine knows this. Perhaps it is out of kindness that she chooses Cordy to be her mother. In some ways Angel was right, by bearing the burden of the visions, A PTB decided to reward her.

Cordy is going to die. Jasmine, through Skip, prevents this. Skip tells her why he brought her there ìTo give you a choice.î That episode is about choice. We think that Cordy is making the right unselfish one. It is a big moment in her growth. We should have known right away that Skip was lying when he told her that Doyle wasnít supposed to give her the visions and the PTBs goofed there. The Oracles knew about it and it wasnít a goof.

Also ìLife and death, that sort of thing, they got a handle on. Who someone chooses to love, well, that's just good old free will.ì Since when do you have a choice to love someone in the Buffyverse? I am sure that Buffy and Angel will be happy to hear that (not to mention Spike and Xander). They donít have to love each other. All those feeling can just go away now. I am sure they both feel much better now. It isnít free will. It is something beyond anyoneís control. PTB, human or demon. What you do with those feelings is free will, but that is about it.

Skip told some pretty big lies to stack the deck to get Cordy to choose a particular way. The acting was funny, but we saw how terrible an actress she was. Cordy honestly believed that if she didnít take the visions, Angel would have. Pretty much would have messed up the whole champion thing the PTBs had been working on with Angel. They just would have sent him a new messenger. Big whopping lies. Goodness wouldnít manipulate people like that.

Was goodness aware though? Did Jasmine know what Skip did to get Cordy to consent to becoming part demon? Did she even think that Skip would use such underhanded techniques?

Most important thing is that Cordy comes up with the third option. She wasnít going to let Angel take the visions, but she wasnít going to die either. Well, she sort-of came up with the third option. ìThen find a loop hole, Skip.î With that, Skip has the consent he needs to turn her into a half- demon. He even tries to talk her out of it, but he knows what Cordy is going to do. Skip isnít the one that can do anything. Jasmine is. Jasmine needs Cordyís consent. When Cordy decides to become an actress, Jasmine makes her an actress. When Cordy decides to become a demon, Jasmine makes her a demon. Jasmine will only work with Cordyís consent.

When it comes to something major life altering, like becoming a demon, Cordy needs to ìconvinceî the PTBs they should do it. Compare it to Whistler showing Angel Buffy, The Oracles turning back time for Angel, Darla with Connor in ìInside Outî and maybe Joyceís appearance to Buffy in her dreams. The PTBs donít just give all the options and say choose. They present some of them and the person has to say there are more before they reveal the big one.

Next time we see Skip it is ìTomorrow.î Time for Jasmine to take Cordy up to the higher realms. Talk about some great whoppers. Skip is a great liar. It was nice to find out that what felt wrong in ìBirthdayî and ìTomorrowî were lies. Again, Skip has to get Cordyís consent. When she asks him what she has to do, he responds, ìJust say yes.î

In order to get her consent, he canít completely lie to her. ìWhat youíre being called to do transcends love....There is work to be done in the higher realms." Skip never tells her what that work is. Cordy makes a lot of assumptions. In those assumptions, she gives her consent.

Then Cordy goes up in that white light. Cordy is surrounded by it, when we see her up in the higher realms. I would say that white light is Jasmine. In ìGround Stateî Angel describes that light as ì God! There was all this light around her, and the light seemed to be made up of ... pure joy. And warmth.î Pretty much how everyone reacts when they see Jasmine. We know that Cordy is up in the higher realms bitching about being bored. That isnít what Angel sees. He sees both Cordy AND Jasmine. He thinks the feelings he has are for Cordy. They arenít. They are for Jasmine. Those feelings are so strong that he doesnít notice how unhappy Cordy is.

Cordy is surrounded by Jasmine, yet she is incredibly unhappy. Why? Maybe it is as she says in THAW ìI so love you.î Cordy is a pretty self-centered person. She wants what she wants. Cordy is miserable because she wants to be with Angel. Not even Jasmine can overcome that misery.

In THAW, though, Cordyís misery goes beyond just not being with him. ìOh. That's just great. I mean, what's the point of being an all-seeing powerful whachamawhoosit if I'm not allowed to intervene?î With that line, Cordy gives her consent to become an all-seeing powerful whachamawhoosit who IS allowed to intervene. She gives her consent to become the motherl for Jasmine. Then Cordelia is returned.

Without her memory though. Without that memory, she has a tabula rasa. It was probably a side-effect of the trip, because the memory spell that Lorne uses is planted by Jasmine. She needs Cordy to have her memory back. What comes back is Cordy soaked in Jasmine. What people see is Cordy. What Cordy sees is Jasmine. That is the important difference.

The only one who can experience Jasmine, until she is born, is Cordy. The white light that made Angel feel so wonderful canít be experienced by anyone else until the actual vessel is created that Jasmine will pour herself into. Cordy is experiencing that light and it is changing her.

She isnít being controlled by Jasmine. She isnít drugged or anything like that. Cordelia is a fanatic. She is willing to do anything for her ìgoddess.î Since she is soaked in Jasmine, she has access to what Jasmine knows, including various spells and magick stuff. Imagine if Cordy had access to that and wanted to bring about the creation of her goddess and paradise. That is what we get S4. As the season goes on more and more, she gets more and more fanatical.

Lorne sees a horrible vision. We assume that is the thingsís plans. It is the evil coming. Cordy gets visions of evil things, lots of them. Were those things Angel was supposed to become or things he was supposed to fight? Why do we assume what Lorne is reading is what this thing wants or what it is, not what it wants to fight? He is reading Cordy. Cordy was the one singing. Cordy now knows how to fight the creepies. She wants to fight the creepies. She wants to be a real warrior, not just the messenger. She wants to be a higher power. She wants to be ìan all-seeing powerful whachamawhoosit who IS allowed to intervene.î

Cordy knows that she has to get Connor to sleep with her in order to create the vessel for Jasmine. Cordy knows that nothing makes guys hornier than an upcoming apocalypse (you can learn so much in Sunnydale). She also knows how to control various beasties and wants to rid the world of the uber-evil of Wolfram and Hart. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Summon the beast to get Connor to sleep with her and then use that beast to rid the world of Wolfram and Hart.

I think what has happened with Cordelia is very interesting this season. It hasnít been her slowly being taken over by Jasmine as the baby gets bigger. It is the lengths that a fanatic is willing to go through to accomplish their goal. The more Cordelia believes, the more she does. In Orpheus, she actually fights Willow. The way she talked wasnít Jasmine. That was pure Cordelia. By the time we get to ìInside Outî Cordelia thinks she is Jasmine. When she is caught, she talks about being around for a rather long time and being smarter than AI. It makes the audience think that Jasmine is actually controlling Cordy, but really it is an over-identification with the object of her worship.

What got me thinking about this is ìthe evil that was done in my name.î Then the first thing the Jasminites do is start to clean up the mess Cordy made. They go to a bowling alley where vamps who came because of permanent midnight are hanging out and start taking care of them.

We will have to see what Jasmine does, but so far it is the fanaticism surrounding her that is the problem. We have all the evil done is Jasmineís name by fanatic Cordy. We have Angel going a bit overboard in his zeal to protect Jasmine, both with the guy and in wanting to kill Fred. We have Fred and the shirt. These arenít things that Jasmine is doing to people, but what people are willing to do for her.

That to me is a much more interesting story. Jasmine is pure goodness who doesnít understand the evil that she fights. She doesnít understand that she canít remove evil from humanity or Angel. She doesnít understand how dangerous she is. People become enthralled by the power of her goodness. Then the evil/other things in them warp that into something else. Jasmine has to be removed for humanityís own good because we canít handle her.

But in some ways, she is an innocent and she is goodness. She canít be destroyed. What will Angel do? How will Angel figure all of this out? If Joss doesnít write this story, I am going to and not with the Buffyverse.
[> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- 110v3w1110w, 21:24:13 04/14/03 Mon

when Jasmine was controling cordelia she said somthing about good and evil being only human perceptions of events or she said somthing to that effect. so personaly i think that she is involved in some kind of power struggle with somthing maybe the wolfram and heart senior partners maybe the PTB so in my opinion what she is doing now is nothing more than a power play. She doesn't want to help people or really hurt them she is indifferent to peoples suffering and is just using people for her own ends sort of the same thing glory was doing she just wanted to get home it just so happened that it would cause death and suffering.
[> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- lunasea, 07:53:10 04/15/03 Tue

You assume that Jasmine was controlling Cordelia. In the last couple of episodes, reality has been turned inside out. Any assumptions like that, any ideas that we hold onto that were generated from earlier in the season, will lead us astray. It is almost like with each new episode, the entire season has to be re-evaluated. The AI team gave a run down of how they thought a big baddie was controlling Cordy. Many are assuming that was correct and are just interpreting the events that follow in light of that. It is easier to believe that all those things were some baddie acting and that all this talk of love and paradise is a trick than it is to change direction.

Anything Cordy said cannot be assumed to be what Jasmine feels. Only what Jasmine says in Jasmine form can be taken to be what she says. It is easy to dismiss it as her manipulating things and lies, but what if she really believes what she says?

She says that evil was done in her name. Either Jasmine believes what she says or she was using that to manipulate the AI team. If she believes what she said, then what Cordy told Connor wasn't Jasmine. It was Cordy being Cordy. All that special talk really sounded like Cordy. The ego, the attitude, classic Cordy.

The only evidence we have of Jasmine manipulating people is what Fred saw and what happened to that guy. People want to believe that Jasmine is a false messiah so much that the evidence was readily accepted without question by the audience. That is how ME gets us everytime. They play on what we want to see. We wanted to see evidence of a false messiah and they gave it to us.

An interesting angle is what if it isn't Fred seeing the light, but rather Fred being wrong. Instead of why can Fred see through her, how about why Fred is wrong.

Assumptions will get you every time on these shows.
[> [> [> Or... -- Anneth, 08:29:41 04/15/03 Tue

"The only evidence we have of Jasmine manipulating people is what Fred saw and what happened to that guy. People want to believe that Jasmine is a false messiah so much that the evidence was readily accepted without question by the audience. That is how ME gets us everytime. They play on what we want to see. We wanted to see evidence of a false messiah and they gave it to us."

I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons that spoofed the X-files; a glowing alien who "brings peace and love" is actually just Mr. Burns on drugs. I imagine that many people, myself included, think Jasmine is evil because she's "bringing peace and love" in the Jossverse, that funny place where sacharine sentiments are generally red herrings. And I'm having trouble thinking of anything more saccharine than Jasmine...

Just a thought.
[> [> [> [> Re: Or... -- lunasea, 08:54:12 04/15/03 Tue

Actually, you got me thinking about one other thing, Cordy between "Birthday" and "Tomorrow." In "Benediction" that glowy thing that Cordy does to Connor (which made me want to vomit. Talk about saccharine) was along the lines of what Jasmine does. Cordy's demoness from "Tomorrow" was Jasmine- like powers. Is that what Jasmine does to people?

Just some ideas. I'm sure we will find out more tomorrow and even more and more in the following weeks. Even what we find out may be the misdirect. Can't take anything for granted. What better way to set up a pattern of saccharine = red herring and then break your own pattern?

This is so much fun.
[> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- maddog, 09:56:48 04/15/03 Tue

I thought the consensus was that Cordy was being controlled by her baby...who ended up being Jasmine? People keep going off on tangents. :(
[> [> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- lunasea, 12:37:18 04/15/03 Tue

And "Inside Out" showed us how accurate consensus can be when it comes to AtS. I'm trying to get away from the assumptions consensus generate.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- maddog, 12:55:33 04/15/03 Tue

But don't you find inside out to be one of those episodes that's supposed to turn your expectations upside down? Besides, if she's a good guy then what did Fred see? Good guys don't look disgusting like that...I believe it's a rule. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- leslie, 15:20:20 04/15/03 Tue

Also, blind worship is never a good sign, nor is being willing to kill your coworker on the say-so of a new arrival.
[> Interesting post, lunasea, preserving it until I can respond ; ) -- Masq, 06:41:25 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> Forgot a few things -- lunasea, 07:28:18 04/15/03 Tue

I look forward to your reply. Your posts about Cordy have helped me see a lot.

1. When Connor said Darla wasn't really his mother, she replied that "I have her memories and feelings, isn't that what makes a person who they are?" When Cordy got soaked in Jasmine, she now had Jasmine's memories and feelings. That is why Cordy over-identifies with her, thinking she is her in "Inside Out" and possibly earlier.

2. Love removes ego boundaries. It is rather common for extreme devotion to lead to that sort of over- identification. Many cult leaders, such as David Koresh, do believe they are the actual second coming. In Tibetan Buddhism people actually believe they are the reincarnated spirits of various bodhisattvas. Cordy could have started out thinking she was the Virgin Mary and ended up thinking she was God herself.

3. Jasmine created a vessel through Cordy and Connor to pour herself into. She didn't use the life that Angel earned to be her vessel, but to create hers. The vessel that Angel earned was an actual human being, flawed by his nature. Such a vessel would have tainted Jasmine. Jasmine needed an empty container to pour herself into. A miracle child could produce such a vessel (don't think Connor will be able to have actual normal children).

4. Cordy wasn't an empty container. Even though she is soaked in Jasmine, she still has all her other parts. Her own desires don't go away. All that she was informed who she became after being soaked in Jasmine. Same with everyone else, Angel, Connor, the other Jasminites. A perfect world will only be possible, not by giving up free will, but by giving up all those other parts that Jasmine doesn't understand. A perfect world is imposible. This all ties into what Holland said in "Reprise." Holland was evil. His complete understanding of humanity is limited, but he does understand evil.

5. Does Jasmine have those parts now that she is a human? Being human she is now "Privy to all the attendant pains - and pleasures." (per the Oracles) Jasmine loves experiencing all these. Does she also have the other parts that make humans imperfect? Will she develop them as she stays human? Can humanity taint a god (like it did with Glory)?

6. Concept of omnipresence. Was the totality of Jasmine inside of Cordy and that is what got poured into Jasmine, or was it coming from everywhere? What we see as Jasmine is Jasmine lumped together and poured into a human form. The First exists in every drop of hate, etc. Does Jasmine exist in every drop of love? When humans, who contain this love in our humanity (which is why we gave Jasmine hope) come into contact with Jasmine, the pure form of love, it triggers that humanity and turns people into Jasminites. I would have loved to see this happen to Lilah.

I love Jasmine, but not in a Jasminite way.
[> [> [> My reply is below--"Cordelia's Religion" -- Masq, 14:23:10 04/15/03 Tue

A perfect world is impossible. This all ties into what Holland said in "Reprise." Holland was evil. His complete understanding of humanity is limited, but he does understand evil.

This was going through my mind as well when I did my episode analysis of "SHP". Every human being holds the potential for doing evil things inside of them. We can brain-wash everyone into being happy and nice all the time and thereby create a world without evil acts, but such a world would no longer be human. It would be at the expense of free will, it would be at the expense of allowing people to grow and change for the better because they chose to do so. We must risk having evil in the world, otherwise, we will never have true heroes.

I love Jasmine, but not in a Jasminite way.

She's raised so many juicy philosophical issues and in only one episode appearance so far!
[> [> [> [> Re: My reply is below--"Cordelia's Religion" -- lunasea, 15:17:57 04/15/03 Tue

We can brain-wash everyone into being happy and nice all the time and thereby create a world without evil acts, but such a world would no longer be human.

Is that Jasmine's goal though? Fred isn't brainwashed and neither was that guy in the hospital. Either Jasmine can't do this or she doesn't want to.

When Angel came back from Hell, Buffy asked Giles what he would be like if he came back. Giles said "It would take someone of extraordinary... will and character to survive that and, uh, retain any semblance of self. Most likely, he'd be, be a monster." Angel came back a monster, but he did have his semblance of self accessable.

Fred went through a similar experience on Pylea and she to did maintain a semblance of self that could be reached. These are both people with incredible mettle. Is Cordy in the same position, which is why up in the higher realms she was bitching?

The soul colonic that Jasmine gives everyone isn't enough for someone like Fred and later Angel (and I am going to venture Connor, but he will still follow her). It isn't quite a brain-washing (more like a soul washing). It is a wipe down with a dry rag. It is limited. It depends on how "dirty" you are whether it works. It can't remove everything, like Cordy couldn't completely fix Connor.

So what happens to those it isn't strong enough for? We saw what Angel was going to do to that guy. We heard what Angel's reaction to Fred's behavior was. They can't brainwash everyone, but they can kill those that can't be brainwashed. We will have to see what Jasmine's reaction is to this. That is going to reveal who she is.

It would be at the expense of free will, it would be at the expense of allowing people to grow and change for the better because they chose to do so. We must risk having evil in the world, otherwise, we will never have true heroes.

In paradise everyone is already better. To have evil so that we can have heroes to fight evil seems sadistic. If we don't need heroes, why have them?
[> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- maddog, 09:04:44 04/15/03 Tue

I had this whole long thing typed out and then I realized that it makes no sense to disagree with your theory. What it does mean however is that you're rationalizing something that flies in the face of what we now know as fact on Angel. I try to stick to what they tell me...otherwise it gets too close to fan fiction.

And while your story is plausible if we leave out what we've been told, the part about what people will do for Jasmine doesn't make sense to me. If they all acted normal...as if nothing else were off. Then I'd go with you...but these people look hypnotized. You just don't bow to a being you've never seen or read about before. And while what you've discussed may be more interesting to you I don't think that's the way ME is going...but that could just be me. :)
[> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- lunasea, 09:31:46 04/15/03 Tue

something that flies in the face of what we now know as fact on Angel.

We know something as "fact" on Angel? Please let me know what this is because as of "Inside Out" I don't take anything as fact on that show any more, especially in regards to the PTBs and Jasmine.

You just don't bow to a being you've never seen or read about before.

why not? What was Angel's reaction when he first saw Buffy? Buffy can feel him when he is around, even if she doesn't know he is. Feelings in the Buffyverse are a bit more tangible than IRL. Just because people are bowing doesn't mean 1) the creature wants that and 2) has malevolent intentions.

It is assumed that Jasmine wants people to give up their free will. Lots of assumptions. Show me the "facts" that you claim are there.

Lots of people followed Jesus around. He had to go up on a hill to get away from them all. From that occassion he gave us the Beatitudes/Sermon on the Mount. I am not sure if Jasmine will ever be able to give hers (it will constantly be interupted, so ME doesn't have to write it). Why assume what she says is lies? Why even assume she thinks the ends justify the means? Why assume anything?

Just because Joss is an atheist doesn't mean he doesn't want to believe in anything, whether that is love or human potential. Jasmine doesn't represent God, but whatever someone thinks will bring about paradise. If humans could only (then fill in the blank). Jasmine is that blank.

Why not explore why humans can't blank? It goes with "Reprise." Why aren't humans good?
[> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- maddog, 11:15:18 04/15/03 Tue

as usual I use the wrong words. I was under what I'm now finding out may be a mistaken impression that the majority of the people watching the show were beleiving that Skip was telling the truth(and voicing their hapiness or disgust on the topic).

Angel's first reaction to Buffy wasn't to bow..it was to love...and again, I was under what seems to be the mistaken impression that many people believe Jasmine was the Big Bad. Wow, I guess my theories are off. I don't assume that Jasmine wants people to give up their free will. I just made what I thought was the correct leap from "bad thing in Cordy making her do evil" to "Jasmine, the thing that was in Cordy, respoinsible for the bad things she did, yet putting on some ruse while she puts her final evil plan in motion". I don't assume anything...to assume you need to have no reasoning...my reasoning came from what Cordy had been doing the past few months...I thought that was enough.

I believe Jesus was a different story. He asked people to be a certain way and to follow him. People just dropped at the sight of Jasmine. Maybe that's just semantics to you, but to me they are different types of worship.
[> [> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- lunasea, 12:48:13 04/15/03 Tue

I was under what seems to be the mistaken impression that many people believe Jasmine was the Big Bad.

They do. My question is since when does AtS have an actual Big Bad? Darla, Holtz both incredibly interesting characters, much more complex than a big bad. Why is Jasmine being reduced to the standard Big Bad that appears on BtVS? It is this reaction that I think ME is using against us. No big and no bad on AtS. That is why I think the end will be that Jasmine isn't evil at all. Angel will spend the next few episodes thinking she is and he will be surprised along with the rest of us to find out what she is. This will set up next season.

I believe Jesus was a different story. He asked people to be a certain way and to follow him. People just dropped at the sight of Jasmine. Maybe that's just semantics to you, but to me they are different types of worship.

"Follow me, I will make you fishers of men." "OK" -- Basic recruiting meeting for the Apostles. Where ever Jesus went, crowds would form. People just saw him and got swept away.

What about the people that just saw Jesus as a Baby, whether at the nativity or during his naming ceremony. He couldn't even talk then and he had a power over them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- maddog, 13:04:55 04/15/03 Tue

Well I'd call W&H a fairly big Bad...but yeah, they don't follow the conventional. Like I said in my other response to you, I have a hard time believing someone is good when Fred and that guy saw the ugly face(and the insinuation for this week's show that ANgel sees it too). It just wouldn't make sense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP and spec fof S5) -- lunasea, 13:51:44 04/15/03 Tue

Better be careful what you call Wolfram and Hart. I have this feeling that next season Angel will call them "boss." What does that do for the Buffyverse and concepts of good/evil?

Of course it wouldn't make sense. That will keep the audience thinking Jasmine is evil for a few episodes so that the revelation of what she really is that much more dramatic.

Fred, Angel and that guy are all imperfect creatures with various things inside of them. Why assume the flaw is with Jasmine? What if Jasmine is hope? To some that is a beautiful amazing thing. To others it can be horrible. It really depends.

Angel thought he was supposed to kill the Prio Motus. He has been wrong before. He gave up being human for Buffy and she died less than 2 years later and her death wish kicked in before that. Cordy thought she was doing good this season. These sort of things aren't so black and white on AtS.

This season hasn't even been shades of grey. It is brown. Why give Angel a clear cut decision about how to deal with Jasmine? She is evil, things become rather easy for him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You have a feeling? -- Wisewoman, 14:27:11 04/15/03 Tue

I have this feeling that next season Angel will call them (Wolfram and Hart) "boss."

Really? That's pretty far-fetched, isn't it? Could you elaborate a bit on what this feeling is based on? There has been absolutely no indication of this anywhere in the season thus far.

Do you have some sort of psychic vision of where Angel is going this season?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You have a feeling? -- lunasea, 14:44:39 04/15/03 Tue

Something Greenwalt said while trying to tease people about next season. He described it as people who had been protesting Shell oil and then grow up and have to get jobs with Shell.

Joss said this final arc sets up next season. How would Jasmine do this?

Just an idea. Also certain cast appearances in 4.22 lead me to think this (and after I found that out, I stopped reading ANY other sites).

I like the idea. Spike can have an office down the hall with his own projects to work on, on occassionally crossing paths with Angel and being forced to work on major things together.

About time we greyed up Wolfram and Hart a bit. They have to rebuild. Where would you go to do that? Wesley and Fred would be top of my list. They have always been interested in Angel. He is incredibly important to them.

It should be interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Major **Spoilery Speculation** in the above post -- Wisewoman, 15:02:19 04/15/03 Tue

Coming out with something that drastic, based on insider- trading type information, should at least be labelled as speculation, if not outright spoilers.

To say you had a "feeling" about it made it sound as if you came up with the idea on your own, or you have some sort of psychic link to Angel...oh, wait...

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I said spec for S5 -- lunasea, 15:32:05 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree specially when the info comes from script sides....;) -- Rufus, 17:32:54 04/15/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't read script sides. It came from an interview with Greenwalt. -- lunasea, 18:15:36 04/15/03 Tue

I can put 2 and 2 together, without having to be told it is 4.
[> Very interesting -- but consider the nature of fanaticism... (preserving this thread) -- Random, 09:55:46 04/15/03 Tue

We can argue freewill till the cows come home...but one wonders whether Jasmine is quite as ignorant of the true nature of her influence as you seem to imply. AtS makes much of the role of prophecy and divine influence -- you and I have discussed that very point -- yet a radical personality change requires closer examination. Your points concerning Cordy are very good ones...but we are looking at a Jossverse version of brainwashing here. And to blame the victim is to sidestep the issue of culpability. Cordelia is a special case...the rest of AI isn't. Fanatics in any religion overidentify, of course. The question is, can one reasonably expect this sort of reaction without either: 1) psychological preconditions; or 2) deliberate influence (drugs, hynotism, torture, et cetera in the real world, magic and mental influence in the Jossverse)? There's more to Jasmine than meets the eye, obviously. And if there weren't, we'd be faced with a whole host of other questions, not the least of which being the idea that good has spawned evil, at least in Cordy's case.

Much food for thought.
[> [> Re: Very interesting -- but consider the nature of fanaticism... (preserving this thread) -- lunasea, 10:22:03 04/15/03 Tue

Think back to "Benediction" and the soul colonic Cordy did on Connor. What if that is the magick that is going on with Jasmine? Does that constitute brain washing?

Brain washing is to get people to do things they don't want to. What if Jasmine allows people to do what they want to? Quor-toth had crept into every crevice of Connor. The daily grind and the fight for survival is in humans and twists us just like Quor-toth did to Connor. Jasmine cleans this out.

Then what is left? Could this explain both the hypnotic quality that Jasmine has and why people will do evil in her name? I think it does. It would be something interesting to explore. If we didn't have daily life infecting us, how would we be?

Radical personality changes do require closer examination. First thing is how radical is the change. What has anyone done that is out of character? The characters are just more intense, more pure.

I could be completely off base. Just another angle to approach things.

I really need to rewatch SHP, but my adorable daughter taped over it.
[> [> [> Good, Evil, and Free Will -- Anneth, 11:44:57 04/15/03 Tue

"Brain washing is to get people to do things they don't want to. What if Jasmine allows people to do what they want to?"

People who do what they want to - Dark Willow and the Trio immediatly spring to mind - are not advertisments for goodness and purity and light in the Buffyverse. Just the opposite, in fact. To begin with, you seem to be arguing that what people really want is to be good, which I don't believe is backed up at all by anything in the Buffyverse. Actually, it doesn't seem as though characters in the Buffyverse are intended to be born as either "good" or "evil" - rather that they make decisions about themselves and are shaped by those decisions. For example, Faith was messed up before she ever came to Sunnydale, but she and she alone made the decision to place her bets on the Mayor. Yes, life handed her a boatload of lemons: a murdered watcher, Gwendolyn Post, pre-rugged Wes, alcoholic mother, string of lousy boyfriends... But the thing that made Faith evil was Faith. In a sense, Faith gave in to her 'baser urges' and that turned her evil, not good. It seems to me that that's how it is with every character in the Buffyverse - the struggle for good is a daily one. Redemption takes effort - blood, toil, tears and sweat. Jasmine is a panacea - and Joss doesn't do panaceas.

"Quor-toth had crept into every crevice of Connor. The daily grind and the fight for survival is in humans and twists us just like Quor-toth did to Connor. Jasmine cleans this out."


This approach assumes a sort of base or core or essence in humans that exists inside each person as he or she is created, rather than assuming that each person is born a blank slate. Above and beyond the question of whether free will exists or not comes the question - is a human being shaped entirely by his experiences or is there some intrinsic essence that is in fact dilluted or polluted by experience? You're arguing, I believe, the latter. That there is some essential humanity implicit in each character, a quality each character is born with and subsequenty dillutes by the mere fact of living.

It appears to me that you're arguing that Jasmine is some sort of personification of the nirvanic state and that she is good because she can transmit that state - where there is no suffering or sense of self - to others. I disagree with this interpretation because what it seems that Jasmine is offering - 'good' without struggle - goes completely against everything, every lesson, every moral, in the Buffyverse. Plus, she's not even really offering it; she's forcing it upon the masses. There can be no question that free will exists to some extent in the Buffyverse. For the inhabitants of the Buffyverse to have 'the good' shoved down their throats without having the chance to choose it seems to me to deny that free will, and to deny everything that's come before. It denies the struggles that so many characters have faced - Angel, Buffy, Spike, Faith, Willow, even Andrew. Jasmine offers 'goodness' without struggle. That's why I believe she's - well, not good! :)
[> [> [> [> Re: Good, Evil, and Free Will -- lunasea, 13:37:36 04/15/03 Tue

People who do what they want to - Dark Willow and the Trio immediatly spring to mind - are not advertisments for goodness and purity and light in the Buffyverse. Just the opposite, in fact.

What do people want? If there is no desire for good, there is no struggle. Humans are complex with many and conflicting desires. Why is a desire to do good not considered a desire?

Lindsey wanted to do good. He went to Angel in "Blind Date" and tried to do the right thing. If he had been able to more strongly act on that desire then Angel's life would have been different.

Faith wanted to be good. She just thought she couldn't. That is one thing Jasmine would have removed from her, the thought that she can't be good. Then Faith would have been able to act on her goodness.

Buffy wants to be loving. When she thought she was losing her humanity, it upset her. She would be able to be more loving under Jasmine's influence. If Jasmine would get over to Sunnydale, bye-bye generalisimo Buffy.

And Willow wouldn't be so worried about going evil and veiny any more. Willow's main desire is not to go evil and kill all her friends. Sounds like a horrible desire to act on to me.

Wesley also wants to be good. It is awfully hard when your throat is slit and your friends abandon you.

There are lots of good desires and acting on those is good.

In a sense, Faith gave in to her 'baser urges' and that turned her evil, not good.

If Faith was turned evil, she wouldn't have wanted Angel to kill her. Her desire to be good was greater than her baser urges. She just thought she couldn't act on them. Jasmine would take care of that. What is different between the realization she had in "Orpheus" and getting a Jasmin colonic?

It seems to me that that's how it is with every character in the Buffyverse - the struggle for good is a daily one.

The struggles is between conflicting desires. No desire to do good, no good.

Redemption takes effort - blood, toil, tears and sweat.

Sex with evil undead things seems to work pretty well also.

Jasmine is a panacea - and Joss doesn't do panaceas.

Jasmine isn't a panacea. She can't remove evil. She can only give us a colonic. It isn't enough. Jasmine cleans us out. That intensifies what is left and creates zealots. She removes barriers to doing good. Then people have to do what they consider good. Problem is that what people consider good is affected by other things. A lot of evil is done in the name of good.

That there is some essential humanity implicit in each character, a quality each character is born with and subsequenty dillutes by the mere fact of living.

Per the Guide in Intervention, Buffy has a nature. That tends to mean a quality each character is born with. New- improved Riley told Buffy that nothing she did could touch who she was. Giles tells Willow things along these lines.

There does seem to be a basic humanity to the characters of the Buffyverse that remains there that only vamping removes. Xander was able to reach Dark Willow this way. That is why no human in the Buffyverse has been unreedemable. To redeem someone that core has to be reached.

It appears to me that you're arguing that Jasmine is some sort of personification of the nirvanic state and that she is good because she can transmit that state - where there is no suffering or sense of self - to others.

Half right and great idea. Jasmine is the personification of Nirvana. however she cannot transmit it to others. When she does that, she creates zealots, like Cordelia, who are willing to do evil in her name.

Plus, she's not even really offering it; she's forcing it upon the masses.

What Cordy did to Connor in "Benediction" is forcing?

For the inhabitants of the Buffyverse to have 'the good' shoved down their throats without having the chance to choose it seems to me to deny that free will, and to deny everything that's come before.

Perhaps that is why Fred is seeing Jasmine as a magot face. You do have to choose it on some level. Everything Jasmine did to Cordy required her consent. Why assume that Jasmine doesn't require some sort of consent from others? Ever think "I wish I could be happier or better or anything along these lines?" That could be the consent that Jasmine needs which can be taken away.

The spell is going to be broken. In doing a counter-spell of some sort, the AI guys are taking away their consent.

It denies the struggles that so many characters have faced - Angel, Buffy, Spike, Faith, Willow, even Andrew. Jasmine offers 'goodness' without struggle

Faith didn't have to go through over 100 years of guilt. She got the cliff notes because of Angel. Does that deny what Angel went through? Each character has their own story and they don't negate each other.

What is the difference between love and friendship saving someone and Jasmine's colonic?

That's why I believe she's - well, not good! :)

I do believe she is good, just not good for humanity.
[> Re: Evil done in my name: My Cordy Theory (spoilers SHP) -- yabyumpan, 10:09:49 04/15/03 Tue

If you're right, and sadly I can see it as a possibility, how can Cordelia ever come back from this? She's not dead but in a coma and as far as I'm aware Charisma Carpenter is signed up for next season (if there is one), so again, how can she come back from this?

What you seem to be suggesting, and obviously I'm para- phrasing here, is that everything that's happened is because of Cordy's ego. If that turns out to be true then it makes what she's done far worse than any of the 'good guys' screw ups we've seen on Whendonverse and far less forgivable. Even though 'DarthWillow' was bad you could have sympathy for her because of Tara, she did what she did out of love and grief. Even then she was only responsable for the death of Warren (maybe one or two others, I can't remember).

To follow your theory through, Cordy, because of her ego, is responsable for the death of thousands and for the destruction of L.A. in the Rain of Fire. In no way does that elicite sympathy and I really don't see how Cordelia, let alone any one else, (including the fans) would be able to forgive her for it.

Let's face it, from the point of view of fandom, Cordy is a character that's not very well liked, to put it mildly. To have this be true IMO destroys her character and destroys any character growth she's had over the past 7 years. All the compassion she's learned, the softening around the edges, the empathy, pretty much all of her growth is wiped out because all those good things, in your analysis, have contributed to her situation now.

So do you have any ideas how she comes back from this?

This is actually one of the reasons I haven't posted much lately, what I see as the destruction of Cordy's character is among the growing number of things that I'm really not happy about on the show. I'm not going to say any more about that, mustn't get into bashing ;-) but I would appreciate your perspective on how Cordelia and AtS could ever deal with all this.
[> Cordelia's religion (semi-rambly theory, spoilers through Shiny Happy People) -- Masq, 14:20:18 04/15/03 Tue

We can't be entirely sure of Cordelia's motives in Season 4 yet because we don't know all of Jasmine's motives yet. The idea that Jasmine is a PTB bent on creating this all-good perfect world is a logical assumption based on the events of "Shiny Happy People", but it hasn't been proven yet.

But assuming that's true, and that most of what we've been told by Skip and Jasmine are true, here's the order of events, as I see it:

The visions and Doyle

The visions were originally a gift of the PTB's, or a talent some human was born with that was usurped by the PTB's a long time ago. The visions got passed from person to person through physical contact (e.g., kissing), but the person who inherited them was not always (if ever) up to the PTB's. I think Skip told the truth when he told Cordelia that she wasn't chosen by the PTB's to inherit the visions. Doyle had the visions, the PTB's sent Doyle to Angel, but it was Doyle's choice to die in "Hero" and his choice to kiss Cordelia before his death. Did Doyle intend to pass the visions through that act? We'll never know. Did the PTB's look down from on high and see what he was about to do and use that opportunity to grab themselves a new seer for Angel's mission? Probably.

I don't think they chose Cordelia in particular, I think they chose her opportunistically.

That said, I agree with you that what happened to Cordelia after that is very much attributable to Cordelia's personality. However, I don't think it was done with her complete consent. At least, not her informed consent.

Cordelia fights the visions

Go back to the Zeppo. Cordelia taunts Xander for being the "ordinary" one in his group of friends. He's not a slayer, a vampire, a werewolf, a watcher, a witch-in-training. He's just a guy. Xander has made peace with this. He now sees it as a strength. But Cordelia wants to stand out, be special. She never wanted to be a vision-girl, though. She saw being a "Hollywood star" as her future, her way to stand out. But that's not what happened.

She became Angel's vision-girl, and there wasn't any way out of it. And she tried to get out of it in "Parting Gifts". Then she tried to live a normal life with friends and dates and acting auditions with her visions. But the debilitating visions made it too difficult to live a normal life.

Cordelia accepts the visions

It didn't take Cordelia long, however, to realize that the visions were something that made her special, made her stand out. And when Angel wandered off on his noir-Angel phase in Season 2 and his my-son-is-my-life phase in Season 3, she made it her job to guide him back to his mission. "We're supposed to help the helpless, Angel."

At the end of Season 2, Cordelia gets a big "test". Groo offers to take the visions from her. All she has to do is jump in the sack with him. Cordelia wants the latter very much, but she doesn't want to risk the former. She stays chaste in Pylea and proves her willingness to keep the visions. I could go into how being a "princess" made her feel special, but it's the visions that are what she truly puts her heart behind.

Saint Cordelia

KdS has commented that slowly, over the course of Season 3 in particular, Cordelia became something of a fanatical follower of the PTB's. Part of this comes from her desire to be special--if she is stuck in Angel's world, then she's going to be the shining example of a non-Zeppo champion. Part of it comes from the torment of the visions. In the opening scenes of "That Vision Thing" (prior to Lilah's interference), we see a woman barely hanging on. The visions have almost totally debilitated her. But has she complained? No. Has she told Angel about her CAT scans and MRI's and their results? No. Because having the visions is the way she belongs to Angel's world, and it is in fact the way she belongs to THE world.

She's the PTB's faithful follower now. She believes in their mission--Angel's mission--in a way that only the way a saint can believe. Someone who has been tortured for their faith. Someone who has seen the good that can come from following in the path the PTB's have laid out for herself and Angel. They have helped the helpless many times. Her painful visions have made the world a better place.

Birthday

So along comes Skip with two options for making Cordelia special--being a television star, or becoming half demon in order to keep the visions. Of course, he has an ulterior motive. He's there to transform Cordelia into the incubator for Jasmine's vessel. And he doesn't present Cordelia with the choice of which specialness to chose until the end. First, he shows her this great world where Cordelia is a star. And he makes Cordelia forget about her life in L.A., supposedly so that her choice is "genuine", from the heart. But it isn't, not really. If Cordelia had been asked to make this choice in "City Of..." she would have chosen the actress' life. Skip may have erased every memory of Angel Investigations and everything that happened after that party in "City Of...", but he didn't erase the the emotional impact all those subsequent events had on her. So of course Cordelia's going to chose to become part-demon to save the visions. She's the PTB's faithful follower now.

That doesn't mean Cordelia chose to be incubator to Jasmine's vessel. She chose to become part-demon, but she was not told everything that becoming part-demon would mean. She would probably have said "no" if Skip had told her everything it would mean. Probably.

Glowy Cordy

After this, Cordelia gets her new "powers" at the end of Season 3. The thing that struck me about these so-called "powers" was how powerless Cordelia was over them. They bloomed out of her in moments of crisis, and they performed their magic on sluks and Connor and automobiles on the freeway, but Cordelia really had little to do with that. Why? I don't think the glowy thing really was "powers". It was a physical transformation her body was going through, preparing her to be able to live on the higher plane and become incubator for the vessel.

Meanwhile, she was acting pretty oddly herself. Totally ignoring what Wesley might be going through. Ignoring poor Groo. Totally pouring all her energy into Angel. This is why I think the whole Angel-Cordelia 'shipper thing in season 3 was a big mislead on the part of M.E. We're supposed to think the writers are building up to a big Cordelia-Angel romance, when what the writers were actually doing was turning Cordelia into someone single-mindedly devoted to Angel--much more as her mission in life than as her man.

Cordelia's ascension

Either way, Cordelia is going to be reluctant to just leave Angel behind and go to the higher plane. Angel's mission animates her own, it gives her life meaning. But, she can still be flattered by Skip into choosing a life of even "higher" meaning. Think of Cordelia's decision to "ascend" from the point of view of a saint. You give up everything that once meant something to you--popularity, friends, boyfriends, your career dreams, a pain-free life, your humanness, etc, etc, etc, to do your duty to "god". You make a difference in the world. You help people. Then "god's" messenger comes to you and says it is time for your ascension into heaven. You have to assume it is your lingering human vanity and weakness that is making you want to stay on Earth and be with a guy. You are being called to be a star shining in the heavens.

So of course Cordelia says yes! But again, not knowing everything it will mean. Not giving completely informed consent. Still, she knows that she doesn't know everything it will mean. She allows herself to assume "everything will be all right". She allows herself to assume the PTB's or whomever have the best intentions in doing this.

Cordelia on the higher plane

The next time we see Cordelia, she is in the higher dimension, but she isn't doing much. She doesn't act like someone who's been told the whole scary truth, she just acts like someone who is bored and wants to leave.

She later tells Connor that while she was up there, she longed to be human again, to touch and feel and be back on Earth. After Cordelia gets her memory back, she tells the others that she has forgotten almost everything that happened to her on the higher plane. Mostly all we see her remembering are the feelings she felt up there, and of course the memories of Angelus.

I'm not entirely convinced Cordelia has forgotten as much as she claims. Or perhaps a lot of those memories came back to her later and she didn't tell Connor or the others about it. The bottom line is, though, that we the audience don't know what else happened to her on the higher plane. Who knows what she was told up there about what was to come? Who knows what really happened to her up there?

Cordelia's return

The puzzle is figuring out Cordelia once she returns to Earth and gets her memory back. The Cordelia we see in the Hyperion in "Slouching" through "Spin the Bottle" is very Cordelia-esque. She only turns into the depressive helpless maiden when she's around Connor. That of course, brings out his fierce protectiveness. He is being groomed to become her personal champion, the one who will father the vessel and then protect pregnant Cordelia from the others until it is born. But Cordelia doesn't have her memory during most of this. Does she know why she's doing what she's doing?

And once she has her memory back, who is she? Is she conscious of being Jasmine's emmissary, coming to Earth to carry out Jasmine's will by any means she deems necessary? And what is Jasmine's will? Was everything that happened with the Beast Jasmine's idea? Or was Jasmine's only goal to be born? Perhaps everything that happens with the Beast is Cordelia's idea of what must be done to ensure that Jasmine gets born. Jasmine seems to imply this when she talks about the "things that were done in my name." Like--"I didn't tell the Beast to do all this stuff, Saint Cordelia did."

But I don't get the impression in the episodes up until "Calvary" that Cordelia is doing things deliberately with full knowledge of what's she's doing. It still seems that something is acting through her, pushing her on an unconscious level. And that is Jasmine.

Cordelia's To-Do list

(1) Sleep with Connor. It's not entirely clear that Cordelia does this with full knowledge of why she's doing it or why it's important. Her reaction the next day seems to imply this--that aghast, "OhmyGawdWhy'dIdothat?" look on her face.

(2) Keep Angel and Connor at odds with each other (granted, they didn't need a lot of help here). Cordelia clings (non- sexually) to Connor and is brusque with Angel. Is she doing it deliberately? It does serve a purpose. It keeps Angel away from Cordelia most of the time. She's living at Connor's, Angel is angry with them both. So he doesn't see how Cordelia is starting to manipulate Connor, and he doesn't notice that Cordelia is herself acting a little odd.

(3) Use your inside connections at Angel Investigations to help speed the Beast's chores along. Like killing Manny to facilitate blocking out the sun. Did Cordelia do this because she chose to? Or was she an instrument for Jasmine, not fully conscious of what she was doing? Did Cordelia really belive Angel was responsible for killing Manny, and not herself?

(4) You can't keep Angel distracted forever with simple jealousy. He loves his son too much, he knows Cordelia too well. We need to get Angel the busy-body champion out of the way. So Cordelia conspires to get Angelus back. When Cordelia flatters Angel into agreeing to become Angelus, she finally seems to be doing things deliberately. It seems at this point she knows what she's doing and why.

The question I have is--the rain of fire, blotting out the sun, removing Angel's memory of the Beast--was all that JUST an attempt to make the gang so desperate for help they'd bring back Angelus? Seems like a little over-kill. But if it wasn't, why was the Beast doing all this stuff????

And why bring back Angelus? The only theory I can come up with is to get Angel out of the picture (see above). So was all that Beasty-stuff Cordelia's idea, or Jasmine's? The rain of fire couldn't have been Cordelia's idea, could it? She was still too out-of-it them. But it couldn't be the Beast's idea, either--he's not the big-picture guy. He just follows orders.

(5) Turn Connor into the vessel's protector. After Cordelia sleeps with Connor once, Cordelia keeps her distance from him sexually until she is ready to hand him the "I'm pregnant" information, and then she starts to imply they have a relationship again ("You can't even be loyal to our bed!). I like to think that Cordelia really started to become fully conscious of what she was doing once her pregnancy really kicked in. As the vessel grew, she grew more and more under Jasmine's spell and that, together with her own fanatical Saint Cordelia bent, made her do the things she did. The manipulation of Connor once they are back living in the hotel together seems like Saint Cordelia carrying out her basic mission--bring Jasmine into the world- -with religious fervor.
[> [> Couple of questions /points -- lunasea, 16:36:42 04/15/03 Tue

The visions and Doyle

How did Doyle get the visions? He just started to get them after he refused to help his kinsmen. No physical contact required. He was chosen, based on the nature of that first vision he had. I would say the same with Cordelia. Her first vision was about her and showed her why the visions were important. It also led her to understand and appreciate Doyle.

If they didn't want Cordy, the visions wouldn't have transfered and they would have just sent Angel another messenger. Cordy fits very well, since the visions are what put Cordy in danger and that is what motivates Angel to care. Would Angel have been so motivated in "To Shanshu in LA" to act if it was some new guy having problems, knowing that another new guy would take his place?

At least, not her informed consent.

Since when do the characters get information from the PTBs? Did Whistler really tell Angel what he was getting in for when he showed him Buffy? Angel didn't know a thing about Acathla and Whistler did. When the Oracles told Angel that Buffy would die sooner than others, they didn't tell him that she would die in less than 2 years any way. The Guide wouldn't tell Buffy what "death is your gift" means. Darla can't tell Connor what is going on. Joyce can't tell Buffy much. How much did Wesley find out about Angel and Connor?

Doyle admits things are on a need to know basis in "IWRY." Doyle doesn't know the whole story (though he did know about Shanshu) and he doesn't tell Angel everything that he knows. It is an interesting way to maintain free will. The PTBs can just give our heroes enough to know that they have a choice. They have to figure out what those choices are.

Which takes us back to Cordy. Cordy's assumptions are what mess her up. She has enough information to make a choice, just not a very good one. She doesn't press for more information and she buys the garbage that is fed her.

I think your analysis of Cordy's character is pretty much spot on. That is why I don't want her with my champion.

Glowy Cordy

I don't think the glowy thing really was "powers". It was a physical transformation her body was going through, preparing her to be able to live on the higher plane and become incubator for the vessel.

I don't think so. I think we are seeing the same thing we are with Jasmine. Cordy has some Jasmine-like powers. She doesn't know how to access them and can only do them through caring about someone. If we want to see what Jasmine is doing, it is what Cordy did to Connor only on a bigger scale. Cordy became a mini-Jasmine when she became part demon. She didn't even know what she had, let alone how to use them.

Cordelia's return
But I don't get the impression in the episodes up until "Calvary" that Cordelia is doing things deliberately with full knowledge of what's she's doing. It still seems that something is acting through her, pushing her on an unconscious level. And that is Jasmine.

Cordy did do some pretty terrible things to get her to-do list accomplished. Maybe she was dissociating, the way that vampires do, so that she could do what she had to. She was on zealot autopilot. Fanatics are driven/pushed by something that seems almost external to them.

Cordelia's To-Do list

I think what Cordy is trying to do is bring the world to its knees. Then when Jasmine shows up, everyone will just love their savior. Cordy removes hope from people so that Jasmine can give it back. What is the worst thing that Cordy can think of? Bring back Angelus. The Rain of Fire contributed not only to bringing about Angelus, but also to terrifying LA.

What I think will be interesting is if Angel figures out it was zealot Cordy doing everything, how is he going to reconnect with her after she used him and brought about his worse nightmare by tricking them into bring Angelus forth?

I think what we are seeing this season is a zealot who is willing to do more and more for the cause. In the beginning she can't believe that she slept with Connor for the cause. By the end, she is ready to kill Lorne. She seems to go down a slippery slope, which I expect to see with the other Jasminites in the remaining episodes. Wesley might be particularly interesting, especially because he loves Fred and has reconnected with Angel.

What also may be interesting is Jasmine's reaction to this. As Shiny Happy People turn into real zealots, will Jasmine be pleased? That will let me know if she is good or not.
[> Vampire, Seer, Indian Chief(spoilers SHP) -- Arethusa, 14:20:36 04/15/03 Tue

Perhaps it is out of kindness that she chooses Cordy to be her mother. In some ways Angel was right, by bearing the burden of the visions, A PTB decided to reward her.

Why did Jasmine pick Cordy?

I think it was because it saw something in Cordy it could exploit. Jasmine doesn't seem to give direct orders, she just lets others follow their natural inclinations in her service. So what are Cordy's natural inclinations? Feelings of innate superiority and fascism. (Before I go farther let me say I don't hate Cordy at all. The character is very amusing and I admire her strength of will, honesty and directness. But she does have major flaws.) Chief Seattle wrote an excellent review of Spin the Bottle, which as ya'll know explores the characters' personalities and issues by regressing them to teenagers. He says it better than I, so this is what he said about Cordy:

"I have said it before and I will say it again one of the reasons why this series hold interest for me is that we do not see morally superior people riding to the rescue of lesser beings. Rather we get deeply flawed individuals for whom the struggle against evil is in large measure a struggle against their own baser instincts. And "Spin the Bottle" is a wonderful example of this philosophy in action.

"The concentration here is on [Cordy's] self-centeredness. The extent to which Cordelia had been transformed into Saint Cordelia in the course of season 3 has been a topic for some debate. Allow me, however, to refer to my review of ìTomorrowî. There I suggested that deep down inside Cordelia has always believed that she was someone special, destined for higher things. In Sunnydale she thought of that as marrying someone fabulously wealthy like the frat boy she had her eye on in ìReptile Boyî. Later, in LA she thought of it as becoming a rich and successful actress. And even inheriting Doyleís visions doesnít seem to have made much of a difference to this basic orientation. In ìBirthdayî what prompted her to give up the visions was the idea that she was weak and valueless to Angel. What changed her mind was the idea that she was the most important thing in his life. And that meant more to Cordelia than the needs of strangers. That is not to say that she did not genuinely want to help others or that she did not make sacrifices to do so. What it does mean is that she sees herself and what is important to her as having a ìspecial placeî in the Universe. In this she really is the same Queen C that she was in Sunnydale High. Her self-centeredness was not, therefore, something that belonged to her dead past but a living force inside her now. With everything she had gone through ñ especially the transforming power of the visions ñ the way she responded to this feeling inside her changed. But what we are being reminded here is that the basic impulse did not.

"Cordelia had started to worry me but I am more convinced than ever that the writers do not want to show in her a ìmoral centerî but someone with her own share of failings. I do not know where they are going with her here but the emphasis on her self-centeredness is for a purpose."

And the purpose is probably to set up the Jasmine arc. Everyone is vulnerable to Jasmine, but not everyone will do what was necessary to bring about Jasmine's birth. When Cordy said she and her baby were special, she only said what she's always been saying-she is special, and deserving of everything that implies-men, money, fame, attention. In a way, worship.

Cordy's second major flaw is a belief that it's okay to do what you want to get what you want.

From: Ted
Cordelia: I don't get it. Buffy's the Slayer. Shouldn't she have...

Xander: What, a license to kill? (takes a bite of a cookie)

Cordelia: Well, not for fun. But she's like this superman. Shouldn't
there be different rules for her?

Willow: Sure, in a fascist society.

Cordelia: Right! Why can't we have one of those?
quote by psyche

Buffy's innate superiority means she can decide who lives or dies, and Cordy's innate superiority means she should be given the attention and adoration.

From Out of Mind, Out of Sight
Cordelia: Thank you for making the right choice, and for showing me how
much you all love me. (applause) Being this popular is not just my right, but my responsibility, and I want you to know I take it very seriously.
quote by psyche


Chief Seattle also has some very interesting things to say about Angel's issues. His/her analysis helped me understand why Whedon feels it necessary to wean Angel off TPTB. (Usual qualifier: that is just my guess.)

"In TeenLiam we see his raw anxieties. And what comes across very powerfully here is his feeling of being worthless, a victim of people and forces beyond his control and someone who was powerless in the face of those people and forces. We also get the sense of isolation that such feelings instill in him. As the members of Angel Investigations adjust to being teenagers again they naturally start trying to get to know one another. Angel, however, is different. He wanders off on his own. In part this can be explained by the fact that to TeenLiam his surroundings are so much stranger than they are to anyone else. But there is more to it than that. They are all trying to work out what happened to them. Talking to each other is the way the others do this. Angel sits by himself. Of course like the others he interprets his surroundings on the basis of his own experiences.
In all of this he does seem to accept that the way he likes to behave is wrong. But he wonít or canít change. And here we come to the most significant single issue for TeenLiam ñ his view of himself as victim, someone not in control of his own destiny. In his own life it is his fondness for drink and women that dominate. He clearly hates and resents his father but the only thing he can do about it is whine:

"Says one thing then... 'be good. Fear God. Do as you're told.' And all the while I know good and well he's had his share of sinning."

"Or, on hearing Wesleyís accent, Liam shows the bitterness he would have felt at being treated as a second class citizen, subject to foreign rule in his own county :

""I'm not your friend, you English pig. We never wanted you in Ireland. We don't want you now."

"But, of course, he never actually does anything to stand up to Wesley when he tries to take charge. Instead when Gunn takes Wesley on he cheers him on:

"It's about time the English got what's coming to him. I'm rooting for the slave."

"That is very weak. Then when he discovers he is a vampire his immediate thought is:

""ìThey're gonna kill me."

He then tries to flee the hotel only to be driven back by what appear to him to be even more frightening demons. Poor TeenLiam is alone, surrounded by dangers and is utterly incapable of dealing with them. He plans nothing, he never takes to lead and he looks to others for reassurance. Even when as a result of his superior strength and speed he defeats Wesley and Gunn and chases Cordelia, his moment of triumph is short lived. Her resistance is little enough but it pulls him up short. And when he confronts Connor he clearly gets the worst of it at the start. But, then his feelings of resentment and bitterness do spill over ñ into violence. He says that he is tired of being bullied and at the same time starts to fight back with a vengeance. He defeats Connor in the end quite comprehensively and crowns his triumph by saying:

""I didn't ask for this. I didn't ask to be attacked. I didn't ask to be a freak. Hell, I didn't even ask to be born."

"As with Wesley, Gunn and Cordelia we are not I think intended to conclude from this that all of these problems TeenLiam had have simply gone away. Angelís isolation from humanity was a constant theme for the character both in BUFFY and earlier seasons of ANGEL. So too has his feeling of victimhood a long history. It was weakness in the face of Buffyís determination that led to the disaster in ìîSurpriseî. He was the sacrifice made in ìBecomingî. It is also implicit in ìAmendsî that he was too weak to take ultimate responsibility for his own action. And of course ìProdigalî was an episode in which the writers explored the idea that Liamís original fault was his weakness of character and showed how that weakness has hugely disproportionate consequences for him. Finally, when faced by the malign hand of fate Angel does have a history of letting his anger spill over into violence (as in ìReunionî). We have of course seen his greater connection with humanity (the central theme since ìEpiphanyî), his increasing command of himself and his destiny and his greater self-control (as for example in ìDeep Downî). But we are reminded here that these are examples of his success in dealing with his feelings, not evidence that they have gone away. They havenít because they are too deep seated, too fundamental to the person that he is.

"Angel felt all alone, alienated from his father by the gulf of understanding between them and separated from the others in the Hyperion not only by his vampiric nature but also his own fears and insecurities."

The mistakes Angel has made that tend to drive viewers crazy- forgetting the mission, not consulting with the others at AI, exploding with violence when crossed, need for validation-are the faults that prevent him from helping others. If he can feel in control of his fate, not depending on TPTB for a sense of self-worth, he might be able to be the kind of person he strives so desperately to become.
[> [> Re: Vampire, Seer, Indian Chief(spoilers SHP) -- lunasea, 15:55:22 04/15/03 Tue

These are great analyses. I wasn't here then. Thanks for posting them.

One thing to add about Angel, he REALLY wants to believe in something. As Angelus, one of his main MOs was to do things that mocked God. You don't mock what you don't believe in. Angel's life seems to be one of deeply believing and then being disappointed so reacting rather harshly. Nothing is worse than busted expectations.

I think Cordy going to the higher realms pissed him off. Cordy "earned" it with a few headaches. The corallary is I haven't yet and I gave up being human and Buffy (not a lower being they said, yeah right). This season his disenchantment with the PTBs really shows. In "Long Days Journey" when Angel says "As if there's somebody up there watching," it really hit me, more than almost any line this season. This continues up to "Inside Out."

Jasmine has returned his Faith in the PTB. She has given him back hope. I doubt that will be enough.

I think that is one thing being explored this season, hope. It is a very human thing. Even self-reliance has a component of hope. We hope we can handle things.

Control is for people who think they can't handle things. They are worried about what will come tomorrow. Angel needs to realize he can handle things and that he doesn't have to be in control. We aren't in control of our fate. That is a dangerous belief that gets people into trouble. When something happens that is out of our control, it causes us severe disappointment. Angel should just relax and take things as they come. The road isn't hard or easy. It just is.

Current board | More April 2003